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

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.