Slashdot Mirror
Congress Mulls Research Into a Vehicle Mileage Tax
BJ_Covert_Action writes to let us know that an Oregon congressman has filed legislation to spend $154.5M for a research project into tracking per-vehicle mileage in the US, and asks: "Do we really want the government to track our movement and driving habits on a regular basis?" "US Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) introduced H.R. 3311 earlier this year to appropriate $154,500,000 for research and study into the transition to a per-mile vehicle tax system... Oregon has successfully tested a Vehicle Miles Traveled fee... the [Oregon] report urged a mandate for all drivers to install GPS tracking devices that would report driving habits to roadside RFID scanning devices." Here is the bill (PDF). The article notes that the congressman's major corporate donors would likely benefit with contracts if such a program were begun.
The state legislatures are getting in a lather over the idea that gas-electric hybrids will reduce their gas-tax-based state income. It's all rather reminiscent of the year 2000 panic over computer glitches - based in a sliver of truth, but WAAAAY overestimated. They're looking to use these mileage-based taxes as a way to future-proof, but as you mentioned, the better solution is to just increase gas taxes proportionally with the fraction of gas being used thanks to improved technology, so revenue can keep up with increased expenses, while keeping the burden on those who do the most practical use, rather than taxing a hybrid the same as a cement truck.
Ryan Fenton
Well, they are SUPPOSED to be treated the same, but the reality is much, much different. Maybe you don't live in Oregon so you don't know what goes on here.
If as many cars simply ignored as many stop signs as bicyclists do, there would be cop cars monitoring every intersection just waiting to write tickets. The last time a cop gave a bicyclist a ticket for ignoring a stop sign here, the papers filled with rage that the cop was wasting his time enforcing a law that shouldn't exist.
I don't know about Portland's packs of cyclists, but they do the same thing in Eugene. They plan events intended to block the roads (the LAW says they are to ride single file on the right, you know) to annoy and harass drivers. Not long ago, they did this on a major bridge and they hindered an ambulance going to a medical emergency. Did anyone get ticketed? Yeah, right.
Locally, a distracted SUV driver ran over a bicyclist. Yes, bad thing. She got ticketed (properly) and the papers filled with rage about her arrogant disregard for human life. (Because she drives a car, she automatically has an arrogant disregard for human life, according to our bicyclist pals.) About a day later, a BICYCLIST ran down a PEDESTRIAN IN A CROSSWALK, putting the pedestrian in the hospital with major injuries. (In case you don't know Oregon law, ALL vehicles MUST STOP for a pedestrian in a crosswalk, and crosswalks exist at intersections even if they aren't marked...) Did the bicyclist get a ticket for his arrogant disregard for human life? Of course not. Did his fellow bicyclists condemn him? They were too busy making excuses for him to ever say anything bad. (It was dark out. The ped wasn't wearing reflective clothing. It was rainy. The bike's headlight wasn't strong enough to see him... Everything they used as an excuse just proved the bicyclist was going too fast for conditions -- a ticketable offense for car drivers.)
No, I don't think you can honestly say that bicycle riders (more than a very small handful) believe they are supposed to follow the same laws every other vehicle is, or that they are even close to being treated by law enforcement as if they are supposed to.
Everyone else? No, many people, especially those in cars, follow the laws. Some don't. Some go the wrong way around traffic circles. Some do run stop signs. They're wrong.
Now count the number of bicyclists who break the law on a regular basis. The ones who come to a stop sign crossing a busy road and instead of stopping like the law requires, swerve over a couple of feet and ride through the crosswalk as if they were pedestrians. That puts not only themselves but the pedestrians in that crosswalk in danger.
The ones I really love are the ones who approach the main road from a side-street (with a stop sign for them) at full speed, while I'm going through that intersection, and instead of stopping or even slowing down, they make a sharp right turn into the bike lane. Someday one of them will hit a piece of gravel in the road, or some dirt, and lose control, sliding themselves under my car. They'll be dead or disabled, and it won't be my fault, but that won't make me feel any better about it, and it won't keep the rabid anti-car nuts from harassing me for the rest of my life.
No, it's not "road rage based on owning the road", it's anger that those who are supposed to share the road with me are breaking the laws and putting not only themselves but me in danger, and they do it on a regular basis with no reason to expect repercussions -- as if THEY owned the road and I better get out of THEIR way. So, you have it exactly backwards.
I'm pretty sure also you're part of the idiots who sit in traffic school and think they're perfect drivers,...
I stop at stop signs, I stop for peds. Not a perfect driver, but I'll compare my record with nearly every bicyclist I've ever seen on the road.
I called Representative Blumenauer's phone number and talked with Mr. Willy Smith there. I didn't know that members of Congress cannot be recalled.
Apparently no one in Rep. Blumenauer's office has any technical knowledge whatsoever. That's what Willy Smith told me. Apparently no one in that office realizes that their complete ignorance could possibly be a concern.
Mr. Smith told me, "Representative Blumenauer has never done heart surgery. Does that mean he cannot introduce health care legislation?" First, Representative Blumenauer knows a lot about heart surgery if he has read news reports over the last 20 years. He knows, for example, that heart surgery often fails. He knows the sociology of heart surgery because he has heard his friends and family talk about it.
Second, yes, if he doesn't thoroughly understand something, he should not make expensive proposals about it, especially since it seems that no one in his office wants to learn. Certainly that is the impression I got from Mr. Smith. Although we had a friendly, respectful conversation, nothing I said seemed to make any difference to him.
Wi-Fi and RFID are entirely voluntary technologies. They depend for their operation on the idea that the users want the technology to work. When the GPS on a United Parcel Service delivery truck fails, the central office can call the driver on his cell phone. The driver will be happy to say where he is. Failures are unfortunate, but soft and friendly.
Tracking the location of every car is NOT a voluntary use. Any failure or accidental interference would be a reason for a court case.
Mr. Smith told me that many people say very negative things about legislation introduced by Representative Blumenauer and other senators and representatives. So, why should he listen to me, he implied. Good point.
People are, at present, saying very negative things about President Obama's health care bill. Generally what they say is poorly expressed. But certainly they have some reason for complaint. President Obama is trying to accomplish something in a way that is socially impossible. Hillary Clinton tried another confused bill, and her ideas were rejected, also. However, although many people don't like the health care bill, no one seems to think that President Obama intends to profit personally.
One of the problems with Representative Blumenauer's actions concerning the 2009 H.R. 3311 bill is that, to a lot of knowledgeable people, they look like criminal fraud. He has taken money from companies that sell GPS technology. He is proposing that those companies get a huge amount of taxpayer money, for a study. That means that the companies can spend taxpayer money, but they don't have to produce anything useful. Maybe a study could cost $100,000. But $145 MILLION? For something that any technically knowledgeable person knows immediately cannot work well? That looks like criminal behavior.
Can Representative Blumenauer be ignorant of the fact that people don't want to be tracked everywhere they drive? Certainly, people think, he cannot be that ignorant. Therefore, they think, when he completely ignores the issue of privacy, he must understand what he's doing.
Not in this town. Not near the campus where I see most of the bikes and flagrant violations.
Give me a break and present some stats.
http://bikeportland.org/2008/12/09/city-auditors-survey-less-cars-more-bikes-and-safer-streets/ According to this article the City Auditor says that just 8% of people in Portland commute by bicycle, and that among people commuting to work downtown, that number drops to 4% for their primary mode and 8% for their secondary mode. I don't know what your definition of "many, many more" is, but to me a 12% vs 88% constitutes "many, many more".
Here is another article with data from a 2006 ODOT survey: http://velocommuter.org/blog/?p=76 there were on average 11,109 bike commuters vs. 197,632 car drivers, city wide. So yes, EVEN in this town, EVEN near "the campus" (PSU? UP? I'm assuming downtown by PSU).
And just for fun, one last set from the Portland Business Alliance http://bikeportland.org/2008/06/13/business-alliance-reports-uptick-in-bike-commuting/
Ahhh, yes, the ubiquitous "drivers break the law too" excuse that makes bicyclists as pure as the driven snow. Doesn't work that way.
It doesn't make cyclists as pure as snow, it just deflates the argument that "ZOMG so many bikers break the law, if drivers did that it would be INSANE!" argument that seems to persist.
As if bicyclists never speed.
It's true, they do, but it's a lot harder to speed on a bike. My last ride, on Sunday, my average speed for the ride over 13 miles was approximately 8.5 MPH, calculated by my GPS. I might have broken some laws there.
As if there wasn't an order of magnitude difference between a driver going five over on an interstate where everyone is going the same speed and the road was designed for twenty over the current limits
Doesn't make it any less illegal. Last time I checked the speed limits were pretty much set, not flexible based on perceived outdated limits. Hell, I just received a speeding ticket two months ago, and everyone else WAS going my speed, but I was the lucky person that got picked out. Damn, I should have used everyone else as an excuse to my actions when the cop stopped me. I'm sure he would have understood that breaking the law was OK, since the 35 MPH speed limit on Mclaughlin blvd is outdated. I could have also told him cyclists break the speed limit, too.
As if the driver of that 3000 pound vehicle is just looking for ways to kill you.
No, they aren't, but if I fuck up while biking, I stand a much greater chance of dying and they (maybe) have a dent in their vehicle. I'd like to live, and I ride with the assumption that people won't see me.
Stop spouting nonsense and stop trying to excuse the vast majority of your fellow bike riders who simply refuse to obey a simple law, instead expecting every car on the road to protect them from themselves and demanding special rights to pick and choose what laws they will obey.
I'll stop spouting when you go on a bike ride with me and see how it is on the other side and stop spouting nonsense yourself, like your arguments are any more valid than mine. I'm a driver too, but as far as I can tell you're not a cyclist. You're ignoring all the law violating that drivers do in order to push your anti-cyclist points, which as far as I can tell aren't backed up by anything other than your opinion.