3 ms·

Should we then charge money for entrance to the bike lane? I don’t own a car but I have friends with children, others who drive ride share, and many other reas

Should we then charge money for entrance to the bike lane? I don’t own a car but I have friends with children, others who drive ride share, and many other reasons why they need a car. They can’t afford to pay for a garage (many people live in subsidized or rent controlled places) and don’t need a bike. What should they do?

jcranmer 7y ago
You haven't given any actual reasons why someone needs a car so badly that the government ought to subsidize their ownership of one. Having small kids is not enough--and yes, I am well acquainted with the logistics of traveling with infants and toddlers. Even needing to drive for your job isn't enough: if a car is a requisite part of the job, it's the employer's responsibility to provide materials or sufficient compensation for the employee to do it. (This is where I note that ride-sharing firms are basically relying on drivers not realizing they're insufficiently compensated for the costs of actually driving).
- nemo44x 7y ago
  Why do we need bike lanes? Why should the government subsidize them? Use public transit. Bike lanes are absolutely not subsidized by the bike riding tax base. It’s a hand out. It’s the exact same thing. People with cars need to park them. Many people can’t afford a garage. You don’t own the street spot and have to move it daily. Many street parkers have to walk many blocks to their cars. Regardless of why people have cars, they do. They pay sales tax on them, registration tax, and fuel tax. Not to mention parking tickets from time to time. Why should the government only allow the wealthy to have cars? It’s thinking like this that gave way to the ridiculous EV lanes. Let the wealthy cruise through traffic to their high paying job in their 100k Tesla. Meanwhile the person in the old fuel inefficient beater has to idle in traffic, burning fuel, as they worry about being late to their second job and get fired. Maybe we should next ban factory farming so only the wealthy can eat meat.
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    I sometimes say that car drivers are the most entitled class I have met, and your response here is a classic example of what I mean by that. Any attempt to take a millimeter of space away from cars is an unacceptable war on cars; any attempt to improve the transportation experience for other modes of transportation of cars is a waste of money (or worse); any attempt to actually make drivers pay their way [1] is an unacceptable tax. And should there ever be a collision between a car and anything other than a car, it can never be the driver's fault (that is what disgusts me the most). At the end of the day, your arguments are not persuasive, because all you're really complaining about is that the transportation priority doesn't resolve around you. You're couching it as sympathy for the poor, but it's not the poor you're trying to help, it's the middle class who don't want to face the trade-offs of how to allocate space with far more demand than supply. The poor can't afford the car in the first place. [1] Fuel taxes are far from sufficient for paying for the cost of roads. Note that, at the federal level, they haven't budged since the 90s, despite inflation and massive improvements in fuel economy. The Highway Trust Fund has been dependent on general fund transfers for well over a decade.
    - nemo44x 7y ago
      > At the end of the day, your arguments are not persuasive, because all you're really complaining about is that the transportation priority doesn't resolve around you. I don't own a car. But I sympathize with people that do and many people need them for various reasons. In addition, restricting cars to the high income earners of the city is unjust. And we all use the streets and parking spots more than we think. People need to park to deliver things to you, you may rent a car from time to time and need to park on the street, some people need cars to visit family that aren't near train lines, etc. Streets are pointless without the ability to park your car. If that was the case then parking garages would have a monopoly and prices would increase with the demand. We need bike lanes too but keep them on some of the avenues and only the major cross streets. Ride on the street between those and if you don't feel safe doing that then walk your bike on the sidewalk when needed.
  - wan23 7y ago
    Bike lanes are not equivalent to parking spaces - they're equivalent to roads. The government certainly subsidizes the streets and avenues in the city. They would be much cheaper to maintain if more of them were restricted to being pedestrian and bicycle only, but then as usual people with cars would complain about losing their free access.

jcranmer 7y ago

You haven't given any actual reasons why someone needs a car so badly that the government ought to subsidize their ownership of one. Having small kids is not enough--and yes, I am well acquainted with the logistics of traveling with infants and toddlers. Even needing to drive for your job isn't enough: if a car is a requisite part of the job, it's the employer's responsibility to provide materials or sufficient compensation for the employee to do it. (This is where I note that ride-sharing firms are basically relying on drivers not realizing they're insufficiently compensated for the costs of actually driving).

nemo44x 7y ago
Why do we need bike lanes? Why should the government subsidize them? Use public transit. Bike lanes are absolutely not subsidized by the bike riding tax base. It’s a hand out. It’s the exact same thing. People with cars need to park them. Many people can’t afford a garage. You don’t own the street spot and have to move it daily. Many street parkers have to walk many blocks to their cars. Regardless of why people have cars, they do. They pay sales tax on them, registration tax, and fuel tax. Not to mention parking tickets from time to time. Why should the government only allow the wealthy to have cars? It’s thinking like this that gave way to the ridiculous EV lanes. Let the wealthy cruise through traffic to their high paying job in their 100k Tesla. Meanwhile the person in the old fuel inefficient beater has to idle in traffic, burning fuel, as they worry about being late to their second job and get fired. Maybe we should next ban factory farming so only the wealthy can eat meat.
- jcranmer 7y ago
  I sometimes say that car drivers are the most entitled class I have met, and your response here is a classic example of what I mean by that. Any attempt to take a millimeter of space away from cars is an unacceptable war on cars; any attempt to improve the transportation experience for other modes of transportation of cars is a waste of money (or worse); any attempt to actually make drivers pay their way [1] is an unacceptable tax. And should there ever be a collision between a car and anything other than a car, it can never be the driver's fault (that is what disgusts me the most). At the end of the day, your arguments are not persuasive, because all you're really complaining about is that the transportation priority doesn't resolve around you. You're couching it as sympathy for the poor, but it's not the poor you're trying to help, it's the middle class who don't want to face the trade-offs of how to allocate space with far more demand than supply. The poor can't afford the car in the first place. [1] Fuel taxes are far from sufficient for paying for the cost of roads. Note that, at the federal level, they haven't budged since the 90s, despite inflation and massive improvements in fuel economy. The Highway Trust Fund has been dependent on general fund transfers for well over a decade.
  - nemo44x 7y ago
    > At the end of the day, your arguments are not persuasive, because all you're really complaining about is that the transportation priority doesn't resolve around you. I don't own a car. But I sympathize with people that do and many people need them for various reasons. In addition, restricting cars to the high income earners of the city is unjust. And we all use the streets and parking spots more than we think. People need to park to deliver things to you, you may rent a car from time to time and need to park on the street, some people need cars to visit family that aren't near train lines, etc. Streets are pointless without the ability to park your car. If that was the case then parking garages would have a monopoly and prices would increase with the demand. We need bike lanes too but keep them on some of the avenues and only the major cross streets. Ride on the street between those and if you don't feel safe doing that then walk your bike on the sidewalk when needed.
- wan23 7y ago
  Bike lanes are not equivalent to parking spaces - they're equivalent to roads. The government certainly subsidizes the streets and avenues in the city. They would be much cheaper to maintain if more of them were restricted to being pedestrian and bicycle only, but then as usual people with cars would complain about losing their free access.