http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/05/bicyclists_as_polluters/
Talk about grasping at straws...
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
US lawmaker blames bicycle breath for global warming gas
(11 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
More evidence for my theory that people shouldn't be allowed to hold public office until demonstrating a basic grasp of maths, the scientific method and knowledge of available evidence.
Posted 12 years ago # -
And as BikePortland reports, Orcutt has responded quite quickly to offer an olive branch to cyclists. Well, maybe more of a twig than a branch.
http://bikeportland.org/2013/03/04/rep-ed-orcutt-responds-apologizes-for-email-confusion-83716
The response has also made these shores, on road.cc:
Both articles and their comments suggest a preference for taxation according to damage (air, road surface, etc.) rather than taxation on desire to use.
Posted 12 years ago # -
And was originally found here prior to this post...
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/03/tax-bicyclists-for-exhaling-co2-when.html
Nearly laughed maself sick at this nonsense, this should be read purely as entertainment, and with a suitably large dose of salt....
R
Posted 12 years ago # -
It's quite bonkers.
I found myself thinking, "Just as well they forgot to mention cyclist methane emissions"
(apologies for lowering the tone)
Posted 12 years ago # -
Arellcat typed "Both articles and their comments suggest a preference for taxation according to damage (air, road surface, etc.) rather than taxation on desire to use."
...because of course the damage cyclists do to the road surface is horrendous!! as can be seen on the NEPN which is littered with potholes and other depredded sections of carrageway!!
Not aimed at you Arellcat, but at that commentors who consider cycles to be damaging the road surface, and who should be not allowed free use of them (disregarding the fact that everyone who pays Council Tax funds roads locally)
Posted 12 years ago # -
Hmm, that'd put the average bus fare up fairly substantially I should think, and the cost of everything delivered by lorry. ... Hey, that might result in a huge increase in the cost of petrol. Whoops!
Posted 12 years ago # -
Apparently the damage to the road is proportionate to the fourth power of the weight of the vehicle. So if you were to tax a cyclist 1p a year for the damage they do to the road, you'd have to tax a car £1000.
I hope I've got this right - I'm quoting a civil engineer friend who knew what he was talking about but I may have mis-remembered...
Posted 12 years ago # -
The damage is related to the axle/wheel load rather than overall weight. Depending on other things the power can vary from 3 to 6. Taking it as 4th power, a vehicle with 2 axles of 10t each would cause 8 times as much damage as the same overall weight spread over 4 axles of 5t.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I've read a couple of time that LRT buses are particularly bad because they ride so low on their axles. I can't for the life of me figure out why that makes any difference. Well, unless it's because they've got such long wheelbase that each axle stresses the surfacing as two separate compression/expansion events while a shorter wheelbase shares some of it. Doesn't seem likely to me, but I ain't a knowy-thingy guy in these matter.
Posted 12 years ago # -
... but [aimed] at commentors who consider cycles to be damaging the road surface, and who should be not allowed free use of them
That was my point. Cyclists would, as a group, perhaps prefer taxation based on surface damage—because we know that it would be negligible for bicycles, and considerable for motor vehicles—or atmospheric damage, for which the bicycle is also the clear winner. Taxation based on greater/lesser right to use is already a spurious argument because of the way roads and paths are funded from general finances and the way rights are described in law.
Posted 12 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
