Rumble strips - do you hate them?

[SectorZ]

As to bicyclists, I would prefer they stay on their trails and off any road substantial enough to warrant a rumble strip. They are not paying for the highways anyway.

Yes we are.

I must imagine all the taxes I pay.

(and to counter the argument from HighwayStar and others - I do believe that general taxes should go to roads. If that happened these people would have zero to bitch about)

[kphoger]

As to bicyclists, I would prefer they stay on their trails and off any road substantial enough to warrant a rumble strip. They are not paying for the highways anyway.

Canadians don't pay for our highways.  Should they be prohibited from driving on them?

[jeffandnicole]

As to bicyclists, I would prefer they stay on their trails and off any road substantial enough to warrant a rumble strip. They are not paying for the highways anyway.

Yes we are.

I must imagine all the taxes I pay.

(and to counter the argument from HighwayStar and others - I do believe that general taxes should go to roads. If that happened these people would have zero to bitch about)

So the argument is that the sales tax you pay on the bike, along with accessories and maintenance, is "paying" for the road?

To throw out a random number:  The Bike, helmet, and lights cost $500.  Sales Taxes amount to roughly $30 - $35.  That is paying for the miles upon miles of dedicated bike lanes, signage and infrastructure?

That's a one-time expenditure.  For a regular vehicle, they are paying that in taxes at the pump nearly every month. 

[HighwayStar]

As to bicyclists, I would prefer they stay on their trails and off any road substantial enough to warrant a rumble strip. They are not paying for the highways anyway.

Yes we are.

I must imagine all the taxes I pay.

(and to counter the argument from HighwayStar and others - I do believe that general taxes should go to roads. If that happened these people would have zero to bitch about)

Some general taxes go to roads, but that really does not matter. Our roads are funded by what is basically a two part tariff. You pay some in general taxes, and some in fuel. Bicycles clog up roads without paying for the fuel. It would be like shopping at Costco without a membership. Moreover, one could make the argument that the general taxes which go to roads are not paying for your personal use, but rather are paying for their maintenance as part of the defense highway system, which is of course a non-rival and non-excludeable public good.

[kphoger]

Bicycles clog up roads

No they don't.

[HighwayStar]

Bicycles clog up roads

No they don't.

Oh yes they do, I have spent enough time driving in places where those hipsters were constantly in the way, blocking parking, turns, etc. They are a pain 

[kphoger]

Bicycles clog up roads

No they don't.

Oh yes they do, I have spent enough time driving in places where those hipsters were constantly in the way, blocking parking, turns, etc. They are a pain

That's only because your car was trying to clog up the road.

[HighwayStar]

Bicycles clog up roads

No they don't.

Oh yes they do, I have spent enough time driving in places where those hipsters were constantly in the way, blocking parking, turns, etc. They are a pain

That's only because your car was trying to clog up the road.

My car pays registration and gas taxes, neither of which are provided by the bicyclist. I am entitled to use the road, they are not.

[kphoger]

My car pays registration and gas taxes, neither of which are provided by the bicyclist. I am entitled to use the road, they are not.

Then answer my question:

Canadians don't pay for our highways.  Should they be prohibited from driving on them?

[hbelkins]

As to bicyclists, I would prefer they stay on their trails and off any road substantial enough to warrant a rumble strip. They are not paying for the highways anyway.

Canadians don't pay for our highways.  Should they be prohibited from driving on them?

They pay for them when they travel here and buy gas here. Or travel toll roads like the New York Thruway or the turnpikes in Maine or New Hampshire.

(Yes, I know you're making a point, but it's not really a valid comparison.)

I don't know how other states do it, but Kentucky has a General Fund and a dedicated Road Fund. The two don't mix unless the government raids the Road Fund for money to put in the General Fund. No regular revenue (sales tax, income tax, property tax, etc.) goes into the Road Fund. It gets its money from gas taxes and vehicle fees (and possibly traffic violation fines, but I don't know for sure.) I've never known Kentucky to move money from the General Fund to the Road Fund, but it has happened the other way.

Pedestrians (hitchhikers) don't pay for our highways, either. How are they different from bicyclists? (Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate.)

Given how much he dislikes SUVs because they're big and non-efficient, you'd think he'd love bikes, since they are smaller and use no gas and only emit carbon through the exhalations of the rider.

[kphoger]

As to bicyclists, I would prefer they stay on their trails and off any road substantial enough to warrant a rumble strip. They are not paying for the highways anyway.

Canadians don't pay for our highways.  Should they be prohibited from driving on them?

They pay for them when they travel here and buy gas here. Or travel toll roads like the New York Thruway or the turnpikes in Maine or New Hampshire.

(Yes, I know you're making a point, but it's not really a valid comparison.)

But they don't pay for our roads except when they're in our country.  All those tanks of gas purchased in Canada don't go towards our roads.  But OK, I retract my argument.

Anyway...  I pay for this country's roads every time I fill up with gas (except when I'm in Mexico), so I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to ride my bicycle on those same roads.

[kphoger]

Pedestrians (hitchhikers) don't pay for our highways, either. How are they different from bicyclists? (Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate.)

I agree.  Pedestrians should be allowed on highways, except where it has been determined to be unsafe.  And so it is.  Except for a small handful of states, hitchhiking is allowed from anywhere outside the travel lanes of any road–except for freeways, where access is restricted to allow only motor vehicles.  Being required to stand on the shoulder while hitchhiking is little different than being required to drive in a particular lane in advance of a turn.

Thus, I turn the argument around:  if you pay for the roads every time you fill up your car with gas, then why should you be prohibited from walking on those same roads to get to a neighbor's house a mile away?

[kkt]

Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.

[HighwayStar]

Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.

Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.

[GaryV]

Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.

Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.

Are you saying that bicycle riders are homeless?

Whether you own or rent your home, you pay property taxes.  Directly if you own, indirectly if you rent.

[Mr. Matté]

Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.

Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.

How do you propose to ban "hipster" cyclists vs. those like me who bike and own a car (to pay gas taxes and registration fees) and pay income taxes?

[HighwayStar]

Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.

Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.

Are you saying that bicycle riders are homeless?

Whether you own or rent your home, you pay property taxes.  Directly if you own, indirectly if you rent.

Not so fast. When you own your own home you pay 100% of the property tax. As a renter you DO NOT pay 100% of the property tax, you pay an amount which depends on the elasticity of demand for housing.

[HighwayStar]

Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.

Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.

How do you propose to ban "hipster" cyclists vs. those like me who bike and own a car (to pay gas taxes and registration fees) and pay income taxes?

I have no desire to ban cyclists, on the contrary I am a fan of dedicated bicycle routes. But in many cases roads are dis-proportionally affected by the addition of bicycle infrastructure that provides far too little utility for the cost it imposes.

[hbelkins]

Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.

Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.

Are you saying that bicycle riders are homeless?

Whether you own or rent your home, you pay property taxes.  Directly if you own, indirectly if you rent.

Not so fast. When you own your own home you pay 100% of the property tax. As a renter you DO NOT pay 100% of the property tax, you pay an amount which depends on the elasticity of demand for housing.

I will guarantee you that in most cases, rent is set at a level to cover all property taxes, divided by the number of tenants. I lived in a four-unit apartment building for a few years. I guarantee part of my rent was calculated by a formula like "property tax / 4 tenants / 12 months."

[tolbs17]

They wake you up and scare you!

That's the whole point, so no I don't mind them at all. The main use I always see them used for is stop signs in the country when you are going 60+ mph, gives you plenty of heads up to start slowing down

I get why they do that, for safety. But my friends don't seem to like them really.

[kphoger]

Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.

Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.

Owning a vehicle is not the same thing as not riding a bicycle.  I'd suggest that a quite large proportion of the cycling population does own a house and/or vehicle.  But feel free to find data that contradictions that suggestion.

The biggest cyclers I personally know all own property and cars.

[SectorZ]

Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.

Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.

I must have imagined owning my houses for the past 16 years.

Here's a novel idea, stop stereotyping literally every effing group of people you come across, and life might get a little simpler for you.

[HighwayStar]

Most local roads - the ones that have the most bike lanes - are payed for through property taxes, that everyone pays whether they use bicycles, motor vehicles, plug in electrics, or just feet.

Not true, those are paid for by people that actually own property, which lines up fairly well with people that own vehicles. The kind of bicycle hipsters that use the lanes also tend not to have property and therefore don't shoulder much of the property tax.

I must have imagined owning my houses for the past 16 years.

Here's a novel idea, stop stereotyping literally every effing group of people you come across, and life might get a little simpler for you.

I fail to see how that makes life any simpler. It is true, there is a strong positive correlation between home ownership and car ownership. There is a negative correlation between renting and car ownership. Sorry if that offends you but that's just how it is. 

[hotdogPi]

I fail to see how that makes life any simpler. It is true, there is a strong positive correlation between home ownership and car ownership. There is a negative correlation between renting and car ownership. Sorry if that offends you but that's just how it is. 

After controlling for how urban an area is, there should not be much of a correlation at all.

[HighwayStar]

I fail to see how that makes life any simpler. It is true, there is a strong positive correlation between home ownership and car ownership. There is a negative correlation between renting and car ownership. Sorry if that offends you but that's just how it is. 

After controlling for how urban an area is, there should not be much of a correlation at all.

Actually there still is. If you go to more rural areas you find more people who do not own a house that own a car, but few people that own a house and own no car. Its not really enough difference to make a difference especially considering that a very large share of the population lives in a relatively narrow window of urbanization rates.