Cycling is so good for us, the US Governments bailout plan included a provision for employers to pay their employees to ride into work

http://www.sacbee.com/304/story/1305884.html

“Buried deep in the federal Emergency Economic Stabilization Act – the $700 billion Wall Street bailout – is an unexpected boost for the greenest of commuters.

With a tax-code change, beginning in January, companies can give up to $20 a month to workers who pedal to work. It would be tax-free to cycling commuters, and a tax write-off for employers.

Riders would use the subsidy to defray commute costs, such as bike tires or lights, helmets or rental fees for bike lockers at work.”

(Response: LOL!! h.o.)

Cyclists may not pay but that’s because we already overpay and on top of that, everyone knows the best way to encourage productive behavior is to not place barriers in the way of that productive behavior.

Automobiles pollute, promote a sedentary lifestyle and maim people. They should pay for that (along with pay their fair share of what it costs to provide and maintain roads). Think of it as a “sin tax”.

It’s a shame that you are so bull-headed. One would hope that someone who has the public eye, as you do, would be interested in presenting opinions based on facts. Turns out you’re as blindly partisan as the politicians you criticize.

I’m done with this. I can’t imagine why I’d ever care to participate in discussion with you again, when you show no evidence whatsoever of considerate thought.

(Response: No problem. Just contribute $$ to all the bike paths, bike routes, bike lanes, bike signage etc .. like the rest of us who also pay EXTRA to use the roads. h.o.)

There was an idea in there that I would whole-heartedly support: bicyclists who commit traffic violations should be fined as heavily as car drivers.

I don’t really care one way or the other about cyclists being on the road, but by gods they need to obey the traffic laws: it’s the only way us drivers can predict what they’re going to do, so that we can safely avoid them.

(Response: Sure did read them … In fact the Seattle P.I. is not an article: it’s an editorial opinion. Didn’t you read it? h.o.)

The article he linked showed one successful example of fee payment of cyclists at a university but this is a unique situation that has few of the factors a city has and the examples show from other cities that had a system where it failed.

The idea of charging cyclists a registration fee has been floated by lawmakers in Olympia, but not seriously considered in recent years. The department believes the programs raise little money — if any — beyond what they cost to run. Most cyclists also own a car or multiple cars, so they’re paying license fees and gas taxes.

Toronto went over this 3 times in recent memory and came up with a report that showed it was not effective in any way.

http://www.toronto.ca/budget2005/pdf/wes_translicensingcyc.PDF

Harvey should do the right thing and consider the merits of his idea. I’m sure if he did, he would acknowledge the shortcomings in his idea.

I made a sincere effort to track down the source of your claim that Seattle is looking at double-taxing bicyclists. It is not unreasonable to expect you to provide reference when the search turned up nought.

Your reference provides a “Page not found” error.

You again assert that bicyclists are freeloaders. This is emphatically not true, and I am disappointed you persist in promoting that fallacy when evidence to the contrary has been provided to you.

You’re free to hold opinions based on mistruths, fallacies, and ignorance. Go for it. But you shouldn’t be surprised when knowledgeable people correct you, and you need not be snippy when they do.

You are often right, but in this case your are dead wrong.

Response: Try this http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:mD6JfevaBqEJ:urbanvelo.org/seattle-debates-bicycle-license/+seattle+bicycle+license&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca
If that doesnt work … go to Google and type in Seattle Bicycle License ..it should come up and so should the Seattle Times Comment on the topic.)

Times columnist James F. Vesely also argues that the ultra-wealthy shouldn’t be subject to estate taxes, and other idiotic ideas like that. His name weakens your argument, not strengthens it.

(Response: Bicyclists must have quite a sense of privilege. First they demand references to my assertion that Seattle is looking at bike luicences. Then when I provide them, they denigerate the people there raising the issue. Do you think maybe the bias is yours. I don’t know the man in the specific reference you refer to (what about my other reference?). But he holds a fairly senior position in Seattle’s largest newspaper, so I respect his right to express his point of view… as much as I respect yours … and it doesn’t denigrate from his opinion on bicyclists and their freeloading demands just because I may (or may not disagree with him on other issues. h.o.)

You can plainly see that I posted that the article linked does little to bolster the idea of licensing or registering bicycles. I didn’t say that the debate wasn’t taking place.

Public policy is a fluid thing and changes every day. Sometimes the policy is good, sometimes it’s bad. We live with the consequences.

Everyone has the right to their opinions and hopefully, if the policy makers develop a policy of how it may work, and find out that the policy was the wrong move, they can re-visit that policy to either repeal it as they did in Minnesota.

It’s not like politicians haven’t ever made a bad decision based on an attempt to appease a vocal public asking for the wrong moves that will only make things worse for themselves