TRaffic Jammer

How much carbon you add or don't add should be a major part of the equation if it comes to that. Drivers calling on cyclists paying to shoulder the "burden" of road use really need to clue in to just how expensive the car REALLY is. I'll be more than willing to take my slice of property taxes and apply it to my cycling vs. a driver vis-a-vis road maint. Hell... my taxes might even go down.

closetbiker

While cyclists have yet to recieve a tax credit in BC, motorists (and everyone else) pay taxes for road maintenance (motorists should pay more IMHO), and there is a carbon tax on gas.

https://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2008/b...carbon_tax.htm

geog_dash

If the motorists are feeling tax happy, how about a special gas tax during ozone alerts?

City_Smasher

Sweet!

closetbiker

2 more letters today.

In the latter, the writer displays his lunacy.

Licence lunacy

What lunacy this notion of requiring a licence for bicycles is!
Only our coastal rains could have a more chilling effect on the worthy goal of getting people out of their cars, up off their couches and onto their bicycles.

Eco-green nonsense

Is letter writer Lesley Ewing serious? Roads are not “funded primarily by municipal property tax” and no “massive” subsidy exists. What is massive is the tax burden put on gasoline, and the myriad of other taxes borne by motorists.
Would Lesley prefer the cost of groceries to multiply in order to cover this supposed “subsidy”?
Shame on The Province for printing such eco-green nonsense.

TRaffic Jammer

Jees.. should we look at a bail out for motorists too?

closetbiker

What kills me is there are people out there that truly believe they are over-paying for the use off the roads.

It almost makes me want to contact the guy to set him straight by sending him reports but I doubt he'd be able to read or understand them based on his letter.

ghettocruiser

This is not an 'opinion'. It is either a fact or a false statement.

The Toronto Star does the same thing... they seen compelled to print letters from people stating things that are absolutely not true.

Why would they do that?

closetbiker

I'm sure the paper just wants to stir the pot and get reaction to promote sales, but what bugs me most is that the piece and comments like this fuels ignorance and resentment towards cyclists

unterhausen

I've always thought I was overpaying for roads. Even in town, roads are primarily designed for the loads generated by heavy trucks. A car produces almost zero load as far as most of our roads are concerned. I was somewhat surprised that a truck on the Pennsylvania turnpike pays 7 times as much as a car, but they are doing nearly 100% of the damage to the roadbed, so they are actually underpaying. One of the roads I ride on a lot has one block that is totally trashed, apparently from the high volume of city buses combined with poor drainage. I guess I can forgive the buses though.

The main local municipality around here has gone from an actively bike hostile police force to making some pretty nice bike paths.

John C. Ratliff

This is an interesting topic, as it has come up in the Portland, Oregon area too. I have a couple of observations to make.


There is some "accomodation" made to bicycles in Oregon, with bike lanes, etc. Most of this comes from gas taxes here, I think.

What is it that causes roads to deteriorate. It is heavy trucks, and use of anti-skid devices on the roadway. Until recently, I could attribute a lot of wear and tear on the roadway to studded tires. These are used here all late fall, winter, and into spring (there are dates to remove them here). But much of the time, it's on bare pavement. This leaves the pavement with ruts where the asphalt has been torn away, and rounded rocks are showing (vehicle erosion?). Recently, we just dug out of a vey bad ice storm, and on my rides this week, I noted that the madatory use of chains on the cars has resulted in a lot of damage to the reflective markers on the roadway because the chains were used on bare pavement at times. These are now in pieces around the roads, and the gravel is still in the bike lanes, making riding in the bike lanes difficult. There is a lot of expense in winter to keep cars from sliding around.

Because of this, one letter writer here to the paper said that he would be very willing to pay a vehicle tax which included bycicles, at about $1.00 per pound per year. At a dollar per pound, bikes would be paying some $30-40 dollars a year. Cars would be paying $1,500 to $3,000 per year. That would seem to be about right concerning the damage to the roadways of each type of vehicle.

John

closetbiker

It's pretty rare for a story in this paper to get letters printed commenting on it more than a day or two.

A couple of more today:

Bike tax dreams

“Motorists pay taxes for road work and riders should, too” says Jon Ferry.
Oh, please, Mr. Ferry. I pay taxes on the car, which I drive as little as possible. We all know those taxes don’t go to keep up the roads. Instead the money comes from general taxation.
Now you suggest I should pay for the privilege of being a moving target to amuse car drivers, as I cycle on the street ?
Get real, man — there are no safe routes. Cyclists are bullied and victimized by drivers everywhere. We put our lives on the line with every inch that we pedal.
When the government works seriously at providing safe infrastructure for bicyclists, I might be happy to pay for the privilege of using that.
Until then, dream on.

Cycling paths needed

I’m encouraged by Jon Ferry’s support for improved cycling facilities. As Jon noted, providing people with space to cycle will reduce conflicts with motorists.
Cycling also leaves people with more money to spend in local shops and restaurants. Money spent on cars and gas mainly heads to places like Detroit and Alberta, with little local benefit.
Most cycling improvements are funded through property and income taxes, which cyclists also pay. Given the lack of investment in cycling over the last century, cyclists have not received their fair share of road improvements.
Over half of people own bicycles and use them at least once a year. If a person only rides a couple of times a year, a $50 licence fee is a bit extreme. For families, this would really add up if children had to be licensed. Tourists would also find it a bit much paying to ride.
Automotive licence fees mainly just cover administrative expenses and do not help pay for roads. It makes little sense to create a cumbersome bureaucracy to collect a bicycle licence fee.



I emailed the author again and asked him to address the fallacy of his assertion that cyclists get a free ride. I said it's one thing to have an opinion, but another to spread ignorance and fuel resentment towards people who help improve traffic flow.

I doubt if he will make any comments, but it's a test to see if he's someone who will be willing to stand corrected. If he doesn't address the point, how can anyone be sure that what he writes has any basis in reality? He has no credibility.

I'm a little miffed at the paper for not checking his column for facts. It loses it's credibility as well. A columnist is entitled to their own opinion, but they're not entitled to their own personal set of facts.

boneshake

Cyclists have pretty much zero impact on roads and bridges. They impose no cost.

You could still tax them, but that would raise almost no money. Meanwhile, it would drive (pun intended) a few back into their cars, where they would crowd the roads and wear them down.

So taxing cyclists is pointless in the real world.

closetbiker

He failed the test.

No response. No commentary.

If his other opinions are as well founded as this one, what's the point of reading his columns for his opinion?

EnigManiac

To reemphasize those points and others made since, cyclists are hardly all take and no give: cyclists give space back to the public by taking up a mere fraction of what a motor vehicle takes up. The more cyclists there are, the easier it is for motor traffic to actually travel.

More to the point, cyclists do not contribute to air or noise pollution nor cause damage to roads.

Cyclists, directly or indirectly, pay for the roads they ride on and are currently denied 90% of what they pay for, so of course they want more: they paid for it, they should have it.

Falchoon

So shall we start charging other people fees for all community facilities that are now free? All things being fair we should charge people to use basketball courts, tennis courts and sporting grounds. While we're at it why not charge the kids who play on the swing in the park. What about charging skateboarders for purpose built skateboard bowls (plus they ride on footpaths, better charge them twice)? What about pedestrians that walk on footpaths, don't forget to charge them. Oh, and what about disabled facilities like special ramps and railings and the special car parking areas close to the entrance of shops. Send them a bill too.

Do these fools that are trying to argue for a bicycle registration/licence actually think through at all about the subject before they send a letter to a newspaper? Obviously not. The newspapers allow inaccurate and misleading info to be printed because #1 they are too lazy to check sources/facts (wonder if they will be that lazy when someone sues them for libel?) and #2 controversy sells newspapers (which attracts more advertisers which means more income for the newspapers).

mustang1

100% of the cycling tax will not be used for bile pathways (much o it will to onto bureaucracy) and even if it did, it still wouldn't be enough to pay for decent cycling lanes. Instead they should make theirroad spending more efficient and use that money to create safe cycling paths.

bakerjw

How much does it cost to put in sidewalks? Do they license people who walk on them? We should fight for shoe licensing as soon as bike licensing becomes the norm.

The Human Car