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.

columnist calls for fees

Old 12-31-08, 06:10 PM
  #26  
TRaffic Jammer
Dances With Cars
 
TRaffic Jammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 10,527

Bikes: TBL Onyx Pro(ss converted), Pake SS (starting to look kinda pimped)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
How much carbon you add or don't add should be a major part of the equation if it comes to that. Drivers calling on cyclists paying to shoulder the "burden" of road use really need to clue in to just how expensive the car REALLY is. I'll be more than willing to take my slice of property taxes and apply it to my cycling vs. a driver vis-a-vis road maint. Hell... my taxes might even go down.
TRaffic Jammer is offline  
Old 12-31-08, 06:37 PM
  #27  
closetbiker
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by City_Smasher View Post
How about motorists paying a 'pollution tax', and a 'road maintenance tax'. Also, cyclists could receive a 'tax credit', for reducing oil dependancy!
While cyclists have yet to recieve a tax credit in BC, motorists (and everyone else) pay taxes for road maintenance (motorists should pay more IMHO), and there is a carbon tax on gas.

http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2008/b...carbon_tax.htm

Last edited by closetbiker; 12-31-08 at 08:19 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 12-31-08, 06:38 PM
  #28  
geog_dash
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 389

Bikes: Pake fixie. Klein Reve (for sale, http://www.theveer.net/gordons_klein)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
If the motorists are feeling tax happy, how about a special gas tax during ozone alerts?
geog_dash is offline  
Old 12-31-08, 06:52 PM
  #29  
City_Smasher
Senior Member
 
City_Smasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 201
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by geog_dash View Post
If the motorists are feeling tax happy, how about a special gas tax during ozone alerts?
Sweet!
City_Smasher is offline  
Old 01-02-09, 10:13 AM
  #30  
closetbiker
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
2 more letters today.

In the latter, the writer displays his lunacy.

Licence lunacy

What lunacy this notion of requiring a licence for bicycles is!
Only our coastal rains could have a more chilling effect on the worthy goal of getting people out of their cars, up off their couches and onto their bicycles.

Eco-green nonsense

Is letter writer Lesley Ewing serious? Roads are not “funded primarily by municipal property tax” and no “massive” subsidy exists. What is massive is the tax burden put on gasoline, and the myriad of other taxes borne by motorists.
Would Lesley prefer the cost of groceries to multiply in order to cover this supposed “subsidy”?
Shame on The Province for printing such eco-green nonsense.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-02-09, 10:18 AM
  #31  
TRaffic Jammer
Dances With Cars
 
TRaffic Jammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 10,527

Bikes: TBL Onyx Pro(ss converted), Pake SS (starting to look kinda pimped)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Jees.. should we look at a bail out for motorists too?
TRaffic Jammer is offline  
Old 01-02-09, 10:25 AM
  #32  
closetbiker
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
What kills me is there are people out there that truly believe they are over-paying for the use off the roads.

It almost makes me want to contact the guy to set him straight by sending him reports but I doubt he'd be able to read or understand them based on his letter.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-02-09, 10:42 AM
  #33  
ghettocruiser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,063
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by whoever
Is letter writer Lesley Ewing serious? Roads are not “funded primarily by municipal property taxand no “massive” subsidy exists. What is massive is the tax burden put on gasoline, and the myriad of other taxes borne by motorists.
Would Lesley prefer the cost of groceries to multiply in order to cover this supposed “subsidy”?
Shame on The Province for printing such eco-green nonsense.
This is not an 'opinion'. It is either a fact or a false statement.

The Toronto Star does the same thing... they seen compelled to print letters from people stating things that are absolutely not true.

Why would they do that?
ghettocruiser is offline  
Old 01-02-09, 10:48 AM
  #34  
closetbiker
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I'm sure the paper just wants to stir the pot and get reaction to promote sales, but what bugs me most is that the piece and comments like this fuels ignorance and resentment towards cyclists
closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-02-09, 01:07 PM
  #35  
unterhausen
Randomhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 18,646
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 78 Times in 68 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
What kills me is there are people out there that truly believe they are over-paying for the use off the roads.
I've always thought I was overpaying for roads. Even in town, roads are primarily designed for the loads generated by heavy trucks. A car produces almost zero load as far as most of our roads are concerned. I was somewhat surprised that a truck on the Pennsylvania turnpike pays 7 times as much as a car, but they are doing nearly 100% of the damage to the roadbed, so they are actually underpaying. One of the roads I ride on a lot has one block that is totally trashed, apparently from the high volume of city buses combined with poor drainage. I guess I can forgive the buses though.

The main local municipality around here has gone from an actively bike hostile police force to making some pretty nice bike paths.
unterhausen is offline  
Old 01-02-09, 02:22 PM
  #36  
John C. Ratliff
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914

Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by unterhausen View Post
I've always thought I was overpaying for roads. Even in town, roads are primarily designed for the loads generated by heavy trucks. A car produces almost zero load as far as most of our roads are concerned. I was somewhat surprised that a truck on the Pennsylvania turnpike pays 7 times as much as a car, but they are doing nearly 100% of the damage to the roadbed, so they are actually underpaying. One of the roads I ride on a lot has one block that is totally trashed, apparently from the high volume of city buses combined with poor drainage. I guess I can forgive the buses though.

The main local municipality around here has gone from an actively bike hostile police force to making some pretty nice bike paths.
This is an interesting topic, as it has come up in the Portland, Oregon area too. I have a couple of observations to make.


There is some "accomodation" made to bicycles in Oregon, with bike lanes, etc. Most of this comes from gas taxes here, I think.

What is it that causes roads to deteriorate. It is heavy trucks, and use of anti-skid devices on the roadway. Until recently, I could attribute a lot of wear and tear on the roadway to studded tires. These are used here all late fall, winter, and into spring (there are dates to remove them here). But much of the time, it's on bare pavement. This leaves the pavement with ruts where the asphalt has been torn away, and rounded rocks are showing (vehicle erosion?). Recently, we just dug out of a vey bad ice storm, and on my rides this week, I noted that the madatory use of chains on the cars has resulted in a lot of damage to the reflective markers on the roadway because the chains were used on bare pavement at times. These are now in pieces around the roads, and the gravel is still in the bike lanes, making riding in the bike lanes difficult. There is a lot of expense in winter to keep cars from sliding around.

Because of this, one letter writer here to the paper said that he would be very willing to pay a vehicle tax which included bycicles, at about $1.00 per pound per year. At a dollar per pound, bikes would be paying some $30-40 dollars a year. Cars would be paying $1,500 to $3,000 per year. That would seem to be about right concerning the damage to the roadways of each type of vehicle.

John

Last edited by John C. Ratliff; 01-02-09 at 02:40 PM.
John C. Ratliff is offline  
Old 01-04-09, 09:51 AM
  #37  
closetbiker
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
It's pretty rare for a story in this paper to get letters printed commenting on it more than a day or two.

A couple of more today:

Bike tax dreams

“Motorists pay taxes for road work and riders should, too” says Jon Ferry.
Oh, please, Mr. Ferry. I pay taxes on the car, which I drive as little as possible. We all know those taxes don’t go to keep up the roads. Instead the money comes from general taxation.
Now you suggest I should pay for the privilege of being a moving target to amuse car drivers, as I cycle on the street ?
Get real, man — there are no safe routes. Cyclists are bullied and victimized by drivers everywhere. We put our lives on the line with every inch that we pedal.
When the government works seriously at providing safe infrastructure for bicyclists, I might be happy to pay for the privilege of using that.
Until then, dream on.

Cycling paths needed

I’m encouraged by Jon Ferry’s support for improved cycling facilities. As Jon noted, providing people with space to cycle will reduce conflicts with motorists.
Cycling also leaves people with more money to spend in local shops and restaurants. Money spent on cars and gas mainly heads to places like Detroit and Alberta, with little local benefit.
Most cycling improvements are funded through property and income taxes, which cyclists also pay. Given the lack of investment in cycling over the last century, cyclists have not received their fair share of road improvements.
Over half of people own bicycles and use them at least once a year. If a person only rides a couple of times a year, a $50 licence fee is a bit extreme. For families, this would really add up if children had to be licensed. Tourists would also find it a bit much paying to ride.
Automotive licence fees mainly just cover administrative expenses and do not help pay for roads. It makes little sense to create a cumbersome bureaucracy to collect a bicycle licence fee.



I emailed the author again and asked him to address the fallacy of his assertion that cyclists get a free ride. I said it's one thing to have an opinion, but another to spread ignorance and fuel resentment towards people who help improve traffic flow.

I doubt if he will make any comments, but it's a test to see if he's someone who will be willing to stand corrected. If he doesn't address the point, how can anyone be sure that what he writes has any basis in reality? He has no credibility.

I'm a little miffed at the paper for not checking his column for facts. It loses it's credibility as well. A columnist is entitled to their own opinion, but they're not entitled to their own personal set of facts.

Last edited by closetbiker; 01-04-09 at 10:10 AM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-05-09, 05:16 PM
  #38  
boneshake
living with metabolic r8
 
boneshake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Some other planet
Posts: 5,644

Bikes: Giant OCR

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cyclists have pretty much zero impact on roads and bridges. They impose no cost.

You could still tax them, but that would raise almost no money. Meanwhile, it would drive (pun intended) a few back into their cars, where they would crowd the roads and wear them down.

So taxing cyclists is pointless in the real world.
boneshake is offline  
Old 01-11-09, 03:43 PM
  #39  
closetbiker
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
He failed the test.

No response. No commentary.

If his other opinions are as well founded as this one, what's the point of reading his columns for his opinion?
closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-11-09, 04:26 PM
  #40  
EnigManiac
Senior Member
 
EnigManiac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,258

Bikes: BikeE AT, Firebike Bling Bling, Norco Trike (customized)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
The Province had a columnist write on a cycling issue today:

http://www.theprovince.com/Sports/Cy...878/story.html



No, my beef with local cycling activists is not with their cause. It's that they tend to be all take and no give, and don't seem willing to pay for the privilege of riding on public roads, as motorists must do through a whole series of fees and levies.

My view is that it's time Victoria made cyclists fork over their fair share of road-related taxes -- starting with an annual licence fee of, say, $50 a year.




I wrote a letter to the paper: (provletters@png.canwest.com)

Public roads are built on public land, for the public's use, and paid for with public funding.

Everybody pays for the roads whether used or not.

Not only do cyclists pay for the roads, they subsidize the health care sytem because cycling inherently improves health. Something motoring does not.




I commented on the website that maybe we should charge pedestrians to use the sidewalks too. They're pretty expensive!

I sent off another email to Jon (the writer)

here's his address if you want to too

jferry@theprovince.com

and from

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=1&gl=ca


A.Two neighbors each pay $300 annually in local taxes that fund roads and traffic services. Mike Motorist drives 10,000 miles annually on local roads, while Frances Footpower bicycles 3,000 miles.

B. Household’s general taxes used for road related services. $300 each

C. Motorist user fees spent on local road (0.2¢ per mile) for Mike, $24 for Francis, $0

D. Total road system contribution (B + C) for Mike $324 for Francis, $300

E. Tax payment per mile of travel (B/A) for Mike, 3.2 cents for Francis, 10 cents

F. Roadway costs (cars = 5.6¢/ml, bicycles = 0.2¢/ml) for Mike, $560, for Francis, $48

Non-drivers pay almost the same as motorists for local roads but impose lower costs. As a result,
they tend to overpay their share of roadway cost
To reemphasize those points and others made since, cyclists are hardly all take and no give: cyclists give space back to the public by taking up a mere fraction of what a motor vehicle takes up. The more cyclists there are, the easier it is for motor traffic to actually travel.

More to the point, cyclists do not contribute to air or noise pollution nor cause damage to roads.

Cyclists, directly or indirectly, pay for the roads they ride on and are currently denied 90% of what they pay for, so of course they want more: they paid for it, they should have it.
EnigManiac is offline  
Old 01-12-09, 01:38 AM
  #41  
Falchoon
Senior Member
 
Falchoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
So shall we start charging other people fees for all community facilities that are now free? All things being fair we should charge people to use basketball courts, tennis courts and sporting grounds. While we're at it why not charge the kids who play on the swing in the park. What about charging skateboarders for purpose built skateboard bowls (plus they ride on footpaths, better charge them twice)? What about pedestrians that walk on footpaths, don't forget to charge them. Oh, and what about disabled facilities like special ramps and railings and the special car parking areas close to the entrance of shops. Send them a bill too.

Do these fools that are trying to argue for a bicycle registration/licence actually think through at all about the subject before they send a letter to a newspaper? Obviously not. The newspapers allow inaccurate and misleading info to be printed because #1 they are too lazy to check sources/facts (wonder if they will be that lazy when someone sues them for libel?) and #2 controversy sells newspapers (which attracts more advertisers which means more income for the newspapers).
Falchoon is offline  
Old 01-12-09, 02:23 AM
  #42  
mustang1
Senior Member
 
mustang1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,719

Bikes: 2006 road bike, 2012 cx bike, 2012 carbon rb, 2014 hardtail

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
100% of the cycling tax will not be used for bile pathways (much o it will to onto bureaucracy) and even if it did, it still wouldn't be enough to pay for decent cycling lanes. Instead they should make theirroad spending more efficient and use that money to create safe cycling paths.
mustang1 is offline  
Old 01-12-09, 07:49 AM
  #43  
bakerjw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NE Tennessee
Posts: 890

Bikes: Giant TCR/Surly Karate Monkey/Foundry FireTower/Curtlo Tandem

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 161 Post(s)
Liked 75 Times in 54 Posts
How much does it cost to put in sidewalks? Do they license people who walk on them? We should fight for shoe licensing as soon as bike licensing becomes the norm.
bakerjw is offline  
Old 01-12-09, 07:59 AM
  #44  
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bakerjw View Post
How much does it cost to put in sidewalks? Do they license people who walk on them? We should fight for shoe licensing as soon as bike licensing becomes the norm.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.