3 ms·

What do you think taxes on gasoline are for? You’re absolutely right, roadways are insanely expensive. That’s why it’s infuriating to see entire lanes expropri

What do you think taxes on gasoline are for? You’re absolutely right, roadways are insanely expensive. That’s why it’s infuriating to see entire lanes expropriated for cyclists.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> What do you think taxes on gasoline are for? Paying for our highways circa 1993 [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_Sta...
- MisterMower 1y ago
  You realize states levy taxes on gas too, right? And that those taxes are remitted to city governments to build and maintain infrastructure?
  - const_cast 1y ago
    None of what you're saying matters even a little bit if you're not able to provide any numbers on how much you're actually paying. Because we both know it's not 100%, or even 25%. So stop bullshitting.
  - nostrebored 1y ago
    What percentage of the TCO of roads do you think is covered by gas tax? You are using a state service whenever you use the road. It is a subsidy that people who are the largest offenders consistently choose to entrench.
    - MisterMower 1y ago
      Not enough. I've been consistently stating throughout this thread that people need to pay for their use. The fact that motorists shoulder some but not all of the cost is not an argument that cyclists should be exempted from paying any of the cost.
ben_w 1y ago
Road wear is fourth power of axel weight, so trucks/lorries are overwhelmingly the cause of what repair money gets spent on fixing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law Complaining about cyclists getting bike lanes is like complaining about pedestrians getting footpaths.
- MisterMower 1y ago
  No, it would be like a city building a dog park and then having parents bring their kids to the park and demanding that dog owners keep their dogs on leashes while in the park. By your logic, this is fine because the kids aren’t pooping in the park which degrades it less. Never mind that the park was created for dog owners, and their enjoyment of it is impaired by these new restrictions placed on them by people who shouldn’t even be there.
  - ben_w 1y ago
    Your analogy is the bad one here. To be like that, almost everyone would need to own a dog, and everyone including the non-dog-owners would have things delivered by dog, the dog park would have to actively block access to most places, and the fees for the dog owners pay for the dog park would have to be insufficient for the dog park and the park instead subsidised by general taxation even from the people who only get stuff delivered by dog… which would be quite fair and reasonable because almost all the damage to the dog park that the maintenance fees would need to cover, would be due to specifically the delivery dogs. The actual point of the dog park fees in this scenario would be to reduce the usage of the dog park, due to everyone riding their dogs everywhere. Which is a heck of a mental image. Roads aren't for pleasure, they're economic infrastructure that some people happen to enjoy.
    - MisterMower 1y ago
      I'm sorry you aren't able to see the parallels. Let me explain them for you: Dog owners are the motorists. Dedicated infrastructure was built specifically for them to use. Parents with kids are the cyclists. They want to restrict how that infrastructure is used so that they can enjoy it in the way that is most convenient for them, at the expense of the dog owners. Initially, dog owners used the park freely without any interference from parents with kids. But at some point, parents with kids felt they were entitled to use the dog park in ways it was never intended to be used, and changed regulations to restrict dog owners enjoyment of the park. I intentionally left out any discussion of how these things are paid for to highlight the unfairness of this situation. It doesn't matter how it's paid for, since the infrastructure already exists for a specific purpose and is being used for that purpose. To include the finance side of things in this analogy, it would be like funding the dog park with a special sales tax on dog food, which increases the unfairness of the whole situation when it's taken over by the parents with kids, who paid nothing to maintain or build it. In case you don't understand how analogies work, they highlight critical similarities between two situations that are otherwise dissimilar to help understand the underlying concept. They aren't parallel in all respects, nor can they be. If your best argument against my analogy is to introduce irrelevant dissimilarities to distract from the obvious point of the analogy, I'll take that as an endorsement it was effective.

What do you think taxes on gasoline are for? You’re absolutely right, roadways are insanely expensive. That’s why it’s infuriating to see entire lanes expropriated for cyclists.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> What do you think taxes on gasoline are for? Paying for our highways circa 1993 [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_Sta...

MisterMower 1y ago
You realize states levy taxes on gas too, right? And that those taxes are remitted to city governments to build and maintain infrastructure?
- const_cast 1y ago
  None of what you're saying matters even a little bit if you're not able to provide any numbers on how much you're actually paying. Because we both know it's not 100%, or even 25%. So stop bullshitting.
- nostrebored 1y ago
  What percentage of the TCO of roads do you think is covered by gas tax? You are using a state service whenever you use the road. It is a subsidy that people who are the largest offenders consistently choose to entrench.
  - MisterMower 1y ago
    Not enough. I've been consistently stating throughout this thread that people need to pay for their use. The fact that motorists shoulder some but not all of the cost is not an argument that cyclists should be exempted from paying any of the cost.

ben_w 1y ago

Road wear is fourth power of axel weight, so trucks/lorries are overwhelmingly the cause of what repair money gets spent on fixing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law Complaining about cyclists getting bike lanes is like complaining about pedestrians getting footpaths.

MisterMower 1y ago
No, it would be like a city building a dog park and then having parents bring their kids to the park and demanding that dog owners keep their dogs on leashes while in the park. By your logic, this is fine because the kids aren’t pooping in the park which degrades it less. Never mind that the park was created for dog owners, and their enjoyment of it is impaired by these new restrictions placed on them by people who shouldn’t even be there.
- ben_w 1y ago
  Your analogy is the bad one here. To be like that, almost everyone would need to own a dog, and everyone including the non-dog-owners would have things delivered by dog, the dog park would have to actively block access to most places, and the fees for the dog owners pay for the dog park would have to be insufficient for the dog park and the park instead subsidised by general taxation even from the people who only get stuff delivered by dog… which would be quite fair and reasonable because almost all the damage to the dog park that the maintenance fees would need to cover, would be due to specifically the delivery dogs. The actual point of the dog park fees in this scenario would be to reduce the usage of the dog park, due to everyone riding their dogs everywhere. Which is a heck of a mental image. Roads aren't for pleasure, they're economic infrastructure that some people happen to enjoy.
  - MisterMower 1y ago
    I'm sorry you aren't able to see the parallels. Let me explain them for you: Dog owners are the motorists. Dedicated infrastructure was built specifically for them to use. Parents with kids are the cyclists. They want to restrict how that infrastructure is used so that they can enjoy it in the way that is most convenient for them, at the expense of the dog owners. Initially, dog owners used the park freely without any interference from parents with kids. But at some point, parents with kids felt they were entitled to use the dog park in ways it was never intended to be used, and changed regulations to restrict dog owners enjoyment of the park. I intentionally left out any discussion of how these things are paid for to highlight the unfairness of this situation. It doesn't matter how it's paid for, since the infrastructure already exists for a specific purpose and is being used for that purpose. To include the finance side of things in this analogy, it would be like funding the dog park with a special sales tax on dog food, which increases the unfairness of the whole situation when it's taken over by the parents with kids, who paid nothing to maintain or build it. In case you don't understand how analogies work, they highlight critical similarities between two situations that are otherwise dissimilar to help understand the underlying concept. They aren't parallel in all respects, nor can they be. If your best argument against my analogy is to introduce irrelevant dissimilarities to distract from the obvious point of the analogy, I'll take that as an endorsement it was effective.