Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Doesn't matter, they are using the road.
The "bike lane" wouldn't be there if the road wasn't.
You said "not contributing to road improvements" not "for their use". Why is that connected to road use? Perhaps everyone should pay for "road improvements".
You said "not contributing to road improvements" not "for their use".
That's an incomplete reference. I stated "they aren't contributing to road improvement via fuel taxes and yet are using the roads". I'm not sure I understand your comment on this. Whether you interpret an "improvement" to mean installing the road or installing just the bike lane or even installing just the signage - they aren't paying for any of it via fuel taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Why is that connected to road use? Perhaps everyone should pay for "road improvements".
I don't understand your comment here. Why is what connected to road use? My point was that not using something is generally not a winning argument as to why you should get tax relief for something. Roads are a public good - like schooling, some public transit, and a bunch of other things. You get to pay for them whether you use them or not. As a practical matter everyone is benefiting from them at least indirectly and most also directly. People who pay taxes already are paying for "road improvements". What is your point/complaint?
A lot of the road spending, especially local roads, comes from the general fund.
You beat me to the #1 response.
As a cyclist, I still pay sales, income, and property taxes. And I spend most of my time on roads without any cycling infrastructure, so my taxes are funding infrastructure that already exists.
That looks like an awful lot of road dedicated to bike use, special signaling, green road paint, and signage for bikes. Look at the utilization factor comparison just from the image. If you look at the usage it's pretty clear the bicyclist is heavily subsidized. Taxes paid by bicyclists are not not sufficient to cover that cost.
Not only are the users there far more heavily subsidized than other road users, consider the impact on the traffic that occurred when the vehicular street width was reduced in order to create the bike lane. The point isn't intended to promote "anti-bike" here but rather to point out the fallacy of the earlier poster's logic where he/she thought they should get a "tax break" for utilizing a bicycle lane. It's as absurd as stating everyone else should get a "tax break" for not using the bicycle lane or to get a tax break for a bunch of other things they aren't directly using at the moment. The bicyclist should be thankful that such resources were put into a bike lane. Clearly it was a public policy issue because economics (including the cost of the bike lane as well as the cost borne by others due to the roadway being restricted to accommodate bikes) certainly did not justify the bike lane shown in that picture.
Interstate commerce is the biggest reason we have highways. Should cars be charged a toll at every state line? Should they be banned from daytime use while our goods are being shipped by semi? I bet you can't find but a handful of people that commute that don't also own a car, and pay those taxes.
Shall we charge pedestrians the same fee to use your bike lanes? I would think drivers would want the fewest cars possible on the road for their commute.
Most "bike lane" cost is a strip of paint, if that.
Interstate commerce is the biggest reason we have highways. Should cars be charged a toll at every state line? Should they be banned from daytime use while our goods are being shipped by semi? I bet you can't find but a handful of people that commute that don't also own a car, and pay those taxes.
The folks driving the cars are generally also paying taxes. I've not suggested imposing more charges on car owners or car drivers. I took issue with the poster who suggested as a bicycle rider he should somehow get a tax break. Don't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer
Shall we charge pedestrians the same fee to use your bike lanes?
They aren't "my" bike lanes. Are the pedestrians seeking a "tax break" for using the bike lanes? Are they seeking a tax break for not using the tax lanes? Not going to happen either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer
I would think drivers would want the fewest cars possible on the road for their commute.
Don't think that is quite the metric.
If you look at the photo posted above it would seem that the bike lane (which was taken from an auto lane) contributed to the visible congestion in the auto lane. It's also obvious that the bicycle utilization in no way offsets the congestion created by introducing the bike lane to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer
Most "bike lane" cost is a strip of paint, if that.
Patently obvious that is not the case from the photo above. The "bike lane" is taking roadway space, asphalt, multiple colors of paint, special signage, etc. High cost, low or negative return. The bike lane is clearly not justified by any kind of economics but rather by public policy or politics.
The folks driving the cars are generally also paying taxes. I've not suggested imposing more charges on car owners or car drivers. I took issue with the poster who suggested as a bicycle rider he should somehow get a tax break. Don't think so.
They aren't "my" bike lanes. Are the pedestrians seeking a "tax break" for using the bike lanes? Are they seeking a tax break for not using the tax lanes? Not going to happen either way.
Don't think that is quite the metric.
If you look at the photo posted above it would seem that the bike lane (which was taken from an auto lane) contributed to the visible congestion in the auto lane. It's also obvious that the bicycle utilization in no way offsets the congestion created by introducing the bike lane to begin with.
Patently obvious that is not the case from the photo above. The "bike lane" is taking roadway space, asphalt, multiple colors of paint, special signage, etc. High cost, low or negative return. The bike lane is clearly not justified by any kind of economics but rather by public policy or politics.
If a tax break is your entire premise for posting a rebuttal then I agree with you. Maybe a Mt bike and dirt but road bikes still need maintained roads.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
