Dreaded cyclists

How much road tax do you pay?

Motorcycles must pay the same road taxes as cars, despite causing less (basically no) wear. The justification given is that we motorcyclists use bridges, signals, lane markings, and the like just as cars do, so we should also pay for them. In the case of my 919, that's $30/year in state road tax plus $10/year county road and bridge tax. I must also pay that exact same amount again per year for my 700; that fee doesn't cover both vehicles.

It's not a lot of money, so it wouldn't be terribly onerous for a bicyclist to have to pay that per bicycle.
 
Motorcycles must pay the same road taxes as cars, despite causing less (basically no) wear. The justification given is that we motorcyclists use bridges, signals, lane markings, and the like just as cars do, so we should also pay for them. In the case of my 919, that's $30/year in state road tax plus $10/year county road and bridge tax. I must also pay that exact same amount again per year for my 700; that fee doesn't cover both vehicles.

It's not a lot of money, so it wouldn't be terribly onerous for a bicyclist to have to pay that per bicycle.

$40 a year covers all your public road-related expenses? I'm impressed :eek: some googling suggested Texas spends about four times that per capita on their roads :dunno:

How much of that registration fee is actual road tax and doesn't get eaten up by the registration process?
 
Last edited:
$40 a year covers all your public road-related expenses? I'm impressed :eek: some googling suggested Texas spends about four times that per capita on their roads :dunno:

How much of that registration fee is actual road tax and doesn't get eaten up by the registration process?

That *is* the road tax parts of it. The registration fee is a separate $1 charge, as is the separate $1 automation fee.

State fuel taxes also go towards the roads, something bicyclists also do not pay - but since they don't consume any, hard to make them pay for it there.
 
That *is* the road tax parts of it. The registration fee is a separate $1 charge, as is the separate $1 automation fee.

Is it? Your DMV says this: "The annual registration fee for a motorcycle or moped is $30.00, plus applicable fees and local county fees." Doesn't mention any road tax in there.
Concerning the two $1 charges, it says this: "Your registration fees will include the base fee, plus a $1 Automation fee (used for improvements to the registration and title system) and $1 for the Department of Public Safety to support the TexasSure insurance verification program and other Department of Public Safety initiatives." Base fee plus fee plus insurance thingy, again no road tax in there.


State fuel taxes also go towards the roads, something bicyclists also do not pay - but since they don't consume any, hard to make them pay for it there.

Now we're getting somewhere... the vast majority of your road funding likely comes from that, not from some tiny registration fee. As a result, making bicycles pay for that through even bigger government won't impact your road funding at all. It'll just be eaten up by the registration process, just as your $30 do.

Don't forget registration fees for shoes, by the way. They use the roads, signals, markings, ...
 
Is it? Your DMV says this: "The annual registration fee for a motorcycle or moped is $30.00, plus applicable fees and local county fees." Doesn't mention any road tax in there.
Concerning the two $1 charges, it says this: "Your registration fees will include the base fee, plus a $1 Automation fee (used for improvements to the registration and title system) and $1 for the Department of Public Safety to support the TexasSure insurance verification program and other Department of Public Safety initiatives." Base fee plus fee plus insurance thingy, again no road tax in there.

I am looking at my last registration receipt for my 919 right now. Here's a scan of the pertinent section.

2tfbNci.png


Due to how the law is written, the technical way in which road tax is charged is that the person 'buys' a plate or windshield sticker. The funds from that go to the state and are used as road tax income. The county may choose to add on $10 to help pay for local roads the state isn't going to pay for.

Now we're getting somewhere... the vast majority of your road funding likely comes from that, not from some tiny registration fee. As a result, making bicycles pay for that through even bigger government won't impact your road funding at all. It'll just be eaten up by the registration process, just as your $30 do.

Don't forget registration fees for shoes, by the way. They use the roads, signals, markings, ...

Shoes are clothing, not a vehicle. Also, beings are not taxed to use the road (which is why you don't have to pay the state to ride your horse, or if you are really weird, your cow or ox on the highway) but vehicles are.

Further, the state itself points out that yes, the funds are being used for road maintenance and are very important to same. So important, in fact, that there is currently a state advertising campaign on, the 'Check The Date, Love Your State" campaign. Cite: http://www.ntxe-news.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=17&num=35989

Specifically: http://www.txdmv.gov/txdmv-media/put-texas-in-your-corner

Motor vehicle owners in Texas are required by law to register their vehicles annually. Vehicle registration fees contribute almost $1.3 billion a year to build and maintain state and county roads.

By making sure your registration is current, you're paying for roads and making a difference in your own backyard.

The above site has copies of most of the radio and TV advertisements they've been running on this. Texas spends about $4.7-4.8 billion dollars per year on road expansion and maintenance; simple math points out that this road tax income isn't exactly insignificant at more than 25% of the budget.
 
Last edited:
Shoes are clothing, not a vehicle. Also, beings are not taxed to use the road (which is why you don't have to pay the state to ride your horse, or if you are really weird, your cow or ox on the highway) but vehicles are.

Why not? Riders on horses (or oxen...) use signals and lane markings as cars and bicycles do, and the ungulate variety has much more potential for damage to the road itself. Also leaves its dirt wherever it wants to, which bicycles rarely do.

The above site has copies of most of the radio and TV advertisements they've been running on this. Texas spends about $4.7-4.8 billion dollars per year on road expansion and maintenance; simple math points out that this road tax income isn't exactly insignificant at more than 25% of the budget.

That $4.7b number seems awfully low.
 
Dreaded cyclists

The $4.7B number is state expenditures and does not include maintenance on Federal highways, which the Feds delegate to the state to perform the actual work and (in theory) the Feds are supposed to pay for. They don't always actually pay for what they're supposed to so either the work goes undone or the state sucks it up and pays for it in the hopes of getting reimbursed by the Feds later. This is why a lot of new-build and re-build highway projects in Texas are now becoming toll roads - the Feds won't pay for what needs to be done in a timely manner, so we'll do it another way.

As for the why not tax horses and such - again, living beings are not taxed, just vehicles. (We also have no state income tax.) Carriages and carts drawn by animals on the public roads are regulated, though.
 
Last edited:
You seem to contradict yourself by saying NYC public transport is the best thing ever.
It's better than a bicycle... The 2 hour ride on the train in question would be 4 on a bike....
Ah yes, I'm a fan of big government as well. I think we should also be licensed to walk (and tying knots if your shoes have laces) and have our shoes registered, inspected and insured. After all, you walk on the sidewalk (and zebra crossings!) and an undone knot can be a serious safety hazard.
Hmmm lets see:
1) Walking is not a choice unlike biking
2) There are jaywalking laws (usually not enforced)
3) And this one is very important pedestrians are not mixed in with the traffic but are actually segregated.
4) I had to get a license to operate a car, I would need a separate license (including a practical and theoretical test) to operate a motorcycle, I would need a whole nother license and even more training to operate a commercial vehicle, etc...
You also conveniently ignored the point of many bicyclists being faster than motor vehicles (including cars) especially in stop-and-go conditions (not to mention that many bicyclists can easily sustain a limit-breaking speed in many cities (30/40 km/h)).
Blanket speed limit in NYC unless otherwise posted is 30 mph, soon to be 25, either way not something a bike can easily sustain or get to. If a bicycle is faster than me he is not in my way and therefore I don't actually care...
 
It's better than a bicycle... The 2 hour ride on the train in question would be 4 on a bike....
30 minutes by car (possibly much of that with 30 mph limit), 2 hours by horrible public transport, 4 hours by bike. Yep.

Hmmm lets see:
1) Walking is not a choice unlike biking You don't really have to walk any significant distances outside. Get a car or mobility scooter.
2) There are jaywalking laws (usually not enforced) And presumably cyclists have to abide by traffic laws applicable to them.
3) And this one is very important pedestrians are not mixed in with the traffic but are actually segregated. They still use the roads, signals, bridges..
4) I had to get a license to operate a car, I would need a separate license (including a practical and theoretical test) to operate a motorcycle, I would need a whole nother license and even more training to operate a commercial vehicle, etc... So why not have one for walking as well?

Blanket speed limit in NYC unless otherwise posted is 30 mph, soon to be 25, either way not something a bike can easily sustain or get to. If a bicycle is faster than me he is not in my way and therefore I don't actually care...25 is quite achievable for the lycra brigade. I also think it would be great to banish all the slower vehicles from the roads but that's unlikely to happen...
 
30 minutes by car (possibly much of that with 30 mph limit), 2 hours by horrible public transport, 4 hours by bike. Yep.

You are bad at quoting... no the car will be on a 50mph highway where bicycles are not allowed btw...

Actually I take 4 hours back, according to Google maps its around 2 hours by bike, that of course assumes ability to keep riding at sustained speed for 2 hours...

You don't really have to walk any significant distances outside. Get a car or mobility scooter.
You still have to walk don't you? Driving a vehicle is a choice walking isn't simple as that....
And presumably cyclists have to abide by traffic laws applicable to them.
Sure except enforcing them is difficult due to not having any easy way of tracking them. Also again bicycles want to be treated as other vehicles so why don't we?
They still use the roads, signals, bridges..
Sure but they are not mixing with traffic are they?
So why not have one for walking as well?
Because walking is a right, driving, cycling, motorcycling, hang gliding, parachuting, teleporting, flying, etc... are not.
25 is quite achievable for the lycra brigade. I also think it would be great to banish all the slower vehicles from the roads but that's unlikely to happen...
Not sustainable though, over say 10-20 mins?
 
Last edited:
Actually I take 4 hours back, according to Google maps its around 2 hours by bike, that of course assumes ability to keep riding at sustained speed for 2 hours...
Takes as long as public transport and you get 2 hours of exercise. Assuming you don't have to be very presentable at the destination and don't mind being at least somewhat exhausted it's not bad. Plus it's free.
You still have to walk don't you? Driving a vehicle is a choice walking isn't simple as that....
Not with a mobility scooter and very little if your car is located in a connected garage or something.
Sure except enforcing them is difficult due to not having any easy way of tracking them. Also again bicycles want to be treated as other vehicles so why don't we?
If a cop were to see a cyclist breaking the law they might decide to catch them. Red light cameras? Tough titties.
Sure but they are not mixing with traffic are they?
What does mixing with the traffic even have to do with it? They use the roads, bridges and signals, so they should pay taxes. I also assume you have non-traffic-light-controlled pedestrian crossings somewhere in NYC where they do mix with traffic.
Because walking is a right, driving, cycling, motorcycling, hang gliding, parachuting, teleporting, flying, etc... are not.
In Nordic countries cycling is indeed a right just like walking (though it may be limited in sensitive areas). The UN human rights declaration doesn't list walking. In fact the fact that cycling does not require a license does sort of make it a right(?).
Not sustainable though, over say 10-20 mins?
Tour de France winners average 40 km/h (25 mph) over three weeks of daily stages (and wildly undulating terrain. It's very possible for a suitably clad fit amateur cyclist to do it for hours on end.
 
Takes as long as public transport and you get 2 hours of exercise. Assuming you don't have to be very presentable at the destination and don't mind being at least somewhat exhausted it's not bad. Plus it's free.
That's a whole lot of caveats ain't it?
Not with a mobility scooter and very little if your car is located in a connected garage or something.
Not particularly practical in NYC.
If a cop were to see a cyclist breaking the law they might decide to catch them. Red light cameras? Tough titties.
Yet running red lights is the biggest problem with cyclists.
What does mixing with the traffic even have to do with it? They use the roads, bridges and signals, so they should pay taxes. I also assume you have non-traffic-light-controlled pedestrian crossings somewhere in NYC where they do mix with traffic.
Actually sidewalks are part of private property and are maintained by whoever owns that property, Signals are installed for cars and so are bridges, pedestrians are generally an aftertought. However my problem is not cyclists using roads for free, they don't really put much wear on them, my problem is them being in traffic and in the way.
In Nordic countries cycling is indeed a right just like walking (though it may be limited in sensitive areas). The UN human rights declaration doesn't list walking. In fact the fact that cycling does not require a license does sort of make it a right(?).
I don't live in a nordic country nor do I care about the assembly of impotent asshats that the UN is. Not needing to be licensed for something doesn't make it a right, for example I don't need a license to own a music player but pretty sure no one in their right mind would call being entertained a right.
Tour de France winners average 40 km/h (25 mph) over three weeks of daily stages (and wildly undulating terrain. It's very possible for a suitably clad fit amateur cyclist to do it for hours on end.
Difference is that every single car can do it, from a shitty little Geo metro to an F1... So unless all cycles can run at that speed then they shouldn't be on the road. Also there are some roads with higher speed limits that are not considered a highway.
 
Guys, is it possible to have a polite and respectful conversation about bicycles without it derailing into nothingness through a series of logical fallacies and childish nitpicking?

I mean... I've started with "the road code isn't up-to-date with the modern traffic of both bicycles and cars, it should be renewed", and we ended up with mobility scooters (by the way, they are -VEHICLES-), 2-hours ride to work by bicycle at Tour de France pace, extreme pedancy on Texas taxes and whether walking is a right or not.

Seriously?

Why is that that criticizing the behaviour of some cyclist is bad? We all do -extensively- for cars, even towards bicycle, if that is the case (does anyone remember my comments on the two cyclists run over by cars in the idiots+car thread?)
Why is that that highlighting problems of coexistence is bad? We all do for cars and other vehicles or pedestrians.
Why is that that proposing to change things is bad? We all do for cars and dangerous situations.
Why is that that asking for equal rights and responsibilities is bad? We all do for cars and other vehicles.

Why is that that when the theme "problems caused by riding bicycles" comes out, I find people getting angry? What is happening? Why is so socially wrong to talk about bicycles and the problems they might create?

There is not a war going on, it is a matter of making life better for everyone. Safety first, then efficiency. We still have to decide whether bicycles are vehicles or not. If they are, they can carry the rights of vehicles, but they must carry their burdens too. If they are not, they should enjoy the same rules (and burdens, and rights) as other non-vehicles. It is not difficult. Will that mean making cycling more complicated and possibly an activity which requires attention and focus? Maybe. Why is this a problem? Do someone fear having to use mental resources while riding? I am sure not.

Everyone has the same right to be on the road: 18-wheelers, buses, cars, motorbikes, scooters, bicycles, pedestrians. They are different, we need rules to accomodate everyone on the road, and we might need to adequate them to actual physics, not just what our mind would prefer. And as much as it is possible, mobility should be a choice. If I want to move by car, I must have the right to do it, as long as I'm paying an adequate social and material cost so as to cover the resources I'm using. Cars, moreover, can not be canceled out of our societies, and cars are not a bad thing, a devil, a mark of shame: cars (or, to be more correct, personal motorized mobility) has liberated endless amount of people who couldn't otherwise move out of their own neighbourhood or their own street. We have to rethink many things about that, but not the idea of having the possibility of motorized personal transportation.

And as for bicycles, everyone has the right to ride: the athletic guy clad in Lycra training on an ultra-light bike for two hours on end to prepare for competion and the old-lady on her old bike going out for groceries. I have seen people treating both of them as if they were the same, or using only one of these two categories as if that was the whole of "cyclists". They are not. This difference has to be taken into account both for defining the rules of integration with motorized vehicles and the rules of cyclist-to-cyclist respect, safety and circulation, or the cyclist-pedestrians relations.

Things are not easy.

And the world is not all northern Europe. What works in northern Europe won't in most other places. And northern Europe itself is not exempt of problems. I've been there, I've seen it. If we believe that bicycles might be a mean of transportation used by the masses in the future, we have to rethink our rules and roads now, and not in a way that excludes other road users.
 
As I have said in the past, I don't have a problem with cyclists in general, I have a problem with assholes. This becomes an issue when so many cyclists I encounter are assholes. Again this week I nearly made Creamed Cyclist when one ran a stop sign, head down, pumping like he only had one testicle. He was in a residential area on a road popular with cyclists, but one that has stop signs every few blocks, from the way he was riding I can guarantee he didn't stop of a single stop sign.

Now, if I were to regularly drive that same road in my XTerra or my motorcycle doing 10 over the limit and running stop signs I would have the neighbors up in arms and probably a cop stationed up there specifically to catch me. However, because these guys decide to ride a bike they somehow get a free pass to do whatever the hell they want with no enforcement and no consequences.

Things I'm sick of hearing from asshole cyclists:

  • Bicycles are vehicles too. -- Then follow the rules like a vehicle, that means stop signs and traffic signals apply.
  • But bicycles are special, you wouldn't want us to behave just like a car. -- There are different rules for a bicycle spelled out in the law. It isn't about whether you can behave like a car in terms of speed, it is about following the applicable traffic rules for your vehicle; cars need to follow the rules, as do pedestrians, and cyclists.
  • Share the road! -- Stop riding 2 or 3 abreast at 7 mph on a state highway with a limit of 40 to 55 mph. We need to use the road too. Share the road works both ways.
  • I'm helping the environment! -- Bullshit. You don't commute on your bike, in fact you bought a luxury SUV just to haul your $2000+ carbon race bike up to the road you want to ride so you can hold up traffic and shout obscenities at those of us who have somewhere to be.
  • Actually, I do commute on my bike. -- Hey, that's awesome! And as long as you follow the rules of the road I will have your back. No seriously, I will. When the power got knocked out I saw a cyclist trying to cross a 6-lane highway at a dark traffic light. I made sure to use my SUV as a shield so he wouldn't get hit. You follow the rules and I will help keep you safe.
  • But it's safer to run stop lights and stop signs. -- Bullshit. Give me one example where running at speed into a cross street is safer than stopping to check for traffic.
  • But it's hard to get back up to speed, we need to conserve our momentum. -- Then maybe a bicycle isn't the right vehicle for you if you don't have the physical ability to ride it safely for the distance you need to travel.
  • Would you make kids do this? -- Fuck yes. As a kid I grew up on military bases where there was a zero-tolerance policy for traffic violations. I learned with my first bicycle how to ride on the roads with traffic, how to use hand signals, and what right of way means. If I could figure it out in third grade then you have no excuse.

Now apply any of these arguments to motorcycles and see how absurd they are.
  • Motorcycles are special, you wouldn't want a motorcycle to behave like a car.
  • Share the road! But let me hold up traffic so I can do motorcycle things at the expense of everyone around me.
  • I should get special treatment because I'm helping the environment by riding a bike. Rules shouldn't apply to me.
  • I commute on a motorcycle, so I'm a special snowflake that deserves special treatment. Because I'm better than you in your car.
  • It is safer for motorcycles to run stop lights and stop signs.
  • I shouldn't have to stop because it is mildly inconvenient to put my foot down at a stop.

Rather absurd, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Now, if I were to regularly drive that same road in my XTerra or my motorcycle doing 10 over the limit and running stop signs I would have the neighbors up in arms and probably a cop stationed up there specifically to catch me. However, because these guys decide to ride a bike they somehow get a free pass to do whatever the hell they want with no enforcement and no consequences.
And that is specifically what pisses me off, if I routinely drive like a huge number of cyclists I see here I will have my license taken away so fast I will think a Veyron is slow.
 
I ran an errand tonight after dark - clearly after dark, not "dusk", not questionable, flat out dark. The route was roughly 5 miles, with a brief time on a road where bicycles were forbidden (by signs). I saw 4 bicycles. None of them had any lights. I wonder how many I didn't see due to a lack of lights?

I also saw one car that failed to turn on their lights.

Good job, you idiots, good job.
 
Last edited:
I ran an errand tonight after dark - clearly after dark, not "dusk", not questionable, flat out dark. The route was roughly 5 miles, with a brief time on a road where bicycles were forbidden (by signs). I saw 4 bicycles. None of them had any lights. I wonder how many I didn't see due to a lack of lights?

I also saw one car that failed to turn on their lights.

Good job, you idiots, good job.


Did the pedalbikists even have the legally mandated reflectors or helmets?
 
Honestly, I can't authoritatively state. One I couldn't see well enough to see a head. I assume the rider had a head because, you know, it's a bit difficult to bicycle without one.
This guy managed but admittedly his on a horse :p
headless.jpeg
 
AThings I'm sick of hearing from asshole cyclists:

  • Bicycles are vehicles too. -- Then follow the rules like a vehicle, that means stop signs and traffic signals apply.
  • But bicycles are special, you wouldn't want us to behave just like a car. -- There are different rules for a bicycle spelled out in the law. It isn't about whether you can behave like a car in terms of speed, it is about following the applicable traffic rules for your vehicle; cars need to follow the rules, as do pedestrians, and cyclists.
  • Share the road! -- Stop riding 2 or 3 abreast at 7 mph on a state highway with a limit of 40 to 55 mph. We need to use the road too. Share the road works both ways.
  • I'm helping the environment! -- Bullshit. You don't commute on your bike, in fact you bought a luxury SUV just to haul your $2000+ carbon race bike up to the road you want to ride so you can hold up traffic and shout obscenities at those of us who have somewhere to be.
  • Actually, I do commute on my bike. -- Hey, that's awesome! And as long as you follow the rules of the road I will have your back. No seriously, I will. When the power got knocked out I saw a cyclist trying to cross a 6-lane highway at a dark traffic light. I made sure to use my SUV as a shield so he wouldn't get hit. You follow the rules and I will help keep you safe.
  • But it's safer to run stop lights and stop signs. -- Bullshit. Give me one example where running at speed into a cross street is safer than stopping to check for traffic.
  • But it's hard to get back up to speed, we need to conserve our momentum. -- Then maybe a bicycle isn't the right vehicle for you if you don't have the physical ability to ride it safely for the distance you need to travel.
  • Would you make kids do this? -- Fuck yes. As a kid I grew up on military bases where there was a zero-tolerance policy for traffic violations. I learned with my first bicycle how to ride on the roads with traffic, how to use hand signals, and what right of way means. If I could figure it out in third grade then you have no excuse.
This is a strawman. No serious cyclist I know (and I know a lot) would say that you were wrong about any of these things or attempt to defend any of these behaviors.

Also, I could just as easily make a nice strawman list about some of the dangerous behaviors I see drivers doing around bikes. This would get us nowhere.
 
Top