Should We Tax Cyclists?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 พ.ค. 2024
- I often see the sentiment that cyclists should pay "their fair share" by avoiding the costs associated with driving. License, insurance, maintenance and gas. But do all of those things even pay for our roads? And should there be a bike lane tax?
0:00 Cyclists should pay taxes
1:00 Who pays for our streets
1:59 Driver Vs. Cyclist
2:55 Damage to roads
3:55 Cost benefit of bikes
4:15 Externality of driving
4:58 We all need roads
5:46 Cyclists subsidize drivers - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
![[Live สด] การออกรางวัลสลากกินแบ่งรัฐบาล งวดวันที่ 1 มิถุนายน 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3canzHC_d0k/mqdefault.jpg)
I got a little saucy at the end...I just couldn't help myself.
Our Podcast, Radio Free Urbanism 👉 th-cam.com/video/m70TY92DmQs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=wdHbLZOS4N1ywLZt&t=1216
mmm... bikesauce...
Rightfully so. Those morons keep running their mouths about stuff they just don't know shit about. They can either pay their fair share or stfu.
@@larry4674I put that on my chain to make it run smoother 😎
Just watch out for trucks full of stuff people buy.
Your spiciness earned yourself a subscription.
It's just as silly as complaining why pedestrians don't pay taxes for their sidewalks.
And that they should pay insurance.
@@michaelgurd7477 You do pay insurance as a pedestrian (and as a cyclist): most of the time, it's your liability insurance you pay with your house.
THEY DO!!! Where do you think the city gets the $$$ to BUILD the sidewalks!!!!!!! FROM TAXES!!!!!!!!!
They also don't get their sidewalks cleaned and cleared of snow by the state.
@@svr5423 But they pay their taxes.
Bikers wanted to be treated the same as car drivers but refuse to cause 50,000 fatalities a year
Nah you guys just act like you own the road. No care in the world. Weaving in and out of cars, scraping them as you pass by. Head down, never checking for anything. But the moment a car gets close to them or they get hit, they want to act like it’s not their fault for sweeping over three busy lanes without checking for anyone. Lol you guys are delusional and love the smell of your own farts.
Bikers have more fatalities per person per km. Poor decision making.
Get of your ass and get a bike.
@@svr5423 probably because they get hit by idiots in cars who either dont pay attention or hit cyclists on purpose
@@svr5423 Yes, because they're very likely the victim in those fatalities which were cause by a 2klb metal exterior box on large wheels going ~30+mph. I suggest you learn about momentum; it's always conserved.
Yep. Most of those angry anti-bike folk really have no idea how roads are funded.
We know how roads are funded, not by cycle mentalists... fuel tax, road tax, vat, council tax all pay for roads... 2 out of 3 are not cyclists... now pay your share or better yet use a combustion engine and say no the NAZI Climate agenda...
Like, if you wanna complain, do it with facts (but how common is that on certain groups?)
fact, if a person uses the road they should pay the same fee's as everyone else who uses the road...
Why can't you imbeciles understand that...@@micosstar
so motorbike riders are "anti-bike", get help Rainbow NAZI...
@markieshome so true!
the fact is, we all subsidize roads, highways, parking, and lots of other infrastructure needed to support car ownership… even those of us who have never owned or driven a car end up paying for the privileges enjoyed, and taken for granted, by those who do drive.
Have you ever taken a bus ? Have you ever been driven anywhere ? Are stores you visit stocked with items delivered by foot from their factory ?
@@ExarhadsgfdsThis was covered in the video if you were paying attention.
The total amount of taxes you pay as a driver DO NOT COVER THE COST OF BUILDING AND MAINTAINING ROADWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE! The rest of the cost comes out of general taxation which EVERYONE pays.
There was no dispute about the need for commercial and industrial transport either. That is a necessity for society.
I, like the video maker and you, also own and use a car. But I also use a bicycle as much as possible and PRACTICAL instead of the car. More infrastructure for cycling and other active and micro forms of transportation means LESS congestion from cars. It's a win win for everyone really.
When good infrastructure is built, people will gradually move over to use it. In London this year, the number of bicycle commuters has exceeded the numbers of car commuters and it's growing quickly. So quickly they can't keep building more infrastructure quickly enough.
If you build it properly, people will use it. If it's badly planned and half assed and dangerous then people won't.
There was a video I saw recently of a bike lane taking up a lane that used to be for cars in Detroit. People like you in the comments were going mad because no one was using it.
But.... it was just one cycle lane on one street going nowhere from nowhere with no other lanes or infrastructure anywhere around it.
What did they expect someone on a bike to do? Just ride up and down that one single bike lane on that one single street going nowhere? That's just fools wasting money unless it's the beginning of a planned network.
But if YOU want to be able to say you are paying for the road you're driving on then I suggest you dig into your pocket and pay out another few thousand bucks towards your actual fair share.
What are you afraid of? This is giving people the freedom to choose how they may get around to work or school or shopping or recreation that suits them best. Do you believe that you have the right to deny other people to choose to do something different from you?
Again, tell me what you are afraid of?
Depends on the country I guess because in Ireland we pay hundreds in motor tax, 60% of petrol cost is tax, tolls, VAT on the car, VAT on the insurance all pay for the roads.
Overall probably paying 2-3k in road related taxes per year. Is that really not enough to fund roads for 1 vehicle?
@@aightm8 I just looked up how much paved roads we have in Ireland and compared it to the UK per 1,000 capita
Ireland 22.87 km per 1,000 people. The second highest in the world after Austria.
United Kingdom 6.33 km per 1,000 people.
So that's about three and a half times more length of total roads per capita to maintain than the British.
Mostly this is an historic fact of having a low mostly agricultural population mostly spread out all over the country with a lot of small local roads giving access to all of these small communities.
In Britain and especially England which accounts for about 90% of the total British population it's been predominantly urban for over two centuries and most of the countryside was owned by huge estates.
If you just want to count motorways and national primary roads then for Ireland it's approximately 5,306km for 5.1 million people and for the UK it's approximately 51,338km for 67 million people. Or 1.04km per 1000 people in Ireland and 0.76km per 1000 population in the UK.
Still over a third more than the UK due to the small population.
So even though Ireland, and I just mean the Republic of Ireland is substantially smaller than the UK (including Northern Ireland), we still have a sh1t load more roads to maintain and pay for per capita due to our much smaller and more spread out population. And there are still plenty of lobbies looking for motorways or National Routes built between counties with a population that in England would barely be a large town. So now we both know where and how so much more money has been going into roads here compared to our nearest neighbour. I didn't know these numbers either until I went looking for an answer to your comment. It's certainly been educational.
@@tconnolly9820 vehicle related taxes generate over 6BN in taxes. Roads cost 1.3BN.
In fact the ENTIRE transport budget was 3BN.
I can't imagine what country the original poster lives in where he has deluded himself that motorists are subsidized, as have you. There is a government website for Ireland which documents how taxes are spent. So you are arguing against verifiable facts
If there is indeed such a loophole that can make people skip taxes by choosing a bicycle as a mode of transport, then EVERYONE will be cyclists.
Nah I'd rather not be gay.
@@NinjaFresh wow
This is 1 retort I use for the cyclist should pay taxes for bike lanes BS, just show me the box to tick off on my taxes where it goes to bike lanes not roads and I'll gladly check it
And form ppl who don't own children
@@andreikilla owning human beings is illegal.
The problem is you can't actually see most of the benefits cyclists create for drivers, but 100% of your attention is focused on being angry when you have to wait a few seconds for oncoming traffic to go by so you can pass the cyclist in front of you
And bear in mind that if there was actually decent cycle infrastructure they wouldn't even have to wait those few extra seconds...
If they had any sense at all they would be angry at the oncoming traffic instead of the cyclist.
Name one benefit instead of making fake claims like a NAZI, i dare you...
Which would be avoided by proper bike lanes separate from car lanes.
Nails it.
even the most car centric german lobbies found out in their studies that bikers net a positive for everyone else by using a bike.
Almost like the damn Flat Earthers that tried to prove the Earth is flat with a Device but proved it's a Ball but then denied it anyways. German Car Lobbies in a Nutshell I'd say
Over simplified somewhat. It's good if the cyclists are good cyclists, but most aren't. Crazy to suggest that dangerous cyclists are good for the everyone, truly bizarre
@@elliotwilliams7421 Cyclists are not dangerous. Cyclists underestimating rudeness of carbrains believing they have the right (not matter if truth) and are ready to kill for that are the once that are dangerous.
@@Dragongard cyclists are dangerous, why are you lying? Or do you genuinely believe they aren't?
Drivers underestimating the arrogance of a cyclist willing to die is the real danger
@@elliotwilliams7421 please let me know which vehicle kills more people annually per capita. That would tell us which is more dangerous. Maybe I'm ignorant to this crisis of bike killings happening right now.
Car drivers wear out the roads. Bicycles don't. Bicycle riders already pay taxes. This argument is stupid.
If a car owner would spend 100 dollars a month on road tax, a bike owner would have to pay 0,006 dollars per month if we adjust for damage to the road. I'm more than happy to spend that much on road tax for riding my bike if that meant better infrastructure. Hell, I'd even round it up to a cent, I'm not stingy.
They all are. Every argument against expanded bike and mass transit infra is stupid. Every single one. That doesn't stop them from coming back, from being regurgitated over and over again. What I want to know is not "what are the arguments against", I want to know "where are these arguments coming from"? Who is saying them in the first place? JimmyMegatruk1977 didn't come up with the road tax argument on his own. He uncritically accepted it when someone else said it, probably a repost on TwitBook or Redchan or something. Where did it come from originally? And, more importantly, can we get them to shut the hell up?
Hear me out, I know it’s a lot to put up front, but if every biker paid 2 cents we could double the bike lanes!
@@carterdeyoung1060 could we get some bike parking for that price do you reckon?
cycle mentalists DO NOT pay road tax, try facts RAINBOW NAZI sum...
I work as a tax accountant in Australia. One of my clients was complaining that cyclists don't pay "road tax." After explaining how the tax system works and that there is no such tax, I pointed out at the end of the interview that they were under the tax-free threshold and no tax was payable by them. In fact, as a cyclist, I contributed more towards the upkeep of the roads than they did, earning more than they did.
Under the threshold? I’m in Australia. Isn’t that 18000? Why do they need an accountant if they only make 18000?
your "client" is probably if they are earning less than $18200 is probably considered to be living in poverty meanwhile you who probably earns over $100000 decided to lecture them on how much better you are.
@@liamsmith1490Having low earnings doesn't give you a pass on ignorance. Explaining facts, to someone talking out of their arse, isn't lecturing.
@@liamsmith1490 You are aware a couple can earn over 60k and still not pay tax, your also wrong about my income, the gap may not be as big as you think after tax is paid.
@@geoffmerritt are you saying your client did pay tax as a couple?
I think a lot of drivers are just mad that we don't choose the most expensive and inefficient way to travel everyday.
drivers are broke all the time I bicycle commute I could buy 4/6 new bikes a year on what people spend on cars every month and still put up $5,200 a year for savings
That's nice. I don't come to work being messy as hell because the rain made my ass wet from the backspray, and I don't come to work smelly from sweating up a storm during a hot day. That, and I can actually carry my tools with me in my car whereas I'd need a heavy cargo bike that can't be stored inside so it's likely to be stolen.
I know this because I tried to make my 3 mile commute work by bicycle when I first moved here after finishing grad school - I lived on a walkable college campus and it never seemed to be a problem there! Bought a ~1000 dollar hybrid bike for it thinking I could make it work since I was close enough to my employer and there were "bike lanes". Turns out the bike lanes were narrow, full of potholes and bushes and tree branches that just stuck out into the road because they decided they wanted too many trees everywhere around here.
I stopped because I was sick of the frequent close calls from dickhead drivers, and having to take a shower after I got into the office became untenable. What also made it worse was frequently having to haul things between work campuses a few miles apart, and work shuttles not operating past 5 PM even when I'd work into the evenings. I don't expect my employer to pay for all the extra logistics and expensive shuttle services just to accommodate my desire to bicycle.
@@mikeydude750you could try biking less hard? Get a basket or something to hold extra stuff. It’s not that hard to also bike less hard. Just wake up earlier. I only work at the local library in the summer so I can’t say for winter but it’s an hour bike ride to the library and if you just bring water and dress light you’re good. Also don’t push yourself too hard, if you’re sweating you might want to consider taking a tram or bus rather than biking.
My point is that it works fine I just don’t think you’re doing it right. It’s impossible to drive to my highschool because of the traffic and would literally be faster if I bike.
@@EastGermany-pc2lw It would be faster to walk to work than to take the bus to work. Train doesn't exist in my neighborhood nor does one go anywhere near to work, and bus lines are few and far between, also not running to where I work.
I'm sure you imagine all the pretty women you meet "want you" as well. Ah, to live in a fantasy world . . .
In the UK we hear all the time that cyclists should pay "road tax". Of course there is no such thing as "road tax", at least not since the 1930s! What we do have is Vehicle Excise Duty, which is calculated on the carbon emissions of a vehicle. So whenever somebody says I pay no VED, I point out that neither do electric cars... and they are doing far more damage to the roads with their monstrous weight.
Of course it's hard to have this nuanced discussion with the driver of a white Ford Transit van who has just yelled at you for having the temerity to exist in his vicinity.
As someone with a bicycle I would happily pay £1 a month if all other vehicles paid based on 4th power law of axle weight.
Vehicle excise duty IS road tax. Excise duty by definition is a tax. the fact the regime can charge you tax on the purchase of your every year on top of VAT which is also a sales tax and council tax which pays for the roads is CRIMINAL... triple charging the same tax and NAZI apologists like you are to dumb to see it...
^^77 Brigade TROLL ALERT^^@@nbartlett6538
I'm just getting a petrol motorbike, we need a warmer climate and there is no electric infrastructure to charge the highly flammable bomb...@@RNG-ts5gn
I like the NJB quote, something like, "You want bicycle riders to pay their fair share? Okay, start calculating their refund checks."
If car drivers only got the pavement they themselves paid for, there would be far less streets and roads, and quite frankly, maybe there should be. I don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to subsidize a wealthy family living in some exurb who has an enormous carbon footprint due to where they choose live. Let's use our tax dollars to incentivize living sustainably, or at the very least let's stop doing the exact opposite.
I like that stat at 3:35. A mile of bicycle infra is 300X less expensive than a mile of car infra. I'll use that in the future.
"300 times *less* expensive" doesn't mean anything though. "Times" implies multiplication, whereas "less" implies either subtraction or division. So saying this will just confuse people... better to say (as the video narration actually does) that car infra is 300 times *more* expensive than bike infra.
@@nbartlett6538 it is saying the same thing. Expense is just cost. 1/300 the cost either way. Different phrasing may be useful in different context but it does not change the meaning.
@@nbartlett6538you must be the fun at parties guy. 'Times means multiplication bro' 'ignore normal language use bro'.
@@justcommenting4981 It is not saying the same thing. It's ambiguous and confusing.
@@EntropicTroponin It's not normal language use, at least not by anybody who knows what words mean. And I'm not your brother so don't call me "bro".
Any REAL car person would be campaigning for 4x as many bike lanes, secure bike parking, free transit, bus lanes, elevated trains, metros - anything to get some number of the thousands of mundane people in their silver KIA mini-vans to run their errands some other way and not clog up the roads.
Unfortunately concern for ones convenience beats out using critical thinking skills most of the time.
hi its me im real car person, please ride a bike or ebike or motorcycle or whatever immediately
As someone who loves driving.. YES! Make me not want to drive!
@@tangentfox4677except this would make driving better for you because of the laws of induced demand.
I'm a car person and what I'd like to see is allowing smaller, less reinforced, vehicles on the regular roads. On a normal public road you can walk, ride a horse, bicycle, motorcycle; Why can't you drive a golf cart or micro-car? You don't want those on limited access highways, but it seems weird that we don't allow them where motorbikes can go.
Minivans are very practical vehicles. Ain't nothing wrong with them. They really hit the efficiency/capability/cost sweet spot. The disgusting thing are the crossovers created because of cafe stupidity and the ever increasing weight bloat that's only being accelerated by misguided regulation and EV subsidy.
I also find it funny that a road built for cars last about 10 years until they fall into disrepair, while something like a bike path from my dad's home in the suburb to the city that was constructed 30 years ago still doesn't have any signs of wear or pot holes even as they experience Swedish winters... Who would've guessed that the weight of a cyclist ~60-90kg doesn't inflict as much damage on the road as a modern car of 2000kg.
in my country sadly bike paths often go down fast because they're often driven on because they're next to many driveways
It's really regular truck and bus traffic that kills the road surface. Rural roads that are a thin coat of crushed asphalt over gravel might get recoated every 10 years (cheaply), but local urban roads with proper pavement probably run about 50 years.
the only arch enemy to bike lanes are tree roots :( Damn those roots are powerful.
The damage done to the road structure scales with the fourth power. Which means: a 40 ton HGV does 500,000 times the damage a 1,5 ton car does, which again does 50,000 times the damage a 100 kg bike+rider combination does.
Which translates to: to do the same damage one passage of HGV a section of road, 25 BILLION bicycles have to pass over the same stretch. Do the calculation yourself...
Cycle lanes here in my part of the UK deteriorate fairly soon. They're often near trees whose roots lift up the surface, making the paths difficult to ride on. General weathering soon erodes surfaces, too.
As a cyclist, I agree. I suggest that everyone is charged $1/kg for the weight of the vehicle (each year). 🙂
i would be making a payment more than my car is worth every year
@@keit273no, you’d be making tax payments greater than what you could sell your car for. it’s value is immeasurable, in the USA.
streets/roads are $600 billion+ over what the gas tax brings in who pays the rest
@@keit273Then why should I the tax payer have to pay for the damage your car causes to the roads?
you mean the damage the bad roads do to a car@@allergy5634
This is what happens when you encourage, no, force everyone to drive. A bunch of drivers get resentful about all the costs associated with their Dino powered hunk of metal, and all the idiots in that group think that everyone else should have to as well, instead of just making the right decision and cutting it out of their life.
Plant powered, but yea.
You're the idiot here, believing in dinosaurs and Fossil fuel.
@@K-Anator Explain yourself
streets/roads are $600 billion+ over what gas tax brings in if you pay taxes your paying for streets/roads and sometimes sidewalks @@thiagosalice8403
@@thiagosalice8403 I believe they're referring to the fact that oil is more the remains of ancient plants than dinosaurs.
I'm open to this. Let's pay, proportionately, by cost of infrastructure. I'll be even more generous: car drivers don't even have to pay for the carbon footprint that is a direct result of their choices. Based on these conservative numbers: how much is the check that the government will be sending me? (;
The problem is that measuring someone's carbon footprint is basically impossible unless you stalk them all day. It's a lot easier to regulate businesses instead, and have those costs passed to consumers. If authorities did that, suddenly cars would be much less affordable and appealing.
@@andrewlalis Trouble is, the army of lobbyists of two VERY large and powerful industries would be sicced on any lawmaker who proposed such an outlandish suggestion.
My worry about this proportional approach is that a lot of poor and disabled people who rely on public transportation (and not just use it sporadically) might get hit hard with huge fare raises.
He forget the tax paid by the automobile industry and all workers in this industry. I am from Europe currently living in Germany. Almost all of Germany is financed by the car industry, their workers and the drivers.
Oh, I didn't know that! Could you send me your sources, so that I can learn more about that. So that would mean, that I should stop complaining about the undemocratic and dangerous power this industry has in Germany and begin to appreciate all the big Cars parking on the Sidewalk, ruining the Environment and Killing children on their way to school, because they are giving me my money. Okay I will sell my Bikes and buy a car... And then wait for my newly earned paycheck from VW....
The absolutely most infuriating thing about this discussion is the following 2 points:
1) Bike infrastructure is incredibly cheap when compared to road infrastructure.
2) More people cycling means less cars, means less of the more expensive car infrastructure needed.
So bike infrastructure incentivizes people to cycle, which means less money spent on infrastructure overall. Frankly, part of that money saved should be reimbursed to cyclists. It's utterly stupid to charge cyclists for the fact that they're literally saving society money.
If car apologists used rational arguments, they wouldn't be car apologists.
I liked the personal finance argument even more. If poor or middle class people can change an expenditure of ~500 a month to oil barons, car manufactures and highways to a 500 extra in the local economy that can change everything for the better
streets/roads are $600 billion+ over what the gas tax brings in who pays the rest
More people biking doesn't always mean less driving. The majority of bicycles in my neck of the woods are from people who drove their bike out here to ride around in the countryside. Individually they aren't bad, but when they get in groups they don't consider consider traffic rules and litter ruining the place for everyone.
but anyway even if it's cheap it doesn't mean that it's free, and anyway some one need to maintain the lanes, clean it, fix cracks put marks etc
It genuinely upsets me that so many car owners think they own the road. To think the space we used to walk and bustle about, is now filled with hyper polluting death machines, and they are somehow more right than me to use the space they're literally killing me for....
It upsets me that so many cyclists think they own the road.
@@elliotwilliams7421Did you watch the video at all? The entire point is that we ALL pay for i.e own the road…..
@@cocobailey777 did you read the original comment I responded to?
@@elliotwilliams7421 Right, can you tell me which mode of transport kills millions of people a year? And give me some reason to back up your “cyclists own the road” claim?
I can’t wait to see whatever weird and convoluted argument you’re about to cook up as to how a person on a bike is a big bad meanie for being on the road
How many kilometers are travelled by car/on foot/on a bicycle?
You understand where the focus should lie?
Here in Russia I hear the same stupid arguments against bikes. But I hope that the voice of reason will be heard. Sometime
Russia knows no reason.
At least Russia has a functioning public transportation system, for the most part.
@@Klaster_1well the worker Class has to get into the Factories somehow and Cars were a Luxury, in the Soviet occupied East Germany you had to apply for a Car and literally wait 15 years for a damn Trabant.
In most of Russia - you would only cycle in summer
For out southern cities - great idea though
@@Klaster_1 you mean “the most part of Moscow?🤣
I have a job, I have a house, and I have a car. Two cars, in fact. So yeah, I pay taxes. But if I gave up the cars, would my tax drop significantly? Not so much, because much of the non-vehicle related taxes I pay still goes to items like roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. Cyclists already pay taxes, no need to double down...
I have a car and I cycle as much as possible so I've got a foot in both camps.
Bikes and e-bikes are ideal as a substitute for a second car very often.
I live 6.5km from my nearest town and shops. 20 to 25 minutes on an ordinary bicycle. I use a trailer for weekly shopping trips. A bike poncho takes care of the wet weather.
I can do almost everything by bike up to 10km and a lot 20km and more when it's convenient.
It'd be even easier on an e-bike.
I don't HAVE to, but it's enjoyable and satisfying and good for my health and fitness but still doing it all in ordinary clothes. And I meet so many more people to talk to when I am cycling compared to driving which tends to slow things down even more but in the best way.
No lycra or being competitive to prove anything to anyone.
Plenty of lights front and rear always plus two good motorcycle type mirrors for safety and being sensible and defensive when riding. There's no point being legally dead right but still ending up dead in a situation.
$600 billion+ over what the gas tax brings in who pay the rest
a lot of people don't realize a significant amount of what you directly pay for in a car is just because you're hauling around 2 tons of steel at high speeds, often with dangerously poor driving skills. Insurance? You pay that because a big hunk of metal can much more conceivably cause millions in damages which your wallet cannot cover, unlike a bicycle which is neither that fast nor remotely that heavy. In addition, as you drive the bigger hunk of metal it is generally more of your responsibility to be vigilant, you need to be more qualified (in theory) to drive a car than to walk, thus because of the increased responsibility it makes sense that you would be more often at fault than a pedestrian, another reason you have to pay insurance.
Same deal goes for annual inspections and whatnot, malfunctioning brakes on your car are undoubtedly more of a liabilty to society than on a bicycle, thus your bike doesn't generally need a checkup
I live in Indiana. Here INDOT has roughly $570mil in operating budget and $2.55billion in capital expenditures budget. Now, I couldn't find the info today, but when I looked in the not to distant past I discovered the operating budget is ALMOST 100% paid by gas tax and excise tax. And that money is largely spent on car stuff: plowing roads in the winter, fixing pot holes, some repaving jobs. But that capital expenditures budget? It comes from the general fund. Sales tax. Property tax. Federal money. That's the money that builds new roads and bike lanes. So yes, cyclists are in fact already paying their fair share.
Their fair share and a good chunk more.
$600 billion+ over what the gas tax brings in who pays the rest
Waves from Lafayette! Thanks for the info, I'll try to look it up to share with a few family members during the, sigh, "holidays" who constantly complain about the roads not being devoted to more cars and the stores/cities not having more space for parking because of their vehicles keep getting bigger for no reason.
@@craigbowers4016 give a wave to the Purdue schools of engineering and technology next time you pedal by.
If they're complaining about the loss of parking spaces "to bikes" you may counter point that standard single parking space bike corrals hold 12 bikes. In places where cars typically bring 1-2 people to places, those provide space for at least 6 customers where only one was before! Why business owners would argue against that, as they do, is beyond me.
Not Just Bikes: "You want bicycle riders to pay their fair share? Okay, start calculating their refund checks.". We indeed save the city far more money than the taxes we pay to maintain it
People who drive automobiles should pay 100% of the wear they cause, and stop having those who do not drive support the lazy motorists.
Then you have to pay extra for groceries for the road damage done by truck that supplying the store
@@royying with more taxes payed by lazy motorists it will help offset that added tax.
I've had two people in the last few years (in winter) yell from their cars: "Get a f*king car."
Let's do a little thought experiment. If everyone that currently rides a bike, walks, and takes transit switched to driving, the heckler's life would become significantly more challenging with all of the extra traffic everywhere, trying to find a parking space, and worse wear and tear on all of the roadways. Geez, maybe I should just "get a car" if only to make his life worse... Don't forget about how all of the vibrant spaces would be bulldozed to make way for more parking!
They don't do that for something you're doing.
They do that because they want to feel better about themselves. And there's not a lot to be proud of.
@@gromm93 Car brain is truly a marvel. "I'm better than you because I waste several thousands of dollars a year to feel superior to peasants." Cool, enjoy living paycheque to paycheque driving around a beat up Civic or Suburban, bud.
@@AustinSersenyou are dumb.
A beaten up 2003 Civic is still better than a Ford F850 Child Emulsifier.
I'm honestly surprised people say that. Nobody has yelled at me ever, in all my riding.
Don't listen to them. They are resentful, and they want to drag you down. We are winning, its just a matter of time now.
I don't think you should put aside the false dichotomy. Even the category "cyclists" scarcely exists. You have road users who are cycling and road users who are driving. It's literally a choice per trip. I cycle nearly everywhere because my car, on which I pay all the dues, is used by my wife for the school run the groceries and her job.
I consider a cyclist to be much closer to being a pedestrian than being a vehicle. The only real difference between a pedestrian and a cyclist is the speed. A person walking could be carrying 20lb of metal and still be considered a pedestrian.
Interesting perspective. It's true that a lot of the time if I'm coming home with groceries or from the liquor store my bags weigh a lot more than a bike does.
My hybrid no e, just me workhorse bicycle weighs around 18kg. Not a lightweight. Put racks and bags and locks on it and a little luggage another 10kg. Plus me another 120kg+. And I could have another 20-30kg of cargo at times.
Add a trailer which I regularly use when I want to carry more than the bike can accommodate and that's another 45-85kg
So with me, the bike and one of my trailers at it's heaviest that's over 230kg on the road. Pedal power only. And I could do more. It's not as difficult as it may sound.
Now if you want to talk about cargo bikes or trikes or commercial e-bike cargo trailers those numbers can skyrocket and technically it's all still a bicycle.
@@tconnolly9820 If you consider the health benefits to cycle vs driving in particular in NA, a lot of "people" weight would be traded for bicyble weight. So overall, I think considering cyclists as pedestrians when it comes to pavement stress is correct.
That being said, if bikes are not degrading the pavement, time is, I don't know if the estimates of what bikes should pay (the less than a cent figure that floats around this comment section) is actually accurate. If everybody were cycling and walking wouldn't the main degradation factor not be time then ? I'm intuiting that the cost of bike is a calculated from how much stress on the road but using the same lifecycle as for a road for cars.
Like a road lasting around 40 years wouldn't be much affected by bikes but still need to be maintained and redone anyway.
On a scale of 1 to 100, with pedestrian at 1 and cars at 100, bicycles top out at about 4, but with a much lower rate of accidental collision than cars have.
@@tconnolly9820 And that extreme use is still a mere fraction of even the smallest, lightest road legal car.
Before I watch this video... you don't have to address this issue, anybody who thinks that cyclists don't pay taxes don't understand the basics about civics. These are the same people who live 35 km out of town, pay nearly no property tax, drive downtown to their job and then complain their roads are broken and bumpy. I live around a lot of these people. They do not understand the difference between the damage 10 kg bike does to the road vs a 2000 kg pickup. No city would adopt a tax on cyclists because every cyclist on the road saves the city money.
In the words of Not Just Bikes: "You want bicycle riders to pay their fair share? Okay, start calculating their refund checks."
The weirdest part about this is how they think this is a gotcha. If I had to pay, what? $50 a year? As my fair share and that meant we get all the bikes lanes and infrastructure we needed, I'd easily pay it, I think most bikers would. The problem is that even if that was to happen, Anti-Cyclist would still find something else to complain about.
Bikers DO get ticketed for running red lights and breaking other traffic laws, the big thing to keep in mind is that just like cars the vast majority of traffic infractions are not caught by the police and ticketed. The only reason you notice the cars being ticketed is because they are big metal boxes and because YOU are in a car and looking out for those things.
I’m ok to pay a tax proportional to the weight. SUV will pay 150 times more tax than me.
Nothing makes me preemptively roll my eyes quicker than a social media avatar that involves sitting in a car with a goatee and sunglasses. Bonus points for a cap.
Excellent calculation. Unfortunately those who need to see this probably won't.
And if they do they'll dismiss it. Oil shills lol
@@pappi8338 Oil will never go away. It is needed for pretty much everything around you that you take for granted.
@@paulb9769 The first oil shill arrived. No we don't need it. My country uses less than 25% of its energy from dinosaur remains. The world is moving up and away from fossil fuels. Only the old, tired, and ignorant will be left behind.
yet another "we want everything for free because we are morally superior due to being vegan/cyclist/lbgtq+" video
@@pappi8338 Oil shills and car apologists
In my area, there isn't much cycle infrastructure yet motorists think you to pay a special tax just for your bike. I think they are frustrated and just want to punish people for cycling or discourage its use because bikes are in their way as if their purpose for using the road is greater than a cyclist's. Any time bike infrastructure is proposed, motorists lose their minds. Instead, we widen highways. That idea gets great support.
yet cars drivers kill more people than guns do in America 34,000 a year
Not just bikes. It’s also HOV lanes for buses, congestion pricing, parklets; anything that reclaims public space.
wider highways are good. easier to overtake bikes and bikes don't need to share space with pedestrians.
Also less idiotic bike riders on the road than on dedicated bike paths.
@@svr5423those darn idiot bike riders making crops not grow anymore thanks to the lack of rainfall from their bicycles causing climate change. oh darn them
@@svr5423widen highway never worked 😂
It just created bigger traffic
Oh please. Even if cyclists paid EXTRA taxes to ride their bikes, motorists would still be crying and complaining.
I'm a Vancouver cyclist without a car, so that's why I was so active in pushing back in those comments 😭
Little kids are so entitled. I think they should have to pair their fair share of the cost of building and maintaining sidewalks to school.
I’m a cyclist and I paid a 5-figure amount of tax last year. I pay income tax, VAT, various excise duties on alcohol, fuel, etc., as well as capital gains tax, inheritance tax, property tax, property sales tax, insurance premium tax, you name it. Even if I didn’t also drive a car, I would pay virtually all of the taxes that a car driver pays. I legitimately don’t get this idea that cyclists are somehow using the roads ‘for free’ and motorists are somehow imagined to be picking up the bill. It seems like absolutely crazed thinking to me.
$600 billion+ over what the gas tax brings in who pays the rest
such funny logic, "riding a bike is cheaper than driving a car, so instead of more people swithcing to a bike lets make riding bikes more expensive so everyone can be miserable"
Nah, they should just pay for the roads, like every other vehicle.
Funny how cyclists are the ones who get most mad about paying their fare share. Egoistic beings.
I started commuting to work on bicycle to avoid people on public transport only to come across people from public transport who had now moved to private transport. Which is funny as a the Government here implemented a 'Congestion Charge' to tax people £15 a day who wanted to drive through or around central London. Despite this tax, London is still quite congested and my 8 mile commute to work and back is still a lot faster than public transport or driving.
::EDIT::
Also as point of note - I started commuting by bicycle because of the fares on public transport was too damn high. poor service, high fares and public service that is always on strike.
It is being flooded with people it is over crowded and rapidly getting worse. I have not caught a bus or a train or driven for years.
Like usual politician Punish instead of incentives or making it useful/better/easier to do otherwise. It's just to get money out of people disguised as moral action. Like the tax on cigarettes. As we can see at 12 euros the pack, all smokers have stopped...not.
If they made quitting smoking easier by health deduction, or free thearpy or cheaper access to cigarettes alternatives. Same with bikes. Tax deduction of you bike if you buy one or can prove that you ride one during the year or things like that... but nope. No infra, no money and just taxes on car.
Cars are so crazily subsidised. I have to drive to work, I have to go to many difrent places often far away. Yet I still think public transport, and bicycling should be free. Getting cars off the road, by giving commuters better options makes the roads better.
No, I'm not willing to pay for public transport that I'll never use. I have no problem with people in their vehicles clogging up the streets, but then I'm a patient person.
@@laurie7689 "Ill never use"
Im pretty a certain interstate highway that burned down recently would like a word about your commute.
Less people using the road benefits you in gas prices too. Imagine if even just 10% less people used an alternate mode of transport, if a bus can carry ~20 people that makes your gas bill 9.5% less expensive, this isnt even factoring in a bike, walk, or train. Even more so if those vehicles go Electric and decouple themselves from the gas economy entirely.
@laurie7689 So because you'll never use it we shouldn't have the option? The world sure does revolve around you doesn't it? Sounds like me, me, me, but what about me type of argument. 😂
@@laurie7689Mans like I love wasting my life sitting in traffic everyday. Id rather spend my life stuck behind people in an inefficient mode of transport, burning gas, money, and time, rather than fund something that can aliviate congestion, provide a great service for the public and be a backup mode of trasport for myself.
@@Captain.Mystic I don't mind if other people want to use alternative modes of transportation - so long as I don't have to pay for them to do so.
I held off on a car until my daughter turned 3, and it has been maddening how everyone has their hand in your pocket the moment you start driving
factssss
That is because individual cars are outrageously inefficient money pits. And we don`t even pay for externalities, it is completely ridiculous that it won as the main means of transportation.
@@philippe-armandlaberge7721 I'm 50% with you, but what externalities? I get the impression that most infrastructure costs are driven more by low density, suburban sprawl than simply having streets.
@@MartinPittBradleythat low density sprawl is to accommodate for cars. Cars are extremely space inefficient which is why non-car dependant cities like NYC and Chicago are so much more dense than Houston or Phoenix.
@@allergy5634 I'd argue the low density sprawl is more to discourage pedestrians than to enable drivers. You can't put up a gated community in town. They aren't nice to drive to either.
I always find it ridiculous how it almost seems like a war of cultures whether you ride a bike or a car. Where I live, many people do both. They ride a car when it's the better choice (e.g. with little kids or for shopping), but on other occasions use a bike. In my city (Berlin, Germany) road traffic is super slow, and it's hard to find parking space. So for shorter trips a bike is usually the faster and less stressful option, even if you own a car. A colleague of mine has a car, but still chooses to ride 13 km to work. Riding a bike does not mean that you are a leftist! Yet there's so much aggression against cyclists, as if they were car drivers' worst enemies.
Yes, most people do both.
But here there are many bike-fetishists who like to make other people's lives miserable and then are triggered when people call them out.
They are not representative of the bike-folk, fortunately.
The chair of my regional metro planning org (MPO), the organization that decided how the bulk of our transportation dollar are spent, actually tried to use the "bike don't pay taxes" line to justify not spending money on active transportation. Just shows how ingrained this idea is in North America.
99% of the infrastructure goes to cars, so yeah it sounds fair that cyclists don't pay hardly anything to use the roads, sidewalks, and minimum bike infra
But we do pay.
$600 billion+ over what the gas tax bring in who pays the rest
@@lockettowl oh I meant shouldn't in regards to the video title. Reality is different of course
@@scruf153 well you can increase the gas tax to reflect the actual cost of car infrastructure through high gas prices
Great video. I am a bicyclist who is also a motorist and a consumer of a lot of other things. And I'm a homeowner. I pay lots of taxes. So it's time for people who say cyclists should pay their fair or stfu to themselves stfu. All they accomplish saying this is to prove their own lack of knowledge on taxation.
streets/roads are $600 billion+ over what the gas tax brings in who pays the rest
@@scruf153 Everyone who owns real property or who buys anything that carries a sales tax pays for the rest. Well, add to that anyone who buys municipal bonds.
@@scruf153cyclists subsidize car owners, not the other way around.
Your health insurance is less expensive due to cyclists increasing the average health of the insured population, cyclists help pay for the enormous parking lots that they don’t benefit from, etc.
car owners owe cyclists money. Pay up, bro
@@SigFigNewton car owners subsidize cyclists, not the other way around.
@@svr5423 exactly wrong. hey remember that time when I gave concrete examples of my argument and you had nothing?
Property taxes often fund roads. Cyclists pay property taxes. Cars cause wear and tear on roads. Bikes don’t. Car owners leech money off of cyclists to get parking lots built that cyclists don’t need. Cyclists subsidize your health insurance.
I'm always curious as to how motorcycles weigh in on these stats. 2 of my motorcycles have registration costs that are doubled that of my car, and my motorcycle license is on top of my driver's license. Despite disproportionately more than a typical car driver, I'm very much a second class citizen on the road, and nothing exemplifies this more than looking at how much parking is dedicated for motorcycles. A commercial plaza I frequent for my lunch hour has about 600+ parking spaces, 6 of which are reserved in pairs for motorcycles, each pair able to fit 10 motorcycles (essentially 5 motorcycles per car space). So I find it rich when a car driver complains about my 2-wheeled brethren taking up the road and needing to pay their fair share as I'm routinely unable to park in this plaza because a single car is taking 10 motorcycle spaces.
As a cyclist I can sympathize with motorcycles. I think the added risk of motorcycles over bicycles is that they accelerate fast, reach higher speed, and speed wobble could happen at higher speeds and requires keeping track of shifting as to not stall. So I think it makes sense to require additional training. But for those who can ride, it is a great transportation without hauling dead weight when commuting. Noise is a different issue, but I guess it will change as electrification improves.
@@drill_fiend1097Noise from motorcycles is largely by design. I lived in the UK for a while where there was a seniors-only motorcycle club and they were no more noisy than a car. Whereas in NAmerica most motorcycles can be heard 3 blocks away.
@@drill_fiend1097stock bikes are super quiet. dickheads in a car or bike are loud unfortunately.
Those commenters are basically the very same people who whine about paying any taxes at all. They just are karens who are jealous that some people have transportation that doesn't have to pay for gas and separate insurance. They absolutely have no understanding of how two ton blocks of steel and aluminum wearing out road more than bicycles.
And as a context: I drive 1/3 of the time during summer and winter. I still find all these whining about "road tax" hilarious when "the dangers of running signals" they are complaining about is a matter of insurance, and the same can be said for pedestrians because someone saw a jaywalker once. Or are we going to have additional insurance for each pair of shoe because by being able to walk we might violate signals and signs?
We should NEVER tax Cyclists ! Riding a bike is good for users, their physical and mental health, social security, ecology and society in general.
it's bad for everyone else. Especially in urban areas.
Ngl, nothing gets my blood boiling like hearing this argument. I know it shouldn't but man am I disappointed in my fellow human beings when they spew that much ignorance. Glad you took the time to patiently outline how fallacious it is.
As a fat man with a heavy bicycle; I'm just happy to be included in the conversation.
Just came from the most infuriating town hall meeting, you have no idea how much I need a video like this rn...
I'm a cyclist (well I use an ebike). It is my daily commuter to a from work and I really only use my car (Civic) for grocery runs and long trips... Allegiances aside literally EVERYONE knows using a bicycle (of any kind) is better for your health (physical and mental) and better for the environment. The obvious trade off being that on a bike you can't carry as much and you (generally) cannot go as far.
However there is a STRONG dislike, borderline hatred, from car-centric people towards anyone who chooses not to use a car at all times. It is truly incredible how many people seem to think that without a vehicle, everything is impossible. This is a clear example of people raised in a car-dependent world and are never even open to the possibility of non personal vehicle transportation... Look, I pay my taxes every paycheque and I don't know where they are going either, but car-brains seem to think that, as a cyclist, I can just "opt out" of certain taxes that pay for things? I enjoy a well maintained road just as much as the next person, but my god, PLEASE, we need more protection from people in cars!
It is astonishing how you literally view the world differently when you ride a bike most of the time. Since taking it seriously in October of 2022 (to present, December 2023 and still going) I am stunned by how many things I have missed as a driver. The amount of red light runners, swerving, people FLAT OUT JUST STARING AT THEIR PHONES, and everyone seems to be of the opinion that, "oh everyone else are idiots, I'M the only one who can watch TikTok and drive!" Trust me, none of you can.
The car-brain person loves to think the cyclist is a continually angry person, but I PROMISE you you'd be more on edge if you had to deal with 2+ tons of steel and glass about 3 feet from you every few seconds on a road that was only engineered to provide a "bike lane" that is basically just a sneeze away from death or being crippled...
Also as a bonus, 0:26 --- I swear to god, the amount of profile pictures I see that are exactly this (man, short hair, sunglasses, taking a photo of himself in his truck looking angry, or perhaps he thinks he looks intimidating) is crazy. That look is the epitome of a person who thinks, "man, if it were legal, I'd just ram those damn cyclists, takin' up our roads!" ... And then somehow add in a right wing political battle cry in there somewhere.
The most expensive gas in north America?
I'm in Ireland and at my local petrol station last time I was passing both petrol and diesel were at €1.65 per litre. Doing a quick conversion into US gallons and the XE Currency converter app that's approximately $6.84 per us gallon. I think that's pretty much ball park give or take for other European prices too.
Seriously guys, you don't know just how subsidised your fuel is.
Or if you prefer to say untaxed, then that taxation has to come from somewhere else.
Yup. Even here in Canada. Our gas is about $5USD/gal. Too cheap
In the US, the shortfall comes predominantly from property tax or sales tax (VAT). i.e. ghetto liquor stores fund the road for Mercedes drivers.
is a taco cheaper than a gallon of gas I can cycle 60 miles on a taco
@@scruf153 Yes you can and so could I. But I'm a late fifties just averagely fit man and not a roadie. It would probably take me on my hybrid bike covered in racks and bags about 5 hours at a steady moderate pace over mixed terrain to do that distance not counting having a break or two in between. Let's say a generous six hours altogether. I don't own any lycra, I ride as I intend to arrive.
So I take my car and unless there's going to be a trip into a large city centre at peak rush hour, I would expect to do that 60 miles in about one hour and twenty minutes without using any high speed roads or motorways.
Public transport can be very efficient and cost effective too but depending on the routes.
Now maybe you are including yourself in the small percentage of the population who are way above average athletically fit and you could probably do that in less than half the time I could.
But in reality, 90% or more of the population anywhere could not do that at all. Not a hope. Certainly not in 3 hours. 6 hours and the numbers are going up dramatically.
But seriously, how many average people would ever even contemplate spending 5 or 6 hours pedaling EACH WAY for a doctor's appointment or to pay a visit to Uncle John and Aunt Sarah.
It pointless and conceited and basically p1sses off most everyone else when someone who's confident in their above average athleticism comes out with pointless bullsh1t like that.
And basically it just puts peoples backs up and does nothing to promote casual or utilitarian cycling for the average person.
And I am very pro getting people to use bikes instead of cars as part of their everyday life.
@@nicthedoor th-cam.com/video/tbEuaCCV-zg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=dRXm_p_abta2qDkF
City Nerd made a video on how cheap gas is here, it m really needs to be higher to accurately reflect the negative externalities
I'm all for fair taxes for every road user... Wooops, driving a car and transporting goods on roads via trucks is suddenly horrendously expensive.
You're right, it's the cars that are subsidized. I always like to point out that bikes were on the roads about a century before the popularization of cars but things like insurance and traffic lights didn't exist until after car driving was established. Why should bikes pay for things we don't need?
Basically, what this vid says is that cyclists subsidise drivers, not the other way around.
Not so long ago, there was a bike tax. ( in Belgium) You had to buy an aluminium plate every year at the municipality and install it on your bike ( at the wheel)
Yeah they got rid of it because it wasn’t worth the effort
War on bikes is real. These anti bike folk also want violence against bikers. We need detailed documentation of this and call them out.
war on bikes? I dont think I have never seen that, I have seen once that people get mad at bicyclist when they take liberties on the roads and dont obey traffic signs and hog the road going 5 mph hour when they could just as easily ride on the side instead of down teh middle. once the line of cars backed up way up the road. and for your info I ride a bike too, I just dont act like I am somehow superior to the polluting cars drivers out there, I used to ride one all the time when younger when I couldnt afford a car I was not looking down on those who drive only when they were not being ver considerate to others otherwise I have no problem with them.
Yes, as a cyclist I think this is a good idea. The tax should be in line with how much pollution and harm your transport is causing to the environment.
Car drivers (including me) are quick to complain about excess traffic (you're not stuck in traffic; you are traffic), but many don't realise cyclists are reducing the traffic. Moreover, I've never seen a cyclist create a pothole.
However, in the UK, our "road tax" (vehicle excise duty) and fuel tax raises more revenue than is spent on roads.
Simpler (false) car-logic: Tax the pedestrians for the side walk.
Get them a walking license and insurance
I have heard drivers say that there shouldn't be any sidewalks because pedestrians don't pay gas taxes. I have been to gated communities that don't have sidewalks.
I've done a bit of my own research on this subject, but you took it way farther, and I was honestly surprised by the conclusions. Glad to have this information on hand to inform others!
What are your research resources?
I'm glad that I've seen car enthusiasts making videos on this topic. It's not just the general public that is negatively affected, actual car enthusiasts are also negatively affected cuz it ruins our hobby by clogging the roads with idiot drivers who don't give a damn about driving who then don't bother properly maintains their vehicles which makes it worse for everyone
- Doesn't damage roads, minimal maintenance
- Minimal pollution compared to cars, so keeps everyone around them healthier
- Keeps the rider healthy, so needs less healthcare. Relevant for countries with universal healthcare
- No noise pollution
As a lifelong cyclist in London I am in favour of a compulsory cycling license (The UK Cycling Proficiency test is fine for this, just make it a requirement), which can have points added for bad use, plus compulsory insurance (min third party).
Whilst a bike has a fraction of the impact on the road of a car, it can still cause expensive damage or injury, and modern roads are simply too busy to have selfish or incompetent cyclists on them.
if infrastructure is of good quality - most asshole bikers wont have to be an asshole anymore
Well done!
Too bad those who need to hear this the most are the least likely to watch it!
Well done Nic.....I just wish I could somehow share this with every angry Vancouver motorist that has yelled at me on the bike. Thankfully, our bikeway network has evolved to a point where I' m crossing paths with them less frequently.
I've noticed there are mainly two reasons why Americans and Canadians don't want to cycle. I've watched hundreds of bicyclng videos and also talked to a lot of car drivers over the years .The two reasons are lack of bicyclng infrastructure and laziness. Over forty percent of daily north American commutes are short distances which takes about half hour or less on bicycle. I always take my bicycle, rain or snow , for short little trips to the mall or cannabis store . I can't bike to work because the only way to work is on an interstate highway so I take the bus but I also have a car which is just sitting in the driveway depreciating and rusting . I drive it one a week because leaving a car sit for long periods isn't good for the car .
We certainly could do with some quality infrastructure.
I have a car but I cycle... So I reduce congestion, don't clog up the highways and don't wear through the road!
Welcome to the wonderful world of responding to annoying comments on TH-cam!
There is only one tax that is reasonable, and that is a Land Value Tax. You should have to pay for the space you monopolize. Congestion charges fall into this. If cycling became a substantial burdon on pedestrians existing in public space, then we should charge them a congestion charge as well. However, transportation being afforadable is, in many ways, a massive boon to society, and thus it makes sense for it to be subsidised in some ways by ignoring some externalities. Should we ignore the externalities involved with air emmisions and congestion of cars, no. Should we ignore the externality cost of the space taken up by a cyclist, imo yes.
Good ol' Georgism.
Yes, they should call it the "not lazy, not obese, not arrogant, not polluting, trying to stay fit and not burden the healthcare system tax".
most cyclists are arrogant and bitter because they didn't pass their driving exam
this video is doing amazing for you and im so here for it, exited to see what youll make in the future and ill probably be checking out some of your older videos too
I, as a cyclist with no car, actually support mandatory insurance for cyclists.(some of the comments mentioned insurance)
Because there is a large risk a cyclist will colide with a pedestrian, other cycliast or car at one point, so insurance is very important imo.
Taxes don't really make sense tho.
So pedestrians should pay too then if that is the case
@@paulb9769 pedestrians don't move fast enough to cause injury to others in the event of a "collision".
@@gearhead366 They regularly cause accidents with vehicles.
Great informative video 🥰 I've used my eBike pedal assist for 5 years for shorter commutes & done over 6000km already 🚴
Lol I do about 3000 a year with out a motor.
@@paulb9769 I've reduced my vehicle usage to about 15'000km a year.
There is one city that taxes cyclists for cycling infrastructure
It's $10 when you purchase a bike.
That's it, because bike infrastructure is SUPER cheap
No, cars are highly subsidized and if you calculate the cost for society (health, pollution) for every mile driven by car, you will see that the cost per mile on a bike is actually negative according the EU impact project on that issue. Hence we should price cars accordingly, and also you dont need roadworks that much because the load on the infrastructure isnt that much with bycylces as it is with cars and trucks.
Thank u for this... So sick of ppl saying we need to pay our fair share (yes we pay MORE)
Who would've thunk carbrains aren't actually that smart or informed.
That is one gorgeous video. I am the editor for one of Germany's biggest dahscam channels, and we get the same arguments about cyclists getting mandated to have insurance, licence plates and their own taxation. And I will be starting to link everybody with those arguments to this video here. The basic message being, drivers not paying for cyclists, but actually cyclists paying for drivers and their infrastructure.
Also, such videos make you feel very validated for cycling much. I love cycling and I could not imagine a life without a bike. Even if I would lose both legs, I'd get one of those hand bikes rather than not cycle. I have lived many years of my life without car and it was no issue. I could not imagine the same without bike.
And where I live, there are not many bike lanes. I have to go on the road, but gladly, I know all those tiny side roads, where you rarely share the space with driving cars. But very few paths are dedicated bike lanes here. Most streets I use are in some way meant for cars. Even if rarely used by those, because they may be dead ends for vehicles or something.
Most people tune up their cars. In this year, I happened to massively tune up my 2 bikes, on a level I never did before. Because I use them for everything and like to go on long trips (sometimes more than 100K a day), while I only use my car like once a week.
Zero emissions, negligible road damage, healthy riders. I would go even further and remove cars from all town centres!
Thank you for this video ❤👏
Would a tax based on vehicle weight be okay?
It would be great if you want to compensate for the wear to the road yeah.
I often hear complaints about how there are all these bike lanes and yet they never see anyone biking on them. I tell them that's because there's no such thing as a bicycle traffic jam. The honest answer, though, is they don't see many bicyclists on the street because the bicyclists are afraid cars will kill them.
Thank you so much for speaking up about this! I sold my car to live a bike commute lifestyle and I get bullied a lot for this exact topic and I’m glad i watched this so I know what to say next time someone attacks me with the tax statement. :)
I hate when people try to do this argument or any argument against bikes like this. BIKES ARE NOT CARS. Bikes don't need insurance like a car because they AREN'T a car. Any kind of scheme to make you pay insurance or forcefully register a bike should be resisted as much as possible, the idea you could be stopped for no license on a bike is comical and I worry people in the Americas would be ok with it, or be forced to wear helmets etc.
The insurance cyclists _would_ need is for if they're hit by a driver, and the car insurance doesn't have enough coverage for the cyclist's expenses (aside from for solo bike accidents that should just be part of health insurance)
@@geoff5623 For that I say it should be an option if they want it, but never the law. I worry making it law would confine us to the same issues of every insurance company not caring because you're forced to use them, versus them actually needing to do as they're supposed to.
@@NooneStaar I agree, sufficient coverage for non-motorized third parties should be required for driver's basic insurance - it shouldn't be up to pedestrians and cyclists to consider the risk burden that existing around cars imposes on them since they don't really have a choice. It also needs legislation to ensure insurance companies aren't trying to squeeze out of paying in case an injured pedestrian or cyclist doesn't have their own insurance policy fighting on their behalf.
Theoretically in BC, ICBC covers cyclists injured in vehicle collisions. I've heard people get their broken bikes replaced without too much hassle, but getting medical expenses not covered by public healthcare (or income loss from being unable to work) covered can be much more difficult.
Yep! I'd go one step further and say even if you paid cyclist through tax credits it would still be cheaper for a city than a car driver.
$600 billion+ over what the gas tax brings in who pays the rest
Beside the point!
Nicely put. I loved the icing on the cake at the end.
For road damage, bicycles should pay 1/10,000 of what motor vehicles pay. Especially buffoon-sized pick-ups and SUVs.
A system where "everyone paid their fair share" would involve car drivers paying $2000 per year for road upkeep and bicycles paying $20 per year. If bicycles actually had the same requirements as cars like road taxes and insurance, cycles would probably pay a grand total for $60 for road tax + liability insurance. If that actually meant getting lots of paved, dedicated bicycle highways built then I think a lot of people would actually be down with that price of admission.
Really, the only figure you should need to see is the one showing how much your choice of transport costs society. But if they really want it, I'm quite happy to get 26¢ back if those drivers want to pay their 89¢! 😂
As a bicyclist I contribute a lot. I ride my bicycle to job and back every day. 15,5 km (about 10miles) one way. I can't ride it on loaf on bread and glass of water. I eat meat and chees. Pretty expensive. And it is taxed.
I can see an argument however for licensing bicyclists and their bicycles but the cost should be negligible and should be used for enforcing the laws and recovery of stolen bikes.
Do walkers have to pay tax for sidewalk space?
What about crosswalks?
Thank you for taking the time to educate the ignorant.
I'd happily pay 7.34 € per month (88 € per year; vehicle tax for a VW Golf, most sold car in Germany in 2023) if I got decent biking infrastructure in return.
Trust me i do pay for useing bike lanes the amount of punctures i get from glass is ridiculous
The same reasoning and evidence also applies to transit.
If cyclists were taxed fairly, they'd be getting paid to ride.
a lot of the arrangements for cyclists paying a road tax and insurance is misguided frustration, the point being is sitting in traffic watching the cyclists glide by unheeded and free from the burden of sitting in a long line of vehicles. Seriously as the film pointed out we already do, I for one do also use my time while riding catching the handset use behind the wheel and reporting it to the authorities, thus doing a service of removing dangerous behaviours from the road and forcing more drivers to ride the commute. ~Trooper
In my opinion, cyclists should receive a tax relief or rebate because they damage the road much less than heavy cars, especially bigger SUVs and pickup trucks! Also from a local governance perspective, we all have paid our fair share of taxes for our infrastructure, no matter if we drive, bike, take transit, or walk via local property taxes and sales taxes. However, not many people understand how local and property taxation and budgeting works, so a lot of education is needed!