Bike tax in Oregon

[Delphic Oracle]

The infrastructure and rules don't accommodate you, but you resist methods to generate the revenue to do so. All criticism of (any) bikers is just mean spirited and should be dismissed and all known methods of increasing education and awareness are deemed to be of no benefit.

So...is there anything to really discuss?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[novaphile]

We already pay for the infrastructure with our car taxes, for the cars that we aren't using while we are riding.


BTW> I recall a survey where drivers were asked about running red lights, and the survey revealed that red light runners do so in their cars AND when they are riding bicycles.

 

[kookbreaker]

The infrastructure and rules don't accommodate you, but you resist methods to generate the revenue to do so.

The problem is that we already heavily subsidize the infrastructure for cars.

In truth, I don't really, fully object to this tax if the money goes to where it is supposed to go, but i would rather have the minimum bike cost amount be closer to $350 or $500 than $200 so that a beginning customer can get a somewhat decent beginner model bicycle that was put together by a knowledgeable, professional bike mechanic rather than Graveyard-Shift Larry at the Target.

All criticism of (any) bikers is just mean spirited and should be dismissed

No. But it gets tiring how many folks assume all cyclists are the same, and are scofflaw crazies who are a menace to the poor, defenseless people in their 2 ton SUVs.

and all known methods of increasing education and awareness are deemed to be of no benefit.

Not at all, but what has been proposed by a lot of folks here is detrimental, of little benefit, and in many cases is merely designed to discourage cycling.

Thus far I have not seen anything on here


So...is there anything to really discuss?

I gave a whole list of ideas about improving cyclist's lot back in post #66, but I guess since it wasn't punitive to cyclist in nature some folks didn't want to discuss it.

 

[applecorped]

 

[Elagabalus]

"Good, honest hatred. Very refreshing."

 

[applecorped]

 

[Delphic Oracle]

The problem is that we already heavily subsidize the infrastructure for cars.

In truth, I don't really, fully object to this tax if the money goes to where it is supposed to go, but i would rather have the minimum bike cost amount be closer to $350 or $500 than $200 so that a beginning customer can get a somewhat decent beginner model bicycle that was put together by a knowledgeable, professional bike mechanic rather than Graveyard-Shift Larry at the Target.



No. But it gets tiring how many folks assume all cyclists are the same, and are scofflaw crazies who are a menace to the poor, defenseless people in their 2 ton SUVs.



Not at all, but what has been proposed by a lot of folks here is detrimental, of little benefit, and in many cases is merely designed to discourage cycling.



I gave a whole list of ideas about improving cyclist's lot back in post #66, but I guess since it wasn't punitive to cyclist in nature some folks didn't want to discuss it.

Your list is changing the laws, changing the infrastructure, changing social attitides, and changing police training.

Now. What is the cycling community willing to put on the table to see that happen?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[zooterkin]

Now. What is the cycling community willing to put on the table to see that happen?

Apart from increased cycling reducing pollution and traffic congestion, reducing the wear on the roads, and increasing the health of the population?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Apart from increased cycling reducing pollution and traffic congestion, reducing the wear on the roads, and increasing the health of the population?

I suspect, dollar for dollar, that public transit would go way farther in terms of the goals you listed. Especially in terms of how many people would realistically adopt that option for themselves.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[kookbreaker]

Your list is changing the laws, changing the infrastructure, changing social attitides, and changing police training.

Now. What is the cycling community willing to put on the table to see that happen?

With 'changing the laws' what I actually propose is a rewriting the laws. The laws were written backwards by people whose intent was to get the cyclists off the road. So asking for something in return for a rewrite is the lesser version of saying "What are you offering to us to get rid of these Jim Crow laws?"

The same applies to police antics towards cyclists.

Infrastructure? I have already offfered my tax dollars. Most of it is earmarked for cars to the point where roads are subsidized even by people who don't drive or drive very little, so you are basically asking 'Why should we give you a pittance?"

That being said, I already mentioned that I wouldn't totally object to a bike tax on slightly higher costing bikes (as I noted above) as long as the funds actually went towards bike facilities and was not just another income source for car benefits.

Changing social attitudes is, again, a request that an oppressive attitude that society holds no longer be used. Cyclists were the default guilty party in any accident involving a bike and a car, and it is extremely rare that they see any justice even when drivers deliberate target them for harm.

This has changed a bit as helmet cameras and the like show the majority of such incidents are the fault of drivers. But it is taking a long time.

So again, why do cyclists need to offer anything so that society no longer follows the "Stole more chains that he could swim with." attitude towards them?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

With 'changing the laws' what I actually propose is a rewriting the laws.

Quite a hair to split.

The laws were written backwards by people whose intent was to get the cyclists off the road.

*citation needed

So asking for something in return for a rewrite is the lesser version of saying "What are you offering to us to get rid of these Jim Crow laws?"

Get back to me when you're done being hysterical.

The same applies to police antics towards cyclists.

You really think cyclists are alone in being harassed by bored officers or anywhere close to being a targeted group? Nevermind, the Jim Crow reference speaks volumes.

Infrastructure? I have already offfered my tax dollars. Most of it is earmarked for cars to the point where roads are subsidized even by people who don't drive or drive very little, so you are basically asking 'Why should we give you a pittance?"

A person with no car still benefits from roads in innumerable ways. Someone with no bike sees little benefit from infrastructure changes to accommodate more bikes.

That being said, I already mentioned that I wouldn't totally object to a bike tax on slightly higher costing bikes (as I noted above) as long as the funds actually went towards bike facilities and was not just another income source for car benefits.

Where does your proposed tax kick in and will it really approach the costs of things you're wanting?

Changing social attitudes is, again, a request that an oppressive attitude that society holds no longer be used. Cyclists were the default guilty party in any accident involving a bike and a car, and it is extremely rare that they see any justice even when drivers deliberate target them for harm.

This is going more and more in a paranoid direction the longer you go on.

This has changed a bit as helmet cameras and the like show the majority of such incidents are the fault of drivers. But it is taking a long time.

So again, why do cyclists need to offer anything so that society no longer follows the "Stole more chains that he could swim with." attitude towards them?

Because my default position is "why should I care?" and you need a way to get the political momentum to get things changed.

You're building a case on moral principles about oppression that just sound absurd to me. All I wanted was some revenue models that could really fund improvements. Taxing a few luxury bikes won't do it.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[kookbreaker]

Quite a hair to split.

Changing laws implies adding or subtracting laws. Rewriting the laws to be more clear is an entirely different thing. I can explain why if you actually cared but from the rest of your post you do not.

*citation needed

Effective Cycling - John Forester 6th edition, sorry I don't have my copy in front of me to give you exact page numbers.

Get back to me when you're done being hysterical.

Get back to me when you actually want a discussion itstead of just claiming you want one.

You really think cyclists are alone in being harassed by bored officers or anywhere close to being a targeted group? Nevermind, the Jim Crow reference speaks volumes.

Alone? No. But this is a thread about cycling, so what is your point?

A person with no car still benefits from roads in innumerable ways.

Yes. But the subsidization has gotten out of hand, with utterly useless roads being built just to benefit suburban sprawl or just for pure pork barrel. Examples.

More to the point , however, is that cyclists already do pay for the roads, even if they don't also have a car. SO complainging that they get a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of our road funding is petty and selfish.

Someone with no bike sees little benefit from infrastructure changes to accommodate more bikes.

...citation needed.

Where does your proposed tax kick in and will it really approach the costs of things you're wanting?

I stated this in a previous post. And in the very post you are replying to I am noting that 3 of the 4 things have virtually no extensive cost and the 4th should already have been paid for.

This is going more and more in a paranoid direction the longer you go on.

Oh, is it?

Because my default position is "why should I care?" and you need a way to get the political momentum to get things changed.

Actually it is patently obvious that your position is "I am determined not to care".

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Changing laws implies adding or subtracting laws. Rewriting the laws to be more clear is an entirely different thing. I can explain why if you actually cared but from the rest of your post you do not.



Effective Cycling - John Forester 6th edition, sorry I don't have my copy in front of me to give you exact page numbers.



Get back to me when you actually want a discussion itstead of just claiming you want one.



Alone? No. But this is a thread about cycling, so what is your point?



Yes. But the subsidization has gotten out of hand, with utterly useless roads being built just to benefit suburban sprawl or just for pure pork barrel. Examples.

More to the point , however, is that cyclists already do pay for the roads, even if they don't also have a car. SO complainging that they get a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of our road funding is petty and selfish.



...citation needed.



I stated this in a previous post. And in the very post you are replying to I am noting that 3 of the 4 things have virtually no extensive cost and the 4th should already have been paid for.



Oh, is it?



Actually it is patently obvious that your position is "I am determined not to care".

Since you get to determine what my position is I guess I don't need to make any further statements.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[Sherkeu]

A person with no car still benefits from roads in innumerable ways. Someone with no bike sees little benefit from infrastructure changes to accommodate more bikes.

This depends on the TOTAL cost of bikes vs cars. If bike infrastructure is cheaper and has health/traffic/environmental benefits that unburden other government costs, then the total tax burden goes down for everyone (if the govt didn't find other ways to spend it).

The question becomes, is it better, as a whole, to have more people using bikes or not?

If there is a significant increase in bike commuters, what then happens to the planning for the size of automobile roads and parking structures and their maintenance? How about lost productivity due to traffic? Are these costs not actually realized due to lost revenue on car and gas taxes?

If increasing the percent of bike riders is desirable (and I am not sure if it is in this particular case), then any tax that deters ridership is counter-productive. In this case, an incentive would be more appropriate.

 

[kookbreaker]

Since you get to determine what my position is I guess I don't need to make any further statements.

Its not really my fault that your expressed desire for a 'discussion' was completely disingenuous.

 

[Ron Swanson]

I just fixed a flat tire on my daughters bike yesterday ... she rides around 10 to 20 kilometres (some times much more) at least 4 days a week including most of the winter.

It's a 18 speed with back and front adjustable suspesnsion ... It cost $50 second hand, 8 years ago, and was 6 to 8 years old then.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Its not really my fault that your expressed desire for a 'discussion' was completely disingenuous.

If you assert it, it must be so.

I clearly have no say.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[casebro]

And while it's true that most bike/car accidents don't injure the car driver, who usually has to pay for damages? Who has to live with the fact that they just ran somebody over through no fault of their own? And who's to say that the car didn't kill someone else in an attempt to avoid collision with the bike?

A friend of mine got rear ended a couple years ago. Brain damage, hospital bills of $300,000. He did die 6 months later, of "chronic alcoholism" and was probably drunk when hit. He died at home, was mummified for weeks before a neighbor looked in on him, so no medical care to see if it was the bike accident.

I don't believe there was ever any court investigation- no blood alcohol, no witness to say whether he swerved into traffic...

If it was me that bumped him from behind, I would have lost my house and everything I own.

I say go ahead and ride in traffic- when you have all the safety features of a car. Same impact absorbing bumpers, side impact protection, shoulder harnesses, mud guards, marker lights...

 

[novaphile]

A person with no car still benefits from roads in innumerable ways. Someone with no bike sees little benefit from infrastructure changes to accommodate more bikes.

Generally, cycling infrastructure is also used by pedestrians.

All drivers benefit, if appropriate cycling infrastructure means that there are less cyclists using roads.

...

By appropriate, I mean cycle paths that are not designed to restrict cyclists to walking pace, and none of this nonsense about cyclists having to dismount every time they cross a road.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If it was me that bumped him from behind, I would have lost my house and everything I own.

If it was your fault, you'd deserve to for negligently operating a deadly weapon. If it wasn't your fault and you lost everything anyway, then that's not a problem with cyclists, it's a problem with the legal / medical system. Don't scapegoat cyclists for it.

Dave