Should you get a Free (Bicycle) Ride?



D

DonQuijote1954

Guest
> Bicycle riders should have to pay a tax or a toll to ride on the
> streets and roadway paid by liquid fuel taxes. The money should
> then be used to build cycle roadways. EVERYONE would benefit.
> Unfortunately bicycle riders want to continue to ride for free.
> It the American way I guess, to believe the government should tax
> someone else for the things you want for free.

Propose something absurd, make sure nothing is ever done about it.

We live in a society and must be some things that make life
pleasurable: arts, parks, bike routes... Or you want people to pay for
their own parks too?

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
 
"DonQuijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Bicycle riders should have to pay a tax or a toll to ride on the
> > streets and roadway paid by liquid fuel taxes. The money should
> > then be used to build cycle roadways. EVERYONE would benefit.
> > Unfortunately bicycle riders want to continue to ride for free.
> > It the American way I guess, to believe the government should tax
> > someone else for the things you want for free.

I remember, fifteen or twenty years ago, some state in the midwest
(Wisconsin? Michigan?) introduced a statewide bike registration
scheme. With great fanfare the scheme was pronounced a success,
unlike similar schemes that had gone before. the sole criterion for
success was that it has taken in 9somewhat) more money than it cost
to administer.

There already are four million miles of cycle roadways in the USA.
People have been building them since long before the bike was
invented.

Jeremy Parker
 
DonQuijote1954 wrote:
> Propose something absurd, make sure nothing is ever done about it.
>
> We live in a society and must be some things that make life
> pleasurable: arts, parks, bike routes... Or you want people to pay for
> their own parks too?

Yes. The money used to build/maintain those types of things ("art", parks,
bike routes) should come directly from the people that most use them and
benefit from them, not from 'everyone'. If we do this, then it takes the
decision on how to disburse general funds away from the politicians, and
puts it back into the hands of the very people that want them. In case you
haven't noticed, allowing politicians to decided when and how money is spent
is usually a Very Bad Thing (tm).

Make the users pay. That way, who benefits from it, pays for it. Artists
pay for art, park goers pay for parks, bicyclists pay for bike routes.
Takes the politics completely out of those decisions, and that's always a
good thing. If there aren't enough users to support a particular
activity/thing, than so be it. That way, the majority of the people will
decide what's worth paying for and what's not by the direct application of
their dollars, not the lobbys or the political parties deciding for us.

Regards,
H.
 
HardwareLust wrote:

> DonQuijote1954 wrote:
>> Propose something absurd, make sure nothing is ever done about it.
>>
>> We live in a society and must be some things that make life
>> pleasurable: arts, parks, bike routes... Or you want people to pay for
>> their own parks too?
>
> Yes. The money used to build/maintain those types of things ("art",
> parks, bike routes) should come directly from the people that most use
> them and
> benefit from them, not from 'everyone'. If we do this, then it takes the
> decision on how to disburse general funds away from the politicians, and
> puts it back into the hands of the very people that want them. In case
> you haven't noticed, allowing politicians to decided when and how money is
> spent is usually a Very Bad Thing (tm).
>
> Make the users pay. That way, who benefits from it, pays for it. Artists
> pay for art, park goers pay for parks, bicyclists pay for bike routes.
> Takes the politics completely out of those decisions, and that's always a
> good thing. If there aren't enough users to support a particular
> activity/thing, than so be it. That way, the majority of the people will
> decide what's worth paying for and what's not by the direct application of
> their dollars, not the lobbys or the political parties deciding for us.

When you get done building the tollbooth on the sidewalk in front of your
house, take some pictures and post them on the internet. I'm sure many
people would love to see what you've come up with. If need be I'd be more
than happy to help defray the cost of the images and webhosting.
 
In article <[email protected]>, HardwareLust wrote:

> Yes. The money used to build/maintain those types of things ("art", parks,
> bike routes) should come directly from the people that most use them and
> benefit from them, not from 'everyone'. If we do this, then it takes the
> decision on how to disburse general funds away from the politicians, and
> puts it back into the hands of the very people that want them. In case you
> haven't noticed, allowing politicians to decided when and how money is spent
> is usually a Very Bad Thing (tm).

Bicyclists pay more than their fair share of taxes. For instance,
I own more than one property I pay real estate taxes on, I also
pay sales tax, income tax, etc and so on which in some portion
end up in the road system. I also own motor vehicles and pay
all the taxes associated with them. When I use a bicycle, I cannot
use my cars. Thusly, the more I use my bicycle the more I subsidize
other drivers as the taxes I pay greatly exceed the wear and tear
done by my bicycle use.
 
Bonehenge wrote:
>
> I don't have kids, and I won't have kids, so why am I paying for
> schools?

So that years from now when you're in a nursing home and one of those kids
is an orderly, he'll be able to read the label on your heart medication
bottle and realize it's actually Martha's progesterone.

Mark
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bonehenge <[email protected]> writes:
> On 22 Jul 2004 10:24:26 -0700, [email protected]
> (DonQuijote1954) wrote:
>
>
>>> Unfortunately bicycle riders want to continue to ride for free.
>>> It the American way I guess, to believe the government should tax
>>> someone else for the things you want for free.
>
> I already pay income taxes, large property taxes, and I paid sales tax
> on the bike.
>
> I don't have kids, and I won't have kids, so why am I paying for
> schools? <G> Oh that's right, it's the American way!

Transportational cycling is not as "free" as some people
think it is anyways. It's less expensive than driving,
but it's also comensurately less luxurious. At the most
basic level, cycling costs real, physical work, just to
make the bicycle go.

It also imposes much less hazard to the general public,
inflicts much less damage to the environment (and to all
those roads & streets which are paid-for out of general
revenue,) and doesn't induce businesses to waste huge
tracts of otherwise useful urban real estate just for
parking. And cycling helps keep health care costs down,
and it relieves traffic congestion caused by bigger,
fatter vehicles.

Transportational cycling is good for The Economy, and
as such it should be encouraged -- not discouraged
with tired old, lame, specious arguments.

Fortunately, in an ever-increasing number of enlightened
urban centres, it /is/ being encouraged, much to the
chagrine of many indignant, anti-cyling drivers who
want to hog the roads for themselves exclusively, and
who cook up these inane proposals toward that end.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bonehenge <[email protected]> writes:
> > On 22 Jul 2004 10:24:26 -0700, [email protected]
> > (DonQuijote1954) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> Unfortunately bicycle riders want to continue to ride for free.
> >>> It the American way I guess, to believe the government should tax
> >>> someone else for the things you want for free.
> >
> > I already pay income taxes, large property taxes, and I paid sales tax
> > on the bike.
> >
> > I don't have kids, and I won't have kids, so why am I paying for
> > schools? <G> Oh that's right, it's the American way!
>
> Transportational cycling is not as "free" as some people
> think it is anyways. It's less expensive than driving,
> but it's also comensurately less luxurious. At the most
> basic level, cycling costs real, physical work, just to
> make the bicycle go.

The efficiency of the motor/engine is a discussion that will never be
settled to anyone's satisfaction. One side says that the cheese and
pepperoni on the pizza fuel is a massive global warming source. The
other side says much of those food calories would be processed
regardless of transport modality. I stand somewhere in that great gray
foggy middle ground of no man's land and expect to be shot at from both
sides as a consequence.

People are lousy thermodynamic work mechanisms. When a Metrolink train
idles overnight at an exurban siding awaiting the morning commute crowd
it is considered a point source polluter. When the bicycles' primary
motovator goes to sleep spewing CO2 and reactive halogens and various
VOCs nobody complains near as much.

Likewise noone seems particularly interested in the energy and
environmental and social costs of rare element extraction and
refinement. The more we learn the more we worry about Cadmium and
others. Don't even get me started on the gaseous exothermric byproducts
of composite component manufacture.
>
> It also imposes much less hazard to the general public,
> inflicts much less damage to the environment (and to all
> those roads & streets which are paid-for out of general
> revenue,) and doesn't induce businesses to waste huge
> tracts of otherwise useful urban real estate just for
> parking. And cycling helps keep health care costs down,
> and it relieves traffic congestion caused by bigger,
> fatter vehicles.
>
> Transportational cycling is good for The Economy, and
> as such it should be encouraged -- not discouraged
> with tired old, lame, specious arguments.
>
> Fortunately, in an ever-increasing number of enlightened
> urban centres, it /is/ being encouraged, much to the
> chagrine of many indignant, anti-cyling drivers who
> want to hog the roads for themselves exclusively, and
> who cook up these inane proposals toward that end.

Yawn. It ain't that simple. Nor anywhere near that equitable. Cycling
has negative and positive externalities that defy these types of rote
simplistic advocacy reitterations.

In one respect bicycle preferential public policy is one of two things;
Anti-disabled legislation or productivity super-surtaxation.
 
When your house catches fire, start building a fire engine.

But, seriously: It is supposed to average out. Some people use the roads
more--others may use the parks, or the public health services, etc. If we
tried to account for the individual use of every public facility, more would
be spent on tracking and book keeping, to the end that we would ALL be far
worse off.

The image of a toll booth on the sidewalk in front of each house says it
all.
 
"HardwareLust" <[email protected]> writes:

> Yes. The money used to build/maintain those types of things ("art",
> parks, bike routes) should come directly from the people that most
> use them and benefit from them, not from 'everyone'. If we do this,
> then it takes the decision on how to disburse general funds away
> from the politicians, and puts it back into the hands of the very
> people that want them. In case you haven't noticed, allowing
> politicians to decided when and how money is spent is usually a Very
> Bad Thing (tm).

Yeah, they keep paying George W. Bush's salary. I hate when that
happens.

> Make the users pay. That way, who benefits from it, pays for it.
> Artists pay for art, park goers pay for parks, bicyclists pay for
> bike routes. Takes the politics completely out of those decisions,
> and that's always a good thing. If there aren't enough users to
> support a particular activity/thing, than so be it. That way, the
> majority of the people will decide what's worth paying for and
> what's not by the direct application of their dollars, not the
> lobbys or the political parties deciding for us.

You don't have much of a grasp of representational democracy and
Consitutional government, apparently. Were you asleep in Civics
class, or was that cut from the curriculum in your school to save
money? You also don't seem to actually know how your roads are funded
nor where the money comes from.

I do pay to use the roads. I own three cars and pay all the taxes
associated with those. I have a job and pay income tax into the
general funds at the state and federal levels, which in turn is
apportioned to pay for roads. I own a house and pay assessments on my
property tax for roads. So, I pay just as much as you do and quite
possibly more. I just happen to apportion some of my road use to my
bicycles rather than my cars.

Of course, you're welcome to make all roads into toll roads. The most
logical thing would be to charge users according to the weight of
their vehicles, since heavier vehicles do more damage. Hummer drivers
should pay more than Geo Metro drivers, both of whom pay more than
bicyclists who don't weigh enough to cause any damage to the roads.
 
DonQuijote1954 wrote:
>>Bicycle riders should have to pay a tax or a toll to ride on the
>>streets and roadway paid by liquid fuel taxes. The money should
>>then be used to build cycle roadways. EVERYONE would benefit.
>>Unfortunately bicycle riders want to continue to ride for free.
>>It the American way I guess, to believe the government should tax
>>someone else for the things you want for free.
>
>
> Propose something absurd, make sure nothing is ever done about it.
>
> We live in a society and must be some things that make life
> pleasurable: arts, parks, bike routes... Or you want people to pay for
> their own parks too?
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

Let's see:

Cyclists reduce the following:
traffic
pollution
wear on the roads
health expenses funded by the state or businesses through benefits
fuel consumption
greenhouse gasses

and this is just a small part of the list. I think, actually, we are
underpaid and tax money should go directly to us.

Of course, if you've been around long enough, you will not that DimDon
here posts this at least once a year on the newsgroup just to rile us
up. Don't reply. Also, note the crossposting. If you seriously want to
discuss this issue, remove the rec.autos.driving and alt.planning.urban
newsgroups from your reply or we'll have the same garbage being posted
from the same cerebral deficients as posted this.

Rick
 
"HardwareLust" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> DonQuijote1954 wrote:
> > Propose something absurd, make sure nothing is ever done about it.
> >
> > We live in a society and must be some things that make life
> > pleasurable: arts, parks, bike routes... Or you want people to pay for
> > their own parks too?
>
> Yes. The money used to build/maintain those types of things ("art", parks,
> bike routes) should come directly from the people that most use them and
> benefit from them, not from 'everyone'. If we do this, then it takes the
> decision on how to disburse general funds away from the politicians, and
> puts it back into the hands of the very people that want them. In case you
> haven't noticed, allowing politicians to decided when and how money is spent
> is usually a Very Bad Thing (tm).
>
> Make the users pay. That way, who benefits from it, pays for it. Artists
> pay for art, park goers pay for parks, bicyclists pay for bike routes.
> Takes the politics completely out of those decisions, and that's always a
> good thing. If there aren't enough users to support a particular
> activity/thing, than so be it. That way, the majority of the people will
> decide what's worth paying for and what's not by the direct application of
> their dollars, not the lobbys or the political parties deciding for us.

You know, I kind of noticed that. Actually I think we should also take
away war away from them. Though Americans are ONLY concerned about
social projects... :(

SOMEBODY EVER SAID OUR REPRESENTATIVES WERE 'THE' PEOPLE? ;)
 
> > > > Go to Key West... It's very nice. And you will see happening some
> > > > stuff nearly missing in America: OPTIONS. They got bicycles, scooters,
> > > > minibuses, electrical cars--and respect for each other.
> > >
> > > They also have: WEATHER.
> >
> > Right, and Amsterdam got palm trees and a sunny beach... ;)
>
> You mentioned Key West, not Amsterdam.

Amsterdam and most European cities do offer transportation CHOICES
even though their weather is not exactly "balmy." Copenhagen has 300
miles of bike lanes and plans to have them on ALL the major streets.
>
> > Just look at much Americans enjoy themselves when they get to "free"
> > territory. They rent scooter, bicycles, electric vehicles because they
> > are SAFE.
>
> What does that have to do with it?

Well, when you have RESPECT from others, people come out and ride a
bicycle, scooters, etc. Also it helps that many roads in Key West got
bicycle lanes. All in all, a good model for America...
 
> > Because I say it's okay. My property taxes paid (in part) for the roads in
> > my city. I don't mind letting them use my fair share of the roadway.
> >
> > Mark


> Then you will not mind of the neighborhood kids play in your yard
> and swim in your pool. ;)

What do you have around your house, electric fence? ;)
 
> Fortunately, in an ever-increasing number of enlightened
> urban centres, it /is/ being encouraged, much to the
> chagrine of many indignant, anti-cyling drivers who
> want to hog the roads for themselves exclusively, and
> who cook up these inane proposals toward that end.

Not everywhere...

http://www.leedscyclists.org.uk/transport_news6.htm
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (DonQuijote1954) wrote:

>> Bicycle riders should have to pay a tax or a toll to ride on the
>> streets and roadway paid by liquid fuel taxes. The money should
>> then be used to build cycle roadways. EVERYONE would benefit.
>> Unfortunately bicycle riders want to continue to ride for free.
>> It the American way I guess, to believe the government should tax
>> someone else for the things you want for free.
>
>Propose something absurd, make sure nothing is ever done about it.
>
>We live in a society and must be some things that make life
>pleasurable: arts, parks, bike routes... Or you want people to pay for
>their own parks too?


That would be the ethical thing to do, but I see you're all thoroughly
committed to *robbery*.

--
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

Drug smugglers and gun-runners are heroes of American capitalism.
-- Jeffrey Quick
 
>>> Unfortunately bicycle riders want to continue to ride for free.
>>> It the American way I guess, to believe the government should tax
>>> someone else for the things you want for free.


Your position here is: "The government is stealing from me, therefore I
think it ought to steal from you too!"

--
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

Drug smugglers and gun-runners are heroes of American capitalism.
-- Jeffrey Quick
 
"HardwareLust" <[email protected]> wrote:

[Love the handle, btw: "All hail the Great Feast of Ostentatious
Consumption!" -- Billy Beck.]

>The money used to build/maintain those types of things ("art", parks,
>bike routes) should come directly from the people that most use them and
>benefit from them, not from 'everyone'. If we do this, then it takes the
>decision on how to disburse general funds away from the politicians, and
>puts it back into the hands of the very people that want them.


And that, of course, is what is called a "market".

Governments are the antithesis of markets.

--
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

Drug smugglers and gun-runners are heroes of American capitalism.
-- Jeffrey Quick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back