Advocacy & Safety - "No place for cyclists" Another Brainiac Cager

Re Tuesday's story, "It's a dangerous cycle (http://rc.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-we26cfatalbikes16nov26,0,2775851.story?coll=sfl-news-browardcomm)": I can easily understand the rising deaths of bicyclists on our highways. A large 4,000-plus-pound car cannot avoid a 175-pound person on a bike in certain instances. On occasion, we have to go head-on into oncoming cars, cross yellow lines and endanger lives.

Bicycles should not be allowed on our highways. They are dangers to the riders and bicyclists do not pay highway taxes. It is sheer arrogance that bicyclists believe they should have preferential rights to our roadways. I ride a bike. I ride on the sidewalk where it is safe and does not interfere with automobile drivers. Many more will be killed in the future until they change the laws to outlaw bicycles on the highways.



Fluckin Moron (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/letters/sfl-brmail848xnov22,0,3228922.story?coll=sfla-news-letters).
It doesn't occur to this idjit that maybe he could WAIT TO PASS until the opposing lane is clear? WTF does he do when he wants to pass a slower MOTOR vehicle???

Quoted from Sun-Sentinel.com "Bicycles should not be allowed on our highways. They are dangers to the riders and bicyclists do not pay highway taxes."

As someone once said, eveyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own information. How do misguided opinions based on misinformation make it into print?

On occasion, we have to go head-on into oncoming cars, cross yellow lines and endanger lives.

WTF?

"On occasion, we have to go head-on into oncoming cars, cross yellow lines and endanger lives."

Why must we force these poor cagers to do things they do not want to do???

"They are dangers to the riders and bicyclists do not pay highway taxes."

I have no good sarcastic reply to this one...

You mean because I ride a bike I shouldn't have had to pay all them taxes all these years? WHERE'S MY F_ING REFUND!

Ugh. Yet another we don't pay taxes, therefore, cyclists shouldn't be on the road. I love living in the US, but sometimes I wonder how we even can tolerate each other...

Omg, I want to slap this guy so hard ...

How can we combat this ****** ?

hmmm, andof course the number one killer of Americans is.....wait for it.... the Car! Rising bicycle deaths would need to rise a lot more to put us on par with what cagers do to each other. Mr. Pot, This is Mr. Kettle. What is that you say? He is black? No way, wait a second......

Just for reference....

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

link to the forum on this stupid crap (http://www.topix.net/forum/source/south-florida-sun-sentinel/T9UEQA8T8H7S6H3UN#lastPost)

A large 4,000-plus-pound car cannot avoid a 175-pound person on a bike in certain instances.

Actually it can, provided the 4000-plus-pound car is driven by an alert, skilled, and considerate driver.

The reason is the tard doesn't know how to drive and is too self-important to think of someone else's life. Reality check, cyclists pay the same highway taxes! I'm really sorry that gas costs so much, waaah.

"They are dangers to the riders and bicyclists do not pay highway taxes."

I have no good sarcastic reply to this one...


Wouldn't be surprised if I pay more in taxes than this POS makes per year. Maybe it's this lamer that should get off MY road :crash: :)

Acutally this is an interesting question: what taxes do all citizens pay for road-way upkeep and what taxes are only put on as a burden to automobile owners?

and as for that NSC image? I want that as a Tshirt!!!

Acutally this is an interesting question: what taxes do all citizens pay for road-way upkeep and what taxes are only put on as a burden to automobile owners?



Well it is a state by state thing... but generally speaking, developers pay for the streets in a new development, and maintanence is usually funded from property tax general funds.

The hiways are generally paid through states' general funds which come from a variety of sources such as sales tax, and income tax and some property taxes.

The Federally funded interstates are paid for in part (as are much of the local hiways) from the general tax funds.

California has in place a fairly recent tax rule (2000) to steer the funds from gas tax to highway repairs, but at this point, the taxes still go into the general fund.

I researched this a while back and could find no direct tax or fee on motorists that was used to pay directly for roads... the exception being toll roads. Even the fees collected at the Motor Vehicle departments tend to go first for the Department operation, and second to some form of law enforcement.

In general, we all pay for the roads. Specifically, the more expensive the house you have paid for, and the higher your income, the more you "own the roads."

So the joke that the well paid yuppie with the $5K bike probably "owns the road" more than the guy still driving the old '62 Chevy... is most likely true.

..and bicyclists do not pay highway taxes. So, what are those little windows marked "Federal tax" and "state tax" on my checkstub every week?

On a more serious note, someone once said that you should never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. Amen. These characters bear watching.

So, what are those little windows marked "Federal tax" and "state tax" on my checkstub every week?

On a more serious note, someone once said that you should never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. Amen. These characters bear watching.

The problem is they tend to whip themselves into these little frenzies and some radio DJ takes it and whips it even further... all because some motoring idiot had to slow down to 20 MPH for maybe 10 seconds... in spite of the fact that mr driving idiot just spent 6 minutes waiting for their morning mocha java frappachino... :rolleyes:

A lot of good points. Another one: most cyclists are also motorists, so they do pay the motorists taxes.

I'm over here in India right now. I say send all these nutjobs to India and see how they fare driving their precious 4000lb SUVs! The traffic is totally nuts here!

Gasoline is still way too cheap.... and I would love to see a 'user pays' system for all vehichles where you have one flat rate per pound of vehichle per mile, and you purchase miles in advance. The more pounds of vehichle you operate the more you pay, and the further you operate that vehichle the more you pay. What could be fairer than that? A 20 pound bicycle would cost a miniscule ammount to run compared to a 6000 pound SUV.

I ride on the sidewalk where it's safe

I love that...now I have to jump out of the way because I'm a pedestrian on the sideWALK.

But hey, I'm not going that fast and I'm holding up a faster vehicle...I really need to get out of his way...

This is a pretty garden variety rant. Here's what I find interesting: It is possible to make a logical, reasoned, rational argument that the current laws granting bicycles to roads are too liberal. Every vehicle impacts other users of the road. With certain vehicle types, our goverment has decided that the impact on others outweighs the benefits. It happens all the time -- look at ATV's, scooters, trucks, buses. Some states limit the number of miles that trucks from out of state can be driven. Hell, the concept of jaywalking didn't exist until the 20th century. So it's possible to argue that on certain types of roads, the impact to others of bicycles outweighs their benefit to their users.

Now, I'm not saying I support this line of reasoning, or even find it convincing. I'm just saying it is possible to take an intellectually defensible position along these lines, supported by facts.

Here's the funny thing: I've never heard a reasoned argument against allowing cyclists on the road. This one is typical in that it's all emotion, and instead of arguing the practicalities and appealing to fairness, it's all about demonizing the people who choose to ride bicycles -- they're inconsiderate and arrogant, they don't obey traffic rules, they dress funny, they have puny bikes instead of 4,000 lb cars, they don't pay taxes.

What concerns me most about this rant is the response of a select few here who to seem to think that using the term "******" or "tard" is acceptable when talking about something they disagree with and think is stupid. You reveal as much about your own ignorance as the ranter does his or hers when you post such things.

Here's the funny thing: I've never heard a reasoned argument against allowing cyclists on the road. This one is typical in that it's all emotion, and instead of arguing the practicalities and appealing to fairness, it's all about demonizing the people who choose to ride bicycles -- they're inconsiderate and arrogant, they don't obey traffic rules, they dress funny, they have puny bikes instead of 4,000 lb cars, they don't pay taxes.

I find it sad. (vs funny, but take your meaning).

Whenever a person or group of people want to get a good "boil" going, all they have to do is project a person or group of people as being "different" and point out "differences" that "everyone" has seen at some point, and then say that these precieved differences make them somehow "un" whatever the group is and poof! a brand new easy to hate bogey man, ready to hate.

And here I thought differences were just fine and all that. Silly me ;p

What concerns me most about this rant is the response of a select few here who to seem to think that using the term "******" or "tard" is acceptable when talking about something they disagree with and think is stupid. You reveal as much about your own ignorance as the ranter does his or hers when you post such things.

tard appeaser. Why do you hate freedom? :p :D

tard appeaser. Why do you hate freedom? :p :D

I don't:) (hate freedom)

What concerns me most about this rant is the response of a select few here who to seem to think that using the term "******" or "tard" is acceptable when talking about something they disagree with and think is stupid. You reveal as much about your own ignorance as the ranter does his or hers when you post such things.


I'll try to be more intellectual next time.

What concerns me most about this rant is the response of a select few here who to seem to think that using the term "******" or "tard" is acceptable when talking about something they disagree with and think is stupid. You reveal as much about your own ignorance as the ranter does his or hers when you post such things.


I agree.
Fluckin Moron is a far more accurate description.

I'll try to be more intellectual next time.

freakin apes

What concerns me most about this rant is the response of a select few here who to seem to think that using the term "******" or "tard" is acceptable when talking about something they disagree with and think is stupid. You reveal as much about your own ignorance as the ranter does his or hers when you post such things.

I agree with this...I don't think we should call these ******* ...tards. It's an insult to ******** people who have a lot more sense than this.