Advocacy & Safety - Taxpayers

Cyclists are often characterized as:

1) Lycra-clad elitists who are obessively focused on their own training, eyes straight forward, head down, pedaling furiously. On the fringe, to say the least. We can tolerate their presence occasionally.

2) Sidewalk-riding strangers who would love to be driving, if they could only get their car, or their license, back.

3) Greenie, tree-hugging, whale-loving vegetarians who love to walk barefoot and eat bean sprouts for breakfast while reading "The Secret Life of Plants." Tofu, anyone?

4) Psychotic, trash-collecting homeless persons who can't differentiate between a shopping cart and a bike.

5) "Car-free," critical mass, car-hating types that we'd all love to
ship to Iraq on a one-way ticket (and then bomb the daylights out of them.)

6) Bike commuters--the wierdest of all, since they really could be driving but actually choose to ride their bikes instead...could anything be more insane?

In reality (what a concept!) we cyclists are taxpayers who contribute to the maintenance of roads, as much as any other taxpayer. Most of us also drive cars (Wow! That makes us somewhat normal!) We may even belong to the same political party or religious group as others who don't ride a bike. :eek:

We cyclists should expect nothing less than equal treatment with motorists on the road. Second-class treatment is never good enough.

Agreed.

20 years ago it was blacks who were stereotyped. 10 years ago it was homosexuals. Now it seems to be cyclists. I wonder who'll be next?

Originally posted by Chris L
Agreed.

20 years ago it was blacks who were stereotyped. 10 years ago it was homosexuals. Now it seems to be cyclists. I wonder who'll be next?

Elvis impersonators. ;)

I"m a welfare bum--that is, I live in the US and have a car. What is subsidized by other taxpayers? Road space for one--the Interstate system gets some general fund dollars, so do state roads--remember, I pay a pussified little tiny US gas tax, so the rest of the costs of driving have to come from somewhere else.
General federal revenues pay for the state department to kiss the asses of Saudis and Kuwaitis to keep the oil taps on--never mind that Saudis also are truly our political enemies in keeping Al Quaida etc. well fed and funded. So, I'm not only a welfare bum by driving, I'm a traitor and since I'm Jewish a racial traitor as well as a political one. Thanks to all the non-drivers on this group who support my addiction. My home business and the autocentric design of my town allows me to keep up the delusion that a car is necessary--oh, sure, I ride a bike when I can but it's 50 pedalled miles a week vs. 150 driven. Thanks again, non-car owners, we gas burners appreciate the nearly free ride.
The stereotype of a non-driver should include the sucker who's taxes subsidize us bums who drive!
"Adolf Hitler on a bicycle would be a better person than Albert Schweitzer in a car"

Originally posted by Chris L
20 years ago it was blacks who were stereotyped. 10 years ago it was homosexuals. Now it seems to be cyclists. I wonder who'll be next?

I don't quite think these belong in the same category. Unless you are joking, then it is pretty funny. :D

Originally posted by Stor Mand
I don't quite think these belong in the same category. ...

I understand your comment, Stor Mand, but I do see some discriminatory parallels. In particular, the American legal system is biased to favor motorists over other road users. In addition, driving is subsidized far more than any other form of transportation.

I believe civilized countries need to recognize a fundamental right to mobility, meaning that any citizen should be able to get from Point A to Point B efficiently and safely, without necessarily using a car to do so. The implications are that road design, traffic laws, and licensing standards need to accommodate bicyclists far better than many currently do.

Originally posted by Stor Mand
I don't quite think these belong in the same category. Unless you are joking, then it is pretty funny. :D

I wasn't joking, I was talking about bigotry, which still goes on.

The main difference is, we choose to be cyclists...and when we go home we can take our lycra off and nobody knows the difference...or cares much.

Originally posted by Inkwolf
The main difference is, we choose to be cyclists...and when we go home we can take our lycra off and nobody knows the difference...or cares much.
I wish I could say that!

When I take my lycra off, I make sure no one else is in the room!

When I come home, I go to hug my 7 year-old. SHE HIDES FROM ME!!! :( :(

"Daddy, are you, sweaty?"

:rolleyes:

"Well, yes...er, no, not really...HEY!! Don't run away!"

:D

Originally posted by Inkwolf
The main difference is, we choose to be cyclists...

I don't think this matters. It's not as though we're choosing to do anything illegal. I thought freedom of choice was one of the benefits of living in a democratic country.

It is ironic we are the ones so hated, yet we ARE the solution (or at least part of it) add this one a TV commentary called us "Granola swilling hippies" Hmmm I don't really like granola that much

Peace- David

Originally posted by Chris L


I don't think this matters. It's not as though we're choosing to do anything illegal. I thought freedom of choice was one of the benefits of living in a democratic country.

Yes, and whatever choices we make, there will always be a flock of Dursleys out there, who feel personally offended if our choices are different from those of the majority. That's one of the disadvantages of living with human nature. :D

(And I LOVE granola. Does that make me a hippy? It tastes gooooood.....)

I just need to know ...
Do some of you really feel that we (bicyclists) are some radical, fringe element that the majority look down upon? I hate to clue you in but we're not and most don't. Almost everyone I know, not just close friends, rides ... some a little and some a lot & some that have a bike but just haven't in a long time.
:beer:

Originally posted by Stor Mand
I just need to know ...
Do some of you really feel that we (bicyclists) are some radical, fringe element that the majority look down upon?

No I don't think I am part of a radical fringe. I don't ride my bike to make a point. Though it is a life style choice. But, and here is where the problem lies, most drivers (or at least a very large minority) do look down on us because of this life style choice. I commute not because of finacial reasons. The money I save for doing it is just icing on the cake. But there is the perception that we can not afford a vehiecle. I do think that a lot of drivers out there think of us as being on the radical fringe. And by the way I think you all should know that I think anyone who gives up their car (which I haven't done yet) should be regarded as a hero and treated with respect! And Inkwolf you are more than welcome to have all my share of the granola out there, just make sure you leave me some of the oatmeal yum" ;) David- Ex hippie

Originally posted by Stor Mand
I just need to know ...
Do some of you really feel that we (bicyclists) are some radical, fringe element that the majority look down upon? I hate to clue you in but we're not and most don't. Almost everyone I know, not just close friends, rides ... some a little and some a lot & some that have a bike but just haven't in a long time.
:beer:
I think cyclists are not considered to have an equal right to use the road with motorists.

Most people I know at work like me. I am their example of a commuting cyclist, face to face. I think I leave a good impression with most of them, by their responses. But I have also noticed over the years that most of them don't really think I belong on the road. In fact, I don't know any of them who think I belong on the road! Even my closest friends do not, though they like me personally. Even the people I know at work who ride a bike don't ride on the road, but on a recreational path.

That's been my experience over the last few years.

Originally posted by LittleBigMan

I think cyclists are not considered to have an equal right to use the road with motorists.

Most people I know at work like me. I am their example of a commuting cyclist, face to face. I think I leave a good impression with most of them, by their responses. But I have also noticed over the years that most of them don't really think I belong on the road. In fact, I don't know any of them who think I belong on the road! Even my closest friends do not, though they like me personally. Even the people I know at work who ride a bike don't ride on the road, but on a recreational path.

That's been my experience over the last few years.

I couldn't of said it better it is so true

I think I have reached the conclusion that most people, including motorists and even other bikers, don't really pay much attention to what I do. Frankly, I don't mind that at all.

I feel as though I am tolerated on the road. Most people react to the fact that I cycle as though it is a positive activity, but not one of much interest to them.

Frankly, being one myself, I dont really spend much time concerned with the activities and opinions of motorists either.

Curiously enough, when shopping I don't refer to people as shoppers. When driving, I don't refer to people as drivers. When walking, I don't refer to other pedestrians as walkers. When at the Doctor's office, I don't refer to other people there as patients.

They may be jerks or loudmouths. They may be cute or engaging. they may bo overweight or skinny. They may be rude or pleasant. They may be literate or otherwise. I just don't seem to consciously identify people by applying a noun to their activities.

It is my preference that folks think of me as a person. One that has a bike and a car and a weight machine and a job perhaps, but not as a cyclist, motorist, weight lifter, or employee.

Think about it. Are you a cyclist, period. Or, are you a cyclist only when cycling? Are we refering to motorists or drivers, period? Or might they be physicians, parents, teachers, mothers, daughters or cyclists too?

Carl

Not labeling people ... hmmm ... what a novel idea. :thumbup:
:beer:

Labeling people is part of being human--at least that's this ****'s opinion.

Riiiiiiight...Well I have never experienced any biased comments by anyone. No rude drivers and I have no idea why everyone is so worked up over something that is quite minor. Taxes? OK? I don't really understand this argument. Anyways, don't worry about what anyone says to you about riding. Id doesn't matter what people think........REMEMBER? All said and done, It's all good :).

Originally posted by kewlrunningz
... Anyways, don't worry about what anyone says to you about riding. It doesn't matter what people think........REMEMBER?

In general, I agree with you (and I really like your signature line!), but we do need to make motorists recognize that bikes belong.

-- Same Rights. Same Rules. Same Roads.

Originally posted by Chris L
Agreed.

20 years ago it was blacks who were stereotyped. 10 years ago it was homosexuals. Now it seems to be cyclists. I wonder who'll be next?

Aussies?:D

Since we still have to satisfy the government that cars are not necessary the only primary transportation option, we should have a court case. Maybe contend that, since women are discriminated against at the car lot and the garage, and if the car is the only primary transportation option, the government should be forced to provide an equal opportunity solution to all women government employees. :eek:

If they cannot contend that the car is the only primary transportation option, then they will have to admitt that there are options that are equal to the flexability and speed of the car, and those options should be provided for or deployed. :D

BR

Originally posted by Brian Ratliff
Since we still have to satisfy the government that cars are not necessary the only primary transportation option, we should have a court case. Maybe contend that, since women are discriminated against at the car lot and the garage, and if the car is the only primary transportation option, the government should be forced to provide an equal opportunity solution to all women government employees. :eek:

If they cannot contend that the car is the only primary transportation option, then they will have to admitt that there are options that are equal to the flexability and speed of the car, and those options should be provided for or deployed. :D

BR

Could you be a little less clear? :D :confused:
:beer:

Certainly... How much less would you like. :roflmao:

Just trying to say that since not everyone can obtain cars with equal ability, getting the courts to admit this will help cyclists and mass transportation. Especially if someone can show that a car is effectively necessary to move around the city as it is now.

Any better?

Originally posted by Brian Ratliff
Certainly... How much less would you like. :roflmao:

Just trying to say that since not everyone can obtain cars with equal ability, getting the courts to admit this will help cyclists and mass transportation. Especially if someone can show that a car is effectively necessary to move around the city as it is now.

Any better?

Not really.

Seems like you want to help cyclists by somehow changing automobile ownership from a privilege to a right.

I'm confused. But if that is your notion, don't include me as one who would advocate the government doing any more than they already do to tax me to subsidize transportation, mine or yours, autos or bikes.

Most of this is in jest, but the idea is to get official recognition that there is more to traffic and transportation than just cars, or there should be. Cars are regarded by many to be necessary for daily life. Roads are built this way and traffic is planned around this idea. The problem is that not all people can obtain cars with equal ability.

Having a court try a case of inequality because of inability to obtain a car could put the cities in a bind.

Either:
1. They find that cars are necessary for a citizen to obtain and keep work -- thus they must provide for more affordable cars. OR

2. They find that cars are not necessary, and officially recognize that mass transport, bikes and feet are ligitament uses for travel.

Since the government will not want to provide for poor people without cars, they will find the second to be true. This now acts as a spring board to which the inefficiencies of mass transport and the difficulties of foot and bicycle travel can be addressed.

This is just a bit of whimsical thinking on my part. :p

BR

Originally posted by Brian Ratliff
Just trying to say that since not everyone can obtain cars with equal ability...
This is one reason I love bicycling. Fewer financial headaches.

I picture myself ahead of my time.

If you're a cyclist who pays taxes, then you pay more than your share of road upkeep.

Hard core practical cyclists are a very small minority, though. So the notion that cars are "subsidized" generally has to be approached very carefully.

In one sense, a lot of the costs of motor travel-- road upkeep, law enforcement-- are socialized. That is, the goods and services are provided at no cost at the point of access but have their costs recouped through general taxation. Whether or not this amounts to a subsidy depends on whether or not the total costs, socialized or not, are worth the benefits to those paying the costs.

By and large, the benefits are worth the costs to those who pay. Most taxpayers, who are nearly all motorists, get their money's worth from road maintainence, or public bussing, or whatever. That a few non-motorists get caught up in the tax paying net is an unavoidable fact, but this fact isn't enough to claim that non-motoring is subsidized generally.

Oil, too, is not itself subsidized. That is, we're not paying extra from other, productive activities in order that oil be used rather than some other, more efficient fuel source. Oil is the cheapest and best energy source we have, all things considered, like it or not.

There are, though, local subsidies, like government funding for oil research. That is a different matter. One can object to these subsidies without having to claim that the use of oil itself is all things considered subsidized.

I don't cycle for environmental reasons, and none of the cyclists I know or have ever met do so either. Many of them might claim to do so, but they don't undertake other energy-saving measures they find less pleasant, like cutting off internet access, or turning off the lights, or whatever.

Originally posted by Stor Mand
I just need to know ...
Do some of you really feel that we (bicyclists) are some radical, fringe element that the majority look down upon? I hate to clue you in but we're not and most don't. Almost everyone I know, not just close friends, rides ... some a little and some a lot & some that have a bike but just haven't in a long time.
:beer:

Well, PERHAPS we are not and PERHAPS most of us don't; i'd sure like to believe that as well. But the fact is that, like most 'progressive' groups, the cycling community has been captured by, and is now hostage to, its radical fringe typified by the Critical Mass morons we see in larger cities. When 'we' normal cyclists--who have been riding on the roads longer than most of these pinheads have been alive--dare to suggest courtesy and give-and-take is part of riding a bicycle as much as a motorcycle, or a truck, or a car, or (HEAVEN FORBID!!) and SUV, we get this cackling that we are not 'really comfortable' with ourselves as cyclists.

I ride on the road, on the shoulder usually but in a lane when I can do so in a manner safe for myself and others, and I will continue to do so.

roughstuff

Well put, Roughie!

I pay all the taxes appropriate to my income, purchases, vehicle ownership and such. When on my bicycle, I feel as though I have a right to be riding anywhere I lawfully do. I don't have those feelings with any kind of a chip on my shoulder though. I suppose that virtually all motorists who encounter me ignore my presence or tolerate it. Some, I suppose, might wish I were not there. I've not yet encountered hostility though, but on occasion have seen careless behavior.

Some with whom I talk on the subject are curious that I would actually ride on the road; most because they think it dangerous rather than hold forth that I have no right to ride there.

Whether I am cycling, walking or driving, I observe behaviors which are contray to good order and sometimes dangerous and occasionally illegal. Generally though, they are not directed willfully at me personally. I suppose I have behaved oddly at times also whether walking, driving or cycling. Again, not willfully.

Certainly, I have generalized regarding the behavior of others and suggested, but not seriously, that children should not be on or near the roads, or that trucks should stay in only one lane, or that older drivers should be retested. Slower drivers should get out of the way. Farm equipment should stay on the farms. In my area, it is not at all unusual to encounter livestock, equestrians or wildlife sharing the road.

In the normal order of events though, I wait for the truck to get out of the way, pass the slower or older driver and look at the horses as I go by. And, I do observe and often comment, even if only to myself, on the behavior of these other inhabitants of the road. I suppose that I am regarded similarly by others.

I am sure there are those who genuinely believe that bicycles should occupy a lane of any highway rather than yield. Likewise, I am sure that there are motorhome owners who genuinely feel entitled to the left lane for the duration of a long climb no matter how backed up drivers are behind them. Ceretainly there are arguments relative to taxes and other criteria which make some feel more entitled to the roads than others.

Whether riding, walking or driving, I concentrate on what I am doing, behave defensively, and try to conduct myself toward others as I would hope they would behave toward me.

My thinking is that if everyone were removed from the road that someone had a reason for banning, none of would use roads for driving or riding for very long. Conversely, if everyone who felt they had an entitlement to be on the road exercised that entitlement at the same time, including equestrians and cyclists in critical masses, the roads would soon have no real utility to any of us.