4 ms·

Doing my driving lessons and my instructor is always ranting about cyclists. That they don't pay for all this infrastructure that is being built for them. Mate

Doing my driving lessons and my instructor is always ranting about cyclists. That they don't pay for all this infrastructure that is being built for them. Mate, roads and bridges are being built from tax money and everyone pays for it.

3pt14159 8y ago
Also each bike on the road takes a car off the road. The other problem in Toronto is that motorists think that petrol taxes cover roads. They don't even cover a quarter of the cost. So they get all indignant about it.
justinator 8y ago
Indeed. In the US, infrastructure like roads is heavily subsidized. This is my go-to article to share: https://momentummag.com/free-rider-myth/ https://momentummag.com/free-rider-myth/ From TFA: What if I told you that by driving a car you become a freeloader, a drain on the economy? That people who bicycle instead are subsidizing a road system that they are largely not welcome on? In order to break even on the cost of roads and pay for every driver who uses them each year, we would need 54% of commuters using a bicycle as their sole means of transportation.
- wool_gather 8y ago
  Nice article, thanks for sharing that! I also liked this tidbit from the linked paper (http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf): > Critics sometimes argue that walking and cycling primarily provide recreational travel [...] “Why should I— either as a highway user-tax payer or a general taxpayer—have to pay for someone else’s hobby?” > Travel surveys indicate that about half of all [cycling/walking] is “recreational,” including travel for exercise, sport and cultural events, and socializing (Kuzmyak and Dill 2012; Litman 2012), but so is more than half of all motor vehicle travel (BTS 2002). [emphasis mine]
  - justinator 8y ago
    That's very interesting. I'm somewhat in the outdoor industry, so the whole, ride-to-destination element of outdoor hobbies is a curious thing, in as much as the hobbies themselves - say, hiking, backpacking, mountain biking, are in National Forest (or similar) which have Leave No Trace Principles. The companies in these industries really tout these eco/enviro-friendly activities as perhaps a alternative to four-wheel-drivin' or whatever. Preservation of these nature resources is another big topic these companies talk about. But if one was to just zooms out, a significant amount of time/money is spent just getting to the place the hobby is done in, and there's certainly a lot of environmentally detrimental overhead associated with driving for hours in a car. It always leaves me scratching my head, really. Although we've done a good job with saying that some areas are important and need to be protected, we're also happy enough to put in vast ribbons of concrete roadway to get to them. A bit of an aside, I apologize.
    - frabbit 8y ago
      It's a great aside. And as the debate about over-crowding of the last remaining wildernesses is bound to develop, I wonder whether some "price/cost" which involves the effort expended to get to those places is appropriate.
      - justinator 8y ago
        It's going to be an interesting conversation, and I fear: a bit messy. One of the ways that you illustrate value in say, a Wilderness area or a National Park is by allowing visitation, so people can see first hand how unique an area is. If merely getting to the area is hard to do, these places won't be seen as so valuable to the general population (higher classes will have no problem getting to them, so it because a class issue all of a sudden). At least in the States, what we desperately need is a lower impact mass transportation system. I've heard all the arguments against railways (etc), and I don't disagree there's good points in those arguments. But it's not something I see pro-environment special interest groups that are around the outdoor industry really push. One such is, https://protectourwinters.org/ https://protectourwinters.org/ I actually don't know what these people do - they seem like they want to be lobbyists, but I think it's just grass-roots call of action type stuff to get people out to vote. Which I think is a fine idea, but there's so much more we can do.

3pt14159 8y ago

Also each bike on the road takes a car off the road. The other problem in Toronto is that motorists think that petrol taxes cover roads. They don't even cover a quarter of the cost. So they get all indignant about it.

justinator 8y ago

Indeed. In the US, infrastructure like roads is heavily subsidized. This is my go-to article to share: https://momentummag.com/free-rider-myth/ https://momentummag.com/free-rider-myth/ From TFA: What if I told you that by driving a car you become a freeloader, a drain on the economy? That people who bicycle instead are subsidizing a road system that they are largely not welcome on? In order to break even on the cost of roads and pay for every driver who uses them each year, we would need 54% of commuters using a bicycle as their sole means of transportation.

wool_gather 8y ago
Nice article, thanks for sharing that! I also liked this tidbit from the linked paper (http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf): > Critics sometimes argue that walking and cycling primarily provide recreational travel [...] “Why should I— either as a highway user-tax payer or a general taxpayer—have to pay for someone else’s hobby?” > Travel surveys indicate that about half of all [cycling/walking] is “recreational,” including travel for exercise, sport and cultural events, and socializing (Kuzmyak and Dill 2012; Litman 2012), but so is more than half of all motor vehicle travel (BTS 2002). [emphasis mine]
- justinator 8y ago
  That's very interesting. I'm somewhat in the outdoor industry, so the whole, ride-to-destination element of outdoor hobbies is a curious thing, in as much as the hobbies themselves - say, hiking, backpacking, mountain biking, are in National Forest (or similar) which have Leave No Trace Principles. The companies in these industries really tout these eco/enviro-friendly activities as perhaps a alternative to four-wheel-drivin' or whatever. Preservation of these nature resources is another big topic these companies talk about. But if one was to just zooms out, a significant amount of time/money is spent just getting to the place the hobby is done in, and there's certainly a lot of environmentally detrimental overhead associated with driving for hours in a car. It always leaves me scratching my head, really. Although we've done a good job with saying that some areas are important and need to be protected, we're also happy enough to put in vast ribbons of concrete roadway to get to them. A bit of an aside, I apologize.
  - frabbit 8y ago
    It's a great aside. And as the debate about over-crowding of the last remaining wildernesses is bound to develop, I wonder whether some "price/cost" which involves the effort expended to get to those places is appropriate.
    - justinator 8y ago
      It's going to be an interesting conversation, and I fear: a bit messy. One of the ways that you illustrate value in say, a Wilderness area or a National Park is by allowing visitation, so people can see first hand how unique an area is. If merely getting to the area is hard to do, these places won't be seen as so valuable to the general population (higher classes will have no problem getting to them, so it because a class issue all of a sudden). At least in the States, what we desperately need is a lower impact mass transportation system. I've heard all the arguments against railways (etc), and I don't disagree there's good points in those arguments. But it's not something I see pro-environment special interest groups that are around the outdoor industry really push. One such is, https://protectourwinters.org/ https://protectourwinters.org/ I actually don't know what these people do - they seem like they want to be lobbyists, but I think it's just grass-roots call of action type stuff to get people out to vote. Which I think is a fine idea, but there's so much more we can do.