Australia

You are not entitled to impose the costs of your bycicle on the rest of society.

Bikes are a net benefit to society, even when you ridiculously inflate the costs of cycling by including things that are really caused by cars such (as the safety risk) as costs of cycling.

the article is complete bollocks ur taxes that go to roads isnt for the impact u have on it its for the goods and services that travel those roads that u consume

It's both? Road maintenance is mostly paid for by council, which means its money comes from your rates bill (or your landlord's rates bill, and this indirectly out of your rent). The rest is paid for out of state government revenue, such as GST. Every vehicle that uses a road does damage to it. That damage increase with the fourth power of weight (specifically, axle weight), so a car does about 10,000 times the damage of a bike (2000 kg over 2 axles, compared to 100 kg for bike + rider over 1 "axle"). There's so much variety in trucks that it's difficult to pin down one number for them, but yes, they do a lot more than cars.

However, the thing is…the damage done by trucks is caused indirectly by both car users and cyclists, because both drivers and cyclists…buy things. So it's a neutral factor in this conversation. Not relevant.

Too bad. You are not entitled to impose the costs of your bycicle on the rest of society.

Those costs are negative. You think you're clever trying to throw my argument back at me, but me riding a bike HELPS society instead of hurting it!

Being butthurt does not entitle you to blatantly make up shit and reject objective reality.

Here's an article about a study conducted in Sweden and Australia.

If only societal cost/benefits were considered, one kilometre by car cost €0.15 (AU$0.21), whereas society earned €0.16 (AU$0.22) for every kilometre cycled.

Those numbers appear very close, so to clear up any doubt: the car CBA was a net cost while cycling had a net benefit.

And even this is actually being very friendly to cars and unfriendly to cycling. Because even though most crashes between bikes and cars are caused by the car, the study counts this as a cost of cycling in its cost-benefit analysis. It also counts time as the biggest cost to cycling, which is fair in the abstract, but may miss two key details: (1) cycling for transport may reduce the time one needs to spend with dedicated exercise to keep healthy, so a 30 minute ride might only actually cost you 15 minutes, as an example. And (2) studies have noted that cyclists often take extra lengthy circuitous routes in order to stay safe and avoid cars—time would be lower if we had better biking infrastructure or if cars were used in a less unsafe manner.