8 ms·

The Bike Wars Are Over, and the Bikes Won

71 points by dodders 11y ago

boxy310 11y ago
I like pieces like this. City governments all over have a lot more visibility into the decision-making process than previous generations have had, and sometimes that means that good policy can get drowned in bad NIMBYism, but having a tough public administrative class means they're able to tough out criticism to let time judge them on their merits.
dsl 11y ago
I have yet to hear a logical explanation for why we don't tax and licence bikes in major cities. Paying your "fair share" of road use taxes gives you an equal voice when asking for specific use lanes, and licence plates allow us to better track and punish the few that cause the problems (if I had a dollar for every time I wish I could write down a bikes plate number...).
- r0m4n0 11y ago
  It would be an interesting discussion as I know they license boats etc... Maybe a small tax... If you look at it proportionally, you wouldn't be taxing bikes for the big budgets required to repair freeways or road damage from cars. I think bikes are pretty low impact on the roads that need constant repair from the average 3,000 lb car or 10,000 lb truck. Sadly involving a new license/tax on something involves government overhead that hopefully wouldn't be more than the tax they are collecting (or deter people from choosing a healthy and environmentally friendly alternative to driving).
- Kluny 11y ago
  Cars are heavier and cause more wear on the asphalt, require more road space, and generate more waste and pollution than bikes do. "Road use tax" isn't actually a thing, nor is it exclusive to car drivers - roads are paid for via the same taxes as everything else. Sales tax, income tax and property tax, distributed according to local, state, and federal budgets. Cyclists pay their share of the taxes that build roads via sales tax, income tax, and property tax, same as everyone else does. Most cyclists also own cars, and have paid all the relevant fees. Pick whichever argument you like the best.
  - r0m4n0 11y ago
    "Then-Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters stated on August 15, 2007 that about 60% of federal gas taxes are used for highway and bridge construction. The remaining 40% goes to earmarked programs." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_State... Not so sure about state taxes (gas or registration) but I believe its similar depending on where you live, paying more for local roads. Not saying its not fair but it makes some sense... people who buy gas or register pay the most (electric vehicles skirt this), people who don't drive pay some too through normal taxes as they utilize them for public transit, bikes, products they buy, or the food they eat.
    - Avshalom 11y ago
      THE NEXT SENTENCE: "However, revenues from other taxes are also used in federal transportation programs."
      - r0m4n0 11y ago
        Right, I definitely didn't say "drivers pay for all roads." They pay more through registration and gas taxes, that's why those programs and taxes were created... There may not be an official "road use tax" but that's the gist of what has been implemented.
- kleer001 11y ago
  tl;dr cost benefits aren't big enough. how are you going to enforce it? Just off the top of my head: They don't cost enough (like cars) to have a reasonable bottle neck on purchase. A slogged DMV would never agree to add 4x the customers by adding bicycle licenses. safety stats: 30,000 people were killed last year in the states in car related incidents. 700 people on bikes in same were killed in car related collisions. No one (as far as I find) is killed when they're hit by a bicycle.
  - LyndsySimon 11y ago
    > They don't cost enough (like cars) to have a reasonable bottle neck on purchase. I'm not sure I agree with this one. A decent commuter bike is going to run ~$500 new, and one can easily spend $2.5k on a bike. Obviously that's not as expensive as a car, but a nice new bike is approximately as expensive as a beater car.
    - kleer001 11y ago
      Sure, that's a bottleneck, but that's not all bicycles. And those expensive bikes are what percent of the bikes on the road everyday? Less than 2% I bet. But there's no way to tell as far as I can figure.
- soperj 11y ago
  What's the road impact of a bike? Nothing? At least where I'm from roads aren't paid for through licensing and gas tax, it's from housing taxes, so I pay more than my fair share.
- grardb 11y ago
  I ride a bike, and I pay taxes. I'm not sure what you mean by that. What is a fair share for bike riders? We don't have bike lanes on every street, and many of the bike lanes we do have aren't respected. Drivers double-park their cars on them. They also open their car doors without checking to see if bike riders are coming first. They also swerve in and out of them while texting. They also drive onto them to get around vehicles like garbage trucks, often without looking. Drivers make turns without looking both ways, often putting us at risk. I ride my bike to work every single day in New York. Every week, I have multiple close calls because of careless drivers, and sometimes because of careless pedestrians. I don't run red lights, and I don't even ride that fast. I ride my bike on the correct side of the street. You want me to pay extra taxes for what, exactly? My bike and myself combined are a little over 200lbs. Do I create potholes in the roads? Does my bike cause pollution? I don't think you ride a bike.
  - dorfsmay 11y ago
    I agree with you over all, but, 200 lbs vs 1.5 ton doesn't really matter, it's the pressure in the tires that make a difference in terms of impact to the road.
    - eightofdiamonds 11y ago
      You really believe that?
  - dominotw 11y ago
    >My bike and myself combined are a little over 200lbs. Do I create potholes in the roads? Does my bike cause pollution? What about the cost of building and maintenance of bike lanes and other associated costs that would be involved in increased complexity of cleaning/maintenance of roads due to bike lanes (more so if they are secluded from main traffic). Do you think this cost is justified for a minuscule percentage of population who choose to bike on the roads.
    - grardb 11y ago
      Have you ever been to New York? Outside of some parts of Manhattan, bike lanes aren't "built." There is some paint splashed onto the side of a street, and based on what I see, not much "maintenance" happens after that. There is no extra complexity because of that paint. Street cleaners disregard the bike lane as if it wasn't there (which I'm fine with). Regardless, I still pay taxes just like everyone else. I used to own a car, and I didn't pay any extra taxes. Why should I now that I have a bike?
- tirant 11y ago
  Easy. The same as why you don't tax people for sidewalk use. Car infrastructure is expensive, very expensive. And the need of having specific bike lanes have been imposed by the increment in presence of cars in our roads, not by the bike needs themselves. As for the plates, similar explanation. We don't need a plate on humans, as usually identification can be done ín-situ if required. On top of that, you want to reinforce the use of bikes, and not reduce it. Increasing bureaucracy for bikes will not help at all.
- andymacd 11y ago
  The "fair share" / tax arguement is often paraded but does not reflect the actual reality. Most of the cost of roadways is paid by general tax revenue and not vehicle specific fees. This study shows an interesting breakdown of the costs associated with driving vs walking. page 13 has a good chart http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf
- aniro 11y ago
  Not sure what you mean by "road use tax". Most funding for roads in the US is from the general fund and not provided by any use tax. The potential property damage and/or physical injury (not to mention general wear and tear upon roadways) that a bicycle can produce is minuscule in comparison to the potential destructive power of the automobile. Much of the legal justification for registration/licensing and taxation of vehicles is born from these factors.
- EarthIsHome 11y ago
  Bicyclists and pedestrians pay their fair share of the road. Actually, they pay far more their fair share than motorists do. By fair share, I mean the amount of taxes they pay for roads vs the amount of damage they cause to the roads. Motorists under pay for the damage they cause to the asphalt. The gas tax needs to be increased.
- imgabe 11y ago
  You WANT people riding bikes. Every bike on the road is a car not on the road. Every car not on the road decreases congestion for the remaining cars and decreases pollution for everyone. It should be as frictionless as possible for people of all ages and abilities to ride bikes in a city. Bike riders also pay taxes because they usually are able to actually live in the city where they work and ride their bike, so they're more likely to be paying property tax to the city, sales taxes to local merchants, actually being around on the evenings and weekends to patronize local business etc, instead of just commuting in during the day, creating traffic and then leaving the place a ghost town after 5pm.
- proactivesvcs 11y ago
  In the UK, owners of vehicles that produce poisonous emissions are required to pay Vehicle Excise Duty. Bicycles do not, and are hence exempt. Motor vehicles causing crashes, being stolen, damaged etc., cause a significant cost. A crash on the motorway can result in over GBP10,000 costs just to the carriageway, let alone if five cars and a truck are involved. A bicycle involved in a crash very rarely causes such damage. In the UK cyclists have an equal voice because the highways exist for them to use just as they exist for pedestrians, horse riders and motorists. This is enshrined in law so is a statutory right. Trivia fact: The cost of construction and upkeep of "motorways" (roads dedicated to motor vehicle traffic) outstrips the total income from VED year-on-year. In the UK, if you use a bicycle but never a car, you are subsidising motor travel.
- SixSigma 11y ago
  Winston Churchill opposed the Road Fund, saying: "It will be only a step from this for them to claim in a few years the moral ownership of the roads their contributions have created"
- panglott 11y ago
  In general, we don't tax and license people who use the roads. There is no licensing pedestrians, for example. And there was no licensing ox-carts in the 19th century. Similarly, when the safety bicycle was invented and popularized in the 1890s, there was no licensing for it. The change came with the automobile, which has huge mass and travels at high speed. The danger of the automobile to all other road users was so profound and unique that the need to license motor vehicles soon became quite clear. And even with driver licensing, cars kill thousands of people every year. Bicycles simply do not pose much of a threat to other road users, that would require cyclist licensing. Similarly, a 250-lb cyclist does not cause much wear and tear on the roads compared to a 2,500-lb motorist. Roads are more expensive because they have to be built for cars.
- CalRobert 11y ago
  "Paying your "fair share" of road use taxes gives you an equal voice when asking for specific use lanes" Well, property taxes pay for specific-use auto lanes even if one doesn't own a car, and nobody seems to mind that (well I do, but I'm weird). That being said, I would be THRILLED to pay for tolled bike lanes that were kept free of cars and other threats.
- ocschwar 11y ago
  Because in the major cities in the US, we tax real estate to pay for the roads. I pay my city $40 a year for the privilege of owning a car and living here. That's barely enough to cover salting in the winter. The rest of my city's road expense comes entirely from property tax and sales tax. So why add a tax for bikers?
- dodders 11y ago
  Only 50% of road maintenance is paid for by drivers via gas and registration taxes, the rest is covered by town and city taxes. So assuming that cyclists cause less than 50% of road wear, they are already paying more than their fare share of maintenance costs via town and city taxes. These figures are from 2010: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers-cover-just-51-percent-of-u-s-road-spending/ http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers-cover-just-51-...
shmerl 11y ago
I wish there were more bike lanes in Brooklyn. They are still pretty rare.
vanderZwan 11y ago
As a Dutchman, the first two paragraphs were quite infuriating to read; a list of arguments similar to the now-classic "Schödinger's immigrant"-joke ("simultaneously too lazy to work and stealing your job"). > Well, no wonder: Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks, not for people on bikes. Well good to see that the 1920s auto-industry propaganda[0] still has it's firm grip on American society! Roads were not made for cars, the cars claimed the roads once they got on the scene. You can choose to design them in a way that accomodates all[1]. The only reason I'd hate leaving the Netherlands is because no other country comes close in bike-friendliness at the moment (simply put: good bike infrastructure is so common it's barely noticed by the locals, because it's the norm[2]). I do hope that changes soon. [0] http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA [2] https://www.youtube.com/user/markenlei/videos?flow=grid&view=0&sort=p https://www.youtube.com/user/markenlei/videos?flow=grid&view...
- dominotw 11y ago
  >Well good to see that the 1920s auto-industry propaganda[0] still has it's firm grip on American society I am curious do you guys typically have showers at work ? One of the reason I don't bike to work is that we don't have showers at work. Most of days in this part of US are hot and humid and I don't feel like sitting at work drenched in sweat.
  - vanderZwan 11y ago
    Not always, but I've seen a few places that had it. But over here you don't really sweat when biking to work - it's not really an exercise, more like going on a very fast stroll to work. It would be unfair to pretend the Netherlands don't have a huge geographic advantage when it comes to bike-friendliness; it's a flat, small country with bad weather (read: neither hot nor humid).
    - dominotw 11y ago
      >But over here you don't really sweat when biking to work Thats not the case most parts of the world. Summers get really hot even in cold parts of the country here in the US. There are many factors at play here. Simply installing bike lanes is not enough. Blaming it all on 'auto industry propaganda' is not fair.
CalRobert 11y ago
I dunno about that, southern California remains a desolate hellscape full of people who joke about murdering me and my fellow cyclists like it's nothing at all.
blisterpeanuts 11y ago
Interesting perspective. Driving through Cambridge, Mass. recently, I noticed some nice bike lanes[1] that seem pretty nicely separated from both cars and pedestrians. I'm hoping that this approach will gain in popularity. What we lose in slightly narrower roads and more restrictive sidewalks, we gain in a safer separation of fast moving cyclers from both peds and cars. This is the future of urban transportation -- mixed use thruways that eventually must accommodate Segue-type vehicles, as more people (especially 20-somethings) appear to be moving away from motor cars. 1. https://goo.gl/maps/CkaLVGpeCbk https://goo.gl/maps/CkaLVGpeCbk
bradford 11y ago
This statement infuriated me: > "...And bike lanes are a dangerous lure, giving would-be riders a false sense of security that it’s safe to ride on streets" Proponents of vehicular cycling would state that the safest place to be is in the street. Bike lanes are dangerous because they give cyclists the impression that it's safe to ride in bike lanes. (http://bicyclesafe.com/ http://bicyclesafe.com/ outlines some of the dangers)
- proactivesvcs 11y ago
  And a lot of the UK "cycle lanes" I've ridden next to are preposterously narrow. I know of one that is narrower than my handlebars. As a result, motorists think (subconsciously or otherwise) that they can drive aside the cyclist, up to the line, instead of the advisory two meters when passing. I give these such a wide berth that most motorists realise that I'm blatantly avoiding such a lane and rarely give me grief. I assume they can see why!
elipsey 11y ago
Not too long ago, a cyclist in my town who was standing parked on the sidewalk was killed by a truck that tipped over. I was suprised by how many people said he had it coming -- that was the first comment on the local news website, and I heard elsewhere as well. Well, I can take a hint. I've largely stoped bike commuting because other people hate it. I have never been yelled at, harrassed, scolded, or bullied so much while using any other form of transport. I follow the rules and try to act humble; you just can't win when your doing something so unpopular and are at such a physical disadvantage to other road users. If I ride in the road drivers get mad and I'm risking my life, if I ride on the sidewalk pedestrians get mad and I'm breaking the law, and if I ride on the shoulder they both get mad and I can't turn or change lanes. Walking is a little better because you're mostly segregated from other road users so it's harder for them to retaliate. Drivers often don't yield to crosswalk signals or to pedestrians on sidewalks in my neighborhood, but they can't generally drive onto the sidewalk just to harrass me. On a bike people can sneak up behind you and honk, encroach on your lane, and get in front of you and brake aggresively, or just curse at you and run away. Things like this happen fairly often when I bike and there's not much I can do to avoid it except not bike. I see a few drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians breaking the law all the time, but for some reason, I don't see anyone claiming that this means all drivers deserve to die, only the other two things. I kind of wish that different users of different modes of transport could just call truce and stop picking fights with each other, but I'm not holding my breath, and I'm not interested in getting killed over it. I'm glad this is getting better in NYC but where I am it still sucks.
- splurge100 11y ago
  Where are you?
  - elipsey 11y ago
    Ithaca, ATM
    - diracshard 11y ago
      Good god, Ithaca, NY?! When I was there it was actually one of the more friendly and cool communities I'd lived in. It's a bummer to think that it could have gone so downhill as to be hostile to cyclists, given the demographic.
splurge100 11y ago
Copenhagen is one of the most wonderful cities to get around I've seen. Many of the bike lanes are separated and raised from vehicle street level by a small curb, which does not stop a determined vehicle (or out of control vehicle) from invading the lane, but does wonders for the psyche of the bicyclist. The feeling of gliding through the city via your own network of paths is incredible. There's often plenty of bike parking too. In my opinion, all densely populated cities with reasonable climates should be built that way. If San Francisco had similar dedicated lanes throughout the city, and more bike parking, I'd absolutely wager that car ownership (and all of those cars laying fallow on the street) would drop significantly.
iamthepieman 11y ago
This piece is screaming for more pictures. Here are some from the places mentioned in the article in the order of their appearance. Ninth Street: http://imgur.com/kc3IqM8 http://imgur.com/kc3IqM8 Grand Street: http://imgur.com/8nzlYys http://imgur.com/8nzlYys Kent Ave, Williamsburg: http://imgur.com/bscl26i http://imgur.com/bscl26i Prospect Park West: http://imgur.com/WiLvOyE http://imgur.com/WiLvOyE

71 points by dodders 11y ago

I like pieces like this. City governments all over have a lot more visibility into the decision-making process than previous generations have had, and sometimes that means that good policy can get drowned in bad NIMBYism, but having a tough public administrative class means they're able to tough out criticism to let time judge them on their merits.

dsl 11y ago

I have yet to hear a logical explanation for why we don't tax and licence bikes in major cities. Paying your "fair share" of road use taxes gives you an equal voice when asking for specific use lanes, and licence plates allow us to better track and punish the few that cause the problems (if I had a dollar for every time I wish I could write down a bikes plate number...).

r0m4n0 11y ago
It would be an interesting discussion as I know they license boats etc... Maybe a small tax... If you look at it proportionally, you wouldn't be taxing bikes for the big budgets required to repair freeways or road damage from cars. I think bikes are pretty low impact on the roads that need constant repair from the average 3,000 lb car or 10,000 lb truck. Sadly involving a new license/tax on something involves government overhead that hopefully wouldn't be more than the tax they are collecting (or deter people from choosing a healthy and environmentally friendly alternative to driving).
Kluny 11y ago
Cars are heavier and cause more wear on the asphalt, require more road space, and generate more waste and pollution than bikes do. "Road use tax" isn't actually a thing, nor is it exclusive to car drivers - roads are paid for via the same taxes as everything else. Sales tax, income tax and property tax, distributed according to local, state, and federal budgets. Cyclists pay their share of the taxes that build roads via sales tax, income tax, and property tax, same as everyone else does. Most cyclists also own cars, and have paid all the relevant fees. Pick whichever argument you like the best.
- r0m4n0 11y ago
  "Then-Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters stated on August 15, 2007 that about 60% of federal gas taxes are used for highway and bridge construction. The remaining 40% goes to earmarked programs." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_State... Not so sure about state taxes (gas or registration) but I believe its similar depending on where you live, paying more for local roads. Not saying its not fair but it makes some sense... people who buy gas or register pay the most (electric vehicles skirt this), people who don't drive pay some too through normal taxes as they utilize them for public transit, bikes, products they buy, or the food they eat.
  - Avshalom 11y ago
    THE NEXT SENTENCE: "However, revenues from other taxes are also used in federal transportation programs."
    - r0m4n0 11y ago
      Right, I definitely didn't say "drivers pay for all roads." They pay more through registration and gas taxes, that's why those programs and taxes were created... There may not be an official "road use tax" but that's the gist of what has been implemented.
kleer001 11y ago
tl;dr cost benefits aren't big enough. how are you going to enforce it? Just off the top of my head: They don't cost enough (like cars) to have a reasonable bottle neck on purchase. A slogged DMV would never agree to add 4x the customers by adding bicycle licenses. safety stats: 30,000 people were killed last year in the states in car related incidents. 700 people on bikes in same were killed in car related collisions. No one (as far as I find) is killed when they're hit by a bicycle.
- LyndsySimon 11y ago
  > They don't cost enough (like cars) to have a reasonable bottle neck on purchase. I'm not sure I agree with this one. A decent commuter bike is going to run ~$500 new, and one can easily spend $2.5k on a bike. Obviously that's not as expensive as a car, but a nice new bike is approximately as expensive as a beater car.
  - kleer001 11y ago
    Sure, that's a bottleneck, but that's not all bicycles. And those expensive bikes are what percent of the bikes on the road everyday? Less than 2% I bet. But there's no way to tell as far as I can figure.
soperj 11y ago
What's the road impact of a bike? Nothing? At least where I'm from roads aren't paid for through licensing and gas tax, it's from housing taxes, so I pay more than my fair share.
grardb 11y ago
I ride a bike, and I pay taxes. I'm not sure what you mean by that. What is a fair share for bike riders? We don't have bike lanes on every street, and many of the bike lanes we do have aren't respected. Drivers double-park their cars on them. They also open their car doors without checking to see if bike riders are coming first. They also swerve in and out of them while texting. They also drive onto them to get around vehicles like garbage trucks, often without looking. Drivers make turns without looking both ways, often putting us at risk. I ride my bike to work every single day in New York. Every week, I have multiple close calls because of careless drivers, and sometimes because of careless pedestrians. I don't run red lights, and I don't even ride that fast. I ride my bike on the correct side of the street. You want me to pay extra taxes for what, exactly? My bike and myself combined are a little over 200lbs. Do I create potholes in the roads? Does my bike cause pollution? I don't think you ride a bike.
- dorfsmay 11y ago
  I agree with you over all, but, 200 lbs vs 1.5 ton doesn't really matter, it's the pressure in the tires that make a difference in terms of impact to the road.
  - eightofdiamonds 11y ago
    You really believe that?
- dominotw 11y ago
  >My bike and myself combined are a little over 200lbs. Do I create potholes in the roads? Does my bike cause pollution? What about the cost of building and maintenance of bike lanes and other associated costs that would be involved in increased complexity of cleaning/maintenance of roads due to bike lanes (more so if they are secluded from main traffic). Do you think this cost is justified for a minuscule percentage of population who choose to bike on the roads.
  - grardb 11y ago
    Have you ever been to New York? Outside of some parts of Manhattan, bike lanes aren't "built." There is some paint splashed onto the side of a street, and based on what I see, not much "maintenance" happens after that. There is no extra complexity because of that paint. Street cleaners disregard the bike lane as if it wasn't there (which I'm fine with). Regardless, I still pay taxes just like everyone else. I used to own a car, and I didn't pay any extra taxes. Why should I now that I have a bike?
tirant 11y ago
Easy. The same as why you don't tax people for sidewalk use. Car infrastructure is expensive, very expensive. And the need of having specific bike lanes have been imposed by the increment in presence of cars in our roads, not by the bike needs themselves. As for the plates, similar explanation. We don't need a plate on humans, as usually identification can be done ín-situ if required. On top of that, you want to reinforce the use of bikes, and not reduce it. Increasing bureaucracy for bikes will not help at all.
andymacd 11y ago
The "fair share" / tax arguement is often paraded but does not reflect the actual reality. Most of the cost of roadways is paid by general tax revenue and not vehicle specific fees. This study shows an interesting breakdown of the costs associated with driving vs walking. page 13 has a good chart http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf
aniro 11y ago
Not sure what you mean by "road use tax". Most funding for roads in the US is from the general fund and not provided by any use tax. The potential property damage and/or physical injury (not to mention general wear and tear upon roadways) that a bicycle can produce is minuscule in comparison to the potential destructive power of the automobile. Much of the legal justification for registration/licensing and taxation of vehicles is born from these factors.
EarthIsHome 11y ago
Bicyclists and pedestrians pay their fair share of the road. Actually, they pay far more their fair share than motorists do. By fair share, I mean the amount of taxes they pay for roads vs the amount of damage they cause to the roads. Motorists under pay for the damage they cause to the asphalt. The gas tax needs to be increased.
imgabe 11y ago
You WANT people riding bikes. Every bike on the road is a car not on the road. Every car not on the road decreases congestion for the remaining cars and decreases pollution for everyone. It should be as frictionless as possible for people of all ages and abilities to ride bikes in a city. Bike riders also pay taxes because they usually are able to actually live in the city where they work and ride their bike, so they're more likely to be paying property tax to the city, sales taxes to local merchants, actually being around on the evenings and weekends to patronize local business etc, instead of just commuting in during the day, creating traffic and then leaving the place a ghost town after 5pm.
proactivesvcs 11y ago
In the UK, owners of vehicles that produce poisonous emissions are required to pay Vehicle Excise Duty. Bicycles do not, and are hence exempt. Motor vehicles causing crashes, being stolen, damaged etc., cause a significant cost. A crash on the motorway can result in over GBP10,000 costs just to the carriageway, let alone if five cars and a truck are involved. A bicycle involved in a crash very rarely causes such damage. In the UK cyclists have an equal voice because the highways exist for them to use just as they exist for pedestrians, horse riders and motorists. This is enshrined in law so is a statutory right. Trivia fact: The cost of construction and upkeep of "motorways" (roads dedicated to motor vehicle traffic) outstrips the total income from VED year-on-year. In the UK, if you use a bicycle but never a car, you are subsidising motor travel.
SixSigma 11y ago
Winston Churchill opposed the Road Fund, saying: "It will be only a step from this for them to claim in a few years the moral ownership of the roads their contributions have created"
panglott 11y ago
In general, we don't tax and license people who use the roads. There is no licensing pedestrians, for example. And there was no licensing ox-carts in the 19th century. Similarly, when the safety bicycle was invented and popularized in the 1890s, there was no licensing for it. The change came with the automobile, which has huge mass and travels at high speed. The danger of the automobile to all other road users was so profound and unique that the need to license motor vehicles soon became quite clear. And even with driver licensing, cars kill thousands of people every year. Bicycles simply do not pose much of a threat to other road users, that would require cyclist licensing. Similarly, a 250-lb cyclist does not cause much wear and tear on the roads compared to a 2,500-lb motorist. Roads are more expensive because they have to be built for cars.
CalRobert 11y ago
"Paying your "fair share" of road use taxes gives you an equal voice when asking for specific use lanes" Well, property taxes pay for specific-use auto lanes even if one doesn't own a car, and nobody seems to mind that (well I do, but I'm weird). That being said, I would be THRILLED to pay for tolled bike lanes that were kept free of cars and other threats.
ocschwar 11y ago
Because in the major cities in the US, we tax real estate to pay for the roads. I pay my city $40 a year for the privilege of owning a car and living here. That's barely enough to cover salting in the winter. The rest of my city's road expense comes entirely from property tax and sales tax. So why add a tax for bikers?
dodders 11y ago
Only 50% of road maintenance is paid for by drivers via gas and registration taxes, the rest is covered by town and city taxes. So assuming that cyclists cause less than 50% of road wear, they are already paying more than their fare share of maintenance costs via town and city taxes. These figures are from 2010: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers-cover-just-51-percent-of-u-s-road-spending/ http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers-cover-just-51-...

shmerl 11y ago

I wish there were more bike lanes in Brooklyn. They are still pretty rare.

vanderZwan 11y ago

As a Dutchman, the first two paragraphs were quite infuriating to read; a list of arguments similar to the now-classic "Schödinger's immigrant"-joke ("simultaneously too lazy to work and stealing your job"). > Well, no wonder: Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks, not for people on bikes. Well good to see that the 1920s auto-industry propaganda[0] still has it's firm grip on American society! Roads were not made for cars, the cars claimed the roads once they got on the scene. You can choose to design them in a way that accomodates all[1]. The only reason I'd hate leaving the Netherlands is because no other country comes close in bike-friendliness at the moment (simply put: good bike infrastructure is so common it's barely noticed by the locals, because it's the norm[2]). I do hope that changes soon. [0] http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA [2] https://www.youtube.com/user/markenlei/videos?flow=grid&view=0&sort=p https://www.youtube.com/user/markenlei/videos?flow=grid&view...

dominotw 11y ago
>Well good to see that the 1920s auto-industry propaganda[0] still has it's firm grip on American society I am curious do you guys typically have showers at work ? One of the reason I don't bike to work is that we don't have showers at work. Most of days in this part of US are hot and humid and I don't feel like sitting at work drenched in sweat.
- vanderZwan 11y ago
  Not always, but I've seen a few places that had it. But over here you don't really sweat when biking to work - it's not really an exercise, more like going on a very fast stroll to work. It would be unfair to pretend the Netherlands don't have a huge geographic advantage when it comes to bike-friendliness; it's a flat, small country with bad weather (read: neither hot nor humid).
  - dominotw 11y ago
    >But over here you don't really sweat when biking to work Thats not the case most parts of the world. Summers get really hot even in cold parts of the country here in the US. There are many factors at play here. Simply installing bike lanes is not enough. Blaming it all on 'auto industry propaganda' is not fair.

CalRobert 11y ago

I dunno about that, southern California remains a desolate hellscape full of people who joke about murdering me and my fellow cyclists like it's nothing at all.

blisterpeanuts 11y ago

Interesting perspective. Driving through Cambridge, Mass. recently, I noticed some nice bike lanes[1] that seem pretty nicely separated from both cars and pedestrians. I'm hoping that this approach will gain in popularity. What we lose in slightly narrower roads and more restrictive sidewalks, we gain in a safer separation of fast moving cyclers from both peds and cars. This is the future of urban transportation -- mixed use thruways that eventually must accommodate Segue-type vehicles, as more people (especially 20-somethings) appear to be moving away from motor cars. 1. https://goo.gl/maps/CkaLVGpeCbk https://goo.gl/maps/CkaLVGpeCbk

bradford 11y ago

This statement infuriated me: > "...And bike lanes are a dangerous lure, giving would-be riders a false sense of security that it’s safe to ride on streets" Proponents of vehicular cycling would state that the safest place to be is in the street. Bike lanes are dangerous because they give cyclists the impression that it's safe to ride in bike lanes. (http://bicyclesafe.com/ http://bicyclesafe.com/ outlines some of the dangers)

proactivesvcs 11y ago
And a lot of the UK "cycle lanes" I've ridden next to are preposterously narrow. I know of one that is narrower than my handlebars. As a result, motorists think (subconsciously or otherwise) that they can drive aside the cyclist, up to the line, instead of the advisory two meters when passing. I give these such a wide berth that most motorists realise that I'm blatantly avoiding such a lane and rarely give me grief. I assume they can see why!

elipsey 11y ago

Not too long ago, a cyclist in my town who was standing parked on the sidewalk was killed by a truck that tipped over. I was suprised by how many people said he had it coming -- that was the first comment on the local news website, and I heard elsewhere as well. Well, I can take a hint. I've largely stoped bike commuting because other people hate it. I have never been yelled at, harrassed, scolded, or bullied so much while using any other form of transport. I follow the rules and try to act humble; you just can't win when your doing something so unpopular and are at such a physical disadvantage to other road users. If I ride in the road drivers get mad and I'm risking my life, if I ride on the sidewalk pedestrians get mad and I'm breaking the law, and if I ride on the shoulder they both get mad and I can't turn or change lanes. Walking is a little better because you're mostly segregated from other road users so it's harder for them to retaliate. Drivers often don't yield to crosswalk signals or to pedestrians on sidewalks in my neighborhood, but they can't generally drive onto the sidewalk just to harrass me. On a bike people can sneak up behind you and honk, encroach on your lane, and get in front of you and brake aggresively, or just curse at you and run away. Things like this happen fairly often when I bike and there's not much I can do to avoid it except not bike. I see a few drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians breaking the law all the time, but for some reason, I don't see anyone claiming that this means all drivers deserve to die, only the other two things. I kind of wish that different users of different modes of transport could just call truce and stop picking fights with each other, but I'm not holding my breath, and I'm not interested in getting killed over it. I'm glad this is getting better in NYC but where I am it still sucks.

splurge100 11y ago
Where are you?
- elipsey 11y ago
  Ithaca, ATM
  - diracshard 11y ago
    Good god, Ithaca, NY?! When I was there it was actually one of the more friendly and cool communities I'd lived in. It's a bummer to think that it could have gone so downhill as to be hostile to cyclists, given the demographic.

splurge100 11y ago

Copenhagen is one of the most wonderful cities to get around I've seen. Many of the bike lanes are separated and raised from vehicle street level by a small curb, which does not stop a determined vehicle (or out of control vehicle) from invading the lane, but does wonders for the psyche of the bicyclist. The feeling of gliding through the city via your own network of paths is incredible. There's often plenty of bike parking too. In my opinion, all densely populated cities with reasonable climates should be built that way. If San Francisco had similar dedicated lanes throughout the city, and more bike parking, I'd absolutely wager that car ownership (and all of those cars laying fallow on the street) would drop significantly.

iamthepieman 11y ago

This piece is screaming for more pictures. Here are some from the places mentioned in the article in the order of their appearance. Ninth Street: http://imgur.com/kc3IqM8 http://imgur.com/kc3IqM8 Grand Street: http://imgur.com/8nzlYys http://imgur.com/8nzlYys Kent Ave, Williamsburg: http://imgur.com/bscl26i http://imgur.com/bscl26i Prospect Park West: http://imgur.com/WiLvOyE http://imgur.com/WiLvOyE