 |
Daily news for Seattle's Ballard neighborhood |
BuffaloHawk
onlineMember
Do you think that besides newly purchased bikes over $500.00 that there should also be a yearly tab just like cars.I believe that with all the funding going into bike lanes that they should also absorb part of the cost.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020393904_transpopackagexml.html
There’s even a $25 sales fee on bicycles worth $500 or more that raises a total $1 million over 10 years, included for largely symbolic reasons.
Cheese
offlineMember
How much do I pay a year to stop the endless and clueless (in so many diverse ways) "They don't pay for the roads" comments?
Ah, but I'm forgetting, we could pay as much as a Mack truck and there would be yet another divisive canard growing out of the muck to put the evil bicyclists in their place.
I get what you're saying about symbolism. But it won't end there.
Intriguing, but thinking out loud here: bikes don't tear up their lanes the way cars do, and bike wrecks rarely if ever require replacement of signs or guardrails. If we all switch to bikes tomorrow there won't be enough car revenue anymore and we will have to levy a bike tax -- but the roads will last so much longer and will be able to be smaller and probably with lower-cost surfacing. There's no real link between the cost of a bike and how much it is used on public roads. Conclusion: this proposal doesn't make that much sense.
BuffaloHawk
onlineMember
I found this to be interesting and would also benefit cyclists. I like the idea of annual bike inspections since I see a decent amount of people riding when it is dark out without lights.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/02/new_york_bike_l.php
"the annual registration of personal bicycles and provides for a license plate fee of twenty-five dollars for the first year and five dollars for every year thereafter." To get the license plate, cyclists would need to get their bicycles inspected to make sure they "conform to the lamp and equipment requirements."
BIOTRON
offlineMember
"There's no real link between the cost of a bike and how much it is used on public roads." Explain!
Buffalo,
I guess I don't really mind paying something extra. But when you think about it a bit, I do own a vehicle and pay tax when I buy it, and I pay tab costs to keep it on the road, and fuel tax to operate it.
My using my bicycle as much as I do (20 miles round trip each day for commuting, plus trips to stores for groceries and whatnot and visiting friends and so on) the state has the benefit of my tab fees and sales taxes without the wear and tear on the roads that actually using my vehicle would cause. The bicycle is far less impact in terms of wear and tear and congestion than my vehicle would be. Seems like this might balance it all out somehow?
Having said that, I actually wouldn't mind paying something extra to help keep some sensible improvements coming in the way of bike safety on the roads. I wonder what the cost of administering and enforcing this would be versus the revenue gained? Consider that as things stand, I have never seen a policeman stop a bicyclist to enforce any traffic laws. Hard to imagine they would enforce a tab law of some sort.
I have to admit, in many cases I think one of the biggest safety improvements Seattle could make would be simply repairing the roads themselves instead of letting the roads break apart the way we do. Perhaps I am more sensitive to it since I ride a bike so much, but yoweee. Seattle's roads are in pretty pathetic shape. I do notice it when I drive as well of course, but on a bike? Woohoooooo!
D
BuffaloHawk
onlineMember
D
I never thought about the insurance idea before. Is there an insurance out there available to bicyclists.It has me wondering now if a person on there bike is hit by an uninsured motorist who picks up the tab? I also wonder if the insurance could help pay to replace the bike.
Apple
offlineMember
If the bicyclist had UIM/UM insurance for their own car they could make a good argument it applies when riding a bike, even thougth they were not in the car at the time. Same thing with pedestrians. If not, then general medical insurance would be on the hook for medical bills. If neither of those... you and me the tax payer.
Buffalo,
What Apple said...! <grin>
marigold
offlineMember
How about taxing/charging a permit fee for using studded tires? Plenty of less damaging alternatives out there these days, there is no excuse to use them in my book. But if you must, pay dearly for the wear and tear you are causing.
Rant over, carry on.
boatgeek
offlineMember
I'm all for paying for wear. Damage to the road surface is roughly proportional to the cube of the tire load. So my Golf has a max tire load of maybe 1000 lbs, and my bike about 150 lbs worst case. The bike does around 1/300th of the damage to the roadway. That makes my bike tab fees about 35 cents a year if we're going to be all fair and everything. I want that to come off my property tax bill while I'm at it.
On the other hand, we could reward people for driving smaller cars and penalize them for driving beasts and/or studded tires, and make far more money while encouraging constructive choices.
BuffaloHawk
onlineMember
Off Topic
boatgeek - When you mention the weight of transportation modes in reference to the difference in damage they do to the roads I completely understand. When reading your comment it made what to ask a question I never really understood.How come the newer vehicles that do less damage to the environment needs emissions testing and the older models are exempt. I would believe they do more damage.
teigyr
offlineMember
BH, I would guess that it's difficult to judge classic cars vs. old cars and there isn't much difference at all. Maybe? One thing the older cars have going for them is they are (some, at least) made to be fixed not replaced. My '66 is fairly easy to work on, you can rebuild things instead of replacing, and it's a workhorse. I wonder what the impact of disposable cars is despite the fact their emissions are better.
My '66 isn't a daily driver but it has normal plates on it instead of collector. I pay taxes and registration fees on it along with the car I drive. If the '66 were to require emissions testing, there's no way I could (probably) afford it and it'd be a shame to lose some of the history these cars provide.
Just my opinion on it. I see all sorts of old cars that are daily drivers and aren't (imo) in any way collector but how do you judge?
racerX
offlineMember
Ah, the crunchy sound of the studded tires...
Ernie
onlineMember
BH, when the county is looking at regulating air quality and vehicle emissions, they are interested in reducing the pollution generated by the fleet as a whole, not individual vehicles. They have decided that cars older than 25 years old have reached a level of diminishing returns that make them no longer worth testing. Although these older cars are generally much dirtier than newer models, they are also an extremely small percentage of all vehicles on the road, and like tieger's '66 they are less likely to be daily drivers.
The regulators focus on cars 5-25 years old because that is where the biggest impact can be made. Including older cars would result in lots of failed tests and forcing the issue would in many cases be an undue burden on lower income people and could become a sensitive political issue. Also, the vintage/collector car interests lobby pretty hard on these kind of issues.
BTW, I think I remember you disparaging Prius drivers on past threads, but you might want to re-consider as they aren't required to take the test....
Cate
offlineMember
Yes there is good quality bicycle insurance available! It is especially useful for bicyclists that do not also own a car. It can include liability insurance so if you damage or injure someone while on your bike it is covered. After my son and another bicyclist collided on a bike trail (blind curve)and her arm was broken he's carried it. Not to expensive.
http://www.spokeinsurance.com/html/about_spoke_insurance.php
You must log in to post.
