6 ms·

Except I pay for the roads.. you know.. registration, taxes on gas, taxes on purchase of the car, etc etc... But hey, you're welcome to pay a little for the ro

by keepper 12y ago

Except I pay for the roads.. you know.. registration, taxes on gas, taxes on purchase of the car, etc etc... But hey, you're welcome to pay a little for the roads too ;)

recursive 12y ago
Most bicyclists pay all those things as well. Additionally, in many states, roads are mostly paid for by other sources.
TulliusCicero 12y ago
Cars also inflict many externalities onto others that other forms of transportation do not (pollution, increased travel distance, injuries and deaths, etc.), and yet drivers seem less keen on paying extra to compensate for those costs.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  And wear and tear on the road is approximately proportional to weight and speed so bikes make almost no contribution to road wear, which is the primary cost of our road system.
- DanBC 12y ago
  About 29,000 people die from air pollution in the UK and about 1 in 4 of those may have been from traffic pollution. But death is cheap and people living longer with worse quality of life with COPD or similar costs money. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/29/diesel-engine-pollution-premature-deaths-costs-nhs-billions http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/29/diesel-en...
- sedachv 12y ago
  The biggest externality cost in the United States by far is parking. Many cities have mandatory parking space requirements for businesses that impact not just new developments but re-purposing of existing properties (ex: restaurants must provide so-and-so many free parking spaces per thousand square feet; you have to do this even if you're converting an existing property into a restaurant). This is a huge pain for a lot of people trying to open small businesses. This is more of a zoning issue though (I think mandatory parking ordinances should be repealed and all parking should be privatized).
jrockway 12y ago
I pay taxes on wars, but would be happy to not have the war if I didn't have to pay those taxes. Sadly, that's not how taxes work. Each tax isn't "for" something, they all go to into the budget and are used to buy stuff. Toll roads might be a fair example. Those are mostly closed to bicycles.
- true_religion 12y ago
  Often gas taxes/vehicle property tax is tagged by the state to be dedicated solely towards road development and upkeep. If there's ever a shortfall, they stop maintaining lesser used roads because the rest of the budget has already been decided. This is despite the fact that it takes more than gas + property tax to fund the highway system. Thinking about that... I get your point, non-drivers are funding the roadway system as much as drivers are. I think its the way that gas taxes for instance are leveraged in the decision making process that makes people think that it makes the lion share of the contribution. When the proceeeds from gas tax falls, lawmakers think less people are driving thus less maintenance is needed.
  - soperj 12y ago
    Not to mention bikers inflict 0 wear & tear on the road.
    - jrockway 12y ago
      Not quite zero, there are some speed bumps that I notice in NYC where the bouncing motion of the bikes has worn additional bumps in the speed bump. Of course, you don't really need the speed bumps in the bike lane. I assume it's there because people will drive around it if it doesn't cover the entire road surface. (Protected bike lanes would fix that, but I'm not really a protected bike lane proponent, so we'll pretend I didn't mention that.)
iak8god 12y ago
I wish I thought you were kidding, but many people seem to actually believe that these things are enough to pay for the construction and maintenance of roads. Not so. Much of the cost comes out of general taxes, which everyone pays. When you consider that cyclists contribute basically zero wear and tear to the roads, it starts to look like they're subsidizing your lifestyle. That's ignoring externalities like reduced traffic and pollution, and reduced demand for oil.
- Kluny 12y ago
  Plus the fact that most bikers own cars too, they just don't happen to be driving it when you see them.
- reitanqild 12y ago
  Around here car taxes, road taxes, "environmental taxes" on fuel etc adds up to a whole lot more than the combined price of road maintenance and so on. Also none of it is earmarked for environmental purposes. Point is: While I'm mostly happy with the tax levels a little honesty would be appreciated. Edit: Why the downvotes? (BTW: I live in Norway ATM, go read up on Norwegian taxes if you don't trust me.)
  - iak8god 12y ago
    > Around here car taxes, road taxes, "environmental taxes" on fuel etc adds up to a whole lot more than the combined price of road maintenance and so on. That's really different from the situation in the States and the UK which is where I've seen the actual numbers. I'm not a heavy user of fuel, so may be a bit biased on this, but it seems really sensible to me to use taxes to compensate for externalities. For instance, I'd guess based on my general impressions of Scandanavia and other civilized places that Norway has publicly-funded universal healthcare. Good on you for that. Now, doesn't it make sense for some of the taxes on owning and using an automobile to go toward public health? In my country, collisions involving cars are a leading source of injury and death. Elsewhere in this thread are estimates of the health impacts of auto emissions -- they are significant.
    - 12y ago

by keepper 12y ago

Except I pay for the roads.. you know.. registration, taxes on gas, taxes on purchase of the car, etc etc... But hey, you're welcome to pay a little for the roads too ;)

recursive 12y ago

Most bicyclists pay all those things as well. Additionally, in many states, roads are mostly paid for by other sources.

TulliusCicero 12y ago

Cars also inflict many externalities onto others that other forms of transportation do not (pollution, increased travel distance, injuries and deaths, etc.), and yet drivers seem less keen on paying extra to compensate for those costs.

seanflyon 12y ago
And wear and tear on the road is approximately proportional to weight and speed so bikes make almost no contribution to road wear, which is the primary cost of our road system.
DanBC 12y ago
About 29,000 people die from air pollution in the UK and about 1 in 4 of those may have been from traffic pollution. But death is cheap and people living longer with worse quality of life with COPD or similar costs money. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/29/diesel-engine-pollution-premature-deaths-costs-nhs-billions http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/29/diesel-en...
sedachv 12y ago
The biggest externality cost in the United States by far is parking. Many cities have mandatory parking space requirements for businesses that impact not just new developments but re-purposing of existing properties (ex: restaurants must provide so-and-so many free parking spaces per thousand square feet; you have to do this even if you're converting an existing property into a restaurant). This is a huge pain for a lot of people trying to open small businesses. This is more of a zoning issue though (I think mandatory parking ordinances should be repealed and all parking should be privatized).

jrockway 12y ago

I pay taxes on wars, but would be happy to not have the war if I didn't have to pay those taxes. Sadly, that's not how taxes work. Each tax isn't "for" something, they all go to into the budget and are used to buy stuff. Toll roads might be a fair example. Those are mostly closed to bicycles.

true_religion 12y ago
Often gas taxes/vehicle property tax is tagged by the state to be dedicated solely towards road development and upkeep. If there's ever a shortfall, they stop maintaining lesser used roads because the rest of the budget has already been decided. This is despite the fact that it takes more than gas + property tax to fund the highway system. Thinking about that... I get your point, non-drivers are funding the roadway system as much as drivers are. I think its the way that gas taxes for instance are leveraged in the decision making process that makes people think that it makes the lion share of the contribution. When the proceeeds from gas tax falls, lawmakers think less people are driving thus less maintenance is needed.
- soperj 12y ago
  Not to mention bikers inflict 0 wear & tear on the road.
  - jrockway 12y ago
    Not quite zero, there are some speed bumps that I notice in NYC where the bouncing motion of the bikes has worn additional bumps in the speed bump. Of course, you don't really need the speed bumps in the bike lane. I assume it's there because people will drive around it if it doesn't cover the entire road surface. (Protected bike lanes would fix that, but I'm not really a protected bike lane proponent, so we'll pretend I didn't mention that.)

iak8god 12y ago

I wish I thought you were kidding, but many people seem to actually believe that these things are enough to pay for the construction and maintenance of roads. Not so. Much of the cost comes out of general taxes, which everyone pays. When you consider that cyclists contribute basically zero wear and tear to the roads, it starts to look like they're subsidizing your lifestyle. That's ignoring externalities like reduced traffic and pollution, and reduced demand for oil.

Kluny 12y ago
Plus the fact that most bikers own cars too, they just don't happen to be driving it when you see them.
reitanqild 12y ago
Around here car taxes, road taxes, "environmental taxes" on fuel etc adds up to a whole lot more than the combined price of road maintenance and so on. Also none of it is earmarked for environmental purposes. Point is: While I'm mostly happy with the tax levels a little honesty would be appreciated. Edit: Why the downvotes? (BTW: I live in Norway ATM, go read up on Norwegian taxes if you don't trust me.)
- iak8god 12y ago
  > Around here car taxes, road taxes, "environmental taxes" on fuel etc adds up to a whole lot more than the combined price of road maintenance and so on. That's really different from the situation in the States and the UK which is where I've seen the actual numbers. I'm not a heavy user of fuel, so may be a bit biased on this, but it seems really sensible to me to use taxes to compensate for externalities. For instance, I'd guess based on my general impressions of Scandanavia and other civilized places that Norway has publicly-funded universal healthcare. Good on you for that. Now, doesn't it make sense for some of the taxes on owning and using an automobile to go toward public health? In my country, collisions involving cars are a leading source of injury and death. Elsewhere in this thread are estimates of the health impacts of auto emissions -- they are significant.
  - 12y ago