I bet Calvin would have won the contest if he had used this slogan.
By - Ashamed-Sandwich9166
We’re headed toward $8/gallon
I bet this cartoon turns out to be prophetic.
Its over that already in some places like NYC isnt it? Or am i behind the times?
Yes, yes you are. Think I paid about $3.50/gal my last fill up.
Converting my gas price to freedom units took awhile, but as it turns out we're paying about 7 of your USD per gallon of gasoline here in northern Europe.
Personally, I'm with Calvins dad: gasoline fuelled cars needs to go away, and the sooner the better.
Here in norway the price is somethinglike 8.5 freedom units lately but during the pandemic went almost down to 5 freedom units
With inflation, $8 circa 1990 is about $16 in 2021, though.
I'd make the argument that cyclists need to decide if they will use the sidewalks or the road for the sake of safety. I hope the city surcharge is added to include bikes for being given dedicated bike lanes in the road.
In most American cities, infrastructure design did not consider cyclist safety at all, so cyclists must decide for themselves what is safest. Sometimes this is the sidewalk, sometimes near the curb, and sometimes claiming the lane.
Most American cities didn't consider cars either, especially downtown but they managed. Whether or not the design is faulty, rules of the road have to be obeyed. Deciding to choose where you will bike in an unpredictable fashion is irresponsible, inconsiderate of surroundings, and extremely dangerous (person driving car vs. person on bike will always win)
In some states, cyclists are classified as a vehicle along with mopeds and motorcycles. It's just hard to enforce. I have heard of a cop giving a bicyclist a speeding ticket...consider that because they don't have an speedometer.
Bitch Americans literally tore down entire downtown city blocks for fucking flat parking lots.
How is this related to anything besides providing an example of my first sentence. Is that all you read?
That sentence demonstrates to you and anyone that, while north American cities weren’t originally made for cars (except pretty much anything built after the 50s), they pretty much were extensively and completely remodelled to adapt and cater to private cars. Extensive and wide lanes, highways, lots of gasoline and gas recharging stations, tearing down of vast urban landscapes, etc. A city catering to bikes, or even just considering them alongside the cars, would look and be extremely different, look to Holland for an example, I recomend the Not Just Bikes YouTube channel .
Cities change and adjust. My comment never mentioned bikes should or should not be in cities. My comment referred that cities should tax/charge bikes just like any other transportation. Cities do not do that because they don't want to anger voter whereas commuters don't live in the city and can't vote.
Please read my entire comment before responding. Your comments have some good points but should be to the ops post and not mine.
> cities should tax/charge bikes just like any other transportation
So here's the thing, gas/license/registration taxes and road tolls do not come close to paying the cost of building and maintaining all of the infrastructure needed for cars.
Consider this breakdown by state in the US - https://taxfoundation.org/states-road-funding-2019/. In the majority of states the money raised from fees, tolls, and gas taxes makes up less than half of the funding for road infrastructure. The rest is paid out of general revenue.
If cyclists were made to pay a registration fee and in return were given safe, properly-maintained, separated bicycle infrastructure, that is a deal that almost all would accept. However, making cyclists pay a fee for the privilege of dodging car doors and high-speed traffic is unreasonable.
Ok, that's a good point. Although there are pushes for better revenue (congestion taxes, milage tax) to make up for that windfall. Bikes wouldn't have to pay all of it, just contribute to the pot. Obviously, the fed will pay for some, so it's not 100% requirements. It's providing cities the ability to make up for their portion.
If we are talking about license or registration from that perspective, it wouldn't be the privilege of dodging car, it's about keeping them liable so that they don't do it. Can you imagine if motorcycles or mopeds could hop from the road to use the crosswalks and then back to the roads, even at a low speed?
Bikes should be taxed at a pro rated rate based on their weight vs cars.
So like $2 a year. Deal. Now give me protected bike lanes. With those safe lanes suddenly you won't have bikes on sidewalks.
> Can you imagine if motorcycles or mopeds could hop from the road to use the crosswalks and then back to the roads, even at a low speed?
Point taken, though ultimately what you are describing is a problem with the cycling infrastructure. If cyclists are swerving on and off the sidewalk and around obstacles, that is a sign that the cycling infrastructure is not very good. Cycling in North America is pretty dangerous, so it should be no surprise that you only see risk-tolerant daredevils out cycling.
Having more people cycle would be extremely beneficial though, so all cycling infrastructure should be funded by motorists. Less pollution, noise, congestion are all incentives enough to build out bike paths and disincentivize driving.
Beneficial for who? The minority of people who live in the city and to attract more people, which means more money for the city. It is not beneficial for the economy by decreasing efficiency of the roads.
People who drive into work most likely live outside the downtown limits. It's easy for a city to pass along the cost to them because by making public infrastructure more popular the city takes a cut. Also, commuters can't vote. However, the city is dependent on those commuters and companies for tax revenues.
Bycles being registered like cars to encourage accountability in biking and parking would also make things safer. Making bicycles pay a small share of their use of the roads is no different than any other form of transportation. That does not mean bicycles need to pay the same amount as cars of bases but, but free riding can only go so far as long as they are a minority. A large population of bicycles ceases to bring benefits (see China pre-2000).
The difference between a car and a bicycle and the reason cars are controlled and licensed is because cars are easily capable of murder. Bikes don’t need registration because they aren’t going to kill people.
Cars aren't necessarily going to kill/injure and can easily hurt people either through biker negligence when switching from sidewalks to road or injuring a pedestrian.
The difference is that bikes will mostly only injure, not kill. Cars kill at a much higher rate to injury than bikes.
You are still liable and cities would benefit from the money
Why tax bicycles and other things when you can put that tax into things like property tax instead to make it simpler for people
Seems pretty simple to say you need to get a bike registered/license and pay a fee to support city services and provide liability for if you hit a car or person. You could also just make all bike racks be pay per use but then people would probably just use other things and require enforcement (money cost)
So what about if you just built a bike and want to ride it? You have to wait a week or two to get it registered?
No it’s not, suburban development is extremely inefficient and costly, in a format where you have very expensive and large infrastructure projects serving a sprawling populace. People should be in denser more walkable areas. Also they need mixed use, aka how the world builds thinga
I don't think you read my comment because this was not my argument and barely touches on them to lonk to your own opinion.
I did say cars should and do pay for their costs. In fact I even said that bicycles don't need to pay the same as cars, implying that cars are still taxed. I am mostly thinking in line of a registration or something paid once a year for a bike. License/permit/or having to pay to use bike stands are also possible with varying drawbacks.
I never got into an opinion of whether someone should or should not live anywhere. I said cities tax commuters because they dont live there. Cities don't tax bicycles because they live there and can vote the city council out of office.
By all means, your comment is a fine comment, but it should be posted commenting to the posting not below mine. Please read.
Sub urban rail exists in many cities around the world.
Fossil fuels are heavily subsidized by the government.
Why aren't cars penalized for the pollution both noise and air
And the traffic jams they cause.
Mmmm I am talking about the US but fair point.
I never said not to tax cars, so I can't answer your comment. I said why bikes aren't taxed.
Because bikes don’t destroy the roads or pollute with obscene amounts of tire particulate
Bikes use a public resource. Specifically bike lanes reduce the amount of real estate in roads that could bring in more business to the city through trucks and workers.
Do you get taxed to walk around? Bikes don’t take up much more space than a person walking. And what about if you are playing an instrument in public? Do you get taxed for that? We should have marimba licenses to show those marimba players that they’re using a public resource which reduces the real-estate space.
Walking or playing in a park don't come at a cost to any money generating possibilities or quantitative benefits to the city such as delivering supplies. While bikes don't take up space but adding in bike lanes do. If you have a 3 lane road and reduce it to 2 to add in a bike lane you are reducing the possibility for more workers to come in and pay/generate taxable revenue and/or other trucks to deliver supplies.
But the workers could take the bike lane, people don’t have to use cars
too bad his dad's a cyclist
Legend of a dad. Based