Oregon imposes "sin" tax of $15 on new bicycles

hawkinspeter wrote:

The other day, I thought it'd be nice if vehicles were taxed in proportion to how much damage they cause to the road infrastructure. What would be nice would be sections of main roads that have sensors to weigh the vehicles. Combine that with license plate readers and you can figure out the approximate weight of each individual vehicle (including cargo) and then charge the owner/driver a tax based on the fourth power of their weight (which is proportional to the damage caused to roads). I reckon that would mean that cars would pay almost nothing and the economics of using large lorries would change as it might prove more cost effective to divide the load into several lighter vehicles. It'd depend on how high the tax rate would be set.

Ideally all the various external costs of motoring would be charged for separately, which would incentivise more efficient behaviour (including using a bike when possible).

So congestion charging for the cost of using scarce road-space (which would obviously be negligable or zero on empty rural roads and would vary continuuously with time-of-day and traffic level), another charge to cover air pollution (depending on fuel and vehicle type) and another part for road wear that varied with weight-of-vehicle as you describe, another to cover the cost of accidents, hefty parking charges that accounted for the opportunity-cost/rental value of the land being parked on, etc...

Instead, car-use seems to be the one area where otherwise conservative people turn into socialist supporters of subsidies and sloppy accounting.

Chris Hayes wrote:

Highly contentious and slightly tangential to the article, but I think I'd pay a road cycling tax in exchange for segregated infrastructure.  Okay, I could easily make an argument the other way, but with taxation comes representation.  As part of the major city transportation overhauls we need, this could make sense:  widespread congestion and emission zones; 'green' public transport, etc. 

I am not sure that hypothecated taxes ever work out. They always end up going into the general revenue pot. I also don't think a tax like this would make any difference to the motorist attitude that cyclists 'don't pay for the roads'.

Why not a tax on shoe sales to pay for pedestrian infra?

ktache wrote:

VeloUSA it's only $15.

Much as I am against this tax, it might just encourage people to keep their old bike going a little longer, maybe helping the LBSs to earn from the repair and replacement business.

Don't forget the second hand market, it's not all about new bikes.

I am a little biased, I have not had a brand new bike since september 1992.

 

Unfortunately people don't think like that and they will look for the easiest way NOT to pay the tax irrespective of the benefits they bring.

I like the idea of telling pedestrians to get off the cycle path because they haven't fucking paid for it!!!

IanEdward wrote:

Hmm, think people should be reserving judgement, the proof could be in the pudding,

And as Poirot circled the dinner table he continued: "Yes, the killer is someone sitting at this very table.  Someone who had plotted and carried out an almost perfect crime."  

He continued his perambulation of the table and diners.  "I say almost, because they didn't realise that the portholes of the boat would be locked, meaning that the revolver could not be disposed-of in the short time available.  So, this cunning rogue placed it in the only place it could possibly be hidden to avoid discovery..."

And with this, the moustachioed Belgian plunged his hand deep into the plum duff, grabbed the concealed gun and raised it high above his head.  "The large dessert was the only place the police wouldn't search immediately.  So Mr Jenkins, for it was you, decided to place the murder weapon there.  Truly the proof is in the pudding!"