Anti-Cycling republican gets PWND

[LevelSea]

Nope...but if you drag one of them out of the garage...PAY UP SUCKA!

Bike lanes serve a small, specific portion of the population. Why should the general population be required to fund them?

Hell...it's like skool taxes. I don't have school-age children...why should I have to pay school taxes?

Yup. Just like social security. I'm not getting any of that money, so why should I pay in?

 

[glenn1]

Why should you be required to fund sidewalks if you never walk on them?

I already explained this, bike lanes benefit motorists and cyclists... just like sidewalks.

Gasoline taxes go fund basic road maintenance that bicyclists benefit from. Maybe if you don't want to assume any of the costs the city should stop filling in potholes and removing obstructions from bike lanes.

 

[jlee]

Nope. All taxpayers can fund that. Bicycling should be encouraged, not discouraged and taxing it discourages using bikes as transportation.

Besides, bike lanes benefit cyclists and motorists.

I have 7 bicycles in my garage right now, some of them haven't been ridden in years. You're going to tell me I have to pay $175/year just to have them sit there? No fucking way...

I have 2 cars at home that I haven't used in months...but I have to pay for them to sit there.



Seriously though, I'd rather pay taxes to establish bike lanes than dodge them in the road...

 

[JulesMaximus]

I have 2 cars at home that I haven't used in months...but I have to pay for them to sit there.



Seriously though, I'd rather pay taxes to establish bike lanes than dodge them in the road...

I have 2 cars and a motorcycle that I pay taxes on and registration fees for. I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with bicycle registration fees to cover non-existent wear that I'm not putting on the roads.

San Diego already has bike lanes on most roads here and it does benefit motorists greatly that cyclists have a dedicated lane for them to ride in. I see guys commuting in them daily and they never interfere with vehicle traffic. It works quite well and cyclists don't pay a bike tax (other than sales tax-which I think is quite enough).

I guess the city of San Diego and its residents decided a long time ago that they wanted to make the roads safer for cyclists and at the same time ease the congestion of slower moving traffic from the regular traffic lanes. Is it perfect? No. But I don't see the problems here most of you complain about when it comes to cyclists either. They don't block traffic, they don't cause slowing and/or frustration with motorists, and they generally follow traffic laws.

Paying a $25 fee to buy a bike does NOTHING to ease congestion or the frustrations motorists feel. It's just another revenue generating tax for politicians to waste on whatever nonsense they waste money on.

 

[child of wonder]

How about a $25 annual road license required for bicyclists that want to ride bikes on roads outside city limits. This money goes towards creating bike lanes on popular county roads and highways so cyclists have a safe place to travel without impeding traffic flow.

 

[TheGardener]

City bike lanes don't necessarily remove much, if any, parking.

Yes, I always see bike lanes crowded with bicyclists and 2 car lanes totally empty. I'm also sure that having room for 6 lanes is very common place in every city. When you are trying to get out of the city 5 days a week and it takes an hour to reach the highway, and then you have another hour commute from there, my empathy with bicyclists goes by the wayside. For this kind of service to bicyclists, pay up $2,000 a year.

 

[Ns1]

In confused guys - do you want cyclists on the road or not? Mixed messages up in this bitch.

 

[Ns1]

Yes, I always see bike lanes crowded with bicyclists and 2 car lanes totally empty. I'm also sure that having room for 6 lanes is very common place in every city. When you are trying to get out of the city 5 days a week and it takes an hour to reach the highway, and then you have another hour commute from there, my empathy with bicyclists goes by the wayside. For this kind of service to bicyclists, pay up $2,000 a year.

Don't blame cyclists for your poor life choices causing you to spend two hours everyday Commuting.

 

[glenn1]

In confused guys - do you want cyclists on the road or not? Mixed messages up in this bitch.

The question isn't using the roads and bike lanes when available, it's how they're paid for. All taxpayers regardless of whether they use the roads pay taxes towards the construction and maintenance of roads. Motor vehicle drivers use the roads and pay gasoline taxes which help support their construction and maintenance. Bicyclists use the roads (or dedicated bike lanes) and pay no use tax to help support their construction and maintenance.

Regardless of the amount of wear you feel that bicyclists inflict on roads, naturally caused hazards like potholes and debris still need to be addressed and those cost money. So either bicyclists should pay something (like the token $25 one-time fee) to help defray those costs, or they should be borne completely by the public at large in which case gasoline taxes should go away. Currently bicyclists are arguing they should be able to use the roads (and sometimes have a dedicated bike lane for their exclusive use) but pay no use taxes whatsoever.

 

[thedarkwolf]

and fat people should also pay more because they put more weight on the road while driving and therefore more wear.

 

[K1052]

Yes, I always see bike lanes crowded with bicyclists and 2 car lanes totally empty. I'm also sure that having room for 6 lanes is very common place in every city. When you are trying to get out of the city 5 days a week and it takes an hour to reach the highway, and then you have another hour commute from there, my empathy with bicyclists goes by the wayside. For this kind of service to bicyclists, pay up $2,000 a year.

There are in fact three cars in the travel lanes, one eastbound and two westbound (one turning). The reason there are few cars is that they are naturally faster on this segment when the signal changes during the AM rush and have thus cleared the frame while there is a clot of cyclists working their way along. I am a pedestrian along this route twice a day basically every day.

Also, I'm fairly sure that cyclists didn't give you a shitty commute. You did that to yourself.

 

[TheSlamma]

Why should you be required to fund sidewalks if you never walk on them?

I already explained this, bike lanes benefit motorists and cyclists... just like sidewalks.

Don't know if you have gotten over to Amsterdam, but man things just flow there, the bikes get their own lanes, their own traffic lights, really enjoyed being a casual rider there and I felt 100% safe. Unlike this place with motorists who think they can drive but really can't.

 

[Mayne]

I'm a cyclist and my fellow bikers piss me off.

 

[Ns1]

Don't know if you have gotten over to Amsterdam, but man things just flow there, the bikes get their own lanes, their own traffic lights, really enjoyed being a casual rider there and I felt 100% safe. Unlike this place with motorists who think they can drive but really can't.

dude, in India the bikes just coexist with the autoricks/motorcycles/busses/cars with no apparent problem.

Americans obviously can't drive for shit.

 

[JulesMaximus]

The question isn't using the roads and bike lanes when available, it's how they're paid for. All taxpayers regardless of whether they use the roads pay taxes towards the construction and maintenance of roads. Motor vehicle drivers use the roads and pay gasoline taxes which help support their construction and maintenance. Bicyclists use the roads (or dedicated bike lanes) and pay no use tax to help support their construction and maintenance.

Regardless of the amount of wear you feel that bicyclists inflict on roads, naturally caused hazards like potholes and debris still need to be addressed and those cost money. So either bicyclists should pay something (like the token $25 one-time fee) to help defray those costs, or they should be borne completely by the public at large in which case gasoline taxes should go away. Currently bicyclists are arguing they should be able to use the roads (and sometimes have a dedicated bike lane for their exclusive use) but pay no use taxes whatsoever.

I'm fine with the cost being borne by the public.

 

[jlee]

dude, in India the bikes just coexist with the autoricks/motorcycles/busses/cars with no apparent problem.

Americans obviously can't drive for shit.

Not sure if serious.

In 2009, India had roughly 114,000 road fatalities, and roughly 12.3 million vehicles. The fatality per vehicle in India is roughly 114/12300 = 0.0093 or roughly 0.01. For every hundred cars, there is one fatality.

For comparison, in 2007, the US had 41,000 road fatalities, and 254 million vehicles. The fatality per vehicle is .00016, or roughly 0.0002. For every ten thousand cars in the US, there are two fatalities.

 

[jlee]

I'm fine with the cost being borne by the public.

So am I - I highly doubt you'll find bicycle debris littering bike lanes. Nor will you find them creating potholes...

 

[Murloc]

Nope. All taxpayers can fund that. Bicycling should be encouraged, not discouraged and taxing it discourages using bikes as transportation.

Besides, bike lanes benefit cyclists and motorists.

I have 7 bicycles in my garage right now, some of them haven't been ridden in years. You're going to tell me I have to pay $175/year just to have them sit there? No fucking way...

This.
The contribution of cyclists through general taxes and their use of other systems is enough really.

 

[Ns1]

Not sure if serious.

I don't think those stats accurately reflect the composition of Indian traffic. In the 50 days I've been in India, I've witnessed 1 minor accident. I probably witness or see the aftermath of an accident every other day in SoCal.

Also, official government figures puts the peg on registered vehicles (including 2 wheelers) in excess of 150 million. Just a little more than your link of 12.3m.

The total number of registered motor vehicles in India increased from about 0.3 million as on 31st March, 1951 to 159.5 million as on 31st March, 2012

http://morth.nic.in/showfile.asp?lid=1131

//edit
That said, I went to the source link and concede that there are more fatalities in India vs US. Yet I cannot shake my anecdotal evidence and must believe that 1) there must be a higher rate of survivable accidents in the US which are not reflected in those stats and 2) health care in india really sucks, so I'm not surprised that more people would die from less accidents (if that were indeed the case).

 

[senseamp]

Bikes and bike parts should be tax deductible, IMO.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Don't blame cyclists for your poor life choices causing you to spend two hours everyday Commuting.

You come visit Seattle: you can't live in the city or nearby without a SERIOUS premium. Google and MS make Kirkland expensive as hell. Redmond, Bellevue, Sammamish and the likes are all super expensive because of mostly MS. Seattle has Amazon and now Apple in it (and others like F5.)

Buying a condo that's <1000sq ft is often in excess of 400,000 with ~$400 of HOA dues. Even apartments that are 500sq ft studios start at $1000 a month. So you end up living further out. And then once you've moved further out to find housing that won't leave you broke, the commute gets much longer. It'll be worse with them tolling I405's HOV lanes while making the HOV limit go from 2 to 3 people.

All of this while Redmond is the bicycle capitol of the US or something like that....when it has ZERO bike lanes. It's got the Sammamish River Trail and that's it. Major roads lack bike lanes, so you have a decent number of asshole cyclists on the roads that take up a lane, and are known to kick your car if you come "too close". I'm all for making bikes that are on public roads have license plates on them...

 

[Ns1]

Buying a condo that's <1000sq ft is often in excess of 400,000 with ~$400 of HOA dues. Even apartments that are 500sq ft studios start at $1000 a month. So you end up living further out. And then once you've moved further out to find housing that won't leave you broke, the commute gets much longer. It'll be worse with them tolling I405's HOV lanes while making the HOV limit go from 2 to 3 people.

It's easier to live in the city when you don't have a monthly car payment + insurance/gas/maintenance?

Just a thought ^_^

 

[RampantAndroid]

It's easier to live in the city when you don't have a monthly car payment + insurance/gas/maintenance?

Just a thought ^_^

Sure. Assuming of course that you have car payments, and that you never need to leave the city (or that when you do, the abysmal Seattle/King County bus service is sufficient. Or you're willing to pay >$50 to get across Lake Washington.

 

[Ns1]

Sure. Assuming of course that you have car payments, and that you never need to leave the city (or that when you do, the abysmal Seattle/King County bus service is sufficient. Or you're willing to pay >$50 to get across Lake Washington.

Uber/ZipCar/Hertz Local Edition, depending on your need


<---lives in a really expensive city and uses multiple forms of transportation. also has a < 15 minute commute to work.

 

[flexy]

The US is so broke now they need to look into desperate measures to build some....BIKE PATHS?

And then...you guys debate "why should I fund bike paths when I never use them?"

Do you also ask whether tax money you pay for military or gvt. is actually justified and whether "you actually benefit from it" by paying a chunk of YOUR money...for $400M fighter jets or similar?

I guess only in the US (and seriously, ONLY there)...is it possible that a "politician" makes a statement how cyclists exhaust greenhouse gases..and that individual people "are against" spending taxes because they think the spent tax doesn't benefit them.

Why pay tax so the city can build a new hospital? I am never sick!
Why spend tax so they fix the roads, I don't drive!
Why spend tax on public transportation, I have a car!
Why spend tax so we can keep our city park maintained, I never go there!
And so on...