FOG

The cars happen to stop in the same places as trucks, which cause virtually all of the wear and tear. The trucks pay some incredibly high user fees, but still don't pay their own way.

closetbiker

Published Friday, May 13, 2005, in the Contra Costa Times

Comment

Biking is great, but it must be done safely

By Bruce Ohlson

May is National Bicycle Month. The weather's beautiful, and gasoline
prices are escalating. It is no surprise that more people are
putting their bikes to use for transportation and recreation.

For a bicycle advocate like me, this is an opportunity to educate
both cyclists and motorists about the rules of the road and to
dispel some age-old myths about how bicycles should be ridden.

A short history lesson will put things in better perspective.

This year is the 125th anniversary of the League of American
Bicyclists. Known in 1880 as the League of American Wheelmen, the
LAB was instrumental in getting our nation's roads paved in the
first place.

Bicycles also are the reason most of our right-of-way rules exist.
Second on the scene and anemically powered, the first automobiles
were confined to these roads and rules.

So, when people ask me if bikes should follow the same rules as
cars, I remind them that automobiles are following our lead.
Suddenly, questions such as "Should bicyclists ride against
traffic?" seem ludicrous.

Sadly, there has been a lack of proper motorist and bicyclist
education during the past 50-plus years as cheap gasoline has
enabled the automobile to capture nearly 100 percent of the personal
transportation market.

Almost everyone has had some training in how to drive a car and
interact with other cars, but instruction in how motorists should
relate to bicycles is nil, and education for bicyclists is
vanishingly rare.

Concerns about personal health, the environment, dependence on
imported oil, and the end of cheap fuel are changing the mix of
vehicles on our roads.

We will all encounter more bicycles on the road, and we need to get
along.

What's the best way to ride? The short answer is: Bicyclists fare
best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.
Bicyclists are not wheeled pedestrians. Riding on the sidewalk or
against traffic, as many have been taught to do, is unsafe and
illegal.

This fact is supported by every study that has ever been done on the
subject. In fact, most studies show that sidewalk bicyclists are at
least twice as likely to be involved in an accident with a motor
vehicle!

Cyclists who ride the wrong way must work very hard to avoid
accidents, are breaking the law in the process, and are eroding the
rights of law-abiding cyclists.

So why do some people bicycle the wrong way? Fear. Fear from the
rear. Many novice riders are afraid of being hit from behind by a
car.

Statistics show this to be one of the least likely types of car/bike
collisions. On the rare occasions when it does happen, this type of
crash gets a lot of press.

The fact is, most car/bike collisions involve turning or crossing
movements that are more easily predicted and avoided by riding with
traffic.

Bicyclists who ride with the flow are more visible to and
predictable by motorists.

Unfortunately, rude motorists dissuade bicyclists from using the
road.

Although the vast majority of motorists are quite civil, it only
takes one incident to scare off a beginner. Again, fear.

Ironically, studies show that in areas where cyclist and pedestrian
traffic increases, accident rates among these groups decrease
(strength in numbers!), and motorists become more accepting of their
presence. It is beneficial for everyone if you walk or bicycle. So
get out there. And when you do, please follow the rules of the road.

There are those who believe that bicyclists don't belong on the road
because we haven't paid our way.

The truth is, gasoline taxes pay principally for freeways, from
which bicyclists are prohibited. Remember, too, that 99 percent of
adult bicyclists also own automobiles and therefore pay these road-
use taxes.

The local streets, where most bicyclists ride, are funded
principally from sales taxes and property taxes.

Even if you rent, part of that payment goes toward taxes. Please
note also that roads are built on public land, owned by the public,
to be used by all the public.

In a free nation, citizens are not required to purchase expensive
machinery to move about safely and economically.

Roads always have been used for unimpeded transportation by everyone.

Finally, there is what we can call the "recreation factor."

All the things I've mentioned sound very serious, and they are. The
truth is, many folks ride a bicycle just because it's fun.

It is not fun, however, to put yourself at risk by riding the wrong
way. The solution is simple. Drive your bike!

Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as operators of
vehicles. This is what we should be teaching our kids, what the
police should be enforcing, and what we should all be doing every
time we get on a bike. It should be second nature. We shouldn't have
to give it a second thought.

After all, that's how we drive our cars, isn't it?


Bruce Ohlson is on the board of directors of the East Bay Bicycle
Coalition and is planning commissioner for the city of Pittsburg.

DieselDan

A sizable amount of the sales tax I pay on my bike and other cycling related purchases goes into the general fund that provided almost 70% of infastructre funding in SC.

PurpleK

And that same automobile driver may be driving on a roadway which right-of-way existed long before automobiles were even imagined when travel was by horse, wagon or walking; whose original paving was brought about partly through the good roads efforts of cyclists such as the former League of American Wheelmen; and whose current upkeep is partly paid for by the cyclist through fuel purchases made when he chooses to drive and through sales and property taxes he paid that went to the general fund which supported maintaining the road. We could beat this to death. In fact, we already have.

A motor vehicle does not have additional rights by virtue of paying a token fee (when viewed in its entirety, motor vehicle travel is HIGHLY subsidized by all of us) to help fix some of the damage it created in the first place and by being the big bully of the roadway. Sorry, but I just get tired of that trite argument that fuel tax pays for the roads when it is far from the truth. If motorists DID have to pay for the full price of roadway construction and maintenance, we would see a lot more bikes on the road.

powertoold

Wow, that article just spit on, chewed up, and crapped out FOG's argument. I like it.

phinney

Our privilege to use bicycles on roads is at the permission of the majority. Cyclists aren't the majority. I wouldn't be surprised if some politician decided to make their name by saving lives and decreasing travel times through their bill to ban cyclists from public roads. There are certainly enough cycling fatalities to make a case for it in the sensationalist minded media. Letters to the editor like those at the top of this thread show that some motorists would already support the idea.

There are certainly improvements to be made in the interaction of bicycles and automobiles. An in-your-face, self righteous attitude by cyclists will get us nowhere, or worse, get us banned.

What we need are solutions which are workable in the real world and benefit all road users in ways everyone can support.

ghettocruiser

One of the taxation oddities of living in Toronto is that the secondary roads are funded entirely by the city, which is only now negotiating getting a share of provincial and federal gas-tax revenues.

Many of the motor vehicles in the north end of Toronto are driven by residents of adjacent municipalities which pay ABSOLUTELY NOTHING towards Toronto’s non-highway roads.

Hence, many of the guys in cars yelling at me to get off the road have never paid a cent towards the construction or maintenance of the road in question, which was paid for entirely by property taxes of residents such as myself.

Keith99

I think there is a lot to be learned from the second of the two letters that started this thread.

I go way back when it comes to camping and the like. Quads were not always banned from roads. That happened when a significant percentage of quad riders became a real problem. The solution? Ban Quads. This is something cyclists should think about. It is distinctly possible that a small number of irresponsible cyclists can start bikes down the same road (or lack there of).

randya

"This report investigates the degree to which bicyclists and pedestrians pay for the transportation facilities (roads, paths and sidewalks) they use. It finds that such facilities are funded primarily by general taxes, which non-drivers fund through general taxes, while they impose much lower costs per mile of travel than motorists."

https://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf

ABSTRACT
Many people believe that nonmotorized modes (walking, cycling, and their
variations) have an inferior right to use public roads compared with motor
vehicles. This reflects the belief that motor vehicles are more important to society
than nonmotorized modes, and that roads are funded by motorists. This paper
investigates these assumptions. It finds that nonmotorized modes have the legal
right to use public roads, that nonmotorized modes provide significant
transportation benefits, and pedestrians and cyclists pay a significant share of
roadway costs. Although motorist user fees (fuel taxes and vehicle registration
fees) fund most highway expenses, funding for local roads (the roads
pedestrians and cyclists use most) originates mainly from general taxes. Since
bicycling and walking impose lower roadway costs than motorized modes,
people who rely primarily on nonmotorized modes tend to overpay their fair
share of roadway costs and subsidize motorists.

FOG

If you can show me where I said that it was a bad idea to improve cycling safety, let me know. In fact, the externalized costs of cyclists' injuries are an additional cost of cycling. There are two approaches to analyzing accidents, one is whether a particular actor in an accident was "at fault", and the other is whether an accident was preventable. The latter approach often indicates situations where the not at fault participant could have taken an action to avoid the accident. An example would be a situation where a driver slams on his brakes and the driver behind fails to stop in time. yes the latter driver is at fault, but the first driver could have prevented the accident by driving in a manner such that he didn't have to slam on his brakes. Under the preventable standard, many cyclists could prevent accidents in which they are not at fault, thus their presence has a societal cost. Cyclists must improve their safety by every means possible in order to lower the societal costs of cycling.

closetbiker

Our privilege to use bicycles on roads is at the permission of the law. The law is governed by the constitution that protects the rights of the citizens of the country. Discrimination will not fly.

FOG

Exactly right. As long as cyclists are not abrasive, we will continue to enjoy the protection of the law. However, as congestion increases, we may find tolerance on the downswing. This implies a twofold approach: first, talk up cycling among your acquaintances; secoond be the best cyclist you can be, so that you leave a favorable impression on other highway users.

closetbiker

We will enjoy the protection of the law particularily if congestion increases. Cycling is recognized as part of the solution of that conjestion, not part of the problem of conjestion.

closetbiker

Gee, how about following the law for a solution?

Seanholio

And vice versa! It's amazing how many big government loving cyclists get VERY libertarian when the rules are to be applied to them.

BTW, I'm a fairly libertarian dude. I believe that small, distributed government is best.

John E

Ah, a kindred political spirit!

theden

Of course, in a way we do actually pay a gas tax when riding a bike. We burn more calories, thus buy more food, which arrives via more truck fuel and subsequent gas taxes.

John E

Ah, a fellow clan member!

John E

It goes even deeper. The citizens of this nation have a fundamental inalienable right of mobility on our PUBLIC roadways. All forms of human-powered transportation would appear to fall squarely under this rubric.

Seanholio

In the United States, our rights are not limited by any written document. In fact, the founding documents of this nation were written to limit the role if government in our lives. They also outlined a constitutionally-limited republic to avoid the tyrrany of the majority feared in a democracy. I believe that Benjamin Franklin put it best:
Roadways are public rights of way. That means that all the public has a right to use them. An attempt to remove cyclists from the roadways would not survive in court. To overcome the courts, constituional amendments would have to be enacted, and that's darn hard to do.

Keith99

Dream on. Everything said about rights of cyclists based on the constitution would also hold for pedestrians. Public rights of way hold only for the intended use. Bikes and other vehicles are already prohibited on some roads. It can easily be extended to most if not all roads.

reich17

Tell me if I'm mistaken here.

pay gas tax by purchasing gas for my automobile=the right to drive my car on the road,

then wouldn't this be true?

pay gas tax by purchasing gas for my lawn mower=the right to drive my riding mower on the road (push mower, weed eater, leaf blower, chain saw)

I honestly don't know what I'm talking about.

phinney

We're a country of laws and we're getting more laws and more litigious all the time. Laws change. Used to be you could drive drunk, now you go to jail.

Don't think for a minute a case couldn't be made that the world would be better off without bicycles on the road. Depending on traffic a two hour bike ride may require a good number of motorists to slow down while passing. At one motorist overtaking a minute that would be well over 100 motorists taking action during their drive for one bicycle ride! Even though it's a small inconvenience for each motorist it adds up. The argument could certainly be made that banning cyclists from roads would save lives.

Bicycles are really not more defensible than mopeds, atv's, skateboards, roller skaters, unicycles, golf carts, etc.. The use of public roads is already heavily restricted. The 'right' to use the road isn't taken away, just your privilege to ride a bicycle on it.

I'm not advocating cycling be banned. I'm trying to point out that it could be and that we should all act accordingly and promote a positive image.

FOG

There have been various proposals to eliminate fuel taxes for non-highway users (exxcluding aviation users, who pay a different fuel tax). The biggest sore spot was the diesel fuel tax paid by railroads, which was going into the highway trust fund to subsidie their competitors. I think they took care of that in Congress in the last two years (not sure). Another issue has been fuel used by boaters, and I have no idea where that issue went. For other users, such as stationary users and off-road users, the problem is that the exemption mechanism would be more costly than the tax that would be refunded. That means that your lawnmower fuel tax does indeed subsidize highway users (and transit), but the amout is negligible.

FOG

Ka-ching.