Last post on Aug 07, 2012 at 11:39 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives
What is this discussion about?
#1 of 82 Bicycle paths, should motorists pay for them?
Aug 12, 2007 (2:41 pm)
Steve suggested that a new topic be started for this. So, here goes.
Why are motorists paying for bicycle paths?
Bicycles pay no registration, no license and more importantly, no insurance.
They pay no fuel tax, no road tax and no mileage taxes. Bicycles get a completely free ride and force states to make them special roads, lanes or designated areas for them.
Bicyclists are exempt from insurance, because they are not motorized? Seems wrong to me. ALL vehicles, motorized or not, that use the roadways, should be required to have insurance on them.
Now many will say that bicycles allow some people to commute to work and cut down on emissions when they do that. I will buy that.
I see where bicycle paths and lanes in cities are worth having. I have no argument there.
Why is the tax paying (heavily taxed, mind you) for bicycle roads, paths and lanes in "scenic" byways? As far as I am concerned, that is a tourist industry thing and the tourist/travel industry should be paying for that, not the general motorist public.
Where I live, the brilliant state uses fuel tax dollars to build bicycle lanes on the highways. One highway is a busy coast highway, that is in severe need of repair, but the legislators see a better use of the money in putting in bike lanes on the edge of the highway. Brilliant.
This puts the motorist and bicyclist in harms way.
So who pays for these paths? Motorists.
Is that fair to the motorists? Nope. Not at all.
My opinion, when bikes pay a registration and license, then give them all the bike paths they want. Until then, I'm not too keen on my tax dollars going to them.
Anyway, that's my opinion on this subject.
Oh, by the way, if this isn't in the right category, can someone move it?
#2 of 82 Re: Bicycle paths, should motorists pay for them? [0patience]
Aug 12, 2007 (3:05 pm)
Special use roads, trails, paths and lanes are becoming more common everywhere. It seems more like welfare to me. Then I have always been against tax expenditures for anything other than what it was originally collected for. Maybe the cities should impose a special tax on bicycles when they are sold. Say $100 to be put in the bike trail fund. It should not come from gas tax.
#3 of 82 Re: Bicycle paths, should motorists pay for them? [0patience]
Aug 12, 2007 (4:22 pm)
Absolutely!!!! Fuel tax for FUELED VEHICLE ISSUES ONLY!!!!
Not to mention, when was the last time you saw a cyclist OBEY THE TRAFFIC LAWS????? They are pompous and arrogant.
#4 of 82 Re: Bicycle paths, should motorists pay for them? [0patience]
Aug 13, 2007 (7:40 am)
Well, I dislike bicylists who insist on riding the white line when there is an adequate shoulder more than most. I also like to ride a bicycle to do errands when I can. Helps save the world and all that. In my locality, most local roads don't even have an adequate shoulder on which to ride so I am forced to drive as I refuse to argue with a 2 ton motorized vehicle. I can see no reason not to use transportation funds to construct bike lanes. They cost almost nothing during a road rebuild. If bike lanes were universally available then maybe the ludicrous laws that give bicycles the same right to a busy road as automobiles could be changed. Arrogant bicyclists are another kettle of fish altogether.
#5 of 82 Forget Biker's needs
Aug 13, 2007 (7:57 am)
Up in WA, the fuel taxes are already diverted to the state's freakin ferry system which only benefits the Peoples Republic of Puget Sound.
#6 of 82 The idea is to promote alternative energy
Aug 13, 2007 (8:15 am)
Cancel the ethanol subsidy and apply all of that money to paving bicycle trails. Take away the tax credit on hybrid vehicles and apply the debit towards bicycle trails. Cancel the government funding for oil research and apply it to bicycle trails. With the leftover money, free healthcare for all. New taxes are not required. Getting rid of even a small portion of the current corruption will subsidize it. I think I heard Gagrice mention this on another thread. The bike trails are NOT to be placed in a state park (which would encourage a person to DRIVE to a park and then ride a bicycle for leisure to the middle of nowhere). The bike trails are to be placed in heavy traffic areas to relieve car congestion to and from work and shopping areas.
#7 of 82 Re: The idea is to promote alternative energy [john500]
Aug 16, 2007 (9:26 am)
Socialistic ideas are fine in China, but here the internal combustion engine and the vehicle is to be raised up, honored, and provided for by laying more concrete for more highways and byways. Going back to bikes is not progress.
#8 of 82 Re: The idea is to promote alternative energy [euphonium]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Aug 16, 2007 (10:14 am)
Is that Joni Mitchell I hear playing in the background?
#9 of 82 Re: The idea is to promote alternative energy [euphonium]
Aug 16, 2007 (12:23 pm)
You can do that nonsense WITHOUT my taxpayer money. I'm half tempted to cancel all of my income earning endeavors and live strictly off the principal to prevent the moronic expenditure of my money on junk such as roads and bridges that last 10 years.
#10 of 82 In Phoenix
Aug 17, 2007 (7:32 am)
In phoenix, bike paths are mostly just a "part of the road." Very little extra money is spent maintaining them, other than a painted stripe.
Most bikers have cars also, which they drive. So they pay their part via the costs associated with driving their car and insuring it and paying fuel taxes.
How many people in the USA use bikes ONLY and do not have a car?
My guess is not very darn many.