B. Peg said:Quoted message said:"Wayne Pein" wrote:
.... bicyclists don't pay registration fees or need licenses because they
do little damage to other people, the roads, or the environment.
Oh really?
So how come you don't pay for your special little piece of tarmac?
Actually, I do. I pay taxes and fees for my cars and motorcycle, plus
other taxes that end up used for construction and maintenance of
roads. When I ride my bicycle, I'm on roads I helped pay for.
And I'm causing far less damage and expense than I do when I'm using
my other vehicles.
Quoted message said:Should it be free at the exclusion of vehicular traffic?
In my state, bikes _are_ vehicular traffic. They're defined that way
in state law. But no, I don't care to exclude motor vehicle traffic
(assuming that's what you mean). I'm competent at sharing the road,
and most drivers are. Some yahoos in cars are not, but you can't
prevent a bell curve from having a bottom tail.
Quoted message said:Why should vehicular
taxes pay for your free asphalt that impedes their travel?
'Taint free. I help pay for it. And if my presence impedes your
travel, it's likely because you're not as competent at driving as one
would hope. But again, there's that bell curve...
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Many bicyclists don't want "exclusive lanes." We're usually OK with
generously sharing a part of OUR standard lane with faster motorists.
So you have no problem riding in the middle of the road with traffic?
I certainly don't. Like Wayne, I'm no fan of bike lanes.
Quoted message said:So we don't need bicycle lanes then.
Many, many cyclists are of that opinion.
Quoted message said:Give them back to those who did pay for them and could use them.
You're misinformed about the issue of paying for them, but I'm willing
to give them up.
Quoted message said:I hope by "generously sharing" you weren't
referring to bicyclists who ride side-by-side and take up the entire rural
byways.
In actual fact, that is generally legal. Read the state laws, or the
Uniform Vehicle Code. Most states specifically permit two-abreast
riding. And it is sometimes necessary for a cyclist to take a lane,
for reasons many motorists don't comprehend.
One difficulty cyclists have is that there are too many people who
think they know all about how it should be done, but who actually are
- well, the bottom of yet another bell curve. Cyclists you think of
as rude may simply be careful, and reacting to situations you're not
even dimly aware of.
Of course, it _is_ possible some cyclists are just rude. But
motorists are hardly innocent of that!
Quoted message said:Sorry, but you seem more inept at understanding your selfish demands on road
usage and encroach into the lanes of those who do pay for their use. As it
is, you pay nothing for something that costs a lot to maintain and build.
Sorry, but you seem to be inept at understanding the relevant laws,
and the reasons cyclist sometimes must be in your precious way, as
well as the economics of road and traffic expense.
Quoted message said:I agree that the debris problem comes from their lack of usage - which could
be put to better use for traffic flow and parking. If you want it clean, why
not pay for it? It shouldn't be paid out of the pockets of those who don't
or cannot use a bicycle.
If you're talking about debris in bike lanes, I don't want to clean
them, because I don't want bike lanes at all, at least in any
situation I've encountered. Take that issue up with a bike lane fan.
Quoted message said:I wouldn't have a problem with bicycles paying a license fee in states where
they wish to have exclusive lanes or paved trails. Might even serve to help
locate lost or stolen bikes as well. Would you be opposed to paying a $100
year for a license/sticker like dirt bikers who don't use the tarmac?
Hell yes. It would be like paying a $100 fee for a walking license.
Cyclists cause zero road damage. They require zero police enforcement
expense. They don't generate the need for expensive infrastructure
like freeways, heavy-duty bridges, or even traffic lights. They
generate zero pollution, zero health problems. They cause nearly zero
injuries to any other road user.
If you accurately figured the true costs of your motoring, you'd
probably find you're paying a tiny fraction of it. Non-drivers are
subsidizing you.
- Frank Krygowski
