Last post on Aug 07, 2012 at 11:39 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives
What is this discussion about?
#43 of 82 Re: Motorcycle... [snakeweasel]
Nov 21, 2007 (8:05 pm)
One of my favorites is the yahoo who passes me on a two-lane narrow road in a no passing zone on a blind curve when he/she has no way of knowing whether there is oncoming traffic. Once in a blue moon there IS someone coming the other way.
Then there are the apparent deaf drivers who have their radio blaring so loud that I can hear it clearly when they pass me with their windows rolled up. I bet that gives them plenty of warning when an emergency vehicle is approaching.
Or the occasional impatient driver who finds it necessary to fly around me when I am about 10 seconds from getting to the stoplight. I guess he/she gets bonus points at the end of the year for additional time sitting at red lights.
It used to be a lot worse before I moved to a different suburb of St. Louis 7 years ago. At least the majority of the drivers where I'm at now seem like they engage their brain when they engage their gear selector. However, I've done multiple coast-to-coast rides and other things, so I've seen it all.
#44 of 82 Re: Motorcycle... [snakeweasel]
Nov 22, 2007 (7:12 am)
Y'know, it might not be a bad idea to make bicyclists carry insurance, and registration. After all, if they want to have the same right to use the roads as cars, let them pay for the privilege. Yes, that's right...privilege!
That way, they can be tracked better, and held accountable when they do damage. For example, right now, if a bicyclist hits your car and damages it, you have to take them to court and file a case against them, and hope that you can get them to pay up. I've been hit twice, while stopped at a traffic light, by a bicyclist cutting between the lanes. One of them smacked the mirror on my pickup with his backpack. Just kept right on going. The other one, a girl, tried cutting between the lanes in a traffic circle, lost her balance, and fell against my truck.
Now, neither one did any damage, but what if I had a brand-new car and it got scaped up? If you damage a vehicle with another vehicle, and then flee the scene, is that not a hit and run? Which is, I believe, in most jurisdictions, a felony?
Now sure there are plenty of decent bicyclists out there, I'm sure. But I've lost track of how many times I see one just blow through a red light without even looking, hopping up on the sidewalk to blow across a crosswalk to beat a traffic light, and so forth.
It really makes me wonder, when a bicyclist gets themselves injured or killed, how often did they really bring it upon themselves? Judging from how often many of them act, I'd say quite often. Heck, back when I used to deliver pizzas, I almost nailed one once. And not with a car...with the front door to the store! I opened that door, with about 3 hotbags in my hands, and suddenly heard this yelling and screeching of tires. It was an idiot on a bike, flying down the sidewalk in front of the store. Trust me, everyone within earshot in the parking lot heard a few choice words that day...I tend to get a loud voice when I'm irked. That biker was about to get mouthy, but when he saw I was out for blood, took off REAL quick.
Oh, another thing I like is how bicyclists tend to think that they don't have to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk. I've almost knocked a few over, as a pedestrian, that way.
#45 of 82 Re: Motorcycle... [andre1969]
Nov 23, 2007 (11:10 am)
What many idiot drivers apparently don't know is that you are required to maintain at least a 3 ft gap when passing. I wouldn't even begin to try and keep track of the number of morons who pass within 12 inches of my elbow when the oncoming lane is completely clear of traffic.
I'm sometimes tempted to carry a 12 inch heavy pipe. With my arm extended that should come to about 3 ft from my bike. If a car passes with 3 ft to spare it wouldn't impact on their windshield.
#46 of 82 Re: Motorcycle... [tedebear]
Nov 26, 2007 (11:09 pm)
This is a perfect example of a totally irresponsible statement that helps spread violence and aggressive behavior, even if you were just kidding when you wrote it, and especially does warrant a response, since there are others who advocate and have done exactly as you have written, generally from cars against bikers.
"I'm sometimes tempted to carry a 12 inch heavy pipe. With my arm extended that should come to about 3 ft from my bike. If a car passes with 3 ft to spare it wouldn't impact on their windshield."
When you make a public statement like this whether you a ride a bicycle, motorcycle, or drive a car, you are encouraging adversarial and possibly violent attitudes between the operators of two and four+ wheeled vehicles which can only hurt your cause.
Granted, you are "sometimes only tempted", however this statement is not helpful to your cause.
While you are bringing up laws, let's think about legal rights, such as "share the road". Many of the recent posts against the responsible use of bicycles and motorcycles touch on this. Public roads do not belong only to bikers or drivers of other vehicles. And that goes for the folks who think bicyclists are too slow to be on the road. They should get over when they can, but otherwise you are obligated to yield. Think about it... You have to go slow in your 5500 pound 300HP pickup because someone is riding a bike up a hill, and you can't wait to get to a legal place to pass so you are raging? Huh...
#47 of 82 Re: Motorcycle... [la4mead]
Nov 27, 2007 (6:12 am)
I have nothing against bicyclists. In fact with obesity becoming such a big problem in this country I think bike riding should be encouraged. However these bicyclists need to realize that our roadways were paid for by motorists and primarily constructed to facilitate vehicles getting from pt. A to pt. B. So even while the law requires that we share the road if I'm a bicyclist impeding the flow of traffic I will personally feel guilty about doing this on a road that these motorists paid for. So when it comes to sharing the road consideration works both ways.
I've lived in a lot of areas in this country. Some are definitely more bike friendly than others when it comes to road design. I currently live in So. MD and the roads and bridges were clearly not designed for bicycles and cars to coexist. I do see people riding bicycles but they've got more nerve than me. I wouldn't feel comfortable with vehicles constantly whizzing by me a couple feet on my left at 50+ mph.
#48 of 82 Re: Motorcycle... [tpe]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Nov 27, 2007 (7:33 am)
Roads existed long before motor vehicles. You remember walking, the horse, democrat wagons and buggies? Motorists don't pay their fare share (fare - get it? ) -- the road subsidy paid for by general taxpayers is huge and road subsidies date back to Zane's Trace in 1796. Taxpayers pay for building the roads, removing the snow and all sorts of stuff that the gas tax doesn't begin to cover. This book says the subsidy was $400 a person in the US in 1997.
Since they don't use gas, maybe we can take the bike argument over to Bicycle paths, should motorists pay for them?.
#49 of 82 Re: Motorcycle... [steve_]
Nov 27, 2007 (8:05 am)
First, that book is hardly an unbiased source. I love the comment that roads are "exempt from property taxes." Well, duh - they are owned by the government! Guess what - government buildings aren't taxed, either. Does it make sense for the government to tax itself?
He also includes the tax breaks for ethanol in the calculations. That's not a road subsidy - it's subsidy for agribusiness (think ADM), and most of us would be happy if Congress eliminated it.
His claim that the sprawl is fueling increases in fire protection is particularly unpersuasive. Fire companies have always been expected to protect rural areas, which were linked by roads even before motorized transport. What is driving costs in that sector are more effective - but much more expensive - equipment and increasing professionalization of emergency medical services and fire personnel. The number of fires has actually been decreasing for years, due to sprinkler systems in mosts commercial buildings, safer heating systems in homes and a decline in smoking (fewer people are falling asleep with a lit cigarette dangling out of their mouth).
I note that he conveniently ignores that, since the early 1980s, a certain percentage of the money raised by the Highway Trust Fund (which pays the federal portion of costs associated with maintaining and building the interstate highway system) has been directed to non-road projects, including bike paths and mass transit. One wonders why, if roads aren't paying for themselves, we can now subsidize other forms of transportation with revenues raised by federal taxes on diesel fuel, gasoline and other automotive products. Not that I have a problem with helping other forms of transportation - I like to ride bicycles, too - but let's get the COMPLETE picture here.
Each state is expected to cover a portion of road construction and maintenance costs. Here in Pennsylvania, we raise the necessary funds through a combination of the gasoline tax, driver's license and vehicle registration fees and a dedicated portion of the state sales tax. Which means that a person who lives in rural Bedford County, for example, may be subsidizing the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA), even if he or she never sets foot in the Philadelphia metropolitan area.
Sorry, but I take that book's claim with a rock-sized grain of salt. He has an agenda (I love his claim that we can spend the savings on '"necessary programs, like education" - a bloated nightmare if there ever was one, never mind that there is no proof whatsoever that we aren't spending enough on education.), and is twisting the facts to make it.
#50 of 82 Re: Motorcycle... [grbeck]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Nov 27, 2007 (8:33 am)
"Highway users, for example, pay only a fraction of the actual costs of highway construction, repair, and a host of other motor-vehicle-related services." link
"Although "user fees" in the form of gas taxes, registration fees, and tolls pay for a portion of the infrastructure services, large government outlays remain that must be covered by general revenues." link
"Q: How much of total road and highway costs in Wisconsin are covered by nonuser fees from local governments?
A: Estimated $1.29 billion of $3.29 billion (39%)" link
Note that I'm ignoring all the social costs arguments here.
Love the links wars.
#51 of 82 Re: Motorcycle... [steve_]
Nov 27, 2007 (9:19 am)
How much do bicyclists pay in user fees?
Whether or not a motorists actually pays his fair share for the use of the road is debatable. A bicyclist obviously does not. That really doesn't concern me all that much. It's the impact on the flow of traffic that is more of an issue for me. One bicyclist on a road that 100's of vehicles have to navigate around is a trivial nuisance. Put 100's of bicyclists on this road and it becomes a nightmare. They have effectively imposed their will on the driving community. It's as if their right to use the road at 25 mph trumps a drivers right to use the road at 50 mph. So maybe instead of a user fee bicyclists should pay a disruption fee that will go towards expanding lanes so that there is an adequate shoulder for them to ride on.
#52 of 82 Re: Motorcycle... [steve_]
Nov 27, 2007 (9:47 am)
From your 2nd link:
Government directly subsidizes oil consumption through preferential treatment in tax codes. A multitude of federal corporate income tax credits and deductions results in an effective income tax rate of 11% for the oil industry, compared to the non-oil industry average of 18%. If the oil industry paid the industrywide average tax rate (including oil) of 17%, they would have paid an additional $2.0 billion in 1991.
The official SEC reviewed, Price-Waterhouse audited annual report of the largest oil company in the world seems to greatly contradict this!! Look at P. 40
For those with a slow connection let me recap. Exxon-Mobil sold $365.5B in product in 2006. It had a bunch of expenses including paying $30.4B in sales-taxes + $39.2B in other taxes. It was left with $67B in profits. Then they paid $27.9B of that to the government in Income Tax. That leaves the owners (stockholders) with $39.1B.
So if my math is right Exxon Mobil after paying all their workers, and buying and refining the oil, earned $39.1B and paid taxes of $97.5B. So the owners got less than $1 for every $2 the government got. Did the majority of this $97.5B go to the DOT for road building or repair? The driving-public's money does pay those taxes in the end.
It is the taxes that make oil and gasoline high. The oil companies are taxed up the ying-yang and have to pay for drilling rights, we are taxed on our income before we buy the gasoline, and then we pay tax on the gasoline from the $ that was just taxed!
I think your author conveniently just used (Income tax/ Revenue) as his tax-rate?
Would you like to look at the annual report for any other large oil company?