|
|
#1 |
|
Sectional Moderator
|
Urban cyclists are a group that, while rather small, have a lot of interesting things to note about them.
In putting themselves on the road cyclists put themselves in considerable danger due to a lack of safety features relative to the other modes of transportation, as well as the fact that the other modes of transportation are the cause of considerable dangers. The fact of the matter is that safety features on bicycles can probably never be good enough to make them a safe instrument of transport when riding alongside cars, trucks, SUVs, and busses. They could definitely be safer, but never safe enough. A solution to this problem is that if you were to build urban infrastructure which were designed to be bicycle-friendly (bike paths, bike lanes, shared use lanes,) the safety issue would not be much of a problem as the infrastructure would provide safety from other vehicles. The problem is that the solution to problem costs a lot of money. And bike payers don't contribute to transportation budgets a great deal. When using a bike your only contribution is your income tax in most states, since gas-taxes cover the large majority of transportation budgets. The federal transportation budget (what your income tax goes to) is about 25% income tax revenue, and 75% gas-tax/tolls. Do not confuse federal transportation budgets and State transportation budgets. Federal transportation budgets are generally applied to the costs of interstates, but in some cases to other things. A state transportation budget usually has to do with toll-booths, non-federal gas taxes, annual or bi-annual vehicle tabs, vehicle registration, and in some cases state sales tax and state income tax, but it's mostly, as a philosophy, directed at taxing usage in some way. And usually the state spending on state transportation is much larger than the federal spending on state transportation. In Washington it was something like 12% in 2006 from the feds. (I heard this statistic on 710 KIRO and maybe I remembered it wrong but couldn’t find any statistics online. Please post if you have a correction.) Bike users don't pay for gas to use their bike, there is very rare chance that they use toll booths while riding their bikes because toll-roads are generally high-speeds, and there is also almost no existence of a requirement for them to register their vehicle and pay for yearly tabs. How do we implement a cost-effective solution to this problem where we pay for bicycle infrastructure but don't sap the rest of the transportation budget? I don't know. Some say that bicycles should be paid for by the state because a bicycle is the only truly clean form of transportation. This has some weight to it. But if the goal is green isn't the green philosophy about a long-term solution rather than a band-aid. Infrastructure is about more than getting your person from one place to another. It's also about every physical good you ever buy from a grocery store or other retailer, and on a broader level, about commerce in general. Commerce thrives largely in part due to infrastructure. Places that don't have infrastructure are usually destitute, in part due to their lack thereof. And the reason is because infrastructure allows Diesel trucks to come in and out and bring goods in and out of the area. Diesel is a big factor in the movement to go green. Bicycles are not a solution because bicycles are not going to bring your Cheerios to you from wherever Cheerios are made. And bicycles aren't going to change the fact that you have to buy groceries, that you are probably going to have to travel long distance here and there, and that there is likely often going to be a need for use of a motor vehicle in your life. So what is the solution to this green problem in regards to paying for infrastructure? Well I don't know, but it certainly isn't taxing gasoline. I understand that removing a tax on gasoline would encourage more usage of it and make it harder to create a sustainable commerce without it, and I also understand that increasing the tax on gasoline when infrastructure spending lags is also going to hurt business, and subsequently all Americans. “Keep it the same?” Well that's part of it but gasoline consumption has gone down! A green individual would note this as a good thing. "But our federal transportation budget needs additional funding because of this!" Yes, that is one of the unintended and real consequences of a loss of consumption in gasoline: a lowered revenue from the gas tax. So what is the solution? Here's a hint: probably not a gasoline tax. The other part of this argument, and while broadening the topic, is probably a necessary contingent to analyze: the arrival of the electric car. "ELECTRIC CAR you say." Yeah, a good outlook for the future of transportation is the Chevy Volt. A car that is primarily electric but can also run on gasoline. For the majority of daily car usage, though, you won't need gasoline, and when you do it is much more efficient than most cars on the market: a projected 55MPG EPA rating. Another good example is TESLA Motors' Roadster: gets 220 miles a charge, and takes about 7 hours to charge. "WOW!" You say. Yeah but its price range is high and it won't be coming down for a while now, but TESLA may hold a long term solution in their hands. "If people use infrastructure every day but never pay gas taxes then we are going to see infrastructure deterioration and not have any way to pay for it!" Correct, but that's an extrapolation. It's not a problem yet, but it may very well become one in the future. But it does play into my point about bicyclists. We design roads to be safe for car users but not safe for bicyclists. We could build infrastructure for them but they're not paying into the infrastructure budget much at all and their projects would be pretty expensive, so we would be sapping our current problematic infrastructure budget. And building the infrastructure on the green basis makes a little bit of sense, but it doesn't seem like a long-term viable solution, more like a band-aid, and infrastructure projects are usually about long-term solutions. We try to build roads that will solve traffic problems that could arise 12 years down the road. And building a road to be a band-aid for the green movement now, but won't really have any effect on the green movement later. Well that doesn't make sense. "But bicycles are also a form of exercise, and promoting bicycle usage promotes exercise." This is true but that seems more recreational. In the broad scheme of state budgets there is a budget for infrastructure underneath the Department of Transportation, and a budget for recreation under a organization usually called something like Department of Parks and Recreation or something of that nature. And what we're talking about is not recreational usage but usage of bicycles in urban areas as a primary means of transportation. If they need exercise there are safe paths to ride on. This is about transportation. And the goal here is facilitating their usage in a way that isn't as dangerous to them. "Is it really that dangerous?" Yes. Cyclists will probably get serious injury (anything from breaking a bone to death) from an impact at only 20-30 MPH. City roads are usually between 25 and 40 MPH (but I would venture that cyclists would probably stay in the 25 to 30 range of roads) and drivers in cities are usually more aggressive than rural drivers due to the hectic nature of city traffic. Now while for the most part bicyclists don't die in their accidents, they do get injured quite a bit. "What if we promoted bicycle awareness and developed a set of rules for both cars and bikes to follow that would help them be safer?" This is possible. But also it requires a campaign for awareness, it requires changes in traffic safety education, and all of this ultimately costs money, surprisingly enough. If we are promoting bicycle usage on urban roads what is the basis of this? Is it because it is green or because we think bicycles are a viable transportation solution? If it is because it is green then we have to ask ourselves if money is better spent elsewhere and we should instead suggest against using bicycles on roadways because it is dangerous and the money to make it safe to promote being green should go elsewhere. If it is because we think bicycles are a viable transportation solution (and this is probably the case) then we should ask ourselves how to pay for it without creating a free-rider problem: that is, without having non-bicyclists foot the bill for bicyclist interests. (Bicyclists generally don't have to register for their driver’s license or take a traffic safety education course to do that activity on public roads.) Taxing the sale of bicycles and bicycle equipment to go into this funding? Or is that too specific and not a viable revenue solution? I would say it might not be viable, especially since it would discourage the use of bicycles. The same goes for registering bicycles, making them pay tabs, etc. All of those things would discourage the use of bicycles on principle, which is not the aim. Infrastructure should be equally friendly and open to everyone but also equally paid by everyone. "Well then, what the hell do you think we should do?" We need to develop revenue that is friendly to both a new fuel for transportation (electricity) and bicyclists, and a shift in transportation towards busses, trains, monorails, etc. How do we do that? Well we keep the gasoline tax in place, because to increase it would be punitive to those who can't afford other options as they arise (electric cars are EXPENSIVE man!) but to remove it would in effect hurt the green movement. And then we allocate state and federal budgets in a way that doesn't rely on gasoline and vehicle registrations, but rather hits everyone up for infrastructure, as we all use it and need it to keep our daily lives intact as they are. If everyone is being taxed for it equally, then we can probably afford to make bicycle lanes for transportation and we don't really have to worry about safety as much. In my state we generate revenues via sales tax; if we increased the sales tax by a small amount to pay for infrastructure spending we could have fair infrastructure taxation. I feel that would be intuitive because when you buy goods, the goods were usually transported, and the transportation of goods requires infrastructure. And infrastructure spending usually follows consumption spending pretty well, so there would be less inequity in the infrastructure spending schedule. Possibly leave the gas tax in place as a green measure, and then remove the tax on biodiesel as to not tax the same goods purchased twice. One of the upsides of this in regards to bicyclists is that they save money on fuel costs, and that money saved is spent elsewhere, and when they spend money elsewhere they are often paying into the tax that sustains roads. "WAIT!" you say, "An infrastructure tax scheme which benefits from people reducing the cost of transportation?" Yeah it sounds pretty good from that standpoint, and it definitely prepares us to transfer from one means of transportation to the next. And it encourages the transportation department to reduce the cost of transportation to remain solvent as well. But I am not exactly sure how it plays out on paper. I don't know if this solution would be viable in my state, but I really think that it's the best idea I've heard so far, and one I came up with at that. I understand that this is a micro example in a macro argument and that cyclists are a small contingent of users, but their needs are large, and addressing their needs would probably increase usage which would also increase the tax revenue under a system like this. (If bicycles are safer and easier to use on urban streets, more people would use them! That is probably a no brainer as safety is possibly the biggest drawback to bicycle usage in urban areas.) And this is about equity on both sides of the line. Bikers should pay for infrastructure, and it should be given to them. One may point out that leaving the gas tax in place may in part be a good idea, but also take note that doing both the gas tax and the sales tax may be overboard in taxation on people, and constrain their budgets. The major consideration point under this idea is probably removal of the gas tax and putting it into a sales tax entirely, but this is highly debatable on the green basis rather than the infrastructure equality basis which has more to do with bicyclists. Here you must ask if the point of a gas tax is for being green or for infrastructure spending under this scenario. If it is for being green then it needs to live up to its purpose and help reduce the fixed costs and increase usage of alternate means of transportation (hybrid cars, electric cars, busses, etc.). Try to get that money back to the public at large while still keeping the price of gasoline at the level it is at. I might argue that gasoline prices, since it has been their tendency to go up, will continue to go up, and that the Washington state gas tax is unnecessary in terms of trying to keep demand lowered because the reduction in prices will increase demand which will… increase prices. And the price is expected to go up again after it dips down again, though the gasoline market is traditionally volatile and unpredictable so we don’t really know. SOME CLOSING POINTS THAT HAVE SPECIFIC TARGETS REGARDING THE WA SALES TAX IDEA (you don't need to read these as they aren't that important but feel free to do so if you are interested) “I’m a libertarian and don’t believe in taxes.” Yeah but most libertarians, unless anarcho-libertarians, understand that roads aren’t privately sustainable for the greater majority and need to understand that there are too many externalities for private industry to run the show. Get over it, infrastructure is a government deal and always will be, and therefore we need a way to generate revenue for it. Surely you can agree with the equality in the tax above as opposed to another means of taxation? I’m a libertarian too and this makes sense to me. “The tax seems unequal in that items that are more expensive but take less transportation costs to send get taxed unequally. So software guys are paying the tax unfairly compared to watermelon guys.” I understand this is a negative unintended consequence of this idea. I have no reasonable solution to it. It’s a bit of “tough ****ing luck,” I know, but the tax in Washington would be a meager percentage (1 % or less) and most people wouldn’t change their purchasing decisions because of it, I would imagine, so while I know it would unfairly favor the watermelon guys over the software guys, it would be a very small difference, and also even software guys have to use infrastructure to buy their watermelons. Yeah I know it is a weak case but get over it--it’s better than what we currently got going on. In conclusion, please berate, pick apart, and destroy my overall point with your fallacy-dictionaries, research, and philosophical grounds.
__________________
Last edited by Vendetta21; 09-22-2008 at 07:41 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Not your typical member
|
I'm not going to pick this apart but just leave a few notes of my opinion (some are facts though)
The biggest part of your post has to deal with infrastructure and how cyclists fit in, the truth is they don't fit in very well. This is mainly a life choice for some people to ride a bike wherever they go, this is can never replace the current system of transportation in an urban sprawl country like the United States. It may work in rural areas but it's still inefficient because we already have the technology to produce vehicles at a low cost in large quantities (yes I said low cost to produce vehicles it's true.) Let's move on to where you talked about going green, switching transportation methods right now to something primitive (the bike) isn't very viable as we are putting much effort into switching to more economic friendly means of being clean and trying to figure out how not to spend outrageous amounts at the gas pump. next up, we have the illustrious talk about the current system. IT'S BROKEN, with that said I'll elaborate. Currently every state imposes different taxes, with different tax laws, this makes it so that when something is transported from one state to another, both taxes are applied, but the consumer only pays for the tax of the current state they bought the goods from. Who covers the other half of the taxes? The Federal Government that's who, this is due to Congress not passing good legislation or even revising current laws to make a profit for themselves. (source is http://www.federalbudget.com/ for the curious, it's not on the direct page but it's in one of the links at the bottom, have a good read) |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |||||
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 29
Posts: 140
|
Who would have thought they would ever read a whole essay on "Urban Cyclists."
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Small things I saw, correct me where im wrong (could possibly be everywhere)
__________________
Note: I'm not good with writing or speaking my thoughts/ideas, what i have written makes perfect sense to me but to you im not so sure. I apologise in advance. Quote:
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | ||||
|
Sectional Moderator
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Last edited by Vendetta21; 09-22-2008 at 07:26 AM.. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
Sectional Moderator
|
Quote:
This is actually part of a larger cultural war and awareness campaign of cyclists versus car drivers in the city. Cyclists think car drivers need to drive better (and are probably right) and car drivers think cyclists need to speed up or move to the side when they have cars behind them (also probably right). Both label the other side with derogatory, demonizing terms and virtually every argument I've ever heard about the subject has been subpar and was all noise, no signal. That is why I wrote this.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Not your typical member
|
Yes I'm aware of the troubles of how big urban cities have enough traffic congestion as it is and with cyclists thrown into the loop it's just one big mess that ties the traffic system up. Although bicycles are allowed on subways and public transit systems so mainly the best push is for more financing for public transit as that will cut down on private vehicles (no need to get rid of every vehicle as that's just stupid) on public roads and a safe/efficient system that allows for fast transportation and permits safety for cyclists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Sectional Moderator
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
FFR Player
|
Petition your local town-hall. In Portage, Indiana there are plenty of trails because my cousin's did this and it got accepted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
Sectional Moderator
|
Quote:
Also, in a town setting bicycles are recreational, and usually so are bike trails. Different budget entirely.
__________________
Last edited by Vendetta21; 09-22-2008 at 08:02 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Old-School Player
|
Try increasing the mass-transit system, increasing carpool benefits, and getting some of those cars off the road first. I don't view bikes as a problem. I view them as a solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
FFR Player
|
I live in Manhattan and I skateboard to class. During rush hour, there are a few busy and crappily paved streets that I avoid. The main problem with bike lanes is that they take up the space usually reserved for parking. You may not think this is a big deal, but what ends up happening is cars double parking and ending up in the bike lane anyways.
Another problem is that bikers run more red lights than cars do. To make matters, pedestrians jaywalk like crazy. But I do too, so it's not like there's a good way to solve this. Since they're mostly looking out for cars, they don't pay attention to bikers or skateboarders. I know in NYC, there's a big push by locals to put more bike lanes installed. But there's also been a lot of complaints by drivers that bikers aren't following the rules of the road, either. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 | |||
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 29
Posts: 140
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Note: I'm not good with writing or speaking my thoughts/ideas, what i have written makes perfect sense to me but to you im not so sure. I apologise in advance. Quote:
Last edited by Chaosvermin; 09-22-2008 at 08:19 PM.. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#13 | |
|
Sectional Moderator
|
Quote:
This is a definate solution, but the problem with it is that the solution defeats the purpose of our revenue system, which is gasoline based. Furthering my point, if we solve this problem via mass transit, our budget will fall vastly short of being able to sustain roads and infrastructure, which are STILL NECESSARY FOR COMMERCE and not just personal transportation. This means that our tax is inadequate since it is drawing from one thing while being a big factor in others. You might even call it unequal taxation.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Sectional Moderator
|
If they are on the road then I would imagine a cop would have the right to cite them for breaking the rules of the road. This is a problem with law enforcement, not with the transportation system. And even if cops can't cite them then it is an inefficiency in the law enforcement department rather than the infrastructure department. Infrastructure should be built in a way that is equally friendly and equally paid by everyone, and law enforcement is at the task of making sure people don't break the rules in order to keep it that way. Different story entirely.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Only read the first half of this thread, but I need to go. I'm going to go ahead and post it because I need to get off the computer now. Please forgive me if I repeat anything others have said. I'll be back later to check out the half I haven't read yet.
--- I'd say that for the initial issue about bikes, that they should only be allowed on sidewalks. In areas where it would be unsafe on the sidewalk due to pedestrian traffic, bikes shouldn't be allowed to be ridden at all (except in identified areas such as parks). Really, looking back, I know when I was younger, riding my bike in the street, I was a danger to others on the road. I stuck to residential sidestreets only with minimal traffic, but I was still a danger to anyone on those roads, even at relatively lower speeds. And now that I'm a driver myself, I know how it is to come across someone on the street. Anytime there's someone skating, biking, or EVEN WALKING in the street, my mind is like "oh **** oh **** oh ****". And this is coming from someone who used to skateboard in the street like every day. But yeah, if the relation in bicyclist transportation is shifted from car:bike to bike:pedestrian, things would be a lot better, I think. Consider: bicyclist hit by car going 35 MPH or pedestrian hit by bicyclist at 10 MPH. Which is safer for the victim? And this'd get them off the roads that they don't even pay for. The only potential issue is that in high pedestrian traffic areas, it forces bicyclists to not do what they want. So they'd have to walk or use public transit. ... Is that a problem? I don't think so. As far as taxes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax Can't say for sure what my stance on the matter is because I'm definitely not qualified to comment on it. Seems like it's pretty close to your idea, but you seem to not be aware of it. And for libertarians: any of them who are against all taxation are retarded. Government cannot exist without bringing in money in some way, and libertarianism is about minimialist government, not absence of government. As Vendetta hinted, that would be anarchy, not libertarianism. ps one point to consider: a bicyclist is directly responsible for a GREAT DEAL less wear and tear on the roads than a motor vehicle is. The freebie idea might be troublesome for you to consider, but the simple fact is that if they were to be paying for it, their piece of the pie is the smallest piece of all.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Sectional Moderator
|
FairTax wouldn't work. Unfortunately taxing income is much more effective than taxing goods and services at generating revenue. Income tax may have inequity in it, but it's effective, unfortunately, at accomplishing its goal without screwing over the lower rung of the ladder and making them more destitute while making it so the rich could in fact be taxed the same as everyone else, or in fact less since they have the means to break loopholes, which is something that is more common among rich people than it is among middle class and lower class folk. If sales tax is 30% you can fly out of the country, buy a large amount of expensive goods, and then ship them to yourself as a "gift" from "someone else" and save money compared to taxation. If you're buying expensive software, books, movies, electronic devices, and services, you can pay for a round trip plane ticket and save a ton of money depending on the bulk. If there is one thing I know about taxation schemes, it is that rich people hire JDMBA CPAs to find quasi-legal ways around them. Sales tax only works when it is like 13% or less, I've read.
__________________
Last edited by Vendetta21; 09-23-2008 at 03:14 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 | |
|
Old-School Player
|
Quote:
1. Increase Amtrack funding. 2. Promote mag-lev "bullet" train tech for passengers. This obviously works as can be seen from the Japanese business model, and is cleaner and faster then normal trains. 3. Heck, even a inner-city monorail system could help. 4. Switch to either a higher gasoline tax or a flat tax to be shared among all residents, similar to education taxes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
It's at least a possibility that if you simply banned bicycles in high pedestrian areas, and forbade them from using the road in such places, that there would become areas of town that I simply couldn't transport myself to without either walking for way longer than I need to, or having to pay for a bus.
In Ontario, bicycles are actually classified as vehicles, and are -required- to stay on the road, and behave much more like a car than a pedestrian. In fact, if I were to make a left turn on a red light on a bike, or run through a stopsign on a bike, and the police caught me, I would actually get demerits on my driver's lisence in addition to a fine. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 | |
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Quote:
Really, if there is a place with no sidewalk that would stop you from being able to ride your bicycle somewhere, that's not a good excuse to endanger everyone on the road by your mere presence. Rather than telling everyone else that they need to deal with you, you should be dealing with the system-- ride public transit, drive yourself, or get involved in local government and work to get sidewalk added where needed. Don't demand the world deals with your choices, make your choices based on what the world has to say on the matter.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 | |
|
Old-School Player
|
Quote:
I think cars hit things well enough regardless of where they are. Maybe instead of trying to eliminate bicycles you should try thinking of better safety features. |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|