Drivers double-park their cars on them. They also open their car doors without checking to see if bike riders are coming first. They also swerve in and out of them while texting. They also drive onto them to get around vehicles like garbage trucks, often without looking. Drivers make turns without looking both ways, often putting us at risk.
I ride my bike to work every single day in New York. Every week, I have multiple close calls because of careless drivers, and sometimes because of careless pedestrians. I don't run red lights, and I don't even ride that fast. I ride my bike on the correct side of the street. You want me to pay extra taxes for what, exactly? My bike and myself combined are a little over 200lbs. Do I create potholes in the roads? Does my bike cause pollution?
I don't think you ride a bike.
What about the cost of building and maintenance of bike lanes and other associated costs that would be involved in increased complexity of cleaning/maintenance of roads due to bike lanes (more so if they are secluded from main traffic).
Do you think this cost is justified for a minuscule percentage of population who choose to bike on the roads.
Regardless, I still pay taxes just like everyone else. I used to own a car, and I didn't pay any extra taxes. Why should I now that I have a bike?
But that not acceptable( dangerous for both cars and bikers) like you suggested in you parent comment. Bike lanes need to be protected from main traffic which would mean more costs.
Protected bike lanes are paramount to safety. Which means regular maintenance equipment like snow plowers/slating won't work. Bike lanes here are totally useless here in winters because we don't the right equipment/training to clean/salt bike lanes.
It was installed in the 80's. It's not been repaved since. Bikes just don't add enough wear and tear. There are some tree root issues that have to be addressed now and then, but that's it.
umm..
http://www.thebedfordcitizen.org/2015/09/15/minuteman-bike-t...
"Road use tax" isn't actually a thing, nor is it exclusive to car drivers - roads are paid for via the same taxes as everything else. Sales tax, income tax and property tax, distributed according to local, state, and federal budgets.
Cyclists pay their share of the taxes that build roads via sales tax, income tax, and property tax, same as everyone else does.
Most cyclists also own cars, and have paid all the relevant fees.
Pick whichever argument you like the best.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_State...
Not so sure about state taxes (gas or registration) but I believe its similar depending on where you live, paying more for local roads.
Not saying its not fair but it makes some sense... people who buy gas or register pay the most (electric vehicles skirt this), people who don't drive pay some too through normal taxes as they utilize them for public transit, bikes, products they buy, or the food they eat.
There may not be an official "road use tax" but that's the gist of what has been implemented.
Bike riders also pay taxes because they usually are able to actually live in the city where they work and ride their bike, so they're more likely to be paying property tax to the city, sales taxes to local merchants, actually being around on the evenings and weekends to patronize local business etc, instead of just commuting in during the day, creating traffic and then leaving the place a ghost town after 5pm.
The change came with the automobile, which has huge mass and travels at high speed. The danger of the automobile to all other road users was so profound and unique that the need to license motor vehicles soon became quite clear. And even with driver licensing, cars kill thousands of people every year.
Bicycles simply do not pose much of a threat to other road users, that would require cyclist licensing.
Similarly, a 250-lb cyclist does not cause much wear and tear on the roads compared to a 2,500-lb motorist. Roads are more expensive because they have to be built for cars.
In the UK cyclists have an equal voice because the highways exist for them to use just as they exist for pedestrians, horse riders and motorists. This is enshrined in law so is a statutory right.
Trivia fact: The cost of construction and upkeep of "motorways" (roads dedicated to motor vehicle traffic) outstrips the total income from VED year-on-year. In the UK, if you use a bicycle but never a car, you are subsidising motor travel.
Sadly involving a new license/tax on something involves government overhead that hopefully wouldn't be more than the tax they are collecting (or deter people from choosing a healthy and environmentally friendly alternative to driving).
As for the plates, similar explanation. We don't need a plate on humans, as usually identification can be done ín-situ if required.
On top of that, you want to reinforce the use of bikes, and not reduce it. Increasing bureaucracy for bikes will not help at all.
Well, property taxes pay for specific-use auto lanes even if one doesn't own a car, and nobody seems to mind that (well I do, but I'm weird).
That being said, I would be THRILLED to pay for tolled bike lanes that were kept free of cars and other threats.
I pay my city $40 a year for the privilege of owning a car and living here. That's barely enough to cover salting in the winter.
The rest of my city's road expense comes entirely from property tax and sales tax. So why add a tax for bikers?
These figures are from 2010: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/23/drivers-cover-just-51-...
The potential property damage and/or physical injury (not to mention general wear and tear upon roadways) that a bicycle can produce is minuscule in comparison to the potential destructive power of the automobile. Much of the legal justification for registration/licensing and taxation of vehicles is born from these factors.
Just off the top of my head:
They don't cost enough (like cars) to have a reasonable bottle neck on purchase.
A slogged DMV would never agree to add 4x the customers by adding bicycle licenses.
safety stats: 30,000 people were killed last year in the states in car related incidents. 700 people on bikes in same were killed in car related collisions. No one (as far as I find) is killed when they're hit by a bicycle.
I'm not sure I agree with this one. A decent commuter bike is going to run ~$500 new, and one can easily spend $2.5k on a bike. Obviously that's not as expensive as a car, but a nice new bike is approximately as expensive as a beater car.
And those expensive bikes are what percent of the bikes on the road everyday? Less than 2% I bet. But there's no way to tell as far as I can figure.