Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Who Pays for our Roads?

0patience0patience Member Posts: 1,712
Steve suggested that a new topic be started for this. So, here goes.

Why are motorists paying for bicycle paths?
Bicycles pay no registration, no license and more importantly, no insurance.

They pay no fuel tax, no road tax and no mileage taxes. Bicycles get a completely free ride and force states to make them special roads, lanes or designated areas for them.

Bicyclists are exempt from insurance, because they are not motorized? Seems wrong to me. ALL vehicles, motorized or not, that use the roadways, should be required to have insurance on them.

Now many will say that bicycles allow some people to commute to work and cut down on emissions when they do that. I will buy that.
I see where bicycle paths and lanes in cities are worth having. I have no argument there.

But...........
Why is the tax paying (heavily taxed, mind you) for bicycle roads, paths and lanes in "scenic" byways? As far as I am concerned, that is a tourist industry thing and the tourist/travel industry should be paying for that, not the general motorist public.

Where I live, the brilliant state uses fuel tax dollars to build bicycle lanes on the highways. One highway is a busy coast highway, that is in severe need of repair, but the legislators see a better use of the money in putting in bike lanes on the edge of the highway. Brilliant.
This puts the motorist and bicyclist in harms way.

So who pays for these paths? Motorists.
Is that fair to the motorists? Nope. Not at all.
My opinion, when bikes pay a registration and license, then give them all the bike paths they want. Until then, I'm not too keen on my tax dollars going to them.

Anyway, that's my opinion on this subject.
Oh, by the way, if this isn't in the right category, can someone move it?
Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Special use roads, trails, paths and lanes are becoming more common everywhere. It seems more like welfare to me. Then I have always been against tax expenditures for anything other than what it was originally collected for. Maybe the cities should impose a special tax on bicycles when they are sold. Say $100 to be put in the bike trail fund. It should not come from gas tax.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    Absolutely!!!! Fuel tax for FUELED VEHICLE ISSUES ONLY!!!!

    Not to mention, when was the last time you saw a cyclist OBEY THE TRAFFIC LAWS????? They are pompous and arrogant.
  • nonjth13nonjth13 Member Posts: 91
    Well, I dislike bicylists who insist on riding the white line when there is an adequate shoulder more than most. I also like to ride a bicycle to do errands when I can. Helps save the world and all that. In my locality, most local roads don't even have an adequate shoulder on which to ride so I am forced to drive as I refuse to argue with a 2 ton motorized vehicle. I can see no reason not to use transportation funds to construct bike lanes. They cost almost nothing during a road rebuild. If bike lanes were universally available then maybe the ludicrous laws that give bicycles the same right to a busy road as automobiles could be changed. Arrogant bicyclists are another kettle of fish altogether.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    Up in WA, the fuel taxes are already diverted to the state's freakin ferry system which only benefits the Peoples Republic of Puget Sound. :sick:
  • john500john500 Member Posts: 409
    Cancel the ethanol subsidy and apply all of that money to paving bicycle trails. Take away the tax credit on hybrid vehicles and apply the debit towards bicycle trails. Cancel the government funding for oil research and apply it to bicycle trails. With the leftover money, free healthcare for all. New taxes are not required. Getting rid of even a small portion of the current corruption will subsidize it. I think I heard Gagrice mention this on another thread. The bike trails are NOT to be placed in a state park (which would encourage a person to DRIVE to a park and then ride a bicycle for leisure to the middle of nowhere). The bike trails are to be placed in heavy traffic areas to relieve car congestion to and from work and shopping areas.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    Socialistic ideas are fine in China, but here the internal combustion engine and the vehicle is to be raised up, honored, and provided for by laying more concrete for more highways and byways. Going back to bikes is not progress. :P
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Is that Joni Mitchell I hear playing in the background? ;)
  • john500john500 Member Posts: 409
    You can do that nonsense WITHOUT my taxpayer money. I'm half tempted to cancel all of my income earning endeavors and live strictly off the principal to prevent the moronic expenditure of my money on junk such as roads and bridges that last 10 years.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    In phoenix, bike paths are mostly just a "part of the road." Very little extra money is spent maintaining them, other than a painted stripe.

    Most bikers have cars also, which they drive. So they pay their part via the costs associated with driving their car and insuring it and paying fuel taxes.

    How many people in the USA use bikes ONLY and do not have a car?

    My guess is not very darn many.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    near my house that runs on an old railroad right-of-way. It's maintained by Maryland National Park and Planning. Which gets its funding mainly from property taxes, I think. So I'm paying for that trail whether I use it or not. And I'd also be paying for that trail if I quit driving!

    The only way I could get out of paying for that trail would be to sell my house and become a renter!
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    There were huge bike path arguments when I lived in Anchorage in the 80's. Lots of miles of them got built in spite of the naysayers.

    A year or two after the paved trails went in, all these old guys who moaned and groaned about wasting money on them started writing mea culpas to the newspaper. Seems that as they had their heart attacks, they were spending an hour a day walking on doctor's orders. After a few trips trying to walk along busy roads, they figured out that bike paths were a much preferred alternative.

    Then everyone figured out that having close access to a bike path increased their property values and helped their houses sell faster.

    And they turned into a big tourist attraction too.

    Bike commuters often prefer the surface streets because that can be more direct and faster.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    A year or two after the paved trails went in, all these old guys who moaned and groaned about wasting money on them started writing mea culpas to the newspaper. Seems that as they had their heart attacks, they were spending an hour a day walking on doctor's orders. After a few trips trying to walk along busy roads, they figured out that bike paths were a much preferred alternative.

    I'll admit that I use our bike path sometimes, so I do get some enjoyment out of it. Sometimes I wish it actually WENT somewhere, but it doesn't. Unless you want to go to the Patuxent River on one end, or Glenn Dale Hospital at the other end. There also aren't very many access points to the trail...just one parking area near the Patuxent and another one behind Glenn Dale Hospital.

    But, I guess if nothing else, the lack of accessibility and the fact that it's useless for commuting makes means that it's usually not very crowded, so it's more enjoyable for the few that do use it.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    Having been an orchestra conductor, the artist you were hearing from my MBQuart speakers was Wagner followed by
    Beethoven.

    Joni has been great in Canada, but today is a better Grandma. ;)
  • 0patience0patience Member Posts: 1,712
    In phoenix, bike paths are mostly just a "part of the road." Very little extra money is spent maintaining them, other than a painted stripe.
    Actually, you would be surprised to know that they aren't just part of the road and they cost quite a bit to maintain.

    Most secondary highways are not required to have extensive shoulders, meaning that the pavement isn't required to extend very far past the fog line.
    With the advent of bicycle lanes, they require specified widths of the bike lanes, which is an added cost.
    Then there is the maintenance of the bike lanes, like sweeping them (liability concerns mean the bike paths MUST stay clean or someone will sue the state when their tiny tires slip on gravel. Yes, it has happened.), patching them (which normally the shoulders aren't patched) and sending crews out every time there is a bicyclist complaint to check the condition of the bike lane.

    Most bikers have cars also, which they drive. So they pay their part via the costs associated with driving their car and insuring it and paying fuel taxes.
    I gotta disagree.
    In most states (I can't say all, cause I haven't checked on all states) pay their "fair share" when they use their vehicles.
    That amount barely covers the costs of road maintenance only. The fuel taxes were never meant to cover bike lanes.
    Most states have tried to get increases on fuel taxes to cover bike lane costs, but most have been voted down.

    And since you brought up insurance, you know who covered my vehicle when a bicyclist hit my truck and crunched the door?
    It was parked, by the way. My insurance.
    Because bikes don't have insurance, my only recourse was to file a civil suit to try and recoup my money.

    But, don't take my word for it, contact your local highway dept and ask them where the funds go.
    I wish everyone would ask where the funds go. You will be surprised.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Well, I stand by my statement that most bikers own and maintain a car and pay their fair share in that way. I don't know nor have I ever in 44 years on Earf known an adult who has A) a real job and B)only a bicycle for transportation. I am of course not saying it does not happen - I am saying that the percentage of bicyclists who use road-side bike lanes and who also drive a car is obviously VERY high.

    After a brief search of bicycle path costs on Google, it does appear they cost a lot to build but I can find nothing that shows they cost a lot to maintain.

    The cost to build could not possibly be passed on to bikers - that would mean thousands of dollars per biker to even make a dent in the cost of building them. That would be non-doable.

    Still looking for stories or data which state the cost to maintain already-built bike lanes.........
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    My 56 year old sister is a college professor in Seattle. She has never owned a car. Rides her bike rain or shine, mostly rain. Has done so since she started college in Seattle. Spent two 1 year tours teaching in China and rode a bike there also. I cannot believe she is the only one.

    I will say it is a GOOD way to save money. I know she now lives on a very nice boat with her husband.

    The bike paths in Anchorage as mentioned by Steve are mainly for pleasure. I think they are probably funded by high property tax and oil revenue.

    As we get more and more free services someone has to pay. You don't want people riding the bus to pay. You don't want people on bikes to pay. Just who do you think should pay?
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    I did not say the number of people who owned a bike but did not drive a car was ZERO. I said "the percentage of bike riders who use a road-side bike lane AND do not own a car is very low."

    And I'd stake my life on that being a fact.

    When did I say anything about people riding a bus not paying for anything?

    And I just got through saying that people who ONLY ride a bike could not possibly afford to come anywhere CLOSE to paying it.

    What do you think the alternatives are? Eliminate bike lanes?
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I have a relative in Seattle who has never owned a car - never even have a license afaik, and he's about the same age as your sister. He used to bike a lot but now mostly walks and takes public transit. He also managed that same trick in San Diego for many years.

    The property taxes in Anchorage are about the same as here in Boise unless they've soared since we left 7 years ago. The oil revenues were probably key, unless the paths were one of Uncle Ted's earmarks. :P I lived close to Cal Worthington Ford and would ride the Chester Creek bike path to town a lot. Nice for XC skiing all winter too. It got a lot of use.
  • ggurr54ggurr54 Member Posts: 30
    get off your fat butt and ride somewhere and maybe you could do something about that rage your feeling. I ride, I drive and I much prefer the common sense of people who do both. They seem much more rooted in reality.
  • 0patience0patience Member Posts: 1,712
    get off your fat butt and ride somewhere and maybe you could do something about that rage your feeling. I ride, I drive and I much prefer the common sense of people who do both. They seem much more rooted in reality.
    Your post was way out of line.

    You have no idea who I am or the shape I am in.
    You post shows you have no common sense.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I was only pointing out that there are people that only use a bike or public transport. I do believe you have advocated public funds to subsidize mass transit. Am I wrong there?

    And I just got through saying that people who ONLY ride a bike could not possibly afford to come anywhere CLOSE to paying it.

    And why not? They have little or no transportation expenses. Why not a fat license fee on bicycles? It is just another form of transportation. I hope you have a license on your Segway......
  • im_brentwoodim_brentwood Member Posts: 4,883
    How many people in the USA use bikes ONLY and do not have a car?

    My guess is not very darn many.


    Millions and millions of people do!

    They are called Children.
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    Well then we should tax those darn children they have been getting a free ride long enough. :P

    This topic is stupid.

    Bike paths are good and I see no problem with using some of the highway funds to pay for them assuming they actually go somewhere. If they are just for tourism, parks or recreation then they should come out of the state/national parks budget.
  • 0patience0patience Member Posts: 1,712
    How is this topic stupid?

    Why should I pay for a bunch of yuppy, save the world radicalist to ride their $3,000 bikes on the highway, where the highway is in pathetic shape, but they have great bike lanes that they DIDN'T pay for. The tax dollars I pay go to those lanes.
    I'm not talking about the average Joe who rides a bicycle for recreation, I am talking about the ones who push the "we need everything for bikes" deals.

    If bicyclists want special lanes, then they should have to pay license fees, insurance and taxes. Plain and simple.

    The problem with this world is everyone expects a free ride.
    They expect that they should get something on someone else's dime, which is pathetic. Make them pay their fair share.
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    Why should I pay for a bunch of yuppy, save the world radicalist to ride their $3,000 bikes on the highway

    Ehh after that your argument just kind of fell apart.

    You don't have much experience making yourself understood without yelling, screaming and generally shouting down the opposition do you?

    If you want people to listen to you then I would start off NOT, key word there, insulting people.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    The property taxes in Anchorage are about the same as here in Boise

    I know my partner in Anchorage pays a lot more property tax than we do in San Diego. Then he does not have sales tax of about 8% and auto license that is out of sight. No income tax that CA has. So maybe he is doing OK.

    The one bad thing about the trails in Anchorage is many are rather remote from the highways. Several rapes, robberies and murders have occurred on the bike trails. Kind of scary to let your children use them.
  • 0patience0patience Member Posts: 1,712
    Uh, first off, I wasn't yelling.
    Secondly, I call them like I see them.
    Most of the people riding on the highways are the same people who drive SUVs (like landrovers), scream about global warming and want the world to change to suit their needs.
    So yes, they are yuppies, they want to save the world, as long as it doesn't affect their ways of life and they are radicalists.

    You don't have much experience making yourself understood without yelling, screaming and generally shouting down the opposition do you?
    You don't know much about me if you think that.
    Not like I care, but I am curious how you get the yelling and screaming from written words, that one confuses me.
    I guess the words just scream at you or jump off the page at you? :confuse:
    Interesting how most of your posts are ones where you try and stir things up. Seems to me, you are the one who does most the insulting.
  • gussguss Member Posts: 1,167
    Wow, can you promote anymore stereotypes about people using bike paths.

    I use the rails to trails around me and I am sure I don't qualify as a yuppy,a radicalist(can you even be both?)and I got my bike on e-bay for way less than $3,000.

    The old train bed they converted to a bike path actually is used for commuting because it parallels a mayor highway and river. It just does not happen to be near where I work. So I use it mainly for trying to get my fat butt in shape and on weekends to take the family down for a ride.

    I did not know that all taxes collected needed to go back to the people that paid them. I know all the senior citizens in my state will be disappointed when the lottery money has to go back to gamblers for new casinos.

    Saying that bikes and bike paths are good is kind of like saying mean people suck. It goes with out saying that the are better for the environment than cars and certainly better for your health.
  • 0patience0patience Member Posts: 1,712
    I did not know that all taxes collected needed to go back to the people that paid them. I know all the senior citizens in my state will be disappointed when the lottery money has to go back to gamblers for new casinos.

    Don't be stupid. That is a moronic analogy and you know it.
    Highway funds are dedicated funds. As such, should go for highways. Recreational funding, such as bike paths, should come from state park and recreational funding and should not be part of the highway. Using old rail paths that are no longer in use is a good form of using resources.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Let's all cut out the caterwauling and stick to the topic at hand please.
  • oldfarmer50oldfarmer50 Member Posts: 22,559
    I say build bike paths everywhere so that no cyclist ever has to ride where I drive. Do you have any idea what damage a twisted up bike does to the paint job on your car? :P

    2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible

  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    guss: I did not know that all taxes collected needed to go back to the people that paid them. I know all the senior citizens in my state will be disappointed when the lottery money has to go back to gamblers for new casinos.

    Gasoline taxes are user fees designed to make the user pay for both the benefits being offered by the project (better roads make it easier to drive a vehicle) and the wear and tear caused by that use.

    As per the federal transportation act, gasoline taxes and other vehicle user fees that go into the Highway Trust Fund are being diverted to other non-road projects, such as bike paths.

    Given that current levels of revenue do not appear to be sufficient to maintain our roads and bridges, it is reasonable to ask whether diverting some funds for bike paths is the best possible use of those revenues, and whether bicyclists should perhaps pay at least something to maintain bike paths.

    guss: Saying that bikes and bike paths are good is kind of like saying mean people suck.

    It's isn't that bike paths are bad. (They aren't). I've used them myself. The question is who should pay for them, and whether we should divert funds from roads and bridges that are in dire need of maintenance to build them.

    guss: It goes with out saying that the are better for the environment than cars and certainly better for your health.

    I belong to a gym, which I use to maintain my health (which will reduce health care costs) and keep off excess weight (which will improve America, by preventing one more pot belly from marring the visual landscape).

    My gym membership, therefore, is a public benefit.

    Please list your address, so that I can send you the monthly bill for my gym membership. Keeping in mind the same spirit that you use to advocate taxing all drivers for bike paths, I'm sure that you will be happy to help America by making a monthly contribution to my gym membership fees. ;)
  • gussguss Member Posts: 1,167
    the argument is then that while bike paths are good we don't want the money coming from the highway fund. I would be fine with it coming from the general fund. It makes no difference to me where it come from, but if you say the government should not be in the bike path building business I would have a problem with that.

    I know the rationale for using gas tax money for paths is that they should relieve congestion on surface streets thus saving the need for additional roads. Whether this is effective or not I do not know. I do know a fair amount of people that actually commute by bike instead of using their car. I guess the real issue is how do we make them pay their share for using the bike paths and lanes.

    I am sure if you go to any of the biking forums you will get the other side of the issue ; "Iraq war, should bicyclists pay for it." But I am sure neither one of us wants to go down that road.

    BTW, since you work for the State of Pa , aren't I paying for your gym membership already? :P
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    guss: I would be fine with it coming from the general fund. It makes no difference to me where it come from, but if you say the government should not be in the bike path building business I would have a problem with that.

    Perhaps a modest tax could be assessed on each new bicycle purchased, with the resulting revenue channeled directly to the Bicycle Path Trust Fund. Bicycle paths would thus be ensured a steadier stream of revenue.

    guss: I am sure if you go to any of the biking forums you will get the other side of the issue ; "Iraq war, should bicyclists pay for it." But I am sure neither one of us wants to go down that road.

    That's a different issue entirely. With bike paths, we are talking about diverting revenues from the Highway Trust Fund - which is already short of money and was originally set up to fund road and bridge projects - to pay for non-road projects.

    It is my understanding that the Iraq war, like all defense spending, comes out of the general fund. EVERYONE - not just bicyclists - is paying for it.

    guss: BTW, since you work for the State of Pa , aren't I paying for your gym membership already?

    I want a direct incentive. ;)
  • gussguss Member Posts: 1,167
    tax on each bike sold is something I could live with. But we both know that will never come close to funding bike paths.No one should have a free ride , literally. But bikes last so much longer than cars . Heck, I'm still riding the same bike I bought in 1976 with my grass cutting money.

    Maybe we need to register and inspect them every year. I can see it now , the Department of Bicycles, Scooters and Roller blades.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    Quite a few bicyclists I know do trade up regularly for the "latest and greatest." They follow developments in bicycles as eagerly as some people follow developments in new cars.
  • langjielangjie Member Posts: 250
    i don't think it costs that much more for bicycle paths. think of it like college sports. ncaa football and basketball are the big money makers. does the football program get all that money, no....the money is split within the school to fund other programs.

    i'd rather crooked politicians not get my tax money instead of cyclists.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,290
    Oh don't get me started on bicyclists, way to many of them think that traffic laws don't apply to them.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • tedebeartedebear Member Posts: 832
    Oh man, don't even get me started about drivers who think bicycles are toys that should only be ridden on parking lots.

    Bicycles have the same rights to the road as any other vehicle. And, yes, we must obey the same laws. I always signal my turns, stop at all red lights and stop signs and ride as far to the right as I can where a sudden wind gust won't blow me off the road.

    I wish I had a dollar for all the infractions and dangerous acts I witness by motor vehicle operators on a daily basis.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,290
    And, yes, we must obey the same laws.

    Yet I can count on one hand of a high school shop teacher the number of times I have seen a bicyclist stop at any of the 4 way stop signs around town.

    I wish I had a dime for every time I had to hit the brakes because some yahoo blew off the stop sign on the bike path and just flew out into traffic.

    And my favorite one was when I came to a complete stop at a four way stop the proceeded to make a left turn and almost hit the moron on the bike that at a high rate of speed just went through the stop sign then had the nerve to yell at me saying "Bicycles have the same right to use the roads". What a chumpolone.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • tedebeartedebear Member Posts: 832
    One of my favorites is the yahoo who passes me on a two-lane narrow road in a no passing zone on a blind curve when he/she has no way of knowing whether there is oncoming traffic. Once in a blue moon there IS someone coming the other way.

    Then there are the apparent deaf drivers who have their radio blaring so loud that I can hear it clearly when they pass me with their windows rolled up. I bet that gives them plenty of warning when an emergency vehicle is approaching.

    Or the occasional impatient driver who finds it necessary to fly around me when I am about 10 seconds from getting to the stoplight. I guess he/she gets bonus points at the end of the year for additional time sitting at red lights.

    It used to be a lot worse before I moved to a different suburb of St. Louis 7 years ago. At least the majority of the drivers where I'm at now seem like they engage their brain when they engage their gear selector. However, I've done multiple coast-to-coast rides and other things, so I've seen it all.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    Y'know, it might not be a bad idea to make bicyclists carry insurance, and registration. After all, if they want to have the same right to use the roads as cars, let them pay for the privilege. Yes, that's right...privilege!

    That way, they can be tracked better, and held accountable when they do damage. For example, right now, if a bicyclist hits your car and damages it, you have to take them to court and file a case against them, and hope that you can get them to pay up. I've been hit twice, while stopped at a traffic light, by a bicyclist cutting between the lanes. One of them smacked the mirror on my pickup with his backpack. Just kept right on going. The other one, a girl, tried cutting between the lanes in a traffic circle, lost her balance, and fell against my truck.

    Now, neither one did any damage, but what if I had a brand-new car and it got scaped up? If you damage a vehicle with another vehicle, and then flee the scene, is that not a hit and run? Which is, I believe, in most jurisdictions, a felony?

    Now sure there are plenty of decent bicyclists out there, I'm sure. But I've lost track of how many times I see one just blow through a red light without even looking, hopping up on the sidewalk to blow across a crosswalk to beat a traffic light, and so forth.

    It really makes me wonder, when a bicyclist gets themselves injured or killed, how often did they really bring it upon themselves? Judging from how often many of them act, I'd say quite often. Heck, back when I used to deliver pizzas, I almost nailed one once. And not with a car...with the front door to the store! I opened that door, with about 3 hotbags in my hands, and suddenly heard this yelling and screeching of tires. It was an idiot on a bike, flying down the sidewalk in front of the store. Trust me, everyone within earshot in the parking lot heard a few choice words that day...I tend to get a loud voice when I'm irked. That biker was about to get mouthy, but when he saw I was out for blood, took off REAL quick.

    Oh, another thing I like is how bicyclists tend to think that they don't have to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk. I've almost knocked a few over, as a pedestrian, that way.
  • tedebeartedebear Member Posts: 832
    What many idiot drivers apparently don't know is that you are required to maintain at least a 3 ft gap when passing. I wouldn't even begin to try and keep track of the number of morons who pass within 12 inches of my elbow when the oncoming lane is completely clear of traffic.

    I'm sometimes tempted to carry a 12 inch heavy pipe. With my arm extended that should come to about 3 ft from my bike. If a car passes with 3 ft to spare it wouldn't impact on their windshield.
  • la4meadla4mead Member Posts: 347
    This is a perfect example of a totally irresponsible statement that helps spread violence and aggressive behavior, even if you were just kidding when you wrote it, and especially does warrant a response, since there are others who advocate and have done exactly as you have written, generally from cars against bikers.

    "I'm sometimes tempted to carry a 12 inch heavy pipe. With my arm extended that should come to about 3 ft from my bike. If a car passes with 3 ft to spare it wouldn't impact on their windshield."

    When you make a public statement like this whether you a ride a bicycle, motorcycle, or drive a car, you are encouraging adversarial and possibly violent attitudes between the operators of two and four+ wheeled vehicles which can only hurt your cause.

    Granted, you are "sometimes only tempted", however this statement is not helpful to your cause.

    While you are bringing up laws, let's think about legal rights, such as "share the road". Many of the recent posts against the responsible use of bicycles and motorcycles touch on this. Public roads do not belong only to bikers or drivers of other vehicles. And that goes for the folks who think bicyclists are too slow to be on the road. They should get over when they can, but otherwise you are obligated to yield. Think about it... You have to go slow in your 5500 pound 300HP pickup because someone is riding a bike up a hill, and you can't wait to get to a legal place to pass so you are raging? Huh...
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I have nothing against bicyclists. In fact with obesity becoming such a big problem in this country I think bike riding should be encouraged. However these bicyclists need to realize that our roadways were paid for by motorists and primarily constructed to facilitate vehicles getting from pt. A to pt. B. So even while the law requires that we share the road if I'm a bicyclist impeding the flow of traffic I will personally feel guilty about doing this on a road that these motorists paid for. So when it comes to sharing the road consideration works both ways.

    I've lived in a lot of areas in this country. Some are definitely more bike friendly than others when it comes to road design. I currently live in So. MD and the roads and bridges were clearly not designed for bicycles and cars to coexist. I do see people riding bicycles but they've got more nerve than me. I wouldn't feel comfortable with vehicles constantly whizzing by me a couple feet on my left at 50+ mph.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Roads existed long before motor vehicles. You remember walking, the horse, democrat wagons and buggies? Motorists don't pay their fare share (fare - get it? :) ) -- the road subsidy paid for by general taxpayers is huge and road subsidies date back to Zane's Trace in 1796. Taxpayers pay for building the roads, removing the snow and all sorts of stuff that the gas tax doesn't begin to cover. This book says the subsidy was $400 a person in the US in 1997.

    Since they don't use gas, maybe we can take the bike argument over to Bicycle paths, should motorists pay for them?.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    First, that book is hardly an unbiased source. I love the comment that roads are "exempt from property taxes." Well, duh - they are owned by the government! Guess what - government buildings aren't taxed, either. Does it make sense for the government to tax itself?

    He also includes the tax breaks for ethanol in the calculations. That's not a road subsidy - it's subsidy for agribusiness (think ADM), and most of us would be happy if Congress eliminated it.

    His claim that the sprawl is fueling increases in fire protection is particularly unpersuasive. Fire companies have always been expected to protect rural areas, which were linked by roads even before motorized transport. What is driving costs in that sector are more effective - but much more expensive - equipment and increasing professionalization of emergency medical services and fire personnel. The number of fires has actually been decreasing for years, due to sprinkler systems in mosts commercial buildings, safer heating systems in homes and a decline in smoking (fewer people are falling asleep with a lit cigarette dangling out of their mouth).

    I note that he conveniently ignores that, since the early 1980s, a certain percentage of the money raised by the Highway Trust Fund (which pays the federal portion of costs associated with maintaining and building the interstate highway system) has been directed to non-road projects, including bike paths and mass transit. One wonders why, if roads aren't paying for themselves, we can now subsidize other forms of transportation with revenues raised by federal taxes on diesel fuel, gasoline and other automotive products. Not that I have a problem with helping other forms of transportation - I like to ride bicycles, too - but let's get the COMPLETE picture here.

    Each state is expected to cover a portion of road construction and maintenance costs. Here in Pennsylvania, we raise the necessary funds through a combination of the gasoline tax, driver's license and vehicle registration fees and a dedicated portion of the state sales tax. Which means that a person who lives in rural Bedford County, for example, may be subsidizing the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA), even if he or she never sets foot in the Philadelphia metropolitan area.

    Sorry, but I take that book's claim with a rock-sized grain of salt. He has an agenda (I love his claim that we can spend the savings on '"necessary programs, like education" - a bloated nightmare if there ever was one, never mind that there is no proof whatsoever that we aren't spending enough on education.), and is twisting the facts to make it.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    "Highway users, for example, pay only a fraction of the actual costs of highway construction, repair, and a host of other motor-vehicle-related services." link

    "Although "user fees" in the form of gas taxes, registration fees, and tolls pay for a portion of the infrastructure services, large government outlays remain that must be covered by general revenues." link

    "Q: How much of total road and highway costs in Wisconsin are covered by non­user fees from local governments?
    A: Estimated $1.29 billion of $3.29 billion (39%)" link

    Note that I'm ignoring all the social costs arguments here.

    Love the links wars. :shades:
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    How much do bicyclists pay in user fees?

    Whether or not a motorists actually pays his fair share for the use of the road is debatable. A bicyclist obviously does not. That really doesn't concern me all that much. It's the impact on the flow of traffic that is more of an issue for me. One bicyclist on a road that 100's of vehicles have to navigate around is a trivial nuisance. Put 100's of bicyclists on this road and it becomes a nightmare. They have effectively imposed their will on the driving community. It's as if their right to use the road at 25 mph trumps a drivers right to use the road at 50 mph. So maybe instead of a user fee bicyclists should pay a disruption fee that will go towards expanding lanes so that there is an adequate shoulder for them to ride on.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    From your 2nd link:
    Government directly subsidizes oil consumption through preferential treatment in tax codes. A multitude of federal corporate income tax credits and deductions results in an effective income tax rate of 11% for the oil industry, compared to the non-oil industry average of 18%. If the oil industry paid the industrywide average tax rate (including oil) of 17%, they would have paid an additional $2.0 billion in 1991.

    The official SEC reviewed, Price-Waterhouse audited annual report of the largest oil company in the world seems to greatly contradict this!! Look at P. 40
    http://exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/xom_2006_SAR.pdf

    For those with a slow connection let me recap. Exxon-Mobil sold $365.5B in product in 2006. It had a bunch of expenses including paying $30.4B in sales-taxes + $39.2B in other taxes. It was left with $67B in profits. Then they paid $27.9B of that to the government in Income Tax. That leaves the owners (stockholders) with $39.1B.

    So if my math is right Exxon Mobil after paying all their workers, and buying and refining the oil, earned $39.1B and paid taxes of $97.5B. So the owners got less than $1 for every $2 the government got. Did the majority of this $97.5B go to the DOT for road building or repair? The driving-public's money does pay those taxes in the end.

    It is the taxes that make oil and gasoline high. The oil companies are taxed up the ying-yang and have to pay for drilling rights, we are taxed on our income before we buy the gasoline, and then we pay tax on the gasoline from the $ that was just taxed!

    I think your author conveniently just used (Income tax/ Revenue) as his tax-rate?

    Would you like to look at the annual report for any other large oil company?
Sign In or Register to comment.