US lawmaker blames bicycle breath for global warming gas A Washington state representative has uncovered a previously under-reported source of greenhouse gas: huffing and puffing cyclists. Ed Orcutt, who lists "Tax relief" at the top of his legislative priorities and who was 2000's Washington Young Republican Federation Man of the Year, emailed the owner of a Tacoma, Washington, …
Why? He is right after all: cyclists produce CO2 and use public roads. It is only fair that they also pay the penalties and taxes. Granted, a smaller amount should be asked of them, but his logic is sound. Factor in drivers having to sit behind cyclists in a lower gear, thereby increasing the amount of CO2 that their cars produce,and it makes even more sense. My car uses 8.5 liters per 100km in top gear, but 10.5 in third, which is where I'm stuck in if I have to follow a cyclist. I reckon it's unfair that I have to pay for that extra 25 odd percent CO2 my car produces.
Ok Troll, I shall with some reluctance feed you:
I don't doubt for a second that your car uses more fuel per km when following a cyclist. What about when you're in a jam caused by too many cars for the road? I suggest the rise in fuel usage you get when stuck behind a cyclist pales into insignificance in comparison with the fuel usage you get when stuck behind a thousand cars (mostly with one person in them) all trying to go to the same place at the same time.
Walkers also produce CO2 whilst travelling along the pavement. Perhaps we should tax them too. And as for them causing the lights to change at pedestrian crossings when briefly our fuel usage rises to infinite per km, well my word, maybe we should actually ban walking.
You don't *have* to pay that extra 25 odd per cent you know - you could always try cycling instead.
A few points of order:
1. I use the same amount of fuel whether I'm stuck behind one cyclist or 1000 cars.
2. When walkers use a pavement constructed specifically for the purpose of walking, then yes, they should be paying for its upkeep.
3. I would rather pay a few pounds extra for fuel than have to spend a thousand on a new bike and all that safety gear your nanny government would force me to wear.
@VaalDonkie
1. No you don't. I certainly don't anyway. When I'm stuck behind 1000 cars, people are walking past me. I'm completely stationary for long periods. Clearly I'm using more fuel, for parts of that I'm doing zero miles per gallon. And that's not counting the other 999 cars also spewing stuff out.
2. Are pavements constructed specifically for the purpose of walking? Perhaps they are constructed for the purpose of not driving upon. Who knows!
3. My nanny government permits me to cycle wearing nothing but a thong if I so wish. Luckily - for me but moreso for everyone else - I don't own a thong
1. No you don't. I certainly don't anyway. When I'm stuck behind 1000 cars, people are walking past me. I'm completely stationary for long periods. Clearly I'm using more fuel, for parts of that I'm doing zero miles per gallon. And that's not counting the other 999 cars also spewing stuff out.
There is this little thing called "Stop-Start" just thought I'd let you all know :)
"There is this little thing called "Stop-Start" just thought I'd let you all know :)"
A lot of people don't know what that is. I didn't till I had a hire car and found its engine cut out when I stopped. Coming from an old banger that you'd prefer to leave running, I was a little surprised.
Even some radio adverts took the piss out the phrase with a manager saying "don't all our vans start and stop." Surely that joke would be enough to alert someone that not everyone knows all the jargon.
"There is this little thing called "Stop-Start" just thought I'd let you all know :)"
You know I wonder about the whole stop-start thing. Sure you might spend a little less in fuel, but doesn't stopping and re-cranking the engine every couple of minutes cause extra stress to the parts? As soon as the thing stops, the oil starts flowing back into the sump unless you have some kind of sticky MagnatecTM-like addition to it.
Then you get that lovely metal-on-metal contact until it starts flowing again.
"3. I would rather pay a few pounds extra for fuel than have to spend a thousand on a new bike and all that safety gear your nanny government would force me to wear."
Like the politician, you're now making shit up.
Cyclists are not 'required' to wear anything, except to have lights on their bike when it's dark (which about half of them do in my experience, hence the dozen bike-shaped kill markings on my car door).
Yep, we have different rules in the UK to those in the US (like for motorcycle clothing/helmets), and I guess individual states might have some of their own special regulations. El Reg needs to remind commenters that we are a diverse bunch and apart from often talking complete bollox because we can, also may confuse because our laws and customs differ quite alot.
How about having a country flag option for commenters?
"Cyclists are not 'required' to wear anything..."
Ah but here in Oz they are required by law to wear a silly hat made of foam and carbon fibre. I suspect there is also some law which requires that:
a) They must wear lycra at all times
b) Said lycra is to be a minimum of one size too small to contain their flabby bits
These days I try not to look. Mines the one with the peril (and cyclist) sensitive sunglasses in the pocket
Okay so I'll explain this like you are a child since you really sound like one....
So cars are big and heavy and have lots of power so over time they break up the road surface, which costs lots of money to fix, people are not heavy enough to effect the road surface either on foot or on a bike, which is why it is idiotic to claim that cyclists and walker should pay road tax, even after those people have already paid tax for things like foot paths.
Silly people who claim these things are really stupid because they are just blaming other people instead of putting pressure on the government to spend the money they collect in road tax on the actual roads instead of on other stupid things like illegal wars, not to mention all the tax they collect on fuel.
But you in your car, well you are probably obese due to lack of exercise, and cost the NHS billions in heart, blood thinning, anti-inflamatory and diabetes medicines. Also because you are so unfit, it means your concentration levels and reaction times will suffer making it more likely for you to have an accident.
Car drivers should have a black box installed that shows that when they make a journey less than 4 miles long they get a `health tax' added on. 60 quid per infraction I think is fair. Oh yes and one penalty point. That will get you walking to the corner shop.
"Car drivers should have a black box installed that shows that when they make a journey less than 4 miles long they get a `health tax' added on. 60 quid per infraction I think is fair. Oh yes and one penalty point. That will get you walking to the corner shop."
I guess you were trying to make a point there, but suggesting anything under 4 miles should be walked is just a LITTLE excessive don't you think? My 2 (one either side) elderly disabled neighbours for example, or the grand-daughter of one of them who is 8 months pregnant, or the person with a bad back, or in fact anyone who isn't extra-super fit and has an extra couple of hours to do that 4 miles each way walk rather than drive (sigh).
My elderly disabled neighbours are not fit to drive cars no - which is why they get driven by someone else (e.g. husband, daughter, even me) to in-essential things like visits to their doctor etc. Or did you mean to suggest that if you can't walk at least 4 miles then you need to be housebound? same for the pregnant girl, she shouldn't be allowed out if her journey is under 4 miles while her husband is at work during the day?
"Car drivers should have a black box installed that shows that when they make a journey less than 4 miles long they get a `health tax' added on. 60 quid per infraction I think is fair. Oh yes and one penalty point"
So if my wife is away, I'm supposed to walk four miles with my four-year-old son, in -10c weather, in the dark, in pounding sleet, so I can get him some cough medicine?
I'm supposed to walk to work or to go grocery shopping when it's 30c and blazing sun in the summer, and haul my milk and eggs back the same way?
Sometimes I wonder about people...
2. Barring the few who drive directly from garages at home to garages at work, essentially everyone in a metropolitan area uses sidewalks. And frankly, those of us treading kilometers of it with shoe leather are probably contributing less to the sidewalk's deterioration than those driving a couple of meters across it in a car.
3. Whose nanny government? The left bank of the Potomac is pretty persnickety, but I see people riding all over without helmets.
by your logic (nearly) every living thing on the planet pollutes by producing CO2*. The only way to stop it is to remove oxygen from the atmosphere. This sounds like a start of idiot politicians wanting to introduce an "Air Tax"
*maybe we can give plants a tax break for reversing the process...
So much fail here...
- In a 30mph/50kph limit, you will not be in top anyway - likely 4th or even 3rd. Nor will you be cruising at a constant speed. In town you have junctions, lights, bus stops, pedestrian crossing etc. Frankly cyclists are the least of your worries.
- In town (it's been proven in London many times) that cycling is faster than driving. I'm an "above average" cyclist, and I get held up by cars.
- Public roads are funded through council taxes, not VED. So unless all cyclists are homeless, they pay. They are also subject to normal road rules, and if they have a driving licence can even accumulate tickets and points (in theory...but rarely in practise).
- Your car only does 8.5 in ideal conditions. That's a gas guzzler. I'd hardly be quibling about 25% if I was you - if you can afford to feed it, you're paying your dues.
- Not everyone lives in London you know. Nor does everyone drive around town. I spend 95% of my commute on a freeway, doing 120km/h (that's about 65 imperial horse dongs or 700 cubed furlongs).
- Again, not every country on earth works like Britain, hence the taxes employed in upkeep does not come from the same source.
a) Cyclists are not allowed on Freeways (assuming US)
b) Even a cyclist mental enough to do this, Freeways have hard shoulders. They would not ride in the traffic unless they wanted to die
c) Freeways are 2 lanes wide and fast, and if you're approaching at your 120kph, the last thing you would be doing is slowing down to follow a cyclist. If you are, please - walk - to the nearest Police station and hand in your licence.
Good example. In most states and provinces, (including Washington:RCW 46.61.160) It is illegal to ride a bicycle on limited access highways so if this situation can arise (there is a bike in your lane in a place where you can legally go 120kph) then there is clearly eitther a signage or an enforcement problem (and certainly a safety issue). Now my question as a cyclist is: what's my fair share of the tax for that roadway that I am not permitted to use. What about roadways that I am permitted to use as a 2nd class citizen (stay out everyone's way, don't use the left turn bays etc.)? How about depreciation? Trucks cause several dollars/km damage just from their sheer weight. How much of that should I, as a cyclist, pay? Safety? if I'm paying "my share' I expect the same level of safety as the cars get: proper signage, separated lanes, separate signalling etc.
LSV is really the elephant in the room here. Nobody with money wants to talk about how we can work towards LSVs because they would greatly harm the auto and oil industries and motorists are entirely unwilling to relinquish any existing rights to the 40-60% of urban land that they currently get to use for almost free.
"And you're stuck behind a bicycle?"
Upvote for that laugh!
Reminded me of a routine by Emo Phillips:
"I was travelling down the freeway the other day, minding my own business, when some jerk pulled behind me and kept blowing his horn. I didn't flip him the bird or anything, I like to think I'm above that. So I just ignored him and kept on wakking."
What? My car has 6 forward gears and sod all torque yet it'll happily cruise along in 6th at 30mph. If you're spending most of your time at 30 in 3rd, you need to make your way to the nearest naughty step and think about what you've done.
Not everyone has a 7 litre big-block engine under the hood. If it has 6 forward gears and comfortably cruises at 30mph in top gear, I can promise you it has a lot more than "sod all" torque.
30mph in top gear? Most cars in this country probably wouldn't make it up a 1:100 gradient like that. Think 1.3 litre Ford Fiesta. A friend's classic BMW M535 might make it like that, but that's three and a half litres of fun that sits on the spot making smoke from the tyres if you even think about twitching the accelerator too hard.
My Saab 9-5 has a 2.3 liter turbo 4 that makes about 230hp and flat torque from 1500rpm up, with a five speed box, and it's running at < 2000 revs in third at 30mph. It sits at about 2k in fifth at 65; trying to run in top gear at 30 would be absurd - what, 600rpm? Given that it idles at 900, I think that would be asking rather a lot.
Unless the 6-forward guy has a car that's geared for 45mph, I call proverbial bullshit.
Road damage is proportional to axle weight to power of 4
So if your car weighs a ton that's 8 times even my weight and you probably do at least 8 times the speed/distance so I'd be happy to pay 1/32000 of your roadtax for my usage of the road - so long as you pay the admin for collecting it since it worries you so much.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
