Comment by MisterMower

Comment by MisterMower 13 hours ago

10 replies

View on Hacker News

Cyclists contribute to congestion and occupy road space that was created through taxes on motorists while paying nothing for these benefits.

Cyclists are not licensed and their bicycles are not tagged or inspected for safe operation on roads, unlike motorists.

Cyclists are rarely subjected to traffic law enforcement despite demanding all of the rights that motorists pay for and are licensed for.

Cyclists are a danger to themselves and others while operating in the same area as motorists, but are not required to carry insurance or wear safety equipment, while motorists are held to more stringent regulation.

In a nutshell, cyclists are free-riding risk takers who are arrogant to boot. When they start acting like motorists and pay taxes like motorists and are fined like motorists for violating the law, I will happily change my opinion.

Mawr 12 hours ago

> Cyclists contribute to congestion

How many cyclists can fit in a space of one car? Or, would you rather that every cyclist was in a car instead? Would that increase or decrease congestion?

> occupy road space that was created through taxes on motorists while paying nothing for these benefits

So roads get funded in full by motorists and cyclists can't possibly also own motorized vehicles and they don't pay tax that definitely doesn't contribute to the roads that they surely wear down at a rate that's not on the order of tens to hundreds of thousands lower than cars. Oh and 16 lane highways are built because of all the damn cyclists clogging up the roads.

> Cyclists are not licensed and their bicycles are not tagged or inspected for safe operation on roads, unlike motorists.

A cyclist on the road is only a danger to himself. A motorist can mow down a school trip on a pedestrian crossing on a whim.

The latter two points just repeat the above. Yes, driving a 2 ton machine at 80 mph is going to have be a little more restricted than a 20 kg bicycle at 20 mph.

Reply View 1 reply
  • MisterMower an hour ago

    Cyclists travel slower than the prevailing speed of motorists, and they accelerate from a stop much slower. And while they don’t take up much space, the space they consume is not zero. We can argue the magnitude here, but the effect is obvious to anyone who has shared the road with a cyclist.

    Road wear is not the main issue. Roads will deteriorate whether they’re used or not. They will deteriorate faster with heavier traffic, sure. But deterioration from temperature cycling, road salt application, and weather happens whether they’re used or not. If cyclists want to use this infrastructure, they should contribute to its upkeep.

    If cyclists have a car and contribute by paying these taxes and fees, then let’s build a regulatory regime that exempts these users from cyclist fees and taxes. The point here is to make those using the infrastructure pay for their share of upkeep and their contribution to congestion.

    Deer are only a danger to themselves too, right? People never experience damage to their vehicle or personal injury when they hit a deer? The damage and risk is not proportional to both parties, sure. But it is false to say that drivers experience no risk of damage or bodily injury when in an accident with a cyclist who disobeys traffic laws. Cyclists should be insured at whatever rate is necessary to protect against this risk.

    Your school children example is not really applicable here. We’re discussing cyclists who want to be treated like motorists but refuse to act like them and obey common traffic rules. That is about as far as you can get from from an innocent group of school children crossing the street with the flashing red stop sign on the school bus activated.

    Reply View 0 replies
achierius 13 hours ago

I do pay taxes, just like a motorist might. Where do you live that you think your car or your gas is taxed in a way that contributes to road upkeep? In the US gas taxes haven't been upped in decades, roadways are maintained out of the common coffers (incl. large federal incentives which come straight out of your income tax payments).

Reply View 3 replies
  • josephcsible 12 hours ago

    > In the US gas taxes haven't been upped in decades

    But the tax is still constantly being collected even though the rate isn't going up. This is like saying electricity must be free if you haven't had a rate hike in a while.

    Reply View 0 replies
  • MisterMower 13 hours ago

    Because motorists don’t fund all road upkeep, cyclists who consume those very same roads are entitled to pay none of it? What exactly is your point?

    For the record, I support closing that gap, in addition to taxing the odometer on electric vehicles which don’t contribute to gas tax revenue but use roadways like other motorists.

    Reply View 1 reply
    • Mawr 12 hours ago

      > Because motorists don’t fund all road upkeep, cyclists who consume those very same roads are entitled to pay none of it?

      I don't think you understood what you wrote. Non-motorists subsidize motorists.

      Feel free to look up the % of funding for roads that gas tax or w/e accounts for in your country.

      Also look up the fourth power law, that'll tell you how much tax a cyclist should pay compared to a driver in terms of road wear. Say a cyclist should pay $1, how much should you?

      Then check how many millions it costs to build a mile of highway and internalize the fact that cyclists are not allowed there. Nor do they use car parking. Nor do they cause 40 thousand deaths per year in the USA. What's the cost of human life again?

      Once you figure all that out, we'll be ready to start talking about pollution and its effects.

      Reply View 0 replies
nostrebored 13 hours ago

Motorists __DO NOT COVER__ the costs of roads. Your existence as a motorist is entirely subsidized. The cost of driving is borne by government and society. Road infrastructure, maintenance, and space for cars is actually insanely expensive.

Reply View 3 replies