Seriously, I mean it!
Today, reading an opinion piece called The Dutch Way: Bicycles and Fresh Bread, I was jealous of how, "the coexistence of different modes of travel is hard-wired into the culture." In the US, as a cyclist, it doesn't feel as if we're just seen as yet some other Americans who've chosen a different mode of transportation, we're, "them." We're a counter culture. I wish we could be seen as humans first (all of us, in cars on bikes, whatever...) but even if we were to take a nationalistic look at it, I wish people in cars could look at those on bikes as contributing to the overall good of our nation by a) increasing our general health, b) improving our environment by cutting down on pollution, or c) increasing the security of our nation by reducing consumer pressures on our strategic oil reserves. But, alas, those vectors of thought are a bit too abstract.
So, how do you legitimize anything in the eyes of US citizens (or permanent resident aliens)? You tax it! Well, you create a user fee of some sort. (No matter how you put it, paying money to your government is tax whether it's a user fee or a general contribution to VAT or payroll tax. At least that's my interpretation and I'm just going to use the word tax intertwined with user fee for the sake of this diatribe.)
Seriously, though, us and them mentalities come from someone thinking the other group is "getting away with something." We cyclists should save the money we don't spend on fuel and auto expenses, but maybe mandatory licensing or bicycle tire taxes would eliminate the feeling that cyclists were somehow avoiding something by choosing not to get around by car. The reality is that we contribute to the tax base in other ways with our income, homeowners, and all sorts of value-added taxes, but the drivers have those too, so cyclists are seen as someone consuming space on roads we somehow didn't pay for.
In Minnesota, however, bicycle licensing was eliminated in 2005. (Point of interest, I did not know that until I set out to write this. I was looking up fees and was intending to step up and license all of my bikes as a way of putting my money where my mouth was.) Sheesh, law-abiding and anarchist cyclists alike should bristle at the lack of registration requirements. The anarchists who ride unregistered bikes are no longer stickin it to the man, they're just passively following the law, and in the same vein the law-abiding doo-gooders have no badge to prove they're following the law.
Anyway, I digress. The point is, that cyclists who use their bikes for legitimate transportation (not just sport or recreation) might be seen as "one of us" on the road by people driving cars if they also contributed to the transportation budget. I know, nanny-state, big-government haters will poo poo this as expansion of government and somehow twist this into a loss of liberty, but, seriously, when was the last time any of you substituted a car trip with a bicycle?
Oh, by the way, I'd sure love to be wrong on this stereotype. So, let me know if you don't share my views on government but share my passion for bicycle transport. I am all for casting aside clichès and having real conversations.
(Yes, this is over simplified. It's meant to be a conversation starter.)
5 comments:
Politics, and covertly mentioning me (el residente!), now I just *have* to reply :)
I think I see the core of what you are talking about, yet the way we view it is so very different because of our different backgrounds. I agree with you in spirit, yet you express your frustrations so very differently.
First of all, a us and them mentality is detrimental to a healthy society. It doesn't matter what you put in the variables, it ends up bad. So I very very much agree with you there.
But where I don't agree is the solution. Because it isn't about bikes! Because what you see is a symptom, not a cause. The idea that one person can, without any extra motives, care about another without any personal motives other than a better society in total is the core. Because if everything has to be measured, if everything has to be to your advantage, there is an inherit me and everyone else mentality. Doesn't matter what issue you bring up then.
I grew up somewhere else. A different place, but not some kind of paradise. I'm pretty sure I see a lot of faults in society there that are true. I like to believe that I can be somewhat objective. But let's put the specifics aside and just look at bikes.
I rode a bike to school for many many years, every single day. There were bike lanes and the likes. Very seldom did I have to ride directly on a road meant for cars. These bike lanes were paid for by taxes. So it was seen as something that benefited society. Some grumpy people swore at bikes now and then, but generally it was part of society. Just like the roads for cars. So you see, we do pay taxes for the pavement.
So no, bikes should not be taxed. People and legal entities should be taxed, and that should pay for what benefits society. I as a driver cares for those that ride their bikes, and I want them to be safe, so I absolutely don't want them on the same road as me. There's no proper space for a bike, and they are far too nimble to deal with the behemoths around them. With limited vision problem as well.
So to summarize by rant, and a rant it is:
Taxes should go to the greater good (since exactly zero people reading this also plays Warhammer 40k, I feel the need to explain that I was just very witty).
Separate bikes and motor vehicles. Not as a segregation but as a safety measure.
Even if I don't bike, I would feel that I lived in a better world if anyone who wanted to could safely bike. It's a true kind of freedom that I'm afraid totalitarian fascists can't fathom the concept behind.
heh, yes, i agree that the greater good should be the motivation of paying into your municipality, not "i paid my fee."
i am not going to agree with permanent roadway separation for bikes and cars, though. that must be my freedom-lovin 'merican sensibilities shining through. while i would like to see more options for segregated roadways (so more people are comfortable riding), i'd prefer for bicycles not to be legislated off the streets.
in cities and inner-ring suburbs, the bike and car can easily coexist, but once the speeds get higher and the shoulders are narrow, i can see why people do not find cycling inviting (let alone practical).
thanks for the comment, though. i want cycling to become practical and accepted by the general public and conversations like these will hopefully push that agenda.
--rt
I've given this some thought, and I do wonder if it's a question of "I have a right to cycle" vs "I want cyclists to be safe". It's a case of arguing to different points without actually disagreeing.
The thought of not being allowed to ride a bike, safely, as a mode of transportation hasn't really occurred to me. What does concern me is the general lack of road safety for all modes of transportation.
flekkzo: i do agree with that. the general lack of road safety is not good.
there are some societal things at work here too. americans don't like to be told where to go. cycling-only paths might keep me from getting where i want to go by bike and we know how well we design cities around here... i worry that limiting bikes to only safe routes will push biking in the direction of train travel in the states. :-( i really like trains and busses, but our cities seem to have designed them out of the picture. hopefully, though, our new central corridor in the twin cities will change that!
Bike paths are there because they are safer for everyone, if there's no bike path you can bike on the road, but are less safe.
You can create fantastic things if you work together for a greater goal.
Post a Comment