License Plates for Bicycles?

GA for your commonsense approach.

I seriously doubt one dime will ever make its way into the biking community. It will end up filling some general fund somewhere and nothing will change.

As an example, that was the same promise Pennsylvania made years ago when they hiked the driver registration fees by 100% or so. When the accounting was finally done 100% of those funds were found to be transferred into the general state funds and none to the roads that were promised.

My question is, for you supporters of this bill, why are the majority of bike owners who are law abiding riders/owners penalized for the misdeeds of a few? This is social justice or will you hang your argument that the good guys are not getting lashed too bad?

All I here is these people don't pay there fair share. They all pay taxes. They all most likely have cars and homes. They use their bike for recreation. The bike trails came out of the parks and recreations budget.

Very few bike trails are funded by your municple taxes (property). Most funding come from liquid fuel taxes. So why not pay your minute share for up keep and building something specifically for one segment of the population?

Okay so why does a farmer have to pay for bike trails in the big city. His son has a bike he will have to comply. Maybe you should argue the fact in most states a lot of farm equipment is exempt from licensing. They use the roads what about their fair share.

Most of the tax dollars are dumped it a general fund. So who's to say where the money came from. Whats to say that money from municipal taxes hasn't been funding road work for years. Now they want to put a little back into the community it came from.

Maybe you should be discussing with you representatives on how they spend your tax dollars. Not trying to impose additional taxes on others to see something get done. Because until you do they will just spend it on some other pet project unrelated to where the tax dollar came from.

How do you think those bike trails came about. The politicians just didn't wake up one morning and feel they needed to give it to them. They were pressured.

Why wouldn't that person? In PA NJ they do have to get a license and register their equipment. In-fact they pay alot to register farm equipment. The only thing they don't pay a tax on is off-road diesel fuel. So why not a bike if the roads near their farm is being widened for bike safety or a bike lane is being added. Anyway why would a bike be considered farm equipment?

Maybe the problem is you don't have a clue how your taxes are being used because you have never been involved. I know how PA NJ taxes work when dealing with Highway Funding because I've been involved at all three levels for 15 years. Volunteer work at the local level, working for PENNDOT for a number of years, and working in the private sector. I get reports all the time of the money comes from and where it goes. How about you? Maybe you need to get involved and figure out your own local and state government.

Yes they where pressed, by the biking community to take funding out of the Highway Fund, which in-turn is not funded by the biking community. Their are no funds that come directly from the biking community to support the vast majority of these projects. $0.00, nothing, zero, zip, etc. etc. etc.

I do have a clue as to the reason you want to impose more taxes on people though. You need work!

And you need roads to drive on. You know to get to work; go see a concert; go to the grocery store; go get a bite to eat at a restraunt; go visit friends and family; etc. etc. etc. Unless you fly everwhere like you icon, or have another mode of transportation that doesn't include roadways?

Maybe we should start asking the companies that do our road work for better warranties on the work. That way they don't need to be repaired so often. If they fail have them repair them at their own expense.

Maybe we should stop trucks from going on the roads after all one truck does the same damage as 10,000 cars. How about we change the axis of the earth and move it so for states like PA, NJ, OH, and NJ aren't in the range for the high number of freeze thaws that destroy roads. Maybe we should but all cars on a rail system so that they stupid drivers behind the wheel don't damage the roads, shall I go on.

There are already requirements that a contractor most meet when doing road work. From time restrictions, to pavement quality, to material quality, ride ability (smoothness) and the list goes on. If any one of the many factors are not meet by the contractor they are penalized. From simple fines 10-80% of the pay, repairing non failed parts of the roads, total replacement of the project all on the contractor, or a combination of all of them. One of our local competitors failed to pave their project in a timely matter. They where supposed to be done by October 30th. They missed the mark. As punishment for missing the mark even though all the material passed and the paving had no issues, they are being fined $200,000 plus they must mill the road-up and replace it at their own expense. We supplied the material to them so not only did we get paid for what was put down but we are on contract to resupply the new material.

So what was your issue again?

There are approved extensions for justifiable causes. Almost anything is justifiable if notified early, except when the traffic obstruction issue is to large of a problem and a safety risk (in which case the justification must be more rigorous). It is common for State DOTs to extend contract time. The only time they don't is when a contractor just can not get the man power on the job as scheduled, getting his subcontractors and his own personnel to do their jobs on schedule is the Contractor's responsibility. The schedule is almost always bilt with some leniency favoring the contractor. Penalties are there to get contractors to get the job done, and deliver a quality of product that approaches minimum standards (there are nearly always some leniency given somewhere on a project with regards to some standards when the contractor finds he has some problem or another in construction). Obviously, if the product delivered is does not meet the contract quality specified the People of the State should not have to pay the full contract amount specified. If you contract to purchase a Mercedes and a ford Escort is delivered, would you pay full price. Obviously if your firiend actually did only have a schedule issue, they wiould not mill the road up, just because materials in the plant mix designs and even field samples match specifications does not mean the construction does. You do not tear out a competent road surface because of a scheduling issue, there are financial penalties for failing to meet schedules. You mill and resurface a road when there is a defect. Your contract issue is with the contractor, not the State. He did something wrong in construction, and is arguing against it. Your contract requires you to provide him materials. Most materials contractors are not required to replace materials that were demonstrated through field testing as competent at the point of delivery, unless someone messed up in their contract to the general contractor. You can provide the lumber for a house an it is all of good quality, and the contractors still screw the whole thing up during construction. Most contracts don't require you to resupply the contractor, unless the materials were not conforming in some manner. Kind of sounds like you may need to fire the guy who got you into that contract.

As far a trucks go, well some roads are designed for truck loads and some are not. Those roads not designed for truck loads are usually designated against such vehicles. Bear in mind the US government funds through FWHA for interstate commerce, transportation, not for residential travel. So if the State wants highway funds they have to design the highway for Truck loads. If businesses want transportataion, they have to pay more in development fees for heavier duty road designed for truck loads.

I know we went through this before. You work in CA. I work in PA. PA has 12 PENNDOT Districts each district interprets the rules and laws in their own way. Under must situations the Districts I deal with are a little bit less harsh. But this job was in District 8 they are a bunch of buster, its black and white no gray no second chances. The job ran over one week because of several rain delays. It was written into there contract the project had to be done by a specific date they didn't meet it so they had to pay the penalty. They did mill up the road, there was no problem with our material, there compaction was dead on, and ther IRI was right on also. Their only issue was the date. Once you go over October 30 no paving is to take place in PA unless you have permission from the District they never gave it to them.

We are more than happy resupplying them its more work, more money coming in for us no issue on our end. The other guys their not to happy.

I was giving an example for the above poster to show that contractors are already force to cover their projects.

RCE you don't need to give me a lecture on truck counts and ESALs. I was learning mix designs and construction practices when it came out in '96.

Again just giving some example of how roads can be destroyed prematurely.

Something to note, Most States use either a watered down version (or sometimes directly reference CalTrans), or in less sophisticated States they may use FHWA standards, only a very few States utilizing their own original standards and specifications. Rain delays everywhere are a readily accepted justification for a time extension if requested by the contractor (all extensions have to be requested prior to running over), and I believe every engineer on this forum who works for their State DOTs will tell you that. The contract would not hold up in court as these would constitute natural and unforeseen events (at the time the conctract was agreed to) that adversely affect the contract, unless rain days were allocated already in the contract, and the rain delay were covered within that allotment. Also, no DOT anywhere removes a properly constructed driving surface because of a schedule over run of a few days. There was another issue regarding quality control/assurance that the deadline was established for (it would have to be pretty serious such as temperature at time of placement unless measured), or much more likely though that there was an identified issue with the construction, constructed product, or the quality assurance. Believe me when I say every engineer has heard the comments from contractors and field maintenance crews about how things are good enough, how they substantial comply with the conformance requirements, how defects are minor and do not adversely affect performance, and every other excuse. I actually got called out once becasue a contractor tried to blame the reinforcing steel for causing cracking in 4 inch thick concrete pavement, because he claimed 2-inches of cover was insufficient for #4 bar on 18 inch centers. When he decided that wasn't a supportable position he went after the concrete supplier, because the materials had to be defective. It is always the engineering is the first problem, when that is untenable, then a sub or supplier. I would suggest you call the DOT engineer who required them to mill the road and find out what he says, if you really wanted to know. You will be surprised.

Also, the standards are written as a minimum product quality requirement, there is no gray below those, only black. All gray lies above the standards, as they represent a minimum, not some average requirement.

The project was a 8 miles four road with a large number of lights. The project was a mill and three layer pavement over it. I can tell for our end the material was dead on all the specs where meet. We where using a 12 mm super-pave mix with 3<30 ESAL and polymer liquid asphalt. The air temperature was in the 60 F the surface temperature was 58 F both dropping because it was done at night. The compaction's where dead on. All the box samples and cores paced. Even the IRI was decent around 24. I think it was a little high because its an open mix for heavy traffic roads. After the paving was done they also put seal crack down on all the joints, it didn't look pretty like a new road should but everything still past.

The contractor had equipment problems the first two nights, then out of three weeks of paving it rained 8 times which through everyone off. The inspector was a real jerk. He set the pattern up instead of the contractor, I know he was constantly delay them which held us up. But in the end they ran over their a lotted time plus ran pass the time the date for the end of paving season. I think what hurt them was that the inspector to them not to pave past Oct 30 and they did it anyway.

I think they pissed PENNDOT off and they lower the boom on them.

There are always gray areas in all of these regulation books they are all open to how the leading authority wants to interpret it.

As you say one truck does the damage of 10,000 cars.

I would venture to say that one car does the damage of 10,000 bikes.

We can't predict mother nature or the mishap of or fellow humans in their damage to our roads.

My issue is

The Original post was the issuing of licensing of bikes because of seniors whom complained about having to deal with bikes. Not that a tag on the bike is going to make it any more visible. You made it an issue that bike riders don't pay their fair share when they do little to no damage to the roads as they use them. All this for a meal ticket.

I never said a bike did a lot of damage not once in my 30+ post. This is getting old.

I know I'll try and explain it to you in a story like I would read to my daughter.

You ready here we go.

Long ago a group of bike riders wanted a places that was safe for them to ride. They had no money to do it directly so they went to their king and cried and shouted outside his castle. So finally the king said OK I take the money needed for you to ride your bikes from the good people of Motor Vehicle. So over the years the good people of Motor Vehicle have been paying taxes, tolls, and different fees to the king so they could drive their motor vehicles from place to place safely, plus they have been paying for safe areas for bike riders to ride. their bikes. Well as the years pass their was less and less money in the coffers of the people of Motor Vehicle, but both people want there safe paths to drive on. So the King sent out an announcement to all of his people to come up with a way that might satisfy both people. One day a brave knight rode up in his pick-up truck and told the king. Why don't we have a license for the bike riders it. That way the bike riders could help fund their bike paths and trails they only use and the people of Motor Vehicle would have more of their own paths.

And they lived happily ever after.

I know it's not the greatest but hopefully you have a better understanding of the point I'm trying to make.

Your still twisting the issue of the proposed legislation purpose into money making deal for personal reasons a pay check. It's was presented as public awareness issue of right away base on complaints by seniors in the assemblywoman district.

So what you say is it's okay to pass legislation based on an issue if it's really about something else.

You emitted from your story the fact that the king for years has been using tax dollars from other sources then just those coming from transportation taxes to build and fund his roads. That in doing so he has neglected his communities. In order to keep his subjects from rebelling in his great wisdom have thrown them a bone. A bike trail in the park.

Hmm, the damage to roads is based in large part on the load applied at the road surface, size of the foot print, the speed at which it rolls across that surface, proximity of other nearby load in case of dual tires, and the proximity of subsequent loads that follow (multiple axles). The pressure load applied at the road surface for a bike and a car is about the same. This is easy to see as the tire pressure must support both. Higher tire pressures mean higher pressures are transferred to the road surface. Obviously Cars travel at about twice the speed of bikes, and have a larger foot print (tire contacting surface), but 10,000 for surface damage might be an exaggeration, it probably more on the order of 100.

10,000 cars is what one ESAL represents when designing hot or cold mix super-pave asphalt. 1 ESAL is a calculation that represents the number of trucks of daily travel on a road.

Does CA use ESAL or super-pave when determining the strength of their asphalt mix designs?

Actually CalTrans uses Traffic Index, though it has developed equations for conversion to equivalent single axle loads. Not really sure though how this relates to 1 car equating to 10,000 bicycles.

As I recall Super Pave is the UT program for designing pavement, which is not the same as a mix design, which is the design of the actually materials mixes, and not the same as ESAL or TI, which is the measure of traffic loading capacity. Now we have used Superpave to design pavements, yes, but CalTrans also has a standard method that may be used (they also have a bunch of standard requirements for R-values and such that must be used).

Farmers are exempt from most fuel taxes for agricultural use, this is why they dye diesel red.

Only for off road use. If the vehicle like a truck is used to bring your product from the farm to the market it can't use off-road fuel it has to use on-road. If there equipment runs on gasoline it is not exempt either.My in-laws and my neighbor are farmers so I have a little inside info.

LOL. Yes, i figured that was obvious. Off-road is agricultural exclusively use, for specifically farming applications, not produce transportation and brokering. Hmm, where does Pennsylvania stand on the rating of US agricultural producers in the US? , It must be pretty high it sounds like. Unlike Pennsylvania, there really isn't any substantial agricultural activity in the areas of California I grew up, Salinas, or where I live, Central Valley, well except maybe my parents and the other 99% of the worlds artichoke growers, a majority of the worlds strawberry growers (many of who i went to school with), the a substantial portion of the of the Cotton, tomatoes, cheese,and lettuce and cold crop production. Besides that Agriculture really isn't something we here in California are familiar with. Thank you for clarifying this issue for me. BTW if you are on a major agricultural operation and your on-farm equipment uses Gasoline, besides some small portable generators, hand tools, and quad runners, you have some serious business problems.

PA used to have a lot of agriculture but it's slowly dying out the kids don't want to run the farm anymore. Most farms in my area range from 300 to 1000 acres there is allot of wheat, soybean and corn. We also have diary, cattle, pigs, turkey, and chicken farms. A new type of farm is coming out vineyards, I'm sure they are nothing compared to Napa Valley but they are springing up all over. With the housing boom slowing down and some of the prices of grain going up farming is doing a little better.

Correct gas isn't a good economical choice for a farmer. Besides the taxes, it doesn't have the fuel economy as diesel. I also don't know of any heavy farm equipment manufactures that make them with a gas engine. Usually the only thing on the farm that will run on gas is personal cars or pick-up, and small motor equipment mowers etc. Your major equipment hauling trucks, tractors, combines, etc. are all diesel. Most farmers I know buy diesel pick-ups that way when they get old enough and beat-up they use them strictly on the farm and can get away with off-road. Once you use the off-road you really have a hard time going back it takes a while to flush out an engine. My neighbor back in November had inspectors from the IRS checking his tanks and all of his equipment. One of the other local farmers called them up saying he was running his on-road equipment with off-road diesel.

Its the same here in Germany and the UK with both "Farm" diesel and all heating oil.....as it is basically diesel.....works fine till you get caught!!

And the issue? use of tax exempt agricultural fuel for other vehicles is tax evasion, just like it would be if you were to say not pay your income taxes. The farmers know it is illegal, no question about that, they are just trying to make a little more profit by not fully paying the taxes everyone else pays. It is just like contractors tring to claim depreciation on personal vehicles, boats, and other such personal toys as company vehicles to reduce tax liabilities, or accountants cooking company books to reduce tax liabilities.

Correct.

The IRS inspectors didn't finding anything amiss. Just a rival farmer causing problems.

The $10 isn't the point! Anybody can easily pay that fee for a year. The point is that we in the United States have local, State and Federal governements that are out of control and are having a heyday with spending someone else's money, namely yours and mine, on inane and wasteful programs. These programs are mostly for the self agrandizement of the individual politician with no thought of value to their constituents, for the money spent.

As has been stated in some other previous post is that what governments need to do is learn how to operate it as a business or a household and if you don't have the money you don't commit to spending what you don't have. Cut spending, decrease taxes and regulations so small and large businesses alike have an environment to operate in stability.

Quit trying to milk every last dime out of the "average joe" with new laws and taxes. Besides, bicycles don't wear out or degrade the roads at all. Why should they pay a liscense fee which supposedly covers those road costs? The only reason this dingbat legislator is proposing this fee is to try to inflate the government coffers. Next will be taxing e-mails etc. eventhough the government has no cost or liability in them. That new taxing of the Internet will probably come because people have quit using the government-run postal system that is cutting service, raising costs and becoming more and more inefficient.

Hmm, who decides when government spending is wasteful and out of control? What kind of business should they emulate, hopefully not GM, Wachovia, or even Lehman Brothers. Of course they could always operate like a household as indicated, not like any of those over extended themselves and bought cars, boats, and such with second mortgages taken when their houses were obviously many times over-valued, then walked off on their mortgages because the value of their homes dropped. Of course that would solve a lot of government issues if they could just walk off on their debts, they could just keep all the taxes received and not bother to pay anything back at the end of the year, stop paying their debtors like all those government employees and tax payers.

Of course another method might be just to vote for better politicians. Of course then, being a democratic republic elections are based on popular vote, and not wieghted by intelligence. (Though admittedly, many people who feel they are reasonably competent enough to provide valuable input into the final decision, even on this forum, might not have an IQ over 150 or even 120, and might not appreciate their opinions being weighted by intelligence alone.) So your vote might just be nullified by someone with different self-serving needs, desires, opinions, etc..

Obviously, someone elects these politicians, as money does not cast votes, but rather people do (Meg Whitman can attest to that). hmm, interestingly that might imply that your opinion isn't the popular opinion, or maybe the spending the governments do is wasteful to many people except when it is spent on their own special interests, and in order to come to an accord they all agree to split the spending to address each others interests. What should a government spend taxes on?

Hmm, who decides when government spending is wasteful and out of control?

When our present administration has accumulated more debt in 2 years than all the Presidents from George Washington until the end of George W. Bush, government is out of control. That is a no brainer. Wasteful spending isn't relegated to only one side of the aisle. Both major parties are culpable for much of the mess we are in as a country, from an economic standpoint.

As far as who decides what spending is wasteful or not, is not really a question of "who", but "what". The Constituion was written partly to restrict the Federal government from acting in ways that were contrary to the dictates of the people living within a Representative Republic. The Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution knew that the tendancy of people in the government is to be overpowering and overreaching in their power, so they sought to severely limit the scope of government through the Constitutional guidelines and the Articles of Confederation. When the government is doing things not clearly stated in those documents, they are out of control and need to be reined in.

That is much of the catalyst for people becoming much more vocal in their support of, and return to the implementation of those founding documents. Our Founding Fathers had great insight and understanding of human nature and sought to give us a framework to operate by that took a lot of our human tendancies out of the equation. Abe Lincoln said "if you want to test a man's character, give him power". Most of the problem on both sides of the aisle politically is that we are being governed by people of low character. And the reason people vote for them is that a great number of our citizens are "sheeple" who are ignorant of free enterprise, capitalism and our history. They just want to be taken care of by someone else, rather than pursue their own dreams based upon their own efforts and personal responsibility. They have been educated in an educational system established by those same people without character.

The govenment, local, state or federal, has no money of its own. It is all taken from someone else under the guise of "helping us". Ronald Reagan said "the worst words you can ever hear when there is a knock at your door is, 'hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." There are critical functions that governments do, I'm not disputing that, I'm saying that people in gov. need to be much more judicious with the expenditure of other people's money.

"interestingly that might imply that your opinion isn't the popular opinion,"

Oh really, how many seats were taken from ensconced Democrats and Republicans alike by those people who want to get back to the basics of our government? There is a growing trend of dissatisfaction with government as usual, by people of all stripes politically, and I think we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg, because many citizens are finally waking up to the fact that we can't allow the government to keep operating as is, unabated.

If we are going stand for a government that taxes for everything; to allow a bunch of self-serving politicians to buy votes, we probably should tax pedestrians too, because they are wearing out the street about as much as a bicycle is, maybe even more so because you have more weight in one spot for a longer period of time causing stress on the asphalt or concrete. Maybe we should all be required to walk down the street with a liscense plate pinned to our butt.

The government has never operated unabated, that would be Saudi Arabia. The US government is constantly in flux by the decisions of the voters. The dissatisfaction of the voters with geenral governance is to some lesser degree apparent, but the dissatisfaction over spending is not so apparent, as more people seem to be more dissatisfied that the government isn't doing enough to address issues of unemployment and underemployment, not regulating large corporations adequately (obviously BPs oil spill and those coal mine accidents in the East did not help), not doing enough to stabilize and rehabilitate the housing market or mitigating home loans so people who purchased at the wrong time are not so in debt, not getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan fast enough, and as always in general spending/regulating too much on X and not enough on Y.

I will guanrantee you that everyone will agree government spending is out of control, until you propose reducing some entitlement they benefit from, e.g. Medicare and Medicaid, NEA, Military research and weapons technology development, space research and technology development, climatic change research, endangered species research and protection, interstate highways and bridges, etc.. If you really wnt to cut government spending, yes roll just part way back to the Forefather original concept of no standing army and get rid of military technology development programs, that would cut the overall spending budget in excess of 50 percent, cut medicare and medicaid might get you another few percent or so, cut agricultural, construction and petroleum industry subsidies would help a few percent, selling off all the military facilities, national parks and forest would reduce the O&M cost of governance, amybe stop giving low interest loans to businesses for bailouts or to Cities, Counties, and States for infrastructure improvements. I suspect that would not go well. Yes people hate paying taxes and think the ogovernemnt is wasteful when they don't think they are getting more out of it, but you might suddenly find that people aren't in favor of managing the budget as much when it means cutting the subsidies to the industries they depend on. So the present the important question again you attempted to circumvent, who decides when governemnt spending is wasteful and out of control? This means deciding what spending is thriftful and beneficial, and which is not. Who make those decisions?

I suspect the people most culpable are those who took the ARM loans at 5 times the valuation of their home 5 year prior, and then walked off or stopped paying when the value corrected. Those who were betting on the market, and voting for representatives who helped to propped up those markets. Those who wanted low interest loans made available to everyone (read them or their children) no matter some bad credit history (mistakes in the past). Those who wanted to earn more than a Doctor but only have to go to night school for 1 year at a community college or receive a AS online. and everyone else who fed in the trough of a subsidized, Federal reserve manipulated, and deregulated economy.

"the dissatisfaction over spending is not so apparent, as more people seem to be more dissatisfied that the government isn't doing enough to address issues of unemployment and underemployment, not regulating large corporations adequately."

I guess that is where we have a different philosophical approach to what government should be doing. The Founding Fathers said in the Constitution that the Federal government has 4 main tasks; 1) establish justice - a judicial system that works well and fairly for all it's citizens, who interpret law not make law (judicial activism), 2) insure domestic tranquility - an orderly society in which commerce can operate in an interstate fashion, 3) common defence - protecting the sovereignty of our group of independent states, which can best be done corportately rather than separate states representing their own area, 4) promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity - the Federal government responding to conditions, emergencies that aren't capable to be handled by individual states alone, a minimal safety net for it's citizens and to present a strong united front as a country to preserve freedom for ourselves and others.

Regarding the issues you mentioned of housing, commerce, unemployment, etc.; the way to solve those problems is not more beauracratic bumbling, but less. Get the government out of the way, i.e. a oil drilling moratorium in the Gulf for 7 years (how stupid is that?), excessive taxation, regulations written by a bunch of people who for the most part have never operated a business, dictation of health care decisions and purchases, etc., and you would see the economy explode. We have the resources, the will/drive, enough people with a great work ethic and intellectual firepower and infrastructure to be moving much faster in the right direction than we are.

That doesn't mean that people and companies aren't held accountable, they are, but through already established processes.

You only have to look at the overall results of the last election here in the United States and what movement drove those results to see where the true dissatisfaction truly lies, it isn't more government, it is less intrusion.

It's rather unintelligent to blame everthing on this President. Didn't we try less intrusion with Bush Jr. ? That worked out great for all of us right. Banks, housing makes, and Wall Street running a mock. These issues have been boilling up for the last 50-60 years.

The last decent President we have had was Eisenhower. The rest have been jokes.

I'm not "blaming everything on this President", although he is the most out of control, dictatorial, big spender our country has ever known; seen by the astronomical rise in federal government dictated mandates, increases in spending and growth in the number of government employees. He has done this with the support of many other liberal legislators.

If you'll notice in my posts, culpability lies on both sides of the political aisle, not just with Barack Hussein Obama. Democrates and Repulicans alike shoulder the blame for the economic state of our country.

Didn't we try less intrusion with Bush Jr. ? That worked out great for all of us right. Banks, housing makes, and Wall Street running a mock.

Who was in charge of the oversight of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mack, the banking industry, etc.? It was the liberals controlling the House and Senate who were telling these organizations how to operate and setting the guidelines for who should be lent money etc. One of the problems is that most of these people making demands on the business owners have never started or operated a business and consequently don't have a clue what principles enhance a healthy environment for commerce to thrive in. Many of the politicians are "career criminals" who happen to get by because of their positions of power and associations and we as the electorate won't hold them accountable for their actions because of what they promise to "give" to us. More and more people are recognizing we can't afford to be "given" anything else. The bank account has been empty a long time ago and printing more money, like we are currently doing to an even greater extent, is only hurting everyone.

We simply need to clean up our whole government systems, starting with our congressmen and senators and down to the state and local administrations. Adios to probably 70%, or more, of them.

"Everything rises and falls on leadership"! You will never have a healthy country without skilled people of character at the helm. We are and have been sorely lacking and the results are plainly evident.

You are unhappy about a 7 year oil drilling moratorium on the Gulf of Mexico? You know how much it cost the US tax payers the last time we let a oil company, BP, drill in the gulf. Oil and Gas exploration is definitely an area the government needs to crack down on. Bush deregulated much of the industry with exemption explicitly written into the CWA, and then gutted the enforcement by Agencies or introduced more industry friendly oversight. all of that has lead to a mess of surface and grundwater contamination all over the country that effects peoples adversely lives and welfare, all so Halliburton can save a few $ on multimillion $ projects. We really should require a deposit of a bond from exploration groups before they are allowed to drill, to be held through the duration period of a post closure warranty, like we do with other industries, such as landfills.

The whole debacle cost BP a ton of money, as well it should have since they were responsible for the problems, and more than it should have because this administration was much too slow to act and enlist help from a bunch of countries who had the equipment to help keep the oil consolidated, rather than let it wash everywhere like it did. This became an even bigger problem because this clown in the Whitehouse refused to lead in a decisive way. This President and his Cabinet are a bunch of entirely incompetant boobs. Putting a 7 year embargo in place does nothing to help the exploration and drilling to become more efficient or safe. It simply drives up the price of petroleum products and increase our dependence on foreign oil even more. But, maybe that's what this guy wants.

Anytime you have something mechanical it can break and cause a problem. There is always inherent risk to any industry. The people here at CR4 know that as well as anybody. What regulations did these idiots in Washington dictate that made them have to drill in such deep water? There is a great deal of oil in much more shallow conditions but the regulations pushed the operations out farther into the gulf, for no good reason except that the legislators listened to the wrong people for advice, i.e. tree hugger, environmentalist wackos who believe that oil is bad, and they probably also believe that mankind is causing global warming and other such fairy tales.

RCE, you're right about some corporations operating in a way that is detrimental to some people and the environment that we all have to live with and in. And those companies should be held accountable. But it isn't because of a lack of enforcement and regulation that makes environmental and economic problems. It is because people of low character are the ones who are operating some of the businesses. It all comes back to people who don't have a proper moral compass to do what it right, regardless of the cost.

Faster reactions require more regulatory involvement and oversight and less listening to what BP had to say and less giving BP an opportunity to address the problem themselves first. Placing a 7 year embargo cost the industry a lot of potential profits, thus making them more wary of future safety issues, without shutting them down whole-heartedly. It places a limit on future potential gains until they have a chance to demonstrate some improvment, and hides this under the guise of allowing some time for them to develop technological and management methodolgy advancements. It in essence stunts their growth for a little while while they address some internal issues that BP and Halliburton have in their management that have allowed them to believe, possibly through previous lax oversight and legal loopholes instituted by previous administrations, that such risk is the cost of doing business and worth it to save a few days on the schedule or a little on the drilling budget (sometimes on-time and under-budget can be too risky a proposition). It is a way to impose greater fines into their business future without directly fining them now and potentially putting them out of business as all the costs are accounted for. You have fined them by limiting some of their growth potential, this can effect their stock valuation growth, and limits them financially. since it appears to be pervasive amongst oil and gas energy exploration companies, it is a way of letting them know, in their future projected profits that they need to do something to address this issue.

Though you are probably correct that the primary officers and direct administration above them were not making good decisions in listening to Halliburton and BPs recommendations. I believe in the future his adminstration will have learned better than to listen to a business trying to cover its ass, and extricate itself out of a situation as rapidly as possible (and by that I mean the constant news stories). Plus Obama now likely knows to what level some industry oversight agencies (Oil and Gas) have been corrupted by the businesses they oversee, and can identify those who should be removed from their positions, allowing for better and more rapid oversight and response to future industry failures.

Also, everyone here knows that anything that can break and have series consequences has to have working redundancies and fail safes to stop critical failures from getting out of hand. A good simple exammple if firemen, they aren't there to stop fires from starting per se (except maybe some educational training), but rather there to stop them from getting worse and abate further damages from occurring once they respond. They are a fail safe to stop a failure in the system, a barn fire, from becoming a huge disaster that destroys a forst or City, or even other houses. BTW oil is bad, but we haven't found anything cheaper yet that serves the same purposes in the quantities we need.

Obviously you really don't have a clue.

We are paying less taxes now then ever before.

Again look at our roads systems. Most states roads are in bad if not terrible state. People like you are going to say thats because the state doesn't know what they are doing, well your wrong. It's because they are totally under funded. Again for the millionth time if you want better infrastructure your going to need to pay for it.

As more people are using bikes to get the work, your government has responded. They are building bike lanes, widening shoulders, and making bike paths. This is being done so all the bike riders out there will have a safe place to ride. So who do you think pays for these $300-400 million dollar projects. The people who purchase driver licenses, registrations, and pay fuel taxes. So why not a small amount from the people who are actually the ones using the facilities.

Thats a good view on the subject. GA.

Well then since the early 1900's before that there was no national income taxes, and much of the tax revenues came from the taxation of business in the US.

Who cares we are talking about infracture here.

How many highways did we have?

A big zero so no need to tax people on a federal level for roads until the 50's when President DD Eisenhower put in the interstate highway system.

Most of the roads before then where either privately own dirt roads and you paid a toll (A. Hero would say Tax)or run by the cities which they taxed the fuels.

It's another morning or afternoon wasted waiting in line at the BMV.

New Jersey...why am I not suprised. That moron should NOT be reelected.

I have a better Idea....lets require Politicians to be licensed. And we charge them $10,000 per year. And they have to have that plate affixed to their foreheads (or a radio collar like they have for those udner house arrest) or they lose their office the monent it comes off.

Since the State Assemblies decide how much State Politicians get paid, If you charged them a license fee of $10,000 a years wouldn't they just raise their wages to cover that cost plus some bit extra for the amdinistrative effort and hardship?

What will they do about out-of-state cyclists who drive their bicycles through the state? There are a number of people who do a "east coast trek".

NJ doesn't require an automobile driver from VT, fully and legally licensed, to purchase a NJ plate. Similarly, the bicycle driver from VT is "fully and legally licensed" in accordance with his state as well, no? Wouldn't standard reciprocity agreements prohibit such a requirement?

What problem currently exists and how does this registration solve that problem? If stolen bikes are the problem, do we next register GPS and sound systems, frequently stolen from NJ car owners?

well, the billed died anyway, but many people do bring a bike along when they travel, so that is an issue.

I recalled as a kid we used to go to the Police Station and spend a Quarter ( $0.25 ) for a colored sticker license and all you had to do was stick it on the seat tube 12 inches below the seat.

It was a small card application

Name: John Doe

Address: 123 Main Street

City: home town

Phone number :123-4567

And a list of bike saftey rules

Had the sticker number, Brand of Bkle and Serial number , type of brakes I think.

they always had a picture in the paper to remind the renewals, incase the bike was stolen, you just called the police and they take a report.

well $10.00 is kinda high IMHO but paying 2 bits for a sticker was like all the other stuff was cheap back then.

So I guess what you are pining about is that prices have changed over half century so? have your wages not changed in that time?

I wonder if with 103 posts this thread "taxes for bikes" was one of the most popular threads of this tech.forum until now.-

Kris and his iron bath was far longer, but thats a few years ago....

ive seen comments from others stating what a great idea this law would be. a few of which i related their opinions to the fact that their location tells me that they live under a different type of government rule than what we have in the US

for those from here show me an example of any government (state or fed) program that can stick to its own budget. show me an agency whos purpose is not to expand and perpetuate itself.

the expansion of the nanny state is what has gotten us into the situtation we are in now finacially, ethically, and intellectually.

for those that say well its only ten bucks look no further than the promises that were made when our current income tax was implimented http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913

PENNDOT and most other transportation agencies. The are under funded and under maned. Income has stagnated, or like PA drastically decreased. Yet the citizen of PA can't figure out why they can't take care of the highway system on income based 15 years ago.

A wise engineer once said..

If it ain't broke. don't fix it.

I'm sure that most of you have never so much as written down the plate of a poor driver.. The incidence would have to be one of a kind in order to justify you time and energy to complain.. (or you are just that type)

I have a very simple way of dealing with drivers or cyclist who end up in front of me or fly past me down the road / path for any reason..

Rather than be upset by their actions and lay on the horn.. or complain.. I give them their space.. and maybe pump my fist and point out what a great driver they must be.. obviously a professional to have been able to pull of such moves..

It's worked for me for a long time.. I don't get road rage.. I don't care if somebody fouls up 15 seconds of traffic.. I really never use my horn except for the slightest tap when making a blind corner.

I have lived in an urban environment all of my life, and the people who complain about drivers, and cyclist are the same people.. over and over.. Those who don't? don't?

I and others I know ride their bikes a LOT.. It's no more effort than walking fast and it takes only a little bit of careful observation to remain safe. If you have a moped, or electric bike, you must have a license and insurance.. fair enough.

If you think you have a hard time catching the plate number of that car? Try to read a little bike plate that is probably obscured by clothing etc.

If you see a bad cyclist, you can catch it on video (weird) with your phone and bring it to the police. It would mean a lot more than just whining about it.

Or pump you fist and shout! "Nice moves!" .. They can get the message

If you are getting buzzed by dangerous riders all the time.. be prepared to stop them..

and ask the police to do the same. they don't need plates to get in trouble.

..Are they going to revoke the plates of a bad bike?

What happens when you discover that same driver down the road that passed you an hour and 10 minutes ago, caused a wreck that started traffic jam that took you 1 hour to get across that 5 miles?

Stop the insanity!

What next? shoes (walking on sidewalks), walking canes, wheel chairs, shopping carts?

How about city revenue from service. Where the government provides meaningful, non-bureaucratic, valuable service to the community (who they work for).

Really, really, really endorse and support education; foster idea-filled children with meaningful curriculum whereby they learn to contribute (revenue?) to society and the economy.

How about a government that provides positive reinforcement incentives for good rather than punitive or criminal fines (i.e. traffic fines).

Are you saying like toll roads? (Roads are City services.) Intersting idea, but I think the delays due to paying tolls all over town would cause more political nightmare than benefit. Most other services from Cities are paid for from fees collected for those services, except some services to the poor and children. the problem is that the services fees always seem to lag behind the demands on those services, and it take a huge process (that fails to be approved by city councils many times) to increase fees to match service costs. For years Cities have been using the development fees to offset the cost of providing services, and now without those massive influx of development fees they have to try to find a way to increase service fees to the public users a substantial amount just to get the service costs are balanced against the fees. It used to be robbing Peter, the development, to pay Paul service fees to existing users. Well Peter is broke now.

Don't remember the cost due to the number of years that have passed. But, when I was a kid growing up we had to have plates for our bikes. Had to go to the fire department and have one of the firemen inspect the bike and they then would issue a numbered metal tag. Over time the practice went away due to cost.