No End to 'Bicyclists are the Problem' Newsprint

[randya]

Allister, we all appreciate your perseverance, but why keep indulging la un-majo? Just activate the ignore function and be done with her...

[Chris L]

Alright, once more than I'm done.

I guess I just hate to hear people complain about things that they haven't paid their fair share of but feel that they have.

Much the same way I, an accountant, hate to hear people who no nothing about economics or finance try to tell me I haven't paid for something when I have.

Okay if GST stands for Gross Sales Tax, I don't get what you mean. So they paid their regular sales taxes, regular income taxes, and have paid more into the system with that registration tax, and the fuel tax that you don't pay because you are pedaling. .

Goods and Services Tax, but close enough I suppose. It's basically a flat rate of 10% on virtually all goods and services in the economy (with exceptions for things like basic food that nobody can actually live without). As I said before, If I choose to spend $20,000 on things other than a car, these things have been levied at the same rate as the car, and hence I've paid the same sales tax.

That's just it. It is the original plan due to the society that we live in today. Like I've said, yes it would be cheaper to make bike lanes every where in the world if that were the only mode of transportation. But that ain't how it is. Sorry.

I'm not debating that point. I am merely debating that the original plan would be much cheaper if everybody did what I do, and as a consequence, I see no reason that I should pay for the indulgences of others.

You have to admit that when accidents like that do occur and can happen. I'm not going to say that I'm an expert in this but there is some justification to the madness with deaths and cycling.

I've never denied that accidents can happen, we don't live in a perfect world. I just prefer to look at the probabilities, and an innocent third party is considerably less likely to be killed by an idiot on a bike than an idiot in a car.

Where is your proof. I have mine due to the fact that I work with it every day. And have advised you to go to your local law enforcement and ask.

My proof is the 30 minutes I just spent riding home from work, the number of supposedly "registered" drivers breaking the law (incidentally, anyone who thinks that every car on the road is actually registered is living in dreamland). If the system was working as perfectly as you think it is, nobody would be breaking the law at all.

[Richard D]

Sucks to be you. The funny thing is, is that health care tax goes directly to your healthcare, just like my registration tax goes to my roadways. My healthcare is not a tax, it's an elected option. That's why it sucks to be you.



No the healthcare is paid from general taxation, just the same as roads are paid for from general taxation. No it doesn't suck.


If you are going to participate in a thread, maybe you should consider other locations in the world. Or do you live in the imaginary world of cyclists also. The world doesn't revolve around you, nor I.


I do consider other locations in the world - my point was that you seem to ignore anything outside Arizona.

I don't thrive on knowing the politics, and or taxation of other countries due to the fact, I just don't live there.


I apologise for not realizing the extent of your ignorance.


I know as a motorist I pay more taxes than a cyclist with no motor vehicle on the sheer premise that they pay, registration tax, a huge sales tax when the vehicle is purchased, and fuel taxes on top of their normal every day taxes that everyone pays.


So a cyclist who spends the money they would have spent on a car on other things contributes less sales tax? Is that the logic of your arguement? If for example I spent the money I could have spent on a car on developing a collection of vintage wines I'd have paid more tax into general taxation than the motorist due the higher taxation on wine than cars - yes it's an extreme example but I hope you can see that taxation is a little more complex than you are implying.


How would that be that I'm wrong and you right. If you paid even an extra dollar on top of your every day taxes that motorists pay also, you as a registered cyclist can now complain more because you have now paid into a system of taxes that motorists pay into already


So your right to how loudly you complain is based on how much you pay? Does that mean those that pay more taxes can have more votes in the next election? It's a monstrous idea that basic rights should be based on wealth.


The main reason that I have stated that a bike registration would be more assistive to myself as a lawenforcement employee is the fact that traffic offenders can be caught easier. Just so you guys know, because most people are unaware of this, I have a computer in front of me that can run any vehicle registration anywhere in the United states to include Alaska and Hawaii, and also registrations from all of Canada. That's pretty broad. And I'm sure that in your countries your local law enforcement has a very very similar system that can find you also.

Yes even in backward UK the Police can do vehicle identity checks.

Okay, putting aside your 'interesting' notions of rights and taxation, lets look at the practicalities of your scheme. To be of any use the vehicle would need to be identifiable both by eye at a reasonable distance and by cameras, even at night - agreed? Looking at motorcycle plates used in the UK (and only on the rear) they seem to be approximately 8" x 11" , how do you propose to fit these to an average road bike?

[Allister]

Allister, we all appreciate your perseverance, but why keep indulging la un-majo? Just activate the ignore function and be done with her...

Her? Possibly. However, I don't know any women that can be as pig-headed as this individual. Until we know more, maybe we should use 'it'.

BTW, I'm done arguing with the Know-Nothing - it's clearly futile. Now I'm just aiming at ridicule.

[Chris L]

Her? Possibly. However, I don't know any women that can be as pig-headed as this individual. Until we know more, maybe we should use 'it'.

BTW, I'm done arguing with the Know-Nothing - it's clearly futile. Now I'm just aiming at ridicule.

I think it's as you said eariler in the thread -- the Know-Nothing clearly is too stupid to even realise when they've been ridiculed. I think the ignore list really is the best option.

[Ohio Trekker]

I think the ignore list really is the best option. Sorry to BUTT in here, but where do you find that ignore list? Desperately seeking!!

[randya]

Go to 'user control panel', then to buddy/ignore list, then select member from members list.

[Ohio Trekker]

Go to 'user control panel', then to buddy/ignore list, then select member from members list.
THANKS Randya, that's easy enough to do. Didn't think of looking in my control panel.

[Allister]

I think it's as you said eariler in the thread -- the Know-Nothing clearly is too stupid to even realise when they've been ridiculed.

That's the beauty of it.

I think the ignore list really is the best option.

C'mon Chris. Surely you've got a few jibes in yer. It's a lot easier than arguing point by point in those tediously long posts with zero enlightened content that know-nothing favours.

[Stubacca]

C'mon Chris. Surely you've got a few jibes in yer. It's a lot easier than arguing point by point in those tediously long posts with zero enlightened content that know-nothing favours.

Great to see another Aussie larrikin, Allister! Nothing better than poking fun at someone too stuid to realise. :)

I think I'm going to try the ignore route for a while, but I do find these sort of posters funny so I'm sure curiosity will get the better of me. Do the rest of us a favour and quote the funny bits before you take the mickey.... :D

[nathank]

wow this thread has gotten out of control! i mean, everyone is free to have his own opinions, but this thread is pretty much domintae by lamajo25 saying all kinds of ignorant stuff... so i'll pretty much ignore his comments...

i think Pat's first comment probably best sums up my response to the original issue:

Well, quite a few issues were raised.

There is one notion that I think is totally spurious. That is the notion that cyclists who disobey the laws give a bad image to all cyclists. What gives a bad image of cyclists to motorists on the road is that cyclists are ON THEIR ROAD!!! Motorists seem to want cyclists off of the road and whether cyclists are lawbiding or not is not an issue.

Of course, the little old lady did not mention the fact that many motorists take it upon themselves to throw things at cyclists, beep their horn and then pass cyclists far too closely in an attempt to intimidate cyclists, illegally pass cyclists at intersections and railroad crossings, and yell obscenities at cyclists. I have had all these things happen many many many times whilst I was riding on the road in a legal and predictable fashion. There was absolutely no provocation. And I doubt very much that the motorist was nursing a grudge against some previous cyclists. They were mad at me for being on "their road".

Now some cyclists do run red lights. Personally, I generally treat traffic lights as stop signs because the local sensors will never ever sense my bicycle. Now if a car is on the sensor, I will wait because I know the light will turn and it seems gauche to go through while the motorist is waiting. If not, the moment the traffic is clear, I go.

Cyclists, may by their behavior put their own lives at risk. Also running over and killing a cyclist would certainly ruin most people's day and be a pretty terrible experience. But, as far as I can determine, cyclists do not cause the deaths of other people using the road. Of course, motorists manage to kill about 600 cyclists per year in the USA so the reverse is not true.

The other issue that came up was the issue of cyclists paying their fair share of taxes to construct the roads. Actually, car registration and gas taxes pay for only a small fraction of the cost of road construction and maintenance. Most of the money comes from local property taxes, sales taxes and federal money i.e. income tax. So, if anything, cyclists are paying more then their fair share already for the roads and having to suffer boorish and threatening motorists to boot!

and then my basic personal response to someone REALLY proposing that transportation users should pay proportionally for their usage of public resources:
If we go down the road that motorists have a greater right to the road than cyclists because they pay more (a ridiculous idea in my opinion) then as cyclists we should get a discount on other taxes. Lower health care costs (we tend to be fitter but more importantly contribute minimally to pollution levels), a lower contribution to the cost of cleaning public buildings, lower contributions to 'Defence' spending as we use less oil...

IF we really want a system where users pay their way, cyclists should be reimbursed for bicycling as they are paying more than their share of road and transportation taxes through funding of road services from the general fund (i.e. income, property, sales tax) vesres use of public resources: i.e. wear-and-tear on roads, amount of space (parking and road-use/traffic contribution), pollution, social effect (injuring others and property damage through accidents, pollution and "decreasing of quality of life" through traffic, horn-sounding, engine noise, etc.)

If anyone is to complain about "users not paying their share", the cyclists are those who should complain (although i recognize that most cyclists are also drivers, another point which the original complainer failed to note: that most of these "under-paying cyclists" ALSO pay the road fees through their car ownership registration fees)

Finally: as has been discussed here and in other threads, bicycle licensing and registration are 2 things that a) will discourage many from bicylcing b) probably cost more to implement than acutally raise revenue and c) just don't make sense. also note: although i am for promoting helmet usage, i am also against mandatory helmet laws as it decreases the overall cycling numbers AND diverts safety issues from the real problems (improperly designed roads and unsafe/careless drivers) to a "fluff issue" helmets use - and concentrate on fixing the problem (unsafe cycling conditions, improperly trained motorists and cyclists).

on the other hand, increasing cyclist training as well as motorist-training of sharing the road with cyclists would probably be a great thing, but someone has to pay for it...

corrected miscitation to Richard D -- previuosly incorrectly citated to Rich Clark -- sorry

[Stubacca]

As with you the same about reading. I simply stated that by paying that registration have more room to talk because they have paid that extra tax into the system. Not that the other has less room to talk. By paying that bike registration, gives you that more room to talk thing.

Sorry to bring this back up to the top - I promise to put it on ignore soon.

This comment really amused me last night, and I think highlights how damn ridiculous our 'special' friend's line of reasoning is. The more I think about it, the funnier it seems to get. Or maybe I just don't understand lamo-logic.... :D

If one person has 'more room to talk', how does the other not have 'less room to talk' in comparison?

Example: I have a pie. I cut it in half. I give one half to you. My half is bigger. Huh?

Not possible in my world. If the system allows equal right to complain, then by logical definition one person does not have more right than another.

QED.

I guess I just hate to hear people complain about things that they haven't paid their fair share of but feel that they have.

I guess I just hate to see people argue about situations they can't comprehend but feel they do, especially when they clearly lack common sense and logical reasoning ability.

[TeleJohn]

The way lamajo25 talks, we should go back to the days when only property owners could vote.

[lamajo25]

that transportation users should pay proportionally for their usage of public resources: cyclists should be reimbursed for bicycling as they are paying more than their share of road and transportation taxes

I really like this stuff. Some people need to learn to read.

So by your theory fo cyclists should be reimbursed for cycling because you think that they are paying more than their share, I should get a huge amount back. This is something that I thought of just a day ago.

I work for public service, paid by your taxes along with mine. I own a car, paying a registration tax that goes to roadway maintenance here in Arizona (Which if anyone remembers That tax that includes all of Arizona's motorists creates 37% of all of Arizonas revenues). I pay my normal every day taxes also. So we can determine that you are paying my salary through yours, and my taxes. Then I have to put it back into the system. So, I'm paying my salary along with everyone, on top of paying my registration, on top of having those other taxes. Man I'm getting screwed.

I'm done here for the lack of common sense.

[Allister]

I really like this stuff. Some people need to learn to read.

Yes, they do.

(Which if anyone remembers That tax that includes all of Arizona's motorists creates 37% of all of Arizonas revenues).

No, it's ony 37% of the DOT's revenues. Or do you think that the DOT is the only department collecting money?


So, I'm paying my salary along with everyone, on top of paying my registration, on top of having those other taxes. Man I'm getting screwed.

If this is what we're paying for, we all are.

I'm done here for the lack of common sense.

Whatever the reason, we're just glad to see the back of you.

[Chris L]

C'mon Chris. Surely you've got a few jibes in yer. It's a lot easier than arguing point by point in those tediously long posts with zero enlightened content that know-nothing favours.

Yeah, but as a moderator I'm supposed to set an example. Still, this thread was a lost cause long ago. Maybe I should just close it and have done with it.

[Richard D]

I really like this stuff. Some people need to learn to read.

Some people need to think more deeply.


So by your theory fo cyclists should be reimbursed for cycling because you think that they are paying more than their share,



Let me try to put the concept in extremely simple terms that a not very intelligent child should still comprehend:

Everyone pays a percentage of their taxation towards road building and the associated environmental impact of motor vehicles, whether or not they drive. I'll assume you've understood this point and don't disagree with it.

Now the slightly more complicated part:

Motorists pay slightly more taxation (be this general taxation or specifically allocated) but motor vehicles require greater expenditure in terms of road construction and also have greater environmental impact costs. Again a very simple concept.

The extra that mororists pay on top of what everyone pays is still relatively small as a proportion of total costs, hence those who don't choose to use a car are subsidizing those that do.

This is still a very very simple concept.



I should get a huge amount back. This is something that I thought of just a day ago.


Perhaps examining your thoughts for a week or two before expressing them might be a good idea? As someone who also drives (and this is not an attack on driving merely an explanation of their relative costs) youneed the increased expenditure on the roads and contribute to the environmental costs of driving.


I work for public service, paid by your taxes along with mine.

Thankfully not mine, but yes we are aware that you work in public services and that public services are paid out of taxation.



I own a car, paying a registration tax that goes to roadway maintenance here in Arizona (Which if anyone remembers That tax that includes all of Arizona's motorists creates 37% of all of Arizonas revenues).

This is slightly different to what you stated earlier. Are you getting a little confused?

Do you really mean that out of all the money raised from taxation in Arizona, 37% of it comes from car registration tax?

Or do you mean that 37% of roadway maintenance costs are met by registration? I would be surprised if it was that high?

Or perhaps you are trying to say that only 37% of your registration tax is ring-fenced for road maintenance?




I pay my normal every day taxes also.


As motorists, pedestrians and cyclists all do



So we can determine that you are paying my salary through yours,

Yes I can see that the poor citizens of Arizona are paying you.


and my taxes.


Yes, indirectly (unless of course you have sources of income - maybe public speaking or writing political pamphlets)


Then I have to put it back into the system.

Yes you pay taxes the same as everybody else...


So, I'm paying my salary along with everyone, on top of paying my registration,

Yes...


on top of having those other taxes.

Exactly what other taxes do you pay that other motorists don't pay?


Man I'm getting screwed.

Are you saying that the roads in Arizona aren't worth what you pay, or that your public services aren't worth what you contribute financially?

I'm done here for the lack of common sense

Well I must admit I don't understand why you think you deserve money back, and your post didn't seem sensible to me, common or otherwise so I'll graciouslly accept you self-appraisal.

[chewa]

Yes, indirectly (unless of course you have sources of income - maybe public speaking or writing political pamphlets)




ROFLMAO

Nice one Richard!

[Poguemahone]

What's so bad about lamajo25? I mean, all his posts are exactly the same, kinda like this:
This person is on your Ignore List.
I'll have to admit that's pretty repetitive and not setting any high standards for discourse and rhetoric, but far from the worst thing I've ever seen.

[Chris L]

Alright guys, I think I'll close this thread. We've all had a chance to have our say, and there really is no need to allow it to continue as a string of insults. Anyone with questions or comments can address them to me via PM.