molten

There's this talk about "lawn" and "green' in the first 2 comments. Lawns and golf courses are around home developments. Lawns and golf courses over-consume a lot of water. Gold courses are only for the wealthiest; as (owners of) home developments are for the one with a very secure income. Versus renters of an apartment. Coinc: that theory can be used, but in debate of different price ranges: motor-vehicle owner vs bicycle owners. As bicycles are of generally of lesser value; no insurance, no high parts/maintenance cost, etc. Cars/motor vehicles are what destroy the roads; not bikes. That be why tax be on gasoline -- for motor vehicles to pay for what motor vehicles are 100% users of.

rekmeyata

This is ignorance. Of course bikes don't destroy roads, but cities have to build bike paths that cars don't use, paths that require engineering of the path, easements, purchase of property, construction of path, changes to any crossings of roads, etc, etc; so bike users should pay in a small way to help support a bike system. Sure bikes don't destroy roads but the cities make bike lanes that are suppose to prohibit cars from using and that cost a lot of money to do the engineering, the painting of the stripes, any changes in the road itself to support the lane, and lights. You all think that should be free for bikers and I disagree. The amount of money that would go to substitute what is already in taxes would be a small amount for us, just 5% one time fee on all bikes sold new or used, and optional to buyers of used bikes privately if they want the theft ID purposes that would go along with the fee. It's a one time fee not an ongoing annual or semi annual fee. 5% is small, a person spending $1,000 for a bike is only out $50 and has the satisfaction of knowing that the money is going to supplement taxes for the improvement in bike infrastructure and for thief ID.

Rollfast

It's not the bikes that are taxed, it's the rear wheel and my weight is the IRS agent.

italktocats

bikes are taxed, like everything else you buy

italktocats

i thought taxes are used to build uthe world around us' silly me

howsteepisit

In the US not all states have a sales tax, in those states bicycles are tax like anything else you buy - not directly. No Value added tax either.

molten

I'm the first o say scam --- against the $50 demand, and its lack of details.

Rollfast

That Schwinn was a GIFT. Oregon has no sales tax.

rekmeyata

uthe?? Is this some sort of text messaging shorthand that I'm not familiar with?

rekmeyata

Except a sales tax when you buy a bicycle does not go toward bike infrastructure, it goes into the state's general fund like any sales tax collected does, like buying a washer and dryer, or a shirt; and there isn't a politician anywhere that's going to isolate sales tax on bicycles to be used solely for building and maintaining a bike infrastructure, they want that money in the state coffers to be used for whatever they need it for, whereas a separate one time fee or tax however you want to label it would go directly to supplementally support a bike infrastructure.

molten

Noone replies to you --- because they all know you be correct, can't make up any illogic/sarcasm to use against you.

molten

Even more ---- during election time. As election is not only national.

JoeyBike

I will be happy to pony up a road use tax on all 4 of my bicycles, my 3 longboards, and 2 pairs of inline skates....by the POUND. They can even throw in my body weight as a bonus. Using the EXACT SAME formula for cars and SUVs, pickup trucks NOT owned by farmers, motorcycles, and all other road users. This would really make my day.

CB HI

Or maybe it is because the two of you are off in your own little world.

Not to mention how odd it is that Molten replies to his own post, quoting himself.

CB HI

Body weight is hardly a bonus to the motorist cause if they also include the motorist body weight. Likely the average motorist weighs more than the average cyclist.

italktocats

and they happen to use those taxes to fund uthe (yes if youre gonna cry about ima give you some more) roads? no? oh sorry my mistake

molten

This is where You & I are in our (quoted as) "little world" -- quoted by member CB HI. We are in our "own little world" via the extreme more roads we have to live around. Hence the extreme more traffic & registered motor vehicles.
Compared to CB HI's location of Hawaii -- not a state of interstate freeways. Nor multiple regional highways, as in other states. That's far lesser traffic.
Via far lesser population of living people there.
As the big mainland states advocate for cycling; Hawaii shall do the same for fire-walking.

Chief

have you ever been to Hawaii?

manapua_man

You do realize that just Oahu/Honolulu alone has been pretty high up in the competition for "worst traffic in the country" for the past decade (at least), and that there are "interstates" there, right?

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/ehmk4.../#326b659a120f
https://www.techinsider.io/honolulu-i...rivers-2015-10
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...ities/2127661/


No one that isn't blind who has been there in the past 10-20 years would say that there isn't much traffic.

CB HI

I also own a home in Colorado and land in Wyoming. I have traveled in 48 of our 50 states, plus Guam, Canada, Mexico, Honk Kong, Japan and Thailand. I have lived in 12 states. I have over 350,000 miles cycle commuting, plus utility, recreational and tour cycling. If you cannot match that, you should not throw stupid comments implying I only know about Hawaii. Especially with your ignorance of Hawaii as others have already pointed out.

This post proves my earlier comment about you and italktocats.

PS - I see from other post in other threads that Molten is in San Diego. Molten, I have cycled in every mid to major city from San Francisco to San Diego inclusive. I have lived in CA and started my cycle commuting in CA back in 1982.

Turkey222

Out of all the bicycle paths that I have ridden, they are used more frequently by walkers and joggers. Plus, I usually prefer to ride with traffic over a bike path anyway. The bike path in my hometown is just a long park and doesn't lead anywhere.

work4bike

Same here. And don't forget all the lance-wannabes on the bike paths doing speed that is very unsafe.

P.S. I'm also a speed demon, but know when not to speed, unlike many users of bike paths.

Roughstuff

It was fun reading the six pages of posts here. Transportation economics...which is what this is all about...is a tough nut to crack, for so many of the reasons folks have pointed out.

There is room for some improvement and analysis though. Roads have two cost components: their capital costs (building) and their maintenance (wear and tear). Most people focus only on the latter. The former is usually paid at the state level out of a combination of gasoline taxes and general revenues; and is best levied as a flat fee at registration for any vehicle that uses the roadway, regardless of size. The roads have to be built to accommodate all vehicles from trucks to bicycles, they have to be marked, have lights, signs, traffic monitors (aka cops) etc.

The latter, maintenance from wear and tear is really where we need a much more intelligent system. We have begun to incorporate vehicle wight and axle into excise taxes; a far broader view would be some quantitative measure of "roadway presence" incorporating wight, height, girth, axles, and shape. This sounds complex but the calculations would be very similar to the way FedEx and UPS assign costs for their oddly shaped packages that they carry. Their would be an incremental fee based on some formula incorporating the previous factors. Bicycles would do very well here, as our "roadway presence" is quite light indeed.

The gas tax should be repealed. There is almost no relationship between fuel consumption per mile and roadway impact these days.

My final note is to point out how complex and hair splitting and tear-your-hair-out public choice theory is. This is EXACTLY the reason why we have the concept of limited government, because the private sector makes these decisions every day without blinking while politicians/voters get into a tizzy over it.

cyccommute 

Alternatively, if bicycles are going to be charged a $10, $25 or $50 user tax, motorists should have to pay the same per pound cost. Watch 'em scream bloody murder then!

cyccommute 

I can't agree with your statement "we have begun to incorporate vehicle wight and axle into excise taxes". Colorado has always included weight of the vehicle in registration and ownership taxes. But those fees and taxes are ridiculously low. Colorado charges about $0.01 per pound on motor vehicles. They also charge an ownership tax which is calculated on the age of the vehicle and the original sale price. If you own a new car, the cost of the ownership tax is quite high but drops rapidly with age. By the time the vehicle is from 5 to 10 years old, the ownership tax is negligible.

I also don't agree that we should repeal the gasoline tax at either the federal or state level. If anything we should raise the tax to more completely reflect the cost of motor vehicles and the infrastructure they need. Currently, gasoline taxes and the excise taxes on vehicles in Colorado raise 27% to 33% of the revenue needed to build and maintain roadways. Motorist are receiving a huge subsidy from society to operate their vehicles...to the tune of $3 to almost $4 per dollar they spend on those taxes. We...as I'm also a motorist... most certainly don't "pay our way" for using our vehicles. We don't even pay a significant fraction of "our way".

Perhaps every motorist who passes a bicyclist should hand over $4 because we are actually paying their way