AZ Daily Star reminds us to remember that bicyclists do not pay for infrastructure
Oh for the love of . . .
Andrea Kelly, whose journalism I have praised in the past, finished her AZ Daily Star piece on the new 4th Avenue bike-paving with this doozy:
And while many won’t care whether there’s a new strip of pavement placed where bicyclists will likely ride, plenty of others will see that as a problem and will undoubtedly remind us that bicyclists don’t pay for infrastructure.
What does it mean to be “reminded” of something? It means to be made aware, once again, of something you once knew but had forgotten.
Is she trolling for on-line comments? Because that’s what it seems like. She admits in her own article that the project is being paid for with a sales tax, and surely she does not believe that bicyclists don’t ever buy anything.
There are so many problems with the “bicyclists don’t pay for infrastructure” argument that it is hard to know where to begin. Bicyclists don’t pay gas taxes for the miles they cover on their bikes, but that’s about where it ends. They pay for infrastructure in the normal ways like through state and federal taxes.
And of course, bicyclists pay dearly for infrastructure they don’t use, just like everybody else does. I pay for schools, but have no children. I pay for a military that I wish would stay at home. I pay to subsidize various industries I loathe and whose products I vow never to use. But like everyone else I also benefit in incomprehensible ways from living in a civilized country where there is give and take, and I’m proud of it.
Bicyclists also pay for infrastructure by not harming it in the first place. People on bikes don’t take up (many) parking spaces, don’t hold you up at the light, don’t wear down pavement, and almost never kill you if they hit you.
But everybody knows all this. The “bicyclists don’t pay for infrastructure” is not an argument about facts. Facts have nothing to do with it. It’s an argument about values. And the values argument is this: bicyclists get in my way. They are different from me and just by being there they make me feel guilty and lazy for sitting around on my fat ass, and I wish they would go away. Therefore, because they make me feel lazy, I am going to call them lazy: they always want to get something for nothing. And I am going to accuse them of not paying their way to do their silly, effete, elitist activity. They don’t contribute. They aren’t Americans.
–Erik Ryberg
February 22nd, 2011 at 1:11 pm
It’s a tough call: was Andrea being sly (and what else…snarky, sarcastic, facetious, fatigued) with her closing:
“plenty of others will see that as a problem and will undoubtedly remind us that bicyclists don’t pay for infrastructure.”
Red Star figured she was being sly, self-involved, etc., and let it go.
February 22nd, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Being told I’m not American would quite possibly be one of the nicest things anyone could ever say to me. I might live in this country, but I identify as anything but an American.
That said (sorry for the diversion!), I agree with Red Star. I think she was being sly and making fun of the type of folks who go “rabble rabble rabble!” with their fists in the air in agreement before even parsing what the context behind the statement is. The stupid, ignorant masses that shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
February 22nd, 2011 at 1:30 pm
THE problem with the snarky comment on supposedly real news’ is that people believe that nonsense and then they hear it validated on teh news. My wife and I probably pay more in taxes than most of the people who think that way. Yet they are the ones lumbering around in 4000 lb monstrosities to get 1/2 mile to the convenience store. She wouldn’t have said the bike lane takes away an excuse for rednecks to harass cyclists.
February 23rd, 2011 at 8:36 am
I wrote to Andrea about this article, and I got this back — I think she wouldn’t mind my quoting her here:
“I’m aware that most bicyclists also drive cars, and thus pay transportation taxes. However, it’s an argument that repeatedly comes up in the “Bikes v. Cars” debate, no matter how relevant and no matter whether the project is RTA-funded. I mentioned it because there will always be opposition to bicycle infrastructure improvements and people who make that argument. ”
Unfortunately, her article doesn’t contain this nuance and it sounds like she’s not only making that argument, but repeating it as a known fact.
Later the same day I almost got right hooked by a woman driving on 22nd, and she burst out laughing when I yelled out. I caught up with her in a parking lot and let her know that she’d almost killed me, and she said “well, you need to be in your bike lane”. I said I was, and that I had the right to be on the street, and she said “you need to be more careful.” How right she is.
February 23rd, 2011 at 12:39 pm
[...] of rising stars. Tucson Bike Lawyer takes issue with yet another incorrect reminder that cyclists don’t pay for infrastructure; I know I do, and you do, too. A Colorado man gets hit by a car, then faces charges for biking [...]
February 23rd, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Actually, cyclists who don’t drive overpay for road infrastructure, since car and fuel fees and taxes cover less than half the cost of building and maintaining roads. Driving is, in fact, the most socialistic activity US residents engage in.
Read a synopsis of the situation, with links to studies, here:
http://orange20bikes.com/2011/01/the-gas-tax-fallacy/
February 28th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
If society stopped worshipping cars (listening to the media) and refused to fulfil all of the cars needs/requirement, instead spent it on people needs (non-motorized), only the would we have a just society.
Only when car drivers start to pay for environmental damages they cause instead of getting a free ride they might have a point, but it is the children that will pay in the future.
That is why we have an obese society and lazy fat car drivers who complain about cyclist not pulling their weight
March 6th, 2011 at 9:22 am
I think the whole story line of how cyclists don’t pay for roads deserves a deeper look at the specifics.
I *started* to lay out our (arizona) scheme here:
http://azbikelaw.org/blog/road-taxes/
but i didn’t get very far. Still, the general thrust is that the main earmarked funding source, the one everybody thinks of and knows about (fuel / gas taxes) hasn’t changed in ages (like 20 years?) — so in real terms it has decreased *dramatically*… the slack is filled from general funds (things like sales taxes, income taxes, and so forth) which EVERYONE pays.
Theres’ a second prong that proves the “cyclists don’t pay their way” is a myth — and it is that much of the earmarked money ends up going to highway projects (where cyclists use less of), and relatively less to local roads (which cyclists use more of).
March 8th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Not to mention that a bicycle does so little wear on a road. Using the AASHTO formula for relative wear I could ride my bike 20 years and still not do the amount of damage as one trip by an Escalade. I would have to ride to the Starbucks down the road for 22 years to do an equal amount of damage as one latte run by the guy that drives the Escalade.