Meanwhile, builds the largest highway network in the world, many even in cities; maintain shitload of free parking; also enforces minimum parking requirements, all at the expense of tax payer.
People without cars are literally forced to pay to make everyone’s life worse.
In some state, yes, if by “most” you mean “more than 50% of road expense is paid by toll and car related taxes”.
But that is still a huge percentage not covered by tax for car users, requiring other foundings to cover them. The highest percentage paid by user tax and toll is not even 70% in all the U.S. states.
Not to mention many state dont even cover 50%; some only cover as low as 19% or even 12%.
It depends, in a country where the road system makes sense, sure. In rural area where every road serves a purpose: connecting business to transport goods, sure.
But excessive roads in cities and suburbs? No. Many roads in city and suburbs of the U.S. should be closed for cars, and be bike, bus, and emergency vehicles only. Since cars either don’t use them that much or just don’t have good experience on them because of the congestions. This also saves road maintainance, enables a smoother experience in transport and emergency vehicles, controls emission, and encourage a health life style in general.
It is again about the right tools for the job. A loaded van to transport fruit to the local farmer’s market, emergency vehicles, these are times where cars are the right tools. On the other hand, F150 is not the right tool to get a Mcdonald’s drive through for one.
Right cuz cyclists are totally paying the road fees to use keep the road maintained just as much as the motorists do. What was it called? Ah yes. Registration
Right cuz cyclists are totally paying the road fees to keep the road maintained even they don’t cause any damages at all. What was it called? Ah yes. Taxes
Didn’t argue that it requires more for a car hence why Registration is a lot more. If it was taxes in general and only for bikes it would not be built for cars to use either. You have to share it. Just like you expect them to share with bikes.
And speaking of taxes : Just like you expect transit such as buses to also exist for people moving. Which is also paid by taxes and bikes should also have to share with them. if you put a bus or any emergency vehicle in place of that car in that cartoon, those cyclists are the bigger asshole in the equation.
I’m all for cutting down emissions but putting people in danger or doubling down inconsideration is a foolish, abusive and negligent stance to be taking.
Except pedestrians and cyclists subsidize the roads through taxes while cars wouldn’t even break even with high cost of road maintenance. This is not including the insane parking requirements that most US cities have.
Some are fees. Some are Fuel taxes for roads. Cyclists don’t use fuel. But if it’s road space they believe they are entitled to then from that picture they benefit from fuel and they don’t want that to stop. Fuel pays for those bike lanes.
Depends on your country. Here in the UK roads are maintained using funds from the general tax pool, so the cyclists are actually subsidising the motorists, who proportionally do a lot more damage to the road surface.
If they are subsidizing they are paying a portion. If they are then they should be but they should also not be acting like it was entirely built entirely by cyclists for cyclists who have equal use of the road as if they are the same as a car with the same intentions as a car or transit or emergency vehicle. Yes they can have their lane but acting like they can act as wide as a car for an argument to act like an entitled asshole on the road even on a ‘subsidy’ is an inane comparison.
If you are saying that you support the construction of comprehensive segregated cycle paths then I am very much on your side.
Yes they can have their lane
It would be nice if motorists also kept to their lane, then. Too often I find my cycle lanes blocked by drivers who feel that the road was"entirely built entirely by motorists for motorists". I would also be happy to keep to my lane if it always existed. As it is, a lot of the time I’m left with no other choice but to join with the motor traffic as the cycle lanes just stop existing. In the UK it’s illegal to ride on the pavement, and I’m sure you wouldn’t want me to become another cyclist who just ignores the law for his own benefit?
It’s also important to note here that the UK now has the Hierarchy of Road Users, which explicitly states that the more vulnerable the road user, the more priority they should be given. Pedestrians have top priority, followed by horses, followed by cyclists, and then with motorised traffic at the bottom. It’s a very new development, and one that I don’t think has been tested in law yet, but it’s there in our Highway Code.
emergency vehicles and transit are motorized as well which hold vulnerable people(if not the most vulnerable). That should be taken into account.
and I’m sure you wouldn’t want me to become another cyclist who just ignores the law for his own benefit?
As a cyclist I don’t do this as it’s my decision. so you don’t speak for all cyclists. Don’t hold me hostage with your behaviour decisions as I’m not holding you hostage with mine. You can Manage your own behaviour like a responsible person without making threats as a bad faith argument. It’s beneath all of us to act this way and undermining legitimate arguments at best.
Roads are maintained with taxpayer dollars because car registration is insignificant. Potholes form due to weight/usage of the road and cars are much much harder on roads than bicycles. So in reality, people riding bikes are subsidizing all the damage caused by cars using the roads. Not to mention that many people on bikes also own cars and pay for registration…
Actually Much of those repairs are from fuel taxes and cyclists don’t use fuel. But they are certainly benefitting from it. You can’t have it both ways.
Right, and I don’t have kids so why am I paying for kids to go to public school? And I have never had to call the fire department, my taxes should not go to them!
The argument that taxes should only be used for things you use is wrong. The whole point of taxes is to benefit society as whole. Roads are used for many purposes and for different reasons. No one owns the roads! They’re public!
Ha. As a cyclist I hear this all the fucking time. Road tax is based on emissions. Regular tax pays for road maintenance. People also forget that the majority of cyclists are also car owners themselves.
No shit Im one of them. But doesn’t mean I agree that you can act like an entitled ass regardless of vehicle you drive. Fuel tax also pays for road maintenance that benefits cyclists. Maybe don’t demonize while using it then. By the by I agree with a bike lane. I disagree that you have to make bullshit arguments about size to make that point. You all want to fuck cars but really you are benefiting from them.
I do. I have both vehicles. So do many cyclists also own cars. And most people may need an ambulance or may take transit .
Just cuz you personally think you don’t use something doesn’t absolve that you could still benefit from it just cuz there’s a majority who made it possible. you benefit from vehicles paying a fuel tax. You could also benefit from emergency and transit vehicles having a road to drive on if you had to ever have to be in one. That fuel moving your body is paying for the road.
that car would have pulled over two blocks ago and the cyclists would still be blocking the fire truck.
Now you say
I do. I have both vehicles.
What are you trying to say? Are you saying that you block emergency vehicles like an inconsiderate pos when you are riding a bike but immediately pull over and act like a sensible person when you are driving? Is that what you’re trying to say?
Yes they are, roads are mostly build and maintained with taxpayer dollars.
So cyclist only use a portion of the road, don’t generate any wear unlike the other 2 tons vehicles they are sharing the road with but still pay the same amount than car users.
The picture doesn’t account for the fact that in many places you have to give 3 feet when overtaking cyclists. Not saying that everyone does that but the graphic should show an extra three feet on either side of the cyclists if we want to represent how much space they are actually occupying
A dang El Camino is looking more like a rational useful truck when comparing to these things. The joke cars of the past are outdoing the modern car. Wild times.
Oh and the Chevrolet El Camino has 1000 lbs more towing capacity then this…
You are correct but that doesn’t matter to the buyer of this thing. They want to have this instead of a civic and a regular truck in addition often times. If it’s not a truck they feel emasculated.
You’re implying that a pickup truck is necessary or even desirable for camping. The civic would do fine, or a minivan or van if they have a lot of people and gear. But if they only camp once per year they wouldn’t realize that.
You are actually right. My friend camp with a car with only two doors and barely fits 4 people. and they are doing absolutely fine. Granted they only are a couple, but I imagine a camery can fit a family of 4 just fine, unless you are going to a extremely rurual place with terrible weather.
But I can kind of see the point people are making, that they might need a truck for work, and don’t want a second car for family trip. It some makes financial sense if you only have one car.
But I imagine renting a small SUV or a medium sedan for once a year vacation (with family of 4 or 5) makes more sense for comfort and the environment.
And I have yet to see any American family larger than 3 with only 1 car, so I am quite doubtful of the premise.
EDIT: after very unscientific search of a non-car-guy (aka me), it seems like this car is among the most fuel efficient truck you can buy. So if you ABSOLUTELY NEED a truck, a Ridgeline is probably better than a F150. We are likely indeed mad at the wrong crowd. That being said, I am still quite doubtful that a truck needs to be this large, but I dont think there are many small trucks in the U.S.
I recall reading a study about stray dogs in urban environments. I don’t remember much from it, but I diatinctly remember the authors discovered that urban dogs tended to avoid intersections. They would walk down the block a significant distance before attempting to cross a street.
Intersections are complicated. Traffic can be coming from any direction, turning toward or away from your path. Halfway down the block, though, traffic is only approaching from two directions. Much less going on, and much safer for the animal.
We have way better taste and ideas than anything the USSR put out. But social housing in some former-bloc countries is pretty innovative. Still not fitting American values.
I’d say just show them rowhouses of Philly, the duplexes of… Vancouver? Or actual building plans for high density housing.
Americans are highly allergic to copy-pasted buildings (ahem… Except in the suburbs) and thats a good value to uphold.
fuckcars
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.