5 ms·

Because bikes DO NOT belong on roads. Getting hit by a car while you're on a bike is deadly. A bike running into a pedestrian on a sidewalk is an inconvenience.

alistairSH 5y ago
Then give them someplace appropriate! As soon as I have dedicated/safe bike lanes, I’ll get out of your road. Until then, please try not to kill me.
- notch656a 5y ago
  I disagree agree with poster, but to play devils advocate bicyclists are a free rider problem on public roads. It's pretty clear based on the design of most roads they were designed for motor vehicles, not bicycles. Fuel taxes are a major way these roads are funded and maintained, and bicyclists don't pay registration / licensing / fuel tax. Especially in heavily urban areas, roads have extremely high land value that bicyclists are unjustly profiting from. It's not clear to me why there should be any right for bicyclists to be allowed on the road.
  - 8note 5y ago
    I'm not clear that there should be any right for cars to be on the road either. Roads are for people to walk on, historically, and it's adding cars that made them dangerous. They're paid for by people who largely don't need them, too - the folks who live in the inner city
    - notch656a 5y ago
      People driving fuel consuming vehicles are paying for the roads via fuel tax, and registration fees to the states maintaining those roads. These drivers are funding these roads thus it makes sense for them to be compensated for their payment. It's conceivable a bicyclist can get away without paying any tax whatsoever on the road, especially if their income is small. Free rider, welfare queens of the road. >Roads are for people to walk on, historically, and it's adding cars that made them dangerous In urban areas that's actually typically what the sidewalk for, and it's often illegal to walk on the road. But this is why I'm against public roads, there are all sorts of bad problems associated with this being a public good.
      - alistairSH 5y ago
        I own two expensive cars that get driven. So, I’m paying my share of fuel taxes and above average registration/property taxes. When the wear cyclists pit on roads becomes a problem, we can discuss mitigating it. But, we’re nowhere near that point. Historically, streets were for walking. Walking in cities predates cars in cities by thousands of years.
        notch656a 5y ago
        You're probably way overpaying for your use of the road if you have 2 cars. It's just an insane system to have public roads, where people like you are subsidizing large vehicles that wear the road much faster as well as many bicyclists who pay nothing. Public roads where the land value sometimes unjustly supports motor vehicles when bike only roads would far more represent judicial use of public coffers, other times supports free-rider bicyclists when others bear the burden of providing the road. >Historically, streets were for walking. Walking in cities predates cars in cities by thousands of years. Historically, thousands of years ago, women commonly died in childbirth, a large fraction of children died before reaching age 5, and the only way for the greatest portion of the population to survive was manual labor in agriculture or some sort of subsistence existence. Most roads at least in US were not built thousands of years ago, a overwhelming portion of the total road area in America was designed with motor vehicle transportation in mind. To suggest American roads are built as places for walking, for the vast portion of mileage, is just laughable at face and you only have to witness them to see this. And, in many cases, illegal. Privatize the roads, IMO, and let the market decide how to efficiently allocate costs. It would be the fastest way to move towards more efficient systems in urban areas, such as much more bicyclists rather than wasteful cars. Bicyclists would pay their share, but see that it is very low. Car drivers may just see how wasteful it is to drive everywhere, when the cost is in front of them. It could lead to a rejuvenation and revival of the age of the urban bicyclist -- and just maybe a safer and cleaner world for everyone.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Rights don't depend on what you pay taxes for; those would be fees and services. Roads are generally considered a public good, a commons, not a service you pay for (beyond toll highways)
    - notch656a 5y ago
      Bicyclists are a tragedy of the commons. This is yet another reason why I'm in favor of complete elimination of public roads in favor of private/toll roads. There is no 'right' to a bicyclists being provided a free public road in the way there is say a right to free speech.
      - meetups323 5y ago
        Access to good roads is among the very few things that is so vastly important to the general prosperity of the population that leaving them to private companies would do more harm than good. As the dude I overhead in some backcountry bar in the middle of nowhere put it: the government should pay for two things - clean water, smooth roads, and that's it.
        notch656a 5y ago
        I'd argue precisely because they are so important, is why I'm so sure the government should have its hand out of it.
        mikecoles 5y ago
        Must not have been back into the country very far as water from a well doesn't need to be supplied by the government and rough roads keeps the outsiders outside.
      - thesuitonym 5y ago
        I'd argue cars are the tragedy of the commons. Roads existed before cars, and they were for people and, yes, bicycles. Cars came and took them over, made them extremely unpleasant and unsafe places to be, require much more infrastructure and are much less efficient for short trips.
  - Cerium 5y ago
    Fuel taxes are a major source of funding, but depending on state it is not even the majority. California sits at about 50% funding by fuel tax [1]. Road wear does not scale linearly with vehicle weight either; larger vehicles add significant damage to the roads while pedestrians and bicycles have virtually no impact [2]. This matches my experience as well, a bike and pedestrian only trail in my hometown has been repaved only once in the last thirty years and is in good condition, while the roads have received more maintenance and are in poorer condition. I would be in favor of moving to a per mile, per pound (scaled by actual wear estimates) axle weight tax system for all vehicles including bicycles. Based on the data though, it could get very expensive for some cars and would likely be nothing but an administrative burden for bicycles. [1] https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/ https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/ [2] https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/ https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weigh...
  - imtringued 5y ago
    Cars have a free rider problem. Public transport is expected to pay itself but since car infrastructure is subsidized public transport has to be subsidized to be competitive.
  - psd1 5y ago
    OTOH it's not cyclists that require roads to have extensive groundwork and be ten metres wide

alistairSH 5y ago

Then give them someplace appropriate! As soon as I have dedicated/safe bike lanes, I’ll get out of your road. Until then, please try not to kill me.

notch656a 5y ago
I disagree agree with poster, but to play devils advocate bicyclists are a free rider problem on public roads. It's pretty clear based on the design of most roads they were designed for motor vehicles, not bicycles. Fuel taxes are a major way these roads are funded and maintained, and bicyclists don't pay registration / licensing / fuel tax. Especially in heavily urban areas, roads have extremely high land value that bicyclists are unjustly profiting from. It's not clear to me why there should be any right for bicyclists to be allowed on the road.
- 8note 5y ago
  I'm not clear that there should be any right for cars to be on the road either. Roads are for people to walk on, historically, and it's adding cars that made them dangerous. They're paid for by people who largely don't need them, too - the folks who live in the inner city
  - notch656a 5y ago
    People driving fuel consuming vehicles are paying for the roads via fuel tax, and registration fees to the states maintaining those roads. These drivers are funding these roads thus it makes sense for them to be compensated for their payment. It's conceivable a bicyclist can get away without paying any tax whatsoever on the road, especially if their income is small. Free rider, welfare queens of the road. >Roads are for people to walk on, historically, and it's adding cars that made them dangerous In urban areas that's actually typically what the sidewalk for, and it's often illegal to walk on the road. But this is why I'm against public roads, there are all sorts of bad problems associated with this being a public good.
    - alistairSH 5y ago
      I own two expensive cars that get driven. So, I’m paying my share of fuel taxes and above average registration/property taxes. When the wear cyclists pit on roads becomes a problem, we can discuss mitigating it. But, we’re nowhere near that point. Historically, streets were for walking. Walking in cities predates cars in cities by thousands of years.
      - notch656a 5y ago
        You're probably way overpaying for your use of the road if you have 2 cars. It's just an insane system to have public roads, where people like you are subsidizing large vehicles that wear the road much faster as well as many bicyclists who pay nothing. Public roads where the land value sometimes unjustly supports motor vehicles when bike only roads would far more represent judicial use of public coffers, other times supports free-rider bicyclists when others bear the burden of providing the road. >Historically, streets were for walking. Walking in cities predates cars in cities by thousands of years. Historically, thousands of years ago, women commonly died in childbirth, a large fraction of children died before reaching age 5, and the only way for the greatest portion of the population to survive was manual labor in agriculture or some sort of subsistence existence. Most roads at least in US were not built thousands of years ago, a overwhelming portion of the total road area in America was designed with motor vehicle transportation in mind. To suggest American roads are built as places for walking, for the vast portion of mileage, is just laughable at face and you only have to witness them to see this. And, in many cases, illegal. Privatize the roads, IMO, and let the market decide how to efficiently allocate costs. It would be the fastest way to move towards more efficient systems in urban areas, such as much more bicyclists rather than wasteful cars. Bicyclists would pay their share, but see that it is very low. Car drivers may just see how wasteful it is to drive everywhere, when the cost is in front of them. It could lead to a rejuvenation and revival of the age of the urban bicyclist -- and just maybe a safer and cleaner world for everyone.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Rights don't depend on what you pay taxes for; those would be fees and services. Roads are generally considered a public good, a commons, not a service you pay for (beyond toll highways)
  - notch656a 5y ago
    Bicyclists are a tragedy of the commons. This is yet another reason why I'm in favor of complete elimination of public roads in favor of private/toll roads. There is no 'right' to a bicyclists being provided a free public road in the way there is say a right to free speech.
    - meetups323 5y ago
      Access to good roads is among the very few things that is so vastly important to the general prosperity of the population that leaving them to private companies would do more harm than good. As the dude I overhead in some backcountry bar in the middle of nowhere put it: the government should pay for two things - clean water, smooth roads, and that's it.
      - notch656a 5y ago
        I'd argue precisely because they are so important, is why I'm so sure the government should have its hand out of it.
      - mikecoles 5y ago
        Must not have been back into the country very far as water from a well doesn't need to be supplied by the government and rough roads keeps the outsiders outside.
    - thesuitonym 5y ago
      I'd argue cars are the tragedy of the commons. Roads existed before cars, and they were for people and, yes, bicycles. Cars came and took them over, made them extremely unpleasant and unsafe places to be, require much more infrastructure and are much less efficient for short trips.
- Cerium 5y ago
  Fuel taxes are a major source of funding, but depending on state it is not even the majority. California sits at about 50% funding by fuel tax [1]. Road wear does not scale linearly with vehicle weight either; larger vehicles add significant damage to the roads while pedestrians and bicycles have virtually no impact [2]. This matches my experience as well, a bike and pedestrian only trail in my hometown has been repaved only once in the last thirty years and is in good condition, while the roads have received more maintenance and are in poorer condition. I would be in favor of moving to a per mile, per pound (scaled by actual wear estimates) axle weight tax system for all vehicles including bicycles. Based on the data though, it could get very expensive for some cars and would likely be nothing but an administrative burden for bicycles. [1] https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/ https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/ [2] https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/ https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weigh...
- imtringued 5y ago
  Cars have a free rider problem. Public transport is expected to pay itself but since car infrastructure is subsidized public transport has to be subsidized to be competitive.
- psd1 5y ago
  OTOH it's not cyclists that require roads to have extensive groundwork and be ten metres wide