Yes, the US govt subsidise the oil cpinaomes to a significant extent, although some of your states then tax fuel to add some complexity. This is very unusual, in virtually every other country the oil cpinaomes pay tax into the system instead of being paid by it. The particularly odd thing is that in Europe we have a substantial problem with US taxpayer subsidised bio ethanol being dumped on our market. We don't want this bio ethanol as it is a major contributor to world food shortages and deforestation. I am quite convinced that I would not want my tax money spent to subsidise US fuel so I assume most Americans don't know about this one

Why should every cyislct paid say a3150/yr for each bike they own? Did you read what it written above? Roads are paid for out of general taxation, we all pay for the roads, irrespectively of whether we use a motor vehicle or not. In the city in which I live, over 50% of households do not have a car and yet they all pay for the roads. If you drive, you are being subsidised by those who do not. Most of the population live in urban areas, most journeys are under 5 miles, there is no real need for most people to have a car to make most journeys. Yes it is perfectly possible to shop by bike and take kids to school. When I was a child, most children over the age of seven make their own way to school, in the Netherlands 90% children still do. The only reason why children in this country aren't able to make their way to school is because of the action of a minority of selfish adults who insist on behaving is a way which make the roads dangerous for children. Why wouldn't you ride a bicycle to get home from a club or the pub? These are instance where you really shouldn't be driving. As for visiting distant relatives, there are things called buses and trains.Those who use the road by motorised means tend to think that they have some greater right to use the roads. You show signs of the classic illusion that you have no responsibility for the external cost generated by you activity, but of course the polluter should pay. As for the economic benefit of private motoring, well as has been shown above, there is one, private motoring is a drag on the economy. You comment that consumption of energy, goods and services contribute to global warming, yes, but that is not a reason to not reduce the contribute from road transport. For what it is worth, I have had a clean driving licence (which I have held for over half my life) and I am a former driving instructor. I am not suggesting that there is no place for private motoring, just that those who do so should pay the full cost of the damage they do and take full responsibility for their actions. The simple truth is motorised road transport is subsidised, and it is time that those who insist on using it paid a fairer share of the costs.

From reading your diatribe against paying for roads in your area I am going to assume that a) You grow all your own produce and make all your own clothes at home out of wool/cotton from your own sheep/cotton plantation spun on your own spinning machine etc... Also I assume that you police your neighborhood on foot, provide your own ambulance service (on bicycle perhaps?) an run your own fire department. Why do I suggest all this? Because roads are needed for the truck to come into your city to provide your local stores with all the necessities that you need to live on/with. Emergency service need roads to save your cheap ass from being robbed, take you to hospital when you have a heart attack or put out the flames when your house is on fire. So unless you actually meet all the conditions (plus a bunch more that I don't have the time/energy to type) you should shut up or move to a place where they don't have any roads for you to bitch about.