Bike Forums - Sick of being told its DANGEROUS!

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)

- Commuting (https://www.bikeforums.net/commuting/)

- - Sick of being told its DANGEROUS! (https://www.bikeforums.net/commuting/812967-sick-being-told-its-dangerous.html)

I simply completely ignore the comments like that. Once you start out in a defense it just doesn't work out.

Remember that most people are crabs in a bucket. Once you (a crab too) make it to the top and see your way to freedom, the others pull you back in and climb all over you to get out as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ItsJustMe (Post 14134309)

Yeah, if they factored the externalities of burning fossil fuels into what people paid for it (vastly increased health care both due to pollution and lack of physical fitness, the need for much larger and complex road systems and many other things) gasoline would probably cost $15/gallon and then they might have the beginnings of an argument.

But the fact that I'm paying for all that stuff even when I'm riding a bike and not contributing to the problem means that I'm paying for more than my fair share.

And almost everyone who rides a bike also owns a car, so the licensing thing is really nonsense as well.

I wonder how much water your last point would hold? If you already own a car (as the majority of cyclists do) then how would that justify your non-licensed bicycle?

If I have a car and a motorcycle, and my car is licensed, then why should my motorcycle be licensed?

A trailer must have a license. My car is licensed. Why should my trailer be licensed?

Just thinking out loud and...honing my points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by digger (Post 14134445)

I wonder how much water your last point would hold? If you already own a car (as the majority of cyclists do) then how would that justify your non-licensed bicycle?

I would be glad to register and insure my bicycle if it was available and it meant truly equal consideration under the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by digger (Post 14134445)

Well, I have a licensed vehicle. I'm going to take one of them on the road every time I go out somewhere. If I didn't ride the bike, I'd be taking the car. They think that someone who just drives the car is paying their fair share of licensing. My license fee does not go up if I drive more, so it really doesn't matter whether I drive or take the bike, I've paid what they say is "my fair share" for the road. They'd say so if I was driving my car, but somehow when I jump on a bike that causes less damage to the road and takes less room than the car I would otherwise be driving, I should pay again?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RGNY (Post 14133327)

i also wonder if some drivers who proclaim it's dangerous just haven't seen many competent cyclists. during my commute on Friday, i saw a couple obviously taking their new his/hers "comfort bikes" out for a spin. great! unfortunately, they were wobbily riding side by side against traffic down the busiest street in town with no shoulder.

both had their gazes fixed firmly about 1' in front of their front tires.

freaked me right out.

have to assume that they made a bigger impression on passers-by than me riding with/in traffic flow.

I think that that sums it up well. We could have a "thousand" good cyclists out on the roads and the one that most motorists will remember will be the one who is doing something wrong. :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by ItsJustMe (Post 14133829)

That's an interesting letter. One thing that it doesn't address, and I don't know if this is true in Canada but it is in the US, is that cyclists actually pay for MORE than their fair share of roadways.

The gasoline and licensing taxes that they're always on about cyclists not paying, those go primarily to pay for limited-access expressways that cyclists aren't allowed on anyway.

The surface streets that cyclists use are paid for primarily from property and income taxes, which cyclists pay just as much as car drivers do. Factor in the fact that cyclists cause essentially zero damage to the road when using them and that they require far less space, and it's easy to see that a cyclist is paying for more than their fair share of the roads that they're allowed to use.

Actually, if we think about it, even those of us who do not own a car at all still pay a fuel tax. As think about it. Every time that we go to the store to buy something the store's owner knows how much they spend a year in fuel for their trucks, therefore they know how much they pay in taxes on said fuel.

Who here doesn't think that store owners don't pass that cost on to us the consumers? Therefore we all indirectly pay for the fuel AND the tax on said fuel. Likewise we also indirectly pay for the license and registration of those trucks.

So as many of us have pointed out we do pay all of those things, it just may not be directly, but we still pay it.