MinnMan

I don't know the statistics about road costs vs. vehicular taxes, but I don't doubt that you are right. Similarly, putative bicycle taxes might not cover the costs of bike-related infrastructure. It's true that cycling to work or around town reduces car traffic, but lots of cycling (and most that many of us do) is recreational and has little effect on traffic. But I sure appreciate it when I'm riding on a road with a bike lane or with wide shoulders and those cost more money to build and maintain than a road designed only for cars. I also really enjoy the extensive and ever-growing network of bicycle trails (including bike-specific overpasses) in my community. I'd be willing to contribute if there were a fair and practical way to tax my usage. Cyclists promote state expenditures on bicycle-friendly public works (and they should). It is not wrong for the state to see cyclists also as a source of revenue to defray those costs. Except for the practical aspects of how the tax (or fee) is collected, I see it as similar to paying for entry to a state park or buying a fishing license.

One could take a different perspective and say that the costs of bicycle-related expenditures (tiny as they are) should come from general state funds, and therefore from sales taxes or income taxes. That's ok, but in a time when states are bleeding red ink all over the place, it would not be a bad thing for bicyclists' interests if they were also a revenue source.

I know that most of you disagree with my opinion and I'm not going to get upset by contrary views - I'm just giving you my point of view.