How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

Wed, 25 May 2005 13:31:01 -0400, >,
scud enslaved nobody, "C. E. White" > squealed:

>If "vehicular" bike owners pay 1/3 of what the average car
>owner pays for each bike, I'd be happier. So when vehicular
>bike owners start paying an additional $120 or so a year per
>bike for the right to ride the bikes on the public roads, I
>think it would be fairer.

People don't pay for "rights". They are _rights_ after all.
YOU pay for the "privilege" to operate your scud on our public roads.
You have the _right_ to walk or ride a bicycle on those same roads
because they are public roads but it's going to cost you if you want
the privilege to jockey your stinky scuds there.
--
zk

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.

I paid use tax on my bicycle when I bought it, same with my cars.

> 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. 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.

Much like insurance relies on those who don't have claims. How college
food services depend on 'missed meals'. It's the people who pay but don't
use the system beyond what they've paid that keep it going.

Brent P wrote:
>
> In article >, C. E. White wrote:
> >> Most of the roads I ride on are funded by PROPERTY TAXES. The remaining
> >> ones are more than covered under other taxes I PAY.
>
> > Where do you live?
>
> IL.

Well Illinois has online data for 2002. Total Highway
revenue for 2002 was 3,705 Million DOllars and was dervided
as follows:

1,288 Million - Motor Vehicle Registration Fees ($0 for
bikes)
1,252 Million - Gas Tax Revenue ($0 for bikes)
796 Million - Transfer from other Governments (mostly
Federal Gas Tax Revenues transfered to the state 0- another
$0 for bikes)
71 Million - Other (I suppose this is wherre the bike owners
are chipping in)
2980 Million - bonds - (another $0 for bikes)

Onyt 2,272 million of this total was actually used for road
construction. 616 million was transferred to loacalities for
road construction and maintenance.


> > Can you provide evidence that this is the case.
>
> The budget details are not online, nor am I am going to be that detailed
> on where I live.

See above. They are online and suppport my contention that
local proerty taxes are not paying for "your" roads.

You did not mention a particular city, so I looked at
Chicago. Chicago does not use the general property tax to
fund the Chicago Department of Transportation. This
department is entirely funded by vehicle taxes and fuel
taxes. Other vehicle related revenue (transfers from the
Illinois state government, parking fees, vehicle fines, etc)
are diverted to pay for other city services. So, if you live
in Illinois in general, and Chicago specifically, revenue
derived from motor vehicles are actually susbsidizing
non-vehicle owners. So, bike riders are are being
subsisdized by motor vehicle.


> > I know in NC it is not true, but I can't be sure for
> > other states / cities. In NC, the state returns a percentage
> > of gas tax revenues to each town / city for road
> > maintenance. In some cases towns supplement these funds, but
> > usually not directly from property taxes.
>
> Property taxes are where towns get their money in IL for the most part.
>
> >> Let's get to the root of this arguement. It has nothing to do with paying
> >> or not paying. It's just a made up reason to justify running bicyclists
> >> off the roads. Motor vehicles needed thick pavement and wide lanes, so
> >> you pay for it.
>
> > 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. As long as cycle
> > riders follow the rules, I have no problem with them.
>
> Oh bull****. You bicycle haters are most ****ed off when a bicyclist
> follows the rules of the road to the letter.
>
> > But
> > gutter riding and running stop signs and stop light are
> > common cyclist practices that irritate the heck out of me.
> > It seems to me that a certain percentage of cyclists are
> > arrogant jerks who feel they have a right to do these
> > things.
>
> Guess what, they are doing what a good number of motorists have told me
> to do as they tried to squeeze me out of my turn in traffic queues. I
> hate gutter passing, wrong ways whatever, myself. But it doesn't change
> the behavior I see from motorists as I follow the vehicle code.

I treat cyclist with respect. I've never tried to squeeze
any cylist out of a lane. I have gotten irriated when out
of towners decend on the area of my farm for massive bicycle
events. Getting stuck behind 20 or 30 cycles on a crooked
country roads with limited safe passing oppurtunities can be
frustrating.

> > So for "vehicular bicyclists" the solution is to license
> > bikes like other vehicles that use the road. Charge
> > registration fees like cars, require registration plates
> > like cars, require safety inspections like cars, charge
> > property taxes like cars, require operator licenses like
> > cars, and enforce traffic rules for bikes like cars. One of
> > the rules that will need to be enforced is a minimum speed
> > on many roads (like for cars).
>
> Make it punitive. Get them damn bicyclists off the road!
>
> You want my 75 cents a year and pay the dollar to collect it yourself,
> fine. You want to charge me like a car, well then, you'll be waiting
> behind me. Note, the requirement in IL is 'rightmost lane' for slower
> than the speed of traffic. Only biyclists are further limited. If charged
> like a car, well then, that restriction is moot. The rightmost lane is
> mine, just like the senior citizen in the crown victoria.

I think you owe considerably more than $0.75 if you are a
"vehicular" bicylist. As shown above, motor vehicles are
actually over paying for the building and maintianing of
roads (at least in NC and Illinois). Bike riders that use
the public roads are consuming a resource they are not
fairly paying for. Based on your attitude ("If charged like
a car...) it seems to me, given the current level of fees
charged to bike riders, you need to keep off the roads. You
are not curretnly being charged like a car, since you in
fact, are not paying any fees for riding your bike on the
roads. $0 = zero usuage (based on your logic).

I actually don't want to stop bikers from riding on the
roads. And despite your lumping me in with the "bike
haters," I scroupusosly respect the rights (unfunded rights)
of cyclist to use the roads. If you truly follow the rules,
then I salute you. We won't have any problems when we meet
on the roads. I won't try to run you off the road and I'll
follow you through the left turn lane. However, I'll still
call it BS when you try to claim bike riders are paying
their fair share for use of the roads.

Regards,

Ed White

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? hmmm? Clearly it doesn't have anything to do with the
amount of kenitic energy available, so what the hell is killing them?
Hmm?



What other factors. Name 6. hell, name two -- hell, Name one that's
not related first order somehow to the Ke term in collisions.

c'mon, rocket scientist -- i quantified a first order approximation of
the difference between bike and car accidents. All i hear from you is a
collection of half-assed mealy mouthed "it's not the same" whinging. No
****, it's not the "same" sherlock -- a bike is not a Navigator.

So you tell me -- what are the ameliorating differences you keep hinting
at but are heretofore incapable of articulating, and parameterize and
quantify them. 'splain to us why my statment "1/500th the energy in a
bikebike vs carcar" is an invalid observation. Account for the horrible
mangling of bodies and death in car accidents vs. skinned knees and the
occaisonal broken collarbone in bike accidents. Otherwise you're just
spouting bull****..

Or maybe you should just have a smoke and drive your camaro around the
block a few times.

..max

C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> I estimate that the average single car owner pays somewhere
> around $370 in user fess each year, broken down as follows:
>
> Registration Fee - $30
> Inspection Fee - $20
> Property Tax on Car (car only) - $100
> Gasoline Tax - $210
>
> Some people (like me) pay a lot more. I paid somewhere
> around $1500 in user fees last years (I own four vehicles,
> and only have one driver in the household).
>
> If "vehicular" bike owners pay 1/3 of what the average car
> owner pays for each bike, I'd be happier.

Yes, and if motorists paid ten times more than they do, _I'd_ be
happier. But there's art in logical compromise, so let's look at this
logically.

As I said befo we could base fees on road space consumed per year,
times weight. This is incredibly generous to motorists, since road
damage is proportional to weight raised to a rather high power
(something like weight to the sixth power, IIRC). And besides, most
bikes move approximately zero miles in a year.

Nonetheless, when I ran some numbers on that VERY generous basis, I
computed that the bike fee should be 1/18,000 of the car fee. So,
roughly 20 cents.

I think you should lobby _hard_ for this! You know, letters to your
congressmen, television spots, op-ed pieces in the paper, the whole
nine yards! Twenty cents per bike! Why, it's so logical!

And I'd be right behind you. I'd donate my 20 cents by mail right now,
if I only knew where to send it! Too bad the stamp is so expensive!


Incidentally, you really should get behind my computation method. It
makes little sense for me to be charged as much for the 1500 mile per
year Honda Civic as I'm charged for the 10,000 mile per year Pontiac.
Same goes for you, with your four cars and one driver.

Want to team up on this? I'll do my part by sending you my 20 cents.
You can do your part by the publicity spots, letters to the editor,
sign-on-a-stick, whatever. ;-)


- Frank Krygowski

C. E. White wrote:


> I estimate that the average single car owner pays somewhere
> around $370 in user fess each year, broken down as follows:
>
> Registration Fee - $30


Registration is so the vehicle can be tracked. There is no need for this
for bicycles.


> Inspection Fee - $20


This is so the vehicle doesn't overly damage the environment (more than
it already does) or have the potential for catostrophic failure to harm
others. There is no need for this for bicycles.

> Property Tax on Car (car only) - $100

Oh OK. If it'll make you feel better I'll donate $5 for my bicycle to my
county for property tax.


> Gasoline Tax - $210

This is irrelvant for bicyclists. However, you should be thankful
bicyclists don't use it, reducing demand and hence your price.
Therefore, I am owed $5 for my altruistic use of the bike (this says
nothing of the environmental damage that I am avoiding on your behalf).

This cancels out my property tax donation.


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.

Wayne

C. E. White wrote:

However, I'll still
> call it BS when you try to claim bike riders are paying
> their fair share for use of the roads.
>


Bicyclists are indeed paying their fair share. If we are paying nothing
as you assert, and we are not required to pay anything (by motor vehicle
driving legislators), then we are paying what is asked of us. This is
fair. If we were required to pay something yet didn't, then we would not
be fair. We would be cheating.

The roads are free to use unless you want to drive a motor vehicle. Then
there are certain requirements. The vast majority of us who ride bikes
drive motor vehicles at least sometimes, and so we pay the same as
motorists. But my car sits in the driveway most of the week, burning
nothing (except a hole in my pocket). Your welcome.

Look at it this way. There have been several car sale promotions in
which a bike came free. Volkswagen had one a couple of years ago.
Similarly, think of every legal car driver as also freely allowed to
travel non-motorized (and every non-car owner as also freely allowed to
travel by legal means).

Wayne
Be The Engine

In article >, .
says...

>I don't slow it down like bicycles do.(I'm usually on the high side of the
>speed limit)
>I move my GSR along quickly enough,and I'm no sloth driver,either.
>And headwind or road slope does not affect me like they do a pedalist.

True, but stopped cars in front usually don't slow down a cyclist.
-------------
Alex

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> All I'm pointing out is that a simple
> energy comparison shows nothing; I don't know why you find that so
> objectionable.
>

Where did I say I found it objectionable?

E.P.

In article >, C. E. White wrote:

> Well Illinois has online data for 2002. Total Highway
> revenue for 2002 was 3,705 Million DOllars and was dervided
> as follows:

Note: *STATE ROADS*

> 1,288 Million - Motor Vehicle Registration Fees ($0 for
> bikes)
> 1,252 Million - Gas Tax Revenue ($0 for bikes)
> 796 Million - Transfer from other Governments (mostly
> Federal Gas Tax Revenues transfered to the state 0- another
> $0 for bikes)
> 71 Million - Other (I suppose this is wherre the bike owners
> are chipping in)
> 2980 Million - bonds - (another $0 for bikes)

> Onyt 2,272 million of this total was actually used for road
> construction. 616 million was transferred to loacalities for
> road construction and maintenance.

Now what was used for roads not controlled by the state and the rest of
the funds for local roads? What part of that total went to expressways
and interstates?

Nahh... you don't want to go there.


>> > Can you provide evidence that this is the case.
>>
>> The budget details are not online, nor am I am going to be that detailed
>> on where I live.

> See above. They are online and suppport my contention that
> local proerty taxes are not paying for "your" roads.

You think the state of IL covers all the costs of all roads in the state?
*laugh*

Let me know when you figure it out.

> You did not mention a particular city, so I looked at
> Chicago. Chicago does not use the general property tax to
> fund the Chicago Department of Transportation. This
> department is entirely funded by vehicle taxes and fuel
> taxes.

Cite?

Hell you didn't cite a damn thing. You probably pulled it all out of your
ass.



>> Guess what, they are doing what a good number of motorists have told me
>> to do as they tried to squeeze me out of my turn in traffic queues. I
>> hate gutter passing, wrong ways whatever, myself. But it doesn't change
>> the behavior I see from motorists as I follow the vehicle code.

> I treat cyclist with respect.

I doubt it.

> I've never tried to squeeze any cylist out of a lane.

Whatever. Your posts give a different feeling. You consider bicyclists
intruders on *your* road.

> I have gotten irriated when out
> of towners decend on the area of my farm for massive bicycle
> events. Getting stuck behind 20 or 30 cycles on a crooked
> country roads with limited safe passing oppurtunities can be
> frustrating.

Such things need to be sactioned by the local government in IL.


>> > So for "vehicular bicyclists" the solution is to license
>> > bikes like other vehicles that use the road. Charge
>> > registration fees like cars, require registration plates
>> > like cars, require safety inspections like cars, charge
>> > property taxes like cars, require operator licenses like
>> > cars, and enforce traffic rules for bikes like cars. One of
>> > the rules that will need to be enforced is a minimum speed
>> > on many roads (like for cars).
>>
>> Make it punitive. Get them damn bicyclists off the road!
>>
>> You want my 75 cents a year and pay the dollar to collect it yourself,
>> fine. You want to charge me like a car, well then, you'll be waiting
>> behind me. Note, the requirement in IL is 'rightmost lane' for slower
>> than the speed of traffic. Only biyclists are further limited. If charged
>> like a car, well then, that restriction is moot. The rightmost lane is
>> mine, just like the senior citizen in the crown victoria.

> I think you owe considerably more than $0.75 if you are a
> "vehicular" bicylist. As shown above, motor vehicles are
> actually over paying for the building and maintianing of
> roads (at least in NC and Illinois).

1) Your accounting method is flawed.
2) Motor vehicles need the expensive roads. Bicyclists shouldn't need to
pay for the roads your vehicles need.

> Bike riders that use
> the public roads are consuming a resource they are not
> fairly paying for.

Bicyclists are paying more than their fair share. Motor vehicles need the
expensive to construct roads, not bicyclists. Your pay-for-aim is simply
to get bicyclists off the road. To discourage bicycling. That's what it
always is that is what it always will be.

> Based on your attitude ("If charged like
> a car...) it seems to me, given the current level of fees
> charged to bike riders, you need to keep off the roads. You
> are not curretnly being charged like a car, since you in
> fact, are not paying any fees for riding your bike on the
> roads. $0 = zero usuage (based on your logic).

I never argued bicyclists were being charged indentical to drivers. I
argued that bicyclists pay at least their fair share. You want to pass
puntive taxes on bicyclists, well then I'll pay them and I'll take the
same space with my bicycle that my car requires.

> I actually don't want to stop bikers from riding on the
> roads.

Your arguements are exactly to those ends.

> And despite your lumping me in with the "bike
> haters," I scroupusosly respect the rights (unfunded rights)
> of cyclist to use the roads.

I highly doubt that. When I hear the 'you don't pay' crap in real life,
it's from some motorist who just brush passed me, tried to run me off the
road, passed me and then slammed on the brakes, or did something else to
endanger me.

> If you truly follow the rules, then I salute you.

To the letter, except occasionally I have exceeded posted speed limits on my
bicycle.

> We won't have any problems when we meet
> on the roads. I won't try to run you off the road and I'll
> follow you through the left turn lane. However, I'll still
> call it BS when you try to claim bike riders are paying
> their fair share for use of the roads.

I paid more in taxes than most people using the roads given IRS data on
income.