Advocacy & Safety - Tax me for the use of the roads, please.

Frankly, suggesting the whole tax, title, license, and registration thing for bicycles on the road is often meet with death threats and flames the size of solar flares. But the more I think about it, the more it sounds like fair a trade for our use of the public roads built with all the public’s money.

Now before you load up your bazookas let’s examine the up side of being the man’s beotch.

Once we are taxed the man has to recognize us as legitimate road users. He may in your state already, but even in current bike utopias it is a half hearted recognition at best. License me and you have to design for me.

Next, as a licensed operator of a legal vehicle you can no longer claim “the bike swerved in front of the car” as most auto accidents with bikes seem to be written up. Nope, I’ve passed the same stupid test the idiot driving the car has passed + the bike component. Johnny Law cannot dismiss the cyclist so easily any longer.

With taxes comes the right to ***** and whine like farmers and children. We all know that car drivers have their transportation subsidized by federal, state, and local policies promoting the construction of roads and by our national fascination (government policy) with providing gas in cheap and plentiful quantities. With taxes comes a seat at the table. Don’t think it’s true. Ask yourself why you have to buckle your seat belt in Kansas, but you don’t have to wear a helmet on your motorcycle? They organized and *****ed – it’s the American way.

Car drivers whine like rich children at the mall when they don't get their super duper 8-lane bypass to suburbia because, in American *****ing and whining is the way the game is played. Once we become a source of revenue the rules change in our favor. Sure, there is a considerable downside. Life isn’t fair. We need to realize that in order to get safer and better roads, increased recognition by decision makers, protection from dangerous drivers, and the status of human beings carrying their share of the tax burden as seen by the rest of the road users. I think we need to take this leap as a community.

Let’s address cost. How much could it really end up costing? My guess is a liability insurance policy, license, title and tags couldn’t cost more than $100 a year – even in Massachusetts. During the development of the enabling legislation at the state level the points about the zero-emissions, zero-road wear, and near zero-threat to others will be made. Any taxing program developed by the state couldn’t charge the cyclist more than their real costs. The revenue simply wouldn’t be there. You can’t get blood out of a turnip. So, at the end of the process you’d have a program where your bike was titled (perhaps this even cuts down on bike theft), insured for liability, and you’d have some sort of tag on your bike identifying you as a taxpaying citizen. The tag could be as simple as a sticker on our helmets with the current year.

Those are good things in my opinion.

Putting on my asbestos long johns.

PS – I’m not including you mountain bike types or the casual trail users. On road operators only.

actually, it's pretty common knowledge among most serious cyclists that we already pay taxes for roadways. If you lump together all the gasoline taxes, license fees, etc that are devoted to highways, it comes to about 60% or so of all actual costs to build and maintain the roadways. (Not quite sure of the exact percentage, but it's somewhere near that. Anyway, you catch my drift.) It should also be pointed out that the lion's share of this funding is directed toward interstates and other primary roadways where bicycles are generally excluded. So where does the balance come from? General fund revenues paid by all taxpayers - cyclists, transit users, property owners, the whole gamut. Studies have been made that show cyclists actually pay more than their share, and in fact subsidize motorists to an extent. General fund revenues are used more often for the local streets, which happen to be where most cyclists do the vast majority of their riding.

This is something I wish would get more attention so that motorists would realize we pay our share too, and are not freeloaders on the roadways. We are riding on PUBLIC rights-of-way, which means meeting the travel needs of ALL the public, not just those that choose to go by motor vehicle.

I honestly don't believe that with taxation and registration comes fair treatment. If we were guaranteed fair treatment (I don't know how "they" could guarantee that however) then maybe I'd change my stance, but as it stands right now, I'm against it.

Good poll question.

Taxes -- yes, all for it, but only if there's a dedicated user fee trust fund and it pays for bike paths, lanes, bike route shoulder sweeping, etc. What's to tax since we don't use gasoline while cycling? Tires and tubes. Put an excise tax on them. If the tax reduces some motorists' attitude that we should get off the road because they pay highway taxes and we don't, then a bicycle tire and tube tax is worth it!

License -- not sure if you meant license for the bike or the cyclist, as in a license plate or a driver's license. No to both. DMV would be clueless on how to test cyclists, I don't want a license plate on my bike, and I don't want to carry an operator's license either.

Title -- maybe, if there was a standardized system of factories engraving a "VIN number" on the frame. Buying and selling bikes would become a hassle but might be worth it if it helped with recovering stolen bikes.

Insurance -- might be attractive if offered as an option under Auto policies.

I already pay for the roads through my property taxes, gas taxes and motor vehicle registration, also sales taxes (if you got 'em where you live); except I mostly choose to bike instead of drive. Biking actually preserves roads instead of damaging them, so there's a net benefit to the roads from the avoided driving. Plus a bicycle registration and license program would probably never pay its own way, let alone fund 'improvements', so it would be a drain on the state or local treasury rather than an income source. Bottom line - I pay plenty of taxes for roads already, and they are mostly going to subsidize someone else's driving habit. I'm not paying anything extra for what are usually substandard 'separate but equal' bicycle 'improvements'. :eek:

I am against any form of bicycle licence... but insurance... I would do...

Would have to cover theft, damage to bike, cars, injury, etc... good idea where liability could be a problem.

As to tax, charge a tax on certain bike supplies... and use them for street sweepers, bike lanes, etc.

I voted no. But I guess I could say to some forms. Taxing all bikes and riders is a bad idea. We all are thinking of this from our stance, but think about all the people you see riding as their main form of transportation cause that is all they can afford and they are riding a 20 year old murray that weighs more then everyones entire collection of bikes. But honestly an extra 1% on preminum bikes sales tax would not burn me especailly if they put the money towards Biking and bike safety. But if the government taxes you special I would expect much better police response and consideration to bike issues, including pulling people over and just explaining the rules of the road. But taxing all users discourages a very good form of transportation that is helping the world a ton and a lot of people out too. Plus think of how much the non obese riders are saving the government in medicare later on.

I voted "and now for something completely different". I don't own a car, but nevertheless pay for roads in various taxes. I also pay for other basic infrastructure I may or may not need. I am also all for ramps in public offices providing access for handicapped persons (sorry if the term is not PC) even though I will pay more taxes because of that.

I don't think it is a good idea or even possible to earmark every tax euro so that it will only go towards services I currently use and nothing else. I think with my current contribution to tax pool I am already entitled to request more bike-friendly arrangements in public services, planning and construction.

--J

There should be a stiff increase in the gas tax, with much of the extra revenue going to all those people who don't funnel the community's money to repressive, oil producing regimes. These saintly citizens( walkers, bikers, and public transportation users, who tread gently on the Earth), should get credits for free gear and weekly massages. I also voted for"and now something completely different". High five Juha!

Tax cycling?
Yeah that's just what we need: another reason for fat kids to stay indoors with their x-box/playstation/game cube.

Pick up Ivan Illich's Deschooling Society. Chapter 4, under the section titled "False Public Utilities" the chief of which he demonstrates is the highway system.

"the lion's share of this funding is directed toward interstates and other primary roadways where bicycles are generally excluded" hallelujah, brother

"Once we are taxed the man has to recognize us as legitimate road users."
We are already taxed, as pointed out by many above. We aren't recognized. If we were, there would be a section in every state driving test regarding the rights of cyclists to use the roadways. If you sincerely believe the above statement, I suggest you quit your job immediately. You have a promising future career in government.

Once we are taxed the man has to recognize us as legitimate road users. He may in your state already, but even in current bike utopias it is a half hearted recognition at best. License me and you have to design for me..

Alright, once more. As others have already said, the fact is, cyclists are already taxed. You don't seriously believe "rego fees" or petrol "taxes" even come close to paying for the current road network do you? As far as recognition as legitimate road users goes (beyond the current recognition within the law, which is all I want), that will only come with increased numbers of cyclists -- something that I don't think will happen with an extra tax.


Next, as a licensed operator of a legal vehicle you can no longer claim “the bike swerved in front of the car” as most auto accidents with bikes seem to be written up. Nope, I’ve passed the same stupid test the idiot driving the car has passed + the bike component. Johnny Law cannot dismiss the cyclist so easily any longer...

Why not? Paying a tax won't prevent anybody from lying. You seen any politician's speeches lately? Johnny law can dismiss whomever they like, and the only form of payment that's going to change that is a bribe.


With taxes comes the right to ***** and whine like farmers and children.

I thought that right came with democracy, and I've seen no evidence that I don't already have this right as it is. Of course, having anything done about it is a different matter, but as you'll see below, taxes have nothing to do with that either.


With taxes comes a seat at the table. Don’t think it’s true. Ask yourself why you have to buckle your seat belt in Kansas, but you don’t have to wear a helmet on your motorcycle? They organized and *****ed – it’s the American way.

Car drivers whine like rich children at the mall when they don't get their super duper 8-lane bypass to suburbia because, in American *****ing and whining is the way the game is played. Once we become a source of revenue the rules change in our favor.

I didn't think you were that naive, perhaps I was wrong. Don't think for one second that paying taxes suddenly makes your vote worth more at the next elections. Conversely, if we had 10 times the numbers we do now, politicians would have to listen to us or face being voted out of office. These people have no reason to be concerned about revenue. Recent experience here in Australia shows that they can just sell off some public enterprise if they need to balance the books up to the next election. It's not about revenue, it's about numbers. In a political system based on mob-rule, governments would always be happy to trade revenue for numbers.

And to be honest, I'm not so sure I particularly want to see money spent on bicycle "facilities". I don't use the existing ones as it is because they are dangerous, and dumbed down to the least competent level of cyclist on the basis that they might "feel" safe. The last thing I want is more of them.


Let’s address cost. How much could it really end up costing? My guess is a liability insurance policy, license, title and tags couldn’t cost more than $100 a year – even in Massachusetts. During the development of the enabling legislation at the state level the points about the zero-emissions, zero-road wear, and near zero-threat to others will be made. Any taxing program developed by the state couldn’t charge the cyclist more than their real costs. The revenue simply wouldn’t be there. You can’t get blood out of a turnip.

And with that quote, you've just provided the answer as to why these taxes will never be imposed given the current popularity level of cycling. The potential revenue base just isn't large enough to cover the administrative costs. It's been looked into in various Australian states, it's been looked into in various US states, and every time it's been rejected for the same old reasons -- just not economically viable.

If you really want this thing to happen, the people you should be contacting are the legislators who won't accept a system that would surely run at a loss, and the electorate who would vote them out if they did. The issue has never been getting cyclists to "pay their share", the issue is getting the rest of the world to subsidise the system that would allow cyclists to "pay their share", and that ain't gonna happen.

With the exception of licensing riders, all those things currently exist. I pay taxes that go to roads. I pay insurance that covers me while riding. The city mandates bike registration (although it's widely ignored). Other than licensing five-year-old riders, what new do you propose?

Tax cycling?
Yeah that's just what we need: another reason for fat kids to stay indoors with their x-box/playstation/game cube.
That's what I thought of when I read this thread.
Around my neighbourhood a lot of kids ride to school. This not only keeps the roads a little less busy in the mornings and afternoons, but also increases the chances that these kids will commute on a bike once they become adults.
Not only could the kids not afford $100 a year for tax, license etc. but their parents often wouldn't be prepared to pay an extra $100, when they already own a car which they could use for the school-run. People often don't think of the cost of fuel for the school-run over a year, even though the $100 may actually save them money over the cost of petrol (especially in the UK).

Gas taxes should be increased to cover one time costs like registration, insurance, car and parts sales tax etc. Then the motorist would save money by leaving the car in the driveway.

According to the book "Car Free Cities" every car on the road in the US is subsidised approximately $3000 per year. I think enough of my taxes already go the the govt.

In my area, there aren't enough cyclists to tax and I would guess that the homeless riding donated bikes make up the majority. It's not a lack of population, it's because the car is king.

A couple of years ago, I nearly bought a motorcycle to commute. The hassles of putting it on the road and renewing my lapsed MC license stopped me. I went the bicycle route and never looked back. The freedom from government hoops to jump through played a big part in that decision.

The main reason given to me for the lack of respect for bicycling on the road is that we can't keep up with the speed limit. No amount of taxes or cyclists' rights education will change that attitude.

The main reason given to me for the lack of respect for bicycling on the road is that we can't keep up with the speed limit.

There's some broken thinking.
I always thought that the speed limit was the maximum speed you could go not the minimum.

I voted a resounding "NO". I'm already being taxed for road use, etc. I own five vehicles, they are all licensed and insured, therefore I am contributing my share (and more) of the burden.

There's some broken thinking.
I always thought that the speed limit was the maximum speed you could go not the minimum.

BINGO!!!

The minimum speed for motor vehicles is 15 mph below the posted speed limit. Yes, you can get a ticket for going too slow unless you're limping from a mechanical problem to the nearest spot to get off the road. Motorists can't even tolerate fellow motorists for that interruption in their busy lives.

The minimum speed for motor vehicles is 15 mph below the posted speed limit

Not in the rest of the civilised world :)

I've always thought that all vehicles that use roads should pay an annual tax based on the weight of the vehicle times it's wheelbase in feet. Le'ts say, $.02 per pound.

Mazda Miata: $362.97
Hummer H2 SUV: $1301.33
My Trek 1000c: $1.50

I voted maybe someday, but I think I'd rather give a flat-out "no." I mean, if the roads were for some reason clogged with cyclists, cars had gone by the wayside, and there had to be some way to make sure lives weren't endangered, then maybe we could think about licensing. And if we weren't paying for roads in other ways anyway, maybe we could be taxed more. I don't ever want to have to register my bike, though. The thing is, my bikes are constantly changing. Would I have to re-register every time I build up a new ride? What about the fun of finding a dumpster bike, tinkering, and giving a friend a free bike? Or choppers? What if I want to run brakeless?

Yarr! Pirate bikes!

(And if the roads fall apart, I'll get wide tires.)

Let’s address cost. How much could it really end up costing? My guess is a liability insurance policy, license, title and tags couldn’t cost more than $100 a year – even in Massachusetts.

That is a stunning figure! It represents a third of the price of a low-end LBS bike. A similar levy on my car would be about $6000 per year!

The argument in favor of buying our way to respect is counterintuitive. A more resoned approach would be a tax to discourage vehicle use where the money would be spent on alternatives like cycling facilities. I don't favor this approach either since the "revenue stream" would simply be that and no more.

Generally levies like those proposed here are applied based on vehicle value or weight. In that case $3 annually for a bicycle more likely would apply. In no way would that cover the cost of administration.

I suppose some logic might apply to the idea of training, testing and lisencing of the operator of a bicycle. Right now we have different classes of vehicle lisencing - commercial, cheufer, motorcycle, etc. Maybe, just maybe, a case could be made for at least a one time testing event for bikes.

I certainly hope no government officials in any jurisdiction is reading a suggestion in this forum that cyclists are ready to pay $100 per year in order to legitimize their existence.

Pedestrians pay no taxes or insurance for their feet yet have sidewalks, crosswalks, separate crossing lights, etc.

Now let's look at tax revenue. Since this whole argument seems to be based on paying for facilities with tax revenue, let's see how much revenue we could presumably generate. Assuming we are only taxing adult cyclists, there are about 35 million cyclists who ride 6 times a year, or more. Lets assume that half of these actually ride enough to agree to pay the tax. This is arbitrary, but I don't think an occaisional rider will register. That gives us 17.5 million tax payers. How much can we tax them? Realistically, if we tax them more than $10 a year, you would have a revolt. That gives you $175 million nationwide. The average state would collect a paltry $35 million. Since we only collect $10/cyclist, half of that is going to be wasted on the cost of collecting the tax, record keeping, registration stickers, mailings, etc. bringing us back down to $17.5 million per state for road projects. That's peanuts and probably less than the average state is already spending on cyling related road work.

Insurance for what? The only required auto insurance in my state is liability to protect other people and property from damages I cause with my auto. In all but rare cases, the damage caused by a cyclist is limited primarily to the cyclist and the bicycle. Even then, I expect the typical homeowners/renters liability coverage would take include damages to someone elses car or person.

I suspect the insurance on a bicycle would cost about as much as one would pay for a motorcycle. Much of the cost in vehicle insurance is due to our skyrocketing health insurance.

It is folly in thinking we will get respect based on the assumption of paying some form of compensation for road usage will make the motorist respect the cyclist. It won't happen. The motorist can care less if you have insurance, pay road taxes, have title and registration for your bicycle. The law won't protect you either and as you can see that death between motorcars often brings no jail time but a traffic ticket. The rules of the road are not measured in tax payments but gross tonnage and horse power!

Regarding the license issue... I believe we are talking about the rider, not the bike. Forester points out a need for rider education, some threads on the commuter forum discuss newbie bikers and in at least one case a rider expressing a lack of knowledge about how right of way and traffic work. If riders were educated and licensed as auto drivers are now, then road designers could be assured of a minimum skill level of user.

Then the issue of
"And to be honest, I'm not so sure I particularly want to see money spent on bicycle "facilities". I don't use the existing ones as it is because they are dangerous, and dumbed down to the least competent level of cyclist on the basis that they might "feel" safe. The last thing I want is more of them." would be eliminated... or at least the unskilled riders would be limited to parks and paths.

Now I am not a big fan of this whole thing, and I see several riders discussing the whole road tax thing... OK, fine, the road tax thing is not fair to bikes, but hell we know that, based on the very limited wear we put on the roads anyway.

But what this whole tax and license thing could do is give us counter arguments to our rights to the roads. Auto drivers seem to think we don't belong there... well if we indeed were licensed individuals and paid some token road use tax, then frankly we have every right to the road too.

Just my 2 cents on this whole line of thinking. Although frankly, I really don't want yet another thing in my life that involves the Cal DMV... sigh.

That's what I thought of when I read this thread.
Around my neighbourhood a lot of kids ride to school. This not only keeps the roads a little less busy in the mornings and afternoons, but also increases the chances that these kids will commute on a bike once they become adults.
Not only could the kids not afford $100 a year for tax, license etc. but their parents often wouldn't be prepared to pay an extra $100, when they already own a car which they could use for the school-run. People often don't think of the cost of fuel for the school-run over a year, even though the $100 may actually save them money over the cost of petrol (especially in the UK).

Kids could be left out of the tax system, but allowed to use the facilities. My city has a nice rec center, with an aquatic center next to it, paid for by normal taxes. No children were taxed, with the exception of sales taxes, and they are allowed to use the facilities. Some cities already make every bike get registered.

Kids could be left out of the tax system, but allowed to use the facilities. My city has a nice rec center, with an aquatic center next to it, paid for by normal taxes. No children were taxed, with the exception of sales taxes, and they are allowed to use the facilities. Some cities already make every bike get registered.
Do you tax the bike (like we do with cars) or the rider? If you tax the bike, I could "give" my bike to my kid and voila! It's tax exempt. As to "normal taxes," cyclists pay them too. Would you also support a pedestrian tax? Or should we ban pedestrians from sidewalks and crosswalks (all paid for with tax dollars)?

A gazzilion practical concerns like these are the reason bike taxes are not enacted.

Pedestrians should only be allowed to use the sidewalk if they're wearing helmets and dorky reflective gear.

:p

1. taxes - everybody pays for the roads through general taxation up here so you pay even if you don't use them.

2.licence - generally, licencing is done on things that have significant potential for harm to others, so bikes go without. Interestingly, when Vancouver had a boom in bike couriers (in the mid 80's) there were a lot of complaints at city hall about how lawlessly they rode in the downtown core. City hall decided that all couriers had to pass a licence exam to get a bike courier permit. I know an instructor / examiner who tests these riders and he said, all couriers who passed their tests ride exactly the same way but the complaints to city hall dissappeared after the licence plates were displayed.

3. insurance - liability insurance for a bicycle is very cheap because bicycles cause very little damage. It's astounding for me to hear from people who feel the fact that they pay lots of money for insurance gives them a right to drive on roads. Insurance only pays for the potential damage that those people can cause and we could all do without that potential.

Pedestrians should only be allowed to use the sidewalk if they're wearing helmets and dorky reflective gear. :p
They also should be required to have bells, proof of insurance, and clearly displayed registration tags.

Pedestrians should only be allowed to use the sidewalk if they're wearing helmets and dorky reflective gear.

And there ought to be a walking test to be passed before being licensed to walk - perhaps it would encourage peds to look before stepping in front of cyclists, and to stay in the pedestrian lanes (instead of the bike lanes) on bridges and such! ;)

Since more and more of the road funding is coming from general funds, no. Our guv just proposed dropping 800 million on the roads, all from general taxes. This roughly adds about an extra third to the roads budget here, a portion of which is paid through non-transport taxes already. I am already taxed to use the roads. Now I'm just taxed more. If auto drivers would step up and actually pay a fair market rate to use the roads, I'd be happy to do so as well. But since that day will likely never come, no, no, no. The weight tax stated in a prior post makes the most sense to me, except for it's regressive nature-- a Colnago would be taxed less than a Huffy, for example.

Drivers are allowed to drive uninsured in this state, provided they pay a "uninsured driver fee" at the DMV. Given the damage a car can cause, I find this ridiculous. Again, if autos don't have to do it, why a bike?

Liscening fees are a quandry I don't care to go into. If you liscence the bike, this hurts collectors unfairly (like me). It also affects those on a budget more than the rich, as it is a regressive tax. Should the guy earning minimum wage while riding a Huffy to work pay the same as an executive who rides his Colnago after work? You could argue the guy on the Huffy is the real rider and road user, and should be taxed more, I suppose, but it doesn't work within any sort of basic fairness.

Do you tax the bike (like we do with cars) or the rider? If you tax the bike, I could "give" my bike to my kid and voila! It's tax exempt. As to "normal taxes," cyclists pay them too. Would you also support a pedestrian tax? Or should we ban pedestrians from sidewalks and crosswalks (all paid for with tax dollars)?

A gazzilion practical concerns like these are the reason bike taxes are not enacted.

The "tax", if they ever pushed it through, could just be an annual registration.
If this issue ever came up in my area, my proposal would be to tax bicycles by the percentage of destruction they do on the roads. ;)

out here we are tax as if its going out of style,

And there ought to be a walking test to be passed before being licensed to walk - perhaps it would encourage peds to look before stepping in front of cyclists, and to stay in the pedestrian lanes (instead of the bike lanes) on bridges and such! ;)
And the peds should be aggressively ticketed if they don't stay to the extreme right of the sidewalks and crosswalks.

Insurance for what? The only required auto insurance in my state is liability to protect other people and property from damages I cause with my auto. In all but rare cases, the damage caused by a cyclist is limited primarily to the cyclist and the bicycle. Even then, I expect the typical homeowners/renters liability coverage would take include damages to someone elses car or person.



Good point. Also, your insurance rates are the result of massive amounts of compiled data (loss history, operator age, value of vehicle, rated zip code, miles per year, and on and on...) a lot of which *most* insurance companies aren't going to waste their time with since the cost vs. income ratio would be far out of line. And as supcom mentioned, any of your personal property and liability coverages generally follow you anywhere in the world, which would leave no need for a separate bike policy.

By far, most of the adult bicycle riders I see in my area are not wearing fancy cycling clothes. They are not riding carbon fiber anything. They don't even wear helmets. They ride cheap xmart bikes and do it because their only other option is to walk.

Now, let's implement a couple new taxes on them and require that they go get some insurance as well. Now they have to decide whether to ride illegally and risk being fined, having their bikes confiscated, or even going to jail. Or they can stop riding and walk.

Oops, sorry. The sidewalks were all torn up to make room for the new bike path. Registered cyclists only. Don't run the bike path toll booth or the bike cops will pull you over with their new carbon fiber/titanium interceptors (courtesy of your bike taxes) and you'll have points added to your cycling license.

And the speed limit on the bike path is 8 miles per hour - strictly enforced.

I'm not surprised a bicycle tax was voted down here. Seems to be the prevailing attitude in America now: give me government benefits but don't ask me to pay for them. It's the times we live in. No wonder the U.S. government is so deep into the red.

I'm not surprised a bicycle tax was voted down here. Seems to be the prevailing attitude in America now: give me government benefits but don't ask me to pay for them. It's the times we live in. No wonder the U.S. government is so deep into the red.

Let's see. I own two cars that are taxed whether I drive them or not. I pay gasoline taxes when I do drive them. I pay auto insurance whether I drive the cars or not. I own a house and pay real estate taxes for the privilege. I pay sales tax on bicycling equipment, clothing, snacks I buy on the road, etc. I pay income tax on everything I make. I can't even tell you what half the taxes are on my cell phone!

First we have a rediculous theory that paying a few bucks for a bike registration will get cyclists respected. Now you suggest that I want 'government benefits' without paying for them. I'm already paying through the nose and all I'd like is for someone once in a while to clean the glass off the two mile bridge along my daily commute.

"give me government benefits but don't ask me to pay for them."

You missed the part where I already pay for the roads thru general taxation. Given the footprint of a bike, and the weight of one, as well as the environmental cost of a car, you can make the argument that bicyclists are in fact subsidising motorists.

Your post would make far more sense if it were directed at car users. I am paying for my "government benifits". The auto driver is not.

you can make the argument that bicyclists are in fact subsidising motorists.

I read a study not too long ago that made the same claim. My boss works for the Missouri department of transportation and agrees with the study's findings.

I like how this guy thinks, especially the last sentence.

Since walking and cycling are both legal and inevitable on virtually
every roadway, it is essential to design roadways with careful
consideration given to how non-motorized users affect other traffic
and how other traffic will affect them. Better facilities such as
wide outside lanes and sidewalks minimize these conflicts. The cost
of better facilities should be paid with funds raised from all
Citizens, but a fair share must be paid by motorists because it is
the volume of motor vehicles, and the preference of motorists to
travel at high speed, that makes the improvements necessary.
-Steven G. Goodridge

The entire article-
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/EffectiveAdvocacy/TheRightToTravel.htm

Gas taxes should be increased to cover one time costs like registration, insurance, car and parts sales tax etc. Then the motorist would save money by leaving the car in the driveway.

Spot-on, Andrew! Registration and licensing should be free, because it is in society's best interest to have every vehicle registered. Fuel consumption is the best indicator we have of induced wear and tear on the roadway system.

As to the question which launched this thread, as everyone has already observed, most local roads are financed out of sales tax and general funds, not gasoline tax, so bicyclists are ALREADY taxed for using the roads. Private motor vehicles are arguably the most heavily subsidized form of transportation ever devised, and this fact needs to be much more widely publicized.

Should Cyclists Pay to Use The Roads?
One angry motorist (bigot) wrote: I am fed up with the people who ride bicycles. . . . AND THEY DON'T PAY ONE DIME OF FEES TO PAY FOR ANYTHING. Ever see how much a car owner pays in registration fees and gas tax?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This argument, that cyclists don't pay taxes, is an old one.* It is a big lie.
The roads in the United States are Public Roads.* You do not have to pay any taxes at all to use them. You do not have to buy a license or pass a test either.* You can walk, you can ride a horse, you can drive a buggy, and you can drive a farm tractor legally in every state without paying one red cent.* On the other hand, owners of automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles are required to pass driving tests and to buy licenses.* Why?* These vehicles cause a lot of deaths and get stolen frequently.* The government wants the operators carefully trained and their accidents recorded, and it wants to help them recover stolen vehicles.* If cyclists were killing a lot of motorists, the government would go to the trouble of training and licensing them too.

full article

http://kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/free.htm

also read

Our Right to Use the Roadway

http://kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/rdvspth.htm

There are two main reasons why motor vehicles are taxed. First is a value based tax that is used simply to raise revenue in a manner proportional to a persons affluence (the rich, with more expensive vehicles, pay more). The second is for road use purposes. These taxes tend to be weight based, at least by class of vehicle, and are levied to owners for the damage their vehicles do to the road. Heavier vehicles do more damage so their taxes are higher.

Bicycles generally have very little value as compared to motor vehicles and their effect on road deterioration is negligable. Thus, there is no reason to tax cyclists simply to use existing roads. Otherwise, we should tax shoes as well.

also bicycles do not damage the roads like cars do. so we shouldn;t have to pay of rhte repairs.

I dont believe that cyclists should have to pay to ride on the road or whatnot. I mean face it, a car is going to do much more damage to a road than a bicycle.

the way I see it, taxes are paid through sales and other taxes indirectly, so we are covered there.

We do wear the road, but at such a low level that it's not even remotely comparable. A car put flex stresses on the pavement (check out hot blacktop with an escalade on it for a great example...if the blacktop is hot enough it will leave very small stress cracks as the car rolls by at 5mph). A bicycle does not do this to near the same extent...given a roadbike with 20c tires can put some serious pressure on the pavement, but your average commuter is running at least 25c, or sometimes even 26" mtb street slicks...I highly doubt a 1.5-2" wide slick is going to do much of anyhting to the poor asphalt.

About obstruction...wee already pay enough indirectly...just start using any overflow cash for adding bike lanes....start with high speed roads. over here 4th ave comes to mind....I commute on it, and it's pretty rough.