Castanet

We have to stop building bike lanes that accomplish little except to *bleep* off drivers committed to their cars...and there is no shame in driving a car. Just as riding a bike is no reason to bestow superhero eco-status to cyclists.

I do fine without bike lanes . IMO , bike lines being built on major thorough fares like Spingfield , Gordon or Harvey is only asking for problems by adding traffic to an already congested major road . I stay away from major roads like I avoid people with snotty noses and prefer to ride my bike on side streets .

MAPearce wrote:I do fine without bike lanes . IMO , bike lines being built on major thorough fares like Spingfield , Gordon or Harvey is only asking for problems by adding traffic to an already congested major road . I stay away from major roads like I avoid people with snotty noses and prefer to ride my bike on side streets .

Well done. I agree fully. Pinhead traffic engineers, leash lead by city politicians, listen to non cyclist who always say they don't feel safe on the roads on a bike but would ride if there were bike lanes.

I'll bet you a new climbing sprocket hardly any of these folks become converts when millions are spent on "Cycling Infrastructure". And I'll bet some even curse the new lanes when they interfere with their car commute.

If you've even contemplated riding, especially on the flat lands of Kelowna...stop wincing and just do it and stop making excuses with solutions that everyone ends up paying for.

Oh...you can wait til spring

spooker wrote:Before applying the "user-pay" to cyclists I think we need to look at the same thing for motorized vehicles ... a bicycle causes approximately 1/600th the damage to a roadway that a car does. The underlayment for a car-carrying roadway is quite different from that of a paved bicycle pathway, about 5 times the cost if I remember correctly. There are numerous studies that show cars are the most subsidized form of travel in North America.

Yeah that certainly rings true, given the 40% plus in taxes that we pay every time we fill up at a gas station.

By contrast what exactly does a bicycle rider pay to use the road system?

I'm also very confident that the goods bicycle riders rely on to sustain life, are delivered by the same big rigs servicing the rest of us, big rigs which cause the most damage to roadways by the way.

Nice attempt at deflection though.

Old Techie wrote:Yeah that certainly rings true, given the 40% plus in taxes that we pay every time we fill up at a gas station.

By contrast what exactly does a bicycle rider pay to use the road system?

What does a pedestrian pay to use a sidewalk, or to walk on the side of a road? Shall we put mandatory wifi enabled pedometers in everyone's shoes, and make frequent walkers pay more taxes? Why so angry over someone choosing a less costly form of transportation for themselves? Plus, if a cyclist uses one of those bikes that has electric or gas powered attachments, they are paying the taxes on the energy that is in use. Sorry, energy costs money.

Old Techie wrote:also very confident that the goods bicycle riders rely on to sustain life, are delivered by the same big rigs servicing the rest of us, big rigs which cause the most damage to roadways by the way.

Nice attempt at deflection though.

I am not so confident that big rigs cause the majority of wear on our roads. Most roads don't even have big rigs on them, and they still need to be maintained.

Ban running shoes and hiking boots!

And sex. Breeding privileges have been revoked from here on out!

Why is there not many potholes in the bicycle lanes.
Maybe the bikes are not wearing out the roads like other users are....

60-YEARS-in-Ktown wrote:Why is there not many potholes in the bicycle lanes.
Maybe the bikes are not wearing out the roads like other users are....

Lol - based on the majority of the cyclists I've witnessed, it's because seldom do they actually use the bike lane and prefer to ride in the vehicle lane.

OldBlindDog wrote:

Old Techie wrote:also very confident that the goods bicycle riders rely on to sustain life, are delivered by the same big rigs servicing the rest of us, big rigs which cause the most damage to roadways by the way.

Nice attempt at deflection though.

I am not so confident that big rigs cause the majority of wear on our roads. Most roads don't even have big rigs on them, and they still need to be maintained.

I don't really care if you're confident or not, given that those responsible for maintaining our roads, can quite easily confirm for you, that it's commercial truck traffic that does the most harm to paved roadways due to their weight.

Do other roads deteriorate also, well sure they do, but not nearly as quickly as the main arteries, which are more often than not also designated truck routes.

As for pedestrians, in an indirect fashion, they do contribute toward sidewalks that they are using, given that even though it's the city that may own them, it's developers that footed the bill when they constructed the commercial space, or residence in front of which they are located. That cost then passed on to the eventual owners via purchase price. The inhabitants of these structures are then often tasked with maintaining the sidewalk as well.

It's the bicycle riders that are now getting in essence their own travel lanes, yet not absorbing any of the associated cost directly. If cars need to be licensed to use public thoroughfares, then it seems only fair to expect the same from bicycle users. There is no free lunch.

MCB wrote:And sex. Breeding privileges have been revoked from here on out!

Not a bad idea. The "breeding Privileges" should only be allowed with government approval. There should be required education with oral and written exams with at least a 70% passing grade before proceeding with fornication by BOTH parties. There should be legal obligation that both parties are equally responsible for any and all subsequent life forms resulting from consensual fornication.
If consent has not been given in advance and submitted in writing to the governing body, there will be very severe and lifelong, financial obligations for any offspring that may be an unwilling, or non-participant in "the act".
Any adult that does not have obtained the required pre-requisites, will be held 100% responsible for any offspring and all costs associated for the child to the age of 21 years old.

For those that ride their bikes and hit potholes, you may be excused due to gonad injury.

Well done. I agree fully. Pinhead traffic engineers, leash lead by city politicians, listen to non cyclist who always say they don't feel safe on the roads on a bike but would ride if there were bike lanes.

I'll bet you a new climbing sprocket hardly any of these folks become converts when millions are spent on "Cycling Infrastructure". And I'll bet some even curse the new lanes when they interfere with their car commute.

If you've even contemplated riding, especially on the flat lands of Kelowna...stop wincing and just do it and stop making excuses with solutions that everyone ends up paying for.

Oh...you can wait til spring

I'm glad you agree ????

Yeah I ride my Kona Queen Kikapu EVERYWHERE in the spring , summer and into the fall ... But not on major roadways , that would be stupid ...I'm not going to put my life in danger at the hands of another Kelowna road ape because they're more important....

I love my bike , I love riding it even more .. But to mix that with the asshats on the road would just ruin it all. Leave me to the slow side roads and we'll all be fine ..OK ????

Old Techie wrote:Yeah that certainly rings true, given the 40% plus in taxes that we pay every time we fill up at a gas station.

By contrast what exactly does a bicycle rider pay to use the road system?

I'm also very confident that the goods bicycle riders rely on to sustain life, are delivered by the same big rigs servicing the rest of us, big rigs which cause the most damage to roadways by the way.

Nice attempt at deflection though.

I'd like to just link back to the many posts I've contributed in these forums explaining how the roads are actually paid for ... but I'll just try to paraphrase it again ...

Roads are paid for in the city by the general tax fund. This general fund is generated mostly by property taxes. As a homeowner, I pay into this fund thus paying for the infrastructure that I use as a cyclist and a driver.

Licensing doesn't pay for roads. Insurance doesn't pay for roads (and no, the $8MM that ICBC gave last year to the province is less than a percentage point of all the monies used for roadways.) There is a portion of gas tax in the lower mainland that does go to Translink. The rest of the gas taxes go to the province and the federal government. The BC portion is not documented so I can't say where that goes. The federal portion is approximately $5B, and $2B flows back to the province to fund a myriad of projects (highways, water systems, tourism, airports etc)

$13.1B was spent on roads in 2012 ... taken as a straight line increase that would put us roughly at $14.6B this year ... that's roughly 31% of the total transportation budget, tax revenue from transport users generated $15.7B (2012) so there was a shortfall of $28B that had to come from other sources ...

That's a very seat of the pants analysis of the numbers from the government website https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/anre-menu-3037.htm

There are better explanations out there ... https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/6517603-cyclists-vs-drivers-who-pays-their-fair-share-/

The $51MM spent on widening the highway ... I paid my share of that, but removing the shoulders in favour of another lane will make it a less safe ride on my bicycle ... do I complain about that?

I don't have problems funding highways, I know the goods that I enjoy come overground that route ...

I do have problems with people saying that cyclists get a free-ride ... because there is nothing that makes that statement true ... even if you rent, not own, you're paying the taxes indirectly by having them passed on more than likely through said rent ...

As for riding the side streets, if that's where you feel most safe, sure ... it's a great option ... as road users we are free to choose the roads that best suit us ...

alanjh595 wrote:There should be required education with oral and written exams with at least a 70% passing grade before proceeding with fornication by BOTH parties. There should be legal obligation that both parties are equally responsible for any and all subsequent life forms resulting from consensual fornication.
financial obligations for any offspring will be held 100% responsible for any offspring and all costs associated for the child to the age of 21 years old.

I clipped it a bit.......

This would solve a massive amount of world issues for sure.......

spooker wrote:

Old Techie wrote:Yeah that certainly rings true, given the 40% plus in taxes that we pay every time we fill up at a gas station.

By contrast what exactly does a bicycle rider pay to use the road system?

I'm also very confident that the goods bicycle riders rely on to sustain life, are delivered by the same big rigs servicing the rest of us, big rigs which cause the most damage to roadways by the way.

Nice attempt at deflection though.

I'd like to just link back to the many posts I've contributed in these forums explaining how the roads are actually paid for ... but I'll just try to paraphrase it again ...

Roads are paid for in the city by the general tax fund. This general fund is generated mostly by property taxes. As a homeowner, I pay into this fund thus paying for the infrastructure that I use as a cyclist and a driver.

Licensing doesn't pay for roads. Insurance doesn't pay for roads (and no, the $8MM that ICBC gave last year to the province is less than a percentage point of all the monies used for roadways.) There is a portion of gas tax in the lower mainland that does go to Translink. The rest of the gas taxes go to the province and the federal government. The BC portion is not documented so I can't say where that goes. The federal portion is approximately $5B, and $2B flows back to the province to fund a myriad of projects (highways, water systems, tourism, airports etc)

$13.1B was spent on roads in 2012 ... taken as a straight line increase that would put us roughly at $14.6B this year ... that's roughly 31% of the total transportation budget, tax revenue from transport users generated $15.7B (2012) so there was a shortfall of $28B that had to come from other sources ...

That's a very seat of the pants analysis of the numbers from the government website https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/anre-menu-3037.htm

There are better explanations out there ... https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/6517603-cyclists-vs-drivers-who-pays-their-fair-share-/

The $51MM spent on widening the highway ... I paid my share of that, but removing the shoulders in favour of another lane will make it a less safe ride on my bicycle ... do I complain about that?

I don't have problems funding highways, I know the goods that I enjoy come overground that route ...

I do have problems with people saying that cyclists get a free-ride ... because there is nothing that makes that statement true ... even if you rent, not own, you're paying the taxes indirectly by having them passed on more than likely through said rent ...

As for riding the side streets, if that's where you feel most safe, sure ... it's a great option ... as road users we are free to choose the roads that best suit us ...

I agree with a lot of what you say, however you are overlooking a rather pertinent detail.

Automobiles pay huge taxes at the gas pump, taxes that when originally implemented were put in place to pay for the infrastructure those vehicles relied upon.

Over time yes that has changed, as things often do when government identifies a cash cow for general revenue, so now the money goes to the feds, who then redistribute it based on some formula to the provinces, at least to my vague understanding. If I'm not completely correct the point is it goes back to government, then said government pays for road improvement projects and such, hence perhaps indirectly, but we do see the money grabbed at the gas pump come back to us, at least a portion of it.

Bicycles don't buy gas so they get to avoid contributing by this means, yet use the same infrastructure. Your argument as to how you view bicycle riders as paying their way, applies to automobiles equally, yet they must pay into the system again at the gas pumps.