rekmeyata

I can't help that the government is ridiculously, and may I add, hopelessly corrupt. But I do believe that if cyclists want more paths and lanes then we shouldn't be demanding homeowners who about 95% do not use the paths and lanes to pay taxes for the 5% that do, if we want more and better paths and lanes then that should fall on the shoulders of the cyclists with a one time registration fee of new and used bikes, now if we don't want more lanes and paths and want to use the roads for which we have paid taxes for then fine just don't complain.

CB HI

With some, it is like talking to a brick wall. The rest of us feel your pain.

Jaywalk3r

I see. So you're modifying your proposal so that only bicycling homeowners are taxed for infrastructure, right?

It's actually very noticeable and measurable. Start here. So again, how does your plan reward bicyclists for the extra time no longer spent in a car by all but a "very tiny portion" of motorists?

A more logical solution would be to build the infrastructure, knowing that its existence would ultimately increase tax revenue enough top pay for itself. Research suggests that bicycle infrastructure has a return on investment of up to 2400%. That's $24 for every $1 invested.

Like fossil fuel subsidies?

Or how bicyclists contribute more in taxes for road maintenance than the cost of their contribution to road wear?
Or how the cost of parking is included in prices bicyclists pay when they shop at a store with a parking lot, even though they don't need even close to a full parking space?

If bicyclists subsidizing motorists is "pure left field BS," then reality must have a strong liberal bias.

Jaywalk3r

Around here, I have yet to see any road with sharrows that would be better off with a bike lane. protected or not. On the other hand, we do have some roads with bike lanes, where sharrows would have been a better choice. (We also have roads with bike lanes where sharrows would be a bad idea.) The point is, not every road needs a bike lane. Sharrows have a role to play in bike infrastructure. Like bike lanes, sharrows can also be poorly implemented, but are great when properly implemented.

JohnDThompson 

Most bike lanes are built in cities, where road construction and maintenance is paid for by property tax, which any property-owning cyclist already pays.

rekmeyata

As does 95% of the people who don't use bike paths, they're all paying for the 5% who do, I don't think that's fair.

There is a lot of tax crap that property owners pay for that isn't fair, look at semi and professional sports arenas, those arenas and the salaries are all on the backs of the property owners whether the taxpayers like the sport or not. Sports related stuff is a commercial enterprise and therefore it should be on the backs of the team to bring in enough revenue to run itself, if it can't then goodbye and good riddance! This is why sports figures get paid massive salaries because the team is being partially supported by taxpayers, take that support away and players will get paid a more reasonable salary. So it isn't fair that 95% of the taxpayers have to pay for something that a few elitists get to enjoy.

It's the same with electric cars, why should I pay taxes to go toward some rich guy that buys a Tesla so they can get a $7,000 tax credit? This is when the vast majority of poor and middle class people cannot afford a Tesla yet they get to pay for the wealthy person to get one so they can enjoy their toy...a wealthy person who could afford the car without the tax credit. Or $40,000 plus in solar panels on the roof of a house gets a huge tax credit which at that price only the wealthy can afford, yet the poor to middle class people cannot, and it's those people who need to save money on electricity yet let's force them to pay for the wealthy to get lower electrical rates by helping them to buy solar panels.

Does any of that make any sense to you all or is this just some sort of la la land experience?

I ride a bike, I have several bikes in fact, I like the paths, I like to see more, I own several properties, yet I don't think it's fair that those that don't ride bikes and utilize the paths and lanes should pay for my fun just as it isn't fair for me to pay for the wealthy to buy Teslas and solar panels.

Chief

okay, good to know... I had cut back on my meds and was now starting to really question myself...

JohnDThompson 

I suspect a lot more is spent on providing on-street parking for automobiles, which cyclists don't use.

rekmeyata

You don't have to be jerk, obviously you didn't learn anything from your dad being in the military for all those years in WW2. I served in Vietnam myself, so what? It wasn't about fairness, it was about serving my country which I think ALL, let's rephrase that: EVERYONE, male and female, should be registered for the draft and have to serve at least 2 years in the military, I can hear everyone screaming now how unfair that would be, yet today's kids don't have a clue about respect for their country like they use to when the draft was present.

By the way, you're the one who is the whiner because you don't want to pay a bike registration fee!

ItsJustMe

If you think for one second that cyclist tax money would not be appropriated and spent on something completely unrelated to cycling, you have not had much experience with tracking where money goes in government.

They may "direct" all the money to cycling infrastructure, but for every dollar that comes in that way, they will subtract a dollar that used to come in from general funds. Net difference to cycling infrastructure = $0

That's what has happened in my home state with the lottery. In the 70s when they promoted it, they made a HUGE deal about how "all the proceeds of the lottery will go to education" Of course, it did, but they then removed that amount of education funding from other sources. Education gained $0, and we got a new tax on the poor and innumerate.

rekmeyata

With this mentality let's just stop paying all taxes because all taxes are misappropriated! Really? this is your sole argument for not having a registration fee on bicycles? And then you tell me I don't know how money in government works! LOL, this just gets better and better.

The lottery thing was a known ripoff before it started, a lot of people tried to warn others about it before it got voted in, but knuckleheads outnumbered the reasonable people and we got our lotteries. But with a lottery you can opt out, like you said it's a poor mans tax. Here in Indiana the lottery in 2015 paid out 30 million to police and firefighters pensions, another 30 mil to the teachers retirement fund, and 182 mil to rebuild/repair schools in the state which in turn reduces vehicle excise tax, so at least here in Indiana some of the money does get back to the intended purpose. About 5% of the lottery money goes to administration costs and the rest goes mostly to winners and second to the retailers that sold the tickets.

Here is a little information and a chart on all the states to show how each state spends it's money, find your state, see: What Percentage Of State Lottery Money Goes To The State? | FiveThirtyEight

By the way, when the lottery thing came up for vote NO ONE said that all the proceeds would go to education, all the proceeds would have meant that no one would ever win, none of the retailers who sell the tickets would make a commission, and no administration costs, which means there would be no reason to play the game if no one would win, so you made that up in attempt to make a point...though I hear you on your point just don't make up stuff to do so. It is true that very little in percentage to winnings and retail commissions go to the intended sources, which that chart in the web site I gave indicates.

daryou

Here in KY, we pay a property tax on our car every year. Road maintanence/building is funded through the state gas tax, about 29 cents a gallon.

kickstart

I would be in favor of a percentage sales tax, and/or registration on adult bikes bikes if it was used exclusively for cycling infrastructure, and education like what is done with OHVs.
A barcode registration tag tied to the bikes serial number, and an owner could help with the bike theft problem.

rekmeyata

Wow, a supporter! What's this forum coming to? I think you're my only supporter, you're now public forums number one enemy along with me, welcome to the club.

blue192

We as bicyclist do pay for maint out of our property taxes. Major highways that we cannot ride on are the province/federal levels so I am against me funding them.

KD5NRH

My only complaint with the lottery is the delays at the quick stop counter. Taxing willful ignorance is OK in my book.

Robert C

Then you haven't seen the bike lanes in Down Town Salt Lake. The things are just plain dangerous. They are narrow troughs with curbs on both sides and well in the door zone of cars parked to the left (traffic side) of the bike lane. People step, from their cars, directly into this bike lane.

It is fine for toodling along at a near walking speed; but for commuters it is a danger zone. Fortunately the Salt Lake PD does not cite cyclists riding with, and at the pace of, other traffic, even though cyclists are required, by law, to use the narrow and unsafe trough that is assigned to them.

SpeshulEd 

So instead of these lanes, you'd prefer nothing at all. You'd prefer to ride your bike on a 6 lane, 50mph street. And you feel that would encourage cycling in your town?

Interesting.

Robert C

Frankly, instead of those lanes, I do ride in the street, they just are not safe. And the limit is between 45 and 35 (it changes), not 50. I ride to work in a lane on a four lane 45mph street; I feel fine doing it. I also frequently ride on a six lane 45mph road. Again, I feel fine doing it. Sometimes I use the bike path; but I have to ride a lot slower than I normally do. As a result, I only use the dedicated facilities when I have plenty of time.

Yes, I feel very comfortable cycling in the Salt Lake area.

SpeshulEd 

I feel fine riding on those roads as well. I wouldn't be ok taking my 8 year old on a ride with me on the same road, however. I can't imagine my 74 year old mother would appreciate riding her bike on them either.

Yes, if you're a roadie that puts in miles on the road everyday, taking a lane on a busy highway isn't that big of a deal. That doesn't mean I pick those roads on purpose. I'll take a road with a striped bike lane over taking the lane any day. There is bike infrastructure in Phoenix that I feel is a bit ridiculous too, but lots of other people use it daily.

Just because something doesn't work for you, doesn't mean it doesn't work for others. I feel as cyclists, we should encourage others to ride bikes and encourage our cities to improve cycling and walkability. If you don't agree with the planned changes, there are plenty of opportunities for our voices to be heard. Phoenix has been having public hearings for almost six months on roughly two miles of bike infrastructure that will be changing next year - they want to hear from us, and in my past experiences, my opinions were heard.

kickstart

Would you say the majority of cyclists you see use them, or avoid them?

Robert C

If you are talking about the downtown, physically separated, bike lane/trap I see most cyclists leaving the painted lane to avoid them (the bike lane funnels cyclists into the physically separated lane/trap). The only reason for pulling into them is if I am going to a business on that block. In this part of the city people are not going on recreational rides with small children.

I have seen pictures of physically separated bike lanes that look good. In just have never seen any in person. I lived in China for eight years and still return frequently, my daughter lives there, and there the physically separated bike lanes were simply terrible. I realize some people want to see more of them; but they need to be done right, and I have never seen them done right.

Milton Keynes

See, that's just it. I'm not clamoring for more bike paths and lanes. I just want to be able to ride my bicycle on the same public streets and roads I already pay for out of the taxes & registration I already pay for the three vehicles my wife & I own, not to mention property taxes, without having to pay yet another tax on the bicycle, too. And it's not so much the amount, but just the idea of the government requiring you to pay yet another fee in order to enjoy public roads which are already paid for and which your lightweight bicycle is not causing any damage to. I don't want to have to take yet more time at the DMV just to get a bicycle registration. Not to mention that it's likely to cost the state more to register bicycles than it will take in by doing so.

At this point I don't have any fear that my state will start requiring bicycle registration, but the way it's being run if they hear about the idea they're likely to.

kickstart

I was just curious as I read the same complaints about the bike lanes in Seattle on online sources, but most people use them rather than the lane in actuality.

Going by my personal experiences in Seattle, the complaints seem more like humble bragging than legitimate issues.

Jaywalk3r

I flew to Seattle with my bicycle recently. I was definitely not impressed with the bike lanes in the area. The examples I saw were too narrow, about three feet, and were either in the door zone or next to tall, square curbs (in which case, the three feet wide bike lanes included the gutter). I found the sharrowed roads to be better suited to bicycling.

To be fair, I didn't have time to ride as much as I would have liked (I was there for business, not pleasure), so it's quite possible that the sample of roads on which I road were not representative of the infrastructure Seattle has to offer. Also, most of my riding was in the Seattle metro area, but not in Seattle proper, instead on the other side of Lake Washington.