Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

why bikes shouldn't be taxed like motorvehicles

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

why bikes shouldn't be taxed like motorvehicles

Old 05-20-16, 04:41 PM
  #101  
Senior Member
 
kickstart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,332

Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
It depends on the location, I'm 15 miles south and east of Seattle, and what few bike lanes we have are spotty at best, but none are only 3 feet wide, that's unusual.
kickstart is offline  
Old 05-20-16, 05:45 PM
  #102  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,033

Bikes: I own N+1 bikes, where N=0.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by kickstart
It depends on the location, I'm 15 miles south and east of Seattle, and what few bike lanes we have are spotty at best, but none are only 3 feet wide, that's unusual.
As I said, I didn't get to ride enough to know if those were representative of all the bike lanes in the area. I don't want to give the impression that I think all Seattle area bike lanes suck. I just know that there are some in the metro area that are implemented poorly.
Jaywalk3r is offline  
Old 05-20-16, 06:57 PM
  #103  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
95% of all tax payers will never check out that copy of War and Peace at the library. 95% will likely never drive down 43th at Vine, so how can someone who does demand the potholes get fixed? 95% will never need that police officer who patrols the upper 12th ward. 95% of everything you've said here sounds vaguely like logic but simply is not.

Cyclists pay their share. They aren't asking anyone else to anymore than the person who lives on 43rd is asking anyone else to fix their potholes. I know you'll say something silly like "drivers don't all use that road but they use some road". And drivers don't all use that paved pedestrian/cycling surface , but they use some paved surface. Just as they CAN use 43rd street, they CAN use the bike pavement, with an initial investment equal to a tank of gas or two (or a pair of shoes). I don't demand much bike pavement though, just to make it possible to cross busy bridges and highways, and for some multi-mode parkway paths that everyone benefits from.
Flinstone is offline  
Old 05-20-16, 07:16 PM
  #104  
Senior Member
 
rekmeyata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 9,183

Bikes: 2020 Masi Giramondo 700c; 2013 Lynskey Peloton; 1992 Giant Rincon; 1989 Dawes needs parts; 1985 Trek 660; 1985 Fuji Club; 1984 Schwinn Voyager; 1984 Miyata 612; 1977 Raleigh Competition GS

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1111 Post(s)
Liked 243 Times in 196 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
Yes we do but it isn't fair to the rest of the 95% property owners who will never use a bike path to be billed for building bike paths. The flip side which is where you went saying your against funding highways, fine then don't buy gasoline and buy a electric car...but the day is coming when electric rates will rise to cover the loss of road taxes from reduced gasoline use and increase use of electric cars, when that happens will it be fair that the non electric car owners have to pay for increased electrical rates for those that do own them?
rekmeyata is offline  
Old 05-20-16, 07:24 PM
  #105  
Senior Member
 
rekmeyata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 9,183

Bikes: 2020 Masi Giramondo 700c; 2013 Lynskey Peloton; 1992 Giant Rincon; 1989 Dawes needs parts; 1985 Trek 660; 1985 Fuji Club; 1984 Schwinn Voyager; 1984 Miyata 612; 1977 Raleigh Competition GS

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1111 Post(s)
Liked 243 Times in 196 Posts
Originally Posted by Flinstone
95% of all tax payers will never check out that copy of War and Peace at the library. 95% will likely never drive down 43th at Vine, so how can someone who does demand the potholes get fixed? 95% will never need that police officer who patrols the upper 12th ward. 95% of everything you've said here sounds vaguely like logic but simply is not.

Cyclists pay their share. They aren't asking anyone else to anymore than the person who lives on 43rd is asking anyone else to fix their potholes. I know you'll say something silly like "drivers don't all use that road but they use some road". And drivers don't all use that paved pedestrian/cycling surface , but they use some paved surface. Just as they CAN use 43rd street, they CAN use the bike pavement, with an initial investment equal to a tank of gas or two (or a pair of shoes). I don't demand much bike pavement though, just to make it possible to cross busy bridges and highways, and for some multi-mode parkway paths that everyone benefits from.
Your logic is flawed. The cop situation while it may be true that 95% (example only since we don't have any clue what the percentage is, but I can play along), the cops keep a city safer which is something that benefits everyone, the cops will come to assist you whenever you need them for whatever reason at just a phone call away and you can't place a percentage number on that, and the list goes on and on; the same is true with paramedics, you may not ever call them but you might and you'll be glad you paid your taxes.

Your second paragraph made no sense whatsoever, you were just rambling nonsense.
rekmeyata is offline  
Old 05-20-16, 08:55 PM
  #106  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
Your second paragraph made no sense whatsoever, you were just rambling nonsense.
It made no sense to you because it's where the actual reason was, something you are incapable of in regards to this topic apparently.

Paved surfaces benefit everyone, just as cop service benefits everyone. Not every cop benefits everyone and not every paved surface benefits everyone. There is no difference except that you want there to try to draw the divisions that way in your mind.

You want to draw the line by the "kind" of service you use defined in the way you wan to define "kind". But that's just your arbitrary way of thinking and you're too narrowly focussed to see it. We can defind a "kind" of service any way we want. In the end we all benefit a certain fraction of total services and the best we can do is hope that's pretty balanced, or switch to 100% pay per use. The balance of payment vs benefit received for cyclists is very fair, and the rest is just games you want to play with words and pseudo logic.
Flinstone is offline  
Old 05-20-16, 08:57 PM
  #107  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I didn't know the word, but yes "sharrows" are good. They seem surprisingly (maybe) effective at changing driver behavior. I think there are a couple of different mental issues at play there. Even as a driver myself, it doesn't hurt to have that little visual cue that mentally places me in a scope where cyclists exist, and I think it helps with the ant-cyclist vigilantes too. Also in comparisson a separate lane is something drivers can simply put out of their mind and forget to put back in it when they turn right. It's right next to them and yet mentally invisible compared to the reminder that cyclists are in the road.

As for people using bike lanes but still complaining about them.. that's perfectly legitimate, and not hypocritical at all, and IS the issue in fact. If a lane is bad or dangerous, it's still there, and drivers will honk or become aggressive or at least less patient and give less space if you don't use it, compared to if the lane wasn't there. People get a "use the darn bike lane" attitude. So no, there is nothing wrong with saying you don't like the bike lanes, and still using them. You get to choose between negative driver attitude or doors and reduced driver awareness of your presence.
Flinstone is offline  
Old 05-20-16, 09:13 PM
  #108  
Senior Member
 
rekmeyata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 9,183

Bikes: 2020 Masi Giramondo 700c; 2013 Lynskey Peloton; 1992 Giant Rincon; 1989 Dawes needs parts; 1985 Trek 660; 1985 Fuji Club; 1984 Schwinn Voyager; 1984 Miyata 612; 1977 Raleigh Competition GS

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1111 Post(s)
Liked 243 Times in 196 Posts
Flintstone, you're the one that doesn't understand and your forum handle explains the reason very well...LOL. And narrow thinking comes from you, you seem to think your entitled to whatever you want, life isn't that simple, but you want to keep on playing this stupid game to make a point you have completely failed at doing so. Whatever man. And why are you getting so angry about an opinion, one by the way that is shared by others here, but for whatever reason you attack me instead of others, an opinion is an opinion that is all, and to get angry over that is just highly immature. And you still write in a manner that is like a space cadet, your thoughts ramble on with little forethought, like a drunken sailor.
rekmeyata is offline  
Old 05-20-16, 09:20 PM
  #109  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
Flintstone, you're the one that doesn't understand and your forum handle explains the reason very well...LOL.
Didn't read the rest. Everyone else here thinks you're a brick wall. Maybe you should reflect a little.. my handle is now your argument?
Flinstone is offline  
Old 05-20-16, 09:22 PM
  #110  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 379

Bikes: SR, Bianchi, Raleigh, Bertin, Kona, Schwinn, Eisentraut, Zunow, Columbine, Naked, Nishiki, Phillips, Specialized, Giant

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
****
Chief is offline  
Old 05-20-16, 09:36 PM
  #111  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 379

Bikes: SR, Bianchi, Raleigh, Bertin, Kona, Schwinn, Eisentraut, Zunow, Columbine, Naked, Nishiki, Phillips, Specialized, Giant

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flinstone
Didn't read the rest. Everyone else here thinks you're a brick wall. Maybe you should reflect a little.. my handle is now your argument?

Flinstone, did you get the feeling you are this guy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y start at 1:15...
Chief is offline  
Old 05-20-16, 10:05 PM
  #112  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chief
Flinstone, did you get the feeling you are this guy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y start at 1:15...
No I'm not. lol. The special flying squad might be along anytime now.
Flinstone is offline  
Old 05-20-16, 11:59 PM
  #113  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 6,432
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 539 Post(s)
Liked 44 Times in 38 Posts
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
Flintstone, you're the one that doesn't understand and your forum handle explains the reason very well...LOL. And narrow thinking comes from you, you seem to think your entitled to whatever you want, life isn't that simple, but you want to keep on playing this stupid game to make a point you have completely failed at doing so. Whatever man. And why are you getting so angry about an opinion, one by the way that is shared by others here, but for whatever reason you attack me instead of others, an opinion is an opinion that is all, and to get angry over that is just highly immature. And you still write in a manner that is like a space cadet, your thoughts ramble on with little forethought, like a drunken sailor.
I've always found that you guys who get deep into personality politics always insult other people with what you are doing. I'm liberal so I end up arguing with liberals and thought it was liberals doing it, then added someone conservative on my facebook feed and they do the same thing, then I was talking to a libertarian in real life and guess what same thing...

Sometimes it provokes people into thinking about it and talking about it, but it's always the bizarre "accuse everyone else of thinking like I do". Especially online.

I ran across an article that illustrates what ticks me off about your line of thinking so much -
https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/0...tech-companies

A Third Of Cash Is Held By 5 US Tech Companies
Moody's Investors Service released an analysis Friday that shows Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Cisco Systems, and Oracle are sitting on $504 billion, which is roughly 30% of the $1.7 trillion in cash and cash equivalents held by U.S. non-financial companies in 2015. Almost all of their earnings ($1.2 trillion) are stashed overseas in an effort to avoid paying taxes on moving profits back to the U.S. under the country's complex tax code. Apple has more than 90 percent of its money located outside of the U.S., according to its most recent filings. Moody's said in its report that "we expect that overseas cash balances will continue to grow unless tax laws are changed to encourage companies to repatriate money." Some of the other tech and Silicon Valley companies in the top 50 include Intel, Gilead Sciences, Facebook, Amazon, Qualcomm, eBay, Hewlett-Packard and Yahoo.
This is the usual political trick of divide and conquer. One group has say $98, they don't want people with less money to come after them. So they hire people to convince one group of people with $1 that it's the other group of people with $1 that are the "real" source of their problems. Get them to project all their anger at feeling trapped onto each other so they don't come after the $98.

That's nice that you'd either like us smaller folks to have additional costs to pay for bike trails, but I view bike trails as one of the few things I get back from the large taxes I pay in that large companies mostly seem to avoid.

Also would like to see that same fervor regarding roads. Look at who benefits from roads:
- Large companies need roads so customers can buy their products
- Large companies need roads so their employees can get to work
- Large companies need roads to trade with other large companies the materials they need to produce their products
- People need roads to get to work
- People need roads to see friends, get their kids to school (also benefits the companies), etc

So what's your plan for taking the more of the burden off the people buying cars, and getting companies to pay more of their fair share for the roads that they benefit so much from? Seems like the average joe is paying far more than his fair share for the road system, but a lot of the benefits of the road system are enjoyed by large companies.

Last edited by PaulRivers; 05-21-16 at 12:04 AM.
PaulRivers is offline  
Old 05-21-16, 05:13 AM
  #114  
Senior Member
 
skye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 897
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
Obviously you live in an area where cycling isn't very popular by even the least bit or there would be paths built
What have you been smoking?
skye is offline  
Old 05-21-16, 06:06 AM
  #115  
Senior Member
 
rekmeyata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 9,183

Bikes: 2020 Masi Giramondo 700c; 2013 Lynskey Peloton; 1992 Giant Rincon; 1989 Dawes needs parts; 1985 Trek 660; 1985 Fuji Club; 1984 Schwinn Voyager; 1984 Miyata 612; 1977 Raleigh Competition GS

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1111 Post(s)
Liked 243 Times in 196 Posts
Originally Posted by Flinstone
Didn't read the rest. Everyone else here thinks you're a brick wall. Maybe you should reflect a little.. my handle is now your argument?
I've grown tired of you babyish immature babblings, go play in the street with someone else on this forum.
rekmeyata is offline  
Old 05-21-16, 06:52 AM
  #116  
minimalist cyclist
 
Deal4Fuji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,747

Bikes: yes please

Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1112 Post(s)
Liked 1,626 Times in 935 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
As do NC residents. I thought most if not all states taxed motor vehicles as a annual property tax but it looks like only ½ of thee US does. For a $23K car you (in KY) pay $288 while I (in NC) pay $299. See this link for the by-state motor vehicle tax percentage ranking, listed after the real estate section:

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-wit...y-taxes/11585/
Deal4Fuji is offline  
Old 05-21-16, 08:12 AM
  #117  
Senior Member
 
SpeshulEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 8,088
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 686 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Flinstone
I didn't know the word, but yes "sharrows" are good. They seem surprisingly (maybe) effective at changing driver behavior. I think there are a couple of different mental issues at play there. Even as a driver myself, it doesn't hurt to have that little visual cue that mentally places me in a scope where cyclists exist, and I think it helps with the ant-cyclist vigilantes too. Also in comparisson a separate lane is something drivers can simply put out of their mind and forget to put back in it when they turn right. It's right next to them and yet mentally invisible compared to the reminder that cyclists are in the road.

As for people using bike lanes but still complaining about them.. that's perfectly legitimate, and not hypocritical at all, and IS the issue in fact. If a lane is bad or dangerous, it's still there, and drivers will honk or become aggressive or at least less patient and give less space if you don't use it, compared to if the lane wasn't there. People get a "use the darn bike lane" attitude. So no, there is nothing wrong with saying you don't like the bike lanes, and still using them. You get to choose between negative driver attitude or doors and reduced driver awareness of your presence.
A. Sharrows aren't good. Study: Sharrows Don?t Make Streets Safer for Cycling | Streetsblog USA

B. Your argument for sharrows and against bike lanes make absolutely no sense. Something tells me you've never actually ridden in traffic before or been around bikes in streets before.

C. You also seem like you have complete disregard for actual facts.
__________________
Hey guys, lets go play bikes! Strava

SpeshulEd is offline  
Old 05-21-16, 09:36 AM
  #118  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,033

Bikes: I own N+1 bikes, where N=0.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SpeshulEd
The actual study is behind a paywall, so I can't access it. So, going by the article, which is less than optimal …

One city was studied, so our n = 1. That's not very useful for drawing broad conclusions. We can't extrapolate the results to other cities. I've ridden in lots of cities, and just like with bike lanes, some implement sharrows well and some implement them poorly. Around here, sharrows tend to be better implemented than bike lanes, so I take the sharrowed streets whenever I have a choice between the two. That preference is dependent on the city in which I'm riding.

The study doesn't seem to attempt to look at how much of the increase in bicycle use is due to implementing the bike lanes versus due to sharrows. The direct safety benefit of bicycle infrastructure is usually smaller than the indirect benefits, at least in cities with room for rapid modal share growth for bikes. Safety in numbers is generally more important than infrastructure, but nothing gets more people out on bikes like infrastructure.

There was not a statistically significant difference between the decreased rates of accidents on sharrowed streets and non-changed streets (and perhaps with striped bike lane streets, the article's wording is ambiguous there). This matters, because one of the important results of (properly implemented) sharrows is showing bicyclists (and motorists) proper lane positioning for bicycles. That knowledge carries over well to non-sharrowed streets, making it very difficult to isolate the effects of sharrows simultaneously with bike lanes.

In general, I would expect bike lanes to get more people out riding and sharrows to have a more positive impact on motorist behavior. The study does not appear to isolate the impacts of these two factors, which each enhance bicycling safety.

It might be that the study was well-designed, but the article described it poorly. But if the article offers a reasonable description of the study, then there are lots of reasons to accept the results only with a giant grain of salt.
Jaywalk3r is offline  
Old 05-21-16, 10:50 AM
  #119  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW,Oregon Coast
Posts: 43,598

Bikes: 8

Mentioned: 197 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7607 Post(s)
Liked 1,354 Times in 861 Posts
Property Tax them , annually, by $ Value, If they're stolen you should, Also, be able to get a tax deduction for your Loss..
fietsbob is offline  
Old 05-21-16, 10:56 AM
  #120  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times in 3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by PaulRivers
I've always found that you guys who get deep into personality politics always insult other people with what you are doing. I'm liberal so I end up arguing with liberals and thought it was liberals doing it, then added someone conservative on my facebook feed and they do the same thing, then I was talking to a libertarian in real life and guess what same thing...

Sometimes it provokes people into thinking about it and talking about it, but it's always the bizarre "accuse everyone else of thinking like I do". Especially online.

I ran across an article that illustrates what ticks me off about your line of thinking so much -
https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/0...tech-companies



This is the usual political trick of divide and conquer. One group has say $98, they don't want people with less money to come after them. So they hire people to convince one group of people with $1 that it's the other group of people with $1 that are the "real" source of their problems. Get them to project all their anger at feeling trapped onto each other so they don't come after the $98.

That's nice that you'd either like us smaller folks to have additional costs to pay for bike trails, but I view bike trails as one of the few things I get back from the large taxes I pay in that large companies mostly seem to avoid.

Also would like to see that same fervor regarding roads. Look at who benefits from roads:
- Large companies need roads so customers can buy their products
- Large companies need roads so their employees can get to work
- Large companies need roads to trade with other large companies the materials they need to produce their products
- People need roads to get to work
- People need roads to see friends, get their kids to school (also benefits the companies), etc

So what's your plan for taking the more of the burden off the people buying cars, and getting companies to pay more of their fair share for the roads that they benefit so much from? Seems like the average joe is paying far more than his fair share for the road system, but a lot of the benefits of the road system are enjoyed by large companies.
Three of those are completely false... people can ride bikes and take public transit to get to work, and visit friends; large companies need people, they could care less how they get there.

The real issue is that in an automobile centeric society, people tend to think the only solution is a car.

Indeed roads are needed to move volumes of goods, but that doesn't mean that roads must go everywhere, nor does it mean that all roads must resemble some superhighway. Roads frequented by pedestrians and cyclists should be narrower, slower and easier to cross... and NOT designed as a superhighway.
genec is offline  
Old 05-21-16, 07:03 PM
  #121  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
I've grown tired of you babyish immature babblings, go play in the street with someone else on this forum.

Gladly, about 25 miles of my ride some hours ago was on road lanes, many of them sharrowed. It was a very pleasant ride. Most drivers gave me a ton of space too. I think I might have dislodged one already loose pebble from the surface too. So there's that much road wear on my hands.
Flinstone is offline  
Old 05-22-16, 10:06 PM
  #122  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Oahu, HI
Posts: 1,396

Bikes: 89 Paramount OS 84 Fuji Touring Series III New! 2013 Focus Izalco Ergoride

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 285 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 74 Times in 54 Posts
Getting back to the question, my state (Hawaii) has a weight tax, and I figured the tax on my bike would be about $2.25/yr. I would gladly pay that if it would shut the "free rider" crowd up.

scott s.
.
scott967 is offline  
Old 05-23-16, 01:34 PM
  #123  
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,644
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1316 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by scott967
Getting back to the question, my state (Hawaii) has a weight tax, and I figured the tax on my bike would be about $2.25/yr. I would gladly pay that if it would shut the "free rider" crowd up.

scott s.
.
Legally, on Oahu you were already required to pay $50 for your 2 bicycles. The "free rider" crowd has not shut up here.

So, by your weight tax estimate, you are being over charged.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 05-23-16, 02:35 PM
  #124  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,033

Bikes: I own N+1 bikes, where N=0.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI
Legally, on Oahu you were already required to pay $50 for your 2 bicycles.
Does that money go toward infrastructure (or other bicycle specific use), or is it intended to cover the costs associated with bicycle disposal? I ask, because Florida has a one time fee for each car the first time it is registered in the state, which, I understood, was more about vehicle disposal than vehicle use.
Jaywalk3r is offline  
Old 05-23-16, 05:33 PM
  #125  
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,644
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1316 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r
Does that money go toward infrastructure (or other bicycle specific use), or is it intended to cover the costs associated with bicycle disposal? I ask, because Florida has a one time fee for each car the first time it is registered in the state, which, I understood, was more about vehicle disposal than vehicle use.
Post 71

https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-s...l#post18781567
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.