How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

In article > , Wayne Pein wrote:

> In essence, motorists decided that it was inconvenient for them to obey
> their own laws, and so the motoring majority changed the law for their
> convenience.

More like the governments stopped setting speed limits properly by using
measured speeds.

John F. Carr wrote:

> In article . com>,
> > wrote:
>
>>Now, how often do you obey the laws? Start by discussing the speed
>>limits, please.
>
> The speed limit in Massachusetts is "reasonable and proper."
> I obey that law. I also obeyed all stop and yield signs and
> traffic signals on my way to work. It's been months since
> the last time I saw a bicyclist obey a red light or stop sign.

Indeed, the primary law in MA is that speed must *always* be
"reasonable and proper".

I remember quoting that to a cop who had stopped me, but he
didn't seem to know that law! Or at least my interpretation
of what "reasonable and proper" was.


SMH

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>
>> Any "use" tax would be paid yearly,as a plate fee.
>> Prop taxes are not "use fees" WRT bicycle use on public roads.
>
> There are no yearly "use" taxes for any private vehicle in IL.
> (commerical vehicles may be different) But I don't pay a yearly "use"
> tax on any of mine.
>
>
>

You pay every year to RENEW your plates. That's the yearly usage fee.

It's not really renewing your *registration*,that stays constant,until they
issue you a new plate number.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, C. E. White wrote:
>
>> But the "use" tax (sales tax) on bicycles goes into the
>> general fund. This fund is not used to pay for roads.
>
> Even if true, irelevant to the semantic arguement. There is no use tax
> for any vehicles in IL besides what is paid when they are purchased.
>
>
>

Yes,it's your *yearly* lic.plate fee.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So what if prop taxes help pay for roads?
>>>> That still doesn't mean that one can drive an auto without paying a
>>>> USE tax for each vehicle.A road use tax that bicyclists do NOT
>>>> pay,but still use the roads.
>>>> Whether non road-users pay prop taxes is not relevant to road USERS
>>>> paying USER taxes.
>>>
>>> Playing your same old semantic games. I paid the use tax on my
>>> bicycle when I bought it. You want to play semantics, that's where
>>> the 'use' tax is paid in IL.
>>>
>>> There is no other 'use' tax.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No,you did NOT.
>> People who buy an auto pay a sales tax,and still pay a YEARLY USER
>> FEE,every time they renew their plates.
>
> It's not a user fee in IL.

Yes,it is.
Surely you don't believe they just need to re-register your auto with the
SAME plate number every year?


>
>> Bicyclists just want the use without paying.
>
> Bicyclists pay.

No,they don't.
Not specifically for their bicycles as with autos,motorcycles,Vespas.


>You want to make a semantic ticky tacky arguement to
> make appear they don't pay. Under the same exacting semantics, motor
> vehicle owners don't pay such fees either.

I've already shown that you're wrong.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 22:48:31 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>
>>>>Where should I send my pictures of crumbling bike paths?
>>>
>>> I hosted mine at tinypic.com:
>>>
>>> http://tinypic.com/5lowtu
>>> http://tinypic.com/5lox2d
>>
>>
>>You call that crumbling?
>
> Does the word "sarcasm" mean anything to you?

I figured it was CA thing... like those car shows where they see some
really light rust and say the car is in bad shape.....

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>> But the "use" tax (sales tax) on bicycles goes into the
>>> general fund. This fund is not used to pay for roads.
>>
>> Even if true, irelevant to the semantic arguement. There is no use tax
>> for any vehicles in IL besides what is paid when they are purchased.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yes,it's your *yearly* lic.plate fee.

It's not a use tax.

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Any "use" tax would be paid yearly,as a plate fee.
>>> Prop taxes are not "use fees" WRT bicycle use on public roads.
>>
>> There are no yearly "use" taxes for any private vehicle in IL.
>> (commerical vehicles may be different) But I don't pay a yearly "use"
>> tax on any of mine.

>
> You pay every year to RENEW your plates. That's the yearly usage fee.
> It's not really renewing your *registration*,that stays constant,until they
> issue you a new plate number.

It's not called a usage fee. And that's what your arguement is, one about
labels.

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

>> It's not a user fee in IL.

> Yes,it is.
> Surely you don't believe they just need to re-register your auto with the
> SAME plate number every year?

You are the one ****ed off that there is no specifically labeled 'bicycle
usage tax'. There is no specifically labeled 'automobile usage tax'
either.

>>> Bicyclists just want the use without paying.
>>
>> Bicyclists pay.
>
> No,they don't.
> Not specifically for their bicycles as with autos,motorcycles,Vespas.

Your arguement is then one of labeling. Yet you have to redefine the
lables on motor vehicle taxes to suit your arguement. I could just as
easily redefine the label on any number of taxes I pay.

>>You want to make a semantic ticky tacky arguement to
>> make appear they don't pay. Under the same exacting semantics, motor
>> vehicle owners don't pay such fees either.
>
> I've already shown that you're wrong.

There are no specifically labeled 'use' taxes for any vehicle in the
state I live outside those paid regarding the purchase of said vehicle.

You really need to make sure you're on solid ground before making those
kind of semantic arguements. Fact remains, your beef is simply with
labeling.

I'll redefine 'cook county TB sanitiarium district' to 'bicycle road usage
tax'. There, now everyone in the county pays to use a bicycle on the
roads if they want, just like they pay for the schools even if they
don't have kids.

That's essentially what your arguement boils down to. You redefine
another tax as a 'usage fee' and then complain bicyclists aren't paying
it.

(Brent P) writes:

> In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
>>>Where should I send my pictures of crumbling bike paths?
>>
>> I hosted mine at tinypic.com:
>>
>> http://tinypic.com/5lowtu
>> http://tinypic.com/5lox2d
>
>
> You call that crumbling? BAH! I should show you the path in some
> northern cook county forest preserve... although it's been years since I
> rode there.
>
> You should see the bike path on the chicago lake front where it is actually
> part of the breakwater/concrete shoreline in early spring. Now that's
> crumbling. The lake really pounds it in the winter.

Heh. You are talking about right he

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=41.90...8615&t=k&hl=en

http://tinyurl.com/dt9kh

aren't you?