Anti-Cycling republican gets PWND

[RampantAndroid]

As a taxpayer, I pay for the roads you drive on too, and I don't own a car. But you don't hear me bitching about it.

You don't pay a gas tax. You don't have $10 tolls on certain lanes on I405 in WA (and on WA-520...and a proposed toll on I-90...and on WA-167....and the Tacoma Narrows and so on.)

I ain't paying no bike lane tax, I'll just take up the main traffic lane and ride 15mph if there is no bike path.
You suck at cycling, maybe if you didn't, you wouldn't be such a hater.

I suck at cycling because I'm not a tool wearing spandex violating rules on a trail? Putting other people (be they other cyclists, unicylists or pedestrians) at risk because of bad behavior? OK...you're the type who should be banned.

 

[Nebor]

If you ride a bicycle on the road, I hate you.

So happy that they ride them on the sidewalks here. It doesn't bother me when I'm walking, and it keeps me from going into blind rages while driving.

 

[K1052]

You don't pay a gas tax. You don't have $10 tolls on certain lanes on I405 in WA (and on WA-520...and a proposed toll on I-90...and on WA-167....and the Tacoma Narrows and so on.)

Are there cyclists on the highways?

It's clear beyond the shadow of any doubt that fuel excise taxes alone don't come close to actually paying for roads, they are supplemented by general tax revenue.

 

[Brainonska511]

You don't pay a gas tax. You don't have $10 tolls on certain lanes on I405 in WA (and on WA-520...and a proposed toll on I-90...and on WA-167....and the Tacoma Narrows and so on.)

Are there cyclists on the highways? It's clear beyond the shadow of any doubt that fuel excise taxes alone don't come close to actually paying for roads, they are supplemented by general tax revenue.

Exactly. The taxes I pay into the general revenue fund, though my income taxes and sales taxes, help pay for infrastructure that isn't even close to being fully covered by gas and vehicle taxes.

 

[glenn1]

Are there cyclists on the highways?

It's clear beyond the shadow of any doubt that fuel excise taxes alone don't come close to actually paying for roads, they are supplemented by general tax revenue.

They aren't meant to, they're a use tax just like any other. Do you think the paltry amount of revenue the state generates from other use taxes pays for those programs? For example most fishing licenses are around $25, do you think that covers the costs of game wardens, the fish and wildlife service, anti-poaching workers, etc?

If anything maybe there ought to be some licensing requirements for bicyclists who ride on public roads with a nominal pass-through cost to the license holder, this $25 one-time fee could work but I can think of plenty of other fee options. That would at least ensure riders understand the traffic laws, know basic safety rules, etc.

 

[DrPizza]

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.

Brilliant! I agree wholeheartedly. But, let's not forget, a lot of people walk on those paths. So, let's tax sneakers too!

Wait. We already do. They're called sales taxes and property taxes and income taxes and are supposed to be used for the collective good. And, the "only the people who use them should pay for them" is about as retarded as suggesting that for any other common good that the government supports. "Nope. The budget for national parks should be zero. Let them run all of the parks solely based on a fee charged to enter the park. I never went to Yellowstone. Why should my tax money support it?" "I've never visited Arlington National Cemetery. If they're going to pay someone to mow the lawn there, they should charge the descendents of the people buried there." There's no limit to the stupidity possible, which is exactly what a $25 tax on bicycles is.

 

[K1052]

They aren't meant to, they're a use tax just like any other. Do you think the paltry amount of revenue the state generates from other use taxes pays for those programs? For example most fishing licenses are around $25, do you think that covers the costs of game wardens, the fish and wildlife service, anti-poaching workers, etc?

If anything maybe there ought to be some licensing requirements for bicyclists who ride on public roads with a nominal pass-through cost to the license holder, this $25 one-time fee could work but I can think of plenty of other fee options. That would at least ensure riders understand the traffic laws, know basic safety rules, etc.

Most times cities have looked at implementing such programs the anticipated costs of administration FAR outweighed any benefits, a big reason it's never been implemented. Countries with much higher rates of cycling also don't use any such programs. If you want to create better cyclist behavior then endorse biking improvements (protected lanes, bike signals, etc) which are proven to increase safety for all modes. None of these are particularly expensive compared to most auto related projects.

Lets be honest for a second here. Most of the ranting against cyclists are motorists pissed off that they have to share the road with anybody. They just feel like they're paying too much in the first place (fuel tax, tolls, parking, etc) to give up any pavement or have regard for other modes. It's selfish and irrational but it is reality. I have no particular dog in this fight other than wishing to use a crosswalk properly without being killed by an angry person negligently guiding several thousand pounds of steel. I don't bike and really have no intention of ever doing so.

 

[senseamp]

I suck at cycling because I'm not a tool wearing spandex violating rules on a trail? Putting other people (be they other cyclists, unicylists or pedestrians) at risk because of bad behavior? OK...you're the type who should be banned.

If you are going 12 mph in the flats, you suck at cycling. Maybe spandex would help you by providing easier movement for your fat rolls when you pedal.
I don't put pedestrians at risk, since I am riding in the traffic lane, I am actually making pedestrians safer by forcing drivers behind me to drive 20mph

 

[child of wonder]

Brilliant! I agree wholeheartedly. But, let's not forget, a lot of people walk on those paths. So, let's tax sneakers too!

Wait. We already do. They're called sales taxes and property taxes and income taxes and are supposed to be used for the collective good. And, the "only the people who use them should pay for them" is about as retarded as suggesting that for any other common good that the government supports. "Nope. The budget for national parks should be zero. Let them run all of the parks solely based on a fee charged to enter the park. I never went to Yellowstone. Why should my tax money support it?" "I've never visited Arlington National Cemetery. If they're going to pay someone to mow the lawn there, they should charge the descendents of the people buried there." There's no limit to the stupidity possible, which is exactly what a $25 tax on bicycles is.

County roads and highways were built to accommodate automobile traffic, not bicycles. Unless a road has a wide shoulder, it's unsafe for bicycles and cars to share those roads. Since bicyclists want to and should be able to ride outside city limits, a license whose fee would go solely towards widening shoulders or adding bike lanes to popular and scenic county roads and highways to allow safe simultaneous automobile and bicycle usage is a reasonable approach.

Unless you're a raging bicycle jerk who makes arguments about using any road you please no matter the danger it causes and you'd be completely fine with pedestrians walking shoulder to shoulder in a bike lane created solely for the use of bikes else be labeled a hypocrite.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

County roads and highways were built to accommodate automobile traffic, not bicycles. Unless a road has a wide shoulder, it's unsafe for bicycles and cars to share those roads. Since bicyclists want to and should be able to ride outside city limits, a license whose fee would go solely towards widening shoulders or adding bike lanes to popular and scenic county roads and highways to allow safe simultaneous automobile and bicycle usage is a reasonable approach.

Unless you're a raging bicycle jerk who makes arguments about using any road you please no matter the danger it causes and you'd be completely fine with pedestrians walking shoulder to shoulder in a bike lane created solely for the use of bikes else be labeled a hypocrite.

Where I live MOST of our roads are exactly that, and if there is oncoming traffic I have to slow down from 55+ to whatever the cyclist is doing and wait :twisted: And a short distance later, I encounter another cyclist :twisted::twisted:
I often wonder, why the hell are these people OUT HERE? Williamsburg, and the surrounding counties have constructed, and maintain THREE THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED, SEVENTY ONE bike lanes, trails, and course's, encompassing over ONE THOUSAND MILES. When I feel like riding my bicycle, this is where I go.

 

[Ns1]

County roads and highways were built to accommodate automobile traffic, not bicycles. Unless a road has a wide shoulder, it's unsafe for bicycles and cars to share those roads.

ITT: Americans who can't drive.


I was in another country and saw a chariot being drawn by 2 horses galloping full speed (45km/h+) on the freeway, next to big rigs, cars, motorcycles, and bicycles. Learn to drive noob Americans.

 

[hal2kilo]

A real amercan drives alone in the biggest gas guzzler on the market.

Silly communist green public transportation fools.

 

[RampantAndroid]

ITT: Americans who can't drive.


I was in another country and saw a chariot being drawn by 2 horses galloping full speed (45km/h+) on the freeway, next to big rigs, cars, motorcycles, and bicycles. Learn to drive noob Americans.

And it's in these same countries where an ambulance takes an hour to arrive.

 

[Ns1]

And it's in these same countries where an ambulance takes an hour to arrive.

I guess americans need instant ambulance access cuz they clearly can't drive.

 

[Phanuel]

I guess americans need instant ambulance access cuz they clearly can't drive.

Well, we are all constantly between heart attacks (fat hate here). So in a way, yes we do need instant ambulances.

 

[MrPickins]

If you are going 12 mph in the flats, you suck at cycling. Maybe spandex would help you by providing easier movement for your fat rolls when you pedal.
I don't put pedestrians at risk, since I am riding in the traffic lane, I am actually making pedestrians safer by forcing drivers behind me to drive 20mph

If you actually believe that then you're a moron.

If anything you're creating more danger by impeding traffic.

 

[RampantAndroid]

I guess americans need instant ambulance access cuz they clearly can't drive.

Huh? I really hope you're just trolling. I suggest you look up some videos on ambulances in places like India and China, where NO ONE moves to the side of the road.

 

[Ns1]

Huh? I really hope you're just trolling. I suggest you look up some videos on ambulances in places like India and China, where NO ONE moves to the side of the road.

Which is a separate issue from needing an ambulance because Americans can't drive.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Which is a separate issue from needing an ambulance because Americans can't drive.

Yeah, because "Oh fuck I broke my arm and the bone is sticking out" is totally when you need to hopping into a car. Or you know, when you've been in a car accident and are pinned inside the car.

The vast majority of people who need to be in the ER are not in a condition to drive. I really don't care if India has horses, mopeds and cars all on the same roads. The speed limits in the US (and much of the west) are much higher (and the US is generally more sprawled out).

The idea of having bicycles blocking off (and at times jumping in front of) 2 ton vehicles is just insane. I don't know that I've seen it for bicycles, but I know that the last time I saw the statistics for pedestrian deaths involving motor vehicles, peds were at fault >50% of the time. I suspect the same will likely be true to cyclists.

 

[RampantAndroid]

If you are going 12 mph in the flats, you suck at cycling. Maybe spandex would help you by providing easier movement for your fat rolls when you pedal.
I don't put pedestrians at risk, since I am riding in the traffic lane, I am actually making pedestrians safer by forcing drivers behind me to drive 20mph

If you'd actually have read my post, you'd see that my 12MPH was referring to being on a trail. The Burke Gilman in Seattle, the Sammamish River Trail in Redmond/Woodinville and the likes. These trails - for use by pedestrians and bicycles only - have posted limits of 15MPH. You're also required to notify that you're passing someone (which *NONE* of the cyclists do when they're zipping past you doing close to or more than double the posted limit.)

I like how you assume I'm fat or something. Clearly anyone who doesn't think all cyclists are fucking angels MUST be obese, right?

 

[Ns1]

The idea of having bicycles blocking off (and at times jumping in front of) 2 ton vehicles is just insane.

Pretty much works everywhere outside of the US.

 

[senseamp]

If you'd actually have read my post, you'd see that my 12MPH was referring to being on a trail. The Burke Gilman in Seattle, the Sammamish River Trail in Redmond/Woodinville and the likes. These trails - for use by pedestrians and bicycles only - have posted limits of 15MPH. You're also required to notify that you're passing someone (which *NONE* of the cyclists do when they're zipping past you doing close to or more than double the posted limit.)

I like how you assume I'm fat or something. Clearly anyone who doesn't think all cyclists are fucking angels MUST be obese, right?

Sounds like the problem is they allow pedestrians on those trails.

 

[Darwin333]

To be fair, cyclists might use current road infrastructure but they damn sure don't add any significant wear and tear like cars do.

Personally I'm not a huge fan of cyclists but for the most part they are ok around here. They seem to have a few more assholes in the group than would be expected but not by any huge margin.

Question: When there is a wide open sidewalk why the hell do some cyclists insist on riding on the side of the road a few short feet from my mirror as I pass them at 5 times their speed?

 

[Darwin333]

Sounds like the problem is they allow pedestrians on those trails.

So the problem isn't the people breaking the speed limit, the problem is those that are not?

If I'm doing 120mph down the interstate it's the asshole in the semi doing 70mph that I cut off and then causes an accident who is at fault?

 

[RampantAndroid]

Sounds like the problem is they allow pedestrians on those trails.

So basically you're on of the asshole cyclists I complained about in an earlier post. "I'M BETTER THAN YOU MOVE OUT OF MY WAY DAMMIT!"

The trail is there for use by EVERYONE. Slow cyclists (even unicyclists), pedestrians, kids and whatever else. Obey the rules of the trail or get the fuck off the trail.