[andyt]

Brenda Brenda:

Insurance should be mandatory too.

Yep. None of that is going to happen tho, as they debate getting rid of helmet laws to get more people to ride their bikes.

[bootlegga]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Besides, like sin taxes on booze and cigarettes, it's a user fee - if you don't use it, you don't pay it. If you don't want to pay it, don't use it.

That's fine until it applies to things that are important to you. Maybe I don't want to support a new local hockey rink with my tax dollars, or a new major league stadium. You should pay the full unsubsidized cost whenever you use it.

Just one example.

I understand that sentiment, but in the case of your example, a lot of stadiums nowadays (like Edmonton's proposed downtown arena) are paid for in whole or in part by ticket taxes - that is to say, user fees. I hardly ever go to hockey games here in Edmonton, and never go to concerts, but I still think it's a good investment for our city.

IMHO, a new arena stadium is a civic service, and not really different than the 'subsidies' that large cities give to road construction, bus/rail transportation networks, housing infrastructure like sewer/water/power lines, etc.

Ideally, they would be paid off with ticket taxes, but sometimes a city needs to pay upfront and recoup those costs later to provide that service.

[andyt]

Stadiums have shown themselves to be white elephants. They neve seem to recoup their costs for the cities that put up money for them. Not sure why you want to subsidize the owners of sports teams, and consider hockey to be as essential as roads and transit. Might as well subsidize all entertainment in that case.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

Stadiums have shown themselves to be white elephants. They neve seem to recoup their costs for the cities that put up money for them. Not sure why you want to subsidize the owners of sports teams, and consider hockey to be as essential as roads and transit. Might as well subsidize all entertainment in that case.

Well, I don't know about about Vancouver, but Edmonton has built a number of other entertainment venues around town - from the Citadel Theatre to the Art Gallery to the Winspear Centre.

As I said, I don't personally have much need for a fancy new arena, but I can understand the rationale behind it - I have no doubt that lots of Winnipeggers(?) felt like their city suddenly became second class after they lost the Jets in '96, and I have no doubt that many in Edmonton would feel the same way if the Oilers left.

Even if the Oilers weren't the ones pushing for a new arena, Rexall Place is approaching 40 years in use and probably needs replacing anyways, even if only for concerts and special events like the CFR, Circus, etc.

[Brenda]

andyt andyt:

Brenda Brenda:

Insurance should be mandatory too.

Yep. None of that is going to happen tho, as they debate getting rid of helmet laws to get more people to ride their bikes.

I take it that any accident/incident you cause while on your bike is (or could be) covered by your house/property insurance?

[andyt]

Vancouver built the Rogers arena for hockey with private money only. Of course right next door they've got the white elephant BC Place, that just got a new $1/2 billion roof put on it - total waste of money. But it shows it can be done that private money actually pays for sports venues, and that's how it should be. Seems most of the concerts in Vancouver also happen at Rogers (formerly GM place, or the garage) because BC Place is just too big. The also do Soccer and Football there, neither of which gets the crowds that hockey does, AFAIK. Total waste.

[Lemmy]

SprCForr SprCForr:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Let's get this straight, a two-four IS a case.

Unless you're in the West where it's 12. Damn easterners.

When I was a grad student at Western, there was a guy in my program from U of Calgary. One day early in the semester when we were just getting to know one another, he said "Why don't you guys come over to my place tonight? We can grab a case of beer and watch the game. So off we went. We stopped at the beer store and he got out and went in. A couple of minutes later he came out with a 12-pack. "What the hell is that?" we echoed, "I thought you were going to get a case." That was the day I learned what lame-ass drinkers westerners are.

[SprCForr]

Nah, you lame assed easterners thought he was going to share. Why weren't you getting your OWN case?

I thought so, tight asses.

[bootlegga]

SprCForr SprCForr:

Nah, you lame assed easterners thought he was going to share. Why weren't you getting your OWN case?

I thought so, tight asses.

Probably expecting the "blue-eyed sheik" to pick up the tab! Fucking cheapo eastern bastards...

[pineywoodslim]

raydan raydan:

Unsound Unsound:

The vast majority of your average Canadians knowledge of the US comes about due to our being saturated with american media and popular culture.

Jersey Shore, Honey Boo-Boo and Dr. Phil.

Hey, what's this I hear about the upcoming series, "The Real Housewives of Winnipeg"?

[Caelon]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Maybe we should place a tax on bicycles that use the road. Or a licence. I'm thinking a minimum $1000/yr for all bicycles that use paved roads!

andyt andyt:

I don't think you'll get much support from cities that are trying to encourage bicycle use to reduce congestion. But, if that $1000 is proportional to the true cost of what a car on the road costs, I'm all for it. My guess, everything considered, that car tax would be at least $10,000/year, more for pickups and SUVs.

$1:

Wouldn't be that much, we're already paying the fuel taxes which partially go to road maintenance.

andyt andyt:

I have absolutely no problem going for user pay system for cars and bikes. For cars for sure, I would hope it would be proportional to road use. I think you would be surprised what you would have to pay vs if I only rode my bike. Unfortunately I also use my car. Maybe people with cars would get a free bike license, since they can't use both at the same time.

I decided to quote this post as it covers several of the points raised previously. What most people do not realize is the fuel tax you pay at the pumps is more than sufficient to support the road infrastructure. The Catch 22 is most governments use it as a cash cow to add to general revenue instead of for roads and the other infrastructure to support vehicles. For example the federal government under Martin and Chretien collected $5 billion annually in fuel tax and spent between $100 and $200 million per year on infrastructure. The provincial budgets have been better, but you can find a number of provinces that invest less than 50% of what they collect. It falls back on the reluctance of governments to earmark tax funds to go back to the source of the revenue. It is much nicer to put a tax into general revenue so they are free to spend funds on the pet project of the day than to be restricted into spending it on a specific item.

I have a peeve against bicycle riders that fail to adhere to the rules or to ride with common sense. I am sure they are the minority it just seems that they are the majority of what I experience. So for bicycles a tax on road use (pays for bike paths, etc), testing, licensing, insurance and strong enforcement strikes one of those chords. I think it is the 'Hell Yes' one.

[bootlegga]

Caelon Caelon:

I have a peeve against bicycle riders that fail to adhere to the rules or to ride with common sense. I am sure they are the minority it just seems that they are the majority of what I experience. So for bicycles a tax on road use (pays for bike paths, etc), testing, licensing, insurance and strong enforcement strikes one of those chords. I think it is the 'Hell Yes' one.

I tend to agree.

If I had to guess, I'd wager that a third to half of the riders here in Edmonton do whatever they want, whenever they want. They blow through stop signs, lane split, ride up the shoulder/gutter, and engage in all sorts of other dangerous behaviour, which pisses me off to no end. I've even had riders give me the finger after not stopping for them so they can cross in front of me.

Hello, if you're riding, you're considered a vehicle and bound to the rules of right-of-way and I'm not obligated to stop for you anymore than I am another motor vehicle. If you want me to stop, which I'm more than willing to, get off your lazy ass and walk it across.

It probably irks me more than most because when I ride - and I ride a lot - I meticulously follow the rules of the road.

But I would have no problem supporting bike licenses for people - at the very least, it would create some accountability for the bad apples out there.

[andyt]

Probably won't happen, but in theory I support it. In reality I think licensing bikes will do as much as licensing cars to prevent breaking of traffic laws. Most drivers who bitch about bikes have a hard time looking in the mirror. If you drove your car today, did you meticulously adhere to the speed limit?

[bootlegga]

Yep - in fact I was 5-10 kmh under the limit for most of the drive because it snowed last night. Even when the roads are fine, I generally don't speed, cut people off or do anything else 'dickish' on the road.

I freely admit I did all those things as a youngster, but as I've grown, I realized that getting to work a minute or two later isn't worth the possible accidents/fines that come with terrible driving behaviour.

Now, I'm more concerned with getting my family from point A to point B safely. Everything else comes a distant second.

Like I said, if riders had the threat of fines/suspensions like drivers do, some of the bad apples might behave. If not, well, eventually everyone gets caught.

[andyt]

and yet the bad driving continues, and it's the drivers that cause the carnage. Licensing riders is something serious riders discuss and are all for, since we too hope it will get rid of some of the idiots. It doesn't mesh with the policy of encouraging bike riding tho. And, many of the bad riders in Vancouver are homeless/street people who don't care about any fine or license suspension. The police do a bad enough job patrolling driver infractions except speeding on nice sunny days if traffic is not too heavy - they're all over that. I doubt they'd be thrilled to be pushed to enforce bike riding more vigorously. The do it during bike month, enforce silly rules, then forget about it the other 11 months.

If it makes Cealon good that those bastard cyclists are now licensed, well maybe it will have accomplished something. But he'll probably still see a lot of riders behaving badly, and if he looks around he'll see the same for his fellow drivers.