Nope, Lime Bike and Veo are still there.Seattle had a system for it a decade ago, but I think that system shut down. Lack of helmet is biggest reason I never do bike or scooter shares. Generally I'm walking when I would use them, so it's not really a loss for me.
Being required or not really doesn't matter when it comes to rent. A renter is not paying for the construction of the house. The renter is not having the house constructed nor are they buying the house. That is all the owner. The renter is paying for the use of the house, for a set amount of time The landlord isn't adding a fee because it has a bathroom. In the aspect of goods and services, rental of an item, in this case is a house, is a service, as you are paying for the use of the house for specific time, and do not gain ownership.So you're saying that if something is a legal requirement such that it becomes standard, then it has no effect on rents? So if they suddenly pass a law that says every residential dwelling must have a burglar alarm, and every owner has to install it, then none of them will increase rent to compensate for the cost because the burglar alarm is now standard just like the bathroom?
So.. you went from saying that landords charge a fee for a bathroom and it's baked in.. which is false. So you move to try and argue about the construction costs impling that the renter is paying for the cost of the construction, as if they are having the house built, which is also false.. To now, trying to argue and argue about functionality of a bathroom.. When are you going to stop? See above.Does the presence of a functional bathroom raise the market price of a housing asset, lower the market price of a housing asset, or have no effect on the market price of a housing asset?
You are confusing "type" of bathroom, Communal or private, with having just having a usable bathroom for a tenant. the price isn't based on having a bathroom in your example, it's based on the type of bathroom in your example. They are also not paying for the construction of that bathroom be it private or communial, they are paying for the use of the residence that so happens to have a communial bathroom.Isn't there some law of the internet where the first guy to respond with a wall of text automatically loses the argument?
RE: Bathrooms - I have to imagine a unit with a bathroom built in would command a higher price than a unit with a communal bathroom.
Yes, they can help with specific types of head collisions. However, I maintain that the biggest danger to people riding on bicycles in most areas is mixed traffic and collisions with objects much more massive, where a helmet will do about nothing, and plenty of real world evidence shows that helmet mandates drive down cycling, something that we want to avoid if we want to encourage mode-shifting away from automobiles.true, but it can help when you hit your head. It is far better to not mix traffic.
I really have no idea what you're even trying to argue anymore. I am saying now the same thing I have always been saying, the costs of constructing a bathroom are baked into the purchase price/rent and this is undeniably true.Being required or not really doesn't matter when it comes to rent. A renter is not paying for the construction of the house. The renter is not having the house constructed nor are they buying the house. That is all the owner. The renter is paying for the use of the house, for a set amount of time The landlord isn't adding a fee because it has a bathroom. In the aspect of goods and services, rental of an item, in this case is a house, is a service, as you are paying for the use of the house for specific time, and do not gain ownership.
Your alarm scenero would be catogarized as business expense.
So.. you went from saying that landords charge a fee for a bathroom and it's baked in.. which is false. So you move to try and argue about the construction costs impling that the renter is paying for the cost of the construction, as if they are having the house built, which is also false.. To now, trying to argue and argue about functionality of a bathroom.. When are you going to stop? See above.
You are confusing "type" of bathroom, Communal or private, with having just having a usable bathroom for a tenant. the price isn't based on having a bathroom in your example, it's based on the type of bathroom in your example. They are also not paying for the construction of that bathroom be it private or communial, they are paying for the use of the residence that so happens to have a communial bathroom.
From what I can tell @NWRMidnight is saying that once the residence is purchased and paid for the renter is only paying for the use of the property and therefore he believes you can’t say the renter is paying “for” the bathroom.I really have no idea what you're even trying to argue anymore. I am saying now the same thing I have always been saying, the costs of constructing a bathroom are baked into the purchase price/rent and this is undeniably true.
Yes, they can help with specific types of head collisions. However, I maintain that the biggest danger to people riding on bicycles in most areas is mixed traffic and collisions with objects much more massive, where a helmet will do about nothing, and plenty of real world evidence shows that helmet mandates drive down cycling, something that we want to avoid if we want to encourage mode-shifting away from automobiles.
I mean, you ended up here like the rest of us, so probably.The amount of head trauma I sustained in my youth was mostly preventable with a helmet. But we didn’t have them, and jumped our bikes anyways. But sometimes I wonder if some of the falls caused lasting damage to the ole noggin
Being required or not really doesn't matter when it comes to rent. A renter is not paying for the construction of the house. The renter is not having the house constructed nor are they buying the house. That is all the owner. The renter is paying for the use of the house, for a set amount of time The landlord isn't adding a fee because it has a bathroom. In the aspect of goods and services, rental of an item, in this case is a house, is a service, as you are paying for the use of the house for specific time, and do not gain ownership.
Your alarm scenero would be catogarized as business expense.
What? LolCompulsory helmet laws are generally _intended_ to destroy bike use. That's the whole point of them. There's no other logical purpose for them.
Most states require motor cyclist to wear helmets and eye protection. The entire US requires cars to pass safety tests that nullifies the need to wear a helmet or eye protection in the car.I mean, why don't they pass laws compelling drivers to wear driving helmets? And maybe full fire-proof suits? If they want to 'prevent death'. Or just ban cars entirely from urban roads? All those measures would be a lot more effective at 'preventing death' than mandating bicycle helmets (which do nothing if you are hit by a car). All compulsory helmet laws do is reduce the number of people who cycle, thus increasing pollution, road-traffic-deaths and cardiovascular disease. The purpose of those laws is very clear - it's quite obviously to get cyclists off the road and out of the way of motorists.
Seriously, I have personally been hit by a car on bike (doing 50 mph, and my fault) and have had multiple accidents with no car involved. I didn't need a helmet when hit by a car (very luckily), but I have needed it in single bike accidents.They do. They have to - it's a selection-effect. The same pressure does not apply to motorists, because their 'do not kill other people' skills are not subject to the same sort of self-reinforcing pressures.
There's an inherent diifference in 'tendency to kill other people'. Motorists are far better at that than are cyclists (or pedestrians). Why would you put all the burden on the potential victims and let the perpetrators off the hook?
There's an inherent difference in survivability comparing the person firing the gun and the person being shot at - does that mean the solution is to mandate bullet-proof vests rather than to control those who do the shooting?
No, I want drivers TO LOOK WHERE THEY ARE GOING. And DRIVE AT A REASONABLE SPEED. Also what's the point in wearing 'lights and reflective clothing' when motorists still run you over and then the police argue that the lights and reflective clothing 'blended in with all the other lights in the street' (as happened in one recent case).
I've had too many run-ins with drivers who don't look where they are going, or drive vehicles with terrible sight-lines to think that driving such vehicles in urban areas is a good idea.
It's not up to me to 'be seen' - it's up to drivers to look. Far too many of them don't bother.
I understand how business works, and how costs are passed onto the customer, how different things effect price, but that wasn't and isn't the argument.. When FskiMospy said that people should pay extra for parking, I said that would be the same for charging extra for a bathroom or a kitchen. (I dont' view parking as an Amenity, it's a neccessity, in my opinion, But that is a different dicussion.) His response to was that Landlords do add a fee for bathrooms and kitchens, it's baked in. That is fundimentaly false in the context of what I said. But Rather than admit that he wrong in the context of the original discussion, he has changed the context to mean something completely different, using construction costs etc. and passed down costs. Which is something entirely different, which has brought you and others into the discussion defending his position because he changed the context of the entire argument.Everything that adds to the sale value of the house adds to the rental value of the house. Houses that sell for more, rent for more.
see my post above to woolfe998. Fskimospy has changed the context to something completely different than what was originally said. context matters.. and Fskimospy purposely changed that context. Which he often does when people don't agree.From what I can tell @NWRMidnight is saying that once the residence is purchased and paid for the renter is only paying for the use of the property and therefore he believes you can’t say the renter is paying “for” the bathroom.
I don’t agree with this particular view but I be interested in hearing how NWRMidnight feels the cost of the rent would be set as his argument (at least to me) seems to preclude using the actual property/facilities in determining said rent.
I mean the original system that (I think) was ran by the city. They had helmet dispensers and dirty returns. I am pretty sure that system was shut down and now they have the standard rentals like Lime.Nope, Lime Bike and Veo are still there.
Plenty of studies show helmets save lives and reduce injuries.Yes, they can help with specific types of head collisions. However, I maintain that the biggest danger to people riding on bicycles in most areas is mixed traffic and collisions with objects much more massive, where a helmet will do about nothing, and plenty of real world evidence shows that helmet mandates drive down cycling, something that we want to avoid if we want to encourage mode-shifting away from automobiles.
Yeah, anything you get with the base price of something is "baked in" to that cost. If your rental house comes with free lawn care it is baked in to the price. If your rental house doesn't and you have to pay extra for that, it is an extra fee.From what I can tell @NWRMidnight is saying that once the residence is purchased and paid for the renter is only paying for the use of the property and therefore he believes you can’t say the renter is paying “for” the bathroom.
I don’t agree with this particular view but I be interested in hearing how NWRMidnight feels the cost of the rent would be set as his argument (at least to me) seems to preclude using the actual property/facilities in determining said rent.
Please just stop.I understand how business works, and how costs are passed onto the customer, how different things effect price, but that wasn't and isn't the argument.. When FskiMospy said that people should pay extra for parking, I said that would be the same for charging extra for a bathroom or a kitchen. (I dont' view parking as an Amenity, it's a neccessity, in my opinion, But that is a different dicussion.) His response to was that Landlords do add a fee for bathrooms and kitchens, it's baked in. That is fundimentaly false in the context of what I said. But Rather than admit that he wrong in the context of the original discussion, he has changed the context to mean something completely different, using construction costs etc. and passed down costs. Which is something entirely different, which has brought you and others into the discussion defending his position because he changed the context of the entire argument.
And plenty of real world examples where compulsory helmet laws crippled bicycle mode share. Great, you save a few people's lives on bikes because now they have to wear helmets, but now many people abandon bikes because they don't want to carry a helmet to use bike shares, or mess up their hair, or whatever, so they instead turn to motor vehicles...Plenty of studies show helmets save lives and reduce injuries.
Bicycle injuries and helmet use: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract. Background: The research literature was systematically reviewed and results were summarized from studies assessing bicycle helmet effectiveness tacademic.oup.com
What? Lol
Are compulsory seat belt laws intended to destroy car use? If you are riding your own bike wearing a helmet is zero extra effort and can save your life. How is their no other purpose for helmet laws?
It is FUCKING INSANE that I am reading about people arguing against helmets or helmet laws.
Please man up! I'm not the one who changed the context of the argument to something different. That's all on you.Please just stop.
Yep. This was a thread about record Black Friday spending that has now morphed into two distinct subjects. NIMBY housing and bicycle helmets.It is FUCKING INSANE that I am reading about people arguing against helmets or helmet laws.
No. It isn't at all.
-Y'all need to educate yourselves on head injuries, the incidence thereof, deaths resulting from, and the traumatic life changes brought about by hitting your head after a fall from a bike.
It really doesnt take much for your life to change in a flash.
I live suburban but bike around to local corner stores and in open spaces on the regular and I always take my helmet with me. Never been a major issue, just clip the helmet to the bike
If motorcyclists can haul their big ass helmets around, bicyclists can too.
Far bigger impediment to any helmet requirements is feeling like I'm taking my life into a bunch of incompetent driver's hands every time I try and go anywhere and someone zips by 3 feet away at 40mph.