How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

In article >,
"Bill Sornson" > wrote:

> Claire Petersky wrote:
> > Scott en Aztlán wrote in message
> > >...
> >> On Tue, 24 May 2005 00:02:20 -0700, Zoot Katz
> >> > wrote:
> >
> >> Ah, so FREDs are the guys who ride bikes but don't wear spandex?
> >
> > No. The way it works is that anyone who either has a cheaper bike or
> > doesn't ride as fast as me is a Fred. Everyone who has a more
> > expensive bike or rides faster than me is a Poser. This definition
> > may be used by any cyclist at any ability level or price of bicycle
> > and will remain universally true.
>
> So who's a Barney?

OK

Just call me Fred B. ( for Barney ) Poser!

HAND

Who will stop the rain...?

(Tom Keats) wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Jim Yanik .> writes:
>
>>>> If states were to tax vehicles and fuel to completely pay for the
>>>> roads,no one could afford to drive anything.
>>>
>>> What you are saying is that people who drive less are supporting
>>> those who drive more.
>>
>> No,because even people who do not drive or even own any vehicle
>> benefit from roads.Roads carry commerce,like food.Even people who
>> never travel at all benefit from roads.
>
> So commerce/industry/trade benefits hugely from roads.
> Roads facilitate bringing customers to market, and
> employees to their workplaces.
>
> Maybe Business should chip-in more for roads.
>

They do when they pay their yearly plate fee.
Of course,bicycles STILL do not pay anything.
They want it to be that everyone else pays(more) yet they pay nothing.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Wayne Pein > wrote in
>>Registration is so the vehicle can be tracked. There is no need for this
>>for bicycles.
>
>
> Sure there is.Bicycles get stolen,they get used in crimes,and they collide
> with people or other things and cause property damage.
> I suspect that the fee is the same for a car,motorcycle or Vespa.So it
> should be the same for a bicycle.


If there WAS a need for bicycles to be registered, then why don't
legislators, who are motorists, level the playing field (as you assert)
and mandate it?


>>But hey, I know that isn't good enough for some of you motorists, so I'm
>>gonna buy a licence plate for my bike from
>>http://www.biketags.com/index.html?l...talog28_0.html
>>
>>This way, motorists will be duped into feeling better about me being a
>>vehicle operator. Maybe I'll even have a nice message on it such as
>>COEXIST. Perhaps a message such as EXPECT DELAYS would add comic relief
>>for your frustrations.
>>

> But you stll will not be paying your *yearly* usage fee.
> Other vehicles pay EVERY year.
>
>

Well, like I've said many times. I don't HAVE a yearly usage fee because
legislators, who have surely looked at the issue many times over the
years in probably all states, have decided that bicycle users don't have
to have a usage fee. But they have decided to regulate motor vehicles
thusly.

That's the way it is. Like the rhythm of the sun and tides. When
bicyclists are required by law to have a licence and registration, then
those of us who want to ride a bike will either comply or flaut the law.

But I don't see it ever happening. So you can either let it go and
realize its the best way, or you can be bitter and continue to crab
about it. Frankly, I think you should thank bicyclists for not using gas
and call it even.

Wayne

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But no usage tax.
>>>
>>> Show me a usage tax for automobiles. Extra points if you can show
>>> one in IL.
>>
>> Easy,your plate fee.
>
> That's not a usage fee.

Sure it is;you pay it every year,not just once.For just registration,once
is all that's needed,but you pay every time you renew.That's a usage fee.


>
>> You don't need a plate if you use your auto on private property.
>
> I don't need turn signals, good tires, brakes, and whole host of other
> things to use a vehicle on private property.
>
>> Note that you still also pay a sales tax when you bought the auto,but
>> not every time you renew your plates.
>
>>> I paid use tax on my bicycle when I bought it, same with my cars.
>
>> No,you paid a SALES tax.
>
> Check IL law. It's semantically called a *USE* tax. This way the state
> thinks it can then legally collect it on items purchased out of state
> as a way around the ban on states taxing interstate commerce. IL taxes
> the use of the item in the state. It functions like a sales tax and is
> simply a semantic end run around federal law, but you want split
> semantic hairs so....
>
>> You would pay that even if your auto or bicycle
>> never used any public road.The auto license fee is the fee you pay
>> every year to use the public roads.
>
> The use tax in IL is paid at the time of purchase. When one goes to
> register a car they just purchased in this state, one has to pay
> title, registration, and use tax. I had to pay this tax on my
> torqueless wonder car even though the sales price was ZERO. Thankfully
> it was the lowest possible value because the car was over the age
> limit and from a family member.

You just acknowledged that the plate fee IS a usage fee.(and you pay every
time you renew)

>
>> I note that some states also have an
>> additional tax,a property tax,they consider the auto to be
>> property.Indiana and one of the Carolinas do that.
>
> And in Germany, you are taxed for each television you own.

Those are usage fees.

>
>>>> If states were to tax vehicles and fuel to completely pay for the
>>>> roads,no one could afford to drive anything.
>
>>> What you are saying is that people who drive less are supporting
>>> those who drive more.
>
>> No,because even people who do not drive or even own any vehicle
>> benefit from roads.Roads carry commerce,like food.Even people who
>> never travel at all benefit from roads.
>
> What you are saying is that without people who drive less paying more
> than they use, driving would be too expensive. Wether they *should* or
> not isn't part of this. You just stated you need non-drivers paying a
> good portion of the costs.

Because of the benefits they receive via the roads.
To USE the roads,they pay more via the yearly plate fee.

>
>>> That if roads et al were paid for by actual use, then
>>> driving would be rather expensive. You want driving to be cheap so
>>> everybody is taxed regardless of how much they drive. The true
>>> meaning of your statement is that your driving is dependent upon
>>> people who drive much less or not at all.
>
>> No,because even people who do not drive or even own any vehicle
>> benefit from roads.
>
> That's an arguement for *should*. Your statement is very clear, you
> need non drivers and people who drive less than what they pay for to
> keep the system affordable for people who drive more. Wether those who
> don't drive enough to get their 'money's worth' directly benefit or
> not isn't even part of this.

Damn right about that nonsense. "get their money's worth".<snort>

> You need them not using the roads
> themselves, directly, with motor vehicles to keep driving affordable.
> You were very clear.

Only in your twisted mind.
I refered to paying the total cost of a road only thru plate fees would be
unaffordable,and others still benefit from them without contributing(like
bicycles).

>
> Thusly, bicyclists help keep driving affordable by using their
> bicycles instead of their cars.

Nonsense.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Scott en Aztlán > wrote in
:

> On 25 May 2005 14:13:21 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>
>>> Actually, pedalcyclists pay almost as much for roads as motorists.
>>> They pay property taxes, sales taxes, Mello-Roos taxes (in
>>> California), etc.
>>
>>But no usage tax.
>
> Obviously.
>
>>If states were to tax vehicles and fuel to completely pay for the
>>roads,no one could afford to drive anything.
>
> What a ridiculous statement.
>
> If fuel and vehicle taxes completely paid for roads, all the other
> taxes (e.g. property and sales) would drop by the exact same amount.

No,government would find other ways to spend that money.They rearely reduce
or eliminate existing taxes.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Jim Yanik wrote:
> > Wayne Pein > wrote in
> >>Registration is so the vehicle can be tracked. There is no need for this
> >>for bicycles.
> >
> >
> > Sure there is.Bicycles get stolen,they get used in crimes,and they collide
> > with people or other things and cause property damage.
> > I suspect that the fee is the same for a car,motorcycle or Vespa.So it
> > should be the same for a bicycle.
>
>
> If there WAS a need for bicycles to be registered, then why don't
> legislators, who are motorists, level the playing field (as you assert)
> and mandate it?

Indeed. Surely Jim and crew don't think they're more intelligent than
all who were the country's legislators since 1860?

Besides, if Jim and crew _really_ thought there were a need for bike
registration fees, they'd be out writing their legislators, campaigning
for office, or shouting to passersby as they stood on soapboxes.

>From what I can tell, they're doing none of that. They're just
trolling.

Of course, poking a troll can be perversely amusing, at least for a
while. So Jim, thanks for the diversion. ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

In article .com>,
> wrote:
>
>
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, he's right about the pressure on the road being the same as
>> the pressure in the tires. He's wrong about total weight being the
>> only determinant of pavement damage, though.
>
>:-) Yet I never said that it was the _only_ determinant. Go back and
>read more carefully.

You: "I have seen no evidence that pavement damage is
significantly related to pressure. Instead, pavement engineers
commonly accept that pavement damage is related to total weight, with
damage much more than proportional to weight."

That wording strongly implies that total weight is the only
determinant, or the only significant determinant, of road damage.
Which isn't true.

>What I have said is that bicycles do negligible damage to the road
>surface. You guys can either prove me wrong (honest photographic
>evidence would work well) or stop slinging red herrings.

I don't disagree that bicycles do negligible damage to roads used by
vehicles; that's because the other sources of damage render the damage
done by bicycles negligible. I do dispute that bicycles do
negligible damage to tracks where the bicycles are the primary
vehicular users. The local gravel bike trails _do_ need maintenence,
and the asphalt trails are showing wear, in particular the top layer
appears to be being worn down exposing the rougher materials in the aggregate.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article . net>,
max > wrote:
>In article >,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> >> >For example, a bike-bike collision has roughly 1/500th (0.2%) the total
>> >> >system energy (not including the 40 gallons of flaming gasoline!) of a
>> >> >car-car collision, (200# cyclists @15 mph vs. 3000# cars @ 40 mph).
>> >>
>> >> Bicyclist logic is so weird. Bicyclists think picking out particular
>> >> differences in two scenarios somehow proves something, when they
>> >> haven't accounted for all the OTHER differences. For instance, all
>> >> the inanimate metal available to ABSORB the energy of the collision.
>> >
>> >Calculating the energy of deformation seemed a little ott, and
>> >irrelevant to the simple comparison of relative energy scales.
>>
>> The simple comparison is just plain irrelevant period. There are too
>> many other factors involved.
>
>For the second time: why do people get all mangled up and die in car
>accidents then?

I've been in two serious car accidents. In neither case was I injured.
Why not?

I've also crashed on rollerblades on several occasions. Even lower KE
than a bike-bike collision. Managed to scrape myself up real good on many
occasions, probably broke a rib in one of them. How, if KE was so
low?

KE isn't the determining factor you think it is.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article .com>,
> wrote:
>
>
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article . com>,
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >I'll bet not. DOT admin, state patrol costs, etc.
>>
>> I guess you're not a good gambler. (State patrol costs? What, are
>> you kidding? State patrol is revenue positive; why do you think they
>> have those ticket books?)
>
>Maybe in PA, but not here in WA.

Depends on who is doing the accounting.

>> >And the indirect costs are not even imagined.
>>
>> If you count costs you pull out of your ass, I'm sure they aren't.
>
>So, now you're saying there are no indirect costs?

I'm saying that it's easy to make up indirect costs, assign them to
drivers, and assert that your point is proven.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article .com>,
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >> In article . com>,
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I'll bet not. DOT admin, state patrol costs, etc.
> >>
> >> I guess you're not a good gambler. (State patrol costs? What, are
> >> you kidding? State patrol is revenue positive; why do you think they
> >> have those ticket books?)
> >
> >Maybe in PA, but not here in WA.
>
> Depends on who is doing the accounting.

How?

> >> >And the indirect costs are not even imagined.
> >>
> >> If you count costs you pull out of your ass, I'm sure they aren't.
> >
> >So, now you're saying there are no indirect costs?
>
> I'm saying that it's easy to make up indirect costs, assign them to
> drivers, and assert that your point is proven.

Where have I done that?

E.P.