Facts, however interesting, are irrelevant.
There's a constant refrain we hear from motorists who can't stand the thought of slowing down in order to pass a bicyclist safely. It appears with monotonous regularity in newspaper comments after nearly any story about cycling. "Bicyclists don't pay their fair share for the roads," they drone. "They don't pay taxes or licensing fees."
We have an adage in my work place, one that speaks to the universal human condition of wearing blinders and being very selective when it comes to perceived truth. "Facts, however interesting, are irrelevant." The people who whinge on about cyclists not paying for roads either don't know or don't care that most roads are built with state and local funding, and those funds largely come from income taxes, real estate taxes, and sales taxes. Bicyclists pay all of these. If riding a bike absolved anyone from paying taxes, the roads would be clogged with them.
On the spending side, it's hardly news that Senator John Coburn (R-OK) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) are opposed to federal transportation funds going to programs they regard as non-essential. Over the last five years, two billion went to constructing pedestrian and bicycle paths, for example. Yet in the last week, our government began and ended the Cash for Clunkers program. It stopped after only a week because the one billion dollars set aside for it may have been exhausted. A billion dollars in only one week.
This week, there's a proposal to provide another two billion in funding.
So it appears motorists will be getting three billion dollars in subsidies this summer alone. Apparently the money comes from a shell game in which cyclists are expected to see popular trail facilities die on the drawing board so that motorists can trade up to more fuel efficient vehicles. Here's a clue, senators, bicycles don't use any fuel whatsoever unless you want to count calories. Why can't cyclists trade in their old car and use the federal subsidy to purchase a new bicycle, or even several bicycles for the family? It would get one gas guzzler off the road and replace it with a truly efficient 'green' vehicle.
For cyclists, the next time someone trots out the tired old 'you don't pay for roads' nonsense, ask "Where's your new car? Didn't we give you three billion dollars to buy one?"
Comments
You can either Lease or buy a new car to use the cash for clunkers program. It has to be new vehicles and not used ones.
Jhenry
Blogger
www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
I had no idea they were gutting the bicycle trails fund to pay for this government entitlement/bailout of car makers and dealers. What an absolute sham. Nothing is going to reduce our dependancy on foreign oil like getting people to ride more bikes.
Perhaps we should increase the gasoline tax $.25 a gallon to pay for new bicycle infrastructure?
I don't understand your point, jhenry. How does the newness of the vehicle change the simple fact that it's a subsidy?
Not to mention that nearly all cyclists also own a car, so are already paying license fees and taxes.
Tax on gasoline is about the only true regressive tax that works properly: The more you drive, the more fuel you use, the more taxes you pay.
As a person who regularly cycles to work, I use far less fuel than most. However, I still cannot escape the periodic necessity of driving.
Our society is so pathetically ignorant of basic facts, it makes me physically ill.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!