Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-27-13, 05:18 PM   #26
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsJustMe View Post
Time of day restrictions. How can they tell me I can't ride my bike in the hour before I have to be to work, for instance?
The GA law is talking about (optional) restrictions for a particular set of roadways ("those that are part of the state highway system"). That, presumably, is not all roads.

Reserving the option of restricting bicyclists from certain roads is very common. (It's not all roads.)

If they are allowed to restrict all use from a particular road, they certainly can have "time of day" restrictions.

Last edited by njkayaker; 09-27-13 at 05:24 PM.
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-13, 05:50 PM   #27
dynaryder
PatronSaintOfDiscBrakes
 
dynaryder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: BicycleSPACE warehouse in SW Washington DC
Bikes:
Posts: 6,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
I've always said that I'd have no problem registering my bikes and putting plates on them,provided that I then get treated properly by other road users. Also,since there's a way to identify the bike,I'd expect the police to step up in their efforts to recover stolen bicycles.
__________________

C'dale BBU('05 and '09)/Super Six/Hooligan8and 3,Kona Dew Deluxe,Novara Buzz/Safari,Surly Big Dummy,Marin Pt Reyes,Giant Defy 1,Schwinn DBX SuperSport,Dahon Speed Pro TT,Brompton S6L/S2E-X
dynaryder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-13, 06:48 PM   #28
ItsJustMe
Seņior Member
 
ItsJustMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Bikes: Windsor Fens, Giant Seek 0 (2014, Alfine 8 + discs)
Posts: 13,035
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
The GA law is talking about (optional) restrictions for a particular set of roadways ("those that are part of the state highway system"). That, presumably, is not all roads.

Reserving the option of restricting bicyclists from certain roads is very common. (It's not all roads.)

If they are allowed to restrict all use from a particular road, they certainly can have "time of day" restrictions.
They can only restrict access to roads if there is a reasonable alternative route. This is why in some western states bicycles are allowed on the expressway - it's really the only way to get from here to there.

For instance, if I work on a given road, they really can't say I can't ride there. Likewise if there's a road that goes from one area to another and is 1 mile long, and the only other route is 3 miles long, that's not a reasonable alternative.
__________________
Work: the 8 hours that separates bike rides.
ItsJustMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-13, 06:49 PM   #29
spivonious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Lancaster, PA, USA
Bikes: 2012 Trek Allant, 2016 Bianchi Volpe Disc
Posts: 1,857
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prathmann View Post
Many states place some restrictions on cycling on roads that are part of the "Interstate Highway System." I haven't encountered any prohibitions on cycling on state highways other than a few bridge crossings.
Yeah, PA restricts it on limited access highways. If they banned it on all state highways, easily 50% of the roads around me would become off limits.
spivonious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-13, 07:25 PM   #30
dogsridewith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
PA--when 322 got improved over 7 Mountains (southeast of State College) bikes and buggies got banned. There is no alternative route.
dogsridewith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-13, 08:07 PM   #31
dynodonn 
Senior Member
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 7,316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynaryder View Post
I've always said that I'd have no problem registering my bikes and putting plates on them,provided that I then get treated properly by other road users. Also,since there's a way to identify the bike,I'd expect the police to step up in their efforts to recover stolen bicycles.
That's what serial numbers on bikes are for, no need in having to find a way to attach a piece of sheet metal to my bicycle. A voluntary sticker placed on the seat tube would work much better than sporting a mandatory metal license plate.
As for some Georgia legislators, it appears that their hatred for cyclists knows no bounds.
dynodonn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-13, 04:38 PM   #32
atbman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Leeds UK
Bikes:
Posts: 1,976
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
As always, read http://www.toronto.ca/budget2005/pdf...censingcyc.PDF for a thorough demolition of such proposals
atbman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-13, 10:46 AM   #33
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsJustMe View Post
They can only restrict access to roads if there is a reasonable alternative route. This is why in some western states bicycles are allowed on the expressway - it's really the only way to get from here to there.

For instance, if I work on a given road, they really can't say I can't ride there. Likewise if there's a road that goes from one area to another and is 1 mile long, and the only other route is 3 miles long, that's not a reasonable alternative.
Highly debatable.
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-13, 09:37 PM   #34
B. Carfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Bikes:
Posts: 6,273
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
The GA law is talking about (optional) restrictions for a particular set of roadways ("those that are part of the state highway system"). That, presumably, is not all roads.

Reserving the option of restricting bicyclists from certain roads is very common. (It's not all roads.)

If they are allowed to restrict all use from a particular road, they certainly can have "time of day" restrictions.
Oregon law explicitly gives jurisdictions that own roads the power to restrict the types of vehicles that can operate on them. For instance, a road could be restricted to only class A vehicles and bicycles. (That would work for me, since if I'm driving it's usually a class A rig.) I don't think this provision has ever been used for anything except restricting bikes from a handful of urban freeways and restricting bike paths to bikes and municipal vehicles, but it does allow for some interesting permutations.

I never really thought of this law as a dangerous tool just waiting to be exploited by bike haters, but I can see where the good people of Georgia would be concerned.
B. Carfree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-13, 04:49 AM   #35
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by B. Carfree View Post
Oregon law explicitly gives jurisdictions that own roads the power to restrict the types of vehicles that can operate on them. For instance, a road could be restricted to only class A vehicles and bicycles. (That would work for me, since if I'm driving it's usually a class A rig.) I don't think this provision has ever been used for anything except restricting bikes from a handful of urban freeways and restricting bike paths to bikes and municipal vehicles, but it does allow for some interesting permutations.

I never really thought of this law as a dangerous tool just waiting to be exploited by bike haters, but I can see where the good people of Georgia would be concerned.
The GA law, with the other stuff, is unusual.

Some people here think the option of restrictions on state highways is unusual. That's incorrect.

One person thinks that a restriction can't be made if it inconveniences even one person. That's incorrect too.

Anyway, it's a proposed law and other people here seem to think it has no chance of becoming law.
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-13, 07:00 AM   #36
rydabent
Senior Member
 
rydabent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Cruiser
Posts: 5,706
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Having a license on a bike is a whole can of worms. Are the police going to run in a four year old for not having a license or her little pink sidewalk bike? I think the police have far better things to do!!!!
rydabent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-13, 11:39 AM   #37
dougmc
Senior Member
 
dougmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Bikes: Giant OCR2, Bridgestone RB-T, Bike-E, Vision R-40, Novara Safari
Posts: 3,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
I told my friend that I wouldn't mind paying a registration tax as long as it was proportional to the vehicle weight, since wear on the road is proportional to weight. Sounds fair to me.
I don't know about where you live, but here in Texas, vehicle registration costs are not proportional to weight unless you get over five tons --

Here, all passenger vehicles and trucks under three tons pay a base fee of $51. Vehicles between three and five tons pay a base fee of $54.

Motorcycles and mopeds pay $30.

Presumably if bicycles were registered here and the current progression was continued, we'd probably pay around $20/year, not the pennies/year you think would be fair.

Quote:
since wear on the road is proportional to weight.
1) if this is the case, then the weight of you plus your vehicle should be what's used, not just your vehicle's weight, and

2) this isn't even remotely true -- it's worse. Road damage rises steeply with axle weight, and is estimated "as a rule of thumb... for reasonably strong pavement surfaces" to be proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight. This means that doubling the axle weight will increase road damage (2x2x2x2)=16 times..

Of course, what this means is that in practice, bicycles, motorcycles and passenger vehicles do negligible amounts of damage to roads -- it's the large trucks that do it. But lighter vehicles do still clog the roads, and the weather still takes its toll, and the road still had to be built in the first place, so pretending that road fees should be based only on how much damage a vehicle does to the roads is shortsighted.
dougmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-13, 12:14 PM   #38
delcrossv 
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
delcrossv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Scalarville
Bikes:
Posts: 1,459
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post

Anyway, it's a proposed law and other people here seem to think it has no chance of becoming law.
__________________
Lightning P-38 / M5 M-Racer/Ryan Vanguard
delcrossv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-13, 12:48 PM   #39
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by delcrossv View Post


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny

Registering would be bad. I strongly doubt that would pass.
The "peloton" thing is interesting. I'm surprised it's not illegal in more places.
The "riding abreast" is very unusual.


The "option for restrictions on state highways" is common. It's probably the case in your state but you aren't complaining about it! Why are you more concerned with proposed legislation (in some other state) than actual laws (in your own state)? And how do you propose non-GA residents whinging here is going to do anything useful? Bizarre.

Last edited by njkayaker; 09-30-13 at 12:56 PM.
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-13, 12:56 PM   #40
FenderTL5
Senior Member
 
FenderTL5's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Nashville TN
Bikes: Trek 7.3FX, Diamondback Edgewood hybrid, KHS Montana
Posts: 772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
When I lived in Georgia the tag/registration was based on a percentage of the vehicle value (not weight).
I don't know if it's still the same, that was almost 15 years ago.
FenderTL5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-13, 01:41 PM   #41
dougmc
Senior Member
 
dougmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Bikes: Giant OCR2, Bridgestone RB-T, Bike-E, Vision R-40, Novara Safari
Posts: 3,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FenderTL5 View Post
When I lived in Georgia the tag/registration was based on a percentage of the vehicle value (not weight).
I don't know if it's still the same, that was almost 15 years ago.
It's easy enough to google for.

This looks like Georgia's current fee schedule.

Looks like passenger vehicles and motorcycles are both $20, and trailers are $12. Presumably if they were to start registering bicycles, the cost would also be $20 (if they kept with the current fee schedule, of course.)
dougmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-13, 02:04 PM   #42
CbadRider
Administrator
 
CbadRider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: On the bridge with Picard
Bikes: Specialized Allez, Specialized Sirrus
Posts: 5,963
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Please don't resort to name-calling or insults. Anyone who does will be asked to leave the thread.

Thanks for your cooperation with this.

CbadRider
Forum Admin
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xerum 525 View Post
Now get on your cheap bike and give me a double century. You walking can of Crisco!!

Forum Guidelines *click here*
CbadRider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-13, 02:13 PM   #43
ItsJustMe
Seņior Member
 
ItsJustMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Bikes: Windsor Fens, Giant Seek 0 (2014, Alfine 8 + discs)
Posts: 13,035
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Riding abreast is not done much, but riding two abreast is legal in most states I think. It certainly is in Michigan. Most drivers think it's illegal though and aren't afraid to endanger your life to let you know what they think.
__________________
Work: the 8 hours that separates bike rides.
ItsJustMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-13, 02:26 PM   #44
FenderTL5
Senior Member
 
FenderTL5's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Nashville TN
Bikes: Trek 7.3FX, Diamondback Edgewood hybrid, KHS Montana
Posts: 772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougmc View Post
It's easy enough to google for.

This looks like Georgia's current fee schedule.

Looks like passenger vehicles and motorcycles are both $20, and trailers are $12. Presumably if they were to start registering bicycles, the cost would also be $20 (if they kept with the current fee schedule, of course.)
There's also an associated ad velorem that goes with it.

What You Should Know:
  • If you own a passenger vehicle or motorcycle, annual registration costs $20. You'll also need to pay your vehicle's ad valorem tax, any fees for special tags, and the cost of an emissions inspection if you live in the metro Atlanta area.
  • An ad valorem tax is based on your car's current value. As your car's value decreases year after year, your ad valorem tax will decrease as well.Calculate your ad valorem tax.

FenderTL5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-13, 02:31 PM   #45
wphamilton
rugged individualist
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Posts: 9,878
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 207 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougmc View Post
I don't know about where you live, but here in Texas, vehicle registration costs are not proportional to weight unless you get over five tons --

Here, all passenger vehicles and trucks under three tons pay a base fee of $51. Vehicles between three and five tons pay a base fee of $54.

Motorcycles and mopeds pay $30.

Presumably if bicycles were registered here and the current progression was continued, we'd probably pay around $20/year, not the pennies/year you think would be fair.

1) if this is the case, then the weight of you plus your vehicle should be what's used, not just your vehicle's weight, and

2) this isn't even remotely true -- it's worse. Road damage rises steeply with axle weight, and is estimated "as a rule of thumb... for reasonably strong pavement surfaces" to be proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight. This means that doubling the axle weight will increase road damage (2x2x2x2)=16 times..

Of course, what this means is that in practice, bicycles, motorcycles and passenger vehicles do negligible amounts of damage to roads -- it's the large trucks that do it. But lighter vehicles do still clog the roads, and the weather still takes its toll, and the road still had to be built in the first place, so pretending that road fees should be based only on how much damage a vehicle does to the roads is shortsighted.
Doug, most of that was already discussed. As mentioned earlier, while it is true that damage rises with the fourth power of axle weight I'll get all sorts of arguments about the pressure and small size of contact patch if I propose that ratio (some of which are valid btw) while if I just say "proportional" that seems reasonable.

I said I wouldn't mind paying an amount proportional to weight. I didn't say we already did, although rates for larger vehicles are now tiered by weight.

I said about a dollar, not pennies. As for the math, an average cyclist and bike at 180 pounds, divided by an average midsized car at 3500 pounds, times the fee of $20 equals one dollar and three cents. Pretty close to "a dollar" isn't it? If you do insist on the fourth power ratio, then it's not "pennies" - it's "fractions of a penny".

Finally, these roads last many years without traffic, so weather is not that significant to the wear. Sure there are exceptions, such as rare floods and sinkholes, but for the vast majority of our roads it's almost all due to the traffic.
wphamilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-13, 03:19 PM   #46
dougmc
Senior Member
 
dougmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Bikes: Giant OCR2, Bridgestone RB-T, Bike-E, Vision R-40, Novara Safari
Posts: 3,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
Doug, most of that was already discussed. As mentioned earlier, while it is true that damage rises with the fourth power of axle weight I'll get all sorts of arguments about the pressure and small size of contact patch if I propose that ratio (some of which are valid btw) while if I just say "proportional" that seems reasonable.
The problem is that "proportional" has a specific meaning -- it means to the first power. If you're using the word to explain a function that is actually to the fourth power, you're using the word incorrectly.

The "to the fourth power" was well studied by smart people who put a lot of thought into it and looked at real world situations. The wikipedia article gives links if somebody wants to read the details.

Really, the "to the fourth power" is just an estimate that attempts to cover a much more complicated situation. But certainly, it's nowhere near "to the first power".

Quote:
I said I wouldn't mind paying an amount proportional to weight.
Specifically, you said vehicle weight. So if a 4000 lb car pays $50, a 20 bike would pay $0.25, hence my "pennies" comment. Of course, if a 4000 lb car pays $100, and you've got a 40 lb bike -- that's one hundred pennies that the bike would be charged.

If you add in the operator weight and have 200 lbs of bicycle+cyclist vs. 4200 lbs of car -- it's a good deal more than a dollar.

Quote:
I said about a dollar, not pennies. As for the math, an average cyclist and bike at 180 pounds, divided by an average midsized car at 3500 pounds, times the fee of $20 equals one dollar and three cents. Pretty close to "a dollar" isn't it? If you do insist on the fourth power ratio, then it's not "pennies" - it's "fractions of a penny".
Actually, I explicitly said that charging vehicles based on the damage they do to the road would be shortsighted, so that's exactly what I'd not insist on.

Quote:
Finally, these roads last many years without traffic, so weather is not that significant to the wear. Sure there are exceptions, such as rare floods and sinkholes, but for the vast majority of our roads it's almost all due to the traffic.
Weather (and mother nature in general) *is* significant. MUPs never carry heavy motor vehicles, but the still need maintenance. You don't think it's because the bikes and pedestrians are damaging them, do you?

And thanks to the fourth power thing, it's not just "the traffic" that does it, but the heavy trucks. Passenger cars do negligible amounts of damage to roads -- they just don't weigh enough. (And of course bikes do even less.) But if the traffic is 90% passenger cars, they ought to be covering 90% of the initial construction and weather related maintenance, whatever their weight is. (And if their traffic related maintenance was significant, they should pay their portion of that, but it's insignificant, so no point in doing so.) And by that metric, if a system is set up to charge bicycles for use of the road, they ought to pay a figure based on how much of the total traffic they are, divided by each bike. Which would be difficult to measure.

Considering that bicycles are largely considered "toys", and yet the governments generally try to encourage their use (and yes, this is sort of a paradox) -- it's probably better just to leave things as-is and not tax bicycles more than they already are (sales tax mostly.)
dougmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-13, 03:23 PM   #47
wphamilton
rugged individualist
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Posts: 9,878
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 207 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougmc View Post
The problem is that "proportional" has a specific meaning -- it means to the first power. If you're using the word to explain a function that is actually to the fourth power, you're using the word incorrectly.

The "to the fourth power" was well studied by smart people who put a lot of thought into it and looked at real world situations. The wikipedia article gives links if somebody wants to read the details.

Actually it's an empirical result not a theoretical one, and to be honest might not apply to pedestrian or cyclist weights. Not that it's important to the discussion either way.
wphamilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-13, 03:34 PM   #48
MikeM21 
Senior Member
 
MikeM21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: No. Va.
Bikes: '13 Storck Aero, '04 C50, '04 Merlin Magia, '97 Stumpjumper
Posts: 287
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matariki View Post
Interesting that this requirement does not apply to mopeds.



4"x7" plate? Wow! I'd mount it so it sticks out from my left handlebar.

Mr. Rogers looks like he needs to spend some time on a bike.

Also: What would they do about riders from other states? If passed into law, I wouldn't mind taking the bike down to GA to "pass through". "Sorry Officer, I'm from North Carolina and don't need a license".
The Moped lobby in GA must be stroooong!!
__________________
There are no tailwinds. There are headwinds and days when I'm awesome!
MikeM21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-13, 03:40 PM   #49
atbman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Leeds UK
Bikes:
Posts: 1,976
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
If we're getting into the weight thing, you shouldn't include the weight of the rider, unless each family pays proportionately to the number of family members and their combined weight. Which, bearing in mind that many drivers are twice the weight of their cycling equivalent
atbman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-13, 03:55 PM   #50
dougmc
Senior Member
 
dougmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Bikes: Giant OCR2, Bridgestone RB-T, Bike-E, Vision R-40, Novara Safari
Posts: 3,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
Actually it's an empirical result not a theoretical one, and to be honest might not apply to pedestrian or cyclist weights.
I did cover the empirical result part in the very next paragraph -- Really, the "to the fourth power" is just an estimate that attempts to cover a much more complicated situation. But certainly, it's nowhere near "to the first power".

Quote:
Not that it's important to the discussion either way.
If one believes that a motor vehicle or bicycle does or should pay a fee proportional to or related to the damage they cause to the roads, it's quite important to the discussion.
dougmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:30 PM.