Hypothetical

[recursive]

As for you guys that are having your little stupid argument over spelling and grammar and all that, do us a favor and grow up. I wish I had the time to argue over such foolishness.

Aha! You're just jealous.

[Brian]

You are correct. Did anyone actually read the manifesto on the previous page? Someone needs to get out more often.

[Helmet Head]

In case you haven't noticed, this is a cycling advocacy forum. I'd say if you can't stand criticism of cars and/or you love cars so much, you are in the wrong place. And if you continue to advocate for cars, you just might be a troll.


In case you haven't noticed, this is a cycling advocacy forum. It's not an anti-car forum.

I'd say if you can't refrain from criticizing cars and/or those who own and use them, you are in the wrong place. And if you continue to advocate your anti-car rhetoric, you just might be a troll.

[SpokesInMyPoop]

green cars wouldn't curb urban sprawl or the attendant consumerism/materialist lifestyle

I like your 'tude :D whereabouts in pdx art thou? drop me a pm sometime :)

[SecretSatellite]

thanks spokes in my poop. and helemt head, scarry's not the only one using anti car rhetoric. what about me? why cant you call me out? theres nothing wrong with having that opinion. these opinions only get mentioned in threads having to do with car free living or how bad cars are so whats the fuss?

[Brian]

green cars wouldn't curb urban sprawl or the attendant consumerism/materialist lifestyle

Consumerism/materialist lifestyle? Guess you haven't ridden with a dedicated group of roadies lately. Or been to a mountain bike race. Or seen the inside of a bike shop lately. Of course, I don't know any materialistic cyclists. And I know that no one on the forum would be so shallow as to rush out and buy the latest and greatest for the beloved bicycle. That's only for car owners.

[scarry]

In case you haven't noticed, this is a cycling advocacy forum. It's not an anti-car forum.

I'd say if you can't refrain from criticizing cars and/or those who own and use them, you are in the wrong place. And if you continue to advocate your anti-car rhetoric, you just might be a troll.


So what, cars are some protected class. Give me a freaking break. As a cycling advocacy forum, criticizim of cars is going to be par for the course, because;

1. Cars kill lots of bicyclists, as well as pedestrians, and other motorists.
2. Funding for road systems to support car travel takes away from funding for cycling and pedestrian facilities, as well as mass transit.
3. Car oriented developement makes travel by bicycle more difficult.
4. Cars produce a lot of air pollution, which make it difficult for cyclists, and everyone to breath.
5. Car-centric mind set makes people anti-social which give rise to the "me first" mentality which endagers cyclists day in and day out.
6. Supplying fuel for all those cars causes war.

IMHO a cycling advocacy forum will be inherently anti-car, if not then it is blind to reality.
I'd be a troll if I went on a car enthusiast forum like NASCAR.com and trashed cars.

[scarry]

thanks spokes in my poop. and helemt head, scarry's not the only one using anti car rhetoric. what about me? why cant you call me out? theres nothing wrong with having that opinion. these opinions only get mentioned in threads having to do with car free living or how bad cars are so whats the fuss?


Thanks. If you can't criticize cars on a cycling forum, then I don't know what this world is coming to.

Cars as a protected class. That's a hoot. Kinda like smokers are trying to make themselvs out to be.

[SecretSatellite]

Consumerism/materialist lifestyle? Guess you haven't ridden with a dedicated group of roadies lately. Or been to a mountain bike race. Or seen the inside of a bike shop lately. Of course, I don't know any materialistic cyclists. And I know that no one on the forum would be so shallow as to rush out and buy the latest and greatest for the beloved bicycle. That's only for car owners.

thats one of the problems i have with this forum and also why i'd like there to be a forum for car free/anti car people. frankly, i dont like those cyclists. they're yuppies. too many roadie yuppies.

[scarry]

thats one of the problems i have with this forum and also why i'd like there to be a forum for car free/anti car people. frankly, i dont like those cyclists. they're yuppies. too many roadie yuppies.


Taken a look at BICYCLING magazine? Half the ads are for cars. As if you can't get to the trailhead without that new X-Terra.

[chicharron]

Taken a look at BICYCLING magazine? Half the ads are for cars. As if you can't get to the trailhead without that new X-Terra.
LOL. Right on. Why is it that in all the advertising for SUV, they have bike racks? Why do most SUV oweners use their SUV for commuting back and forth to work, hauling the family, etc.

[chicharron]

As much as I hate SUV's, and as much as I love my bicycle, there is no way my family could give up owning a car. Nor would I want to. There are too many incidents where a car is neccessary for a family. Even though I walk, and ride my bike as much as posslible, a car of some kind is enevitalble.

[scarry]

As much as I hate SUV's, and as much as I love my bicycle, there is no way my family could give up owning a car. Nor would I want to. There are too many incidents where a car is neccessary for a family. Even though I walk, and ride my bike as much as posslible, a car of some kind is enevitalble.

Understood. ;) ......

What we are talking about here, and what the hate is about, is not individual use of the car, but how our built enviroment has made car use such a nessesity. No doubt there are many task for which a car/truck is neccessary. But advertising has created a "perceived need". The need for ego gratification, (which seems to be the dominent mode of advertising). The perceived need for safety which is bolstered by the constant stream of scary stories about child abduction, robbery, etc., all the while ignoring or downplaying the real danger cars pose to everyone. The perceived need for "freedom" offered by cars, which in reality turns out to be slavery to the car, (expenses, time wasted, confinment). The perceived need for convenience, (which turns out to be a lie, because sometimes cars are not convenient at all). Now even the perceived need to be "green", buy a Prius and save the earth. LOL.

[dedhed]

[QUOTE=scarry]1. Cars kill lots of bicyclists, as well as pedestrians, and other motorists.
2. Funding for road systems to support car travel takes away from funding for cycling and pedestrian facilities, as well as mass transit.
3QUOTE]

1. Cars may kill lots of things, but where I live I wouldn't say "lots" of bicyclists, at least not that I hear about. I don't think I hear of more than 2-3 in a bad year here in our metro area. Not that 2-3 is a good thing.

2. Most of this funding, particularly local, comes from things like fuel tax, FET on tires, license fees etc. If cars went away this money would not be collected thus not "taken away" from other transit forms. This money mostly comes from people who drive and I'm guessing generally want it spent to improve their driving conditions.

Would most of the bicyclists who want improvements be willing to start paying bike license fees in the hundreds of dollars, special taxes on maybe things like tires or chain lubes. You could get your congressperson to sponsor a bill similiar to Pittman-Robertson which sportsman pay a special tax on virtually everything they buy. It could cover any bike related item such as cables deraillers, rims, spokes, etc all earmarked to be spent on bicycle related infrastructure and/or programs.

[lilHinault]

I like the idea of a Car-Free forum, since not owning a car is, in the US anyway and lots of other places, a pretty dramatic difference in lifestyle, and I'd like to see a forum like that because when you get car-free people together and talking, you see that it's less hard than car-owners think it is.

[scarry]

1. Cars may kill lots of things, but where I live I wouldn't say "lots" of bicyclists, at least not that I hear about. I don't think I hear of more than 2-3 in a bad year here in our metro area. Not that 2-3 is a good thing.

2. Most of this funding, particularly local, comes from things like fuel tax, FET on tires, license fees etc. If cars went away this money would not be collected thus not "taken away" from other transit forms. This money mostly comes from people who drive and I'm guessing generally want it spent to improve their driving conditions.

Would most of the bicyclists who want improvements be willing to start paying bike license fees in the hundreds of dollars, special taxes on maybe things like tires or chain lubes. You could get your congressperson to sponsor a bill similiar to Pittman-Robertson which sportsman pay a special tax on virtually everything they buy. It could cover any bike related item such as cables deraillers, rims, spokes, etc all earmarked to be spent on bicycle related infrastructure and/or programs.[/QUOTE]

Your second point is a myth. Automobile use is one of the most subsidized forms of transportation.

http://www.swt.org/robert/writ/subcol.htm
http://www.stlbikefed.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=150
http://www.living-room.org/sustain/switch.htm

But let us consider only one aspect: Do cyclists pay their way?

Some argue that roads are paid for entirely by user fees such as gas taxes, automobile registration fees, and the like. The argument goes that cyclists don't pay these user fees and so they shouldn't be allowed to use the roads.

Is this true?

Consider the facts:

1. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FWHA), 92% of the funds for local roads--the ones most often used by cyclists--come from property, income, and sales taxes. Bicyclists pay these taxes just like everyone else does.

2. FWHA calculates that 92% of federal highway funds come from user fees. But 8% come the general fund, so even a bicyclist who owns no car contributes to federal highway funds, too.

3. It is often said that the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) is funded completely from road user fees. As a sweeping generalization this is true, but in fact 45% of MoDOT's funding comes from the federal government. A portion of this federal contribution comes from the general tax fund. Because of this, 3.6% of MoDOT's operating budget comes from general taxes. Again, even the non-car owning bicyclist contributes to MoDOT's operating budget.

4. In the end, all roads must be considered as a complete, interconnected network. Considering the road network as a whole, about 2/3 of the funding comes from user fees and 1/3 from general taxes. Again, our hypothetical non-automobile-owning cyclist makes a contribution.

5. Many services associated with the roadways are paid out of general tax funds. Examples: police, fire and ambulance services, traffic court, subsidized parking. A typical household pays a few hundred dollars per year towards such services. Bicyclists pay for a share of these services just like everyone else does.

6. Design improvements needed to make roadways more bicycle-friendly are generally inexpensive. Roads constructed to modern design standards are quite bicycle-friendly already--improvements like wider lanes and shoulders are included to improve safety for all road users and are not bicycle-specific. The bicycle-specific expenses in good road design are few: bicycle-safe grates and traffic signals that detect bicycles (and motorcycles), for instance. Such expenses may cost a few thousand dollars in projects with budgets of a few million.

7. Bicycles have a very low impact on the roadway. One study found that bicycles impose about 0.2 cents per mile in roadway costs. Bicyclist pay no user fees so the entire 0.2 cents/mile comes from the general tax fund.

What about motor vehicles? They impose an average of 3.9 cents per mile in roadway costs while paying an average of 2.5 cents per mile in user charges such as fuel taxes and motor vehicle registration fees.

The difference--1.4 cents per mile--comes from the general tax fund. So both bicycle and motor vehicle road use is subsidized from general tax revenue. This is fair, since both bicyclists and motorists pay into the general tax fund.

But bicycles have such a low impact on the road that their subsidy is actually quite low--the general tax revenue subsidy for a cyclist who rides 5000 miles per year is only about $10.

Now let's do the math. Figuring a quart of Gatorade and a Power Bar for every 20 miles, my calculator tells me that to cover that 5000 miles the cyclist is paying at least $500 in food and so (at a 5% tax rate) $25 in sales tax. That sales tax covers the $10 road impact cost with change to spare. Maybe bicyclists DO pay their way on Missouri roads . . .

[pseudobrit]

Most of this funding, particularly local, comes from things like fuel tax, FET on tires, license fees etc.

No municipality I know of taxes fuel, tires or has license fees. Such items are the domain of state and federal budgets.

[lilHinault]

This has been gone over and over and over - automobile transport in the US is very heavily subsidized, and by all taxpayers not just drivers. There's lots of good data out there for anyone who wants to look it up.

The truth is that in the US the "non negotiable" US standard of living is purposefully designed to make life much more difficult without a car - the aim of Halliburton, Carlisle Group, etc is to make it essential to drive a car to go anywhere in the US no matter how short the trip, and the fact that some people still are able to get along happily on a bike is a sign of their ineffeciency, not their intent.

Google around for the hard data behind this, it's interesting reading. And the better stuff written not by granola-crunching hairy hippies but by very serious, "mainstream" scholars.

And it's true, as many people switching away from cars as there could be, would cause a major disruption of the US economy just like a switch away from war as a way of life would cause a major disruption of the US economy. Heck a switch to healthier food, not organic, just starting out with a switch away from trans-fats and a lb of sugar/high-fructose corn syrup a day would cause a major disruption in the economy. Any of the three changes would hurt the same network of corporations too. Funny how that works. This does not mean these are not changes that would be VERY good for us though.

[scarry]

This has been gone over and over and over - automobile transport in the US is very heavily subsidized, and by all taxpayers not just drivers. There's lots of good data out there for anyone who wants to look it up.

The truth is that in the US the "non negotiable" US standard of living is purposefully designed to make life much more difficult without a car - the aim of Halliburton, Carlisle Group, etc is to make it essential to drive a car to go anywhere in the US no matter how short the trip, and the fact that some people still are able to get along happily on a bike is a sign of their ineffeciency, not their intent.

Google around for the hard data behind this, it's interesting reading. And the better stuff written not by granola-crunching hairy hippies but by very serious, "mainstream" scholars.

And it's true, as many people switching away from cars as there could be, would cause a major disruption of the US economy just like a switch away from war as a way of life would cause a major disruption of the US economy. Heck a switch to healthier food, not organic, just starting out with a switch away from trans-fats and a lb of sugar/high-fructose corn syrup a day would cause a major disruption in the economy. Any of the three changes would hurt the same network of corporations too. Funny how that works. This does not mean these are not changes that would be VERY good for us though.


Right on. Rode my bike to the local farmers market today, 2.5 miles. Had fun watching the drivers fighting for a space in the parking lot next to the market. At times the lot was completely clogged with cars waiting for a free spot which even prevented drivers trying to leave from moving out of their space. You could simply park on a street a block away and walk in less time than it took to find a space. The coffee shop had to station a guard to reserve parking for it's patrons. My bike with basket doubled as a shopping cart which I could roll through the market. This lesson in futility is repeated week after week every Sunday. The market is surrounded by residential nieghborhoods, so it is not out in some isolated spot which would be nessesary to drive to.

[lilHinault]

I've seen a lot of places with a guard especially to monitor the parking lot and prevent fights, one place is a smalltime bank, another a Burger King, just run of the mill places, but without the guard there, too many black eyes. A "clean" car is not going to prevent this craziness.

[pyze-guy]

My biggest gripe is with motorists, not motor vehicles. Being harrassed by an idiot in an environmentally friendly zero emission non-fossil fueled pick-up truck is still being harrassed.

One of the best expressed posts I have ever read concerning cars vs. bikes. Excellent.

[slagjumper]

Let's face it with 2.3 cars for everyone in the US, there are more than we need. Many folks have been "consumerized" into defending cars. More people said that they hate their cell phones more than anything-- why don’t more people hate those expensive, polluting, stuck-in-rush-hour contraptions? To some extent you have to lay blame on the consumers that bought them new, but also there are the car companies that advertise them as freedom/power machines. Check out how many cars shoot out of the earth in commercials-- like some mythic gods. Remember when LA had the best public transportation in the world? Before GM and other corps with much to gain took over the system and drove it to hell and built freeways. Trouble with the capitolist system that we love so much is that when a few companies get too many beans they can squash competing technologies. You dont need to drive an SUV if you've got a big .... but I do anyway. It was given to me and every day I commute by bike I save $5.

[skanking biker]

Trouble with the capitolist system that we love so much is that when a few companies get too many beans they can squash competing technologies. You dont need to drive an SUV if you've got a big .... but I do anyway. It was given to me and every day I commute by bike I save $5.


This is not a problem with a "capitalist system," it is a problem with a capitalist system that doesn't enforce its antitrust laws. In a true competitive marketplace, no firm or group of firms would have any abiluity to control price or limit the availability of competing technologies. Unfortunatley, our economy is no longer a competitive capitalist system; it is a sytem of oligopoly, game theory and corporate rivalry.

[SecretSatellite]

actually, in a true capitalist "free market" there are no hinderances to commerce like anti trust laws. the market will work itself out through its own checks and balances of supply and demand. so, in a sense you;re right that we dont have a true capitalist system-none exists because its not possible, people with power and priviledge want to keep it and pass it down to their heirs. where is the corporate rivalry? they are all one big country club. a few mergers there, a buyout here. nope, the competitive capitalist system you refer to is an ayn rand pipe dream for social darwinists or people who live in wisconsin
GO BY BIKE

[recursive]

nope, the competitive capitalist system you refer to is an ayn rand pipe dream for social darwinists or people who live in wisconsin
GO BY BIKE


Go Wisconsin. It's your birthday.
:bday: