Originally Posted by Icycle
I would guess that more bike lanes and bike paths, more secure bicycle parking, and high gas taxes would do a lot more to encourage cycling than a subsidy on the purchase of a new bicycle would do.
Originally Posted by jeffremer
As long as the state government is taxing SUV drivers and promoting sustainable transit you'd think that car-free cyclists ought to get some of the benefits whether it be in the form of a rebate or even just a fund to improve cycling awareness, safety, and quality in one way or another.
Asked and answered.
Originally Posted by Icycle
Furthermore, I don't think the cost of cycling is preventing people from riding bicycles. Bicycles are already very cheap to own and operate. Simply riding more and driving less can save a lot of money, but that doesn't seem to be sufficiently motivating to people. And since most people in America by bicycles for recreation rather than transportation, I think motorists would see a rebate on bicycles as some kind of subsidy for leisure.
Some (very few) employers give their employees commuter benefits in the form of parking, public transit reimbursement, or even a little money to help buy a bike. No one's saying that money is the reason people don't bike, in fact, as you pointed out, riding a bike instead saves money. But that doesn't mean that some people wouldn't consider biking to work more often if their employer or even the government reimbursed them for part of the bike purchases.
The news story just made me smile; relax, I'm not asking for money, but hey would you turn it down, especially if it came out of some Hummer-driver's pockets? But yeah, I'd rather see it go toward education and improvement.