How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 09:47:37 -0400, "C. E. White"
> wrote:

>
>
wrote:
>
>> Like I said, the interstate system is funded fully from gas taxes.
>> Oddly, bikes aren't allowed there (for the most part - I've seen some
>> highways that allow bike riding on the paved shoulder.) Most
>> everywhere else, a large proportion of transportation funds come from
>> the general fund in - sales, income and property taxes. Last I heard,
>> most adult bicyclist pay those.
>
>Where do you live? I have looked at the figures for two
>states (NC and Il) and for those two states, property taxes
>are not financing roads.

Well, in Illinois property taxes don't go to the state either, so they
don't go into the general fund (a state fund in Illinois). However,
the township collects money for roads, and a portion of the local city
is spent on roads, but this is a pittance compared to what the state
spends out of our income taxes.

In article >,
Jim Yanik .> writes:

> Bicyclists just want the use without paying.

We're entitled to the use without paying, and that just
sticks in yer craw, don' it?

Heh :-)

Well, it's gonna stay that way. And there ain't nuffin'
you can do 'bout it.

Pooooor Jiiiiiimmy. Whaddya gonna do? Explode in a
mighty fit of peurile anger?

I put in about 50 "free" Km's today. Some of it was to
ride down to do my food bank volunteer stint. Some of
it was just fer laffs. Some of it was to buy stuff,
and thereby support local business. And y'know what?
It feels damn good, because I got to interact positively
and constructively with my fellow human beans. And that's
what streets & roads are there to facilitate. I put that
pavement to good use.

You're obviously some sort of dimwit who thinks there's
some sort of advantagistic gain that must be paid-for
in the mere traversing of a thoroughway, with any vehicle,
for any purpose. 'tell ya what -- every time anybody goes
anywhere, a 3rd party profits. The 3rd party isn't
necessarily always the Gov't. But the Gov't indirectly
always gets their Squeeze. Even bicycle parts wear out and
need replacing with new stuff, with sales tax on it.

Oh yeah. The sales tax doesn't buy the privilege to use
the roads. That's because bicyclists, as non-motorized
road/street users already have the /right/ to use the
roads (so we can contribute to the Market and keep the
Economy humming along,) and that sticks in your craw
like a cod rib bone.

By the way -- have another look at the subject line of this
thread, and know that li'l ol' bicycling I, am not ****ed
off at all; in fact I quite enjoy my entitlement to mobility.
But /you/ sure seem to be. Maybe this thread should be called:
"How to **** off pig-ignorant drivers".

Anyhow, I ride around all over the map, fer free,
and that's how it should be.

You could, too, ya ****ed-off driver, ya.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

>>Where should I send my pictures of crumbling bike paths?
>
> I hosted mine at tinypic.com:
>
> http://tinypic.com/5lowtu
> http://tinypic.com/5lox2d


You call that crumbling? BAH! I should show you the path in some
northern cook county forest preserve... although it's been years since I
rode there.

You should see the bike path on the chicago lake front where it is actually
part of the breakwater/concrete shoreline in early spring. Now that's
crumbling. The lake really pounds it in the winter.

In article >, C. E. White wrote:

> http://www.newsobserver.com/news/sto...-8692185c.html
>
> I've riden my bike across it. It is really nice. Just
> another benefit paid for my motor vehicle owners.

Most of that is built *FOR* motor vehicle owners. It's either

A) designed for people who drive their bikes somewhere to go for a ride.
B) designed to remove bicyclists from the roads because drivers don't
like them there.

In article >, C. E. White wrote:

> But the "use" tax (sales tax) on bicycles goes into the
> general fund. This fund is not used to pay for roads.

Even if true, irelevant to the semantic arguement. There is no use tax
for any vehicles in IL besides what is paid when they are purchased.

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

> Any "use" tax would be paid yearly,as a plate fee.
> Prop taxes are not "use fees" WRT bicycle use on public roads.

There are no yearly "use" taxes for any private vehicle in IL.
(commerical vehicles may be different) But I don't pay a yearly "use" tax
on any of mine.

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So what if prop taxes help pay for roads?
>>> That still doesn't mean that one can drive an auto without paying a
>>> USE tax for each vehicle.A road use tax that bicyclists do NOT
>>> pay,but still use the roads.
>>> Whether non road-users pay prop taxes is not relevant to road USERS
>>> paying USER taxes.
>>
>> Playing your same old semantic games. I paid the use tax on my bicycle
>> when I bought it. You want to play semantics, that's where the 'use'
>> tax is paid in IL.
>>
>> There is no other 'use' tax.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> No,you did NOT.
> People who buy an auto pay a sales tax,and still pay a YEARLY USER
> FEE,every time they renew their plates.

It's not a user fee in IL.

> Bicyclists just want the use without paying.

Bicyclists pay. You want to make a semantic ticky tacky arguement to make
appear they don't pay. Under the same exacting semantics, motor vehicle
owners don't pay such fees either.

In article >, C. E. White wrote:

> I
> don't care if you ride your bikes on the roads (as long as
> you act responsibly) but I do care that you claim to be
> paying for those roads in ways unrelated to motor vehicle
> taxes.

Look, I pay more taxes than most people in this society of people who
just want to vote themselves more and more money from the treasure. So just
because none of the ~40% of my income that went to taxes is labeled
"BICYCLE TAX" gets your panties in a bunch, well I don't give a ****. I
paid more than my share for those roads and if I want to use them with a
bicycle TOUGH ****.

..

In article >, John F. Carr wrote:
> But when was the last time you saw a biker in a city obey the law?

Three hours ago. Me.

And if I feel half-way decent when I wake up in the morning, me again.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Scott en Aztl=E1=
n wrote:
>
> >>Where should I send my pictures of crumbling bike paths?
> >
> > I hosted mine at tinypic.com:
> >
> > http://tinypic.com/5lowtu
> > http://tinypic.com/5lox2d
>
>
> You call that crumbling? BAH! I should show you the path in some
> northern cook county forest preserve... although it's been years since I
> rode there.
>
> You should see the bike path on the chicago lake front where it is actual=
ly
> part of the breakwater/concrete shoreline in early spring. Now that's
> crumbling. The lake really pounds it in the winter.

And of course, the claim was that _bike tires_ cause the damage. As
those pictures show, the idea is ludicrous.

But ludicrous ideas are what comes out of arrogan ****ed-off motorists!
We've seen plenty proof of that! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski