Advocacy & Safety - Hitting Hazard in Bike Lane Worth US$3.5Million to Crippled Seattle Cyclist

Don't you ever wonder what they were thinking when the bike lane is full of double-wide drainage grates, manhole covers of various types and sizes, and poorly backfilled utility cuts?

:eek:


King Co. Reaches $3.5M Settlement In Crippling Bike Crash
Posted: 6:01 pm PDT April 15, 2009
Updated: 6:46 pm PDT April 15, 2009

REDMOND, Wash. -- A multi-million dollar settlement has been reached for a Seattle man who sued King County over a crippling bicycle crash.

The county will pay $3.5 million to Jeffrey Totten, who will spend the rest of his life struggling with traumatic brain injury.

Totten was an endurance athlete who climbed mountains, rode bicycles and lived a very active life until his accident put him in a wakeful coma for seven months.

”I've got a traumatic brain injury. A traumatic brain injury is the type of injury that's like once you have it, you've always got it,” Totten said in a video released by his lawyers.

He spent the last two and half years struggling to recover and rehabilitate. His left side still partially paralyzed and his international career as an electrical power plant engineer over.

“I don't want to talk about this to anyone because they're just going to say, 'Jeff, you're never going to be able to do that and I'm tired of getting told that,” Totten said.

Totten’s wife, Danielle Leavell, has known him since high school.

”I've lost my husband, our relationship now is very parental. He's now my child,” Leavell said.

Totten was riding westbound down Novelty Hill Road on Sept. 4, 2006, when his bicycle hit a little pothole surrounding a county survey marker, called a monument.

“They're advertising this as a bike route. If you are advertising it as a bike route you don't have monuments on the fog line where a bike is going to be traveling, particularly one that looks like that,” said Totten’s attorney, Richard Adler.

The $3.5 million settlement was reached just days before the case was to go before a jury.

“There's no amount of money, there's no amount of money in the world that we would trade everything to have Jeff back, Leavell said.

Today, the survey marker is covered and the county leveled the roadway as much as they can, but the pavement is beginning to crack again.

A county spokesperson said the county regrets the incident and believes that with this settlement Totten has the resources he needs to continue his rehabilitation.
http://www.kirotv.com/news/19192707/detail.html#-

Man, I've got mixed feeling on this one. On the one hand, if a city is going to establish bicycle lanes they have an obligation to assure those lanes are safe for bicycles. On the other hand, there's no such thing as 100% safe, and the best way for any city to avoid this type of litigation in the future is to eliminate all bike lanes. I'm guessing that's been discussed in city council meetings in this particular case.

Now don't flame me. I feel for Totten and his family and I'm certainly not in disagreement with their law suit. I've just got mixed feelings on this one.

If he had been wearing a helmet, he would have

. . . just kidding.


there's no such thing as 100% safe, and the best way for any city to avoid this type of litigation in the future is to eliminate all bike lanes

+1

If he had been wearing a helmet, he would have

. . . just kidding.

not to be a s**t disturber but...


The Navy veteran and endurance athlete was left with severe brain injuries despite wearing a helmet.

http://www.examiner.com/a-1962888~Brain_injured_Seattle_bicyclist_gets__3_5_million.html

I feel for him too, but there's certainly a degree of CYA in being an adult. Another way they could remedy the situation is put 'warning, bike at your own risk' signs EVERYWHERE, and then it would be up to the bicyclist to... you know... not run into stuff.

Bad things happen to good people, and that's unfortunate, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's anybody's fault.

boy randya, a misdirect! are you even referring to this accident in your bike lane criticisms?

it wasn't a bikelane, it is a exurban, rural road and an official 'bike route'. the steep hill allows bicyclists to approach 40mph or even exceed it. the county had been paving around the marker, leaving a deep indentation. it was the county's fault in leaving dangerous road conditions on a road officially designated as a class IV bikeway.

I hope, if this happens to any of you, that you are also fairly compensated for your lifetime of loss.

I realized that it might not have been in a bike lane after I posted it, but the original article is none to clear on this point. Besides, it doesn't change the fact that double-wide drainage grates, manhole covers of various types and sizes, and poorly backfilled utility cuts are more likely to be found in a bike lane than outside of one.

really? in cities with 3 percent bike laned streets, there's 97 percent of the streets equally as likely to have utility cuts, drainage grates, manholes, etc on them. your 'figuring' is faulty.

you're blowing smoke and using a tragedy to dis bike infrastructure. stop the misdirect.

After reading this article yesterday, I paid close attention to the conditions of the designated bike lanes on my commute home. I was amazed. Potholes, drainage gratings, manhole covers, big cracks in the pavement, rocks, you name it! In the past I've never really thought about these hazards as I've always assumed it's my responsibility to be on the lookout and avoid hazards whether I'm in a bike lane or not. But yesterday I was viewing each of those hazards as a potential law suit, similar to that described in the article. What's the solution? Spend millions to upgrade and maintain all bike lanes to be 100% safe? Eliminate all bike lanes? Do nothing and keep your fingers crossed? Glad I'm not a member of city council having to make such decisions!

why do i need to come up with the solutions?

road hazards are ever present regardless of road striping or preffered class infrastructure- all states allow bicyclists to avoid hazards by moving out of a bike lane if present.

Municipalities should, perhaps, maintain bike lanes to a higher standard - yes, wristtwister, as bikes are more susceptible to road hazards than motor vehicles.

It WOULD be much cheaper to maintain streetscapes for bicycle travel versus motor vehicles as damage to pavement from bicyclists is virtually nil... how many bicyclists would it take to create a pothole? how many decades would it take? but car traffic can create potholes seemingly overnight.



please keep in mind this accident occurred where there was no bikelane.

really? in cities with 3 percent bike laned streets, there's 97 percent of the streets equally as likely to have utility cuts, drainage grates, manholes, etc on them. your 'figuring' is faulty.

you're blowing smoke and using a tragedy to dis bike infrastructure. stop the misdirect.

seriously? :rolleyes:

drainage grates are almost ALL in the bike lane, except when the bike lane is in the door zone...

utility cuts and manholes also tend, proportionally, to be in the margins of roads, and thus in the bike lanes, rather than in the main travel lanes.

What was the county thinking? Anyone seen any other markers on King county roads? That is just stupid. Is that used for property or road surveys or both?

seriously? :rolleyes:

drainage grates are almost ALL in the bike lane, except when the bike lane is in the door zone...

utility cuts and manholes also tend, proportionally, to be in the margins of roads, and thus in the bike lanes, rather than in the main travel lanes.

right back atchya- are YOU serious?

manholes are in the margins? and almost all the drainage grates in a city are in the bikelanes? what about all the streets without lanes, the vast, vast majority of streets?

logic is failing you, randya, to fallaciously gripe about a factor not even relevant to this accident.

After reading this article yesterday, I paid close attention to the conditions of the designated bike lanes on my commute home. I was amazed. Potholes, drainage gratings, manhole covers, big cracks in the pavement, rocks, you name it! In the past I've never really thought about these hazards as I've always assumed it's my responsibility to be on the lookout and avoid hazards whether I'm in a bike lane or not. But yesterday I was viewing each of those hazards as a potential law suit, similar to that described in the article. What's the solution? Spend millions to upgrade and maintain all bike lanes to be 100% safe? Eliminate all bike lanes? Do nothing and keep your fingers crossed? Glad I'm not a member of city council having to make such decisions!

It shouldn't be a difficult decision at all. If you're going to provide bike lanes, maintain them at least to the same standards as car lanes as far as removing debris and repairing potholes. And before even opening the bike lane, patrol it to make sure that there aren't any permanent hazards like survey monuments.

Cities have no problem deciding to take the federal money that funds the creation of most bike lanes. They should commit to building them properly and maintaining them.

right back atchya- are YOU serious?

manholes are in the margins? and almost all the drainage grates in a city are in the bikelanes? what about all the streets without lanes, the vast, vast majority of streets?

logic is failing you, randya, to fallaciously gripe about a factor not even relevant to this accident.

I don't know about where you live, but around here the BLs are maintained to a lower standard than the rest of the roadway. A supporter of bike lanes (like you) should be enraged when they are not properly designed and maintained. Instead, you prefer to pretend that the problem doesn't exist.

Fortunately there are plenty of holes in the BL pavement where you can hide your head.



http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/blog/ostrich_head_in_ground_full.jpg

...see my response in post #10, roody. you're right, municipalities should maintain bikelanes to higher standards as bicyclists are more susceptible to road hazards...

NONE OF WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THIS ACCIDENT!

NONE OF WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THIS ACCIDENT!
what's relevant is that the county marked this road as a bike route, whether it had a bike lane stripe on it or not. And even if it wasn't marked, the hazard presented by this particular feature was unacceptable.

I still say bike lanes are more likely to have certain hazards in them than not, including double-wide drainage grates, manhole covers, etc. how about this - make the bike lane stripe dashed, so it's clear you can leave it if you need to? or, get rid of the stripe altogether and go with giant sharrows in the lane, a motorist ed tool if I ever saw one? and get rid of the mandatory bike path/lane statutes? I'm not the enemy, I'm as fond of good facilities as you are Bek, but if you're stuck in the bike lane ghetto, you're stuck with the drainage grates.

Yeah, I have seen all types of hazards in bike lanes, especially car debris that ends up there. It does not help that public buses stop in the lanes and motorists take rights cutting you off.

If the busses pull through or stop in the bike lane, they do a whole 'nother level of damage to the pavement! Think waves and depressions, big ones, with potholes in them...

:eek:

Everyone wants the county to ante up to better maintaining bike routes, but they're in a downward spiral on revenue right now so things are going to get worse before they get better.. Since the cornerstone of the legal case in this incident was that the county was responsible because it designated the pavement as a bike route, it doesn't take a legal supermind to figure out that the county will reduce bike routes to reduce its legal exposure.

Net-net: A lawyer gets $1M for a new Porsche and a vacation home in Hawaii, the victim gets a couple million to live the rest of his life a bit more comfortably, and the bike routes go away. Not a great trade-off compared to just allowing individuals to take personal responsibility for avoiding common road hazards.

- Mark

If the busses pull through or stop in the bike lane, they do a whole 'nother level of damage to the pavement! Think waves and depressions, big ones, with potholes in them...

:eek:

Luckily, there are very few potholes where I live, the damage is quite limited. :p

The bus thing is annoying, though, especially if you are caught behind one, but the bus stop is on the side of the bike lane, so I can understand.

It sucked the other day, though. The bus stopped, so I looked over my shoulder to enter the vehicle lane and go around it. This lady in a huge, silver truck was nice enough to let me over, so, as I am going around the bus and almost clear of it, it revs up and pulls into the lane. It would have taken me out had I not sped up and gone far enough ahead to reenter the bike lane.

I have heard many stories about buses and bicyclists out here in Beaverton. :(

EDIT: I apologize for the OT.

...just allowing individuals to take personal responsibility for avoiding common road hazards.

unfortunately, two wheeled vehicles are much more susceptible to most road hazards than four wheeled vehicles; crappy roads may be bad for everyone but they are way worse for cyclists than they are for motorists.

Everyone wants the county to ante up to better maintaining bike routes, but they're in a downward spiral on revenue right now so things are going to get worse before they get better.. Since the cornerstone of the legal case in this incident was that the county was responsible because it designated the pavement as a bike route, it doesn't take a legal supermind to figure out that the county will reduce bike routes to reduce its legal exposure.

Net-net: A lawyer gets $1M for a new Porsche and a vacation home in Hawaii, the victim gets a couple million to live the rest of his life a bit more comfortably, and the bike routes go away. Not a great trade-off compared to just allowing individuals to take personal responsibility for avoiding common road hazards.

- Mark

Too bad the health care system is for profit and not state subsidized, as that often compels the need to sue. It probably costs 80K/year for the guy to stay at home, with 24 hour nurses, drugs, machines, etc. That cuts his part by half, since it is likely that he'll only live 20 years more now. The county probably just designated the roadway as a bike route for votes and to draw more people in to live there. SO what if we loose a few "designated" routes.

Bike route does not necessarily mean there's a bike lane, and if the monument was on the fog line, I don't think the fog line is technically part of the roadway. Once you hit the fog line you've left the "roadway" and are traveling off-road. At least that's how I understand it. I often ride on a shoulder if there's a clean one, especially on high speed roads, but I know that by doing so I'm giving up rights and I have to watch out for hazards.

That little hole in the picture is it? After winter, I pass stuff worse than that every 50-100' on my rides. It's my job to not hit them until they get fixed. Lawsuit? I don't think so.

I'd rather stay poor and still be able to ride a bike, than being a millionaire cripple

The point of any road hazard lawsuit is that (1) the government agency responsible knew about the hazard, and (2) despite having a reasonable amount of time to correct the problem, did nothing.

This is the balance we (as a society) have struck between holding the government accountable for every conceivable act of negligence at one extreme, and not holding the government accountable, no matter how negligent, at the other extreme. Both elements of negligence (the government knew about the problem, and did nothing) must be met for the government to be held liable for negligence. If either of the elements is not there, the government cannot be held liable. The reasons for this should be obvious.

First, the government owns so much property, over which so many people travel, that it cannot possibly know of all hazards. Therefore, the first element of a claim for negligence is that the government had to actually be aware of the problem.

Second, once the government becomes aware of the problem, it has to have had a reasonable amount of time to correct the problem.

In this case, the government obviously knew about the problem, because it created the problem when it paved around the marker. Likewise, because it created the problem, it also had a reasonable amount of time to correct the problem, but did nothing.

Incidentally, this duty of care is not limited to cyclists; it applies to all travelers who use the public way. In fact, to exclude cyclists from the government's duty of care, while protecting others, as they have done in Illinois, and attempted to do in Iowa, would be to deny the equal protection of the law to an entire class of travelers on the public way.

I'd rather stay poor and still be able to ride a bike, than being a millionaire cripple

I think most riders, including the recipient of the settlement, would.

Meanwhile, elsewhere...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3330/3263054876_fbf74919d0.jpg


Great heels gracing the pedals of her cargo bike - a Sorte Jernhest [Black Iron Horse] - as she pedals past City Hall Square on the safe and separated bike lane.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3330/3263054876_fbf74919d0.jpg
front drive, rear steer, cool!

Luckily, there are very few potholes where I live, the damage is quite limited. :p

.

Dam - lucky you. I ride city streets in order to get out to the sticks for some better long distance travel - and it takes me about 20 miles to do that. I haven't even taken the roadie out yet due to the crap on the city streets not even considering all the holes that are abound.

Bike lanes here? Few. And where I travel, none. It's pothole and sinkhole and glass that are my riding experience at the moment. And to all - I have to avoid by myself, as well as the motor powered vehicles. I've nearly had my wheel sucked into some bad things and in fact last Spring was basically "pushed" by a taxi into a very narrow "non-shoulder" portion of a city street in order to not being hit - and hit two huge potholes that flatted both my skinny tires. Sucked, but it was something I considered when I rode that road to try and get out to the sticks for better riding.

Dam - lucky you. I ride city streets in order to get out to the sticks for some better long distance travel - and it takes me about 20 miles to do that. I haven't even taken the roadie out yet due to the crap on the city streets not even considering all the holes that are abound.

Bike lanes here? Few. And where I travel, none. It's pothole and sinkhole and glass that are my riding experience at the moment. And to all - I have to avoid by myself, as well as the motor powered vehicles. I've nearly had my wheel sucked into some bad things and in fact last Spring was basically "pushed" by a taxi into a very narrow "non-shoulder" portion of a city street in order to not being hit - and hit two huge potholes that flatted both my skinny tires. Sucked, but it was something I considered when I rode that road to try and get out to the sticks for better riding.

Yeah, I live in a suburb outside of the city, but, when I ride into the city, that is an entirely different story. My friend lives off of NE Alberta over here, and that is pothole central. You dodge more potholes than car doors on that street. It is not so bad in the downtown portion of Portland, but, once you head out to the outer edges, the streets are filled with potholes. I didn't have my first flat until I was constantly riding on that street.

I ride 6 miles to the MAX station, ride 15 minutes on the MAX into Portland, then ride another 6 miles to my friend's house, all so I can experience potholes. :)

In Beaverton, though, I have been seeing A LOT of glass broken over the ground recently. You will see a picture frame or glass bottle randomly smashed on the side of the road. It really sucks.

What was the county thinking? Anyone seen any other markers on King county roads? That is just stupid. Is that used for property or road surveys or both?

The county was thinking that the public land survey system and it's monuments are pretty important, not to mention a federal offense to disturb. In an urban area they should be every ¼ section (¼ mile), at minimum every section corner. Typically here in the midwest the ROW is centered on the section line placing the monuments in the center of intersections. It might also have been a benchmark monument which is used only for vertical control and can be placed anywhere but are usually not in the pavement.

http://www.kingcounty.gov/transportation/kcdot/Roads/EngineeringServices/Surveying/SurveyMonuments.aspx

repave the street, raise the survey monument to grade, how hard is that?

repave the street, raise the survey monument to grade, how hard is that?

Harder than you think. Licensed surveyor comes out and set ties off the existing. now you close the area, jack hammer out the old monument. Surveyors come out and pour the new post (hopefully to grade) and set the new monument in the wet concrete to the exact position horizontally and hope no one messes with it. Now you come back later and do the GPS or run a benchmark circuit on it to get the vertical control corrected. To do it really right they make small manholes for monuments so you just raise the MH not the monument. I don't know about WA but here in WI a monument is 6' deep to stay below the frost line so the vertical control is acceptable year round.

Harder than you think. Licensed surveyor comes out and set ties off the existing. now you close the area, jack hammer out the old monument. Surveyors come out and pour the new post (hopefully to grade) and set the new monument in the wet concrete to the exact position horizontally and hope no one messes with it. Now you come back later and do the GPS or run a benchmark circuit on it to get the vertical control corrected. To do it really right they make small manholes for monuments so you just raise the MH not the monument. I don't know about WA but here in WI a monument is 6' deep to stay below the frost line so the vertical control is acceptable year round.

sounds like King County did it half-assed all around, it would have been a lot cheaper than $ 3.5 million to do it right in the first place, even what you're suggesting certainly costs a lot less than that

:)

sounds like King County did it half-assed all around, it would have been a lot cheaper than $ 3.5 million to do it right in the first place, even what you're suggesting certainly costs a lot less than that

:)Which is probably a major component of why they decided to settle. If they hadn't cut corners, the cyclist wouldn't have been injured, and the county would still have its $3.5 million.

The point of any road hazard lawsuit is that (1) the government agency responsible knew about the hazard, and (2) despite having a reasonable amount of time to correct the problem, did nothing.

This is the balance we (as a society) have struck between holding the government accountable for every conceivable act of negligence at one extreme, and not holding the government accountable, no matter how negligent, at the other extreme. Both elements of negligence (the government knew about the problem, and did nothing) must be met for the government to be held liable for negligence. If either of the elements is not there, the government cannot be held liable. The reasons for this should be obvious.

First, the government owns so much property, over which so many people travel, that it cannot possibly know of all hazards. Therefore, the first element of a claim for negligence is that the government had to actually be aware of the problem.

Second, once the government becomes aware of the problem, it has to have had a reasonable amount of time to correct the problem.

In this case, the government obviously knew about the problem, because it created the problem when it paved around the marker. Likewise, because it created the problem, it also had a reasonable amount of time to correct the problem, but did nothing.

Incidentally, this duty of care is not limited to cyclists; it applies to all travelers who use the public way. In fact, to exclude cyclists from the government's duty of care, while protecting others, as they have done in Illinois, and attempted to do in Iowa, would be to deny the equal protection of the law to an entire class of travelers on the public way.

As usual, Blue Order has one of the more sensible and reasoned approaches.

Another key aspect is the decision to sue. This is often out of the victim's hands.

Person injured. Medical insurer asks about the details on a major claim. If another party seems responsible, they'll pursue that other party. As they should, to best serve the needs of their entity and its stockholders. If a demand for repayment isn't met, they'll generally have the right to pursue legal remedies in the name of the injured party. If a suit is going to be filed, the victim might as well go after the party the insurer tells him is responsible.

The other thing that happens is jerking around. The potentially responsible party stonewalls and generally jerks someone around. Often through simple bureaucratic BS and incompetence. The statute of limitations is about to expire, the victim is annoyed, and instead of demanding a little bit, goes to a PI attorney who asks for the moon, hoping to force a settlement. Instead, the negligent party suddenly wakes up, denies everything, and BAM, you're in court for $$$$$$$.

As to negligence itself - blue order has it. I've often wondered about bike route designations. I would see that, simply as a normal outside observer (I ignore designations myself) as suggesting that the state or county has assured itself that the marked route is suitable. And in asking motorists about such things, I find they assume there's been some additional work. So I'd tend to expect a higher standard for roadways so marked. Yet my limited inspections suggest no higher or lower level of neglect. And some of the routes marked around here are pretty lethal, clearly unsuited for routine cycle travel during rush periods.

An interesting situation.

unfortunately, two wheeled vehicles are much more susceptible to most road hazards than four wheeled vehicles; crappy roads may be bad for everyone but they are way worse for cyclists than they are for motorists.

Maybe. But if you accept this and also declare the government responsible for maintaining roads to the higher level of safety you feel necessary for safe cycling, then to be fair, cyclists should foot the bill for maintaining the road to this higher level of safety that is unique to bicycles.

A keystone of bicyclists' argument about how they should not have to pay any road tax is that we use the same roads that cars use and cause no incremental costs above and beyond what cars require. Are we as a group ready for a 35% surtax on every bicycle-related item we buy to fund this higher level of road safety required for safe bicycling? What I see in many threads like this is people screaming that things should be better, but always saying that someone else should be paying for it.

- Mark

I really don't want to seem down on this guy, but there's not enough information to really know what's up. I ride past monuments with divots around them all the time, there are 4 on my route. If I were riding fast with skinny tires, they might cause a hazard. But riding fast with skinny tires on my route would be dangerous, and if I got hurt doing it, I'd consider that my fault, because I don't expect the county road department to maintain roads to track standards. So I'm not going to do a hammerfest on 23s on my route. And I'm perfectly happy with my route, and wouldn't want the road dept to spend another dime making it better for me. It's safe for cars and passable for me, that's all I expect.

OTOH, there are situations that are just needlessly dangerous, like storm drains installed with the slits parallel to the direction of travel, or long, broken-out unfilled gaping wounds in the road that will grab wheels. Still, there are some of the latter on my route; I just keep my eyes open and avoid them. I don't expect to be able to ride full speed, head down on generic public roads and not hit hazards. Heck, that's true even in my car.

Maybe. But if you accept this and also declare the government responsible for maintaining roads to the higher level of safety you feel necessary for safe cycling, then to be fair, cyclists should foot the bill for maintaining the road to this higher level of safety that is unique to bicycles.

A keystone of bicyclists' argument about how they should not have to pay any road tax is that we use the same roads that cars use and cause no incremental costs above and beyond what cars require. Are we as a group ready for a 35% surtax on every bicycle-related item we buy to fund this higher level of road safety required for safe bicycling? What I see in many threads like this is people screaming that things should be better, but always saying that someone else should be paying for it.

- Mark

completely false premise. Bicycles may need a higher standard of road surface, but motor vehicles do the most damage to the road surface and bed. If a high quality road was provided and only bicycles used it, it would last a heck of a lot longer than if you allow motor vehicles on it.

completely false premise. Bicycles may need a higher standard of road surface, but motor vehicles do the most damage to the road surface and bed. If a high quality road was provided and only bicycles used it, it would last a heck of a lot longer than if you allow motor vehicles on it.

Whether it lasts a long time or a little time, a higher quality road costs more money. Again, everybody wants better roads for bicycles, but I haven't seen any bicyclist yet willing to pay a dime to build them.

- Mark

Whether it lasts a long time or a little time, a higher quality road costs more money. Again, everybody wants better roads for bicycles, but I haven't seen any bicyclist yet willing to pay a dime to build them.

- Mark

false again, local roads are paid for in a variety of ways, many of which cyclists already contribute to.

false again, local roads are paid for in a variety of ways, many of which cyclists already contribute to.

You keep saying "false", but unless you want to split hairs, what I'm saying is absolutely true. Road are almost completely funded by road use taxes: gas taxes, vehicle excise taxes, licensing fees, and other taxes that bicyclists pay absolutely nothing into. In point of fact, governments actually use road use taxes to fund other government operations, so motorists have been "paying above and beyond" for some time now, including funding the incremental road cost associated with bicycling extras. The only tax that bicyclists can be remotely associated with proportion to their bicycling is the general sales tax, but these funds don't contribute to road construction or upkeep.

- Mark

You keep saying "false", but unless you want to split hairs, what I'm saying is absolutely true. Road are almost completely funded by road use taxes: gas taxes, vehicle excise taxes, licensing fees, and other taxes that bicyclists pay absolutely nothing into. In point of fact, governments actually use road use taxes to fund other government operations, so motorists have been "paying above and beyond" for some time now, including funding the incremental road cost associated with bicycling extras. The only tax that bicyclists can be remotely associated with proportion to their bicycling is the general sales tax, but these funds don't contribute to road construction or upkeep.

- MarkNo, it's not "absolutely true." It's not even "sort of" true. Roads are funded through a number of taxes, including property tax, sales tax, and fuel taxes. Everybody who pays rent or a mortgage pays property tax, most people pay sales tax on their purchases (Oregon residents being an exception), and anybody who buys fuel-- including cyclists with cars-- pays fuel taxes.

Now, care to discuss the relative impacts that cyclists and car drivers place on the roads?

I'm no engineer, so correct me if I'm wrong... but it seems to me that while a bicycle needs a smoother surface, it can get by on a much less sturdy road than what a car or a truck needs. A road made strictly for bikes would only need to be smoother on top than normal roads, not necessarily be of a higher standard overall. In that respect it would be far cheaper to build a bike road than an all purpose road.

In fact... we have these! They are usually called MUP's. If cars drove on them, they'd tear them to shreds very quickly. Yet MUPs can go for years with very minimal upkeep (and I think it's obvious that they are less sturdy and of a "lower standard" than normal roads).

... In fact... we have these! They are usually called MUP's. ...

Which is fine if there is one of these where you need it, which is rare.

Which is fine if there is one of these where you need it, which is rare.

Yes. But I was just using this as evidence that bikes do not need heavy duty roads like motor vehicles do.

That little hole in the picture is it? After winter, I pass stuff worse than that every 50-100' on my rides. It's my job to not hit them until they get fixed. Lawsuit? I don't think so.

http://www.kirotv.com/2009/0416/19192602_640X361.jpg

I gotta agree with G here... WTH?
The one bikelane (not even just designated bike route) in town is fraught with many potholes as big as this one.

While I feel for the guy, I think most attentive cyclists navigate far more potential hazards - daily.

It was prolly just dumb luck.
Forgot to scan the road ahead, before looking down to grab the H2O.

No, it's not "absolutely true." It's not even "sort of" true. Roads are funded through a number of taxes, including property tax, sales tax, and fuel taxes. Everybody who pays rent or a mortgage pays property tax, most people pay sales tax on their purchases (Oregon residents being an exception), and anybody who buys fuel-- including cyclists with cars-- pays fuel taxes.

Almost all property taxes are specifically levied to pay for schools, emergency services, fire, libraries, etc. and are not collected to pay for roads.

Fuel taxes are specifically collected for road construction and maintenance at both the federal and state levels and over the years, the amount collected has exceeded the amount actually spent for these uses and there have been threats of lawsuits to force the government to use the money for its intended purpose. (Look up Highway Trust Fund, for example.) IOW, road user have been subsidziing other govermental services for some time now in the saw way that Social Security taxes have been funding services unrelated to social services.

The fact that the money may go into one pot before being dispersed doesn't change the economics. Fuel taxes build the roads (and then some). Taxes paid by bicyclists don't.

- Mark

The fact that the money may go into one pot before being dispersed doesn't change the economics. Fuel taxes build the roads (and then some). Taxes paid by bicyclists don't.

- Mark

Earlier in this thread, you mentioned a 35% tax on all bicycle related items. Where do you get the 35% number from? (Or is that just a number you threw out there as an example?)