I'd like to see the e-mail too. It's conveniently missing because the bike shop owner decided not to show it. Look, you just make a stupid argument there too. I guess that makes you insane as well.
Edit- Should have changed this before I pressed post, apparently the site didn't show it, as I have found parts of the guy's e-mail elsewhere.
It was your argument that the bike shop owner's email somehow makes Orcutt's nonsense 'in context', not mine. I'm telling you that you've given us no new information.
We've all made mistakes in arguments. I've made some extremely stretched comparisons at times that were ultimately off base. I am not insane. This guy didn't think through what the wrote. That doesn't make his a crazy person, it makes him wrong.
No, he crosses the line into crazy when he decides his career choice is running the State of Washington then uses arguments like this. I'm of the mind honestly that if a journalist, politician or doctor or some other figure of authority of the like makes arguments like this they should be fired.
You're free to think or make these arguments as a citizen, but I think that placing yourself in a position of responsibility like what a politician (should in theory) be, then you don't get to make up stupid as shit arguments and pass it off as fact.
If you make a mistake, you don't have a team of people capable and willing to check facts for you, and you don't decide the course of the state of Washington's affairs.
I'm tired of shit like Senator Kyl's 'Not intended to be a factual statement' being due course of politics.
Except about ten percent of the road is built for them to use as bike lanes and they currently pay no usage tax for that ten percent dedicated to them. I'm probably exaggerating the percentage here, but that doesn't change that 0% is infinitely less (Edit-proportionally, which is the way that matters to this argument) than whatever chunk that they use, and that is what they are currently paying.
The fuel tax is used for maintenance of the road. You don't pay for the entire road with the fuel tax because then it would be astronomically higher. You're making this out like people with bikes don't pay jack shit for income or sales or local taxes and the like and the only way they make income is through taxes on gasoline, so that this guy hasn't paid nothing. They should pay in relative comparison towards their damage to the road.
The amount of road dedicated to a bicyclist is definitely more than zero. It makes sense to have them pay more than none of the cost. You're talking about a 25$ tax on bikes over 500$. That's less than the sales tax on it. It's also less than the percentage of tax put on gas for cars (who I am assuming pay far more in gas than a cyclist does in bikes). Also, it's a one time payment if you only get one bike. It's unlikely to be completely out of scale. If anything I would imagine it would be below the amount of infrastructure dedicated to them. Also, the guy apologized for that comment, as if one needs to do so when they make an incorrect argument.
You still seem to want to be of the mind that the state doesn't collect any other taxes, despite the fact you're admitting he paid sales tax on the bike once already.
Ok, fine. Let's pretend that absolutely no other taxes other than special excise taxes goes towards road maintenance.
If 25 dollars over 5 years is worth what a biker makes of the road, despite the fact that bike trails and encouraging bike riding actively saves the government money over making more roads for cars and punishing bike riders brings in, let's calculate how much wear and tear a bike is compared to a car then and now much a car should owe in taxes?
An average family care is about 2 tons, or 4,000 pounds. The average biker is about 200 pounds of human plus bike. Nevermind that a human's ass would be in the car too. That's about 20 times as heavy than the bike. However, estimates suggest that a car wears on the road equal to about 9600 bikes (and in turn 18 wheeler tractors fully loaded wear on the road equal to about 9600 cars). That would make each car owner owe $240,000 over 5 years at the rate of 25 dollars per 5 years for the bike. A single 18 wheeler tractor would be worth $2,304,000,000 in that same time period. That's gonna fucking jack up prices for goods in that town pretty hard, but I guess the road is worth it.
That assumes by the way that 50% of the road is paved for bikes and 50% of the road is paved for cars. The skew gets even more shitty for the car owner if somebody wants to do the math to figure out what he'd owe for the actual percentage of the road cars use, because I know for damn certain 50% of the roadways in Washington state aren't Bike Only.
See, you can maybe make the argument that bike owners should pay their fair share for the roads, but the truth is that their 'fair share' compared to cars, no matter the metric you use, is going to be miniscule.
Wow, not often someone is willing to admit they made a mistake like that. Heck, I don't even think Orin Hatch apologised for that "abortion is 95% of what they do" statistic on planned parenthood, just said it was an "Intentional exaggeration" and he can't be held accountable for his own words. Kudos, Orcutt.
Yeah, I'll give him credit where due that he did at least man up and apologize.
I'm just tired of bullshit being the primary method of communication for journalists and politicians. I mean, I'm aware that was always the case and shit, but at least in the past they had to pretend to care about being truthful.
Now they don't even give us the courtesy of pretending like they're honest.
I feel up to the math on whether or not the tax is justified. We'll assume that the average bicyclist buys a bike that would be effected by the tax each year (they likely don't). That puts them at 25$ annually in usage taxes.
For stats on how much the average Washingtonian pays in gas, we'll go with ehow's 3$ a gallon rate of 1,600$ annually. They tax rate is roughly 50c a gallon, or 17% (rounding up). That puts them at 272$ a year in usage taxes.
That puts cyclists at 9% of the rate that cars pay. If we assume that they use 9% of the road that cars due, this works. It is also quite plausible that cyclists use such a fraction of the road, especially if we aren't limiting them to bike lanes. If we then filter this through the rates of bicycle commuters (3%) vs. car commuters (45%), we find that combined cyclists pay .61% of all road usage taxes under this tax. As over .3% of the total budgets of state and federal transportation construction must be spent on and over .42% of local motor vehicle funds must be spent on paths and trails, this is quite close to being realistic, especially when you consider that the early numbers make this percentage a good deal larger (most people do not replace their bikes annually), though I admit the cycling rate I chose may be a bit high (it is based of the Portland Oregon rate of 3.5%) which makes the number higher. Because of this this math can only be seen as an extremely rough estimate.
http://depts.washington.edu/waaction/plan/pa3/rec_b.html % spent on bike paths
http://houserepublicans.wa.gov/news/orcutt_march0113_enewsletter/ Gas tax
All this would work if roads were made of adamantine and once placed never ever had to be looked at again.
And also that again the state didn't collect any money for road work except through special excise taxes, and that bike users were banned from owning cars.
Then I'd agree with you.