9 ms·

I would like to start by saying I’m not against bicycles sharing the roads in anyway; I’m just attempting to explain the rationale for this kind of thinking in

I would like to start by saying I’m not against bicycles sharing the roads in anyway; I’m just attempting to explain the rationale for this kind of thinking in many people I know personally (in South Florida this is a hot button issue). Most roads are built primarily for motor vehicles, so when you are driving a car, you are driving on a road that you paid for specifically to drive your car on, and somebody else is leisurely (except for in certain big cities, most bicycling miles are done for leisure or sport) enjoying the same road for free, on a bicycle, putting themselves at risk and putting some of the burden of their risk on you (if they veer into your lane and you hit them, good luck trying to get out of that). A grossly exaggerated analogy would be seeing people come to your apartment complex and using the garbage chute as a slide for their kids to play on. If the kids are playing in the chute and you put garbage down it and injure one of them, you’re on the hook. Imagine how this would make you feel, every time you see parents bringing their kids to play in the chute.

Schaulustiger 8y ago
Huh, so you paid for the road and the cyclist didn't? I'm not an American, but I don't think there's a road tax for car owners in the US.
- magduf 8y ago
  It's some of both. We have fuel taxes which pay for roads, but it's not nearly enough (because the taxes are too low) so a lot of the funds come from general taxes, which everyone pays. So the drivers are paying more for the roads, but the cyclists are also paying for those roads with their income taxes, sales taxes, etc.
  - viscanti 8y ago
    > So the drivers are paying more for the roads, but the cyclists are also paying for those roads with their income taxes, sales taxes, etc. And cars also put the vast majority of the wear and tear on the roads. So while they might pay more overall, they don't pay their fair share compared to bike riders who fund the roads from their taxes. Bike riders (and people who don't use roads) end up subsidizing roads for people who drive cars.
    - magduf 8y ago
      Yes, that's somewhat correct. I think it's more correct, however, to say that trucks (commercial ones) account for the vast majority of wear and tear. I've read that the wear and tear scales with exponentially with the weight of the vehicle, and trucks can weigh up to 80,000 pounds, far more than your typical car that weighs 3000 or so. Of course, on residential roads, they don't usually have many large trucks. Also, in areas with snow, it seems that snowplows actually cause most of the potholes.
- thecount122195 8y ago
  I live in Colorado (Larimer County) and there is a county and city level road use tax when you register your car and it aint cheap my registration was $450.
  - Schaulustiger 8y ago
    Interesting, I didn't know that. What's the legal status of a cyclist on the road then? Are they normal participants in traffic? I generally find the tone of the discussion about cyclists here surprising. I'm from Germany, and while there is animosity between cyclists and car drivers, both are equally accepted on all roads (except the autobahn, of course). There's a movement in big cities towards more and more specific lanes for cyclists. I don't own a bicycle myself, but with regards to a car's emissions and the omnipresent wasteful parking slots, I'm all for strengthening the status of cyclists on roads.
    - thecount122195 8y ago
      Fort Collins where I am is the third most "bike friendly" city in the US, there are amble bike lanes and a strong bike culture but its amazing how many of them think the rules of the road don't apply to them, running stop signs, lane changes without hand signals, using the road lane rather than the bike lane. I get very nervous driving around town because you never know if the persons going to follow the rules and stop or just run the stop sign and slam into the side of your car. I'm all for bikes but they need to follow the same rules as the cars if they want to share the space.
  - bryanlarsen 8y ago
    Which at $10M / mile, pays for less than 3 inches of a highway.
- viscanti 8y ago
  There are fuel taxes which mean that cars pay a disproportionate amount for road maintenance. But cars also put 99.99% of all the wear and tear on roads. Fuel taxes (which never pay for all of a road - general taxes pay for them as well) don't even cover the disproportionate wear and tear for necessary maintenance from vehicles. So in reality bike riders and people who don't ever use roads subsidize the roads for car drivers. It's NOT car drivers paying for all of it, they don't even pay their fair share based on the ongoing maintenance burden they impose on the roads.
- efnx 8y ago
  It’s funny that the parent poster mentions this - it’s likely that either the cyclist has a car, payed in the same manner as the driver and is in the moment using the road for “leisure or sport” - or the cyclist really needs to use the road and bike for transportation. There really is no acceptable, rational reason for animosity towards cyclists. I think it comes down to the same gut instincts as racism, sexism and xenophobia - when there’s a problem people look for whatever thing seems most different in their current surroundings and blame that thing for the problem. It’s just a lack of thinking.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >There really is no acceptable, rational reason for animosity towards cyclists. No rational reason for drivers in a road predominantly used from big vehicles to not like smaller, hard to see, vehicles with greater flexibility and much more fragile going around them? The added care you need to have as a car driver, and danger they impose of accident, is not enough? Especially since most of the time (e.g. in highways, interstates, etc) you get to have the road to just cars and don't have all this?
    - efnx 8y ago
      Being careful and aware of your surroundings is a prerequisite for driving. If you can’t avoid small vehicles you need to get off the road.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- coldtea 8y ago
  Of course there are. There are registration fees (and not because the act of registration itself is expensive), and in many states vehicle taxes. In many other countries those are even worse, including added state taxes on fuel, and so on.
magduf 8y ago
Basically, it comes down to drivers being selfish assholes. It's not like they're all doing something important with those roads: many of them are driving around for leisure, to see their friends, to go out to eat, to just "take a drive", etc. They have no more right to the road than the cyclists. The problem is that the drivers don't want to make their politicians build proper cycle-ways for bicyclists to safely travel in. If there were proper bike routes, then you wouldn't see cyclists on the roads slowing people down. It's largely the same with your garbage chute example. If the complex (or the municipality) can't be bothered to build any decent places for kids to play, like playgrounds, then don't be surprised when they repurpose other things for that. Decent towns and cities always have playgrounds for kids to entertain themselves.
Buldak 8y ago
>if they veer into your lane and you hit them, good luck trying to get out of that I don't doubt that your description of driver psychology is largely correct, but this statement in particular is pretty far from reality. In practice, it's astonishingly easy for drivers to get away with injuring or killing both cyclists and pedestrians, even when they are clearly at fault.
- massivecali 8y ago
  It's also astonishingly easy for cyclists to flaunt road rules against the rest of us who sre aghast at accidentally killing another human being, regardless of their violations of the rules of the road.
  - thecount122195 8y ago
    Its amazing how many bicyclists dont think stop signs apply to them
    - ubu7737 8y ago
      Perhaps they do not. The rule that slower traffic always has the right of way should be observed.
      - massivecali 8y ago
        Slow trucks are obligated to pull to the side of the road when traffic backs up behind them. Bicycles ignore that.
m0nty 8y ago
I do realise you are just putting a view which you might not share, but still: The problem with the idea that car drivers pay for the roads out of vehicle tax is flawed, since very often (not sure about the US, but this is true in the UK) the costs of roads are (a) much higher than annual "road tax" receipts, and (b) often met from local taxation or national taxes. So, you get to pay for them even if you are not a primary user. In addition, when you factor in the health disbenefits (road casualties and air pollution) then motorists don't come anywhere near paying for the damaging effects they create. I both drive and cycle, btw. You are right that (in many countries) roads are designed primarily for motor vehicles, but that doesn't mean other vehicles can't use them. Carlton Reid's book "Roads Were Not Built for Cars" (http://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/ http://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/) has US and UK perspectives on this. It discusses cycling's origins and I find it interesting that in the 1800s cyclists were often seen as reckless and inconsiderate, and I wonder if this contributes to some kind of "folk memory" to this day, i.e. ideas being passed from one generation to the next without much in the way of critical analysis. In any case, mistreating someone based on their mode of transport makes about as much sense as doing so for any other arbitrary reason. I really can't understand it on an emotional level. Anyway, thanks for the insight: it is taken in the spirit it was offered.
- kelnos 8y ago
  > The problem with the idea that car drivers pay for the roads out of vehicle tax is flawed, since very often (not sure about the US, but this is true in the UK)... This is true in the US as well; the cost of road maintenance in most states is not even remotely covered by the payment of vehicle, licensing, and fuel taxes and fees.
  - m0nty 8y ago
    Before we even get onto climate change, noise pollution's effects on the brain, smoke's effects on internal organs, etc.
dfxm12 8y ago
So you think South Floridians see bikers as inhuman because they maybe haven't paid a specific tax? Or because they feel entitled to a stretch of road and everyone not using in their prescribed way is inhuman? Or they think the biker is inhuman because they have so little faith in their legal system that they will be wrongfully accused of a crime? These are a stretch.
scarejunba 8y ago
I think these guys have a point, actually. We should stop funding roads through a common fund. Or police and fire and schools. Pay for what you use. Even pricing. I pay $200k in taxes. If I don't get to use these roads, they don't get to use my money on schools.

Schaulustiger 8y ago

Huh, so you paid for the road and the cyclist didn't? I'm not an American, but I don't think there's a road tax for car owners in the US.

magduf 8y ago
It's some of both. We have fuel taxes which pay for roads, but it's not nearly enough (because the taxes are too low) so a lot of the funds come from general taxes, which everyone pays. So the drivers are paying more for the roads, but the cyclists are also paying for those roads with their income taxes, sales taxes, etc.
- viscanti 8y ago
  > So the drivers are paying more for the roads, but the cyclists are also paying for those roads with their income taxes, sales taxes, etc. And cars also put the vast majority of the wear and tear on the roads. So while they might pay more overall, they don't pay their fair share compared to bike riders who fund the roads from their taxes. Bike riders (and people who don't use roads) end up subsidizing roads for people who drive cars.
  - magduf 8y ago
    Yes, that's somewhat correct. I think it's more correct, however, to say that trucks (commercial ones) account for the vast majority of wear and tear. I've read that the wear and tear scales with exponentially with the weight of the vehicle, and trucks can weigh up to 80,000 pounds, far more than your typical car that weighs 3000 or so. Of course, on residential roads, they don't usually have many large trucks. Also, in areas with snow, it seems that snowplows actually cause most of the potholes.
thecount122195 8y ago
I live in Colorado (Larimer County) and there is a county and city level road use tax when you register your car and it aint cheap my registration was $450.
- Schaulustiger 8y ago
  Interesting, I didn't know that. What's the legal status of a cyclist on the road then? Are they normal participants in traffic? I generally find the tone of the discussion about cyclists here surprising. I'm from Germany, and while there is animosity between cyclists and car drivers, both are equally accepted on all roads (except the autobahn, of course). There's a movement in big cities towards more and more specific lanes for cyclists. I don't own a bicycle myself, but with regards to a car's emissions and the omnipresent wasteful parking slots, I'm all for strengthening the status of cyclists on roads.
  - thecount122195 8y ago
    Fort Collins where I am is the third most "bike friendly" city in the US, there are amble bike lanes and a strong bike culture but its amazing how many of them think the rules of the road don't apply to them, running stop signs, lane changes without hand signals, using the road lane rather than the bike lane. I get very nervous driving around town because you never know if the persons going to follow the rules and stop or just run the stop sign and slam into the side of your car. I'm all for bikes but they need to follow the same rules as the cars if they want to share the space.
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  Which at $10M / mile, pays for less than 3 inches of a highway.
viscanti 8y ago
There are fuel taxes which mean that cars pay a disproportionate amount for road maintenance. But cars also put 99.99% of all the wear and tear on roads. Fuel taxes (which never pay for all of a road - general taxes pay for them as well) don't even cover the disproportionate wear and tear for necessary maintenance from vehicles. So in reality bike riders and people who don't ever use roads subsidize the roads for car drivers. It's NOT car drivers paying for all of it, they don't even pay their fair share based on the ongoing maintenance burden they impose on the roads.
efnx 8y ago
It’s funny that the parent poster mentions this - it’s likely that either the cyclist has a car, payed in the same manner as the driver and is in the moment using the road for “leisure or sport” - or the cyclist really needs to use the road and bike for transportation. There really is no acceptable, rational reason for animosity towards cyclists. I think it comes down to the same gut instincts as racism, sexism and xenophobia - when there’s a problem people look for whatever thing seems most different in their current surroundings and blame that thing for the problem. It’s just a lack of thinking.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >There really is no acceptable, rational reason for animosity towards cyclists. No rational reason for drivers in a road predominantly used from big vehicles to not like smaller, hard to see, vehicles with greater flexibility and much more fragile going around them? The added care you need to have as a car driver, and danger they impose of accident, is not enough? Especially since most of the time (e.g. in highways, interstates, etc) you get to have the road to just cars and don't have all this?
  - efnx 8y ago
    Being careful and aware of your surroundings is a prerequisite for driving. If you can’t avoid small vehicles you need to get off the road.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
coldtea 8y ago
Of course there are. There are registration fees (and not because the act of registration itself is expensive), and in many states vehicle taxes. In many other countries those are even worse, including added state taxes on fuel, and so on.

magduf 8y ago

Basically, it comes down to drivers being selfish assholes. It's not like they're all doing something important with those roads: many of them are driving around for leisure, to see their friends, to go out to eat, to just "take a drive", etc. They have no more right to the road than the cyclists. The problem is that the drivers don't want to make their politicians build proper cycle-ways for bicyclists to safely travel in. If there were proper bike routes, then you wouldn't see cyclists on the roads slowing people down. It's largely the same with your garbage chute example. If the complex (or the municipality) can't be bothered to build any decent places for kids to play, like playgrounds, then don't be surprised when they repurpose other things for that. Decent towns and cities always have playgrounds for kids to entertain themselves.

Buldak 8y ago

>if they veer into your lane and you hit them, good luck trying to get out of that I don't doubt that your description of driver psychology is largely correct, but this statement in particular is pretty far from reality. In practice, it's astonishingly easy for drivers to get away with injuring or killing both cyclists and pedestrians, even when they are clearly at fault.

massivecali 8y ago
It's also astonishingly easy for cyclists to flaunt road rules against the rest of us who sre aghast at accidentally killing another human being, regardless of their violations of the rules of the road.
- thecount122195 8y ago
  Its amazing how many bicyclists dont think stop signs apply to them
  - ubu7737 8y ago
    Perhaps they do not. The rule that slower traffic always has the right of way should be observed.
    - massivecali 8y ago
      Slow trucks are obligated to pull to the side of the road when traffic backs up behind them. Bicycles ignore that.

m0nty 8y ago

I do realise you are just putting a view which you might not share, but still: The problem with the idea that car drivers pay for the roads out of vehicle tax is flawed, since very often (not sure about the US, but this is true in the UK) the costs of roads are (a) much higher than annual "road tax" receipts, and (b) often met from local taxation or national taxes. So, you get to pay for them even if you are not a primary user. In addition, when you factor in the health disbenefits (road casualties and air pollution) then motorists don't come anywhere near paying for the damaging effects they create. I both drive and cycle, btw. You are right that (in many countries) roads are designed primarily for motor vehicles, but that doesn't mean other vehicles can't use them. Carlton Reid's book "Roads Were Not Built for Cars" (http://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/ http://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/) has US and UK perspectives on this. It discusses cycling's origins and I find it interesting that in the 1800s cyclists were often seen as reckless and inconsiderate, and I wonder if this contributes to some kind of "folk memory" to this day, i.e. ideas being passed from one generation to the next without much in the way of critical analysis. In any case, mistreating someone based on their mode of transport makes about as much sense as doing so for any other arbitrary reason. I really can't understand it on an emotional level. Anyway, thanks for the insight: it is taken in the spirit it was offered.

kelnos 8y ago
> The problem with the idea that car drivers pay for the roads out of vehicle tax is flawed, since very often (not sure about the US, but this is true in the UK)... This is true in the US as well; the cost of road maintenance in most states is not even remotely covered by the payment of vehicle, licensing, and fuel taxes and fees.
- m0nty 8y ago
  Before we even get onto climate change, noise pollution's effects on the brain, smoke's effects on internal organs, etc.

dfxm12 8y ago

So you think South Floridians see bikers as inhuman because they maybe haven't paid a specific tax? Or because they feel entitled to a stretch of road and everyone not using in their prescribed way is inhuman? Or they think the biker is inhuman because they have so little faith in their legal system that they will be wrongfully accused of a crime? These are a stretch.

scarejunba 8y ago

I think these guys have a point, actually. We should stop funding roads through a common fund. Or police and fire and schools. Pay for what you use. Even pricing. I pay $200k in taxes. If I don't get to use these roads, they don't get to use my money on schools.