Bus racks

On 2018-09-03 14:26, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-09-03 13:49, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped

We already pay among the highest taxes in the country. That's
enough taxes.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Nothing in life is free including bicycling infrastructure, bicycle
shuttle buses/trains ...


It's a matter of priorities. For example, our comuntiy decided it was
more important to built a half-million Dollar mural display.


Oops. Thou shalt not switch languages more than twice a minute. Sorry.


... or new oversize bicycle racks.


No, correctly sized racks. They do not cost extra. When I design
electronics it is expected of me that it fits the needs of today, not
those of 20 years ago.



--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 13:45:01 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-02 16:36, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2018 08:02:04 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-01 21:30, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:08:31 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 3:03:16 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-31 11:06, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 1:36:09 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-31 08:51, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:13:51 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
snip


[...]


[...]


(BTW, in front of my office building. I have to dodge those
things). We also have private buses up to the mountains for
skiing and airport shuttle buses, etc.


Those are what could be construed as cherry-picking. What I
meant was a full blown system that includes not so lucrative
routes all the way to Outer Podunk. A sysme that enables most
residents not to even have a car.

Not going to happen in a market economy. The fares would be too
high for either local users who have to subsidize rural users or
for rural users who have to pay actual cost plus ROI. There might
be a way to do this by selling losses to investors -- running the
system as a tax shelter, but I'll let the tax accountants figure
that one out. The bottom line is that barriers to entry are not
that high and certainly lower than in Germany, and if mass
transit could be done profitably in a large US urban area by
private business, it would be. People are always looking for a
way to make a buck. It might work elsewhere in a dense European
city, but it has been tried and failed here in PDX.


The German example I brought was from an area much less densely
populated than Portland. AFAIK they even operate ferries in the
system.


Germany is a comparatively small country with a large population.
Distances are not so great there compared to many areas of the USA.


As I wrote, I picked an example (on purpose) from an area that is less
densely populated than where I live now.


Again, if Germany is so gosh darn great, then why have so many
Germans emigrated?


Because it wasn't always great and still isn't in many aspects. One
cannot generalize. For example, public transportation is clearly better
there but bike paths and even more so MTB trails are definitely not.
Before moving to the US I would have never dreamed that bicycle
infrastructure could become better here than in Germany but it has.
Agencies in the various contries could learn from each other but there
is often a lack of willingness.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

I wonder what would happen if to create a new bicycling infrastructure or bus/rail link that would benefit mainly bicyclists, if bicyclists were told they alone would have to pay for it?

Cheers

Many years ago Riverside, California attempted to "register" bicycles.
The idea was to have a record of who owned what bicycle which they
hoped might reduce bicycle theft.

If I remember correctly it cost the owner 50 cents and he got a nice
little "number plate" to attach to his bicycle.

You never heard as much moaning and groaning, "You mean I gotta pay 50
cents to ride a bicycle." The city gave up on the scheme. Apparently
cyclists are cheap.


I doubt that, and they should not make it mandatory anyhow. If they made
it mandatory then Californians can already smell it that pretty soon the
authorities would start to tax bicycles per year and they don't want
that. If there is any way to extract yet another tax from the people CA
will eventually do that.

But if you don't pay your taxes who is going to support the homeless,
and the illegal immigrants, and the bike paths and, and, and.

If you are going to have socialism someone's got to pay for it.


We already pay among the highest taxes in the country. That's enough taxes.

I see, you want bike paths, racks on buses, and all the other free
goodies provided by the state, but you don't want to pay for them.

But remember the battle cry,"from each according to their abilities
and to each according to their needs." And since you still have
homeless in California it is obvious that those with the ability must
offer more to those with the needs.

On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 14:26:27 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-03 13:49, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped

We already pay among the highest taxes in the country. That's
enough taxes.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Nothing in life is free including bicycling infrastructure, bicycle
shuttle buses/trains ...


It's a matter of priorities. For example, our comuntiy decided it was
more important to built a half-million Dollar mural display.

Well, that is democracy, isn't it... you know, where the majority get
to make the rules and the minority doesn't have a say in the matter.


... or new oversize bicycle racks.


No, correctly sized racks. They do not cost extra. When I design
electronics it is expected of me that it fits the needs of today, not
those of 20 years ago.

Steel is sold by the pound so in fact your larger racks do cost more
than smaller lighter racks.

But to put it in a more democratic framework, do the majority of the
cyclists who ride the bus require or want larger racks or is it just
you (a minority)?

On 9/3/2018 6:19 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 14:26:27 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-03 13:49, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped

We already pay among the highest taxes in the country. That's
enough taxes.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Nothing in life is free including bicycling infrastructure, bicycle
shuttle buses/trains ...


It's a matter of priorities. For example, our comuntiy decided it was
more important to built a half-million Dollar mural display.

Well, that is democracy, isn't it... you know, where the majority get
to make the rules and the minority doesn't have a say in the matter.


... or new oversize bicycle racks.


No, correctly sized racks. They do not cost extra. When I design
electronics it is expected of me that it fits the needs of today, not
those of 20 years ago.

Steel is sold by the pound so in fact your larger racks do cost more
than smaller lighter racks.

But to put it in a more democratic framework, do the majority of the
cyclists who ride the bus require or want larger racks or is it just
you (a minority)?


More importantly, what did the other rack vendor ever do for
that one guy on the county Board who wrote the last purchase
order? If you ever read a government purchase order or bid
on one you'll notice they are written such that only one
product or one vendor can fit the description. This is not
an accident.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 19:01:46 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 9/3/2018 6:19 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 14:26:27 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-03 13:49, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped

We already pay among the highest taxes in the country. That's
enough taxes.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Nothing in life is free including bicycling infrastructure, bicycle
shuttle buses/trains ...


It's a matter of priorities. For example, our comuntiy decided it was
more important to built a half-million Dollar mural display.

Well, that is democracy, isn't it... you know, where the majority get
to make the rules and the minority doesn't have a say in the matter.


... or new oversize bicycle racks.


No, correctly sized racks. They do not cost extra. When I design
electronics it is expected of me that it fits the needs of today, not
those of 20 years ago.

Steel is sold by the pound so in fact your larger racks do cost more
than smaller lighter racks.

But to put it in a more democratic framework, do the majority of the
cyclists who ride the bus require or want larger racks or is it just
you (a minority)?


More importantly, what did the other rack vendor ever do for
that one guy on the county Board who wrote the last purchase
order? If you ever read a government purchase order or bid
on one you'll notice they are written such that only one
product or one vendor can fit the description. This is not
an accident.

I once had a short job as a consultant to the Indonesian Highway
Department. My job was to edit their requests for bids to be sure that
(1) they were in proper English, and (2) that they adequately
described the item to be supplied.

It was rather interesting to take a proposed description and research
the market to see who was the favored supplier of that particular item
and as some of these bids used UN or other international sources of
credit the proposals had, of course, be approved by the lending agent
and it was obvious that even on that level there were pre-selected
suppliers.

As an aside, funds from the U.S. and Japan, and probably other
countries all contained the requirement that "subject item must be a
product of the U.S., Japan, or whatever.

On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 5:01:48 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/3/2018 6:19 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 14:26:27 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-03 13:49, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped

We already pay among the highest taxes in the country. That's
enough taxes.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Nothing in life is free including bicycling infrastructure, bicycle
shuttle buses/trains ...


It's a matter of priorities. For example, our comuntiy decided it was
more important to built a half-million Dollar mural display.

Well, that is democracy, isn't it... you know, where the majority get
to make the rules and the minority doesn't have a say in the matter.


... or new oversize bicycle racks.


No, correctly sized racks. They do not cost extra. When I design
electronics it is expected of me that it fits the needs of today, not
those of 20 years ago.

Steel is sold by the pound so in fact your larger racks do cost more
than smaller lighter racks.

But to put it in a more democratic framework, do the majority of the
cyclists who ride the bus require or want larger racks or is it just
you (a minority)?


More importantly, what did the other rack vendor ever do for
that one guy on the county Board who wrote the last purchase
order? If you ever read a government purchase order or bid
on one you'll notice they are written such that only one
product or one vendor can fit the description. This is not
an accident.

It's not that sinister. All the transit districts buy standard racks that fit most bikes and don't interfere with lights and signals on the bus. Any manufacturer could read the RFP and build to spec., although racks may not be subject to the public contracting process (and I'm not going to bother looking).

Sportworks has a corner on the market in the PNW. They sell a fat tire bike kit to go with their more recent racks. https://www.sportworks.com/product/apex-fat-tire-kit Racks don't wear out quickly, and they can be moved from bus to bus, and transit districts aren't going to spend a bunch of dough upgrading bike racks so Joerg and ten other guys can take their fat tire or long wheelbase bikes on a bus. Joerg should start a non-profit to pay for new racks -- but keep in mind, CA has some rigorous rules relating to bus racks, at least it appears that way based on the FAQs on the Sportwork site.. His dream rack may not be allowed in CA.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2018-09-03 16:10, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 13:45:01 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-02 16:36, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2018 08:02:04 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-01 21:30, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:08:31 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 3:03:16 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-31 11:06, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 1:36:09 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-31 08:51, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:13:51 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
snip


[...]


[...]


(BTW, in front of my office building. I have to dodge those
things). We also have private buses up to the mountains for
skiing and airport shuttle buses, etc.


Those are what could be construed as cherry-picking. What I
meant was a full blown system that includes not so lucrative
routes all the way to Outer Podunk. A sysme that enables most
residents not to even have a car.

Not going to happen in a market economy. The fares would be too
high for either local users who have to subsidize rural users or
for rural users who have to pay actual cost plus ROI. There might
be a way to do this by selling losses to investors -- running the
system as a tax shelter, but I'll let the tax accountants figure
that one out. The bottom line is that barriers to entry are not
that high and certainly lower than in Germany, and if mass
transit could be done profitably in a large US urban area by
private business, it would be. People are always looking for a
way to make a buck. It might work elsewhere in a dense European
city, but it has been tried and failed here in PDX.


The German example I brought was from an area much less densely
populated than Portland. AFAIK they even operate ferries in the
system.


Germany is a comparatively small country with a large population.
Distances are not so great there compared to many areas of the USA.


As I wrote, I picked an example (on purpose) from an area that is less
densely populated than where I live now.


Again, if Germany is so gosh darn great, then why have so many
Germans emigrated?


Because it wasn't always great and still isn't in many aspects. One
cannot generalize. For example, public transportation is clearly better
there but bike paths and even more so MTB trails are definitely not.
Before moving to the US I would have never dreamed that bicycle
infrastructure could become better here than in Germany but it has.
Agencies in the various contries could learn from each other but there
is often a lack of willingness.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

I wonder what would happen if to create a new bicycling infrastructure or bus/rail link that would benefit mainly bicyclists, if bicyclists were told they alone would have to pay for it?

Cheers

Many years ago Riverside, California attempted to "register" bicycles.
The idea was to have a record of who owned what bicycle which they
hoped might reduce bicycle theft.

If I remember correctly it cost the owner 50 cents and he got a nice
little "number plate" to attach to his bicycle.

You never heard as much moaning and groaning, "You mean I gotta pay 50
cents to ride a bicycle." The city gave up on the scheme. Apparently
cyclists are cheap.


I doubt that, and they should not make it mandatory anyhow. If they made
it mandatory then Californians can already smell it that pretty soon the
authorities would start to tax bicycles per year and they don't want
that. If there is any way to extract yet another tax from the people CA
will eventually do that.

But if you don't pay your taxes who is going to support the homeless,
and the illegal immigrants, and the bike paths and, and, and.

If you are going to have socialism someone's got to pay for it.


We already pay among the highest taxes in the country. That's enough taxes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


I see, you want bike paths, racks on buses, and all the other free
goodies provided by the state, but you don't want to pay for them.


See above. We already paid for them.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2018-09-03 19:32, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 5:01:48 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/3/2018 6:19 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 14:26:27 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-03 13:49, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 4:45:02 PM UTC-4, Joerg
wrote: Snipped

We already pay among the highest taxes in the country.
That's enough taxes.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Nothing in life is free including bicycling infrastructure,
bicycle shuttle buses/trains ...


It's a matter of priorities. For example, our comuntiy decided
it was more important to built a half-million Dollar mural
display.

Well, that is democracy, isn't it... you know, where the majority
get to make the rules and the minority doesn't have a say in the
matter.


... or new oversize bicycle racks.


No, correctly sized racks. They do not cost extra. When I
design electronics it is expected of me that it fits the needs
of today, not those of 20 years ago.

Steel is sold by the pound so in fact your larger racks do cost
more than smaller lighter racks.

But to put it in a more democratic framework, do the majority of
the cyclists who ride the bus require or want larger racks or is
it just you (a minority)?


They use their own pickup trucks because the bikes won't fit, like what
we currently do.


More importantly, what did the other rack vendor ever do for that
one guy on the county Board who wrote the last purchase order? If
you ever read a government purchase order or bid on one you'll
notice they are written such that only one product or one vendor
can fit the description. This is not an accident.

It's not that sinister. All the transit districts buy standard racks
that fit most bikes and don't interfere with lights and signals on
the bus. Any manufacturer could read the RFP and build to spec.,
although racks may not be subject to the public contracting process
(and I'm not going to bother looking).


Some transit agencies have bought better racks. Those have rails which
are open to one side. That has two advantages:

1. Loading the bike is easier for elss muscular people. Instead of
having to lift the whole bike only one wheel needs to be lifted at a time.

2. The slot length is (within reason) not limited so it fits modern MTB.


Sportworks has a corner on the market in the PNW. They sell a fat
tire bike kit to go with their more recent racks.
https://www.sportworks.com/product/apex-fat-tire-kit Racks don't
wear out quickly, and they can be moved from bus to bus, and transit
districts aren't going to spend a bunch of dough upgrading bike racks
so Joerg and ten other guys can take their fat tire or long wheelbase
bikes on a bus. Joerg should start a non-profit to pay for new racks
-- but keep in mind, CA has some rigorous rules relating to bus
racks, at least it appears that way based on the FAQs on the
Sportwork site. His dream rack may not be allowed in CA.


The solution is so simple:

https://www.yrt.ca/en/riding-with-us...ike-n-ride.jpg

I think our local guys simply didn't test properly before buying.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Tue, 04 Sep 2018 16:10:13 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-03 16:10, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 13:45:01 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-02 16:36, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2018 08:02:04 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-09-01 21:30, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:08:31 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 3:03:16 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-31 11:06, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 1:36:09 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-31 08:51, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:13:51 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
snip


[...]


[...]


(BTW, in front of my office building. I have to dodge those
things). We also have private buses up to the mountains for
skiing and airport shuttle buses, etc.


Those are what could be construed as cherry-picking. What I
meant was a full blown system that includes not so lucrative
routes all the way to Outer Podunk. A sysme that enables most
residents not to even have a car.

Not going to happen in a market economy. The fares would be too
high for either local users who have to subsidize rural users or
for rural users who have to pay actual cost plus ROI. There might
be a way to do this by selling losses to investors -- running the
system as a tax shelter, but I'll let the tax accountants figure
that one out. The bottom line is that barriers to entry are not
that high and certainly lower than in Germany, and if mass
transit could be done profitably in a large US urban area by
private business, it would be. People are always looking for a
way to make a buck. It might work elsewhere in a dense European
city, but it has been tried and failed here in PDX.


The German example I brought was from an area much less densely
populated than Portland. AFAIK they even operate ferries in the
system.


Germany is a comparatively small country with a large population.
Distances are not so great there compared to many areas of the USA.


As I wrote, I picked an example (on purpose) from an area that is less
densely populated than where I live now.


Again, if Germany is so gosh darn great, then why have so many
Germans emigrated?


Because it wasn't always great and still isn't in many aspects. One
cannot generalize. For example, public transportation is clearly better
there but bike paths and even more so MTB trails are definitely not.
Before moving to the US I would have never dreamed that bicycle
infrastructure could become better here than in Germany but it has.
Agencies in the various contries could learn from each other but there
is often a lack of willingness.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

I wonder what would happen if to create a new bicycling infrastructure or bus/rail link that would benefit mainly bicyclists, if bicyclists were told they alone would have to pay for it?

Cheers

Many years ago Riverside, California attempted to "register" bicycles.
The idea was to have a record of who owned what bicycle which they
hoped might reduce bicycle theft.

If I remember correctly it cost the owner 50 cents and he got a nice
little "number plate" to attach to his bicycle.

You never heard as much moaning and groaning, "You mean I gotta pay 50
cents to ride a bicycle." The city gave up on the scheme. Apparently
cyclists are cheap.


I doubt that, and they should not make it mandatory anyhow. If they made
it mandatory then Californians can already smell it that pretty soon the
authorities would start to tax bicycles per year and they don't want
that. If there is any way to extract yet another tax from the people CA
will eventually do that.

But if you don't pay your taxes who is going to support the homeless,
and the illegal immigrants, and the bike paths and, and, and.

If you are going to have socialism someone's got to pay for it.


We already pay among the highest taxes in the country. That's enough taxes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


I see, you want bike paths, racks on buses, and all the other free
goodies provided by the state, but you don't want to pay for them.


See above. We already paid for them.

[...]

Highest taxes in the country?

In reality California is rated as 10th, out of the list of the 15
highest taxed states in the U.S. at 9.57%. The lowest of the 15 was
Mississippi with 9.32%, California is 9.57% and New York, the highest,
is 13.04%.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/us-s...x-burdens.html

But more important the state has between $713 billion and $1.02
trillion in unfunded pension obligation, the tax base is decreasing,
since 2000, more people have left California than have arrived from
other states every year, the gasoline tax is not large enough to pay
for road building and repairs. In short, taxes will have to increase
or the state will go bankrupt.
https://californiapolicycenter.org/c...-remains-grim/

On 9/4/2018 6:10 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-09-03 16:10, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2018 13:45:01 -0700, Joerg

wrote:

On 2018-09-02 16:36, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2018 08:02:04 -0700, Joerg

wrote:

On 2018-09-01 21:30, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:08:31 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 3:03:16 PM UTC-4, Joerg
wrote:
On 2018-08-31 11:06, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 1:36:09 PM UTC-4,
Joerg wrote:
On 2018-08-31 08:51, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 7:13:51 AM UTC-7,
Joerg wrote:
snip


[...]


[...]


(BTW, in front of my office building. I have
to dodge those
things). We also have private buses up to the
mountains for
skiing and airport shuttle buses, etc.


Those are what could be construed as
cherry-picking. What I
meant was a full blown system that includes not
so lucrative
routes all the way to Outer Podunk. A sysme that
enables most
residents not to even have a car.

Not going to happen in a market economy. The
fares would be too
high for either local users who have to subsidize
rural users or
for rural users who have to pay actual cost plus
ROI. There might
be a way to do this by selling losses to
investors -- running the
system as a tax shelter, but I'll let the tax
accountants figure
that one out. The bottom line is that barriers
to entry are not
that high and certainly lower than in Germany,
and if mass
transit could be done profitably in a large US
urban area by
private business, it would be. People are always
looking for a
way to make a buck. It might work elsewhere in a
dense European
city, but it has been tried and failed here in PDX.


The German example I brought was from an area much
less densely
populated than Portland. AFAIK they even operate
ferries in the
system.


Germany is a comparatively small country with a
large population.
Distances are not so great there compared to many
areas of the USA.


As I wrote, I picked an example (on purpose) from an
area that is less
densely populated than where I live now.


Again, if Germany is so gosh darn great, then why
have so many
Germans emigrated?


Because it wasn't always great and still isn't in
many aspects. One
cannot generalize. For example, public
transportation is clearly better
there but bike paths and even more so MTB trails are
definitely not.
Before moving to the US I would have never dreamed
that bicycle
infrastructure could become better here than in
Germany but it has.
Agencies in the various contries could learn from
each other but there
is often a lack of willingness.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

I wonder what would happen if to create a new
bicycling infrastructure or bus/rail link that would
benefit mainly bicyclists, if bicyclists were told
they alone would have to pay for it?

Cheers

Many years ago Riverside, California attempted to
"register" bicycles.
The idea was to have a record of who owned what
bicycle which they
hoped might reduce bicycle theft.

If I remember correctly it cost the owner 50 cents and
he got a nice
little "number plate" to attach to his bicycle.

You never heard as much moaning and groaning, "You
mean I gotta pay 50
cents to ride a bicycle." The city gave up on the
scheme. Apparently
cyclists are cheap.


I doubt that, and they should not make it mandatory
anyhow. If they made
it mandatory then Californians can already smell it
that pretty soon the
authorities would start to tax bicycles per year and
they don't want
that. If there is any way to extract yet another tax
from the people CA
will eventually do that.

But if you don't pay your taxes who is going to support
the homeless,
and the illegal immigrants, and the bike paths and, and,
and.

If you are going to have socialism someone's got to pay
for it.


We already pay among the highest taxes in the country.
That's enough taxes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


I see, you want bike paths, racks on buses, and all the
other free
goodies provided by the state, but you don't want to pay
for them.


See above. We already paid for them.

[...]


You California taxpayers paid for extravagant pensions, the
$80billion choo choo which doesn't run, homeless, welfare
and illegal services, fire fighting of forests which should
have been logged and so on. You want bike racks? User fee.
Not only my opinion, just the way it will be.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971