SUVing is good for the economy, bicycling is not
Question:
In Pennsylvania bikes ARE in fact considered like motor vehicles, when driven on the roadways of the commonwealth. Drivers are subject to all the regulations and penalties of title #75, the Pa. Motor Vehicle Code. One can even go to jail under the three provisions of the Pa. Criminal Code pertaining to Title #75, like mutable DUI convictions or homicide by motor vehicle. Even when the violations occur on private property. 
mike hunt – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Bicycles are not motor vehicles, they do not require expensive roads, > they do NOT impose a burden of cost on society. Automobiles do. > ^^^- typographical correction
Response:
Orlando says: Once upon a time, in the deep jungle, there were a Lion and a Monkey… One day the Monkey, tired of the Lion always getting the lion share, demanded his right to get more… The Lion, yawning and stretching, said: You would have to have paws and sharp teeth… Then the Monkey, who was very clever, devised a plan: He would go to the costume store, and look like a lion… When the Lion saw him, noticing that the new lion wasnt a match for him, and fearing competion, killed him on the spot… And thats how the Law of the Jungle was re established one more time… Then you agree that bikes and the riders should be licensed. The bikes should be inspected for unsafe conditions before being licensed. Bike lanes need tolls, since they don’t use a fuel that can be taxed. They should tax bicycle parts, clothing, helmets, knee/elbow pads and gloves to help pay to build the bike paths. That requiring riders to show they have completed a proper training course and prove they carry liability, as well as health/accident and dental insurance for themselves, before allowing them to use the bike lanes would be a sensible first step. That might help to keep down the number of injuries and deaths. Or do you believe automobile drivers should continue to pay their expenses. Do you believe bikes and their riders should not be regulated the same as cars? "What worries me is not the violence of the few, but the indifference of the many" "Lo que a mi me preocupa no es la violencia de unos pocos, sino la indiferencia de los muchos" M.L. King Jr. http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote/index.html http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote1/index.html http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote2/index.html http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote3/index.html http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote4/index.html http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote5/index.html http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote6/index.html http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote7/index.html http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote8/index.html http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote9/index.html http://psrdc.org
Response:
> Bicycles are not motor vehicles, they do not require expensive roads, > they do NOT impose a burden of cost on society. Automobiles do.
^^^- typographical correction
Response:
What is a "fair share?" One would suspect it to be at least whatever it costs to install and maintain the bike ways, no? Since when has the government ever worried about the cost of collecting taxes, or redistributing, taxes? They simply deduct those cost from the taxes they collect. If the balance in not enough to do the task for which they imposed the tax, they raise the tax. mike hunt – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Why the difference? If you want to use the public roads you > should expect to pay your fair share. Surely you do not believe > others should have to pay your share do you? > What is a "fair share"? > To answer that, you need to determine what auto fees are based on. Weight, > horsepower, purchase price. All used in various places/jurisdictions. > Scale those down to that of a bicycle, and the administration fees would > outstrip any fees collected. > You DO want to be fair, right? > Pete
Response:
While I would love to see a skills test for cyclists to insure some minimal ability, that is largely due to the fact that as a bicyclist, the moron bicyclists are a far greater risk to me than cars. Consider it appears most states allow any living breathing hominid-looking bi ped a license. So I have to ask Mike, outside of causing you a brief moment of concern over squashing an idiot on a bike, who did something stupid, is it worse to let lose a moron on a 25lb bike with a brake problem or a similarly incapacitated moron lose in a 7000 pound Excursion- insurance or not? I don’t see a distinction between them, both should be held equally responsible, IMO. If someone kills somebody does it rally matter if the used a knife, gun or a vehicle? Orlando says: SIZE MATTERS. Truck drivers undergo extensive training and face tough licensing. The same should be true for SUVs… "What worries me is not the violence of the few, but the indifference of the many" "Lo que a mi me preocupa no es la violencia de unos pocos, sino la indiferencia de los muchos" M.L. King Jr. http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote/index.html http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote1/index.html http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote2/index.html http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote3/index.html http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote4/index.html http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote5/index.html http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote6/index.html http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote7/index.html http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote8/index.html http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote9/index.html http://psrdc.org
Response:
^- still doing this childish thing mike, what is your malfuction? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Perhaps but you have once again avoided the question asked. > I didn’t avoid them. In fact I’ve written extensively on the topic > as recently as earlier this week. > > Why should bikes and their riders not pay for the roads they > > use, just as cars and their driver must? Simple question. > Because A) they already pay. B) It’s cars that need expensive roads. > C) bicycles do not have the damage capability of cars. > For suporting details see the other thread regarding bicyclist > behavior. You posted to that thread, so it should be real easy > for you to find on google or anywhere else. > My time is money, I can’t waste educating someone who didn’t take > the time to read durring the first go around. > Then you agree that bikes and the riders should be licensed.
riders already are licensed. It’s called a driver’s license, all but an insignicant number of adult cyclists have them. There is no need to register a bicycle it serves no useful purpose. DO TRY TO READ for a change. > The > bikes should be inspected for unsafe conditions before being > licensed.
Why? The cars are not even inspected in IL. > Bike lanes need tolls, since they don’t use a fuel > that can be taxed.
I oppose bike lanes. Bike lanes are ghetto for bicyclists that serve motorists. If you want bike lanes, you pay for them. > They should tax bicycle parts, clothing, > helmets, knee/elbow pads and gloves to help pay to build the bike > paths.
I oppose bicycle paths for bicycling. These are really walk-your-dog, take-a-walk through the woods paths. They go no-where or needlessly long by looping around. They are full of peds, roller bladers and other users that clutter them and drive bicycle speeds down to a crawl. > That requiring riders to show they have completed a > proper training course
Why? Drivers are not required to complete a proper training course. In IL anyone 18 years and older can just walk into the license facility and take the test. > and prove they carry liability,
Bicycles don’t have the capability of doing any more damage than one’s fists or shopping cart. You better mandate liability insurance for *EVERYTHING* if you think it’s needed for bicycles. > as well as > health/accident and dental insurance for themselves, before > allowing them to use the bike lanes would be a sensible first > step. That might help to keep down the number of injuries and > deaths.
Why? Motorists are not required to have any of that. > Or do you believe automobile drivers should continue to pay their > expenses.
Automobile drivers (a group that includes almost every bicyclist in the USA) are the ones that need the expensive roads. > Do you believe bikes and their riders should not be > regulated the same as cars?
Bicycles are not motor vehicles, they do not require expensive roads, they do impose a burden of cost on society. Automobiles do. > A simply yes reply to the first or the latter will be sufficient > for others to fully understand your position on the subject.
You could go read the other thread and not be lazy moron. Since I fixed your topposting you shouldn’t even be reading any of this cause you don’t scroll down.
Response:
Perhaps but you have once again avoided the question asked. Why should bikes and their riders not pay for the roads they use, just as cars and their driver must?
Related Posts