E-rock

Ask Bill O'Reilly: it's a revolution!

I have never heard of a derailleur "icing up". Ever. Fixies are a fad; what isn't? Where do you ride in the winter? not my photo

Fixie frames exist for track racing, primarily. The trend to ride them on the road is not much more than a trend. Some guys train in the winter with them, similar to a single speed (no derailler to get all iced up), and some folks claim that they improve pedalling efficiency, but others argue that's not true, that they actually accentualt dead spots in your spin. Who knows. That guy in the video though, he's got bigger problems than his bike.

HFS, that's a real thing.

Agree 100%. I used to be one of those morons in the U district.

I agree with you, Pete that we should be encouraging more people to get on their bikes, but I disagree to an extent about cycle paths. First of all, true cycle paths, like the Burke-Gillman, that are completely segregated invite a lot of alternate use, and these quickly become recreational corridors, rather than true commuter routes. Secondly, I think the drive for bicycle lanes in the roadways, cycle tracks, green boxes, etc. is driven largely by uniformed bicycle advocacy groups. The people that love bike lanes are the same people that slink up on the right side of stopped traffic in the door zone, and get right or left-hooked by cars at intersections because they're not visible. Rather than additional infrastructure (although I really like sharrows when they're used properly), I think the best solution to the ongoing driver-cyclist conflicts is increased awareness education. If licensure is required to make that happen, so be it. I don't think it is though. Adding some questions to the drivers exam would help. Making us take drivers exams and renew our licenses more often would help. Public awareness campaigns would help. Unfortunately, we have to learn the hard way right now. I was a dumbass in my time, and it took me many close calls before doing some research and realizing that I could avoid drivers trying to turn in front of me at the last second while I'm travelling at speed by taking the lane well before an intersection, as one example. I use this particular example because bike lanes, or worse yet, that abomination they recently installed on Broadway in Seattle, put me back into harm's way - now that I have the knowledge to avoid a common conflict - rather than making me safer. I would argue that predictable, assertive, lawful riding goes a lot farther towards improving safety and driver-cyclist relations than any bike lane. I think for people like Fairweather, who seems to have an axe to grind, the calls for licensure/registration/taxation is a double edged sword, because right now the chicken-shits who don't know how to ride are winning the infrastructure debate. in a world where I have to pay taxes to ride my bike, you can be sure to find me in the left wheel track of every traffic lane, where I have the right to be.

No dice; too many stupid/crazy/angst-filled bicyclists. As for motorcycles, yes, they cost about the same to license as cars. My 2001 750cc Honda is $57/year; my 2012 Toyota Yaris is $78. Your logic is still flawed. Edit: Ok, deal! Since the legal burden you just described is the status quo, I accept your revisions. When shall we begin taxing these entitled scofflaws? Are you trolling now? Of course my logic is flawed, I'm just turning yours on its head. I dont' actually believe that. But if we're talking about your registration, that's a bureaucratic fee, not a tax, and your motorcycle certainly is taxed less, in the way of consumption taxes, which are actually what pay for roadways, than your car is. I agree with you there's to much anger on the roadway, but it's most certainly, and disproportionately behind the wheel. And when the angry motorists start spouting off with their "taxes=rights" fallacies, they don't start the argument by qualifying it with, "well if your bike isn't taxed, why is my motorcycle" (to which I would say, "because we don't consume the commodity that's taxed"). They start out just the way you did: I hate these people so let's tax them. Or worse, they just kill them and drive away. To your second point, you can't actually believe that the status quo in the US is equivalent to the Netherlands, can you?

This is the most popular one, and I hear it a lot from my road bike friends. But by this same logic, I shouldn't have to license my motorcycle either, no? I mean, I own a car too, so the logic flows, right? Ridiculous. It's your logic that doesn't flow here. Is the tax burden of your motorcycle equivalent to your automobile? Cuz I sure see an awful lot of lunatics on crotch rockets. Some of them even murder cyclists and get away with it. The solution to an enforcment problem is not taxation. But I'm willing to meet you halfway - we adopt the dutch model, in the event of an accident the motorist is always at fault unless it can be proven otherwise, and I'll support licensure, and perhaps even modest ADDITIONAL taxation of cyclists.

The problem with the NYT article is that the author isn't actually willing to stand up for cyclist's rights out on the road. He hides in the basement.

Fairweather's suppositions also ignore several other important facts: -American roadways are not entirely funded by specific taxes that only motorists pay, and motorist taxes don't go only to roadways. -Regardless of the fact above, most cyclists are also motorists and therefore are taxed in exactly the same manner as all other motorists, anyway. -Cars and trucks are responsible for ALL of the wear and tear on roads. -His proposed solution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the perceived problem (other than the fact that the hipsters who drive him crazy happen to ride bicycles in town).

Not enough derision in this thread. Where's trash-dooosh?

Depends on your point of view.

So, like, did it pass?

Yeah, start paying your bill, you deadbeat!