or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Things That Are Bothering You, Got You All Hibbeldy-Jibbeldy, or just downright pissed, RIGHT NOW!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Things That Are Bothering You, Got You All Hibbeldy-Jibbeldy, or just downright pissed, RIGHT NOW! - Page 5073

post #76081 of 85765
Those of you complaining about cyclists come visit Northern European and you'll be happy when you go home.
post #76082 of 85765
Classic otc poast. laugh.gif

We should only tax the heavy cyclists like Piobaire poaster who are just as guilty as semi-trucks in causing wear n tear.
post #76083 of 85765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Find Finn View Post

Those of you complaining about cyclists come visit Northern European and you'll be happy when you go home.

Bikes ain't got nothin' to do with it.
post #76084 of 85765
Called this Tinder girl I been texting to meet up tonight. She's in a cabin until Saturday and she has a friend who works at my go-to date spot IE: the one I said we should go to. And she also has probably seen me on several other dates there. fuuuuuck.
post #76085 of 85765
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

I think my problem with a lot of these however is that nothing is stopping the people in cars from biking. They simply choose not to. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
They don't have to have a specific license, they don't have to have a lot of money (buy a $50 bike, use a $7 a day bike share, whatever), etc. The car drivers are paying for the privilege of polluting the environment, having bigass roads capable of holding multiple-ton vehicles built for them, and the dangers and externalities of the average idiot zooming around in a speeding hunk of metal.

We can charge people different amounts, but as I said, the wear and tear function is exponential, bikes are responsible for essentially zero (i.e. if you adjusted the taxes to account for it, the taxes would be pennies at the most).
The bike infrastructure question is separate....but we don't charge pedestrians for sidewalks. We decided it was better for the city that people be able to walk around instead of getting in their car to drive, and that they should be able to do it safely instead of in the street, so we built them some sidewalks. We have jogging trails too even if not every car driver uses them. Similarly, a lot of cities are realizing that replacing some car trips with bike trips is good for the city and deciding to invest in infrastructure (and I would say some are going overboard...some "protected" bike lane designs are idiotic).
The natural aging of the streets? Well, that would happen without any bikers, and it is only the cars that really need the streets. Without the cars, bikes could handle much narrower roads with much thinner pavement (or none at all).

And as to pricing...yeah, we price things all of the time, but I still see no way to do this. You want to create a new government agency that taxes bikes? Some DMV employee is going to have to figure out that you owe $2.50 for your clunker while that guy over there owes $15 for his carbon road bike that he rides 1000 miles a year (and that other guy owes zero because while he owns 3 mountain bikes, he only rides them off road)? It just isn't rational to try and tax the usage some commodity item--unless you think the British tax on TVs is a great idea.
Or maybe we take the absurdly restrictive step of requiring cyclists to have a license for their 25lb manually powered device. Charge them $15 a year for it? Maybe get a couple of million dollars out of it at most...but have rampant enforcement issues and still make barely a fraction of what car taxes entail? I'm sure lots of bike haters would love to see a license, but it is still absurd (and its not like drivers licenses prevent all of the people I see diddling with their phone while driving every day).

I mean...its a fricking bicycle. It is a 2-wheeled pedal powered recreation device not a multi-ton, many-thousand dollar piece of machinery. Most people use them like they use a skate board or roller blades...for fun and a little exercise, maybe to get somewhere. These things should just be dealt with like any other recreational activity that not everybody chooses to participate in--it is good for the city and is paid for out of general funds just like parks, trails, sidewalks, gardens, public art, etc.

But I guess I should probably stop polluting this thread with this...many people out there have made the same arguments in a much better way, so I doubt I am going to change any minds that those people haven't changed (and AFAIK, none of you are running for office so I don't have to worry too much about you trying to create some silly tax).

I will concede the correctness of the entirety of your post if you can explain how nothing is stopping a family with children in the suburbs, with a modest-length commute that passes over a major highway and through the projects, from riding a bike instead of driving a car. That's my commute exactly. Less than 10 miles each way, so it's not super long, but it's through a variety of environments and it includes dropping off a child. I'm curious how that is supposed to work on my Huffy.

I'm going to assume you can't actually explain how I'm supposed to make this work. However, that's secondary to the point that it illustrates, which is that your position here is categorical despite the fact that it's based on a very narrow perspective that seems to think the whole world operates the way your environment does.
post #76086 of 85765
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

I will concede the correctness of the entirety of your post if you can explain how nothing is stopping a family with children in the suburbs, with a modest-length commute that passes over a major highway and through the projects, from riding a bike instead of driving a car. That's my commute exactly. Less than 10 miles each way, so it's not super long, but it's through a variety of environments and it includes dropping off a child. I'm curious how that is supposed to work on my Huffy.

I'm going to assume you can't actually explain how I'm supposed to make this work. However, that's secondary to the point that it illustrates, which is that your position here is categorical despite the fact that it's based on a very narrow perspective that seems to think the whole world operates the way your environment does.

Oooof you might want to check on your mate here...the huffy was a nice touch.
post #76087 of 85765
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

I think both sides of the bike-car debate tend to fall prey to the availability heuristic, but I will say that it's usually the cyclists who fall back on the, "I can do this assholish thing because it's legal" argument, and I find that obnoxious. I don't care if state law says you can ride two wide, or whatever, if you block traffic just because the law says you can, you're a dick.

That said, I really have no problem with upgrading and adapting the infrastructure to make it so everyone can use the roads, but I'm not going to support spending money on it until cyclists start paying some sort of registration-fee equivalent. I pay tag fees and gas taxes so that I can use the road. If cyclists really want to be on a level playing field, they can start contributing, too. Until then, you're second-class.
One of my Constitutional Law professors published a book with "Heuristics" in the title. He was a douche.
Or "Herneneutics", maybe. Some shit like that.
post #76088 of 85765
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

I will concede the correctness of the entirety of your post if you can explain how nothing is stopping a family with children in the suburbs, with a modest-length commute that passes over a major highway and through the projects, from riding a bike instead of driving a car. That's my commute exactly. Less than 10 miles each way, so it's not super long, but it's through a variety of environments and it includes dropping off a child. I'm curious how that is supposed to work on my Huffy.

I'm going to assume you can't actually explain how I'm supposed to make this work. However, that's secondary to the point that it illustrates, which is that your position here is categorical despite the fact that it's based on a very narrow perspective that seems to think the whole world operates the way your environment does.

Not all cyclists are commuters. The vast majority of people I know with bikes (and I say this as someone who races bikes) don't commute daily on them and instead ride them on the road recreationally or to run errands. It has probably been almost a month since I actually got on a bike at home and rode to work. I'm not saying you have to throw the kids in a burly trailer and drag them to school...but nothing is stopping you from going for a saturday afternoon ride.

And I used to ride my bike through the ghetto all of the time...beats walking.
post #76089 of 85765
Also, I think there is no world in which, if cyclists started paying $50 a year in licensing fees, the bike haters wouldn't just find some new argument besides "Well, I'd be ok with it if they had to pay some sort of tax like I do!"
post #76090 of 85765
Okay now I'm starting to worry that I got dat low T condition. As I was driving in to work today I heard a ad on the radio about low T. The pitchman (hockey great Kelly Chase) said "Do you ever wake up in the morning feeling tired?" I was like "Oh crap I wake up every single morning in condition of tired!"

Also I've never been able to grow a decent beard even what that was not mentioned in the ad.
post #76091 of 85765
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post


I absolutely think electric cars should be paying in via an alternative tax. That said, you have to be careful to make it equitable. For example, we just added a tax in Georgia where electric car owners have to pay every year to compensate for "lost" gas tax revenue. I agree in principle, but the math I saw said the fee was higher than what most people pay in gas tax every year. That's not fair, and it's a poor structure.

Virginia did one better. They instituted a fee for electric vehicles and hybrids to offset the gas tax, then ended up overturning the gas tax and raised sales taxes, but kept the fee on electrics/hybrids.
post #76092 of 85765
I have actually seen some arguments made that because electric cars and hybrids are often much heavier than the gas-powered version, they actually cause more damage to the roads for the same amount of utility.

Of course that is all offset in other areas by their lack of gas guzzling...but in terms of road repair, it is a valid point.
post #76093 of 85765
FWIW, if the region you live in burns a lot of dirty fuels to generate electricity you might be doing more harm to the environment by driving an electric vehicle than a gas powered vehicle.
post #76094 of 85765
Sweet sweet Illinois nukes!

Who doesn't love a $45 electric bill during air conditioning season?
post #76095 of 85765
Nuclear generation isn't the reason, it is all of the cheap (and dirty) coal being burned for your power.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Things That Are Bothering You, Got You All Hibbeldy-Jibbeldy, or just downright pissed, RIGHT NOW!