Bicycle Sales Tax Surcharge Proposed to Build Bike Lanes

Jus add to the list of items best purchased in new hampshire if this passes...a tax is a tax is a tax....when will they learn...

This should apply to "high end" ($$$) bicicyles. You don't see many kids between towns on bikes from Walmart.

But I thought liberals liked things to be fair, if they use the roads let them help pay for them. Motorists pay all sorts of taxes to use the roads why not cyclists? A better idea may be to license them as has been done in the past, just like your dog.

Yes! Add an annual registration fee and now we're talkin'!

Background:
I am an avid cyclist and routinely build my own bicycles. I typically ride a unique bicycle called a fixed-gear (often a few thousand miles a year), which is a different bicycle most people don't ride because they can be very harsh to the rider (but I enjoy riding them without a problem). I also ride a higher-end mountain bike and road bicycle (one with gears and brakes), and I fix bicycles for people who either don't have the money to repair them or find one for new people wanting to start riding, but without the funds to spend.

My thoughts:

I agree cyclists often get a free pass for riding on the roads. But, how much do they degrade the roads? How much damage is done by a 175 pound cyclist on a 20 pound bicycle? I have always been of the mindset the roads are for cars, and bicycles are allowed on them, not the other way around as some cyclists believe. The 3-foot rule, as has been referenced, is a cop-out to raising taxes. Keeping away from cyclists is no different than keeping away from walkers, runners, or anyone else on the road. However, it came about as a rule because cyclists were getting 'buzzed' by cars, some being hit with mirrors. A 2 pound mirror, when attached to a 4,000 pound car, can and will do a heap of damage to a person. So no tax money is needed or warranted for doing something that should be common sense.

I do not believe for a SECOND that a single shoulder will be widened if this law goes through. Neither do any cyclists with which I've spoken. We're not that stupid. Instead it will go into the general fund and blend with all the other money and our roads will keep getting a fresh coat of paint every 5 or 6 years, only to have most of it scraped off that winter when the DOT sharpens their blades. Let's face it, it's just another tax brought forth under the guise of some noble cause. Anyone remember the salt water fishing license? How about the hiking tax? Or the canoe license?

Bicyclists have (are supposed to) obey the rules of the road. This is fine, but my bicycle still doesn't trip the stop lights at intersections. So I can sit there all day and not have it make a difference. To me this is a safety issue, one for which I am not willing to risk my life. That doesn't mean I go blasting through lights like some cyclists I see, but it does mean that when I feel it's safe to proceed, I will do so. I don't believe it's much of an issue, so I am not advocating spending tons of money to upgrade the stop lights so they'll recognize a cyclist.

I am a conservative and don't believe in higher taxes. I am not against taxes, since towns and the state need the money for infrastructure upkeep. If people want to tax cyclists, then they should also tax walkers, runners, and anyone else that uses the road for other than vehicular traffic. Fair is fair. So if you're going to tax bicycles, then I'd expect the same for running and walking shoes. What about those dog-walkers who insist in letting FIDO walk in the middle of the lane?

I am not for a bicycle tax. But, if a particular city/town wants to install a bike/pedestrian path, like Brunswick, Portland, or Augusta, then I also do not think the tax payers should fit the bill, unless the town/city collectively voted for it. If this means an alternate means of revenue generation for the upkeep or a particular path, then I'll either pay it or avoid it, whichever I deem necessary. I often pay-to-play at Kingdom Trails in Vermont and don't have a problem with it, but those mountain bike trails are often better than our paved roads.

But to add a tax, or a license, just because you can, doesn't sit well with me. If that is the case, then I argue cyclists, walkers, and runners are helping more than they are hurting because they aren't sitting in front of the television watching Oprah eating bon-bons waiting for the heart attack to happen. So if people are looking for a meaningless tax, there is a good place to start.

Egads, i think you've hit on something here, perhaps a tax on walking shoes, running sneakers? How come only bicycles, what about Unicycles? should a portion of the dog license be taken for the dog walkers? Skateboarders beware! No skip that one yuppy parents would complain about that tax...its still a atx, and we do not need more taxes!

As I recall, there was serious discussion from some D legislators to put a sales tax surcharge on binoculars and hiking boots a couple years back. Because (according to them), even birders and hikers should "pay their fair share" toward maintaining Maine's forests and parks.

Most bike riders on the open road are adults, most of whom own vehicles, and already pay their excise and gas taxes. I don't see a surcharge as any kind of good idea.

If the 3 foot distance is causing the issue, then repeal it.

Sportsmen have paid a Pittman-Robertson tax on their equipment for generations. Sportsmen pay for conservation and rifle ranges. We pay a gas tax for our roads and snowmobile trails. User taxes are a good thing, but the only way you'll get a user tax on bicycles is to adopt a registration fee because as has been written above, the bicycle sales tax will just send buyers to NH - again.

Don't give them any more money of yours to blow. By the way, I wonder how many bike lanes could have been built with the proceeds of giftcardgate?

SPANDEX TAX!!!!!!!!!!!
We could built a three lane highway from Calais to Bangor and westerly to Canadian Border!

By golly Bruce, it could stretch that far.

Nerk, nerk.

Myself, I think a surcharge for every water bottle, gel seat, and headlamp is preferable, too.

After all, those will eventually have to be recycled, and Maine should be active AND "Green Pro-Active!"

While taxes are bad, i almost prefer use-based taxes to broad based. If you want bike lanes (which I abhor) you should pay for them yourselves.

If we paid for more services as we use them, theoretically the broadbased taxes would go down, and we'd be paying for others less.

I was going to hammer Sarty for being a Republican who proposes a NEW tax, but in reflection, this would actually not be a bad use of a "use tax". I would make it apply only to bikes oveer $200 or so, though.

Oh --- now it's a tax on elitist bikes... we get it.
lol

Noooo, Naran lol............I assume that most of the lanes would be built outside of residential streets. Most small kids use cheaper bikes and aren't out on the "road" using bike lanes, in my experience.

The Fallacy of the left/right paradigm.