How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 09:37:02 -0400, "C. E. White"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >Where should I send my pictures of crumbling bike paths?
>
> I hosted mine at tinypic.com:
>
> http://tinypic.com/5lowtu
> http://tinypic.com/5lox2d

Here is a picture of new peditrian / bike bridge in Raleigh,
built mostly with funds diverted from road maintenance -

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.

Ed

People really want to go user pay?

OK.

Everyone pays 1 cent per 100 kilometres, per kilogram per annum

So a cyclist and bike [assume 2000 km 100 kg] pays $20

A car & driver [assume 20000 km & 1200 kg] pays $2,400

A hummer H1 & driver [assume 10000 km 6000 kg] pays $6,000

Further though: The cyclists gets a $1000 rebate to reflect the savings
she/he is generating by being healthy and less of a burden on the healthcare
system, and not generating the negative externalities of pollution.

While the automobile driver pays a surtax of 10% to cover the increased
health and pollution costs created by his/her choice of transit.

Sounds fair to me.

--
'Seems to me this mission is a serious
misallocation of valuable military resources'
-pvt jackson

lokey wrote:
> People really want to go user pay?
>
> OK.
>
> Everyone pays 1 cent per 100 kilometres, per kilogram per annum
>
> So a cyclist and bike [assume 2000 km 100 kg] pays $20
>
> A car & driver [assume 20000 km & 1200 kg] pays $2,400
>
> A hummer H1 & driver [assume 10000 km 6000 kg] pays $6,000
>
> Further though: The cyclists gets a $1000 rebate to reflect the savings
> she/he is generating by being healthy and less of a burden on the healthcare
> system, and not generating the negative externalities of pollution.
>
> While the automobile driver pays a surtax of 10% to cover the increased
> health and pollution costs created by his/her choice of transit.
>
> Sounds fair to me.

I think you should factor in width of the vehicle. Hummers take up
more room than Miatas. Miatas take up more room than motorcycles.
Motorcycles take up more room than bicycles. Make it proportional to
mileage _and_ width.

And why have the road zombies posting here neglected to call for a tax
on shoes? Damn pedestrians! Arent't they using the ground they walk
on for free? Oh, the injustice! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 09:25:03 -0400, "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.
>
> Why do you persist in repeating this thoroughly disproven assertion?
> That's something a troll would do...

Disproven!!!!!!!!!!!! BS...I have repeatedly proved jsut the
opposite. Motor vehcile derived revenue is more than paying
for road construction and maintenance. Each time someone
has tried to show otherwisie, I beleive I have found the
figures to prove this is not the case.

Ed

lokey wrote:
>
> People really want to go user pay?
>
> OK.
>
> Everyone pays 1 cent per 100 kilometres, per kilogram per annum
>
> So a cyclist and bike [assume 2000 km 100 kg] pays $20
>
> A car & driver [assume 20000 km & 1200 kg] pays $2,400
>
> A hummer H1 & driver [assume 10000 km 6000 kg] pays $6,000

My argument would be that the car and Hummer driver are
already paying. In NC, the Hummer driver will pay about $40
a year for vehicle registration, another $300+ in vehicle
property taxes, and over $350 in gas taxes (assuming at
least 12,000 miles traveled). So he is already paying close
to $700 a year because he has a Hummer to use the roads, not
including parking fees, tolls, etc. The bike rider is paying
an additional $0 because he has a bike and rides the roads.

> Further though: The cyclists gets a $1000 rebate to reflect the savings
> she/he is generating by being healthy and less of a burden on the healthcare
> system, and not generating the negative externalities of pollution.

Well last time I checked, we don't have a national health
care system. I personally have not generated any health care
expenses for the last two years, although I have paid a heck
of a lot to maintain my unused health insurance.

But since bike riders are so healthy, and will live so long,
we need to charge them an extra $2000 per year to cover the
additional Social Security benefits they will get.

> While the automobile driver pays a surtax of 10% to cover the increased
> health and pollution costs created by his/her choice of transit.

And vehicle drivers should get a $1000 rebate for helping to
reduce the life expectancy of everyone, thereby helping to
save Social Security. We could index this based on the
amount of pollution generated. The older and stinker the
car, and the more gas used, the larger the rebate.

> Sounds fair to me.

Only because you want something for nothing.

Ed

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> lokey wrote:
>>
>> People really want to go user pay?
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> Everyone pays 1 cent per 100 kilometres, per kilogram per annum
>>
>> So a cyclist and bike [assume 2000 km 100 kg] pays $20
>>
>> A car & driver [assume 20000 km & 1200 kg] pays $2,400
>>
>> A hummer H1 & driver [assume 10000 km 6000 kg] pays $6,000
>
> My argument would be that the car and Hummer driver are
> already paying. In NC, the Hummer driver will pay about $40
> a year for vehicle registration, another $300+ in vehicle
> property taxes, and over $350 in gas taxes (assuming at
> least 12,000 miles traveled). So he is already paying close
> to $700 a year because he has a Hummer to use the roads, not
> including parking fees, tolls, etc.

Only $5300 to go. You can make the cheque out to cash.

>> Further though: The cyclists gets a $1000 rebate to reflect the savings
>> she/he is generating by being healthy and less of a burden on the
>> healthcare
>> system, and not generating the negative externalities of pollution.
>
> Well last time I checked, we

Your use of 'we' is inapropraite.

> don't have a national health care system.

You might not have an official public healthcare system however it is
estimated in the US that half of the $1.8 _trillion_ spent on health care is
provided by the public sector:

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breakin...0335-8370r.htm

'The public sector will pay for nearly half of all healthcare spending in
the United States by 2014 ... at the leading edge of when the baby boomers
become eligible for Medicare'

Again, make that cheque out to cash.

Giving the user pay scheme further thought: Those massive superhighways
cost much more per kilometer of construction than a meter wide bike path so:

For every km on a bike trail multiply the tax by a factor of 1
For every km on an unpaved road multiply the tax by a factor of 1.1
For every km on a paved single lane road multiply the tax by a factor of 1.2
For every km on multilane city streets multiply the tax by a factor of 1.3
For every km on non-free-way highways multiply the tax by a factor of 1.4
For every km on restricted access multilane freeways multiply the tax by a
factor of 1.5


>> Sounds fair to me

> Only because you want something for nothing.

Nonsense. I'm happy to pay my $20.

--
'We can do without any article of luxury we have never had;
but when once obtained, it is not in human natur'
to surrender it voluntarily.' -thomas c haliburton

In article >,
lokey > wrote:
>
> People really want to go user pay?
>
> OK.
>
> Everyone pays 1 cent per 100 kilometres, per kilogram per annum

But the cost of urban roads is mostly space, not pavement wear.
Let's charge 1 cent per 10 km per square meter of road space
used, including vehicle and clear zone.

> So a cyclist and bike [assume 2000 km 100 kg] pays $20

If the cyclist keeps right and expects a 1m clear zone on
each side and 10m ahead and behind, that's 40 square meters
or $80 per year. If he is seen to be driving in the middle
of the lane, or in the wrong lane, then he gets billed for
the full 3.5 meter lane width for that year, or $280.
(Plus the obstructing traffic ticket and possible loss of
privilege to ride.)

> A car & driver [assume 20000 km & 1200 kg] pays $2,400

3.5 meters wide and 40 meters long on average, for 140 square
meters or $2,800.

> A hummer H1 & driver [assume 10000 km 6000 kg] pays $6,000

Same lane width, same following distance, costs the same as a car
per km.

> Further though: The cyclists gets a $1000 rebate to reflect the savings
>she/he is generating by being healthy and less of a burden on the healthcare
>system, and not generating the negative externalities of pollution.

But then it has to be legal to run over bicyclists to tone down
their obnoxiously self-righteous attitude. Of course, if they
do get run over while obeying traffic laws they get a rebate on
the space tax. But when was the last time you saw a biker in
a city obey the law?

--
John Carr )

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

Oh, about twenty minutes ago. That would have been me.

Now, how often do you obey the laws? Start by discussing the speed
limits, please.

- Frank Krygowski

C. E. White wrote:

> And vehicle drivers should get a $1000 rebate for helping to
> reduce the life expectancy of everyone, thereby helping to
> save Social Security. We could index this based on the
> amount of pollution generated. The older and stinker the
> car, and the more gas used, the larger the rebate.

A better idea is to "internalize" the pollution costs by returning the
exhaust fumes into the vehicle compartment. Instead of spewing into the
commons and dragging us non-polluters down, the life expectancy of only
the polluters will be reduced, rather abruptly.

Wayne

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>
>John F. Carr wrote:
>> But when was the last time you saw a biker in
>> a city obey the law?
>
>Oh, about twenty minutes ago. That would have been me.

So you don't live around Boston, then.

>Now, how often do you obey the laws? Start by discussing the speed
>limits, please.

The speed limit in Massachusetts is "reasonable and proper."
I obey that law. I also obeyed all stop and yield signs and
traffic signals on my way to work. It's been months since
the last time I saw a bicyclist obey a red light or stop sign.

--
John Carr )