Streetsblog New York City

Of course, local streets are generally paid for by property taxes, which bicyclists pay like everybody else.

What if a pedestrian causes a traffic accident? Do they have collision insurance for walking?

What about people’s dogs?

What about deer?

“Of course, local streets are generally paid for by property taxes, which bicyclists pay like everybody else.”

This needs to be stated over and over again. Most gas taxes to go highways. Bicycles are not allowed on limited access highways.

Everyone pays for streets. Motor vehicles occupy far more street space per person, and cause more wear and tear on them, than do bicycles.

And, by the way, in NYC the city doesn’t even maintain the sidewalks. For pedestrians the expected institutional collapse — taxes with nothing in return — has already occured.

I’ve been “car free” for all of seven days (since arriving in Brooklyn sans car last Saturday) and have an appointment to have my cruising/commuting bike fitted tomorrow at 2pm.

I would have no problem paying an annual registration fee to license my bicycle and have it annually inspected for soundness at a set price, provided that the DOT was required to provide and maintain bike lanes on all roads and that Traffic Cops were required to police both drivers and cyclists for obstructing those lanes, causing accidents, and otherwise hampering the productive, safe flow of traffic. Sounds like the outline of a legitimate partnership.

The problem that causes folks concern about cyclists paying their way is a failure of imagination. “Drivers” pay for all sorts of asphalt that they are not allowed to use: HOV lanes, passing lanes, breakdown lanes, sidewalks. None of the above types of pavement may be driven upon except under certain circumstances–circumstances in which most drivers can imagine finding themselves at some point.

“Today I’m by myself, but tomorrow I might have a passenger, allowing me to use the HOV lane.”

“Today I’m slow, so I can’t use the passing lane, but tomorrow I might be driving a faster car.”

“I’m not having car trouble today, so I have to stay off the shoulder of the highway (even though I paid for it), but tomorrow I might have an emergency.”

“I’m driving right now, so I have to stay off the sidewalk–but pretty soon I’m going to park, and then I’ll get to use that sidewalk I paid for.”

The one scenario many drivers can never seem to imagine is this one:

“Today I’m driving, but tomorrow I might decide to ride my bike.”

People have no problem paying for parts of the road they might likely never use–or even be allowed to use–as long as somewhere in the dim recesses of their imagination they could see themselves in a situation that would allow them to use it “someday”.

Also, folks who cite “freeloading” as a reason for these types of fees on cyclists seem to forget about the other, much larger group of “freeloaders” who get even more use out of the road than cyclists: passengers in motor vehicles. What’s the difference whether I decide to leave my car at home and take someone else’s car, vs. whether I decide to leave my car at home and take my bike? In either case, my car is off the road and I’m using a vehicle on which I paid no registration or licence fees…

Ponder.

Oops, I meant, “‘license’ fees”.

Krieger’s arguments are pretty specious.

The $54 2 year registration fee he proposes is the same as the registration fee for cars. You might be able to make a case that bikers should pay their “fair share” of the cost of maintaining streets and highways, but it’s hard to argue that they should pay the same as cars.

It’s also hard to argue that registration would help police catch bikers who violate traffic violations. When police see a bike commit a moving violation, they can stop the bike, ask for identification, and write a ticket — just as they do when motorists violate the law. This should actually be easier when a bike is involved, since a high-speed chase is unlikely.

After the massive auto bailouts and the stimulus billions for roads, is there still any doubt that the private-auto system is economically unsustainable and heavily subsidized? Where are the honest economists? Is there such a thing? If the bicycle were subsidized as the auto, there would be gold-plated bike racks on every corner.

Whats even more ridiculous about Krieger’s proposal is that state of Oregon motor vehicle lincenses only go towards the operating budget of the Department of Motor Vehicles. Its not like the bike fee would actually end up going towards building new bike lanes or anything.