Living Car Free - Why do you hate the car?

As I was walking with my umbrella on the pavement, two cars came and splashed water on me. Even though I tried to move myself as far as possible, at the innermost side of the pavement, they were going so fast the water still got to me. Most car drivers seem to behave blissfully unaware of the existence of pedestrians. And it is no wonder, since they can afford to do so protected as they are from rain and hail and snow in their cars.

From this experience, I thought I would start a thread where people can cite reasons why they hate the car and car culture.

Here are mine:

1. Cars and their drivers do not consider enough the relatively great and potentially destructive powers they have at their command and go on to abuse it, disregarding the defenceless pedestrian and the bicycle and motorcycle riders using the same roads to get to their destinations. The result is routine splashing of pedestrians on rainy days and hitting them and bicycle riders in accidents often due to carelessness.

2. Car drivers often drive when under the influence of alcohol. Then their potentially destructive power behind the wheel becomes exponentially multiplied. Being intoxicated is a crime that is immeasurably amplified in its effects thanks to the car. The intoxicated person without a car has no unintentional weapon to hurt others.

3. Car drivers often are involved in multi-tasking while driving, as though the car were their sitting room. Thus they talk on their mobile phones, fiddle with the radio or CD, etc. This too, as in being intoxicated, makes of the car driver a potentially destructive power on the loose. The only difference is that the intoxicated person often unintentionally becomes that destructive power while the driver who talks on the phone while riding does so intentionally (even though he/she may be unaware that by so doing he/she will be putting other people's lives at stake).

Add your own reasons for hating the car.

Because of their gross overuse in today's society, cars symbolize (to me) the puss-ifiction, laziness and out-of-whack priorities of most humans.

The car is a money-sucking anchor on your life; there's registration, to be renewed annually. There's the training/licensing process, which has been 'dumbed down' to the lowest POSSIBLE denominator, making it impossible to be reasonably secure in the thought that the person ahead/behind/to the side/approaching has ANY skills whatsoever.

There's inflated insurance rates, based on what OTHER people do in your region of the country instead of your own driving record -- so you pay for other people's foibles and incompetencies!

Maintenance -- oil changes, tune-ups, brake jobs, tire rotation, etc. Repairs -- water pumps, radiators, etc. It's like a hose attached to your wallet.

Speaking of hoses -- $2.80 a gallon for gas? R U F'N NUTZ?

There's the pollution, we already know about that.

There's the lack of user-friendliness in servicing the above items of maintenance/repair. Not like the old days, when you could roll it up on ramps and do everything, including drop the engine, IN THE DRIVEWAY!

Sure, bike tires wear out faster than car tires -- bike tires have to be weight-conscious as well as everything else, so there's less there, and it wears faster.

One quart of oil -- that won't even get you through ONE tune-up -- will last a decade as a bike lube. The amount of grease for one bearing job, on ONE corner of the car, will last at least 5 years in every bearing on a bike.

Finally -- I noticed last month, while borrowing a car to finish my Xmas shopping, in the space of 9 miles, the buildup of road rage -- almost un-experienced on the bike -- nearly put me in a homicidal rage! I was teeth-gritting mad at the very though of being on a level playing field with 30,000 drooling idiots!

There is no joy behind the wheel; there is unmitigated joy hovering over two, though!

Because of their gross overuse in today's society, cars symbolize (to me) the puss-ifiction, laziness and out-of-whack priorities of most humans.

Exactly! I love this argument! it hits the nail right on the head for me! Thank you!

Because they're like tanks being used as shopping carts.

Because of crap like this: http://www.cracked.com/article/18354_6-obnoxious-innovations-that-will-be-in-your-car-soon/ you're at the mercy of your car, and never the master of it. Although it is hilarious, in the saddest possible way.

I like my car.

Because of their gross overuse in today's society, cars symbolize (to me) the puss-ifiction, laziness and out-of-whack priorities of most humans.
i can't put it any better than this. ^
4000 lbs. of steel to haul a 180 lb. (or whatever) person half a block to get a pack of smokes makes me ill !

I don't hate cars. I actually quite like them. The technology of cars modern and old is amazing, and they allow long distance travel and independence to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to get around very well, at least without buses/trains.

The things I don't like about cars don't really have anything to do with the cars themselves, but rather the people who drive them. Main things that annoy me are trends of buying rediculously large and unwieldy vehicles, wasting much money on horsepower that serves no useful function outside of a racetrack, and the huge apathy and laziness many of my fellow Americans show towards understanding and adopting better technologies like hybrid/electric cars.

When I was a kid, I wanted to be a car designer when I grew up. So I certainly don't hate them, though I do appreciate them more as toys and art than as transportation.

http://www.classicdriver.com/upload/images/reportagen/week_51_00_02/car_pop22.jpg

What don't I like about cars? Exhaust fumes.

Add your own reasons for hating the car.

After reading your post, it seems like you really hate drivers rather than cars. That's an important distinction.

For me, it's car-centric development and the way that it wrecks cities.
I hate sprawling suburbs, freeways, drive-throughs, and vast parking lots, more than the cars themselves.

I don't hate cars. I actually quite like them. The technology of cars modern and old is amazing, and they allow long distance travel and independence to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to get around very well, at least without buses/trains.

The things I don't like about cars don't really have anything to do with the cars themselves, but rather the people who drive them. Main things that annoy me are trends of buying rediculously large and unwieldy vehicles, wasting much money on horsepower that serves no useful function outside of a racetrack, and the huge apathy and laziness many of my fellow Americans show towards understanding and adopting better technologies like hybrid/electric cars.

+1


After reading your post, it seems like you really hate drivers rather than cars. That's an important distinction.
Agreed.

To hate anything is very strong and probably unwarranted. I have two vehicles that I don't drive much at all. I like my vehicles but don't rely on them. I use them when I need to

Because they're like tanks being used as shopping carts.

+1

Indeed cars usually constitute overkill compared to the tasks they are usually used for. I think they could be much more simply made. Probably cars of the future will be.

After thinking about it I find it hard to hate cars any more than I can hate a rock or an airplane. Cars did give the average person the freedom to travel outside of their small area. I might agree they can be misused much like bikes on the sidewalk or wrong side of the street or without lights at night. But when I need to get to the hospital quickly I am glad when a car like vehicle shows up rather than a bicycle with a trailer.
Cars gave people a way to flee some of the crime ridden inner city neighborhoods, not to indicate all inner city neighborhoods are crime ridden. That of course is a whole other discussion.
Think about how contradictory we as a society can be. Ask many of us today how we feel about requiring American Indians to move to reservations in the 1800s and early 1900s and we would say, it is unnatural to restrict people from the freedom of movement to live where they want to live. In the same breath some would say moving out of the big congested cities to experience the freedom of movement offered by the suburbs is a bad thing. To me it seems better to accept some people are city people and some people are not.
I just hope no one hates the UPS truck so much that they keep it from delivering my new wheel set.

I don't hate cars. Cars are cool. The technology is impressive (and I'm a huge technophile), they can be a lot of fun, they can be very useful, and some of them are downright beautiful (I <3 the Ford GT).

People on the other hand, them I hate. People suck.

For me, it's car-centric development and the way that it wrecks cities.
I hate sprawling suburbs, freeways, drive-throughs, and vast parking lots, more than the cars themselves.

This was exactly what I was thinking. I hate ugliness, and cars contribute a lot of that to the world. I was walking down a beautiful tree-lined street today that's lined with great old buildings, and thinking how much better it would look if there were no cars parked along both sides of the street, not to mention the big piles of dirty snow that had been piled up to enable the cars to drive in the street without slowing down for weather conditions.

I don't hate individual cars if they're well designed. I still like going to the Henry Ford Museum or Tom Monaghan's Domino Farms to look at their collections. IMO, that's where cars mostly belong--in a museum. I haven't been to to Detroit Auto Show in a number of years, but i would probably still enjoy that also.

OP hates people, not cars.


I don't like how unnecessary they are, and I don't like the fact that they are so deadly because of this.

If two bicyclist wreck head on at max speed, no one is going to die. (most of the time) Can't say the same thing about cars. And bikes don't even have airbags!

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3] Ask many of us today how we feel about requiring American Indians to move to reservations in the 1800s and early 1900s and we would say, it is unnatural to restrict people from the freedom of movement to live where they want to live. In the same breath some would say moving out of the big congested cities to experience the freedom of movement offered by the suburbs is a bad thing.

I feel the car has restricted those who are carfree from the freedom of movement in where we want to travel. There are many bridges and tunnels that cannot be crossed by foot with no public transit options either. Those who don't have a car will either need to rent or call a cab to cross a restricted bridge.

It's only since I became carfree that it hit me all the cities and towns accessable only by restricted turnpikes , and bridges. There's always a way around these obstacles but they can take hours to circle around. The freedom of the motorist limited the non-motorist to a life in the cities. Those who do not use bicycles are in worse shape of all.

Most of the restrictions we in this state suffer come not because of cars but because of our nanny state mentality. The one that says no one is responsible for their own safety. The only roads I can’t access in my area are freeways and there are some sections where they are open to me as well. If there were no cars more than likely there wouldn’t be any paved expressways for us to worry about.

In California 7.2 Million dollars are allocated to the State Bicycle transportation account. That money comes from Gas and vehicle usage tax. The counties and cities get a share of this fund based on the number of registered vehicles. Another 150 million is allocated from fuel taxes to the counties and cities by population for other road related expenses. So without cars they wouldn’t be paving as many roads nor funding any mass transit in our state. If you like I can post the code for you but some don’t follow links.
It is just one of the cases where the majority voice is heard over the minority voice. I personally don’t see why we can’t have access on all restricted roads but it was never put to a vote.
By the way I have been looking at folders as a possible N+1 after reading about some of what you do on yours. I do like the ease of getting on Metro rail or AMtrack with one.

They've made the landscape a concrete and asphalt hell, destroyed most of the natural world and they continue to undermine any semblance of a healthy lifestyle for most people. That's not even getting into what they do to the atmosphere.


I feel the car has restricted those who are carfree from the freedom of movement in where we want to travel. There are many bridges and tunnels that cannot be crossed by foot with no public transit options either. Those who don't have a car will either need to rent or call a cab to cross a restricted bridge.

Absolutely. Force every driver to exist for a month totally car free and people would start to see the reality of this world. It's not pretty.

They've made the landscape a concrete and asphalt hell, destroyed most of the natural world and they continue to undermine any semblance of a healthy lifestyle for most people. That's not even getting into what they do to the atmosphere.



Absolutely. Force every driver to exist for a month totally car free and people would start to see the reality of this world. It's not pretty.

I know this forum is pure rhetoric but we as a race were car free once. We had a choice of remaining car free or using it as another tool for transportation. Even today no one is forced to buy a car we all have a choice and it is just that most people choose to use vehicles to increase their options. When you go to places like Kenya and talk to people that are forced to be car free and ask if they wished they could afford a car. The answer will disappoint you if you believe people forced to be car free will give up cars. At least from my experience with people in Africa and Asia.

I dont hate cars. I hate the government implementing taxes on car use. Sales tax, road tax, fuel tax, high-insurance, traffic congestion, speed camera, average speed cameras, various traffic light cameras, numerous road signs muddled togther, hidden behind trees, large number of traffic lights per junction (I counted 24 (twenty four!) traffic lights on ONE cross roads junction, parking fees. The cost keeps going up, people keep driving. The government doesnt want to raises prices so far that it stops people driving, just wants to raise enough that drivers carry on paying.

The car has just become one very large revenue generator. If the government really wanted to kerb car usage, they would do so. But they don't, they're just fooling the green party.

I don't hate cars either. They're marvelous technology. What I hate is human behavior related to cars. But I have to say that many of the worst human behaviors related to cars, especially aggressive driving or "road rage," really had their genesis in over crowed urban areas. This pattern of behavior seems to support a lot of the scientific studies on the impact of over population in the 1970s, which almost universally found that over crowding increases aggression. (Over population has been a verboten topic for too long; we should be worried about it. It's something that needs to be discussed in this age of advocates for extremely dense urban areas. Letting cities expand and be more densely packed is a formula for increased pollution, waste of energy and proliferation of bad human behavior.)

Here. (http://web.archive.org/web/20050504114343/www.motorcarnage.org.uk/motorcarnage/JSDean.html)

The endless vista of asphalt and concrete is just awful.

I love cars, not as much as my bikes but they are a necessity for me. If I lived in the city I would ride everywhere but still have a car for trips... but im not in that position.

OP hates people, not cars.

How can you talk in my name, or decide what I hate? No, I don't hate people!

Maybe if you said that I hate the way some people use cars, it would have been nearer the truth. But then again the car makes it possible to use it in those ways. In the same manner it is possible to argue that someone hates people and not guns. But in the end guns are made to kill, and so hating guns is justified because they make it possible for killers to use them as a means to kill.

A car is generally overkill for the purposes it is used. And so yes, I hate it rather than the people who "misuse" it. Because it makes possible or facilitates such "misuse" or destructive use.

How does one hate a tool? Because, that's all a car is - a tool. It's use, misuse, enjoyment and/or problems regarding society is based totally on how it's used. It's a tool for transportation, hauling, sport or business. And getting rid of this tool, completely, would hurt society in general - badly.

Don't worry about hating the car. Put your attention on the operator, and under what conditions he/she uses it.

How can you talk in my name, or decide what I hate? No, I don't hate people!

Maybe if you said that I hate the way some people use cars, it would have been nearer the truth. But then again the car makes it possible to use it in those ways. In the same manner it is possible to argue that someone hates people and not guns. But in the end guns are made to kill, and so hating guns is justified because they make it possible for killers to use them as a means to kill.

A car is generally overkill for the purposes it is used. And so yes, I hate it rather than the people who "misuse" it. Because it makes possible or facilitates such "misuse" or destructive use.

Does that mean that, since people will insist on using the car whenever it's available, you're blaming the car rather than the user? Doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me.

Does that mean that, since people will insist on using the car whenever it's available, you're blaming the car rather than the user? Doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me.

Who talked about blaming the car? I was talking about hating the car. When it comes to blame, of course the responsibility is the car user's as well as the car manufacturer's! And yes, after all hating cars does not make sense. It's the ones who manufacture them and use them in the wrong ways that the symbol of the car and its hate stand for. I think it is foolish to try to make sense of my OP literally!

How can you talk in my name, or decide what I hate? No, I don't hate people!

The examples you used in your original post, and subsequent posts, suggested that you hate people who drive cars.

In California 7.2 Million dollars are allocated to the State Bicycle transportation account.
That's what...about 30 cents per cyclist?

That's what...about 30 cents per cyclist?

Not sure we have 21 million cyclists and I am pretty sure we don’t have 21 million commuting cyclists. And that doesn’t count the 150,000,000 additional fuel tax money the counties and cities get from fuel tax by population. But maybe from a fiscal standpoint it beats the revenue gained from cyclists to build roads in our state. That was the point I think I was making. You can research the legislation if you like. I know you don’t like links. What might I ask does Michigan do in this regard?
Motorized vehicles may be subsidized but bike paths and other connivances used by cyclists are subsidized by the very object of the Ops hatred. There may be some legitimacy to the idea than not enough money is diverted to mass transit or cycling infrastructure but not to the idea that cyclists do no benefit from fuel taxes, at least in California. As far as fairness goes most of the cycling related improvements are paid for by people that do not cycle. Just what is there to hate about that kind of return?

During the year 2000 census, the US Census sent out a supplimental data sheet to 58,000 participants each month for twelve months, asking various questions including one about methods of getting to work for those over 16. As one of the options was via bicycle, this survey can be used as a source of information about US bicycle commuters. Based on this data, the US Census estimates that there are between 411,000 and 750,000 people over the age of 16 who ride bicycles more miles than any other vehicle to get to work during an average week.
I did a quick search and got this from the kifer’s site. Now he has made an assumption that this census report isn’t valid because it is based on people over 16 and many 16 year olds should be included as well as students but even if we use his estimates it comes to between 3 and 5 million in the US. California can’t have more than 10 percent of those even at a guess. So California’s motorists are doing pretty well in giving to cyclists I would think. But that may just be me.

Robert, your point that motorists help to pay for the roads that they share (sort of) with cyclists is well taken.

But you should also bear in mind that the biggest source of revenue for highways is not from user fees like the gas tax, but from general tax revenues (such as income tax, sales tax and property taxes) that are paid by all citizens, whether they drive or not. This means that cyclists do share in the funding of roads, even though most roads are specifically designed for motorcars and are poorly built for cyclists' needs.

In fact, it could be argued that carfree citizens pay more than their fair share of highway funds, since they generally cause less wear & tear on the pavement, and contribute less to congestion on the roads.

During the year 2000 census, the US Census sent out a supplimental data sheet to 58,000 participants each month for twelve months, asking various questions including one about methods of getting to work for those over 16. As one of the options was via bicycle, this survey can be used as a source of information about US bicycle commuters. Based on this data, the US Census estimates that there are between 411,000 and 750,000 people over the age of 16 who ride bicycles more miles than any other vehicle to get to work during an average week.
I did a quick search and got this from the kifer’s site. Now he has made an assumption that this census report isn’t valid because it is based on people over 16 and many 16 year olds should be included as well as students but even if we use his estimates it comes to between 3 and 5 million in the US. California can’t have more than 10 percent of those even at a guess. So California’s motorists are doing pretty well in giving to cyclists I would think. But that may just be me.
This data is from 2000, as you noted. My personal observation is that there are now at least twice as many commuting cyclists in my town as there were in 2000. Other posters here report similar observations. It'll be interesting to see if 2010 census data will shows an increase in bicycle commuting.

Anyway, I'm fairly sure that there are more than 21 million cyclists in California, and I'm not understanding why you choose to consider only commuters rather than all cyclists.

Amazing, Mr Forester, just... amazing.

Did you even consider two primary issues of weight and distance traveled when claiming cyclist paths are subsidized by motorists?

http://www.treehugger.com/amount-of-space-required-cars-bus-bicycles-poster-image43.jpg

Who do you gets the most use out of such a large road?

Amazing, Mr Forester, just... amazing.

Did you even consider two primary issues of weight and distance traveled when claiming cyclist paths are subsidized by motorists?

http://www.treehugger.com/amount-of-space-required-cars-bus-bicycles-poster-image43.jpg

Who do you gets the most use out of such a large road?

Sure I do. But the roads are used by both car owners and cyclists. And considering all of the taxes they have in common there is one that car free cyclist do not. That is the fuel and road usage taxes our state collects. What additional taxes do cyclists pay to offset the road improvement taxes that are collected from vehicles in the State? Yes is can be argued that trucks and cars use the roads and provide most of the need for necessary repair but without those fuel taxes the roads wouldn't be getting the attention they do in the first place. What might a tax payer say is the quid pro quo from cyclists to car owners? Just asking? If we all pay property taxes, except renters and we all pay sales taxes what tax do we as cyclists pay to help offset the additional tax fuel generates?
It seems a stretch to consider cars evil on their own even if they are an overused tool. Like I said my food comes by truck, train, plane and ship all using basically the same type of ICE or turbine or jet fuel to move. Without them we would be living like third world countries with no roads to ride on unless you choose a MTB. I have been there and have seen what happens when there are no vehicle fuel taxes to maintain roads. Kenya, Tanzania, and Rwanda are good examples. I have seen too many places in South America where the paved roads basically end just outside of the cities. When it rains cyclists simply have to carry their bikes because the mud makes riding them close to impossible.

So yes I have considered the alternative to the utopia some have suggested would exist without cars. Doesn’t look like I picture utopia. And once again that is simply my personal outlook.

If two bicyclist wreck head on at max speed, no one is going to die. (most of the time) Can't say the same thing about cars. And bikes don't even have airbags!

Are you sure about this? I have heard that bicycle to bicycle head on collisions can be very deadly and your comparison with cars is misleading because, unlike bicycles, they are usually traveling at way less than max speed. A head on with two bicycles going 20 mph is 40 mph relative speed, you really think people are going to walk away from that? I doubt it.

Sure I do. But the roads are used by both car owners and cyclists. And considering all of the taxes they have in common there is one that car free cyclist do not. That is the fuel and road usage taxes our state collects. What additional taxes do cyclists pay to offset the road improvement taxes that are collected from vehicles in the State? Yes is can be argued that trucks and cars use the roads and provide most of the need for necessary repair but without those fuel taxes the roads wouldn't be getting the attention they do in the first place. What might a tax payer say is the quid pro quo from cyclists to car owners? Just asking? If we all pay property taxes, except renters and we all pay sales taxes what tax do we as cyclists pay to help offset the additional tax fuel generates?
It seems a stretch to consider cars evil on their own even if they are an overused tool. Like I said my food comes by truck, train, plane and ship all using basically the same type of ICE or turbine or jet fuel to move. Without them we would be living like third world countries with no roads to ride on unless you choose a MTB. I have been there and have seen what happens when there are no vehicle fuel taxes to maintain roads. Kenya, Tanzania, and Rwanda are good examples. I have seen too many places in South America where the paved roads basically end just outside of the cities. When it rains cyclists simply have to carry their bikes because the mud makes riding them close to impossible.

So yes I have considered the alternative to the utopia some have suggested would exist without cars. Doesn’t look like I picture utopia. And once again that is simply my personal outlook.
The trucks that bring us food aren't really cars, are they?

AFAIK, nobody on this forum (besides Robert Foster) has ever proposed banning trucks--or even cars for that matter. Machine-free living isn't the name of this forum, at any rate. Most of us are only bold enough to propose that the world--or some parts of it--would be a nicer place if there were considerably fewer cars on the road, and better accommodations for those who choose some gentler form of transit. Personally, I don't even resent that I pay a much bigger tax for the roads than I will ever use, since we live in a democracy and decide collectively how government funds should be raised and spent.

Another thing, Robert. If you never think evil thoughts about cars when you're cycling in heavy trsaffic, then you are more than a great cyclist. You, sir, are a saint! ;)

Sure I do. But the roads are used by both car owners and cyclists. And considering all of the taxes they have in common there is one that car free cyclist do not. That is the fuel and road usage taxes our state collects. What additional taxes do cyclists pay to offset the road improvement taxes that are collected from vehicles in the State? Yes is can be argued that trucks and cars use the roads and provide most of the need for necessary repair but without those fuel taxes the roads wouldn't be getting the attention they do in the first place. What might a tax payer say is the quid pro quo from cyclists to car owners? Just asking? If we all pay property taxes, except renters and we all pay sales taxes what tax do we as cyclists pay to help offset the additional tax fuel generates?
It seems a stretch to consider cars evil on their own even if they are an overused tool. Like I said my food comes by truck, train, plane and ship all using basically the same type of ICE or turbine or jet fuel to move. Without them we would be living like third world countries with no roads to ride on unless you choose a MTB. I have been there and have seen what happens when there are no vehicle fuel taxes to maintain roads. Kenya, Tanzania, and Rwanda are good examples. I have seen too many places in South America where the paved roads basically end just outside of the cities. When it rains cyclists simply have to carry their bikes because the mud makes riding them close to impossible.

So yes I have considered the alternative to the utopia some have suggested would exist without cars. Doesn’t look like I picture utopia. And once again that is simply my personal outlook.

So what exactly are you getting at... All i said was that your argument about the car free cyclist being somewhat fairly taxed and not burdened by the current transportation situation is not accurate. We all pay property and sales taxes, private motorists are just taking far more out of the system than they are putting in when compared to a car-free cyclist. The picture was supposed to illustrate for you the fact that cyclist have a far-lower footprint. We could be spending our economic energy on something other than the private motor vehicle, which is a good invention but we have paid dearly for it... anyways i digress.

~snip~If we all pay property taxes, except renters and we all pay sales taxes what tax do we as cyclists pay to help offset the additional tax fuel generates?


Renters do pay property taxes, just indirectly. As a rental property owner I promise you that every year the local government comes around with their hand held out, if the rates go up, the rent on that property goes up.

There have been multiple studies down in different areas. With the exception of toll roads most roads are only about 3/4 funded with the fuel taxes and other ICE specific fees. Then you have to factor in interstates which for the most part are off limits to bicycles and are paid for by general funds. In NC local in town roads are paid for from property and sales taxes, very little comes back from the fuel taxes that are collected, the bulk of those go to pay for the state roads, but even then many of those roads are built using bonds that are repaid from the general funds.

A fully loaded semi truck does as much damage in a single pass over a piece of road as 9,000+ cars over the same piece of road, I suspect a bicycle does even less in comparison to cars. But you don't see trucks paying 9000 times the amount of taxes.

Then you need to look at the size of the infrastructure required. Everything has to be increased by a scale of 5-10 to accommodate cars versus bicycles, intersections, parking lots, roadway widths, depth of the road beds, etc.

Aaron:)

Renters do pay property taxes, just indirectly. As a rental property owner I promise you that every year the local government comes around with their hand held out, if the rates go up, the rent on that property goes up.

There have been multiple studies down in different areas. With the exception of toll roads most roads are only about 3/4 funded with the fuel taxes and other ICE specific fees. Then you have to factor in interstates which for the most part are off limits to bicycles and are paid for by general funds. In NC local in town roads are paid for from property and sales taxes, very little comes back from the fuel taxes that are collected, the bulk of those go to pay for the state roads, but even then many of those roads are built using bonds that are repaid from the general funds.

A fully loaded semi truck does as much damage in a single pass over a piece of road as 9,000+ cars over the same piece of road, I suspect a bicycle does even less in comparison to cars. But you don't see trucks paying 9000 times the amount of taxes.

Then you need to look at the size of the infrastructure required. Everything has to be increased by a scale of 5-10 to accommodate cars versus bicycles, intersections, parking lots, roadway widths, depth of the road beds, etc.

Aaron:)

You don’t have rent control where you live I take it? And trucks do pay more than cars in my state not 9000 times more however I am sure. And when they put in a bike lane how much do cyclists pay to have that part of the road restricted?
But that isn’t what I am saying. In our society it is hard to hate a form of transportation that so many people use correctly simply because some use it incorrectly. The only way we get additional bike infrastructure, at least in my area, is with the support of the voting populace and most of those voters do not ride bicycles. What I was saying is, they pay the same taxes the rest of us do “and” they pay for some of the bicycling infrastructure. What is to hate?
As an example of the logic expressed by the OP. In my area we have cyclists that ride on the wrong side of the road, on the sidewalk and the wrong side of the road. They run red lights and ride at night like Ninjas in dark clothing and no lights or reflectors. Should I then rant that I hate bicycles because of the actions of these sphincters?

We have enough division in our society. How many of us have gone to a community meeting to get more bike lanes in our community only to be willing to throw skateboarders under the bus to get someone to vote our way? Why do people hate skateboarders?
Cars, trucks, busses are all related by the roads they use and the reason we build the roads. Bicycles may use the roads as well but they were not the main consideration for the roads in the first place.

Cars, trucks, busses are all related by the roads they use and the reason we build the roads. Bicycles may use the roads as well but they were not the main consideration for the roads in the first place.

Actually, this is not true. Roads have existed for thousands of years before cars were invented. The pavement of roads began in the 1880s--also pre-car--thanks to the lobbying efforts of bicycling groups.

...The pavement of roads began in the 1880s--also pre-car--thanks to the lobbying efforts of bicycling groups.
Yes, the bicycle movement literally paved the way for automobiles in the time period 1880-1910. Here's an example from 1889, found in Google Books:


As an instance of what is being done, see the work of the League of American Wheelmen, in the appointment of its highway committees, the issuing of road books and maps, the pressing forward of legislative bills, and lately in the publication of a comprehensive little manual on the making and care of good roads, a copy of which I shall be glad to have forwarded to any one who may care to send me his address.
...
The bicycle interest is young in years, but it has already become a large one. As an industry it ranks among the fine arts, while the magnitude of the business and the number of the vehicles made and sold yearly would, we fancy, be a matter of surprise to some of you and of amazement to the public at large.
...
I hope to live to see the time when all over our land, our cities, towns, and villages shall be connected by as good roads as can be found in the civilized world, and if we shall have been instrumental in bringing about this result, then indeed shall our children have cause to bless us.

http://books.google.com/books?id=rnQEAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP2#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Yes, history is nice and I have read about the push for roads before cars. Most of the early civilizations expanded their ability to practice commerce by building roads from the Aztecs to the Romans. But who builds the intrastate highways today? If we are talking about what we wish would happen then anything is possible. If we are talking about what does happen then we have to look at how we as a society have to co-operate and car owners are contributing to roads both directly and indirectly. At least in my state.

Let’s talk about what drives road construction and repair today? Let’s talk about where the funding comes from. Things may be different in the east but in the west our cities were designed with the car in mind. In many cases the roads are laid out before the buildings are constructed. Much of the revenue to repair those roads is collected from fuel and registration fees. And according to our government leaders when we cut back on driving in the last two years they lost revenue to the point where they can’t afford some of the road repairs some of our cities need. In response they have suggested raising fuel taxes and registration fees. I am sure they have considered dipping into the general fund for these repairs as well but what are cyclist contributing to the problem simply because they are cyclists?
I guess I simply can’t hate technology. I don’t hate cars, I don’t hate cell phones, I don’t hate computers, and I don’t hate TVs. They are just things people use and I can use or not use them as I choose.

Yes, history is nice and I have read about the push for roads before cars. Most of the early civilizations expanded their ability to practice commerce by building roads from the Aztecs to the Romans. But who builds the intrastate highways today? If we are talking about what we wish would happen then anything is possible. If we are talking about what does happen then we have to look at how we as a society have to co-operate and car owners are contributing to roads both directly and indirectly. At least in my state.

Let’s talk about what drives road construction and repair today? Let’s talk about where the funding comes from. Things may be different in the east but in the west our cities were designed with the car in mind. In many cases the roads are laid out before the buildings are constructed. Much of the revenue to repair those roads is collected from fuel and registration fees. And according to our government leaders when we cut back on driving in the last two years they lost revenue to the point where they can’t afford some of the road repairs some of our cities need. In response they have suggested raising fuel taxes and registration fees. I am sure they have considered dipping into the general fund for these repairs as well but what are cyclist contributing to the problem simply because they are cyclists?
I guess I simply can’t hate technology. I don’t hate cars, I don’t hate cell phones, I don’t hate computers, and I don’t hate TVs. They are just things people use and I can use or not use them as I choose.
Robert, the taxes that support the roads that cyclists usually use come mostly from general revenues and bond issues, not from some special gas tax that only motorists pay. Broadly speaking, local (county and city) streets are financed almost entirely by general taxes, while federal highways and some state highways are funded with contributions from gas taxes. This is a simple fact, and your entire argument falls apart when this fact is taken into account.

Robert, the taxes that support the roads that cyclists usually use come mostly from general revenues and bond issues, not from some special gas tax that only motorists pay. Broadly speaking, local (county and city) streets are financed almost entirely by general taxes, while federal highways and some state highways are funded with contributions from gas taxes. This is a simple fact, and your entire argument falls apart when this fact is taken into account.

Roody, even though I'm car lite, I tend to agree with you.

Here's a excerpt from one of our local bicycle newsletters.

* Most cyclists also own vehicles and pay gas taxes.
* According to the FHWA, 92% of the funds for local roads (those most used by cyclists) come from property, income, and sales taxes, which are paid by bicyclists as much as anyone else.
* FHWA calculates that 8% of federal highway funds come the general fund, so even a bicyclist who owns no car contributes to federal highway funds, too.
* Current U.S. road user revenues (fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees and road tolls) only finance about two-thirds of roadway expenditures – a growing portion of roadway funding comes from general taxes (Wach, 2003; Litman, 2006).
* A May 2008 study by UC Davis’ Institute for Transportation Studies estimated that “the total ‘tax subsidy’ to motor-vehicle users in the US may be in the range of $19–64 billion per year, or $0.11–0.37 per gallon of motor fuel.” Overall, fuel taxes represent about 47 percent of total current highway revenues (excluding bond sales) for State transportation agencies, so States already rely on funding from sources other than the fuel tax to finance their highway programs (National Surface Transportation Policy & Revenue Study Commission, 2007).
* Bicycles have a very low impact on the roadway. One study found that bicycles impose about 0.2 cents per mile in roadway costs, which comes from the general tax fund. Motor vehicles impose an average of 3.9 cents per mile in roadway costs, while paying an average of 2.5 cents per mile in user charges such as fuel taxes and motor vehicle registration fees, so the difference--1.4 cents per mile--comes from the general tax fund. Both bicycle and motor vehicle road use is subsidized from general tax revenue, which is fair, since both bicyclists and motorists pay into the general tax fund.
* Per my point about the extensive 'ripple effect' of active transportation investments, it has apparently been proven that dollar for dollar, bike infrastructure has a higher return on investment than road expansion: for every $1 million invested in an FHWA-approved paved bicycle or multi-use trail, the local economy gains 65 jobs.
* If one considers that food is the cyclists' fuel, cyclists pay substantively more in taxes than the nominal amount of maintenance impact they cause.
* The state Air Resources Board and federal government are paying motorists to junk old polluting and low mileage vehicles. So, if bicycles do not pollute or use fossil fuel, and do not damage roads, it makes sense that public policy should encourage their use by reducing disincentives to bicycling.
* In terms of overall community benefits, more bikes on the road means lower health care costs for everyone, safer streets for all users (not just people on bikes), better air quality and less congestion.
* And, a former Caltrans director puts it, if we apply the logic that vehicles have more right to the roadway because they pay more gas tax, then Hummers and Caddies have more right to the road than do Hondas and Priuses.

I don't hate them; I have two. But I hate the inefficiency of them, which I didn't really recognize until I started riding a bike more. As one example that I find every day...

A car takes up a lot of space, logically. Physically, it takes only 16 feet, but when in motion, it requires that space plus a buffer around it so it doesn't run into another car. On my way home from work, I have to cross a busy street at an intersection where the busy street has no stop sign, and therefore I must wait until there is an opening in the traffic, from both directions. Many times, there will be half a dozen cars total, coming at me from both directions, spread out over a distance of two or three blocks in each direction, spaced and timed so I can't get across until they all have passed. In other words, six people are keeping me from getting across that road.

Then of course there is the rush-hour traffic, where hundreds of cars, each with one person, crawl along for ten miles at a walking pace.

Cars are handy, but we use them inappropriately. We beat them to death driving back and forth to work--the same place at the same time, every day. And then when they wear out we spend tens of thousands of dollars to replace them, and do it all over again. We drive to the poorhouse.

What we should be doing is walking for distances of up to a mile, and riding a bike for one to five miles. For the classic scenario of rush-hour commuting from suburbs into downtown, there should be public transportation. Cars should be saved for where they are appropriate, individual destinations that can't be reached conveniently in any other way.

Ok, if we are all in this together what more do cyclists bring to the table? We agree that everyone pays the same taxes for roads and cars pay for an additional portion of those roads or repair. We can debate what percentage but we can’t debate that a portion is paid directly by the car owner. In my state at least.
http://www.californiacityfinance.com/HUTAfacts.pdf (http://www.californiacityfinance.com/HUTAfacts.pdf)
So if we are all paying to repair roads and cars owners are “also” paying whatever percentage of the expenses of the road repairs and construction in addition to what taxes they have in common with cyclists what do car free cyclists bring to the table? If we all pay sales tax, property tax, and state income tax and that makes us about even what off setting taxes do cyclists pay to equal fuel tax and registration fees?
Somehow I don’t think I am in the minority in believing that the first consideration our government has when it thinks of road construction isn’t cycling. In fact I would dare say the DOT doesn’t think about cycling as much as it does farm equipment on highways.
Let me ask a hypothetical question. Have any roads been paid for directly out of fees collected from Cyclists? Can we think of any roads that car owners have paid for directly? Are there any bridges that cyclists can use for free and that car owners have paid for?
I am not asking anyone to defend their decision to be car free or car-light I am asking how anyone can hate a form of transportation that so many of our fellow citizens enjoy?

Sort of a paraphrase of the song “that’s my opinion and I am sticking to it.”

]I am not asking anyone to defend their decision to be car free or car-light I am asking how anyone can hate a form of transportation that so many of our fellow citizens enjoy?[
Well, fellow citizens (like my downstairs neighbors) enjoy loud hip-hop music at four A.M., but I'm not so fond of it.

I think most people who ride bikes in traffic very often do have moments of hatred toward cars. Sometimes the "dance of traffic" is more like waltzing with an 800 pound gorilla who has two left feet. Also, most people (not just the carfree ones) recognize that our dependence on cars has caused some pretty serious problems in almost all cities and suburbs. in every part of the world.