"Bicyclists think they own the road!"

[2TonJellyBean]

Dave, that's a very unhealthy attitude you have.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by SD26

I would argue given the programs of registrations that have become the tradition of some socialized programs in government, bicyclists should contribute to "the public" trust.

In areas with lots of development there are bike registration programs.

Originally Posted by SD26

Additionally, where's their proof of insurance?

Insurance generally isn't needed for a vehicle with the least kinetic energy on the road, by a wide margin. If that ends up happening I wouldn't be surprised if we were a hop, skip, and jump away from insurance requirements for pedestrians.

[Mighty Mira]

Originally Posted by SD26

I would argue given the programs of registrations that have become the tradition of some socialized programs in government, bicyclists should contribute to "the public" trust.

Assuming you aren't trolling (big assumption)...

Potholes on roads are primarily caused by heavy vehicles, the heavier the vehicle, the more impact. The weight of a human or bicycle + human or even motorcycle + human causes negligible wear and tear on the roads besides natural decay.

They also contribute to energy independence and a lowering of pollution, a worthy goal for any country.

Even if their food (converted eventually in moving miniscule amounts of air out of the way, and heating up tires) came from tractors and trucks using the road, that is already factored into the cost of their food. Theoretically, a cyclist could be using their own backyard to grow crops to eat, effectively being pollution free.

If anything, an individual should be able to register vehicles like motorbikes and scooters for free if they have already registered a car or truck. That would make it an economical decision to buy and use very cheap and low pollution transport on sunny days, which for most of the world is most of the time.

[GasSavers_SD26]

Well, potholes do happen. Roads are developed and designed for light duty to heavy duty vehicles. A crack in the pavement for a car is not an issue for a car, but it can be for a bicycle.

The litigious nature of current society can have unintended consequences. The ride across Iowa that has occured for years is threatened by counties that now don't want it there because of the risk of a law suit. One can go use google to find it, but a bicyclist hit a crack, on that would be no problem for a car, and was injured.

Yeah, that sucks, but it IS a road for light cars through heavy trucks. Does one's homeowners insurance cover that?

Anyway, that's the fact of life. No county can afford to make their roads glass surfaces to account for the lack of travel for the chassis of a bike, etc.

Show me where larger vehicle don't pay more for their registrations? Show me how larger vehicles by their inherent nature of being bigger, heavier don't contribute more in taxes because the nature of per gallon/liter road taxes aren't directly proportionate to their use?

But, then again, try to get a bunch of people to move 300 tons of stone for a project on bicycles. We'll see how long it takes to progress, how much it costs, and how little anyone would be able to make from it as workers.

What is an alternative to work? Roads are developed for commerce. Race tracks are for pleasure. Road taxes pay for commerce, which people need for work, supplies, etc.

And, honestly, calling me out as a troll is pretty darn petty. I have a different point of view, and I have been clear and reasonable about it, unless you disagree. I will generalize base on my own experiences that attitudes like that, attacking individuals based on their beliefs being "different" or "wrong", are common from some in society.

[kickflipjr]

I think biking is safest in slow moving city traffic. It is much safer to take the whole lane in that situation.

In higher speed traffic it is a lot more dangerous and cars may not be able see or expect to see bike on the road.

[skewbe]

Originally Posted by SD26

Well, potholes do happen.

Not from bicycles, at least not in any significant form.

Originally Posted by SD26

Roads are developed and designed for light duty to heavy duty vehicles.

A bicycle IS a light duty vehicle.

Originally Posted by SD26

A crack in the pavement for a car is not an issue for a car, but it can be for a bicycle.

A narrow gap is not an issue for a bike, but it can be for a car. Eggs are $2.40 a dozen.

Originally Posted by SD26

The litigious nature of current society can have unintended consequences.

That argument can be applied to any position under the sun.

Originally Posted by SD26

The ride across Iowa that has occured for years is threatened by counties that now don't want it there because of the risk of a law suit. One can go use google to find it, but a bicyclist hit a crack, on that would be no problem for a car, and was injured.

It is threatened by people, and their perspectives. Let us not over generalize and make the problem sound so nebulous that it becomes intangible.

Originally Posted by SD26

Yeah, that sucks, but it IS a road for light cars through heavy trucks.

INVALID ASSERTION DETECTED

Originally Posted by SD26

Does one's homeowners insurance cover that?

Does one measure the extent of liberty in such terms?!?

Originally Posted by SD26

Anyway, that's the fact of life.

INVALID ASSERTION DETECTED

Originally Posted by SD26

No county can afford to make their roads glass surfaces to account for the lack of travel for the chassis of a bike, etc.

INVALID ASSERTION DETECTED

Originally Posted by SD26

Show me where larger vehicle don't pay more for their registrations? Show me how larger vehicles by their inherent nature of being bigger, heavier don't contribute more in taxes because the nature of per gallon/liter road taxes aren't directly proportionate to their use?

INVALID LACK OF NEGATIVE PROOF ARGUMENT DETECTED

Originally Posted by SD26

But, then again, try to get a bunch of people to move 300 tons of stone for a project on bicycles. We'll see how long it takes to progress, how much it costs, and how little anyone would be able to make from it as workers.

Again, question of perspective, the great wall and the pyramids didn't even have bicycles Why the rush to get it done?

Originally Posted by SD26

What is an alternative to work?

Wow, talk about not thinking out of the box, Wow!

Originally Posted by SD26

Roads are developed for commerce. Race tracks are for pleasure. Road taxes pay for commerce, which people need for work, supplies, etc.

You are locked into all sorts of preconceptions.

Originally Posted by SD26

And, honestly, calling me out as a troll is pretty darn petty. I have a different point of view, and I have been clear and reasonable about it, unless you disagree.

Hey, trolls happen.

Originally Posted by SD26

I will generalize base on my own experiences that attitudes like that, attacking individuals based on their beliefs being "different" or "wrong", are common from some in society.

The problem is when you blame bicycles for getting hit by cars or falling into unmaintained cracks, you perpetuate an outdated and boorish mentality that is the basis for the very title of this thread. You might as well suppose that shooting victims who don't wear bullet proof vests should pay more money into healthcare. Getting from one place to another by the muscles that God gave you is an absolute right.

[Mighty Mira]

Originally Posted by SD26

Well, potholes do happen.

They don't just "happen". It's the weight of traffic that does it. And I'd put money on it that one very heavily loaded wheel would do more damage than 1000 or even 1000,000 lightly loaded wheels.

Anyway, that's the fact of life. No county can afford to make their roads glass surfaces to account for the lack of travel for the chassis of a bike, etc.

I don't recall making an argument that a road for human powered transport must be anywhere near a "glass surface". Maybe you did in your strawman argument. One county banned a race (but not bicycles as transport). Big whoop.

Show me where larger vehicle don't pay more for their registrations?

They do, it's just not proportional compared to the upkeep on roads that their use mandates.

Show me how larger vehicles by their inherent nature of being bigger, heavier don't contribute more in taxes because the nature of per gallon/liter road taxes aren't directly proportionate to their use?

Show me how that is proportional when compared to the wear and tear imposed by a bicycle.

But, then again, try to get a bunch of people to move 300 tons of stone for a project on bicycles.

Again, nice strawman. There is a need for heavy moving, and as fuel price rises, forms of transport with better Crr figures become viable again. In a lot of the world, people still use beasts of burden for hauling. This was the case even in WWII, though the propaganda footage on both sides always pictured trucks.

What is an alternative to work? Roads are developed for commerce. Race tracks are for pleasure. Road taxes pay for commerce, which people need for work, supplies, etc.

??? Ok... so you want to defray the costs of carting stuff to everyone, so that the actual costs of carting are underestimated and people make a decision that costs more in finite resources. Nice.

And, honestly, calling me out as a troll is pretty darn petty.

I notice that you didn't say I was wrong, just that I was petty. Telling.

[Snax]

Want to walk on the sidewalk? One better get a permit for that, as I'm sure some large vehicle driver paid his unfair share for your privilege!

Seriously Dave, that's seems like a ridiculous suggestion, particularly if governments want to reduce the number of miles driven and encourage alternate transportation.

Around here, we have something called tax assessments on homes. Anybody who lives within a structure anywhere in the county pays their share of that, whether through being taxed directly or built into their rent. Other communities use similar or other tax structures for the same purpose.

We ALL pay for the roads. Some just pay more than others, and usually with good reason.

[2TonJellyBean]

Believe it or not roads actually pre-date the automobile.

[Jim T.]

Bicycles on the road are fine, we all need to share. Cars, trucks, motorcycles, peds, and bicycles. But when you block traffic, ride two abreast, and other such nonsense you are asking for trouble. Here in Florida most cyclists seem to think riding two abreast is normal. Thats when I push the button on the 145db airhorn in my right fender skirt. Works a treat.

As for a motorized vehicle,
If you are doing 50mph in a 65 posted two lane holding up a line of vehicles, you are not traffic, you are a slowpoke.
If you are afraid to use the gas pedal while trying to merge with 70mph traffic on a freeway onramp while only doing 45mph, you are not traffic, you are a danger to yourself and those behind you.
The quest for maximum FE should not impede the rights of others.

Jim T.