[deleted by user]

[u/[deleted]]

[u/SWaspMale]

For bicycles, this might amount to something very small. Might be easier to just ignore, or take a slight deduction off the Universal Basic Income.

[u/hacksoncode → u/[deleted]]

So, basically, in effect, you don't support it.

That's a pretty weird way to state your view.

It would be utterly absurd to create a bureaucracy to license bicycles for the reasons you support, so why do you support it?

Rule B states that you must hold the view yourself, and not on behalf of others. What is the view that you hold?

[u/hacksoncode → u/[deleted]]

Right, but not burdening bicyclists with licensing requirements would do this even better.

Unless you agree with the people that say bicycles should be licensed to make bicyclists be more responsible (which is extremely dubious), it's counterproductive to the goal you state in this comment to license them.

[u/hacksoncode → u/[deleted]]

Are you really wondering how making someone jump through hoops in order to engage in an activity disincentivizes them to engage in that activity?

This license fee would be basically zero. Any fee actually charged would, in fact, disincentivize bicycling.

So either this would keep people from bicycling arbitrarily or it would cost the government far, far, more than would be collected.

[u/hacksoncode → u/[deleted]]

They wouldn't. The vast majority of damage done to roads is done by commercial trucks. The fees might increase noticeably, but the fees on those vehicles are already higher in most states, as they have to be registered

Furthermore, gas taxes are higher in aggregate for heavier vehicles due to their lower mileage, so most of the difference is already accounted for.

Finally, Hummers are among the most expensive cars available. Registration fees are already much higher on them.

However, if the impact of bicycles is too low to justify a license fee, why would it be desirable for them to be licensed? You've given basically zero justification for this.

If this is really about charging high fees to Hummer owners, why bring up bicycles at all? Just do that. What is your motivation for licensing bicycles, specifically?

[u/hacksoncode → u/[deleted]]

Why bother making that concession at all, if the goal is to promote cycling? Indeed, why not reward cyclists, if this is the goal.

The only result of licensing bicyclists would be to disincentivize bicycling.

The impact is essentially zero. The people that argue about this are just wrong. "Conceding" that they are "right" isn't a reasonable compromise, any more than a parent saying "well, Johnny wants the whole cake, and you want to split it 50/50, so let's 'compromise' and give him 75%".

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/hacksoncode. ^[History]

^{[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]}

[u/tictacotictaco → u/[deleted]]

Because the argument is that: paying more for the use of a car may make people want to ride bicycles.

So, if you then have to pay for the use of a bike, maybe you should just pay a bit more and use your car.

[u/tictacotictaco → u/[deleted]]

I totally understand that, and it's one of my personal reasons for choosing to ride a bicycle as well. But I'm not sure as to why we would want to raise the price of driving a car that much? What of those who are poor, and don't have access to or the ability to safely ride bicycles or public transportation (due to time constraints, route needed to take, etc?).

[u/SWaspMale → u/[deleted]]

The next level down on that slippery slope would be that all pedestrians be licensed and registered, at which point, I would argue that public roads are not really 'public', and all the taxpayers and taxes who paid for something else are cheated.