How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

In article .com>,
Chalo > wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>> Further, I'm not sure why a bicyclist only needs an 18-inch wide path
>> but when he's out on the road a 48-inch wide path is just too narrow
>> for him.
>
>Perhaps that's because the objects to either side of him on the trail
>won't mangle him and leave him for dead, but many of those on the road
>will.

Doesn't make sense. If they'll go onto his 18 inches, mangle him, and
leave him for dead, they can do the same for his 48 inches or 96
inches. If they won't, they're no different than the inanimate
objects on either side of his 18 inches.


--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 16:32:55 -0400, "C. E. White"
> > wrote:
>
> >So you are contending it is OK for you and your wife to
> >effectively block the sidewalk by walking side-by-side while
> >ignoring anyone coming from the other direction?
>
> Tell me, how far in advance of our meeting up with oncoming "traffic"
> on a sidewalk should my wife and I form a single-file line, in your
> opinion?
>
> a) As soon as we see a spec on the horizon?
> b) 100 feet away?
> c) 10 feet away?
> d) 5 feet away?
> e) 1 foot away?
> f) My wife and I should walk single-file on the sidewalk at all times.
>
You did not really provide a realistic choice. Of the ones
given, I'd say c but really a little sooner would be better.
10 feet is only a little more than 1 second before a
collison when closing at normal walking speeds. This a
little tight, but it seems just far enough away that I can
tell you are actaully paying attention. I really don't mean
to single you out specifically, it is just that I have often
met "groups" on sidewalks that make no effort to provide
room for oncommiing "traffic."

Ed

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:24:47 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> >
> >> Tell me, how far in advance of our meeting up with oncoming "traffic"
> >> on a sidewalk should my wife and I form a single-file line, in your
> >> opinion?
> >>
> >> a) As soon as we see a spec on the horizon?
> >> b) 100 feet away?
> >> c) 10 feet away?
> >> d) 5 feet away?
> >> e) 1 foot away?
> >> f) My wife and I should walk single-file on the sidewalk at all times.
> >
> >Keep right except to pass. Otherwise your just a pedestrian LLB.
>
> Bull****.
>
> Cite the law (in any state you like) that tells pedestrians which
> "lane" they need to walk in. Answer: YOU CAN'T because no such law
> exists. And even if it did, it would be unenforceable. Imagine how
> many cops would be required to enforce the lane-usage laws in a
> typical big city:
>
> http://www.rgj.com/news/files/2004/08/27/52016_250.jpg
>
> Bottom line: choice f) is the wrong answer.

There shouldn't need to be a law to tell you and your wife
how to walk on a sidewalk. Common courtesy should tell you
to share the sidewalk in a responsible manner. Of course
judging by the attitude of many of the people who regularly
post to this group, shoving people into the mud is perfectly
acceptable behavior...afterall, sloth kills. Slow walkers
probably deserve to die.

Regards,

Ed White

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

> And in the UK, it turns out that cyclists are more likely than average
> to be house owners, car owners, to earn above average income and pay
> higher rates of tax.
>
> We pay our road usage taxes and then leave the car at home. You
> should thank us :-)

Next time i drive in the UK, I will..

Ed

Brent P wrote:
>
> In article >, C. E. White wrote:
>
> > and mass transis. Last time I checked, bikes riders pay no
> > user fees for using roads, bike paths, or sidewalks.
>
> I don't ride on sidewalks and most bike paths are useless. I pay more
> taxes that go for roads than many people who drive everywhere do.

I love to see how you can prove this. If you aren't driving
a car, you aren't paying much in the way of taxes that go
towards building and maintaining roads. I suppose you could
argue that the taxes paid by the trucks that deliver your
stuff are really "your taxes" however, the fact is, no cars
/ trucks paying road use fees (registrationa nd gas taxes),
no roads for bikes either. Exactly what taxes are you paying
that "go for roads?"

Ed


> fair amount of road tax for a bicycle would cost more in collection
> costs than what would be collected. When is this stupid arguement going
> to die?
>

Brent P wrote:
>
> In article >, C. E. White wrote:
> >
> >
> > Brent P wrote:
> >
> >> laughable. Bicycles don't require the thick, wide roads. Trucks do.
> >> Our road requirements are very small and easily covered by the taxes we
> >> pay. Once upon a time I calculated what a fair registration cost for a
> >> bicycle would be based on what I pay for my cars. Postage would practically
> >> double it. That means it would cost more to collect, it would cost
> >> government money, thusly they do not bother. Now of course you'd suggest
> >> a punitive tax, because your goal isn't fairness, it's eliminating the
> >> rights of others to use the road with the vehicle of their choice.
> >
> > You seem to think that the registration fees pay for roads.
>
> They are one of the taxes.
>
> > They don't. They pay for the bureaucracy that keeps track of
> > cars, so that the cars can be taxed by other government
> > bureaucracies to generate even more revenues to maintain
> > other bureaucracies. Roads construction and maintenance is
> > more than funded by gas tax revenues. If you aren't driving
> > your cars, you aren't paying to build and maintain the
> > roads.
>
> 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? Can you provide evidence that this is the
case. 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. New subdivisions
are required to include roads to state standards, so I
suppose at least for new housing, you could claim you paid
for the initial cost of the road, but not the maintenance
out of your own pocket. In 2004, the City of Raleigh, NC did
not use property tax revenue to maintain streets. In
Raleigh, about half of the street maintenance was paid with
state funds, the rest was paid out of various user fees
(parking fees and fines), street facility fees (fees charged
to add driveways or access to businesses), interest income,
and a draw down of the street fund reserve. Most NC towns
have similar street maintenance budgets.

> 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. 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.

> > In fact, since many bike paths are actually funded by
> > siphoning off gas tax revenues, if you aren't driving your
> > car, you aren't even paying to maintain the bike paths.
>
> Once again, I'll repeat. Bicycle paths are not for vehicular bicyclists.
> They are for people like you, people who drive their bikes to a forest
> preserve or something and then take a slow ride on the meandering and
> often circular trails for an afternoon. When they are done they pack the
> bikes back up in their _motor_ vehicles and go home.

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).

Regards,

Ed White

What is a "pedalcyclist"?

Is that someone who rides a bicycle?

wrote:
>
> Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >
> >
> > My point is that bicycle paths aren't the undamagable
> maintenance-free
> > meccas you make them out to be.
>
> A more important point is that bicycles inflict zero damage on the
> roads. The points are largely independent - and both may be true.

This is just not true. Most bike exert at least as much
pressure per unit area as cars. If you run enough bike
traffic over a bike path, you'll end up with the same sort
of damage as you get on automobile paths. I will admit, that
a few bikes spread out over a typical street width is not
going to cause measurable damage. However, lots of bikes
restricted to a narrow bike path will result in significant
damage.

Ed

Jim Yanik wrote:
> You pay for each and every auto you use on public roads.
> You don't get to pay for one and the rest go for free.
> Even motorcycles must pay for each MC used on the roads.
> You haven't paid for any of your bikes.
> Yet you expect the same priveleges as autos.
>

Legislators let bicycle users go "free," by your definition of free.
It's not our "fault" that we are free. If there was something to pay,
bicycle users would but there isn't. So why don't you quit whining? If
you don't like paying for motor vehicle use, stop doing it. Either be
illegal, or give up your motor vehicle. You know the rules that exist.
Perhaps you would like to ride a free bike?

Wayne

Brent P wrote:
>
> In article et>, Paul wrote:
> ><rec.bicycles.misc removed>
> >
> > On Sun, 22 May 2005 12:58:32 -0500, Brent P , said the following in
> > rec.autos.driving...
> >
> >
> >> Fair. as in based on wear and tear done, space taken up, etc.
> >
> > Fair. As in costs to construct a road that wouldn't be there if it
> > weren't for cars....
>
> That would be ZERO. Bicycles easily make their own trails.

Then the problem is solved. Make your own trail and stay off
the highways.

Ed