Welcome to Spare The Road

Spare the Road is a blog dedicated to getting annoying cyclists off the streets for the safety of everyone and betterment of society.

Mar 5, 2013

Wasington Politcian Wrong About Cyclists, or Is He?

A Washington state lawmaker got into a tiff with a bike store owner over cyclists trying to get out of paying the same taxes all other vehicles pay to use the roads. While arguing for taxing cyclists for using roads, Ed Orcutt made a pretty idiotic comment that cyclists pollute by breathing heavier. This is pretty stupid.

A couple of points here though. Getting cyclists to pay taxes is something more politicians need to get on board with, and despite these moronic comments, I commend this guy for taking this stand. Despite tax revenues being down for most state and local governments, and our public infrastructure crumbling before our eyes, cyclists want to avoid paying taxes for their death traps, depsite claiming to want equality on the roads.

But more importantly he is almost right here. While cyclists' breath does not add to pollution, they do increase gas usage by causing all other vehicles on the road to expend more gas by having to slow down to pass them. We've covered this before.

So yes, this guy is an idiot. But he also is right about a couple of things. Cyclists need to pay taxes if they want to use the roads, and they absolutely do increase pollution by increasing gas usage. Let's get them off the roads and make everyone happy. No taxes for cyclists, less gas and pollution.

http://news.yahoo.com/washington-state-lawmaker-backpedals-saying-cyclists-pollute-breathing-034008925.html

21 comments:

  1. In regards to the statement "While cyclists' breath does not add to pollution, they do increase gas usage by causing all other vehicles on the road to expend more gas by having to slow down to pass them." Would that be more than the gas the cyclist would have used driving to work instead of biking?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In most cases yes. The cyclist is only saving gas on his car. Meanwhile hundreds, and in some case thousands, of cars will expend more gas as they have to slow down due to bike. Those tiny amounts add up. And in some case they are not tiny at all. One cyclist can bring an entire highway to a crawl.

      Delete
    2. I would have to strongly disagree with the assumption that this is most cases. I dont believe those tiny amounts add up as quickly as you seem to think they do. And I dont know too many cases where a cyclist is slowing down a packed highway. That would be an unusual circumstance, and the exception, not the norm.

      Delete
    3. As a motorist I find that it's very rare that I am slowed down by more than a few seconds by the presence of bicyclists. What's far more common is that I'm slowed down by the other cars and trucks on the road. If there were more bicyclists and correspondingly fewer cars there would be less road congestion and I'd save a bit of gas while driving.

      And note that gas taxes and vehicle registration fees fund only a fraction of the cost of our road system. They do fund much of the cost of interstate highways which are very rarely used by cyclists. But local road construction and maintenance is primarily supported by general fund revenue coming out of income, sales, and property taxes - all of which cyclists already pay.

      Delete
  2. and your comment "Getting cyclists to pay taxes is something more politicians need to get on board with" why? do pedestrians need to pay more taxes for sidewalks?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If cyclists want to stick to the sidewalks, awesome. Make it illegal for them to ride on the roads and problem solved.

      Delete
    2. Really? I'm assuming that this is tied to the assumption that since they dont use gas they are not paying for the roads (which they are via the general fund) BTW if I were to accept your argument I could use it against you and say by the notion that the cyclist is causing cars to use more gas, to the point that they cause the cars to use more gas that the savings in gas by the cyclists foregoing a car, then wouldnt they be paying MORE than their fair share in that case? It really is a silly argument doncha think?

      Delete
    3. and how do you address the issue of sidewalks? how are those being paid for?

      Delete
  3. That’s a far cry from the truth, according to the study’s authors, who say that from 1947 to 2005, the amount of money spent on highways, roads and streets has exceeded the funds raised from gas taxes and other user fees by $600 billion. In fact, user fees charged to motorists only cover about half the cost of building and maintaining the country’s highways, roads and streets, according to the paper.

    http://www.governing.com/blogs/fedwatch/Do-Roads-Pay-for-Themselves.html

    So even motorists dont pay enough for roads. And considering the amount of wear and tear a car puts on a road vs a cyclist, and all the pollution caused by fossil fuels and I could go on and on, they SHOULD pay more. But to say cyclists dont pay is, like you said, idiotic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cars paying more is a different issue, and you certainly can argue for it.

      Cyclists claim to want the same rights and rules of the road as cars. But when it comes to paying taxes or stopping at red lights, that doesn't seem to be the case.

      Delete
    2. car paying more IS the issue, isnt it? that cyclist dont contribute the same as a car because they dont use gas. And since gas only pays part of the cost, then taxpayers pay the rest and since cylcists are tax payers they are paying for the roads.

      Now you're bringing in red lights? isnt that a different issue or is this all tied together? Orcutt never said anything about red lights did he?

      Delete
    3. It's better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

      Delete
  4. Don't you think your thinking is a little bit flawed.
    Since when does riding a bicycle mean you are a communist.

    Since '07 median incomes are way down in the United States.









    ReplyDelete
  5. Hiya very nice website!! Guy .. Excellent .
    . Amazing .. I will bookmark your website and take the feeds also?
    I am happy to search out so many helpful information here in the post, we want work out more techniques in this regard, thanks for sharing.

    . . . . .

    my web blog: buy hcg

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's a shame these douche bag cyclists are making the roads so unsafe for our law abiding citizens. Whenever I hear about a cyclist being mowed over by a car, I find out where the funeral is and I go to mark the grave site. Then I come back later and piss on it. Burn in Hell, homo cyclist douchebags.2

    ReplyDelete
  7. taxes
    ha
    you think i don;t have a CAR?

    ReplyDelete
  8. also

    slower cars == higher gas mileage not lower

    cars wear out roads, do bikes do that? no

    wle


    ReplyDelete
  9. "Wasington Politcian"?

    I usually lay off the vodka and Ritalin about 2 hours before I seat at my desk and start typing. Usually.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Is that Wasington State or Wasington DC? Eiter way, te guy sounds like a doucebag.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am not in a position to see this website correctly on my telephone :(

    Feel free to visit my webpage ... can t get pregnant

    ReplyDelete
  12. I love this blog!!!! I hate that it hasn't been updated in over 3 weeks, though.

    Cyclists are already taxed for the roads, as explained by a bunch of other ppl up-thread. Further, many cyclists do own cars, pay registration fees for cars, buy gas, etc. Further, and more to the point of refuting the entire premise of this blog, the American roadways were home to bicycles before the automobile was even invented. And, cyclists were largely responsible for the concept of paved roads, leastways douchey ones on skinny-tired bikes were. Just some facts to mull over while you compose your next post.

    Seriously, I love your work. Don't let anyone discourage you from writing more. You are number one!

    ReplyDelete