How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

In article >, David The Nationals Fan wrote:

> In Illinois such a tax would not be fair since, under current Illinois law,
> Bicyclists are not "intended and permitted users" of roads and streets in
> Illinois unless expressly marked as such.

Wrong on two counts. One you got the court decision wrong. Two, the court
can't change the vehicle code. Bicycles are legal road going vehicles
under IL law. The court decision you are badly refering to is with
regards to LIABILITY for poor road conditions.

The court decision was that IL government agencies did not have to make a
road suitable for bicyclists. Thusly, that court decision is an arguement
for NO TAXES, because there is no requirement that the roads be
maintained in any shape or form suitable for bicycling.

> And since the supermajority of
> streets and roads are not marked as such, it would be blatantly unfair to
> make bicycles pay taxes for streets and roads for which they are not
> "intended and permitted users". If the fee is imposed, then a number of
> changes must be made to ensure that Bicyclists are intended and permitted
> users".

You got the theme right anyway But bicycles are permitted under the
law as any other vehicle, just not intended for the purposes of liability
when it comes to poor design and road conditions.

Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> No;users pay,plain and simple.
>

Where, other than interstate highways, do the users pay 100% of the
costs?

Nowhere.

Therefore, users *don't* pay, and thus should pay more. Since they
don't, they should be glad they are not delayed more by non-motorized
traffic.

E.P.

Get back to talk.politics.guns where you belong

Jim Yanik wrote:

> Wayne Pein > wrote in
> . com:
>
>
>>C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>And the motorist are paying for it. I don't think bicyclist
>>>should be run off the road. However, I do think they need
>>>stop pretending that they "own" the road.
>>
>>Of course, bicycle driver DO own the roads to the same extent that
>>motorists own the roads.
>
>
> Except that auto users pay user fees,and bicyclists do not pay any user
> fees for their bicycles.The fact that they pay for their autos does not
> exclude them from paying for a MOTORcycle,but they expect it for their
> bicycles.

Since legislators are themselves motorists, there must be a good reason
they impose this penalty on themselves. But you don't have to go along
with it. Protest by not driving a motor vehicle. If you don't like your
user fee, don't pay it.

Wayne

Jim Yanik wrote:

> Sure there is a "user fee";that's why you have to pay -every year- for auto
> registration.Otherwise you would only need to register it once.


I wonder why legislators, who themselves are motorists, impose this
unfair fee on themselves? You should complain!

I'd protest by refusing to drive a car. That'll teach em.

Wayne

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in

>> You want bicyclists to pay a disproportional fee.

> It's not "disproportional". Use is use.Even if your bicycle "foorprint" is
> smaller and your bike lighter,you still are USING the road.And a certain
> amount of distance has to be given you even in passing.

On any measure it's disproportional and punitive. That's the only reason
for this tax arguement anyway. Because of the costs motoring has, you now
expect bicycling to provide funds, when bicycling doesn't need anything
even close to the roads that are built. You seem to think by size,
popularity, and some weird idea that taxes paid give privilege that
bicyclists should be removed from the road.

Ya know, maybe this should be extended to other facets of life. I pay a
lot of money in taxes. I should be able to shove those who pay less than
me out of my way. That would be well over 50% of the population. Life
would be so much easier that way. It would make paying the taxes worth
it.

> Most states have a minimum fee for vehicles USING the public roads.
> Thus not "punitive",either.

Name them. IL doesn't.

>> Then don't complain about the taxes being used to build bicycle paths
>> that go around in circles since you are the kind of person they are
>> being built for.

> I can complain or criticize all I want;it's still a free country.

Oh, you can take away other people's freedoms, but yours are sacred.
Typical. Which control freak party to you align yourself with?

> I'm just going on what you frequently post here.You seem to always have
> some reason for "taking the lane,and are frequently angry at motorists.

I take the lane when it's legal and needed. Like making left turns. And
you might be angry with people who nearly kill you too. Case in point,
tonight, 4 lane road, jersey-looking-mobster type in a lincoln decides he
doesn't like me on the road. Forget we are the only two within a block
either way, he's got to teach me not to use to the road.

>>> Many of those bicyclists ARE half-blind senior citizens.Or drunks
>>> who've lost their driver's license,or kids. THOSE are the "average"
>>> bicyclist.

>> POBs are trying to stay out of the way of cars,

> I agree with this

Yet you disapprove of them.

>> stay off the road,

> Don't agree with this.

Most do.

>> and
>> are not vehicular bicyclists.

> Don't agree with this either.

A vehicular bicyclist rides like I do. Not in gutters or wrong way or
whatever.

>>They are a problem because they don't
>> become part of traffic. They are riding the way you want them do,
>> don't complain.

>> Meanwhile vehicular bicyclists are not in the way, move swiftly, obey
>> the vehicle code, etc and so forth and you want them removed because
>> they are using the road.

> Yeah,they're all just perfect cyclists.NOT.

I am as perfect on a bicycle as I am behind the wheel.

>> You want a punitive tax with a nice semantic title to justify your
>> irrantional hate of road bicyclists.

> You only define it that way to support your desire for a "freebie".

It's not free. I'm paying far in excess of other road users when using a
bicycle for the resources consumed.


>>>> You are just hung up on the semantics of registration. You just want
>>>> to be punitive because you hate bicycling.
>>
>>> Again,a false claim.
>>
>> Completely true. You want dollars delivered under a specific title
>> just to satisify the semantics.

> No;users pay,plain and simple.

Your semantics. Nothing more.

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> Wayne Pein > wrote in
> . com:
>
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>
>>> And the motorist are paying for it. I don't think bicyclist
>>> should be run off the road. However, I do think they need
>>> stop pretending that they "own" the road.
>>
>> Of course, bicycle driver DO own the roads to the same extent that
>> motorists own the roads.
>
> Except that auto users pay user fees,and bicyclists do not pay any user
> fees for their bicycles.The fact that they pay for their autos does not
> exclude them from paying for a MOTORcycle,but they expect it for their
> bicycles.

What user fees would these be?

I know of none. Other than maybe what the toll road authority collects. I
am not allowed to use the IL tollroad with a bicycle.

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> Tollroads are "pay extra for extra convenience" roads.

Wrong. In IL, required roads are toll roads. They aren't extra
convenience. They are roads needed because of growth in the area. However
because downstaters somehow think their measely contribution to state
taxes would actually be used in northern part of the state, they were
made tollroads which opened a huge new area of corruption and theft.

> Auto operators pay for the convenience of using public roads,but bicyclists
> do not pay,and expect the use for free.

Bicyclists didn't require the heavy roadbed and pavement. Feel free not to
build it.

>> It's not a special exemption for bicycle users. It's special
>> requirements for motor vehicle users. The roads have existed for
>> thousands of years.

> Not those in the United States. We've only been around for about 200some
> years.

Roads, trails, etc have existed in the united states for 1000s of years, it
just wasn't the untied states the entire time.

> Parking is OFF-road,and usually on private property;thus not
> applicable.Nice try.

Haven't lived in the big city or even a reasonably sized suburb have
you? Practically every town around here has a giant parking lot and/or
a large parking structure just for train commuters alone.

And then there is the big city, where street parking is in such high
demand that people get territorial about it. In chicago you need
neighborhood permits to park on the street (generally the cost of the
sticker and proof of residence) because the neighborhood folk somehow
think that they can reserve street parking for only those that live in
that neighborhood.

In article .com>,
wrote:

> Bikes cause roughly 800 fatalities per year in the US. Motor vehicles
> cause around 35,000 to 40,000.
>
> Bicyclists suffer less than 1% of the fatal head injuries in America.
> Motor vehicle occupants are roughly 50% of those victims.

Frank has a point.

The reason, which most people seem incapable of actually articulating,
that cycling has so much fewer fatal injuries is that the total system
energy available is dramatically lower.

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).

..max

In article >,
Jim Yanik .> wrote:

> Except that auto users pay user fees,and bicyclists do not pay any user
> fees for their bicycles.The fact that they pay for their autos does not
> exclude them from paying for a MOTORcycle,but they expect it for their
> bicycles.

put up or shut up: how much for a bike?

Defend your position: what is the fact-based analysis by which you
derived the above number?



..max