Inez Seim isn't one to cause trouble. But the 84-year-old Portlander does have certain points of view that she doesn't mind sharing. "I've put in my opinions to people," she says.
Seim had called twice and left messages. So when she caught up to me while I was on deadline, I remembered a lesson my mother taught me: Stop and listen to your elders. Or they just might hurl a shoe in your direction.
"Do you smoke?" Seim asks.
No, I reply.
"Good for you."
The evils of tobacco will get you a lecture from this retired nurse. Her husband and middle son, she says, died of complications from smoking.
Lack of gratitude is another concern. She says she can't stand to see a spoiled, ungrateful child. "I was proud to have hand-me-down clothes," she says.
After a while, Seim apologizes for "going a long way around the barn." The real reason for her call, she says, is to complain about rude bicyclists. "This is not going to get better," she predicts. "It's going to get worse."
Seim says she is tired of bicyclists' running red lights: "You and I have seen cars who do the same cotton-picking thing." It's also unnerving when they zoom past her at a stop sign. "They look one way, and away they go," she says. "They don't even stop."
Seim believes all bicyclists should wear helmets, reflectors and bright clothing. And they should stay in the bicycle lanes as much as possible. "If I have to abide by the rules and pay a heavy fine," she says, "shouldn't they?"
But that's life in one of America's best-known bicycle-friendly cities. Bicycles are fun, healthy and environmentally friendly. More than half of us own them and actually ride them occasionally. And planners consider bike use an important indicator of quality of life.
It also means Portland police are more likely to jack me up for jaywalking than for zipping -- "Look, Mom, no hands" -- through a red light on my two-wheeler. Year to year, ending in August, pedestrians received almost 5,000 citations; bicyclists got 614.
Seim's idea is to force bicyclists to pay a registration fee to use the roads. "If they're going to use the streets, primarily for a means of transportation, they should make a contribution," she says. "That would bring a little funds into our coffers. But most of all, it would give these younger people a sense of responsibility, and older ones, too."
It sounded like a good idea to me. So I called Bill Barber, Metro's alternative-transportation guy. Twenty years ago, his agency studied the issue of bike registration and licenses, much like a driver's license. But it never went further than a chapter in Metro's regional bicycle plan. "It really was something that was not cost-effective," Barber says.
The idea of requiring a bicycle license has also been debated in City Hall, but the issue doesn't have advocates. "That would really put a damper on people giving a bike a chance," says Roger Geller, city bike coordinator.
The feds have put some money into educating young people about bike safety, but it wasn't enough and didn't last long. The Legislature has also discussed the issue over the years but has never done anything more than talk.
"I'd like to see somebody take this on," Seim says. "I would like to see some kind of campaign to get this rolling before I bid this planet adieu."
It all comes down to accountability, she says. Like spoiled children, bicyclists have long been overindulged. And like smoking, the city should curtail bad behavior before someone else dies. The question is: Is there anyone out there brave enough to stop allowing law-breaking bicyclists a free ride?
"I think we know what the answer is, but do we have the will and the money to make it work?" asks bike advocate and Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder. "We're kind of letting it happen and hoping everybody gets along and doesn't kill each other."
What's so friendly about that? Reach S. Renee Mitchell at 503-221-8142 or rmitch@news.oregonian.com. Her columns appear in this space on Mondays and Wednesdays, and online at www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/renee_mitchell.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
We have debated licensing and fines issues many times in BF. In many cities and states, bicyclists frequently DO get cited for infractions, sometimes as minor as rolling through a stop sign at less than 5mph. This is all well and good, but fines for errant bicyclists should be significantly smaller than those for errant motorists, because of the huge disparity in the damage each is likely to cause.
I would very much like to see some of the local unlighted wrong-way night cyclists get pulled over by our Sheriff. Incidentally, kids in my neighborhood often do get at least a stern warning, if not a citation, for rollerblading or cycling without a helmet.
The registration fees argument deserves a rebuttal only because the typical motorist fails to acknowledge that he/she enjoys a far greater general tax fund subsidy than any bicyclist. The day vehicle reigstration fees and gasoline taxes fully cover the cost of building and maintaining our roads, traffic signals, etc., as well as air pollution damage and resource depletion, we can talk about registration for bicycles.
Rich Clark
I don't agree with the title of the thread. The article, IMO, is dead on, and it's theme is "Bicyclists Who Ride Irresponsibly Are a Problem." I agree with that wholeheartedly.
The article seems to me to accept without question that bikes belong on the road, and have a right to be there. And that they're a legitimate form of transportation.
To see an article in the mainstream media that begins with those assumptions and proceeds from there is refreshing.
The article concludes that cyclists should be accountable for the actions. I applaud this, and the author of the article for saying it without condemning cycling as a whole, or tarring all cyclists with the same brush.
RichC
Chris L
It all comes down to accountability, she says. Like spoiled children, bicyclists have long been overindulged. And like smoking, the city should curtail bad behavior before someone else dies. The question is: Is there anyone out there brave enough to stop allowing law-breaking bicyclists a free ride?
As usual, it's all to easy to whinge to a newspaper and too hard to actually do anything to confront the problem. It's very, very easy to make a general complaint about "law-breaking cyclists" to a newspaper, but apparently it's much more difficult to make a similar complaint about a specific law-breaking cyclist to the police. Perhaps if she has such a problem, she should take the latter option - even if it doesn't have the attention grabbing ability of the first.
And can someone explain to me how making someone pay a registration fee of some kind is going to halt law-breaking behaviour?
randya
The article seems to me to accept without question that bikes belong on the road, and have a right to be there. And that they're a legitimate form of transportation.
I disagree with you wholeheartedly. Limited 'lip service' is given to cylists' right to be on the road, at best. All motorists aren't tagged as scofflaws because some (most?) motorists speed. Why are all bicyclists once again lumped into a group based on the irresponsible behavior of a few? This is segregation, discrimination, prejudice and bias in our society at it's worst. Further, it's a blatant attempt by people who don't bicycle and don't understand cycling in an urban environment in the least to paint cycling as a fringe activity, at best. Here's a few responses that were posted locally, that seem to me to get to the issue at hand:
Ms Mitchell.
I just finished reading your column about bicyclist's behavior. As a cyclist and motorist, I can't agree more that we've got some bad apples out on the road. I have largely boycotted Critical Mass Rides, the idea of which I support, because the aggressive and illegal behavior of many participants actually does bicycling a great disservice. Squandering the fairly widespread goodwill that Portland extends to those on bikes is a bad idea.
On a more daily basis, I can understand Inez Siem's frustration. I do think that before we begin requiring bike licenses or registration, some important points about this form of transportation should be recognized.
The "costs" of automobile use go well beyond the monetary. As livable as Portland has remained, our city still must grapple with the increasing demands of the automobile culture our nation has embraced. Even though the end results can be viewed in many other US cities, our metro area still flirts with widening freeways and filling quaint neighborhoods with parking structures, as if these things had not been done time and time again in other locales. If you build infrastructure for cars you get, surprise, more cars.
I am amazed at the complacency of motorists. They will spend an entire day each year stuck in traffic, but never demand real improvements to our transportation system. They ask for more roads, even though a quick trip to LA or any number of other cities will demonstrate how foolish this is. Instead some bicyclist runs a red light and they want that stopped ASAP.
People like Seim will bemoan the behavior of a few cyclists, not realizing that pedestrians and bicyclists are killed when an automobile fails to heed traffic laws, and that few jaywalkers or cyclists injure anyone when they do similar things, except maybe themselves. As it is now, the police state that they do not have the resources to really calm our streets, making them for children and adults who walk or ride to their destination.
Every bicyclist who braves the rapidly passing three thousand pound cars, cold and rain to ride a bike to work or for errands is doing the city a huge favor, making our streets safer and quieter, freeing up parking, and of course helping keep our air clean. As more and more Portlanders adopt bikes for some or all of their transportation, the conflicts between bikes and cars will undoubtedly increase, but in a nation overrun with soulless strip malls, neighborhoods where nobody knows their neighbors, and streets so busy kids cannot safely cross them, I really question the need to identify cyclists as what's ailing our city.
I would argue that the answer is more education (for cyclists AND motorists) and more infrastructure for bikes. People do not hail Portland as a model for urban planning because we have the best parking lots or the widest freeways. The precious space your column occupies might be better spent addressing any one of the countless ways in which automobiles have reshaped our communities in ways which are not conducive to human health and interaction. Conversely, interview some of the thousands of people who ride to work, see for yourself how they stop at red lights, and how healthy and happy they are, or visit the kids in the after-school programs at the Community Cycling Center on Alberta, or sit down for an hour or two over coffee with Roger Geller and ask him what Portland could become if bikes were embraced more than they are today. I assure you that's a very different place than the one you get embracing cars.
EJ
NE Portland
_____________________________________________
Hello Renee!
Here's a few responses to your column today. It's not cohesive from end to end - sorry about that.
Our roadways are supported not only by vehicle registration and gas taxes. roperty and income tax, aka the general fund, monies also pay for the roads we ride. So we do share the cost of having roads.
5000 pedestrian tickets vs. 631 for cyclists? Wow, that does sound lopsided. But since I don't know the number of pedestrians in the city vs. the number of cyclists the comparison makes no sense. Do pedestrians outnumber cyclists by a 8 to 1 margin? I'd say that walkers outnumber riders by a much wider margin than that. Especially downtown, where I would presume most of the pedestrian tickets are issued. With that insight, the ticket imbalance seems to indicate the pedestrians getting off free.
--
Inez Seim asks some good questions. Should bicyclists obey the laws? Yes. And you'll find that bicycle groups like the Portland Wheelmen and informal rides like Slug Velo both insist that participants do so. Of course, like motorists, not every bicyclist is going to obey the law - something Ms. (Mrs?) Seim is aware of. There is strong social pressure in the bicycling community to do obey law. So tickets or not, bicyclists are reminded to obey the laws by their peers.
--
While the Feds may have given up on educating young riders about safety the local nonprofit Community Cycling Center hasn't. Not only does it raise funds to give bicycles to kids that couldn't otherwise afford them it also trains them in safe riding.
--
References:
Portland Wheelmen: http://www.pwtc.com/
Community Cycling Center: http://www.communitycyclingcenter.org/
Slug Velo: http://www.slugvelo.org
MR
Portland Oregon
Bicycle commuter since November 2002, and 40 pounds lighter as a result. :)
lamajo25
And can someone explain to me how making someone pay a registration fee of some kind is going to halt law-breaking behaviour?
I find it quite easy to be helpful in catching traffic offenders.
Here is a good question to ask instead of how would it be a way to halt law-breaking behavior?. How would it make easier to catch traffic offenders?
We catch traffic offenders, normally by the License Plate. Now if this idea of registration of bikes, they would deffinately have to come up with some sort of plate that, 1. Doesn't interfere with the normal operation of the cyclist, and 2. is visible from the rear of the bike.
This will give the people wanting to report a cyclist breaking the law, something to give to the police departments.
Plus it would give you more to go on, on your theory of I paid for the streets through taxes, now you would have had to pay a registration fee (which goes to that also).
Allister
Inez Seim isn't one to cause trouble. But the 84-year-old Portlander does have certain points of view that she doesn't mind sharing. "I've put in my opinions to people," she says.
O christ! Not another opinion masquerading as news. What exactly qualifies this person to hold a newsworthy opinion on this subject?
Seim says she is tired of bicyclists' running red lights: "You and I have seen cars who do the same cotton-picking thing." It's also unnerving when they zoom past her at a stop sign. "They look one way, and away they go," she says. "They don't even stop."
Yeah, well I'm tired of speeding motorists, and from my observations there are a far higher proportion of motorists that regularly exceed the speed limit than there are red light running cyclists.
Seim believes all bicyclists should wear helmets, reflectors and bright clothing. And they should stay in the bicycle lanes as much as possible. "If I have to abide by the rules and pay a heavy fine," she says, "shouldn't they?"
Doesn't this happen already? It certainly does here.
It also means Portland police are more likely to jack me up for jaywalking than for zipping -- "Look, Mom, no hands" -- through a red light on my two-wheeler. Year to year, ending in August, pedestrians received almost 5,000 citations; bicyclists got 614.
The second sentence does not necessarily follow the first. Even in the most cyling friendly of American cities I doubt that the ratio of peds to cyclists is anywhere near as low as 8:1. Those figures indicate to me that cyclists are actually getting disproportionately higher number of citations and it's pedestrians that are getting it easy, unless of course peds are particularly law abiding in Portland
Seim's idea is to force bicyclists to pay a registration fee to use the roads. "If they're going to use the streets, primarily for a means of transportation, they should make a contribution," she says. "That would bring a little funds into our coffers. But most of all, it would give these younger people a sense of responsibility, and older ones, too."
Not that old chestnut? A nice idea, yes, but shown to be impracticable by everyone who's studied it in detail, and it would seem that A LOT have. Isn't it time this one was put to bed?
The idea of requiring a bicycle license has also been debated in City Hall, but the issue doesn't have advocates. "That would really put a damper on people giving a bike a chance," says Roger Geller, city bike coordinator.
What an odd statement. I am assuming of course that a license would be preceded by some sort of street riding education, but I fail to see how showing people how to ride on the road and giving them an official qualification to do so puts a 'damper on people giving a bike a chance' moreso than doing nothing, flinging them into the street and them giving up after the first day because they don't know what to do and get frightened or abused, or both.
Without the education, a license is just another form of ID.
The feds have put some money into educating young people about bike safety, but it wasn't enough and didn't last long. The Legislature has also discussed the issue over the years but has never done anything more than talk.
And there's the real problem, Inez Siem. How about putting your money where your mouth is instead of whining to some reporter? Want to solve your problem? Then, if you don't know how to do it yourself, how about coughing up the readies so that those that do, can?
It all comes down to accountability, she says. Like spoiled children, bicyclists have long been overindulged. And like smoking, the city should curtail bad behavior before someone else dies. The question is: Is there anyone out there brave enough to stop allowing law-breaking bicyclists a free ride?
This is in Portland right? I haven't seen any evidence that law-breaking cyclists are getting a free ride. Quite the contrary in fact.
"I think we know what the answer is, but do we have the will and the money to make it work?" asks bike advocate and Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder. "We're kind of letting it happen and hoping everybody gets along and doesn't kill each other."
And without the money to do anything else, that's how it will stay, no matter how many octogenerians get their opinions in print.
randya
...theory of I paid for the streets through taxes, now you would have had to pay a registration fee (which goes to that also).
Gas taxes and auto registration fees pay only a portion of road costs. A pretty substantial portion of local road construction/maintenance costs in Portland comes from the City's general fund, to which all homeowners and renters contribute, through property taxes, whether or not they own or operate an automobile.
In general, motorists do not pay the true cost for their use of roads,which are heavily subsidized by other taxes and fees, including those payed by non-drivers.
In fact, bicyclists do pay their fair share of road costs, despite the absence of a bicycle registration fee. An example of the math can be found here:
http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf
lamajo25
So by that person's college essay, we are to believe that pedestrians and cyclist pay more than motorist who register their car. I do know for a fact that the $200 that I paid last year for my registration, is going to new roads through the Arizona Department Of Transportation. It depends where you live and whether your roads are maintained by DOT, the city itself or, county taxes. I know they are through DOT which is the main office of motor vehicles here in AZ.
A major prime example of motorists paying to maintain roadways is the toll road. You don't see cyclists on those roads paying the tolls, but every car passing through that area pays the toll. Yes motorists pay more than you think.
And as for the point I was trying to make about the quote you reposted, it was directed at the fact that if you are a tax paying citizen then you would be more apt to own the road if you paid another part (Key word Part) of the taxes that fund your local roadways.
Rich Clark
I disagree with you wholeheartedly. Limited 'lip service' is given to cylists' right to be on the road, at best. All motorists aren't tagged as scofflaws because some (most?) motorists speed. Why are all bicyclists once again lumped into a group based on the irresponsible behavior of a few? This is segregation, discrimination, prejudice and bias in our society at it's worst. Further, it's a blatant attempt by people who don't bicycle and don't understand cycling in an urban environment in the least to paint cycling as a fringe activity, at best.
I'm not suggesting that licensing is the solution to anything, but I don't know that I'd oppose it if it were proposed. I'd want to know what the money would be used for.
But I absolutely agree with the idea that people will do what they think they can get away with, and many people riding bikes think they can get away with anything simply because they're anonymous.
Sure, within the "cycling community" there's peer pressure that encourages restraint. But most people who ride bikes don't identify themselves with other cyclists, or consider their cycling to be any sort of political or lifestyle choice. And it's from this much larger group of bicycle users that the wrong-way cyclists, the stoplight runners, and other two-wheeled menaces come?
By what mechanism are these people to be held accountable for their behavior? What threat is real enough to penetrate their consiousness and make them at least look around for a cop before they cross a four lane road diagonally in the middle of the block?
Sure, drivers disobey the law all the time. But there is also a great deal of self-restraint amongst the driving public, formed in part by fear of crashing and in part by fear of prosecution that could curtail their driving priveleges or at least cost them a stiff fine.
What similar mechanism is there for cyclists, expecially young ones who believe they're immortal?
The columnist doesn't propose restricting cycling. She doesn't bemoan our presence on the road, or suggest we should confine themselves to paths. She acknowledges cycling's role as basic transportation. But she addresses a question that should concern us all, and just because it comes from a "civilian" doesn't make it an less legitimage a question. (And by what evidence do we conclude she is not herself a cyclist?)
RichC
Rich Clark
O christ! Not another opinion masquerading as news. What exactly qualifies this person to hold a newsworthy opinion on this subject?
You're right, it's not masquerading as news. It's an opinion column. It's not masquerading as anything. It's one of those "Life in the City" columns.
RichC
randya
For the record, this article has done a good deal to rile up cyclists in Portland. Yet another response for your reading pleasure:
It is with great reservation that I am even writing to respond to your editorial. The problems with responding are 1) it only offers encouragement, it proves people are reading you and you are provoking debate, and 2) you are so wrong on so many levels that one would never be able to tackle them all. To write back, coherently, anything short enough to fit into my busy schedule, much less get printed, is going to leave the other 90% of your column unchallenged and implicitly accepted by the wider general audience.
Seriously, where should I begin? That a curmudgeon of an old lady with too much time on her hands need nag only three times to get a whole column written for her? That government is the solution to every problem, real or imagined? That the statistics you offer are so completely without context as to be misleading? That bicyclists on the roadway are a *danger* to absolutely no one? No one! That license and registration would have a disproportionate impact on the poor? That it would be yet another excuse and counter-demonstration claim for 'biking-while-black'? As for me personally, the biggest affront is that a staff editorialist for this State's paper of record can write a column so devoid of logic, research, and a moment's critical thinking. Having to correct your laziness is an imposition on me, the reader.
I will say this much, your spurious arguements do commit a real harm. They provide a veneer of rationalization for those 1% of drivers that are overtly hostile and aggressive towards bicyclists. Now they can feel like bicyclists are given special treatment by the police. Now they can complain they are unfairly over-taxed by sharing roads with bicyclists.
I think the real motivation is that editorial writers in Portland know when their readership numbers are sagging or merely questionable just attack the bike community and watch their call-to-arms and the resulting mail bags roll in.
And for the record, the number of pedestrians killed this year in Oregon by cyclists: 0. The number of pedestrians killed this year by elderly drivers: 4. Don't even get me started about the number of cyclists killed by drunken drivers. Where's your column on solving the lax DUI enforcement? Finally, to answer your pithy concluding quote, that we are "hoping everybody gets along and doesn't kill each other." Too late, only its not bicyclist's negligence doing the killing.
AF
NW Portland
randya
Sure, drivers disobey the law all the time. But there is also a great deal of self-restraint amongst the driving public, formed in part by fear of crashing and in part by fear of prosecution that could curtail their driving priveleges or at least cost them a stiff fine. RichC
Motorist 'self restraint' is a pathetic joke that results in 'only' 42,000 +\- deaths per year in the good ol' USA. It's a good thing they are 'restrained', otherwise who knows how many additional deaths they would cause?
chewa
I think Allister said all I felt like saying.
I have to add that I am sick of irresponsible cyclists (and by that I mean those who do not abide by the rules of the road) prejudicing the view motorists have of all cyclists. The biggie over here is running a red light or riding through ped crossings..
I'm a bit of a hypocrit here as I start off before the light changes at one junction as, because of poor planning, the cycle path I need to get to is in the middle of the road and If I don't get a clean break I'm fighting between traffic changing lanes to get to it (very dangerous).
I hope that my early jump doesn't affect others and if stopped I'll accept my punishment after explaining my reasons.
You can see the path I mean on my Scottish commute thread
Allister
You're right, it's not masquerading as news. It's an opinion column. It's not masquerading as anything. It's one of those "Life in the City" columns.
RichC
And it's because the proliferation of these meaningless, egotistical ramblings, along with reporting-by-press release that I don't read the newspaper. It's only a matter of time before newspapers become indistinguishable from Usenet, if it hasn't happened already. Being open about what it is doesn't make it any more worthy of printing.
Chris L
So by that person's college essay, we are to believe that pedestrians and cyclist pay more than motorist who register their car. I do know for a fact that the $200 that I paid last year for my registration, is going to new roads through the Arizona Department Of Transportation. It depends where you live and whether your roads are maintained by DOT, the city itself or, county taxes. I know they are through DOT which is the main office of motor vehicles here in AZ.
A major prime example of motorists paying to maintain roadways is the toll road. You don't see cyclists on those roads paying the tolls, but every car passing through that area pays the toll. Yes motorists pay more than you think.
Unfortunately, that only covers one side of the equation. If we're going to analyse who should pay more for the roads, we also must ask ourselves who is asking for more? Think about the vast amounts of space a car takes up on the road compared to a bicycle. Now think about the weight differential and the amount of pressure that puts on the physical structure of the road (and hence the cost of maintaining that road). Now ask yourself, who is contributing more to the incurring of those costs? If we are talking of a pure "user-pays" system, shouldn't those who contribute more to incurring the costs also be contributing more to paying for them? Even the toll roads you mention - cyclists aren't even allowed on most of them. Now who is getting the better deal here?
The fact is, cyclists already do pay their share through the income and consumption taxes we all pay. When you think about it, $200 for a registration fee isn't going to go very far. If you actually hit a treasury website somewhere you would see just how little of the cost of building and maintaining those roads this registration fee covers.
In fact, as has been mentioned above, many governments have already looked into the idea of registering bicycles, and concluded that on the basis of the facts I have presented above, a bicycle would be charged something like $10-20 to cover what it contributes to the costs of maintaining and building roads. Now I, for one, would have no trouble paying that sort of fee, but would the public be prepared to subsidise the administration costs of such a system which would surely be greater than any revenue it would generate?
The answer is no. This is why nobody has ever instituted such a system. And as I said before, if this lady has a problem with people breaking the law, the people she should be speaking to are the police, not journalists.
Allister
[QUOTE=lamajo25]
A major prime example of motorists paying to maintain roadways is the toll road. You don't see cyclists on those roads paying the tolls, but every car passing through that area pays the toll. Yes motorists pay more than you think. [QUOTE]
No matter how many times the lie is told that registration is to pay for roads, it won't make it true.
Allister
I think Allister said all I felt like saying.
I have to add that I am sick of irresponsible cyclists (and by that I mean those who do not abide by the rules of the road) prejudicing the view motorists have of all cyclists. The biggie over here is running a red light or riding through ped crossings..
I'm also sick of irresponsible cyclists being used as the benchmark for all cyclists. Yes, they are a problem, but if anyone dares judge me by someone else's behaviour merely because we both happen to ride a bike, I'm gonna open up a whole can o' righteous indignation on them. Whatever motorists think is up to them, but when you as a cyclist subscribe to this view yourself, you are more or less declaring yourself guilty of other's sins, whether you commit them yourself or not.
Don't take that last paragraph personally chewa, I have nothing but respect for you, but I did give warning some time ago (although that post wast lost in the Crash) that I am campaigning to stamp this idea out, and it irks me when someone as experienced and knowledgeable as yourself who probably should know better voices it.
Allister
I don't agree with the title of the thread. The article, IMO, is dead on, and it's theme is "Bicyclists Who Ride Irresponsibly Are a Problem." I agree with that wholeheartedly.
The article seems to me to accept without question that bikes belong on the road, and have a right to be there. And that they're a legitimate form of transportation.
To see an article in the mainstream media that begins with those assumptions and proceeds from there is refreshing.
The article concludes that cyclists should be accountable for the actions. I applaud this, and the author of the article for saying it without condemning cycling as a whole, or tarring all cyclists with the same brush.
RichC
Rich, before thing deteriorate any further in this thread (which I seem to be doing my derndest to encourage :)) I'd like to say that I more or less agree with you. It wasn't as negative as it could have been, or even as negative as some here might see it, and the points you mention are there for those that care to see them even if they aren't addressed directly.
What gets up my nose about this piece is that the writer chose to use the opinion of one, clearly uninformed, or at least minimally informed member of the public to base an entire article on, when actual advocacy groups with actual knowledge of the subject who are actively trying to get cyclists seen more favourably in the press are continually passed over. At least this time they took the time to talk to one, but only for a response, not as the basis of the article itself.
What a reporter would have done would have been to use the questions raised as the starting point and done the research, talked to the experts, put the statistics in context, looked at the history of the debate etc. etc. etc. In short - presented the facts.
Calling it an 'opinion' piece is merely an excuse to justify lazy reporting. And so the questions become almost the entire article, and only a cursory and vague response is given at the end. Another lost opportunity.
If you want to see a truly favourable article on bicycling in the mainstream media (well, the ABC, if that counts as mainstream) check this out (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s957350.htm)
chewa
I'm also sick of irresponsible cyclists being used as the benchmark for all cyclists. Yes, they are a problem, but if anyone dares judge me by someone else's behaviour merely because we both happen to ride a bike, I'm gonna open up a whole can o' righteous indignation on them. Whatever motorists think is up to them, but when you as a cyclist subscribe to this view yourself, you are more or less declaring yourself guilty of other's sins, whether you commit them yourself or not.
Don't take that last paragraph personally chewa, I have nothing but respect for you, but I did give warning some time ago (although that post wast lost in the Crash) that I am campaigning to stamp this idea out, and it irks me when someone as experienced and knowledgeable as yourself who probably should know better voices it.
I take your point Allister, but feel we may have to agree to disagree. The difficulty for me is that largely I respect the rules of the road as a driver motorcyclist and cyclist. I myself don't subscribe to the view, but am realistic to know that many motorists and pedestrians do look on us as a group rather than as individuals.
I DO care what drivers and pedestrians think of cyclists because I feel it affects the way they treat me, as a cyclist. While I am not guilty of the sins of others, I can get caught in the fallout. All it takes is someone to cycle gaily on through a ped crossing and the peds moan about "bloody cyclists". Largely the decision makers in government, local and national, are not cyclists and see us as a group.
Now I'd like to take the time to explain that as a cyclist I spend 2 hours a day on the road and am very experienced, observant, largely considerate of other road users needs (even if this consideration is not returned), but don't get the opportunity.
The only way I can influence others is to cycle assertively but responsibly, stop at crossings, wave pedestrians on at zebras etc.
Here, we have the possibility of the dual carriageway between Fife and Edinburgh being closed to bikes because of safety concerns largely arising from accidents involving cyclists, including fatal accidents (but mainly the fault of car drivers). Sensible response would be to train drivers or police properly but no, cyclists as a group are targeted, because of accidents involving a small number. Remove the group, remove the problem.
I think cyclists will always be seen as a group and the behaviour of one affects us all. In the eyes of many we are all guilty of the others sin. I don't like it, but what can I and others do about it?
Pat
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!
lamajo25
[/QUOTE]No matter how many times the lie is told that registration is to pay for roads, it won't make it true
Wow, it's absolutely amazing that the two people that argue the most about how roads are maintained DON'T LIVE HERE?
Allister, I don't actually care to here your lies. I know that a large portion of my registration goes directly to ADOT. Here's how our registration is broken down. My tags last year cost me around $200.00. My registration was actually $35.00 and a county tax was assessed for about $15.00. Lets see 35 plus 15 is $50.00. The rest is about $150.00. That is taxes that is assessed by the state for road maintenance. It says right on my registration paperwork. Now here in Arizona everyones registration is based on the value of your vehicle. I have a 2001 Mitsubishi Mirage. Small 4 door car and I pay about $150.00 in taxes. Now as your car gets up in years and depreciates in value you pay less. Now for the big hit to your lieing theory. My father owns a 2002 Chevy Crew Cab 1 ton pickup. Anyone here in the US knows that it will cost you around $40,000. His registration when he bought the truck new was over $700.00. The actual registration fee was with the county assessment was around $95.00. You do the math on how much were put into taxes.
Allister, stay where you are and don't come here. You know nothing about here.
I'm also sick of irresponsible cyclists being used as the benchmark for all cyclists
The unfortunate thing is that most of the problems are the irresponsible cyclist give everyone else bad names. Just like Motorcyclists and Motor Cops (motorcycle cops which I pretty much hate and yes I do work for law enforcement). Motorcyclist are the ones that either ride a crotch rocket and weave in and out of traffic, and then there's the Harley guys that are all gang member who will cut your or shoot you for no reason, Right? Wrong. It's stereotyping. If you are not one of these people don't place yourself into their type.
I commend the person who wrote the article. She has a valid point, there are cyclist out there that don't obey the laws and create their own rights (or want to be rights). I see day in and day out people (adults and kids alike) riding on the wrong side of the of the road, no lights on their bike at night time, no helmet, no reflectors even at night. Do I take it to heart when I see an article complaining about the cyclists creating traffic problems. God no, because I'm not part of that problem.
but would the public be prepared to subsidise the administration costs of such a system which would surely be greater than any revenue it would generate?
[QUOTE]
If you are implying that they would have to create a complete seperate entity, why wouldn't utilizing the already established Motor Vehicles Division. And the amount for the bikes would create enough money for everyone that want's utilize the roadways.
Now here is where I think that it would be harder to make this feasible. If you have to get a license and/or registration for your bike, that means that you would have to buy it from a specific dealership, not just good old Wal-Mart for your kids and yourself if you don't have the money to buy a Nice $200.00 bike from your local LBS. That would raise the amounts for a bike along with having to go to specific dealers to buy them. Kinda like a car.
SirSpinsalot
I would hate to see this womans reaction to a trip around I-285 here in Atlanta. She would most likely die of heart failure within minutes of merging into the "raceway".
Talk about disregard for the laws. If you are within 25 MPH of the speed limit you are tame.
Allister
Wow, it's absolutely amazing that the two people that argue the most about how roads are maintained DON'T LIVE HERE?
What, you think we don't have roads and registration in Australia? This discussion isn't just about Arizona or even the USA you parochial imbecile.
Allister, I don't actually care to here (sic) your lies.
Ignorance is bliss right?
I know that a large portion of my registration goes directly to ADOT. Here's how our registration is broken down. My tags last year cost me around $200.00. My registration was actually $35.00 and a county tax was assessed for about $15.00. Lets see 35 plus 15 is $50.00. The rest is about $150.00.
Wow! A whole $150! That'd buy you about a metre of concrete, but you wouldn't have enough left to put it anywhere useful.
That is taxes that is assessed by the state for road maintenance. It says right on my registration paperwork. Now here in Arizona everyones registration is based on the value of your vehicle. I have a 2001 Mitsubishi Mirage. Small 4 door car and I pay about $150.00 in taxes. Now as your car gets up in years and depreciates in value you pay less. Now for the big hit to your lieing theory. My father owns a 2002 Chevy Crew Cab 1 ton pickup. Anyone here in the US knows that it will cost you around $40,000. His registration when he bought the truck new was over $700.00. The actual registration fee was with the county assessment was around $95.00. You do the math on how much were put into taxes.
So more expensive cars damage the road more do they? Yeah, that's logical :rolleyes.
So you pay a token tax to drive a car in public. BFD. The costs required to allow the level of motoring freedom we have today is many, many times whatever amount the state gathers from taxes. If you ever pulled your head out of your own arse and did some research, you'd know that. But no, simple trolling is enough for you.
Allister, stay where you are and don't come here. You know nothing about here.
More than you do, mate.
lamajo25
You know Allister I know exactly where this post got sidetracked. And I'll post that in a minute.
First off:
Wow! A whole $150! That'd buy you about a metre of concrete, but you wouldn't have enough left to put it anywhere useful.
Take that measly $150.00 and multiply it by about 4 million people and cars. What do you get. $600,000,000 to maintain the roads here in my state. Now I know that family members in other states to include, Florida, California, Indiana, Idaho, and Colorado also pay taxes to help maintain their roads. Not just from their property taxes, or their food taxes, but by registering their car. So if the amount of cyclists, or say the amount of bike owners that, like this lady would like it, had to register their bike paid even $10.00 per bike. You can pretty much multiply that number by even 3,000,000 (for sake of the children who pretty much all have bikes) and most of that would go towards road maintenance. Now say that they decided to use those funds strictly for providing and maintaining more bike paths, and better bike lanes. That's $30,000,000 just for that or even $5.00 of that $10.00 thats still $15,000,000 for that alone (and I know I'm cutting that bike count short). Point is, it's pretty easy to account for the money that is taken in for the cars alone on taxes for roadway maintenance (and that's just on saying everyone here in Arizona owns only a 2001 Mitsubishi Mirage not accounting for anything of substantial value).
So more expensive cars damage the road more do they? Yeah, that's logical :rolleyes.
Which brings me to this. Nobody said they create more damage. There's more than one way to skin the rich of their spoils. I'm glad that they pay so much in taxes that are used to keep the roadways here in Arizona nice and pot hole free. I haven't hit a pot hole here in Arizona since I started driving at age 16. I'm now 27. Yeah that's only 11 years, but I've lived here for more than 20 and don't remember even my dad hitting any pot holes. You complain about bad roadway maintenance and your precious bike lane not being maintained. I know exactly where my taxes are going when I register my car. And if I had to register my bike I would know where those taxes are going also.
This is where we got off track:
Originally posted by ChrisL Also from Australia And can someone explain to me how making someone pay a registration fee of some kind is going to halt law-breaking behaviour?
No matter how many times the lie is told that registration is to pay for roads, it won't make it true.
Then I was called a liar about where my taxes went, though you have no idea where taxes go here in the US. I see a registered bike as a bike that has paved his way to work or school or anywhere else he or she would like to ride. On top of that from my very first post in this thread
We catch traffic offenders, normally by the License Plate. Now if this idea of registration of bikes, they would deffinately have to come up with some sort of plate that, 1. Doesn't interfere with the normal operation of the cyclist, and 2. is visible from the rear of the bike.
But as also I mentioned, this would create a new atmosphere to purchase bikes and would create a new reason to raise bike prices. Now does anyone want that. Stay safe out there and obey the law. If you don't fall into the "Law-Breaking" crowd don't stress about it. Help law enforcement catch those people.
Allister
Take that measly $150.00 and multiply it by about 4 million people and cars. What do you get. $600,000,000 to maintain the roads here in my state.
$600M isn't very much really. A single new freeway can easily run to more than that. $600M might sound like a lot to someone like you, but it is a meaningless figure unless you also post what it actually costs to build and maintain the state's roads, never mind the city streets.
You can pretty much multiply that number by even 3,000,000 (for sake of the children who pretty much all have bikes) and most of that would go towards road maintenance. Now say that they decided to use those funds strictly for providing and maintaining more bike paths, and better bike lanes. That's $30,000,000 just for that or even $5.00 of that $10.00 thats still $15,000,000 for that alone (and I know I'm cutting that bike count short). Point is, it's pretty easy to account for the money that is taken in for the cars alone on taxes for roadway maintenance (and that's just on saying everyone here in Arizona owns only a 2001 Mitsubishi Mirage not accounting for anything of substantial value).
It's amazing how you can pull this stuff out of your arse like that. This is all pure fantasy based on the vaguest of speculations.
You'd advocate charging registration to kiddies? It'd never happen. And this is one of the problems. Which bike to you register, and which do you not? It's a can of worms that no government is prepared to open. They actually did have a bike rego system here (in W.A. I believe) many years ago, but it proved unworkable and was duly scrapped.
Which brings me to this. Nobody said they create more damage. There's more than one way to skin the rich of their spoils.
What are you? A communist?
You said that rego was charged based on the value of the vehicle. You said that rego was money intended for road maintenance. This indicates that the idea is that owners of more expensive cars must pay more to repair the greater level of damage they do. It seemed like a logical conclusion.
If there is any other idea behind it, such as 'skinning the rich of their spoils', then clearly registration is NOT just a means of gathering funds to keep the roads working, it is something else.
I'm glad that they pay so much in taxes that are used to keep the roadways here in Arizona nice and pot hole free.
So you admit your $150 isn't enough if that was the rate for everyone? I hope you make sure you stay out of the way of the BMWs and Mercedes - they've got more right to be on the road than you do. They payed for it.
You complain about bad roadway maintenance and your precious bike lane not being maintained.
Did I? When? I have no emotional attachment to bike lanes one way or the other. So don't you think bikelanes are worthwhile Mr. Get-Out-Of-The-Way-Of-Cars. I would have thought you'd be their biggest advocate.
Then I was called a liar about where my taxes went, though you have no idea where taxes go here in the US.
Again, don't be so parochial. Besides, I don't think you're a liar, just ignorant, and as such will repeat a lie believing it to be true.
I see a registered bike as a bike that has paved his way to work or school or anywhere else he or she would like to ride.
So should pedestrians pay rego as well? Footpaths come out of the road budget too you know.
But as also I mentioned, this would create a new atmosphere to purchase bikes and would create a new reason to raise bike prices.
You've lost me now. How do you think charging rego for bikes will lead to this?
lamajo25
How does it come to us two argueing. I know, you have more experience because you've pedaled a bike more than I.
You've lost me now. How do you think charging rego for bike will lead to this?
Just like a car dealership. If you are to start charging a registration, you are going to now have to do away with your local Wal-Mart, or department store bike sales, because, Like A Car Dealership and Vehicle Registration, you are going to have restrict the sale of bikes to make sure registration is taken care of. You can't just buy a car and drive it off the lot without registering it can you? Talk about Ignorant. You appear to be the only one arguing, meaning you don't understand what I've posted. Maybe that's because you are so far away from the US and they don't do it that way over there.
$600M isn't very much really. A single new freeway can easily run to more than that. $600M might sound like a lot to someone like you, but it is a meaningless figure unless you also post what it actually costs to build and maintain the state's road, never mind the city streets.
No it's not. But I know for a fact that everyone in Arizona doesn't own a Mirage either. I know I see more high dollar cars on the road than I do cheapies. That means you can probably double that number. That creates what 1.2 billion. Now that's alot of money. To anyone not just "Someone Like Me." Figure in the small portion of Property taxes, and food sales taxes, I'll bet that there is about the same amout of money coming in from just vehicle registration as both of those others combined. Property taxes aren't that much and they are assessed by each individual county, not the state.
So you admit your $150 isn't enough if that was the rate for everyone? I hope you make sure you stay out of the way of the BMWs and Mercedes - they've got more right to be on the road than you do. They payed for it. <dickhead>
Yeah I admit that my $150.00 doesn't go very far, but I also believe that all of us here in AZ pay way to much in vehicle tax. That goes for the BMW's and Benz's. I told you my dad paid over $700 for his first registration, that's rediculous for a ranch truck. I've seen states where the taxes for sales are much higher because of lower registration fees. Would hate to be there and have to buy a $3-$5 gallon of milk after taxes are applied. I do understand that some of the sales taxes and property taxes go to street maintenance also, but the registration taxes do account for more than people think.
You'd advocate charging registration to kiddies?
No but something would have to be done. You can't charge one and not another. I don't advocate it, and this would be a major reason why it wouldn't work, I do agree with you there. That would be like charging motorcycles and not mopeds, both used on the streets but vast differences in size and speed. I definately don't advocate licensing a person to ride a bike. Many people have different abilities, and a child just learning would never pass any kind of test. There are things that wouldn't ever pass or fly, but if you do one you have to do all.
What are you? A communist?
Not communist, but do feel that if you earn more you should have to pay more taxes. Here it seems like the rich get more breaks in taxes than the poor. I'm working middle class, I feel I pay way too much in taxes to be able to support my family like a rich person does. It just doesn't seem right.
Did I? When?
What complain about the road conditions. Lets see, Legal Aspect of Taking the Lane, "If the bike lane has debris in it that's a hazard to myself." Maybe some of the registration fee would be put towards a street sweeper that cleans that bike lane. That would be one plus for the registration, but not justification to do so.
So should pedestrians pay rego as well? Footpaths come out of the road budget too you know.
What would this have to do with it. Yes the SIDEWALKS come out of the same money in a round about way. Most sidewalks are City owned not street owned. That means that they take that from city taxes along with some of the sales taxes. Not street and highway funds from registrations. Yes, cities and counties get their funding from those taxes for the city streets, but do not solely rely on them. We have some pretty bad streets here in my town, but the main streets that are maintained by the state are in immaculate condition and always will be. We don't even have that many side walks. My street doesn't. The main streets through town and within town do, but they are maintained by taxes that we pay to the city, not the state.
Chris L
Like A Car Dealership and Vehicle Registration, you are going to have restrict the sale of bikes to make sure registration is taken care of. You can't just buy a car and drive it off the lot without registering it can you?
Have a look in the classifieds section of your local newspaper, particularly on a weekend. I'd say you'll find plenty of private car sales where people do just that.
No it's not. But I know for a fact that everyone in Arizona doesn't own a Mirage either. I know I see more high dollar cars on the road than I do cheapies. That means you can probably double that number. That creates what 1.2 billion. Now that's alot of money. To anyone not just "Someone Like Me." Figure in the small portion of Property taxes, and food sales taxes, I'll bet that there is about the same amout of money coming in from just vehicle registration as both of those others combined. Property taxes aren't that much and they are assessed by each individual county, not the state.
I think you'll find that income taxes from the people who drive these "higher end" cars is a much greater figure. This seems to be the major thing missing from this argument.
No but something would have to be done. You can't charge one and not another. I don't advocate it, and this would be a major reason why it wouldn't work, I do agree with you there. That would be like charging motorcycles and not mopeds, both used on the streets but vast differences in size and speed. I definately don't advocate licensing a person to ride a bike.
So why are we even having this discussion?
Not communist, but do feel that if you earn more you should have to pay more taxes. Here it seems like the rich get more breaks in taxes than the poor. I'm working middle class, I feel I pay way too much in taxes to be able to support my family like a rich person does. It just doesn't seem right.
Again, see my point on income taxes. I think you'll find that the wealthy are already taxed at a higher marginal rate once their income exceeds a certain threshold.
What complain about the road conditions. Lets see, Legal Aspect of Taking the Lane, "If the bike lane has debris in it that's a hazard to myself." Maybe some of the registration fee would be put towards a street sweeper that cleans that bike lane. That would be one plus for the registration, but not justification to do so. .
Personally, I find it just easier to claim the lane for as long as is necessary and have done with it. A pile of debris would have to be pretty large before it becomes more difficult to negotiate than a street sweeper.
What would this have to do with it.
The principle of asking one group to pay for their facilities, something you mentioned above.
I should point out, of course, that anyone who gets sick of paying car registration fees can always avoid the need to do so by simply selling their car outright and getting rid of the hassle. I, myself, have never paid a car rego fee in my life, nor do I intend to start doing so now.
lamajo25
Have a look in the classifieds section of your local newspaper, particularly on a weekend. I'd say you'll find plenty of private car sales where people do just that.
Yes so true. That car was bought new when it first came out, From a Dealership who in fact requires you to register the vehicle before it leaves the lot. A new regulation here in Arizona, no it's not all over the US, started about 2 years ago. If you are the private seller of a vehicle, you as the seller take the license plate off the vehicle, thus forcing the new owner to get new registration within 30 days. Now most areas are like it used to be, you sell your vehicle, the person waits that maximum 30 days and then possibly goes in and registers their car. Yes that would be implemented also, you sell your bike you take your registration with you. I know of some states that your license plate stays with you until the motor vehicles division re-issues you a new plate because they've 1. changed the color, 2. changed the amount of years your registration. My father in law in Indiana gets a new license plate every 4 or 5 years, no questions asked. And the old one is no longer good.
I think you'll find that income taxes from the people who drive these "higher end" cars is a much greater figure. This seems to be the major thing missing from this argument.
This is a debate for the political discussions forum. There are many working class people here in the US that feel the rich aren't taxed enough. Yes they do get taxed quite a large sum, but for their actual income it doesn't affect them like a working class person. It's kinda like you earn $2,000,000 a year and say, for even remotest chance, you have a 50% tax. You still earned $1,000,000. I on the other hand earning $30,000 a year am taxed around 22% of my income and comes out to $6000 of my income. I've now only brought home $24,000. That's where I'm coming from.
Personally, I find it just easier to claim the lane for as long as is necessary and have done with it. A pile of debris would have to be pretty large before it becomes more difficult to negotiate than a street sweeper.
Once again the infamous lane claiming again. Yes that's true, but if the lane was already clear because they cleaned it the night before, now what do you say.
The principle of asking one group to pay for their facilities, something you mentioned above.
No, I'm not asking, just making a justification to what the funds would go to if required to register the bike.
Chris L
This is a debate for the political discussions forum. There are many working class people here in the US that feel the rich aren't taxed enough. Yes they do get taxed quite a large sum, but for their actual income it doesn't affect them like a working class person. It's kinda like you earn $2,000,000 a year and say, for even remotest chance, you have a 50% tax. You still earned $1,000,000. I on the other hand earning $30,000 a year am taxed around 22% of my income and comes out to $6000 of my income. I've now only brought home $24,000. That's where I'm coming from.
You're right, it is a discussion for the political forum. I'll leave it right where it is for now.
Once again the infamous lane claiming again. Yes that's true, but if the lane was already clear because they cleaned it the night before, now what do you say.
Around here at least there's a fair chance somebody will have been along since then to smash a beer bottle on it. Even if that isn't the case - I'd much rather risk it than have to put up with the expectation from others that I will never claim the lane. We live in an imperfect world inhabited by imperfect creatures. Things go wrong occasionally, I'd much rather have the option of dealing with it than the expectation that it should be perfect.
No, I'm not asking, just making a justification to what the funds would go to if required to register the bike.
I think it's a little naive to just assume that this is where the funds will go. The fact is, motor vehicle registration funds in this country simply go into General Revenue, which is funded by the taxes we all pay, and which is spent on whatever the government feels will win it the next election (pretty much regardless of which party is in power at the time). Again, there really is no guarantee that we'll see any additional bike lanes from this money regardless of how much they charge for the registration.
lamajo25
I think it's a little naive to just assume that this is where the funds will go. The fact is, motor vehicle registration funds in this country simply go into General Revenue,
That really sucks for you guys. I guess were are lucky here.
Allister
How does it come to us two argueing. I know, you have more experience because you've pedaled a bike more than I.
No, it's because I'm the only one that hasn't put you on their ignore list yet. ;)
Just like a car dealership. If you are to start charging a registration, you are going to now have to do away with your local Wal-Mart, or department store bike sales, because, Like A Car Dealership and Vehicle Registration, you are going to have restrict the sale of bikes to make sure registration is taken care of.
Why? There are plenty of situations where registration is dealt with after the sale takes place. You simply take the form into the DOT office and do it there.
You can't just buy a car and drive it off the lot without registering it can you? Talk about Ignorant. You appear to be the only one arguing, meaning you don't understand what I've posted. Maybe that's because you are so far away from the US and they don't do it that way over there.
No, I don't understand what you're saying because you're not making any sense. You still haven't explained how this will push the price of bike up and increase bike sales (actually you said 'create anew atmosphere to purchase bikes' which could mean anything) as you claimed. If anything, it'd be a deterrent to cycling. It's hard enough to get people riding as it is. Add in a fee and another encounter with the beurocracy and people will simply say 'why bother?'. This is [exactly] what happened when mandatory helmet laws were introduced in this country, and that didn't even require a visit to QT - I see no reason to expect registration would be any different.
No it's not. But I know for a fact that everyone in Arizona doesn't own a Mirage either. I know I see more high dollar cars on the road than I do cheapies. That means you can probably double that number. That creates what 1.2 billion.
Come back when you've got some actual figures, as well as actual costs, not just wild spectulation.
Yeah I admit that my $150.00 doesn't go very far, but I also believe that all of us here in AZ pay way to much in vehicle tax. That goes for the BMW's and Benz's. I told you my dad paid over $700 for his first registration, that's rediculous for a ranch truck.
At least we agree on this. A system of registration based on vehicle value is ludicrous.
No but something would have to be done. You can't charge one and not another. I don't advocate it, and this would be a major reason why it wouldn't work, I do agree with you there.
One option that was bandied about was basing it on wheel size - but I couldn't bear the smug look on those Moulton rider's faces.
Not communist, but do feel that if you earn more you should have to pay more taxes. Here it seems like the rich get more breaks in taxes than the poor. I'm working middle class, I feel I pay way too much in taxes to be able to support my family like a rich person does. It just doesn't seem right.
Everyone thinks they pay too much taxes.
What complain about the road conditions. Lets see, Legal Aspect of Taking the Lane, "If the bike lane has debris in it that's a hazard to myself." Maybe some of the registration fee would be put towards a street sweeper that cleans that bike lane. That would be one plus for the registration, but not justification to do so.
I don't believe that was me, but if it was it hardly constitutes a complaint - more a mere statement of fact. I have no complaints with the level of sweeping that goes on here. When there is debris, I simply ride around it. Road surface is generally good too. You get the occasional pothole, but they're rarely left unfilled for more than a few weeks. I don't know where you got the idea I felt otherwise. You might be confusing me with someone else - it wouldn't surprise me.
What would this have to do with it. Yes the SIDEWALKS come out of the same money in a round about way. Most sidewalks are City owned not street owned. That means that they take that from city taxes along with some of the sales taxes. Not street and highway funds from registrations. Yes, cities and counties get their funding from those taxes for the city streets, but do not solely rely on them. We have some pretty bad streets here in my town, but the main streets that are maintained by the state are in immaculate condition and always will be. We don't even have that many side walks. My street doesn't. The main streets through town and within town do, but they are maintained by taxes that we pay to the city, not the state.
I see the problem. I was talking about roads, meaning all roads, including road related areas like footpaths, and you're talking about state roads only. You know, I ride most days of the year, but I haven't ridden on a DMR road in years. It would seem you're suggesting that I pay a registration fee to pay for roads that I never use.
lamajo25
There are plenty of situations where registration is dealt with after the sale takes place. You simply take the form into the DOT office and do it there.
I'm going to go with, You've never actually bought a new car. Like off a lot. ALL new cars. Hypothetically, if this were real, you would have to take your registration off your bike or transfer the registration over to the new owner who would in turn have to re-register the bike. Like you said. But to buy a new bike off the shelf like at your local bike shop you would have to register it before you left the store as with purchasing a new car off the lot. This would give reason to the bike shop to raise their prices because now they have more paperwork, and like cars can put a new price tag more than Suggested Retail Price. You kno like in the car commercials "SRP may vary." Now are we clear on this. By changing the atmosphere, maybe the bike shop would become more like a car dealership.
Come back when you've got some actual figures, as well as actual costs, not just wild spectulation.
I can't give you actual figures due to the fact that I can't give you the information on every car here in Arizona. I can however tell you that there is about 4 million people here in AZ alone. Now account for the high end cars, and the fact that if they own a high end car that means that they may own 2, 3, maybe even 4 cars. Trailers, they have a registration also, Dad's got a 36 foot fifth wheel trailer that the initial registration was over $1000.00 when it was bough new in 1997. Account for the motorcycles, comercial vehicles and other miscellaneous vehicles (to include all government vehicles, no they aren't exempt either) and you will probably come up with a figure somewhere close if not more than what I guestimated at 1.2 billion. You see you are looking at the car that I own. The unfortunate thing is we are punished for wanting a nice vehicle, but like I said we have immaculate streets as our main streets.
see the problem. I was talking about roads, meaning all roads, including road related areas like footpaths, and you're talking about state roads only. You know, I ride most days of the year, but I haven't ridden on a DMR road in years. It would seem you're suggesting that I pay a registration fee to pay for roads that I never use.
No, I wasn't stating state roads I was utilizing that as a normal route of travel. No, normally I don't use side streets I use the main drags, and figured on the fact that you also used them and would comprehend that, that is what I was getting at. Yes Ignorance is bliss so don't name call. So the answer to your final comment is no, don't but you still do through your property taxes and sales taxes (which comes out of your buying your bike parts, bikes, cars, car parts and anything else you buy, along with gas).
On a more fun note, I kinda like these heated discussions. It makes my night go by faster. :p
randya
Oh great, lamojo 25 has hijacked another thread..guess I'll have to implement the 'ignore' function myself...on the other hand his posts appear to be a great example of how most MOTORISTS think in the USA...
I've been composing my own thoughts on a response to Ms. Mitchell's ill-informed column.
One is that her analogies are all backwards. It's the motorists that are analogous to the smokers--they're the ones who are addicted to cars and imported oil, not the cyclists.
Two is that the motorists are the child-like spoiled ones--they're the ones who have been reaping the sole benefit of our publicly funded PUBLIC roads for so long, and now don't want to share 'their' sandbox with cyclists, who are also legitimate road users.
Finally, I have researched Portland accident statistics, and motorists are equally as likely to run red lights as cyclists, and motorists are found responsible in police reports for 60 percent of motorist-bicyclist crashes. This puts the lie to the 'dangerous bicyclist' assumption.
So this editorial ends up being just so much whining by motorists that they now have to share the roads and drive more safely because cyclists are present. You'd think that motorists were an endangered species (NOT!).
Allister
I'm going to go with, You've never actually bought a new car. Like off a lot. ALL new cars. Hypothetically, if this were real, you would have to take your registration off your bike or transfer the registration over to the new owner who would in turn have to re-register the bike. Like you said. But to buy a new bike off the shelf like at your local bike shop you would have to register it before you left the store as with purchasing a new car off the lot. This would give reason to the bike shop to raise their prices because now they have more paperwork, and like cars can put a new price tag more than Suggested Retail Price. You kno like in the car commercials "SRP may vary." Now are we clear on this. By changing the atmosphere, maybe the bike shop would become more like a car dealership.
Perhaps, but I still don't see how this would do anything but harm bike sales.
I can't give you actual figures due to the fact that I can't give you the information on every car here in Arizona.
Doesn't your state publish it's annual budget? It should be in there. You don't have to add it up yourself.
No, I wasn't stating state roads I was utilizing that as a normal route of travel. No, normally I don't use side streets I use the main drags, and figured on the fact that you also used them and would comprehend that, that is what I was getting at.
The arterial roads I use are still run by city council. DMR jurisdiction ends at the off-ramp from the motorways and highways, which bikes are generally banned from. For a bike rego system to be fair here, it would have to be implemented at the city government level, which means a whole new beurocracy to administer it. It couldn't be tacked on to the existing system in any simple way - I can't imagine QT handling these affairs on behalf of a multitude of councils without a lot of whinging and moaning, not to mention skimming off a large chunk of the funds for themselves. It just ain't gonna work, and as I've been saying all along, it isn't even worth trying. The idea of bike rego is a dead one. Get used to it.
So the answer to your final comment is no, don't but you still do through your property taxes and sales taxes (which comes out of your buying your bike parts, bikes, cars, car parts and anything else you buy, along with gas).
Isn't that what I was saying all along?
On a more fun note, I kinda like these heated discussions. It makes my night go by faster. :p
Beats working.
Chris L
That really sucks for you guys. I guess were are lucky here.
Again, are you sure they spend your registration dollars on roads exclusively? Do you have actual figures? The reason I ask this is because I can reel off a whole heap of taxes of various kinds brought in for supposedly 12 months to pay for one thing or another, but ended up with us permanently - long after whatever it was had been paid for. I'm sure if you looked it up on a treasury website somewhere you'd find the same thing actually applies over there and probably everywhere else in the world that has such a system.
As I said, it doesn't really bother me. I've never owned a car, so I've never paid these registration fees. The cost of owning a car is just one of many reasons I've made that choice.
TeleJohn
Seems that small cars are not wanted on the road either(:D):
Here in NY our registration is based on vehichle weight. Although the fee is still quite small ($65 for 2 years for a 4200lb vehicle), it probably covers the administrative costs of registration. Taxes pay for most road work: Federal - Interstates, state routes, county routes, municipal streets...
Poguemahone
Here's what 600 million or so can do. It can build one large interchange, like the mixing bowl in Springfield, Virginia. Actually that one costs a little more than that, and to boot, bicycles are not allowed in the bowl (not that you'd even want to be driving the mixing bowl in a car, let alone a bike). Most of the money for this comes from general fund payments, not car taxes. In fact, the only recent proposals in the Northern Virginia area to improve funding for roads was an across the board sales tax referendum... in other words, a completely regressive tax you would have to pay irregardless of whether or not you drive a car. Yuck. There's also some noise being made about privately built high occupancy toll lanes, which I'm quite sure bicycles wouldn't be allowed to ride on. At least that would be a use based toll, though I'm sure motorists would scream about the cost. Whine, whine. And I can't think of a single toll road in the Richmond area I can ride a bike on.
oscaregg
Ah, the authorities still have a LOT of cracking down on those creators of greater danger--the ones with motors--to do until they will have the luxury of time to waste on the kind of overenforcement of laws on cyclist that this article seems to ask for.
lsits
Seems that small cars are not wanted on the road either(:D):
This atricle was really funny. I couldn't help laughing out loud and annoying the people in the other cubicles. I've got to read more by Maureen Jambor.
lamajo25
Oh great, lamojo 25 has hijacked another thread..guess I'll have to implement the 'ignore' function myself...on the other hand his posts appear to be a great example of how most MOTORISTS think in the USA...
Wow another person who thinks that because I do drive a car, means that I'm strictly a motorist. Like I said before, if you are a law abiding cyclist DON'T PLACE YOURSELF IN THE CATEGORY TO WHICH THE LADY IS REFERRING TO. Don't get all butt hurt about it. Keep doing what you are doing, and if you see that person that runs a red light, is riding the wrong way, if in your area is on the sidewalk, or has not light on at night, help them. I stopped a kid on one of those new scooters with the little chain saw engines. He was on the side walk (just so you know isn't actually against the law we did that research the other day) at 10 o'clock at night screaming along. He had a tail light that was pointed straight up in the air blinking. The only reason I saw him was because of the noise (but car's can't hear them due to the window factor). I helped him fix the light so he could be seen and told him to get a front light. Nothing fancy to make his friends laugh at him but something to be seen. And for goodness sakes Randy stop crying.
Isn't that what I was saying all along?
Yes and no. Here is an earlier post of yours.
No matter how many times the lie is told that registration is to pay for roads, it won't make it true.
Yes I do know where my registration taxes are going, directly to ADOT. Yes I do understand that there are other taxes that play into it but I do know that a large portion of our roadway maintenance comes from the registration tax that is applied by the state. And just on a side note, the roadways that are maintained by the larger cities here in Arizona are maintained by the state funds, that includes mainly the main streets. Most side streets (Which most of us agree we don't take) are maintained by the cities them selves (my side streets in some areas where I live suck, but the main streets are immaculate in their condition).
Doesn't your state publish it's annual budget? It should be in there. You don't have to add it up yourself.
Yeah it's somewhere, I just don't care to look it up. Just from the knowledge of the driving population and the way they run the registration, I can pretty much guesstimate the funds going in. The way it's worded on my registration for the taxes is "State Roadway Maintenance Tax." And if asked, the MVD people tell you it goes straight to ADOT's bank account from there.
The reason I ask this is because I can reel off a whole heap of taxes of various kinds brought in for supposedly 12 months to pay for one thing or another, but ended up with us permanently - long after whatever it was had been paid for. I'm sure if you looked it up on a treasury website somewhere you'd find the same thing actually applies over there and probably everywhere else in the world that has such a system.
This is kinda funny but realistic all in one. Here's our problem. And once again a tax thread is for political discussion. Our lovely sports advocates put things like stadiums, that supposedly are for the better of the community and will also have overflow money (that actually is never seen due to overspending on the stadiums) for smaller things like parks, fields, and other sports related items. Or voters vote for it and is passes and we get stuck paying for it for umpteen so many years and never see anything from it. Yeah I'm sure that there are other instances with tax elections but I just don't have any recolletion of them because the sports things sticks in everyones mind forever. Just so you guys know, though I'm a city employee, I just assume stay out of the budgeting things and taxes. They do tend to get a bit confusing and just not worth looking at because then you see exactly where you money goes to. I do like knowing that my tax on my registration goes to the road maintenance though.
Perhaps, but I still don't see how this would do anything but harm bike sales.
Allister, you do see and understand. That's exactly my point. It would just hurt bike sales because people aren't going to want to have to deal with the extra. Like I said, it changes the atmosphere of purchasing a bike by in a way turning it into a car dealership type place. I for one wouldn't want to go into a bike shop and have 4 or 5 dealers running towards me to try and sell me a bike that cost more because now they have a way of changing the prices. I want it straight forward and to the point. Could you see going into a bike shop and having a dealer start a bike off at say $200.00 as bottom end bike. Has generic shifting, bottom end most of anything. Then there's the options. You see where I'm going with this. Now you have registration. I wouldn't like it. And I know none of you do either.
Ah, the authorities still have a LOT of cracking down on those creators of greater danger
So many offenders, so few officers. Here's an idea. If you see an offender, call them in, get their plate so we can contact them. We have an infamous theory here, No Victim, No Crime. If you aren't willing to be a victim don't cry about it later. Step up to the plate (or phone) and get that person taken care of (actually referencing to the motorist) if they've wronged you on your commute.
Be safe out there and ride carefully, and above all obey the laws. Don't place yourself in the category of the offenders if you don't belong there and don't complain about someone complaining about an offender. Stick with that lady and help make sure that people that are disobeying the laws are taken care of.
lamajo25
Here's what 600 million or so can do. It can build one large interchange, like the mixing bowl in Springfield, Virginia.
One more thing. So is what your saying is that 600 million dollars has helped you. By creating that huge interchange, they have made it more smooth for cars who have paid a registration to remove themselves from the roads that you commute on. Yeah, I twisted your words around, but by chance is that one way you could look at it? I would. They've created a faster more smooth way to move traffic along without stop lights to get the motorists from one point to another without interfering with your commute because you aren't allowed there.
SteveE
Nah, they've just created a reason for developers to build more units further out in suburbia, gobbling up more undeveloped land, eventually putting even more cars on the road heading into DC, and leading to the same degree of gridlock that exists today.
If I had to move back to the DC area, I think I would choose to live in Montgomery County where they've at least got some sensible land-use policy.
Steve "a former No. Va. resident" E.
Poguemahone
"So is what your saying is that 600 million dollars has helped you."
It would have helped me a lot more to build some bike lanes. The mixing bowl hasn't helped me one single bit, esp. since I live in Richmond, not NOVA (short for Northern Virginia, Nova also ironically means "it doesn't go" in Spanish, which is what you'll do if you're stuck in the NOVA traffic). In addition, it's my experience that heavy car traffic does absolutely nothing to slow down my bike commute. The mixing bowl is no positive for cyclists any way you measure it. Which brings us back to my basic point-- that the money autos pay in "taxes" actually buys very little in terms of maintaince and construction of roads.
When the Virginia sales tax referendum was going on, I found it interesting that no one actually had the guts to suggest that car drivers pay for the improvements they so avidly desire-- by either taxes at the pump, tolls, increased vehicle taxes. Instead, the best anyone could come up with was a completely inane and regressive tax like an added sales tax. What next? Added income tax on the poorest Virginians?
Steve E.'s point is spot on. In addition, the basic discovery in DC (and in Richmond and Charlottesville and Hampton as well, and likely your state, too) is that as soon as a road is built, it's gridlocked. Five bucks says the mixing bowl doesn't do a thing to stop traffic probelms in NOVA. The solution is not to steadily build more roads, but instead to tax auto users for the roads and use the general fund monies to support mass transit and alternative means of transportation.
lamajo25
The solution is not to steadily build more roads, but instead to tax auto users for the roads and use the general fund monies to support mass transit and alternative means of transportation.
Kinda funny you mention mass transit. Here in Arizona, more exactly The Valley (which in cludes Phoenix and about 10-15 other cities) they are putting in a light rail through I-17 that goes directly North through Phoenix, to alleviate the constant gridlock. Yes they are doing this through some of the ADOT money. No higher vehicle taxes either. On top of that they just widened SR-60 through 4 other cities and has completely alleviated the major congestion all together. There used to be a 2 hour wait between 6 a.m. and 8a.m and between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. And that's 2 hours plus or minus those times of day. All gone. I don't know why but it only cost about 25 million dollars. They used the new rubberized asphalt. I don't care how loud your tires are elsewhere or how noisy your car is normally. Everything goes quiet from there.
And how would taxing auto users help? I see that as a problem not only as a cyclist but also as an auto user. I'm stuck in traffic as a cyclist but am doing so as a free ride not having to pay for the usage, but those cars are and you complain about them being there slowing you down. That's where bike registration would be good, because then you have something to complain about. You pay less taxes than the auto user because you don't pay registration, but in turn complain about them using the roadways and congesting what they paid for? That's a double standard if you look at it correctly.
Arizona is the largest growing state in the U.S. right now. More people move here than any other state in the U.S. per year because of the weather here. The state transportation department has been able to keep up with and actually one up the needs for roadway by 5 years right now, because of the fact that we have room to grow. Not to be a jerk or anything, but if you don't like where you live move away, that's what I did. I couldn't stand the traffic anymore where I lived because Arizonan's can't drive. Moved to a small town and still can't completely get away from it. Now it's weekenders that congest my small town to get away from the rigors of traffic life in The Valley.
Allister
Yeah it's somewhere, I just don't care to look it up. Just from the knowledge of the driving population and the way they run the registration, I can pretty much guesstimate the funds going in. The way it's worded on my registration for the taxes is "State Roadway Maintenance Tax." And if asked, the MVD people tell you it goes straight to ADOT's bank account from there.
Typical laziness.
So far you've only 'guesstimated' revenue, but haven't mentioned a figure of any kind for expenditure. One without the other is useless.
It's not that hard to find out though. I spent half an hour this morning looking up a few figures for Queensland. Here's a quick summary.
Revenue from motor registration - AU$645m (projected) plus another AU$200m from vehicle transfer duty. - AU$845m
Expenditure: roadworks, operations & corporate & technical services - AU$1.27bn (a bit over half of the total Main Roads budget)
On top of that you've got each city's expenditure on capital works. Brisbane's alone is around AU$143m from a revenue base of about AU$74.
Queensland's population is about 3.8 million people - reasonably comparable to Arizona. The revenue figures are within yahoo of the ones you 'guesstimated', so I see no reason to anticipate the expenditure figures being significantly different. I've done my homework, no go and do yours and prove me wrong.
So, even at a cursory glance there's a serious shortfall of funds coming from registration.
I do like knowing that my tax on my registration goes to the road maintenance though.
Which is why the lie is so alluring.
Now you have registration. I wouldn't like it. And I know none of you do either.
So you are against bike registration. And here was me thinking you were advocating it. This whole discussion was even more of a waste of time than I initially thought.
Allister
Poguemahone
"I'm stuck in traffic as a cyclist but am doing so as a free ride not having to pay for the usage, but those cars are and you complain about them being there slowing you down. "
Err... no, I didn't complain once about cars slowing me down. I said they did nothing to the speed of my commute. And I'm not, repeat, not getting a free ride. Most road improvements in Virginia are paid thru general funds, which I pay into via the state income tax and the state sales tax, currently at 4.5%. Plus I pay car tax every year, even though I don't drive very much. Believe it or not, I actually do own a car-- they're useful for hauling kayaks around if not much else.
" You pay less taxes than the auto user because you don't pay registration, but in turn complain about them using the roadways and congesting what they paid for? That's a double standard if you look at it correctly."
No it's not. Mostly because, as I've stated, the auto users in fact don't pay for what they use. If they'd pay for what they use, I'd have no problems. But a completely regressive, across the board tax like a sales tax to fund welfare for cars is not my idea of a good thing. And who said I pay less tax? You did. I'll gladly send you my next car tax bill so we can make your statement true. Plus, I expect a check from you refunding the portions of the sale and income taxes I pay that got to fund roads. Thanks in advance.
" Not to be a jerk or anything, but if you don't like where you live move away, that's what I did. "
Where exactly have I stated I don't like where I live? Heck, where have even implied it? Despite having too many statues of Confederate Generals, Richmond has many fine attractions, like the best urban whitewater in the country and an endlessly amusing city council.
Please don't jump to unwarranted assumptions and inference. These last two would seem to be the hallmarks of your rhetorical "style" (not to be a jerk or anything). Unfortunately, such techniques do nothing to further your point.
lamajo25
Allister, I took you advise and found last years Fiscal Report for Arizona Department of Transportation. I'll post the link to the 101 page pdf file. Yeah, I'll agree I'm lazy. But on another note at the beginning of the ADOT page it tells you exactly where the funds come from and the vehicle registration tax that goes directly to them.
Which is why the lie is so alluring.
As I said before though. My statements come directly off of my registration forms. It's not a guesstimation.
Allister, if you would notice though your total expenditure comes similarly close to my guestimation though doesn't it. And as I said I underestimated the amount of vehicles here in Arizona alone.
So you are against bike registration. And here was me thinking you were advocating it. This whole discussion was even more of a waste of time than I initially thought.
You misunderstood me, I wouldn't like it but wouldn't contest it, and find it to be of assistance to catching cyclist traffic offenders. My main thing I wouldn't like is the new atmosphere that would be created in the LBS more than anything.
No it's not. Mostly because, as I've stated, the auto users in fact don't pay for what they use. If they'd pay for what they use, I'd have no problems.
Pogue, just for information I know how much I paid for and close to what the other motorists pay for, and can catagorically show you exactly how much the cyclist has paid extra into the roadway (as a motorist does with their registration). Absolutely nothing because they don't register their bikes. I understand that my $150 tax that I pay only pays for a very small portion of the roadway, but with your theory, you pay nothing, thus having no right to the roadway, but by law are given that right. Anymore arguement on that subject?
Sorry here's that pdf.http://www.dot.state.az.us/about/fms/CAFR/CAFR02/CAFR02.pdf
Here's their main site.
http://www.dot.state.az.us/
Pat
[QUOTE=lamajo25]Allister, I took you advise and found last years Fiscal Report for Arizona Department of Transportation. I'll post the link to the 101 page pdf file. Yeah, I'll agree I'm lazy. But on another note at the beginning of the ADOT page it tells you exactly where the funds come from and the vehicle registration tax that goes directly to them.
As I said before though. My statements come directly off of my registration forms. It's not a guesstimation.
Allister, if you would notice though your total expenditure comes similarly close to my guestimation though doesn't it. And as I said I underestimated the amount of vehicles here in Arizona alone.
You misunderstood me, I wouldn't like it but wouldn't contest it, and find it to be of assistance to catching cyclist traffic offenders. My main thing I wouldn't like is the new atmosphere that would be created in the LBS more than anything.
Pogue, just for information I know how much I paid for and close to what the other motorists pay for, and can catagorically show you exactly how much the cyclist has paid extra into the roadway (as a motorist does with their registration). Absolutely nothing because they don't register their bikes. I understand that my $150 tax that I pay only pays for a very small portion of the roadway, but with your theory, you pay nothing, thus having no right to the roadway, but by law are given that right. Anymore arguement on that subject?
Sorry here's that pdf.[url]
Wait a minute, your argument does not follow. Cyclists have a right to ride on the road. You maintain that only those who PAY TAXES should have a right to the road.
OK so that means there should be no sidewalks, no crosswalks and no lights for pedestrians to cross at? They don't pay anything for the roads either. If we follow your line of reasoning, only people who pay income tax should have rights and all other people would not be citizens. That line of thinking really amounts to the notion that government is a fee based service. The USA is based on the notion that all people have certain inalienable rights. You don't have to pay for them.
I looked at the report and Registration makes up 37% of the revenues of the State of Arizona. But the report does not go into how much goes into paying for various road construction projects and where the money comes from. The State gives money to the countys. Presumably the counties use some of that money to hire contractors to build roads. However, I suspect that counties use some of their funds to build roads also and that would come from the general population. Also the Federal Government also pitches in money. So in PAYING for road projects, a considerable amount of money comes from sources other then registration fees.
Shoot, I live in Seminole County Florida. We voted a 1% hike on our sales tax so we could have better roads. That 1% hike raises far more money for our roads then registration fees on autos do. Orange County just south of us had a similar proposal come up. The amount of money that their 1% sales tax hike would have raised was more then is collected in the whole dern state on registration. Registration fees are not a big part in paying for the roads.
Chris L
Absolutely nothing because they don't register their bikes. I understand that my $150 tax that I pay only pays for a very small portion of the roadway, but with your theory, you pay nothing,
So where does the rest of the roadway come from? Possibly from the income and sales taxes we all pay? Hasn't this aready been beaten into the ground? And what about all that pedestrian infrastructure, they don't pay registration fees either, where does that come from? Or would you prefer to stick a number plate on their backside and charge them a fee, too?
Let's face it, we live in a society in which some contribute more than others. There are people earning more money than I am and paying more taxes to fund these things than I am, there are people who do less of that. It's not a unique situation that occurs only with roads -- it's a fact of life. Get over it. A 100% user-pays system exists nowhere in the world economy and isn't about to be created here. Even businesses that are 100% private are prone to discounting or handing out freebies to certain people -- I got a 30% discount on the last CD I bought, doesn't give me any less right to listen to it.
It's a fact of life and isn't going to change anytime soon. It's even less likely to change when you're dealing with a system that would be practically and economically unfeasible (as has been demonstrated in this thread already).