"Cyclists Do Not Emit More Carbon Than Cars, State Legislator Admits"

Unbelievable, this guy opposes raising the gas tax that has been effectively dropping for decades, then accuses cyclists of polluting by BREATHING? Suppose we lock him in a closed garage for a while with a guy riding a stationary bike, then with his own running monster SUV. Call it a scientific experiment.

Well said Jane...

he still insists that cyclists pay partly because they can use the roads and that roads wear out and need upkeep.

Except the wear on a road depends on the fourth power of the axle weight of the vehicle using it.

1Ton for a large family car
35kg for a pushbike.

Let's see. 35/1000^4. 1.5 x10^-6.

Times, lets say, $500 a year road tax, makes 0.075c a year.

Cost of collecting it: $50.

You know, I didn't know he wanted to increase government size and spending.

I wouldn't actually mind paying a road tax (as a cyclist) as long as that money is put to use for cyclists----e.g. like protected bike lanes, or wider paved shoulders on some of those no-shoulder 2-lane country highways.

Here in the UK the roads are paid out of local taxation, only motorways are paid for out of some general budget which the VED is part of.

And it doesn't pay enough to cover the cost of motorway building. Never mind the accidents, crimes and so on.

I believe it's the same in the USA: most urban roads are paid out of the state or city taxation, not "road tax".

So, unless you're skipping paying your state and city taxes, you're paying for those roads.

Climate meeting AGW tourists, eg to Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban, Doha, etc. etc. etc. etc. should not be allowed to use CO2 producing airplanes to get to their vacation meeting targets at the costs of decent taxpayers.

I advocate a law in the UK which enforces that all green-lefties use bicycles instead of CO2 producing cars

"Climate meeting AGW tourists"

You mean like the NIPCC who keep trying to pretend they are as auspicious and official by holding meetings in the building next door, right?

"all green-lefties"

So is it that you're a rightwingnut and thing that ANYTHING pro-ecology must be leftist therefore BY DEFINITION (in your insanity) wrong?

Or is it that "green-righties" can continue to use cars because rightwingnuts like you have no problem with the hypocrisy of the right?

Or is it that lefties who aren't green can still use cars?

wow, wrong again, your speculation on my position is bullshit, you may know it yourself. If you would carefully analyse what I have tried to explain to you, you should have realised that I am strictly objective, and not partisan like you or peace green.

No, no speculation. It's a simple and direct evidenced conclusion.

You're a rightwingnut.

wow "You’re a rightwingbut": BS

somebody said here: "Or is it that lefties who aren’t green can still use cars?"

That's correct. However green mental state persons should use bicycles or walk instead of burning fossil fuels

Why?

No, you're talking BS. Rightwingnut that you are.

Wow, is it true that you are a psychologist and not an expert in meteorology?

When it's true that you are a psychologist, are you an experimental psychologist or a psychotherapist or something else?

freddy, what requires me to be an expert in meteorology?

Nothing about your assertion that you like to force ban who are pro-environment from cars requires anything about meteorology.

Wow, so you do not want to answer my question whether you are a psychologist? THIS was my question to you, NOTHING ELSE!

Freddy, many questions you've demanded have been answered.

You've either

a) ignored them
b) demanded an explanation of that answer
c) segued into something completely different

then you have the gall to complain that some more bullshit questions aren't answered????

Nothing about your assertion that you like to force ban who are pro-environment from cars requires anything about meteorology.

Therefore your question is completely irrelevant and does not warrant nor need answering.