Oregon Passes First Statewide Bicycle Tax In Nation (washingtontimes.com) 708
turkeydance writes: In Oregon, a state known for its avid bicycling culture, the state legislature's approval of the first bike tax in the nation has fallen flat with riders. Democratic Gov. Kate Brown is expected to sign the sweeping $5.3 billion transportation package, which includes a $15 excise tax on the sale of bicycles costing more than $200 with a wheel diameter of at least 26 inches. Even though the funding has been earmarked for improvements that will benefit cyclists, the tax has managed to irk both anti-tax Republicans and environmentally conscious bikers. The bike tax is aimed at raising $1.2 million per year in order to improve and expand paths and trails for bicyclists and pedestrians. Supporters point out that Oregon has no sales tax, which means buyers won't be dinged twice for their new wheels.
Hmmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Also by manufacturers of bicycles costing $199, and for tire companies specializing in 25.5" and smaller.
Re:Hmmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on the responses here, people would queue up to spend $5 to make sure the government didn't get any income.
Re: Hmmm. (Score:3)
There is no need for a convertion kit, somewhat larger clearances and disc brakes are enough.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm happy to pay my $30 annual fishing license, which pays for conservation and access programs, as well as a fish stocking program I'm not particularly partial to but serves a purpose for young anglers. It costs less than the sport fishing conservation organizations I belong to, and probably does more.
I'd be happy to pony up $12 on a bike, but I do see some difficulties. Money spent on access or conservation anywhere in the state benefits me as a fisherman, but bicycle infrastructure spending largely ben
Re: (Score:3)
I grew up in the city and moved out to the suburbs. While local activists in my current town have marked a lot of bike lanes, I don't see them getting much use; if you go out on any particular day you might see one or two cyclists using them. But I took a detour through the old neighborhood recently, and was astonished the degree to which bicycling has caught on there. Driving over the course of about a mile I must have seen at least fifty cyclists using the sharrow lanes.
The point is, to get people in my
Tell that to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett (Score:4, Insightful)
They donating billions of dollars of their money to their own (and each other's) charitable foundations.
If they believed in Government, they'd simply stop arranging their affairs--including their donations to charity and especially donations to charities they control--so as to avoid and minimizes taxes paid.
In giving to their foundations, they are bypassing potential estate taxes later. The Government could have used that money.
In giving to their foundations, they are offsetting current income taxes with deductions for their giving. The Government could have used that money. At one point Warren Buffett had $30B of carry-over charitable donations. He will be using that to offset his income taxes for the rest of his life.
In giving to their foundations, they are donating appreciated stock. That is, they are giving away stock that was given to, paid to, and/or bought by them long ago at pennies on the dollar relative to current stock prices. I've no idea about the actual values, but for sake of illustration, let's say thatg 20 years ago Bill Gates was granted options for 1M shared of Microsoft at $1/share, now valued at $100/share (didn't check, don't care it just for illustration purposes). In stock option payments, he would have paid income taxes on the difference between the option price ($1) and the market price at exercise, say $2. So in effect he was given $2M in stock, for which he paid $1M, so there's a tax liability on the $1M difference. So he paid that and holds the stock to today and it's worth $100M (in my illustration, ignoring possible splits, etc.). If he sold that stock to fund his foundation, he'd have to pay capital gains taxes on $98M in gains. But if he gives the appreciated shares to his foundation, he saves taxes three ways. First, he doesn't pay the CG taxes. Second, he claims a deduction for the full $100M of giving. Finally, that $100M is no longer in his estate, and he's therefore bypassed estate taxes.
If Mr Buffett and Mr Gates believed in the effectiveness of government over the effectiveness of private charities, they'd stop doing these things and let the government get their full tax cut. Instead, both of these men work feverishly in their avoidance of taxes (perfectly legal avoidance). Further they do so completely ignoring the irony of their simultaneous cries for higher taxes.
Re:Compulsory charity (Score:5, Insightful)
Your definition of what is allowed to be compulsory charity is just as arbitrary as any other and not inherently true, like you think it is. Actually, unless you are a hypocrite you must follow your randroid beliefs to their only logical conclusion - defence from crime and enemies has to be funded voluntarily or not at all - after all, why should your neighbour be responsible for your problems - and if you cannot defend yourself you only get what you deserve. If I'd want to be especially cruel, I'd say, "just like your country right now" because by randroid logic you so much like you are worthless and don't deserve any help if you cannot pay for it out of your own pocket.
Re: Compulsory charity (Score:3)
The most statist countries in the developed world are the least like Somalia. Try again randroid.
Re:Compulsory charity (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a GREAT Madison quote! I like this one [gmu.edu], too!
"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." -- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794
But what did Madison know about the Constitution, he only wrote the thing...
Re: (Score:3)
The 9th and 10th amendments died long, long ago. Enumerated powers has never really been a thing, not when important work needs to be done!
Re:Compulsory charity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Compulsory charity (Score:4, Insightful)
International concerns are a matter for the federal government. Making your community a "better" place is a function of your local government, not the feds. Think how much more money your community would have if it wasn't ripped out of your people's paychecks and sent to the swamp in DC to be squandered.
Re:Compulsory charity (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm so sick of this childish fantasy that someone could squat in a shack in the middle of the woods somewhere with no utilities or roads and run a fortune 500 company if only the government would stop taking MUH MONIES!
Wake up, you were born into a first world nation that was willing to provide you with education and basic social services, and you are still choosing to live in and benefit from those services. If taxation is theft, then you are living off of theft. Period. Do the moral thing and move somewhere else more in line with your ideals. Like Rawanda or Hati, or some other hell hole where the government is toothless and you can be "free" to do whatever you want.
Modern libertarianism is just rampant greed disguised as a philosophy of government.
Re: (Score:3)
It is my money.
Devil's advocate. Participating in society is a privilege, not a right. If everything was taken to the extreme of "what's mine is mine and what's your's is yours", society would fall apart. The whole point of society is everyone gives up a little bit but gains much. Where you draw the line, how your prevent absurd waste from non-malicious intent, prevent malicious waste, and don't become draconian by ignoring the will of the people is a whole other set of issues that are difficult and very subjective.
Inst
Re: (Score:3)
But half the recreation areas you might pull off the road at will have a fee.
Recreation areas are a user benefits scenario only. It makes sense to have people pay a fee. They aren't infrastructure.
Toll roads happen because your government is held captive by the property developers.
Not at all. Toll roads happen because governments don't want to utter the phrase "raise taxes". It has nothing to do with property developers and the last few tolls that went in my local area were for tunnels where purchasing a few houses at either end and at the central exit way was such spare change in the scheme of the project that you wouldn't stop to pick it up if it fell out of your
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, I get it, you like pain. Because that is the only reason why one would not use suitable clothing, lighter bicycles or clipless pedals. Most of the cyclists who use all these don't care how they look like, but they care about their comfort. Your argumentation is that only race drivers ought to use modern cars with power steering, synchronised gearbox, air condition and cruise control because you are come by just fine using a pre-war VW Beetle.
I don't know what you're talking about. None of the people I ride with wear spandex. I went to my bike shop and they didn't have any spandex riding clothing at all.
They had plenty of leather jackets, gloves, and boots with the 'Harley-Davidson' logo, however. Also, I don't understand why people get so upset when I ride on the bike trails. :D
Strat
Re:Hmmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
I want all the benefits that tax money supports. I just don't want to pay money to get them.
Re:Hmmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, from the anti-tax Republicans/Libertarians it would be: "I don't think the government should be in the business of providing these benefits."
And the pro-environment types would be like: "I want the government to encourage environmentally-friendly transportation by subsidizing it."
So both groups are being quite rational. Neither is thinking like the way you've set up your straw man.
Re: (Score:2)
Rational asshole is rational.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"If the state currently does not collect sales tax, and this is a sales taxes,"
It's not a sales tax. A sales tax is a percentage of the sale. This is an excise tax, which is a set amount per item sold.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. Hawaii has an excise tax that is 4% of the total price of goods or services. Interestingly, it includes the 4% excise tax in that total price, so businesses pay tax on the tax they charge the customer.
Re: (Score:3)
OMG, you found the one weakness in the whole plan! It's not like they could do like they do for cigarettes, and mark up the item by the tax, and give the "price" as the price with tax included, then se
Re: (Score:2)
Probably about as much as when their suppliers change prices, or a product's details change.
I have no idea how much that is but if it's a terrible burden then they already went out of business a while ago.
A pedestrian tax will be next (Score:5, Interesting)
Keep Oregon Weirder! (Score:4, Funny)
You can buy a Keep Oregon Weird [madeinoregon.com] bumper sticker.
Re: (Score:2)
$15 per limb at time of purchase
$15 per limb at time of birth, $60. Spiders have 8 legs, so they pay $120.
So anyone buying a Christmas tree better be ready to shell out big bucks.
Only $1.2M? (Score:4, Insightful)
Will $1.2M even pay for the administrative overhead for the state to collect and disburse the money?
Re: (Score:2)
I think cars, gasoline and energy are such massive specialized industries that taxing them individually makes sense... Same for housing, but for many other products the administrative overhead and complexity of enforcement, just seems to make it pointless..
As with software, you need to keep your systems simple.
Re: (Score:2)
In German but the pictures and dates should give some idea to what a bicycle tax looks like
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Do I see a renaissance in 24" bike wheels? (Score:2)
Seems to me the simple solution to a (stupid) new tax is to start selling bikes with 24" wheels.
Which has the added benefit of annoying the hell out of the Governor and Legislature....
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Do I see a renaissance in 24" bike wheels? (Score:4, Insightful)
It makes sense. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who says they don't? Their fair share is not determined by whether they pay an extra tax at the time of purchase.
When cyclists ride bikes, everyone benefits. Should everyone else pay a tax for not riding a bicycle? Why shouldn't they pay their fair share too?
Governments exist to serve the public. Not everything they do must be funded directly by each person who might benefit, rarely does that occur, in fact.
Re:It makes sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You live in a fucking society, it's not about you, it's about the community and the greater good.
Appeal to my self-interest, or fuck off. Welcome to the real world, sorry you had to encounter it like this.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Or maybe you're self centered prick?
Welcome to the real world....
Re:It makes sense. (Score:4, Informative)
I didnt call you a self centered prick for not fellating bicycists, I assumed you were already doing that as a side gig. I called you one for demanding that the above poster should "Appeal to my self-interest, or fuck off" which strongly suggests a "you" centered world view.
Re: (Score:2)
When I buy gasoline for my car, I pay a tax which is used for the construction and upkeep of roads. I also pay a fee when I register my vehicle each year which goes to the same purpose. Bicycles don't consume gasoline, nor does one pay a registration fee, yet it does cost money to build and maintain bike paths. Yes, bicycles are more environmentally friendly and their use should be encouraged, but there are costs to supporting cyclists other than air pollution. Why shouldn't bicyclers pay their fair share?
Mass transit is subsidized, and it much worse for the environment and public health than cycling.
Also cyclists pay city taxes, and the city is usually spending for most of the bike paths, which are less expensive than roads.
Most of gas taxes go to a larger area (state/province/country) and is usually spent on stuff such as highways on which cyclists and pedestrians aren't even allowed to go.
Re:It makes sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
What you are overlooking is that the vast majority of cyclists own cars also. This means they're paying those registration fees right along with you. As for the gas taxes, the amount of gas tax not paid because of cycling is very small, because most cycling trips are short. For trips that require significant gas, most cyclists get in those cars they own.
Meanwhile, when they're not in their cars, cyclists are using up far less space on the road, and causing no damage to the road surface.
Most is from the general fund (Score:3)
Excise taxes only pay a small portion of the costs of the automobile
From http://www.frontiergroup.org/r... [frontiergroup.org] infrastructure.
Roads don’t pay for themselves.
Nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways now comes from general taxes such as income and sales taxes (plus additional federal debt) as comes from gasoline taxes or other “user fees” on drivers. General taxes accounted for $69 billion of highway spending in 2012.
Roads pay for themselves less and less over time. In the
Re: (Score:3)
There's no reason to believe that finds are allocated properly. Roads will not cease to be maintained if there is a shortfall of gas taxes.
Tax revenue is fungible, saying specific taxes pay for specific services is just lip service.
Re:It makes sense. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't normally favor new taxes but in this case I can really see their point. I live in a city that borders on another wealthier city. They went all-in on bicycle paths and we did not. It sucks not having them here. Technically it's illegal to ride a bicycle on a sidewalk here anyway. The police don't care at all unless there's a bike/pedestrian collision, which makes the bicyclist automatically 100% at-fault "because it wasn't lawful for them to be there in the first place". I'm actually okay with that too. (I've actually been ran into by a bicyclist while trying to mow my lawn!) But it technically forces cyclists onto roads which can be quite hazardous. Also lack of even sidewalks beside many roadways again complicates matters.
So as long as the tax is going completely to bicycle-related public service, I'm totally onboard. It probably won't even really make much of a difference - pavement is expensive. I know my front sidewalk costs $200 per square to replace when it gets cracked and the city tells me to fix it. I can't imagine the cost of even one block of bike path, which is usually twice as wide as a sidewalk.
A few years back we had flooding, and a stretch of a 50-mile long bicycle trail that goes between cities here got washed out. It took them three years to get funding to repair it. It was just crushed gravel laid down on abandoned railroad bed, ideal for a long bike path. But the washout carved out the land in the area, so they had to have dozers and graders in there to repair the bed before they could lay down a new surface. That stuff costs money. And as far as taxes are concerned, just like the gasoline tax they try to tax the people that are getting the biggest benefit from the service, it's the fairest way to get the funding.
Re: (Score:2)
So why is it fair that non-cyclists have to pay for bike paths they can't use?
Re:It makes sense. (Score:4, Insightful)
So why is it fair that non-cyclists have to pay for bike paths they can't use?
There are literally thousands of things that your taxes pay for that you will never personally use. Is that unfair? Perhaps, but on the plus side you get to be part of a functioning first-world society and not some third-world hellhole. Take comfort in the fact that there are other people paying taxes to provide you with the particular public services you need, even if they never use them.
Re: (Score:3)
Car registration fees and fuel taxes pay for those bike lanes, bike signals, bike racks, bike racks on buses, etc. Bicycles on the road need to be licensed, registered, and taxed.
Re: (Score:3)
and when they disobey traffic laws then get fined.
Lots of funding comes from traffic fines.
Re: (Score:3)
Public transit should absolutly not rely on fees from car drivers for revenue. If you tie them together like that, then you will encourage people to switch from cars to public transit (which is the goal, I assume), but you will also see revenues drop as your public transit costs rise due to the increased ridership.
If you want to subsidize public transit, you should do that, and if you want to discourage private car driving, you should do that, too. But you shouldn't tie the fees from one to the revenues for
Re: (Score:2)
It's only on bikes over $200 to keep cheap bikes cheap so that people too poor to afford cars don't have an extra fee piled on to a very handy mode of transportation for them.
It's only on 26" or larger wheels because fat children are still a looming future health crisis in this country and they don't want to do anything to discourage kids getting something like a bike which can encourage exercise.
Now, I don't know those two things for certain but that's what popped into my head when I read the article.
Re: (Score:2)
Oregon is also the state that keeps trying to put a GPS on cars to tax them per mile driven. Why not put one on the bike as well?
Re: (Score:3)
Why only $200 bikes with 26" wheels? Why a one-time sales tax?
An attempt to focus on the road bikes instead of child or mountain bikes.
Why not just a bicycle license which is needed to ride on these bike paths, renewed annually?
To minimize the cost on occasional cyclers and not present a perpetual burden.
Hell, we had bike licenses when I was growing up (won't say how long ago), people pay fees to use state parks, and many states have licenses for Off Road Vehicles to support their trails.
Then, it's a choice - don't ride on the (fee funded) paths, don't buy a license.
They are trying to promote commuting via bicycle while actually contributing something toward the pathways. Avid cyclers would presumably purchase more bikes more frequently. Occasional cyclers wouldn't be required to pay some fee discouraging them.
Re:It makes sense. (Score:5, Informative)
It pisses me off that drivers think their gasoline taxes pay for the roads, when in fact gasoline taxes and other user fees pay less than half [wispirg.org] of the cost of the roads.
Then they build bike paths to get bicycles out of their way and expect bicyclists to pay for them.
Then they complain about bicycles rolling through stop signs while selectively ignoring drivers who don't come to a complete stop.
And by the way, did you know that drivers violate the right of way of pedestrians more often [slate.com] than the other way around? We need more crosswalk stings [youtube.com] in order to get those drivers off the road.
Re: (Score:3)
And, the rest is paid for by taxpayers, the vast majority of which are drivers, with only a small minority being regular cyclists (who pay no direct taxes to support road construction or maintenance).
Your point?
"Then they complain about bicycles rolling through stop signs while selectively ignoring drivers who don't come to a complete st
Yeah, about that (Score:2)
This kinda shit only helps short sighted feel good types who can't be bothered to see how real world consumers will react.
If it moves you tax it! (Score:3)
A majority of all funds paid for transportation at all levels of government is just diverted to other stuff and has been for years. It is just the politicians and bureaucrats bonus slush fund. Last year they patched pot holes in front of my house and I got a special assessment
Re:If it moves you tax it! (Score:5, Insightful)
The tax man come-ith (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right and wrong (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"DUH, it's government so the money will just get wasted!"
Just a heads up, you interact with things, entities, and services that taxes pay for all the time.
We know that. We also know that when we increase funding for a certain bureaucracy they typically don't put the money into what it's supposed to be funding. One example:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/04... [reason.com]
Sign of the Apocalypse (Score:3)
For residents: How to work around the tax (Score:2)
The tax is on bicycles that cost over $200.
No-one said a "bike" has to be something that comes with wheels. Or a handlebar. Or a seat...
By following the successful App model, you can offer many optional purchases to bring the cost of a good core "bike" well below the tax.
If the tax people get sticky, one store sells the core bike and a legally separate entity sells the accessories...
As an added bonus, every bike is now way more customizable and I think you'll find you can mark up accessories quite handily
Hi, actual Oregonian here, everybody calm down (Score:5, Informative)
This is a non-issue.
Will the poor be affected? Not really; the law only applies to new bicycles, and the poor buy used. There is a massive economy in secondhand bicycles; I am a dozen blocks from a secondhand bicycle shop, not because I happen to live in a particular neighborhood, but because it's hard not to be a dozen blocks from a secondhand bicycle shop in the Willamette Valley.
Is this an unfair amount? Well, the same law in the same package also applies a tax to new motor vehicles, and it's 0.5% of retail price. A $20k car comes with a tax of $100. Nobody seems to be complaining about that!
I suspect that bicyclists are irritated that this tax is brand-new, smells like a sales tax, doesn't exist anywhere else, and seems disproportionate. I'd like to remind them that the extensive and amazing bicycle paths that cities like Eugene and Portland have are not free for the cities to maintain.
Make sure to read the law; it starts at page 187 of https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/ProposedAmendment/12431 [state.or.us]
Re: (Score:3)
I have known exactly one person, one time, in all my years here, to have bought a bicycle online as a box of parts. Everybody else buys from bicycle shops, usually preassembled. Frankly, after watching this person (who I roomed with at the time) assemble their machine, I would be willing to consider a $15 assembly fee for my next bicycle! It is non-trivial compared to doing maintenance on an already-assembled-and-tuned bicycle.
Washington's sales tax is 6.5%, and Vancouver, WA's is 1.9%, so that $200 bicycle
they should have included it in the gas prices (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
User pays Vs beneficiary pays (Score:3)
This is an utterly stupid way of building general use infrastructure right up there with toll roads. I know people love the idea of why should I pay for someone else benefit, without realising that they directly benefit as others do.
A cyclist on a cycle path is a car not contributing to the traffic jam I'm stuck in. Same with toll roads. When 80000 cars drive through a toll road it means 80000 less cars in the way of the people who don't pay the toll.
There's a reason infrastructure is built from pooled taxes. The user pays system is a great way to achieve very little.
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're not passing you because they're busy filming you to post it on youtube and have a laugh at your expense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Compared to the same number of people in a car, they're WONDERFUL for the environment.
The average bus has 7 passengers. Two people in a car use less fuel per passenger-mile, and the car doesn't obstruct traffic, doesn't need a paid driver, and gets people where they need to go much sooner.
Re: (Score:2)
The average bus has 7 passengers.
Where? I'm beginning to think you are not in Shanghai.
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to the same number of people in a car, they're WONDERFUL for the environment.
The average bus has 7 passengers. Two people in a car use less fuel per passenger-mile, and the car doesn't obstruct traffic, doesn't need a paid driver, and gets people where they need to go much sooner.
Using a bus as an example you have to consider its size and the number of passengers it can hold. You also have to consider the fee (ie. the fare) and the convenience or inconvenience of a commuting via bus.
Now let's look at a car which is normally a very convenient form of transport. Obviously, we have to consider the overall economy of the car which takes into account the purchase price of the car, its maintenance, and fuel. Even an electric car requires fuel since you do pay for your electrical use one
Re: Good (Score:5, Funny)
but if everybody drove busses wouldn't the traffic be worse?
Re: Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Compared to the same number of people in a car, they're WONDERFUL for the environment.
No they're not. A single bus causes more wear and tear on the road than thousands of cars combined.
The problem is not cars, the problem is gas emissions. Once that problem is solved properly, the world of mass transit will be disrupted as things like urban sprawl will become a solution rather than a concern.
Re: (Score:2)
How will solving our gas emission problems disrupt mass transit? How will cars running off batteries (the current mainstream solution) change mass transit at all? Some people still wont be able to afford cars and traffic will still suck.
Re: (Score:3)
A single bus causes more wear and tear on the road than thousands of cars combined.
Citations please. I call utter bullshit.
Re: Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Road damage goes by the 4th power of the axle weight. Increase the axle weight by 5.6 times, you get 1000 times as much damage.
A quick Google shows that 30,000 lbs seems a reasonable weight for a bus, on two axles *at best* you are at 15,000 per axle. For the bus to be less than 1000 times as damaging as the average car, the average car would have to have an axle weight of almost 2700 lbs. No way that's average.
So, yeah, a bus really *does* cause damage equivalent to thousands of cars.
http://www.pavementinteractive... [pavementinteractive.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is not cars, the problem is gas emissions.
Nope, the problem is cars. Your average car requires around 10m2 of land just to sit idle. Once that car moves, it needs at least another 30m2+ for safe operation. Multiple that by 10 million people in a large city and it simply does not scale. Buses, trains, bicycles, walking, pretty much every other mode of transport is much more efficient. So you are 100% wrong, the problem is exactly cars.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Only if you're comparing full buses to empty cars. If you're comparing practical bus energy use to practical car energy use per passenger mile, Buses seem to be slightly worse, and I'm not sure it's clear that the miles themselves are equivalent - Cars go where you want them to, Buses go where the Buses go, so a trip by bus might require more miles.
Buses: 3,829 (Btu per passenger-mile)
Cars: 3,122 (Btu per passenger-mile)
Rail: 2,445 (Btu per passenger-mile)
Oak Ridge Transportation Energy Data Book - Table 2. [ornl.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Most V8's have a roof to keep out the rain and cold, A/C to keep out the heat, don't require helmets or other safety gear and generally sacrifice themselves to save the occupants in a crash. They can also carry 100's of kg of luggage and 4+ people.
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to the same number of people in a car, they're WONDERFUL for the environment.
What "same number" are you citing? If buses are actually filled to capacity, then they're slightly better than cars. If they aren't, then they're much worse than cars. On average, buses are just about as polluting as cars are in the USA, because utilization is not very good. And if you really cram people into buses, then the experience is not very good. The only way buses are more efficient per passenger-mile traveled than cars is if you run few enough of them to where you can't actually get all the people
Re: (Score:3)
It seems to me that you have no experience living somewhere with a functioning bus network
Those bus networks are heavily subsidized and lose money in every case, because (again) physics. That's written off as a necessary cost, but it's only necessary because we use buses, which we only do because we need drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Bikes don't obstruct buses.
Bikes obstruct smaller vehicles than buses all day, every day, especially in California where cyclists aren't required to even use their bike lanes, and where motorists are required to give them three feet of space and are otherwise at fault in a collision no matter how stupid the cyclist is acting, and how little disregard for traffic they are displaying. What causes you to imagine that they wouldn't obstruct buses?
If anything we need a law that requires buses be in a bus lane if one is available.
Bus lanes are garbage, they waste space because they are even less utilized than the buses t
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
Last I checked roads are public, those bikes have a right to be there as much as you do.
So why do they have to act like they have more of a right to be there than I do? Why don't they get over into the middle of their special lane, like I am legally required to do? (I already know the answer, they might get a puncture! boo hoo! I don't get to swerve into a cyclist because I'm dodgin' a pinecone.) Why do I have to give them three feet of extra space, just in case they fall off their bike or swerve into my lane? Why is it that if I obstruct traffic in my car I'll get a ticket, but the law explicitly instructs them to obstruct traffic in some ways, and they tend to ignore all the ways in which they aren't — like say pulling over when there are five or more people stacked up behind you on a freeway, at the earliest safe opportunity. For a bicycle that is almost anywhere. Here in California we have a bunch of twisty little highways through the trees and I've been stacked up behind a cyclist repeatedly on such roads.
Cyclists want to cry about how cars take up all the space, then they want to take up more space than they need before they even dry their tears. Wake me up when they have some integrity, I'll start listening.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, the Space Shuttle was public too, but it doesn't mean you had a right to ride into space on it. A better example is that the Interstate system is also public, and bikes are typically prohibited from using them. So, while you probably have a logical argument for using the roads, you're not expressing it in any kind of logical manner.
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but which hand does he write with?
Lefties hate this tax too (Score:4)
The left want progressive taxation. This is regressive.
Re:Lefties hate this tax too (Score:5, Insightful)
But I thought you liked paying taxes. Ordinarily when a tax matter appears on slashdot any number of liberals chime in to lecture everyone on how we should all appreciate our opportunity to contribute to the system and be thankful for having the means to do so. Then they list their favorite government goodies (forever avoiding the 'common defense' part) and share how great they feel when they see their pay stub and all the fine institutions their funding.
What could be more wonderful than funding bike paths? The same logic that rationalizes ever higher gas taxes to fund roads seems applicable here as well. Now you have a brand new opportunity to contribute. Enjoy.
Re: (Score:3)
Take that lefties. What goes around comes around.
As a bicycling lefty, I don't mind a bit. I spend $15 a week on lattes alone (as required by our stereotype-fulfillment contract), and a new bike is likely going to run me somewhere between $1000 and $4000 anyway, so if adding another $15 to the price tag of a once-every-10-years purchase gets me safer and more pleasant bike routes to ride on, I'm all for it.
Re: (Score:3)
so if adding another $15 to the price tag of a once-every-10-years purchase gets me safer and more pleasant bike routes to ride on, I'm all for it.
If it did, that would be a great deal, but it won't. They'll just blow the money on something else and then they'll have a bond issue or a tax on something (probably raising property taxes, knowing Oregon) to actually raise money for bike lanes. Are you new?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it law doesn't specify that it applies to bicycles that can use 26" or larger wheels already, it will, soon enough.