Neat article. Can you link me to one about the tens of thousands of mountain bikers in Washington that were not chased by cougars?
All outdoor activities in nature carry risk, some more than others. By far the most dangerous thing for cyclists is motorists, not wildlife. If you can safely navigate the roads to get to a park, your other risks are minimal in comparison.
I can’t get over your sense of entitlement on this. You think everyone is healthy enough to ride a bike and be excluded from the amazing views and experiences of national and state parks because they’re poor and drive a car? You are in a bubble. I’m glad you like bikes and feel that sense of superiority when you don’t have to pay parking. The point is, the commons have to be paid for.
Do you understand how far everything is in the US and how much there is a lack of public transportation? Again, you are acting entitled because you have an amazing infrastructure that we don’t have.
The US, Washington State specifically, is incredibly gorgeous but these amazing parks are 4 hours away from Seattle by car sometimes. It would probably take you days to get within 2 hours distance with public transportation.
The “amazing infrastructure” I used to get to the shops included an unpaved road and muddy track along with having to carry my bike over a fence depending on the route I took. But there was a short section of road that didn’t have that many holes in it once I got to the middle of town.
Ha, sense of entitlement eh? That’s a quick pivot away from your weak point about “bikes are dangerous because of rare mountain lion attacks” i guess. Now trying to call me abelist and classist as a random jab? Sure thing, pal.
The common is the commons and has to be paid for. Without funding the commons falls to “the tragedy of the commons,” where the common good is destroyed by overuse and neglect. Washington has opted to protect the parks with a minimal, once a year fee to the people doing the most damage to the commons, drivers, that you are complaining about.
So you think the people using a common good and doing the most damage to it should not pay for that use? Why should the poor people without cars, the people who aren’t able to bike or drive, pay for your visit?
So you think the people using a common good and doing the most damage to it should not pay for that use? Why should the poor people without cars, the people who aren’t able to bike or drive, pay for your visit?
Because that’s what our taxes are for. That’s what we’re paying for, the commons. Drivers licenses, car registrations, etc., yeah sure, I can see why we pay for that.
I’d also prefer this to be rolled into an income tax, but Washington doesn’t have one. The state only has a regressive sales taxes, one that has an outsized impact on our poorest citizens.
By making this a “fee for use,” it at least minimizes the damage to the poor who can’t access the parks at all.
Hawaii’s parks are visited way more by tourists than Washingtons parks. You would have to make the tourist pass something ridiculous to cover the shortfall, which would price out tourists, meaning no income for the park, meaning parks destroyed by Washingtonians.
$35/yr is a reasonable resident cost. $11/day is a reasonable tourist cost. Seems like Washington has made reasonable choices for this that reflect the states needs.
Neat article. Can you link me to one about the tens of thousands of mountain bikers in Washington that were not chased by cougars?
All outdoor activities in nature carry risk, some more than others. By far the most dangerous thing for cyclists is motorists, not wildlife. If you can safely navigate the roads to get to a park, your other risks are minimal in comparison.
I can’t get over your sense of entitlement on this. You think everyone is healthy enough to ride a bike and be excluded from the amazing views and experiences of national and state parks because they’re poor and drive a car? You are in a bubble. I’m glad you like bikes and feel that sense of superiority when you don’t have to pay parking. The point is, the commons have to be paid for.
TIL I am entitled for being too poor to ever learn to drive.
Fortunately I live in the UK so it is pretty easy. Grew up in a small town, easy to get anywhere in under 15 mins by bike.
Do you understand how far everything is in the US and how much there is a lack of public transportation? Again, you are acting entitled because you have an amazing infrastructure that we don’t have.
The US, Washington State specifically, is incredibly gorgeous but these amazing parks are 4 hours away from Seattle by car sometimes. It would probably take you days to get within 2 hours distance with public transportation.
The “amazing infrastructure” I used to get to the shops included an unpaved road and muddy track along with having to carry my bike over a fence depending on the route I took. But there was a short section of road that didn’t have that many holes in it once I got to the middle of town.
Ha, sense of entitlement eh? That’s a quick pivot away from your weak point about “bikes are dangerous because of rare mountain lion attacks” i guess. Now trying to call me abelist and classist as a random jab? Sure thing, pal.
The common is the commons and has to be paid for. Without funding the commons falls to “the tragedy of the commons,” where the common good is destroyed by overuse and neglect. Washington has opted to protect the parks with a minimal, once a year fee to the people doing the most damage to the commons, drivers, that you are complaining about.
So you think the people using a common good and doing the most damage to it should not pay for that use? Why should the poor people without cars, the people who aren’t able to bike or drive, pay for your visit?
Because that’s what our taxes are for. That’s what we’re paying for, the commons. Drivers licenses, car registrations, etc., yeah sure, I can see why we pay for that.
I’d also prefer this to be rolled into an income tax, but Washington doesn’t have one. The state only has a regressive sales taxes, one that has an outsized impact on our poorest citizens.
By making this a “fee for use,” it at least minimizes the damage to the poor who can’t access the parks at all.
IMO, they should have made out of state people pay more and Washington State residents pay nothing, like they do in Hawaii.
Tourists have to buy day passes or a discovery pass in Washington. Day passes are $11.50/day. They are already in general being charged way more than people that go to the parks year round with the $35 annual pass. This is comparable, but actually higher, than what hawaii charges tourists.
Hawaii’s parks are visited way more by tourists than Washingtons parks. You would have to make the tourist pass something ridiculous to cover the shortfall, which would price out tourists, meaning no income for the park, meaning parks destroyed by Washingtonians.
$35/yr is a reasonable resident cost. $11/day is a reasonable tourist cost. Seems like Washington has made reasonable choices for this that reflect the states needs.
I guess we’re going to disagree. We were poor when this law was implemented. It was pretty hard on us.
Edit, btw, this is what we pay too, lol.
… You are the one who jumped from:
Cougar attacks are a legitimate concern for hikers and bikers.
(which is absolutely a true statement)
to…:
Oh yeah? 10,000 bicyclists get attacked by Cougars each year in National Parks?
SOURCE PLEASE!
…
Bro you astonishingly hyperbolized and strawmanned pele and then got mad about shit you made up in your head that they didn’t say.
This is the most twitter brained ‘discussion style’ I’ve seen on lemmy in a while.
Good job pointing out @pelespirit@sh.itjust.works’s disingenuous argumentation!