New law for passing bicyclists starts Tuesday in CA

headofphat

Isn't there a yearly tax that automobile owners pay that goes to the roads? Do bike riders pay that tax on their bikes?
Seems like bikes should be getting out of the way of the cars since they are basically paying to be on the road.

I know you bike riders won't like that but the truth is there are other places to ride your bikes that don't interfere with traffic.

headofphat

Isn't there a yearly tax that automobile owners pay that goes to the roads? Do bike riders pay that tax on their bikes?
Seems like bikes should be getting out of the way of the cars since they are basically paying to be on the road.

I know you bike riders won't like that but the truth is there are other places to ride your bikes that don't interfere with traffic.

I agree with this point of view. The problem is, the law doesn't agree with it. The law says that bikes and cars share the road. If the bike owner works, they pay taxes. Most bike owners I know own a motor vehicle. I do not know any adults with bikes that don't have a car. I'm sure they exist, but I don't know any, and they are probably in the minority. So, I would conclude that the majority of those that ride their bikes, pay their taxes, and therefore, they have just as much right to be on the road as a car.

The part I agree with you is having a different path for bikes. I don't think cars and bikes should mix together. It's dangerous. New infrastructure should be built for bike riders.

They pay ad valorem taxes on their bike? Automobile owners pay an ad valorem tax based on the value of their car which i think goes to roads as well (i could be wrong). Unless that bike is mounted to the top of their car then why should it get the same benefits that a car has? Just a thought. I live in a high traffic town and bike riders will muck it up. They basically put their life on the line so they can ride their bikes. Crazy but whatever. Gotta love the yellow shirts. Go Lance Go!!!

heybales

Isn't there a yearly tax that automobile owners pay that goes to the roads? Do bike riders pay that tax on their bikes?
Seems like bikes should be getting out of the way of the cars since they are basically paying to be on the road.

I know you bike riders won't like that but the truth is there are other places to ride your bikes that don't interfere with traffic.

I pay more in all taxes related to my car than any would ever be collected from the bike use and ownership.

That level of taxes from a bike would pay for squat to be done for infrastructure.

Plus, the wear and tear on the road from bikes where people are actually replacing one for the other as mode for transportation, more than makes up for it.

In my case, the biking is in addition to, not instead of, car usage.

The cheapest is a 4 ft additional width on the road on each side. Solutions that are different bike paths are expensive, and even if the capital outlay is done, the maintenance costs rarely are adequate and the specific path falls in to disuse from basically inability to use. That's what I've seen articles on regarding the separate solution not working well. But guess who pays for that path anyway?

headofphat

Isn't there a yearly tax that automobile owners pay that goes to the roads? Do bike riders pay that tax on their bikes?
Seems like bikes should be getting out of the way of the cars since they are basically paying to be on the road.

I know you bike riders won't like that but the truth is there are other places to ride your bikes that don't interfere with traffic.

I agree with this point of view. The problem is, the law doesn't agree with it. The law says that bikes and cars share the road. If the bike owner works, they pay taxes. Most bike owners I know own a motor vehicle. I do not know any adults with bikes that don't have a car. I'm sure they exist, but I don't know any, and they are probably in the minority. So, I would conclude that the majority of those that ride their bikes, pay their taxes, and therefore, they have just as much right to be on the road as a car.

The part I agree with you is having a different path for bikes. I don't think cars and bikes should mix together. It's dangerous. New infrastructure should be built for bike riders.

They pay ad valorem taxes on their bike? Automobile owners pay an ad valorem tax based on the value of their car which i think goes to roads as well (i could be wrong). Unless that bike is mounted to the top of their car then why should it get the same benefits that a car has? Just a thought. I live in a high traffic town and bike riders will muck it up. They basically put their life on the line so they can ride their bikes. Crazy but whatever. Gotta love the yellow shirts. Go Lance Go!!!

OK. So, there should be a tax on bikes. Let's see how that flies. What about kids?

You must not have kids. I get my *kitten* taxed off because of them. How about every year when i have to spend $50 for school supplies when a pencil, a book and a piece of paper should do. So, yes the government charges for kids too.

ThePhoenixIsRising

Isn't there a yearly tax that automobile owners pay that goes to the roads? Do bike riders pay that tax on their bikes?
Seems like bikes should be getting out of the way of the cars since they are basically paying to be on the road.

I know you bike riders won't like that but the truth is there are other places to ride your bikes that don't interfere with traffic.

I agree with this point of view. The problem is, the law doesn't agree with it. The law says that bikes and cars share the road. If the bike owner works, they pay taxes. Most bike owners I know own a motor vehicle. I do not know any adults with bikes that don't have a car. I'm sure they exist, but I don't know any, and they are probably in the minority. So, I would conclude that the majority of those that ride their bikes, pay their taxes, and therefore, they have just as much right to be on the road as a car.

The part I agree with you is having a different path for bikes. I don't think cars and bikes should mix together. It's dangerous. New infrastructure should be built for bike riders.

They pay ad valorem taxes on their bike? Automobile owners pay an ad valorem tax based on the value of their car which i think goes to roads as well (i could be wrong). Unless that bike is mounted to the top of their car then why should it get the same benefits that a car has? Just a thought. I live in a high traffic town and bike riders will muck it up. They basically put their life on the line so they can ride their bikes. Crazy but whatever. Gotta love the yellow shirts. Go Lance Go!!!

OK. So, there should be a tax on bikes. Let's see how that flies. What about kids?

Bikes that use the roads should have to be registered with the dmv, just like a car. Plates should be issued,and renewed, and they should have to be inspected once a year as well. There should be min safety requirements a bike on the road must have. There should also be a bike permit corse requires to ride on the roads.

heybales

Isn't there a yearly tax that automobile owners pay that goes to the roads? Do bike riders pay that tax on their bikes?
Seems like bikes should be getting out of the way of the cars since they are basically paying to be on the road.

I know you bike riders won't like that but the truth is there are other places to ride your bikes that don't interfere with traffic.

I agree with this point of view. The problem is, the law doesn't agree with it. The law says that bikes and cars share the road. If the bike owner works, they pay taxes. Most bike owners I know own a motor vehicle. I do not know any adults with bikes that don't have a car. I'm sure they exist, but I don't know any, and they are probably in the minority. So, I would conclude that the majority of those that ride their bikes, pay their taxes, and therefore, they have just as much right to be on the road as a car.

The part I agree with you is having a different path for bikes. I don't think cars and bikes should mix together. It's dangerous. New infrastructure should be built for bike riders.

They pay ad valorem taxes on their bike? Automobile owners pay an ad valorem tax based on the value of their car which i think goes to roads as well (i could be wrong). Unless that bike is mounted to the top of their car then why should it get the same benefits that a car has? Just a thought. I live in a high traffic town and bike riders will muck it up. They basically put their life on the line so they can ride their bikes. Crazy but whatever. Gotta love the yellow shirts. Go Lance Go!!!

OK. So, there should be a tax on bikes. Let's see how that flies. What about kids?

Bikes that use the roads should have to be registered with the dmv, just like a car. Plates should be issued,and renewed, and they should have to be inspected once a year as well. There should be min safety requirements a bike on the road must have. There should also be a bike permit corse requires to ride on the roads.

Now you've just caused the expense for that bike cost to far outway what could be charged on them. But that is like government in many places, the expense to do something isn't even paid for by that thing, but from the general coffers.
New system in place to handle those tags and registration, people that know what they are doing for inspections and courses, informing public of laws and users to abide by, ect.

Here cars here have no yearly inspection for new tags, only when brought in from out of state.
No driver test on renewal anymore of drivers license.
And since bikes are to follow rules of the road, why a separate course, just require drivers license?

ThePhoenixIsRising

Isn't there a yearly tax that automobile owners pay that goes to the roads? Do bike riders pay that tax on their bikes?
Seems like bikes should be getting out of the way of the cars since they are basically paying to be on the road.

I know you bike riders won't like that but the truth is there are other places to ride your bikes that don't interfere with traffic.

I agree with this point of view. The problem is, the law doesn't agree with it. The law says that bikes and cars share the road. If the bike owner works, they pay taxes. Most bike owners I know own a motor vehicle. I do not know any adults with bikes that don't have a car. I'm sure they exist, but I don't know any, and they are probably in the minority. So, I would conclude that the majority of those that ride their bikes, pay their taxes, and therefore, they have just as much right to be on the road as a car.

The part I agree with you is having a different path for bikes. I don't think cars and bikes should mix together. It's dangerous. New infrastructure should be built for bike riders.

They pay ad valorem taxes on their bike? Automobile owners pay an ad valorem tax based on the value of their car which i think goes to roads as well (i could be wrong). Unless that bike is mounted to the top of their car then why should it get the same benefits that a car has? Just a thought. I live in a high traffic town and bike riders will muck it up. They basically put their life on the line so they can ride their bikes. Crazy but whatever. Gotta love the yellow shirts. Go Lance Go!!!

OK. So, there should be a tax on bikes. Let's see how that flies. What about kids?

Bikes that use the roads should have to be registered with the dmv, just like a car. Plates should be issued,and renewed, and they should have to be inspected once a year as well. There should be min safety requirements a bike on the road must have. There should also be a bike permit corse requires to ride on the roads.

Now you've just caused the expense for that bike cost to far outway what could be charged on them. But that is like government in many places, the expense to do something isn't even paid for by that thing, but from the general coffers.
New system in place to handle those tags and registration, people that know what they are doing for inspections and courses, informing public of laws and users to abide by, ect.

Here cars here have no yearly inspection for new tags, only when brought in from out of state.
No driver test on renewal anymore of drivers license.
And since bikes are to follow rules of the road, why a separate course, just require drivers license?

There are special courses for motorcycles, I don't see the difference. I also don't see the problem with opening new jobs, this means new tax revenue.

I just feel any vehicle that is on the roads should have they same requirements. I have to renew my plates every 2years and my inspection every year. Why should a bike be different?

MasterBroshi

A lot of GTAV reenactments are about to happen.

ThePhoenixIsRising

Isn't there a yearly tax that automobile owners pay that goes to the roads? Do bike riders pay that tax on their bikes?
Seems like bikes should be getting out of the way of the cars since they are basically paying to be on the road.

I know you bike riders won't like that but the truth is there are other places to ride your bikes that don't interfere with traffic.

I agree with this point of view. The problem is, the law doesn't agree with it. The law says that bikes and cars share the road. If the bike owner works, they pay taxes. Most bike owners I know own a motor vehicle. I do not know any adults with bikes that don't have a car. I'm sure they exist, but I don't know any, and they are probably in the minority. So, I would conclude that the majority of those that ride their bikes, pay their taxes, and therefore, they have just as much right to be on the road as a car.

The part I agree with you is having a different path for bikes. I don't think cars and bikes should mix together. It's dangerous. New infrastructure should be built for bike riders.

They pay ad valorem taxes on their bike? Automobile owners pay an ad valorem tax based on the value of their car which i think goes to roads as well (i could be wrong). Unless that bike is mounted to the top of their car then why should it get the same benefits that a car has? Just a thought. I live in a high traffic town and bike riders will muck it up. They basically put their life on the line so they can ride their bikes. Crazy but whatever. Gotta love the yellow shirts. Go Lance Go!!!

OK. So, there should be a tax on bikes. Let's see how that flies. What about kids?

Bikes that use the roads should have to be registered with the dmv, just like a car. Plates should be issued,and renewed, and they should have to be inspected once a year as well. There should be min safety requirements a bike on the road must have. There should also be a bike permit corse requires to ride on the roads.

What about poor people. There would be a lot of children without bikes next Christmas.

Kids bikes don't go on roads. Shrug*

heybales

Isn't there a yearly tax that automobile owners pay that goes to the roads? Do bike riders pay that tax on their bikes?
Seems like bikes should be getting out of the way of the cars since they are basically paying to be on the road.

I know you bike riders won't like that but the truth is there are other places to ride your bikes that don't interfere with traffic.

I agree with this point of view. The problem is, the law doesn't agree with it. The law says that bikes and cars share the road. If the bike owner works, they pay taxes. Most bike owners I know own a motor vehicle. I do not know any adults with bikes that don't have a car. I'm sure they exist, but I don't know any, and they are probably in the minority. So, I would conclude that the majority of those that ride their bikes, pay their taxes, and therefore, they have just as much right to be on the road as a car.

The part I agree with you is having a different path for bikes. I don't think cars and bikes should mix together. It's dangerous. New infrastructure should be built for bike riders.

They pay ad valorem taxes on their bike? Automobile owners pay an ad valorem tax based on the value of their car which i think goes to roads as well (i could be wrong). Unless that bike is mounted to the top of their car then why should it get the same benefits that a car has? Just a thought. I live in a high traffic town and bike riders will muck it up. They basically put their life on the line so they can ride their bikes. Crazy but whatever. Gotta love the yellow shirts. Go Lance Go!!!

OK. So, there should be a tax on bikes. Let's see how that flies. What about kids?

Bikes that use the roads should have to be registered with the dmv, just like a car. Plates should be issued,and renewed, and they should have to be inspected once a year as well. There should be min safety requirements a bike on the road must have. There should also be a bike permit corse requires to ride on the roads.

Now you've just caused the expense for that bike cost to far outway what could be charged on them. But that is like government in many places, the expense to do something isn't even paid for by that thing, but from the general coffers.
New system in place to handle those tags and registration, people that know what they are doing for inspections and courses, informing public of laws and users to abide by, ect.

Here cars here have no yearly inspection for new tags, only when brought in from out of state.
No driver test on renewal anymore of drivers license.
And since bikes are to follow rules of the road, why a separate course, just require drivers license?

There are special courses for motorcycles, I don't see the difference. I also don't see the problem with opening new jobs, this means new tax revenue.

I just feel any vehicle that is on the roads should have they same requirements. I have to renew my plates every 2years and my inspection every year. Why should a bike be different?

Purpose of inspections?
To confirm the vehicle is safe mechanically so it won't hard others and the driver, and not going to pollute the air.
And for a bike ...... ? really?
Minimum safety requirements? Do you even bike?

Plates is for paying taxes I'm betting too, to help pay for a few things. Hardly for roads, though it may end up in that fund that has many other sources for paying for that. But here cities pay for roads, State gets money from tags, county some of it. There are some county road projects, but vast majority chip in some % with cities and Federal money for road improvement.

New tax revenue from people with new jobs? That would be NO zero-sum gain.
And where exactly do you think the money to pay these people and the management and bureaucracy come from? You can bet it ain't going to be paid entirely by taxes on bicycles.

Did you know sidewalks next to roads are usually included in the cost of road building and improvements?
Where is pedestrians payment for that usage - to take your logic here of not benefiting from infrastructure because they aren't paying for it.

dbmata

The pedestrians think they own the streets and just walk right out in front of you all the time without looking (not in crosswalks) or walk in the middle of the street and stop suddenly to take pictures and then act irritated when you swerve and narrowly avoid the collision they almost caused.

There's a woman in Cambridge, MA that commutes by bike and carries a bullwhip. I've seen here use the bullwhip on cars that get too close, and peds that get in her way. It's funny to see.

Frickin' MA.

I've been known to carry my .380. Luckily, I've never had to use it. Rednecks around here think that cyclists are target practice for their pickup truck. This law is for after the accident. It won't prevent anything.

.380? What are you going to do, tickle them?

I carry a 9mm when riding. Had a few yutes try to pull me off my bike, moment they realized they didn't find a soft target they got to steppin.

dbmata

Isn't there a yearly tax that automobile owners pay that goes to the roads? Do bike riders pay that tax on their bikes?
Seems like bikes should be getting out of the way of the cars since they are basically paying to be on the road.

I know you bike riders won't like that but the truth is there are other places to ride your bikes that don't interfere with traffic.

That's a slippery slope.

Is there a tax on mountain bike riders to use trails? Or running shoes and camping gear? No? Why not? Hunters like me pay for it with our arms and ammo, our licenses and tags.

There are other places to ride bikes and walk that don't interfere with nature.

See, same argument, different focii... still predicated on life being fair. Life ain't fair, boss.

trojan_bb

How bout they just ban cyclists. they can go to spin class or something. And wear their super cool spandex in spin class groups.

dbmata

How bout they just ban cyclists. they can go to spin class or something. And wear their super cool spandex in spin class groups.

Seems legit.

trojan_bb

Heck yeah! I hope other states do the same real soon.


EDIT; And I'm every bit of a driver as much as I am a cyclist.

Give 'em a break! er uh brake.

2 lane road. Traffic high going the opposite direction. Have 2 feet clearance to pass a biker, but CAN'T do it due to new law. So in essence, traffic behind biker has to slow to their speed until it's safe to pass with a 3 foot clearance. That could be for a few miles traveling at 15 miles an hour.

I'm not for or against the law, just looking at possibilities of issues that may arise from it.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Yes that's true, they are going to have to wait and pass when it's safe. You know the same thing happens here when there is a slow moving scooter or moped or bicycle. People wait until it's safe to pass. It's been happening more and more and it's nice to see it ahead when I'm driving, and it's nice to see traffic passing me in the oncoming lane as they go by. The Carolina's are full of people who show respect to cyclists.

I mean who really wan'ts to run over a cyclist?

When i lived in Philly, people would just about graze you as they went by. For years I didn't think much of it, but it started to scare me when i reached my 30's. I still stay as far right as i can on my bike though, from lifelong habit.

Two lane blacktop on country roads can be treacherous if you are out of line of sight like when you crest a hill and drop over the other side or have just rounded a blind corner.

Where I live, they have these city streets that are very busy, two lanes on each side. The made one of those lanes a bike lane if a bike is there. So, effectively, at rush hour, it's a one lane road now. Back to 1973. They made it two lanes because of traffic. Duh.

I'm not against bikes, I'm against the approach to the problem. It's very dangerous here for a lot of different reasons. Not only are moving vehicles aggressive, but all the cars parked on the side where bikes are riding...I saw someone open their door to get out of their car, and a biker came to a dead stop into that open door. They need to do this differently. Integrating cars and bikes is a mistake, IMO.

They did this here too. In NW portland there are two one way streets to cross the interstate. So effectively ONE surface street to get across. It had two lanes. Until 2 weeks ago when one of those lanes became a bike only lane. Now, it's 100% packed traffic on the single lane, backed up and takes two full light cycles to get through each intersection. The bike lane? one biker every 5 minutes or so.

Wonderful legislation guys. Really progressive! If we inconvenience drivers enough, maybe we'll have a carbon free, bike-riding, progressive society!