This bitch goes out to all those motorists who feel entitled to our city’s roads and have the gall to suggest that cyclists also pay licensing fees to cover the cost of road infrastructure.
Fuck off #1: Roads that cyclists use are usually located in the city. City road maintenance is financed by municipal revenues which are derived primarily from property taxes. Naturally, cyclists are more likely to live within city limits (elsewise, they would drive into the city) and thus contribute to city funds directly as property owners or indirectly through rental payments to other property owners. By virtue of being local they also are more likely to spend locally and thus contribute to property taxes paid by local businesses. In short, cyclists probably contribute more to local road infrastructure than those who only drive.
Fuck off #2: If cyclists ought to pay special fees to fund road maintenance, then shouldn’t pedestrians have to pay special fees to fund cross walks and sidewalks? Furthermore, should we require all residents to purchase pedestrian insurance just to protect ourselves against Darwin nominees who step into a crosswalk without looking? If not, then fuck off.
Fuck off #3. The reason motorists buy insurance is because the expenditure risk associated with an accident is extremely large relative to a person’s annual income or accumulated wealth. The economic rationale for cyclists purchasing insurance is less compelling. A cyclist who causes an accident is unlikely to cause significant economic damage to another person or another person’s property (there are exceptions, I know, but in general this statement is close to the truth). I do agree that a cyclist should have to pay for economic damage that they are liable for, but purchasing insurance is not necessary for this.
Please, for the life of me, stop blaming cyclists for the fact that you have to pay licensing fees and deal with shitty insurance companies. If you’re so envious of the “perks” that cyclists have, then take up cycling. Lastly, fuck off. —PO’dCyclist
This article appears in Aug 1-7, 2013.
I’m in the process of removing Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour and replacing him with the Almighty Lycra Cyclist, only problem is when you get run over, and with an attitude like yours, you will, resurrection in one, two, three days? Thought not.
Right, a cyclist shouldn’t have insurance because they never cause an accident. What bullshit. As for paving municipal roads, you better believe there are provincial and federal tax dollars involved.
Interesting read:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130212-w…
so much hate for cyclists in this city. timothy, i pay my share of taxes so i will ride and avoid accidents as best i can
I don’t drive or cycle but I still agree with most of what O.B. said. Paingirl is right, there is a LOT of hate for cyclists in this city (or at least on these boards). I have no stats to back this up but I’m willing to bet that there are way more dangerous/negligent drivers out there in motor vehicles than there are on bikes.
I had sex with a cyclist.
on a bicycle?
Ivan’s article is an interesting read up until you realize it’s based on a false premise: that cyclists are free riders in an economic sense. The free rider problem is a situation where an individual or group derives utility from using a public good or service without contributing to its cost. The premise here is that cyclists are free riders because they use roads (the public good) without contributing share of the cost of upkeep. Acknowledging that local roadways are financed through municipal property taxes dispels this myth.
I should add that cyclists impose far less wear and tear on roads. The reality is that, if our communities were operating on a cost recovery basis (we aren’t; roads are hugely subsidized), then the cost of owning and operating a car would be significantly higher than it is today.
On another note, I should add that Bro Tim’s analysis was highly thought provoking. Well done, Tim.
Here’s a rather novel concept: many cyclists are ALSO motorized vehicle drivers (who knew, eh?) who DO pay for the licensing, insurance, taxes, etc that finance our roads.
Hate-on for cyclists is easy. Analytical thought? Not so much…
Fuck this shit gets old. Save it for April/May. Go do a Critical Ass ride or something. Last friday of whenever.
Hopefully the next time “critical mass” blocks traffic they get slaughtered by a dump truck. *fingers crossed*
Well, my property taxes pay for roads and improvments to infrastructure too, so Im not paying for insurance or registration anymore. Lets see how that works out for me!!!!
Fuck off, retard!!!!!
none of you people ever hear of gas taxes ? on every liter of gas Provincial & Federal taxes …used for road construction, repair .So I see no reason bikes shouldn’t contribute their fair share …say just a licensing fee, like $100.00 bucks a year sounds fair.
Dig a little deeper. You really think that paltry ‘gas tax’ even covers the yellow lines?
We need a fat tax. I’m tired of paying taxes that end up giving lardasses triple bypasses.
Cranky more than $.25 of every single liter is gas tax …& that doesn’t include the HST which is more Fed & Provincial tax on top of the fore mentioned taxes !
So just a bit more than the cost of paint ….nice try though
1,174,000,000 + LITERS OF GAS SOLD LAST YEAR in Nova Scotia
& about 367,000,000 liters of diesel multiply that by over a quarter of a dollar of just fuel tax & you can buy a lot more than paint my deluded rebutter
Plus let us not forget the HST on all that fuel as well ~;p
More, that’s all irrelevant. Gas taxes and HST are provincial/federal sources of revenue and thus do not contribute to local road maintenance (part of the municipal budget).
Yeah, sorry More, that money being collected obviously isn’t all going to road construction or my bike wheels would be a lot rounder. Most of it probably goes to giving fat fucks tummy tucks and angioplasties.
I’d say ‘nice try’ but a grade 9 student would have come up with something a little more detailed, though still flawed.
THE TRIUMPH OF VIRTUE OVER VICE: BITCH AS A MORALITY PLAY
“If you’re so envious of the ‘perks’ that cyclists have, then take up cycling. Lastly, fuck off.” PO’d Cyclst
But why is PO’d cyclist so PO’d? What is going on here? What is going on here is the same thing that is going on in all the other Bitches. It is a morality play, one in which Vice is overcome by Virtue. Indeed, it is a very classical theme.
The Cyclist appeals to Romanticism, the world-view which maintains that Nature trumps all the “artificial” constructions of man. However, while Romanticism is the subtext in all Bitches in one form or another, the specific circumstances differ. Call this the “hook.” What is the hook in the present case? It is the car versus the bike, the driver versus the cyclist. Who is the “more natural”? It is the cyclist, of course. Why? because the cyclist uses muscle power while the driver uses a polluting engine. (Environmentalism, of course, is just another manifestation of Naturalistic Romanticism.)
But, and this is central, what does “more natural” mean? That is very simple. “More natural” means “more virtuous”. It is an old equivalence going back to Rousseau’s “state of nature”, one which he claimed existed before man was corrupted by an acquisitive, aggressive “civilization.” Think of the “noble savage.” But where does his leave the driver?
The driver is little more than a metaphor for vice, for sloth, selfishness, acquisitiveness and degeneracy. The driver is a metaphor for corruption. He can never win against the cyclist. The only way to trump the cyclist is to take the bicycle out of the picture altogether. The noble walker, the virtuous pedestrian then trumps the cyclist because there is no machine between him and Nature. He is more “pure,” he is more “natural.” As the cyclist trumps the car-driver, so the pedestrian trumps the cyclist. He will emerge the more virtuous and, of course, the more virtuous will triumph every time. That is why all Bitches are essentially Morality Plays. Virtue has triumphed!
But the equivalence between Nature and Virtue goes back much further than Rousseau. In fact, it goes back to classical Greek drama complete with its Chorus, those shadowy hags who stood at the side of the stage and warned the Hero of the pride which cometh before a fall. In the case of Bitch, of course, the Chorus appears in the form of the Commenters who scold the Bitcher but their function is the same. It is to warn the prideful Bitcher, to cast down the ingnominious. In the case of both classical Greek drama and Bitch, however, the plot remains the same. It is the triumph of Virtue over Vice. The Bitch is a Morality Play in modern dress.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
http://www.endalldisease.com/harvard-study…