Dear Austin Bicyclist, (Cedar Park, Howe: taxation, legally, buses)

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by noellestar

Cyclists are already entitled to a full lane. When there is not a bike lane I will ride near the middle of the lane so cars see me, and cannot pass me unsafely (as mentioned earlier, the 3 foot rule is rarely adhered to by motorists.)

True enough. But probably more cyclists will utilize the whole lane if they are actually having to pay what cars do for inspection/registration. I mean, why not?

[woodinvilleguy]

On a complete tangent... When was the last time you saw someone on a bicycle on the phone, eating, texting, and putting on make up? And when was the last time you saw someone driving doing these?

[scm53]

Originally Posted by atxcio

Brings up another good point. If cyclists were to become licensed, and have to pay an annual inspection/registration, they should be entitled to a whole lane like any car or motorcycle.

Flawed logic, absent facts. First, inspection fees do not flow into the State Highway Fund. Second, state and federal fuel taxes dwarf registration - which only makes up 18% of the fund. The other 82% is paid by motor fuel taxes.

As far as access to limited access highways, if you can maintain the minimum speed of 45 MPH on your bike, go for it.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by scm53

Flawed logic, absent facts. First, inspection fees do not flow into the State Highway Fund. Second, state and federal fuel taxes dwarf registration - which only makes up 18% of the fund. The other 82% is paid by motor fuel taxes.

As far as access to limited access highways, if you can maintain the minimum speed of 45 MPH on your bike, go for it.

Thing is cyclist have a lot less VMT (vehicle miles traveled) so it probably is commensurate.

For my bike ride to work 2.25 miles I have 1 mile on backstreets paid for via my city of Austin property taxes and the transportation fee on my utility bill. Then I have 1 mile of the hike and bike trail paid for in a similar manner. Last quarter mile is on S. Congress and Riverside to which my annual registration fee on motor vehicle should cover.

And you want to talk about costs how about about the billions the U.S. spends to ensure the safe passage of tanker ships of crude oil past the Strait of Hormuz and other nasty geographies? Or the cost of air and water pollution that individual autos generate but are borne as external costs to the rest of us.

And as far as paying for my food to be shipped to HEB is concerned that is built into the price of the item. HEB shippers do not eat the gas taxes they pay but rather pass it on to consumers regardless of how they themselves got to the grocery store.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Thing is cyclist have a lot less VMT (vehicle miles traveled) so it probably is commensurate.

Since you are currently paying ZERO in road user fees via your bicycle registration and user fees, it isn't commensurate at all.

Sorry, you can throw in all of the red herrings you want. They may help you sleep at night, or like yourself better. Doesn't change the facts.

[Spacepup]

Originally Posted by scm53

Flawed logic, absent facts. First, inspection fees do not flow into the State Highway Fund. Second, state and federal fuel taxes dwarf registration - which only makes up 18% of the fund. The other 82% is paid by motor fuel taxes.

As far as access to limited access highways, if you can maintain the minimum speed of 45 MPH on your bike, go for it.

See what I mean about moving goalposts?

Road damage (and thus repair requirements) is roughly dependent upon vehicle weight loading per tire. For engine-driven vehicles this works out because the heaviest vehicles use the most fuel, while mopeds can easily break 100mpg. Extend that to 300 effective for bikes (1/3rd the loaded weight) and you end up with a cost per ride (10 miles) of about a penny. I pay nearly 10x that in sales tax for the sunscreen I use every ride! But if you insist on dedicated funding: make it a $32 registration instead of $30 and you've easily covered the average annual distance for every biker, or with how much bikes, bike parts, and maintenance run add a 1% excise tax onto that and problem solved.

As for Mopac and I-35... riding on those is just crazy talk. I try to avoid them in my car! I do have to point out that I-35 and Mopac don't exactly move at 45mph+ through Austin for a lot of the time, but that's an entirely different kind of problem altogether (which is coincidentally slightly mitigated by people commuting on bike via neighborhood streets and trails).

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by scm53

Flawed logic, absent facts. First, inspection fees do not flow into the State Highway Fund. Second, state and federal fuel taxes dwarf registration - which only makes up 18% of the fund. The other 82% is paid by motor fuel taxes.

As far as access to limited access highways, if you can maintain the minimum speed of 45 MPH on your bike, go for it.

Doesn't matter -- and you can't be serious with the fuel tax argument, can you? Would you argue then that fuel efficient car's shouldn't be entitled to the same infrastructure as normal vehicles? What about hybrid and electric cars?

No taxation without representation, as far as I'm concerned -- you want to tax and register bikes like cars, then the minimum speed on the highways will have to be reduced, I guess. Not my idea, but it seems to be where certain folks want to take it.

[TexasHorseLady]

There's no reason for minimum speeds on highways to be reduced, because those roads are designed for higher speeds and the minimum speed limit on them applies to ALL vehicles. I wouldn't ride on one of those with a horse or drive on one with a horse and cart, either, for that reason. I'm really not an idiot, after all, and I gave up thinking that everyone else should and would look out for me at about the age of 8.

The sense of entitlement is almost stifling here. You don't want to be licensed to use the public roads with the vehicle of your choice, you don't want to pay a safety inspection, you don't want to do any of the things that all other users of the public roadways have to do for that privilege, you want special consideration in the way of bike lanes, three foot rules, etc., and you think motorists are the ones with the entitlement issues? Go look in a mirror, folks. The reactions to a suggestion that you play by the same rules as everyone else is very telling.

And, no, I have no problem with bicycles ridden on the roadways. As I said, my husband used to commute to work daily on one. That's just an attempt to deflect the issue away from where it really belongs.

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

The sense of entitlement is almost stifling here. You don't want to be licensed to use the public roads with the vehicle of your choice, you don't want to pay a safety inspection, you don't want to do any of the things that all other users of the public roadways have to do for that privilege, you want special consideration in the way of bike lanes, three foot rules, etc., and you think motorists are the ones with the entitlement issues? Go look in a mirror, folks. The reactions to a suggestion that you play by the same rules as everyone else is very telling.

I know, right? People seem to think they own the public roads because their truck uses more gas than some hybrid, or god forbid a motorcycle or bicycle. It almost seems like the bigger the vehicle, the more the perceived entitlement.

Drivers don't want to recognize current laws allowing cyclists on the roads, or the 3 foot rule for safety. They like to point out cyclists who run red lights or otherwise break the rules, but won't acknowledge that drivers do that far, far more often. And cause a lot more damage in the process.

Then someone will suggest cyclists go through the same process as drivers to get licensed and registered... which is a fine idea, until someone points out that such licensed cyclists should be afforded the same privileges as the drivers get. Then, oh no! The victim mentality comes out again, and some other reason is pulled out of the air for why cyclists "don't belong on my roads."

Bottom line, everyone should ride a bike for at least a while in their lives. It would give them the perspective they need to become a better driver (if they choose to drive), or show them that certain tasks can be accomplished without a car. And people will get a little exercise too -- potentially helping 2 of the biggest problems we have: Obesity and entitlement mentality.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Spacepup

See what I mean about moving goalposts?

I wasn't the one making the "if we pay for registration, then we are entitled to a dedicated lane" arguement. That would be your fellow worshiper at the First Church of Virtuous Bicycling, atxcio. Go argue with him.

As far as your points, how convenient to focus on maintenance costs and ignore the FAR larger construction costs. As far as your sakes tax observation, again, flawed logic, absent facts. Sales taxes do not contribute to the State Highway Fund (except sales taxes on lubricants).

Here's the deal, from this side of the road. You true believers tell me - what percentage of cycling in Austin is recreational vice transportation? 60-40? From where I see cyclists, on 360, 45, 2244 - it appears to be totally recreational. But I don't get downtown during commute times, so I could be off. But I doubt by far.

The question is, why should I share the state highways with a recreational cyclist? A cyclist whose use of that highway makes no contribution to the construction or maintenance of that highway? A cyclist who has plenty of opportunities to recreate on neighborhood streets, in public parks, etc. Drag out all of your virtue stats - Middle East oil, pollutants in Town Lake, hail Mary, full of grace - oops, sorry, wrong church. But not a one of them applies to what my jaundiced eye guesses is predominantly for recreation.

The reason I would is that we all have to be courteous to one another. If it takes me an extra five seconds to slow down to be courteous, then no big deal. The problem comes with the rampant sense of entitlement present in many cyclists, and contained in most of the pro cycling posts in this thread. I will be courteous to you if you don't act like you own the damn road - which, since you haven't paid for it, you don't. Stop at stop signs and red lights like I do. When there are shoulders, pass your slower cyclists on that shoulder and not in the 60 MPH lane. If you have to wait, then so be it. Don't chose to ride on the narrow shoulder vice the wide one on the right. Recognize that the yield signs apply to you just like they do vehicles. Plan your ride so you ride places there are shoulders, and not on a two lane 1826. Sorry, you aren't entitled to recreationally cycle any place there is pavement.

if your cycling is for transportation, then you get even more courtesy. I just doubt there is really that much going on here. But YMMV.