5 ms·

Keep in mind cyclists don't really damage roads: https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/ https://streets.mn/2016/0

Keep in mind cyclists don't really damage roads: 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...

MisterMower 4y ago
But they require dedicated lanes in many places and pay no taxes to fund those lanes. The pavement may not degrade as fast because cyclists don’t weigh much, but the road still needs painted and maintained. Cracks need sealed, potholes need filled. Weather cycles do as much damage as traffic.
- myroon5 4y ago
  > Weather cycles do as much damage as traffic In most places where the weather is nice enough for biking to be popular enough to matter tax-wise (most of the highest percentage American biking cities are on the west coast), I doubt that, but feel free to source your claims
- avianlyric 4y ago
  > Cracks need sealed, potholes need filled. Weather cycles do as much damage as traffic. Cracks and potholes only form due to heavy vehicles driving over them and deforming the surface. Something a cyclist isn’t heavy enough to cause. Without cracks and potholes, weather damage is basically zero. While we’re at, why don’t we make pedestrians pay for the sidewalks and pavements? They get to use those without paying a cent, if they refuse to pay, rip the damn things up, they’re taking up valuable space for more car lanes.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
notacoward 4y ago
I don't think it's just about damage and maintenance. Before roads are maintained they must be built. Why should the amortized cost of building not be distributed across all beneficiaries?
- thwayunion 4y ago
  Nearly all the road I cycle on were built before you were even born.
  - notacoward 4y ago
    Built before you were born, maybe. I was born in 1965 and I've seen pictures of what my town was like back then. Even though the town itself is pretty old (being the birthplace of the American revolution and all) the particular section where I live was still mostly farmland. Even some of the main streets have been rebuilt, widened, or reconfigured for reasons other than wear and tear. That includes the town center, which was specifically widened for bike lanes. Do the millions of miles of roads for which these concerns apply not matter to you? Do you only care about the - possibly anomalous or even inaccurately portrayed - status of the roads immediately around you? Seems a bit callow to me.
    - thwayunion 4y ago
      > I was born in 1965 Before you were born. Maintained, expanded, resurfaced, etc.? Sure. Almost entirely because of damage due to cars and weather. Also: hi, neighbor! Fewer that half of the dollars spent on roads in our commonwealth come from gas taxes [1]. If you're paying fewer than $200K in income taxes and/or don't pay massive property taxes, I'm almost certainly subsidizing your driving. And, even if you have, there are a huge number of MA drivers who don't make that much and benefit from spending on roads made possible by my contributions to the state's general funds. You're welcome :) > Seems a bit callow to me. Says the guy who's angry with people who find alternatives to consumption of a researouce whose current levels of consumption necessitate massive amounts of geopolitical violence. [1] https://pirg.org/massachusetts/resources/who-pays-for-roads/ https://pirg.org/massachusetts/resources/who-pays-for-roads/
      - notacoward 4y ago
        > Almost entirely because of damage due to cars and weather. Mostly weather, which doesn't care whether you're in a car or on a bike. > I'm almost certainly subsidizing your driving. I doubt that you've paid more in taxes than I have myself, so no. > Says the guy who's angry with people who find alternative I'm angry about no such thing, and it's not even reasonable to impute that from what I have said. The only thing angering me is fallacious reasoning and personal attacks.

Keep in mind cyclists don't really damage roads: 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...

MisterMower 4y ago

But they require dedicated lanes in many places and pay no taxes to fund those lanes. The pavement may not degrade as fast because cyclists don’t weigh much, but the road still needs painted and maintained. Cracks need sealed, potholes need filled. Weather cycles do as much damage as traffic.

myroon5 4y ago
> Weather cycles do as much damage as traffic In most places where the weather is nice enough for biking to be popular enough to matter tax-wise (most of the highest percentage American biking cities are on the west coast), I doubt that, but feel free to source your claims
avianlyric 4y ago
> Cracks need sealed, potholes need filled. Weather cycles do as much damage as traffic. Cracks and potholes only form due to heavy vehicles driving over them and deforming the surface. Something a cyclist isn’t heavy enough to cause. Without cracks and potholes, weather damage is basically zero. While we’re at, why don’t we make pedestrians pay for the sidewalks and pavements? They get to use those without paying a cent, if they refuse to pay, rip the damn things up, they’re taking up valuable space for more car lanes.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

notacoward 4y ago

I don't think it's just about damage and maintenance. Before roads are maintained they must be built. Why should the amortized cost of building not be distributed across all beneficiaries?

thwayunion 4y ago
Nearly all the road I cycle on were built before you were even born.
- notacoward 4y ago
  Built before you were born, maybe. I was born in 1965 and I've seen pictures of what my town was like back then. Even though the town itself is pretty old (being the birthplace of the American revolution and all) the particular section where I live was still mostly farmland. Even some of the main streets have been rebuilt, widened, or reconfigured for reasons other than wear and tear. That includes the town center, which was specifically widened for bike lanes. Do the millions of miles of roads for which these concerns apply not matter to you? Do you only care about the - possibly anomalous or even inaccurately portrayed - status of the roads immediately around you? Seems a bit callow to me.
  - thwayunion 4y ago
    > I was born in 1965 Before you were born. Maintained, expanded, resurfaced, etc.? Sure. Almost entirely because of damage due to cars and weather. Also: hi, neighbor! Fewer that half of the dollars spent on roads in our commonwealth come from gas taxes [1]. If you're paying fewer than $200K in income taxes and/or don't pay massive property taxes, I'm almost certainly subsidizing your driving. And, even if you have, there are a huge number of MA drivers who don't make that much and benefit from spending on roads made possible by my contributions to the state's general funds. You're welcome :) > Seems a bit callow to me. Says the guy who's angry with people who find alternatives to consumption of a researouce whose current levels of consumption necessitate massive amounts of geopolitical violence. [1] https://pirg.org/massachusetts/resources/who-pays-for-roads/ https://pirg.org/massachusetts/resources/who-pays-for-roads/
    - notacoward 4y ago
      > Almost entirely because of damage due to cars and weather. Mostly weather, which doesn't care whether you're in a car or on a bike. > I'm almost certainly subsidizing your driving. I doubt that you've paid more in taxes than I have myself, so no. > Says the guy who's angry with people who find alternative I'm angry about no such thing, and it's not even reasonable to impute that from what I have said. The only thing angering me is fallacious reasoning and personal attacks.