Slashdot Mirror
Oregon Passes First Statewide Bicycle Tax In Nation (washingtontimes.com)
turkeydance writes: In Oregon, a state known for its avid bicycling culture, the state legislature's approval of the first bike tax in the nation has fallen flat with riders. Democratic Gov. Kate Brown is expected to sign the sweeping $5.3 billion transportation package, which includes a $15 excise tax on the sale of bicycles costing more than $200 with a wheel diameter of at least 26 inches. Even though the funding has been earmarked for improvements that will benefit cyclists, the tax has managed to irk both anti-tax Republicans and environmentally conscious bikers. The bike tax is aimed at raising $1.2 million per year in order to improve and expand paths and trails for bicyclists and pedestrians. Supporters point out that Oregon has no sales tax, which means buyers won't be dinged twice for their new wheels.
$15 per limb at time of purchase
So what you need to do is build better facilities (bike paths, etc) to separate cyclist traffic from vehicle traffic. Everyone benefits in that scenario, whereas discouraging cyclists means bot more traffic congestion and more competition for parking spaces. After all, even you state that the problem is too many bikes on the roads, not too many bikes per se. (and yes, it's spelled "per se", not "per say")
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Only lefties ride bikes? The rider I talk to most is a hard core right-winger leaving California as soon as he retires so he can shoot his guns without the damn government meddling in his business.
I don't normally favor new taxes but in this case I can really see their point. I live in a city that borders on another wealthier city. They went all-in on bicycle paths and we did not. It sucks not having them here. Technically it's illegal to ride a bicycle on a sidewalk here anyway. The police don't care at all unless there's a bike/pedestrian collision, which makes the bicyclist automatically 100% at-fault "because it wasn't lawful for them to be there in the first place". I'm actually okay with that too. (I've actually been ran into by a bicyclist while trying to mow my lawn!) But it technically forces cyclists onto roads which can be quite hazardous. Also lack of even sidewalks beside many roadways again complicates matters.
So as long as the tax is going completely to bicycle-related public service, I'm totally onboard. It probably won't even really make much of a difference - pavement is expensive. I know my front sidewalk costs $200 per square to replace when it gets cracked and the city tells me to fix it. I can't imagine the cost of even one block of bike path, which is usually twice as wide as a sidewalk.
A few years back we had flooding, and a stretch of a 50-mile long bicycle trail that goes between cities here got washed out. It took them three years to get funding to repair it. It was just crushed gravel laid down on abandoned railroad bed, ideal for a long bike path. But the washout carved out the land in the area, so they had to have dozers and graders in there to repair the bed before they could lay down a new surface. That stuff costs money. And as far as taxes are concerned, just like the gasoline tax they try to tax the people that are getting the biggest benefit from the service, it's the fairest way to get the funding.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Road damage goes by the 4th power of the axle weight. Increase the axle weight by 5.6 times, you get 1000 times as much damage.
A quick Google shows that 30,000 lbs seems a reasonable weight for a bus, on two axles *at best* you are at 15,000 per axle. For the bus to be less than 1000 times as damaging as the average car, the average car would have to have an axle weight of almost 2700 lbs. No way that's average.
So, yeah, a bus really *does* cause damage equivalent to thousands of cars.
http://www.pavementinteractive...