You Bikers Get off My Roads!
The Seattle Times' Insane Proposal to Tax Cyclists
Tools
Send Letters to
Letters to the Editor
c/o The Stranger
1535 11th Ave, 3rd Floor
Seattle, WA 98188
or email us at
editor@thestranger.com
An argument from www.thestranger.com that you might have missed.
Editorial page editor James Vesely, a resident of Mercer Island, argued in the Seattle Times on Sunday, December 7, that the City of Seattle ought to tax cyclists for the privilege of using streets they already pay for.
Stranger Personals
"A $25 annual fee for owning a bike is a natural outgrowth of the enormous amounts of trails, lanes, and accommodations the region has made to cyclists," Vesely wrote. "It would also make cyclists true members of the world of transportation, rather than free riders on the tax rolls."
That's pretty rich coming from a guy whose editorial page has made a decadeslong crusade of fighting against estate taxes on the very wealthy—and whose own industry is exempt from Washington State's sales tax (which, incidentally, people who buy bikes and cycling gear have to pay).
Vesely continues: "Special licenses are not new. We license dogs, our cars, our boats, our motorcycles, our pleasures in hunting and fishing, as well as many other outdoor activities. Cyclists, known for their community spirit and exalted senses of self, should welcome this opportunity to help government support their activities."
That's the kind of sentence that can only be written by someone who's disingenuous or ill informed or both. Driving—unlike owning a dog or a fishing rod—is one of the most heavily subsidized activities humans do. Every year, the U.S. government spends more than $100 billion to subsidize driving above and beyond what drivers spend on gas taxes, cars, sales tax, and license plates. Those expenses come out of all of our pockets—including those of us who never get behind the wheel of a car. As a cyclist, I'm subsidizing Vesely, not the other way around.
And that's not even counting the externalities like pollution, the increased cost of health care due to auto accidents, sub-market-rate parking provided by cities, and military spending to protect our access to cheap oil. Not to mention the fact that one cyclist on the Burke-Gilman Trail is one fewer car on the road. That's something auto-bound dinosaurs like Vesely ought to appreciate but don't. We cyclists don't need another "opportunity to help government support" things like striping bike lanes and building cycling paths—we're already paying for all those things and then some.
But Vesely turns this logic inside out, arguing that the presence of a few bike lanes indicates "a remarkable generosity on the part of Puget Sound taxpayers"—by which, of course, he means drivers. "Whenever new transportation projects are studied, bike lanes are as automatic as white striping."
Road projects in Seattle do often include new bike lanes. You know why? In 2006, voters here decided to pay for a property-tax increase that includes the requirement that, wherever possible, road projects include new bike and pedestrian facilities. Every single resident of Seattle pays this tax, either directly (property owners) or indirectly (renters). You don't get an exemption if you don't own a car. And striping bike lanes, I shouldn't have to add, is a hell of a lot cheaper than filling potholes and building sidewalks. By Vesely's logic, pedestrians should have to pay a special tax to use the sidewalks—after all, why should we let walkers cadge that part of the public right-of-way for "free"?
Fundamentally, Vesely's view—that a few bike lanes and
sharrows constitute "enormous accommodations" for
cyclists—assumes that drivers own the roads, and cyclists are
lucky if they deign to "accommodate" us. Fortunately, the Seattle City
Council—that group that Vesely says doesn't have the "guts" to
make cyclists pay an extra tax—understands that the more cyclists
there are on the road, the better the roads work for everyone, not just
those of us on two wheels. ![]()
So the fact is Bikers do help society, but only in minor increments of withholding polution from the air when you commute.
Lastly, your arguments are accurate, but all they really show is that car drivers should pay more in taxes - not that a specialty activity shouldn't be taxed at all.
Wow, you really don't realize that it's your post which suggests "your stupidity and your ego know no bounds."
Bikes do take thousands of Seattlites to work and back every day.
Most car drivers should be walking, riding a bike, or taking public transportation, instead of polluting and endangering (cars badly driven kill a lot of folks young) - at least driving smaller cars that use less gas and put out less crap into the air.
Gilbert, I agree with you that there are badly-behaved bikers, just as there are badly-behaved cars, but what is being discussed here is registering *bikes*, not registering bike riders. Vesely's editorial is so badly written that one might conclude that he is advocating registry of either bikes, or riders, or both. But his follow-up editorial makes clear that he only wants to register bikes, not riders.
Nobody I'm aware of registers bike riders, and that isn't going to happen any time soon. Lots of kids ride bikes, for one thing. So what is on the table is a registration program for bikes. This is an idea that has been tried many places, and, AFAIK, has always failed to accomplish anything useful.
Bikes? Tax 'em. Gov taxes everything else....what is so special about bikes and the elitists who straddle them?
But I sure as hell do respect those that have the will power (not to mention lung power) to cycle themselves to work instead of driving like I do. This editorial is a well-reasoned argument. If anything, we should be giving bicyclists tax breaks to encourage more people to get out of their cars.
I understand drivers that get tired of being verbally attacked because they drive- I've been there, and nothing makes me defensive like being reamed. But seriously, I recognize the damage I do to the environment and to other people's commute time by climbing in my car to go somewhere. Why not recognize and reward the extra effort bicyclists are putting out by pedaling themselves places?
After all it IS only a 1/2 ton collection of metal rolling down the street. So what if a few thousand pedestrians, bicycles, kids, motorcycles, etc. get in the way. Squish 'em if they get in the way.
Wait a second! Tax kids! That's the answer.
That said; I kinda like the idea of more attention on biking. While taxing bikes is stupid (Sales tax already covers it, chief), and tax-crediting is equally stupid (gas tax, tabs, registration, required insurance, and the price of petro all can disappear from your monthly budget when you bike), I can see some way to satiate the car-mongers and also create friendlier relations between the pedal-powered and pedal-stompers. There's this sort of "let's make it an us vs them thing" mentality that Erica unfortunately reinforces here. Do we NEED another dispute / thing to fight over? Let's find middle ground instead.
If you have to tax anything, then tax bike-related spandex that is worn outside of races. Yuck.
Also, police should ticket bikers who a) don't wear helmets b) ride in-lane 10mph below posted speeds c) ride with cigarettes in mouth d) ride and talk on their cell e) ride with iPod in-ear f) run red lights g) ride in-lane when there's a bike lane h) ride tandem bikes (they just piss me off, ok?) i) use lighting systems too dim to be useful j) ride in-lane in snow k) don't use hand signals to announce their intent (to swerve left from the bike lane, for example) and l) don't yield to peds.
Lane splitting I like: it should be legalized for all two-wheel vehicles.
Likewise, car drivers who open doors without checking (that door comes with a mirror, yo) should get hefty fines. As should 1) drivers who splash ped and bikes 2) drivers too arrogant to use a turn signal 3) Drivers that don't slow or yield at BGT crossings 4) cars that actually hit/tap/swipe bikes should be impounded 5) drivers that toss cig butts out the window: that's so 1970's. Woodsy's coming for you.
And, for fuck's sake, triple ticket fines for those bikers that ride around with the helmet hanging off the handbars. That's like Instant Road Rage, regardless of what vehicle I'm using.
We the people would end up paying money that would almost entirely be used to hassle people, not to provide anything of value.
Might as well tax people to pay workers who are in thrall to tyrannical managers who force them to come piss on your home and property. No, wait, there's an actual market for that service from piss fetishists.
Any law that by nature primarily produces hassle and suffering should be abolished. And the proponents should move to their own special little country where they could ruin themselves and each other.
by the way... when conlin was pitching that mentioned property tax levy before the vote he distributed maps that identified ne65th as a bike route slated for improvements - well we still don't even have a stripe let alone those stupid ass useless little bike icons painted on the road!!!
I also never licensed my dog of 12 years.
try and catch me fat copper.
Should an 8 year old buy a license to ride around a cul-de-sac when mom and dad also own 2 cars?
What about the Mexican dudes who work in kitchens? Is this a new excuse for the cops to hassle them? Or me, since I'm not local, or anyone, just because they need to check whether you have this "license"
Regardless of that, yes trucks are good for hauling things like wholesale foodstuffs and bulky ass shit. I should know: I drive a box truck for work.
And buses and trains are awesome at moving lots of people and keeping the roads clear for those commercial vehicles (and if any of your holiday packages are late, blame car commuters, please. Trust me on this one).
And bikes are terrific for commuting independently, having fun, getting out, staying healthy, and avoiding the risk of a DUI (I know the last one's not exactly smart, but it's pretty effective).
And yes, we all -every single goddamned one of us who pays rent or a mortgage in Seattle- pay the taxes for those roads that accommodate cars, motorcycles, public transit, and bicycles.
And most bike owners own cars, so they're already paying "special license fees".
And many of us do in fact own property and pay the taxes on that. Even those of us with no children who pay for the public education of the offspring of breeding car commuters. And that's fine because it's an investment in the future of the American people and the Human Race.
My point is this: without any sort of welfare system or sense of community across these minor lines of distinction, the citizens of this or any government are in deep shit. We all do our part. Our wonderful, sometimes frustrating system of government guarantees that to at least a small degree. Bitch all you want about not reaping the benefits of the tax dollars that you pay. If it makes you feel better, that's great. Just don't be blind to the fact that you actually are benefiting, though you may not realize it at first glance.
But all in all this (most likely) conservative dude who is probably for less government involvement in our private lives (except in matters of bicycle licensing, and most likely abortion rights and equal marriage rights) from Mercer Island is probably just sick of people from Seattle joyriding their bikes in his neighborhood. Too bad. It's a fun place to ride.
Then after we've taxed all of these people perhaps our feckless county executive, L. Ron Sims, will use the money to fix the Burke Gilman trail, especially the five or so miles between Matthews Beach and Tracey Owen Station which is five miles of spoke popping, rim breaking goodness, and get rid of all of the bollard covers at the intersections (I've been riding the Burke Gilman for 20 years now and I've never seen bollards installed at any of those intersections, so just get rid of the goddamned things already. Of course knowing L. Ron Sims he'll just piss the money away on something fucking stupid like passenger ferry service to Vashon Island.
Cyclists are already penalized for disobeying traffic laws. I received a $65 citation for running a stop sign on my bicycle and have learned my lesson.
"When ridden on any roadway a bicycle rider has all of the rights and responsibilities of any vehicle (RCW 46.61.755). Unless bicycles are specifically excepted, all traffic laws and rules apply to bicycles. Bicyclists who violate traffic laws are subject to a citation." http://www.kingcounty.gov/transportation…
Your proposed $25 to have "a say in things" is unclear. Do licensed transportation owners have a say in things?
And to JF @3. Your determination of "value" is skewed. You are comparing cyclists to large scale commercial industry. Compare car and bicycle commuters.
What the selfishly self-righteous egocentrics of Seattle lack is empathy and situational awareness. These people seem to have been bred like mole rats, with no innate ability to look around, perceive changes in their surroundings, or even use peripheral vision. This goes for their behavior whether driving, riding or walking in public spaces: no residual survival awareness whatsoever. If there were still predators, da masses would quickly become an endangered species.
Neither do the clueless bovines
seem to perceive the extent to which they are being herded into an increasingly fenced-in police state already. By the logic of some of the jokers on this page, the cops are entitled to park in your neighborhood and cite you for jaywalking every time you cross a residential street to get your dog away from the neighbors' cat...
Enforcing the letter of the law is neither just nor practical i.e., an observant cyclist who goes through a stop sign where there is 360 degree visibility and no traffic is in no way equivalent to the SUV cell phoney blowing through a downtown red light at 40mph.
Actually, in many states bike licensing is common. In my county you are required to have a license if you want to ride on public roads. The fee is only $10, but I'd have to do some research to find out exactly where it goes...
Not that I support this Vesely fellow, but I would gladly pay $25 a year if all new roadwork required a bikelane. There are still many places that a car can travel that a bike can't (safely anyhow).
http://bikeportland.org/2008/12/10/what-…
The good folks whose overdeveloped thighs emanate enough moral superiority to dwarf even that of public-transportation aficionados are "bicyclists." If that's not good enough for them, they should satisfy themselves with a neologism like "bikists."
But until reliable witnesses verify the existence of Spandex-clad 5-speeders who, on a slow night, can smoke a gram of crystal meth, fuck a whore and kick the shit out of a gangbanger, the term "biker" should be reserved strictly for the motorcycle set.
Bike commuting, to the general public, is only recently strong in the interest and media attention. Sure it has been around for decades, pushed forward by those great pioneers, but only in the last three years has it become a "thing".
Let's not kill the increase in cyclists. Please.
http://www.ecometro.com/portland/search.…
Down to a UFC worthy 250 on thigh-powered machines now, with much better anger-management skills too. Drivers are even worse though: less valium, but worse substitutes; cellphones,DVD players, iPods and GPS gadgets etc keep people's heads stuck firmly up their asses now.
If Seattle can't build a monorail after 96 votes, at least build a subway already and get these dangerous morons off the road before they all collide at once in one big bang blackhole nuclear holocaust...
Bicyclists should stop bitching about how they’re discriminated against, and get on board with the rest of the vehicle owners in this country.
I'm more than happy to pay for my share of road repair caused by my <30lb bike if your average car owner is willing to pay for the wear and tear caused by their 2000+lb car/truck.
The argument that bikes don't do as much good as cars because cars are used for deliveries, mail, ambulances, etc. is specious. Bikes have a slow adoption rate, but they are used for deliveries, for cops, for emergency response is certain applications (music festivals and street fairs, in parks).
The presumed primacy of the car makes for an infrastructure OVERWHELMINGLY devoted to cars. This, in turn, makes cars the most efficient form of transport. It's a circle. And it's bad for public health, the environment, per-unit transportation costs, etc.
We have to realize that cars and their drivers do not rule the universe.
I am surprised that so many of these comments are anti-bike.
Makes me sad. So many problems and people want to complain
about cyclists and the editorial writer (who I agree with).
I think anyone who wants to use the roads should pay the additional use fee, and gain some additional rights and responsibilities as a result. You can bad mouth me and my thoughts on this, but it's how I see positive change coming about rather than railing against some subjective columnist's viewpoint.
Take it to the City Council and lobby for the use fee and control it in your favor. You'll have much more say in how the roads are designed and used - and I for one, of many citizens of Seattle, would be happy to see more dedicated bicycle corridors created.
I used to commute on bicycle (I commute via wire now) and was run down on Nickerson on the way to work by a driver who was looking for oncoming traffic as he pushed the gas pedal and hit me from behind. Fortunately there was a bus just pulling out behind us to block traffic or I'd have been another broken helmet and grease spot on the road. I was pissed off, and yet it wouldn't have changed a thing, having a license plate on my bike. The point? I commiserate (spl?)
As an unregistered bicyclist, I am not visible to the Legisture or City Coucil. There's no census data to confirm whether we should dedicate more funding to build more bicycle corridors. As a registered rider, I'd be able to raise some serious hay with the legislature and council members - a voice along with thousands of other like-minded registered riders.
Call it a membership fee or whatever you like, but get together on the subject and make change happen. If you want to get something done, stop being passive agressive and rebellious bloggers, and start coming up with real solutions to your issues.
I don't see what drivers are moaning about. If you can't afford that then dump your mansion on mercer island and get an apt. in seattle and walk/bike/bus to work like the rest of us who are actually paying for the streets you drive on in seattle.
Some editors have folders full of schtuff like this for when a lead story tanks right before press time.
How about taxing coffee a dime (remember that one)? How about some responsible reporting?
This is not only totally unenforceable, and is not worth the ink spent to print it, nor the legislatures time to find ouot that they are ignoring the idea.
Why bother dignifying this idiocy?
I think that the Associated Press re-printer/advertising mule can do much better than this, or at least one would hope so.
So what's next: skateboard licenses?
Wheelchair license plates?
Pedestrian licenses??
There was a reason the founders of this nation added and defined MORE freedoms rather than make laws to define or restrict: they were encouraging freedom for freedom's sake, to see what more good for humanity could come of it. Now while I'm not about to say bikers (yeah I said BIKERS - stuff it brandon: I can lift both my motorcycle and my schwinn in the air, bet you can't make such a claim: so bring it, vocab police) are the best thing since the Bill Of Rights, I certainly would love to see my city lead the way on creating more opportunities to increase health, lower healthcare costs for employers and regular joes, slow the steady climb of exhaust in our region's air, diminish -however slightly- the need for foreign oil and arguably foreign wars, and set an example for others of bicycle-centric city planning the way NYC has set an example for subways.
For freedom's sake as it were. If we set a new standard for alternative commuting (with the same vigor our city has spent 2 decades setting a new standard for american coffee), then think what could come next? Imagine what mindset, what progressive and evolving POV our region's investors, inventors and other smart folks might turn into a whole new, yet-unimagined transportation option. Now imagine the difference if all we do is spend the next generation coddling cars...
Encourage, by any and all means, biking as a replacement for driving when feasible.
I don't believe bikers are ticketed enough for their highly illegal and extremely dangerous actions on the road, and I think license plates on bicycles would be extremely helpful in denying the bikers of the asshole variety, the convenient anonymity that they currently hold.
The maneuvers I've seen many a biker pull on University Way, or Denny Way, or Broadway, or any other busy street (even non-high traffic streets for that matter) would be screamingly frowned upon and considered appalling by most people's standards if committed by a motorist. Quite often the roadway strategies they employ are blatantly antagonistic towards motorists, and driving alongside them in a car (or even being a passenger in that car) is maddeningly frustrating and anxiety inducing simply due to the fear of hitting the badly behaving bikers or causing a car accident as a result of trying to avoid a more likely fatal bike/car accident.
I can appreciate the fact that more and more people choosing this alternate form of transportation is by and large an exceptionally good thing in a plethora of respects. I'm not trying to knock the population of people doing their part to help the environment and save tax dollars, many of whom do not act in the ways I've referred to, I just think some of them are taking advantage of the grey areas in the laws (or lack there of), and those people need to be put in check.
Secondly, I LOVE how we're called "Bikers" now. It sounds Sooooo much hipper and grown up than 'Cyclist". I just wonder what the real bikers think of us. Someday we WILL be as feared and respected as them!









RSS
Comments (66) RSS