Yahoo Article on bike tax

[ebubar]

http://news.yahoo.com/city-cycling-grows-does-bike-tax-temptation-162607878.html

Interesting read.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Topic

[mstone]

It’s not interesting or insightful, it’s a tired idea that keeps coming up to fill column inches. Bike registration pretty much always results in a program that costs more than it generates. The idea generates ad revenue because it lets motorists complain about something, an activity they can’t resist. Here’s an alternative: tax pedestrians to pay for sidewalks. Here’s another alternative: avoid the cost of bike lanes and sidewalks by returning to an earlier model; have everyone walk in the road, and limit traffic to 20 mph.

[PotomacCyclist]

Increase taxes on heavy trucks and tour buses. They cause the most damage to transportation infrastructure by far. You break it, you pay for it.

[dkel]

@PotomacCyclist 72735 wrote:

Increase taxes on heavy trucks and tour buses. They cause the most damage to transportation infrastructure by far. You break it, you pay for it.

Add to this the benefits of cycling: reduction in carbon production, reduction in dependence on oil, health benefits to riders (to name a few). How about a tax credit for these things instead?

[bobco85]

Looks like there is already a thread on this topic in General Discussion posted earlier today: http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?6383-Food-For-Thought&p=72734

Is there a way to combine these threads?

[Drewdane]

I think introducing a bike-specific revenue stream is absolutely worth considering, for practical and political reasons, as long as the funds go directly to bike infrastructure. Practically, it would help pay for the amenities we all say we want – additional bike lanes, publications, etc. Politically, it would take away the canard used by auto advocates that bicyclists are “freeloaders” of public roads. Goodness knows the “we pay road taxes too” argument certainly doesn’t get anywhere with them…

[mstone]

@Drewdane 72751 wrote:

I think introducing a bike-specific revenue stream is absolutely worth considering, for practical and political reasons, as long as the funds go directly to bike infrastructure. Practically, it would help pay for the amenities we all say we want – additional bike lanes, publications, etc. Politically, it would take away the canard used by auto advocates that bicyclists are “freeloaders” of public roads. Goodness knows the “we pay road taxes too” argument certainly doesn’t get anywhere with them…

If you think this is practical, please explain why a walking tax would not be equally practical (to pay for that expensive sidewalk infrastructure).

[PotomacCyclist]

@bobco85 72743 wrote:

Looks like there is already a thread on this topic in General Discussion posted earlier today: http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?6383-Food-For-Thought&p=72734

Is there a way to combine these threads?

The other thread was started first. So my suggestion is to direct further discussion to that thread. But if people want to keep up both threads, it won’t bother me that much.

[Drewdane]

@mstone 72753 wrote:

If you think this is practical, please explain why a walking tax would not be equally practical (to pay for that expensive sidewalk infrastructure).

I dunno – go ask a pedestrian.

[mstone]

@Drewdane 77410 wrote:

I dunno – go ask a pedestrian.

Wait, so you actually ride your bike into your destination? Because if you walk at all without paying a tax you’re a freeloader. This country wasn’t founded on the idea of people just walking wherever they wanted to.

[Author]

Replies