Comments on: Freakonomics Ponders the Freeloading Cyclist

By: Umberto Brayj

Umberto Brayj — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 01:46:22 +0000

There is something equally idiotic about this scheme: a big chunk of the money that pays for roads comes from sales tax and general fund money.

What that means is this: if you buy anything and pay sales tax on it, you are paying for the roads to be paved and the buses to run late at night; if you pay taxes to the City, County, State, or federal government (as most folks do) your general tax dollars go to pay for the roads.

If anything, the freeloading motorist ought to be the focus of such an attack – as they come nowhere near paying for the negative consequences of their modal choice with car fees and gas taxes. Freakonomics, and the Oregon legislator who came up with this scheme, need to put down the Paxil and see what is really going on with transportation dollars.

By: angle

angle — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:11:57 +0000

Why does this irrational accusation come up again and again?

If anything, cyclists have been paying WAY more of their fair share for roadway infrastructure. Almost all of it is specifically designed for automobiles and the wear and tear that bicycles inflict on streets is almost negligible.

By: bikinginla

bikinginla — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:35:34 +0000

As Kate pointed out in the first comment, many, if not most, cyclists also own cars, which means we already pay vehicle licensing fees as well as gas taxes. So taxing all cyclists would mean taxing such people twice, while providing no additional service or benefit. It would also provide a disincentive to ride, at a time when most communities are trying to encourage cycling to reduce the number of cars on the road.

Also, I can’t speak for any other state, but here in California, car insurance covers the driver, not the vehicle. So anyone who has car insurance is covered no matter what type of vehicle they happen to be operating at the time – even, yes, a bicycle. I learned that the hard way when I was hit by a driver who didn’t appear to have insurance; State Farm paid 100% of my medical expenses under the uninsured motorist portion of my policy.

By: Steve K.

Steve K. — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:19:39 +0000

What a nutball.

By: David Pulsipher

David Pulsipher — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 19:05:42 +0000

it’s stupid. in california a significant portion of road maintenance is funded by property taxes. renters, homeowners… all pay this.

unless this bill is directly aimed towards the popular “squatter bicyclist” rampant in this country – it’s a red herring.

By: David Galvan

David Galvan — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:29:11 +0000

This is ridiculous. I’d be very surprised if it passed.

By: KateNonymous

KateNonymous — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:32:31 +0000

That assumes, of course, that no cyclists own cars. And what about the freeloading bus rider, or the freeloading pedestrian, taking advantage of those fabulous sidewalks?