Why the hate for Cyclists?

[chipbennett]

The point I intended to make is that saying people only pay for roads when they are 'motorists' is like saying people only pay for the ski resort when they are actually skiing, not when they're at the restaurant or bar or back in their room banging the drum

Is it your contention that there are literally zero cyclists in Indiana who do not also own/operate a motor vehicle?

You can try the only paying taxes on one vehicle thing if you want but I wouldn't advise it, and my bicycles are untaxed because the state does not license them or collect fees nor forbid me from riding them on the roads. The fact that those 'vehicles' are untaxed isn't on me. Do you also complain about people with kayaks not paying boating fees? Sounds like you should take it up with your congressman

Sales tax? Correct. Registration? Only necessary if the vehicle is used on public roads.

 

[chipbennett]

Because without the 'I pay for the roads and cyclists don't' argument they got nothing to support the assertion they have a greater right to use the roads than someone else does

They probably also think that only ticket holders have to pay for the Colts, too

This entire, 76-page thread exists because, of cyclists or motorists, one group has a tendency to assert unequal usage rights of public roads in a manner that adversely impacts the other. So, this comment is highly ironic.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Bloomington entitled cyclists have entered the chat...



Class Act!!

Thats aggrevating as hell

 

[Ingomike]

Bloomington entitled cyclists have entered the chat...



Class Act!!

Pretty bad. Seen similar at the range too…

 

[printcraft]

Pretty bad. Seen similar at the range too…

I hate range nazis at least as much if not more than bike nazis.

 

[KLB]

Funny you should say the latter. I'm not sure if it's happening (yet) in Indiana, but in some states, EVs are actually being charged more for vehicle registration/licensing, to recoup what they are not contributing in the form of gasoline taxes.

Yes, Indiana has an EV charge for registration.

https://www.in.gov/bmv/files/Fee_Chart.pdf

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Simple solution. Make bike paths. Bicycles can only ride on bike paths. Any bicycle on the roadway needs to be plated and insured the same as a regular motor vehicle.

 

[chipbennett]

Simple solution. Make bike paths. Bicycles can only ride on bike paths. Any bicycle on the roadway needs to be plated and insured the same as a regular motor vehicle.

Possibly reasonable.

Who will fund the bike paths?
Where will the bike paths run? What public land will be used for the bike paths?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Possibly reasonable.

Who will fund the bike paths?
Where will the bike paths run? What public land will be used for the bike paths?

Bike paths do not need to be all over town. They can put bike paths in the town park. If bike riders want to ride all over town, register the bicycle and have it plated.

I dunno, just spitballing ideas. I really dont care about bike paths, i think we should just require them to be plated and registered to be on the roadway, much like golf carts in some areas.

 

[BugI02]

Yes I can see that they have fulfilled their legal requirements, but that doesn't mean that paying for one vehicle actually covers all their vehicles use of the roads. Roads were designed, built for, and paid for by taxes on motor vehicles. What taxes on a bicycle which is also a vehicle pay for road use?

I currently have three vehicles, in the past I've had more. I license them all but only drive them one at a time. Are all my vehicle fees paying for the roads or only the one I'm driving at any given moment?

You seem a bit fixated on 'paying for one vehicle doesn't cover all their vehicles use of the road'. If I'm not driving my WRX but riding my bicycle instead, wouldn't the fees I pay in order to drive that car whenever I wish cover the road payment for the bicycle? Especially since I'm putting far less wear and tear on the pavement. Seems like the state is getting a deal

If number of cars I have > than 30% of my neighbors, does that mean I have a greater right to use the roads? Is it proportional to expenditure? Do the people riding the Red Line pay for it or is it everybody that pays taxes in that jurisdiction? If you drive out of state, are you using their roads without paying for them?

Your reasoning seems convoluted, wrong and carefully tailored to let you kvetch about bicyclists getting something for nothing

 

[BugI02]

Speaking of straw men... nowhere have I said anything about cyclists using the roads in ways that I don't "approve of".

IMO you have made it quite clear that cyclists using the road at all are using the roads in ways you don't approve of

 

[BugI02]

It's still not a straw man. Any cyclist who has funded roads has done so by virtue of also being a motorist: owning and operating a motor vehicle on public roads. Thus, it is absolutely true: cyclists don't fund roads; motorists do.

The latest US numbers I can find are from 2014 and reveal that 83% of cyclists own cars, and that rises to 94% for 18+

The cyclist/motorist Venn diagram has almost total overlap, and all those car owners are paying fees whether they drive their cars or not. I'm still a cyclist when I make my payment to the DMV for my registration and plate sticker. People can be more than one thing at once, I'm also a gun owner when I pay my license fees, and a pilot and an engineer (ret.) and many other things - and all those people are paying those fees because they are all the same person. To try to say only motorists pay fees is cheap semantic prevarication

 

[BugI02]

Is it your contention that there are literally zero cyclists in Indiana who do not also own/operate a motor vehicle?

Is it your assertion that there are literally zero cyclists who ride responsibly, single file, taking up only a small necessary portion of the lane? Is it your assertion that there are literally zero motorists who can get around them with an 'inconvenience' measured in a handful of seconds?

Those issues are more of what the 70-some pages of this thread are mostly about, the payment of fees seems to be a fallback position to have something to complain about when the case can't be made that all or even a significant majority of cyclists are terrorists bent on making the life of motorists miserable

Why are trucks charged much higher fees to use the roads, is the reasoning not that their wear and tear on the roads is much higher? Given that, what should the fees to use the roads be like for a bicycle that weighs between 1/15th and 1/25th of what your car or truck does? As well pedestrians use the roads in my neighborhood to enjoy a walk, but pedestrians don't pay road fees according to you yet I don't hear you proselytizing for them to be charged an appropriate fee for the use of the roads

That what you wish to assert is so illogical and disproportionate makes me suspect that there are other reasons than the ones you relate for your animus towards cyclists using the roads

 

[jamil]

The people could tax bicycles if they wished but they choose not to. Why do some of you get so wrapped up in that?

I choose to require the same license tags and registration that I have to pay for automobiles. It’s not my fault that the people who don’t want that are communists.

 

[jamil]

Bloomington entitled cyclists have entered the chat...



Class Act!!

Eh. Idunno. Maybe the cyclist needed some of this.

 

[Ingomike]

Eh. Idunno. Maybe the cyclist needed some of this.

View attachment 338448

Is that what you get off my road types use when they get irritated?

 

[jamil]

Is that what you get off my road types use when they get irritated?

I don’t “get off [your] road types use” so I have no idea why they might get irritated. Are you drunk-posting?

Did you think Karenboi was in the right, or do you think he was angry because his vag was itching?

Hint: If those were the only choices, reality is way closer to the latter than the former.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I currently have three vehicles, in the past I've had more. I license them all but only drive them one at a time. Are all my vehicle fees paying for the roads or only the one I'm driving at any given moment?

All pay for the roads. But the one your driving pays more due to gas tax.

You seem a bit fixated on 'paying for one vehicle doesn't cover all their vehicles use of the road'. If I'm not driving my WRX but riding my bicycle instead, wouldn't the fees I pay in order to drive that car whenever I wish cover the road payment for the bicycle? Especially since I'm putting far less wear and tear on the pavement. Seems like the state is getting a deal

If the fees for your tax cover your bike, why doesn't it cover your other two motor vehicles? Also see above in regards to gas tax.

If number of cars I have > than 30% of my neighbors, does that mean I have a greater right to use the roads? Is it proportional to expenditure? Do the people riding the Red Line pay for it or is it everybody that pays taxes in that jurisdiction? If you drive out of state, are you using their roads without paying for them?

Nope you wouldn't have a greater right to the roads. They are paying to use their motor vehicles. For the red line, unfortunately everyone pays for that. And I seem to remember lots of complaints on here about that.

Sometimes when traveling out of state, and sometimes not. Am I buying gas in that state? Am I paying other taxes?

Your reasoning seems convoluted, wrong and carefully tailored to let you kvetch about bicyclists getting something for nothing

Not really. What seems to be convoluted is the thought that because you pay taxes on one vehicle to operate it on the road, it should cover other vehicles you wish to operate on the road.

Well maybe not convoluted, maybe more entitled.

 

[chipbennett]

IMO you have made it quite clear that cyclists using the road at all are using the roads in ways you don't approve of

No, I absolutely have not. I defy you to quote me, anywhere, in this thread, that supports this straw man.

 

[chipbennett]

Is it your assertion that there are literally zero cyclists who ride responsibly, single file, taking up only a small necessary portion of the lane? Is it your assertion that there are literally zero motorists who can get around them with an 'inconvenience' measured in a handful of seconds?

Why are you conflating arguments here? One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. As for this non-sequitur: no, I've never made such an assertion. I was responding to the claim that cyclists have paid for roads to be constructed, which has nothing to do with how cyclists behave on those roads.

And you have supported my contention that it is motorists, not cyclists, who have funded roads. Those 10 - 15% of cyclists who don't own cars proves the point.

Those issues are more of what the 70-some pages of this thread are mostly about, the payment of fees seems to be a fallback position to have something to complain about when the case can't be made that all or even a significant majority of cyclists are terrorists bent on making the life of motorists miserable

Why are trucks charged much higher fees to use the roads, is the reasoning not that their wear and tear on the roads is much higher? Given that, what should the fees to use the roads be like for a bicycle that weighs between 1/15th and 1/25th of what your car or truck does? As well pedestrians use the roads in my neighborhood to enjoy a walk, but pedestrians don't pay road fees according to you yet I don't hear you proselytizing for them to be charged an appropriate fee for the use of the roads

That what you wish to assert is so illogical and disproportionate makes me suspect that there are other reasons than the ones you relate for your animus towards cyclists using the roads

That you wish to saddle me with so strong an animus, that I have never once articulated here, makes me suspect that either you're confusing me for others in this thread or else you simply have no logical response to the things I've actually said/argued in this thread.