Saturday, July 6, 2013
Why Bicyclists Shoud Treat Stop Signs as Yield Signs
Such issues are never black and white and there are decent arguments both ways. Currently I fall into the camp of treating stop signs as yield signs while on a bike. However, if I ever get ticketed for this behavior I won't hesitate to change, and those around me will suffer. The convincing argument for bikers to treat stop signs as yields is simple politeness towards other drivers. If I stop at every stop sign the amount of additional time it takes for me to cross those intersections will lead to increased congestion and annoyance of other drivers whom I will unnecessarily slow down. The same argument suggests that there shouldn't be any stop signs (or at least no 4-way stops), however it's especially potent for bicycles due to their relatively low rate of acceleration vs automobiles.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
YBCA
Recently a new exhibit opened at the YBCA (Yerba Buena Center for the Arts) called 'The Matter Within', subtitled 'New Contemporary Art of India'. It's open for three more months. What I liked about the exhibition was the thoughts evoked by the pieces and that there was so much to see, hear, and watch with works from 20 or so artists. I'll just go over a few highlights that stuck, including an incredible collection of photographs by Dhruv Malhotra that reveal normal people asleep outdoors in an Indian city. The photography successfully combines creative uses of light with long exposures. I especially liked the sleeping man on a comfy-looking bed with make-shift adorning screen. There were impressive sculptures and installations, one incorporating an ancient turtle shell, another resembling a dinosaur yet another of bottles painted with expressive faces, all composed of elements taken from highly traded and mass-produced items. The focus on buying and collecting things reminded me of Paul Graham's essay stuff and echoed a message that questions owning and consuming an abundance of physical goods. Finally, there were some great films including clips of a famous Indian dancer blessed with graceful and majestic hand movements.
Two Recent Movies
I recommend both of them.
The first is The Big Year. It's about birding. As my parents are both avid birders and the movie had two of my favorite comedians, Steve Martin and Jack Black, I was drawn to it. I don't want to give any spoilers, but I'll say that upon first watch I felt it was somewhat contrived and sentimental. However, a few days later, after some reflection and discussion with friends, I don't feel that way anymore. The movie speaks to messy and complex issues involving communication, relationships, sacrifices, and living passionately. In the end I was most impressed by the performance of Owen Wilson.
The second movie was Moneyball, which dealt with the use of statistics in the management of major league baseball teams. Since my Ph.D. dissertation and work involves statistical reasoning, this subject is something I can totally appreciate and nerd-out on, although thankfully the movie doesn't go into technical details. I watched it after a tough day as a guilty indulgence. With the combination of statistics, my childhood love of baseball, and a classic David verses Goliath plot line, it did not disappoint.
The first is The Big Year. It's about birding. As my parents are both avid birders and the movie had two of my favorite comedians, Steve Martin and Jack Black, I was drawn to it. I don't want to give any spoilers, but I'll say that upon first watch I felt it was somewhat contrived and sentimental. However, a few days later, after some reflection and discussion with friends, I don't feel that way anymore. The movie speaks to messy and complex issues involving communication, relationships, sacrifices, and living passionately. In the end I was most impressed by the performance of Owen Wilson.
The second movie was Moneyball, which dealt with the use of statistics in the management of major league baseball teams. Since my Ph.D. dissertation and work involves statistical reasoning, this subject is something I can totally appreciate and nerd-out on, although thankfully the movie doesn't go into technical details. I watched it after a tough day as a guilty indulgence. With the combination of statistics, my childhood love of baseball, and a classic David verses Goliath plot line, it did not disappoint.
On Reading Warren Buffet's Op-ed
By now, I'm sure you've read this NYT Op-ed called 'Stop Coddling the Super-Rich'. The short summary is that Warren Buffet shockingly reveals his tax rate of 17.4%, much lower than many less wealthy folks. Thus, he proposes to increase the marginal tax rates on personal income, earnings from dividends and capital gains for people making more than one million dollars. To be clear, these are distinct taxes. Personal income tax is levied on your salary while dividends and capital gains taxes are on investment income, such as from the sale of stock.
I admire Buffet's willingness to write such a piece, revealing some of his personal tax details and fueling a much needed and overdue national debate. I firmly agree with the desire to reform our tax code. I'm also intrigued by his suggestion to increase the rate at which capital gains are taxed but I willingly admit ignorance of the consequences of such an approach. As an example of this ignorance, one important point made by Benie Kent's article in Forbes is that increasing the tax on capital gains may have the opposite of the desired effect. Specifically, making it more expensive to invest may result in less investing and therefore less tax revenue despite the higher rates. Yet I digress. Ultimately while I support the spirit of the Op-ed there were a few ways in which it is perhaps a bit misleading, although certainly not in intent, and I want to humbly point them out knowing that I may be mistaken.
Most important is the observation that the marginal rates of the federal personal income tax is not the problem here. For a single tax payer, the marginal tax rate for income is at least 25% for every dollar earned over $35,000 and 35% for every dollar earned over $380,000. So either Buffett is making under 35k or his reported rate of 17.4% is not heavily influenced by the marginal tax rates.
Deductive Reasoning
One obvious question is why isn't his tax more strongly influenced by the marginal rates. It's impossible to know without more disclosure of his tax forms but there are likely two main causes. The first is that most of his income is in the form of capital gains and dividends, which is taxed at a much lower rate, and the second is that he may benefit from income tax deductions. I was surprised that he didn't mention deductions, which I believe have several undesirable properties. They complicate the tax code, allow some extremely rich people to legally dodge tax, and often have unintentional consequences. According to a study by the Tax Foundation (http://www.taxfoundation.org/), the cost of tax compliance in US is estimated to be $265 billion or 2.1% of the GDP. Eliminating deductions would make calculating and complying with tax much simpler and easier. Many deductions have contributed to serious economic problems such as the home mortgage deduction to the recent housing price crisis and the employer-paid health insurance deduction to increased healthcare costs.
Corporate (tax) Ignorance
A potential problem with the 17.4% number is that it ignores corporate tax. Corporate tax is levied on the profits made by a company. Since Buffet is a person and not a company he doesn't discuss corporate tax, so why do I? Well, mainly because I don't necessarily distinguish between a company and its owners. If you or I own stock in a company, then we are by definition owners of that company and profits from the investment come from the company's current and future income. Therefore a tax on corporate profits is also a tax on investment. A comprehensive discussion of tax reform must at least address the corporate tax, which is about 35% in the US.
To Increase or not to Increase
Finally, I want to address the proposal to increase tax rates on personal income. In light of the observation that Buffet's tax is barely influenced by marginal rates one must question his argument to raise them (not to say there aren't other better arguments for raising the income tax). While increasing these rates will have a negligible effect on the tax he pays, and even less on his wealth as aptly pointed out at the end of Kent's article, it would severely affect many other, much poorer, laborers. He proposes to raise the tax only for those who make more than one million dollars. I have two issues with this facet of the proposal. The first is that picking such a threshold on incomes to heavily tax is error prone. If you set it too low you will negatively impact middle class. I emphasize that even if it's initially set to a very high number, the combination of time and inflation may bring it down, a message more humorously depicted by Mike Myers in this video (If you haven't seen Austin Powers the premise is that Dr. Evil is a terrorist who had recently been awakened after 30 years). And, setting and keeping it high will be very difficult due to the huge incentive of revenue gain to the government for lowering it. Furthermore, this type of taxation on only extreme yearly incomes has a bigger and likely problematic consequence.
The problem is that it directly punishes a specific type of risk-seeking behavior I believe to be beneficial. Let me provide a semi-concrete example. Suppose that a young engineer arrives at a metaphorical fork in the road: either take a job with moderate pay at an established and respectable engineering firm or pursue his or her dream by working independently at an internet startup that just might revolutionize an industry. The first choice will provide a steady stream of income with very little risk. The second choice is extremely risky. With some high probability, this engineer will spend a lot of time and effort on a venture that makes no money at all, due simply to the inherent difficulty in starting a business with a radical new idea. On the other hand, there is some small chance it will be successful, bring in millions of dollars of profit, and provide value to many people. I view Buffet's proposal to increase the personal income only at high rates akin to discouraging the second choice. In the extreme case where the government takes all money made over a million dollars, the second choice becomes financially irresponsible. Furthermore, this discouragement would contribute to the fact that the second choice is already the much harder one, requiring more work under stressful and less comfortable conditions. Yet, I find this type of risk-seeking behavior to be fundamental to many of our society's great achievements.
I admire Buffet's willingness to write such a piece, revealing some of his personal tax details and fueling a much needed and overdue national debate. I firmly agree with the desire to reform our tax code. I'm also intrigued by his suggestion to increase the rate at which capital gains are taxed but I willingly admit ignorance of the consequences of such an approach. As an example of this ignorance, one important point made by Benie Kent's article in Forbes is that increasing the tax on capital gains may have the opposite of the desired effect. Specifically, making it more expensive to invest may result in less investing and therefore less tax revenue despite the higher rates. Yet I digress. Ultimately while I support the spirit of the Op-ed there were a few ways in which it is perhaps a bit misleading, although certainly not in intent, and I want to humbly point them out knowing that I may be mistaken.
Most important is the observation that the marginal rates of the federal personal income tax is not the problem here. For a single tax payer, the marginal tax rate for income is at least 25% for every dollar earned over $35,000 and 35% for every dollar earned over $380,000. So either Buffett is making under 35k or his reported rate of 17.4% is not heavily influenced by the marginal tax rates.
Deductive Reasoning
One obvious question is why isn't his tax more strongly influenced by the marginal rates. It's impossible to know without more disclosure of his tax forms but there are likely two main causes. The first is that most of his income is in the form of capital gains and dividends, which is taxed at a much lower rate, and the second is that he may benefit from income tax deductions. I was surprised that he didn't mention deductions, which I believe have several undesirable properties. They complicate the tax code, allow some extremely rich people to legally dodge tax, and often have unintentional consequences. According to a study by the Tax Foundation (http://www.taxfoundation.org/), the cost of tax compliance in US is estimated to be $265 billion or 2.1% of the GDP. Eliminating deductions would make calculating and complying with tax much simpler and easier. Many deductions have contributed to serious economic problems such as the home mortgage deduction to the recent housing price crisis and the employer-paid health insurance deduction to increased healthcare costs.
Corporate (tax) Ignorance
A potential problem with the 17.4% number is that it ignores corporate tax. Corporate tax is levied on the profits made by a company. Since Buffet is a person and not a company he doesn't discuss corporate tax, so why do I? Well, mainly because I don't necessarily distinguish between a company and its owners. If you or I own stock in a company, then we are by definition owners of that company and profits from the investment come from the company's current and future income. Therefore a tax on corporate profits is also a tax on investment. A comprehensive discussion of tax reform must at least address the corporate tax, which is about 35% in the US.
To Increase or not to Increase
Finally, I want to address the proposal to increase tax rates on personal income. In light of the observation that Buffet's tax is barely influenced by marginal rates one must question his argument to raise them (not to say there aren't other better arguments for raising the income tax). While increasing these rates will have a negligible effect on the tax he pays, and even less on his wealth as aptly pointed out at the end of Kent's article, it would severely affect many other, much poorer, laborers. He proposes to raise the tax only for those who make more than one million dollars. I have two issues with this facet of the proposal. The first is that picking such a threshold on incomes to heavily tax is error prone. If you set it too low you will negatively impact middle class. I emphasize that even if it's initially set to a very high number, the combination of time and inflation may bring it down, a message more humorously depicted by Mike Myers in this video (If you haven't seen Austin Powers the premise is that Dr. Evil is a terrorist who had recently been awakened after 30 years). And, setting and keeping it high will be very difficult due to the huge incentive of revenue gain to the government for lowering it. Furthermore, this type of taxation on only extreme yearly incomes has a bigger and likely problematic consequence.
The problem is that it directly punishes a specific type of risk-seeking behavior I believe to be beneficial. Let me provide a semi-concrete example. Suppose that a young engineer arrives at a metaphorical fork in the road: either take a job with moderate pay at an established and respectable engineering firm or pursue his or her dream by working independently at an internet startup that just might revolutionize an industry. The first choice will provide a steady stream of income with very little risk. The second choice is extremely risky. With some high probability, this engineer will spend a lot of time and effort on a venture that makes no money at all, due simply to the inherent difficulty in starting a business with a radical new idea. On the other hand, there is some small chance it will be successful, bring in millions of dollars of profit, and provide value to many people. I view Buffet's proposal to increase the personal income only at high rates akin to discouraging the second choice. In the extreme case where the government takes all money made over a million dollars, the second choice becomes financially irresponsible. Furthermore, this discouragement would contribute to the fact that the second choice is already the much harder one, requiring more work under stressful and less comfortable conditions. Yet, I find this type of risk-seeking behavior to be fundamental to many of our society's great achievements.
Unveiling the Root Tax
The more I work and earn a living the more aware I've become of our flawed tax code. It is too complicated and is terribly detrimental to a healthy economy. Over the last year, I've had intense, often heated, sometimes rambling debates with my infinitely patient friend Zach over a new system of taxation that he shared with me one fine day. While initially skeptical of such a radical approach, I couldn't deny its advantages and potential to enact positive change. Furthermore, I found it delightfully elegant in design, being both simple and effective. During these debates, we explored the initial idea from different angles, walked down philosophical paths and along the way refined and honed it into something concrete. Without further ado, here's a link to a write-up and related blog, which is a work in progress:
Root Tax
If you read it and have feedback, please let me know, as its purpose is to extend what has until now been a debate among only a few to vastly more. I studied economics in college but am far from an expert in tax theory. Many extremely intelligent people I've shared this with have hated the idea, including my father whom I have immeasurable respect for and who usually shares my economic stance. Nevertheless I have yet to be convinced by any of the arguments from its opposition and over time, as I've gained understanding, I've only become more intrigued, fascinated, and pleased with it.
Root Tax
If you read it and have feedback, please let me know, as its purpose is to extend what has until now been a debate among only a few to vastly more. I studied economics in college but am far from an expert in tax theory. Many extremely intelligent people I've shared this with have hated the idea, including my father whom I have immeasurable respect for and who usually shares my economic stance. Nevertheless I have yet to be convinced by any of the arguments from its opposition and over time, as I've gained understanding, I've only become more intrigued, fascinated, and pleased with it.
San Francisco Bike Safety
I’ve compiled these tips from two years living in San Francisco where biking has been my main form of transportation. When compared to traveling by car, biking is cheaper, more convenient to park, more environmentally friendly, and part of a more active lifestyle
Unfortunately the existence of automobiles significantly increases the danger of biking. Also unfortunate is that the law is not designed with bike safety in mind, as it is in many other countries as covered by the economist here. Nevertheless, biking can be an efficient form of transportation that is nearly as safe as driving. In San Francisco it’s not too uncommon to see the trifecta: A biker running a red light at a busy intersection, wearing no helmet, and having ipod plugs in both ears. This type of behavior is funny but pretty irresponsible. Any accident between an auto and a bike will result in physical injury to the biker, emotional trauma to both parties, and property damage. It also sometimes results in physical injury to the driver and other parties, especially if the driver maneuvers to avoid the biker.
In my opinion the key to biking safely with cars is based on mutual awareness and communication. First, be extremely aware of other cars, especially erratic drivers. I’ve seen cars run stop signs and red lights without slowing down. Generally drivers behave very predictably, so identifying the outliers is often straightforward. Secondly, make sure they're aware of you and be sure to ride in a predictable way that minimizes conflict and accidents.
The following tips may appear obvious, but please trust me when I say that I've learned the hard way to follow many of them.
Tip 0. Wear a helmet and optionally gloves.
Tip 1. Use lights, front and rear, and turn them on when it’s dark outside. For the front light I prefer one with rechargeable batteries such as the cordless night rider as they are brighter and last longer.
Tip 2. Wear some colorful shirt or jacket. Since my favorite color is orange this is easy for me.
Tip 3. Don’t listen to music or use your phone while biking or driving. If you think about it cars actually make quite a bit of noise that music will prevent you from hearing. Music or talk radio is also a dangerous distraction
Tip 4: Before every ride check that your bike still works (brakes brake, handlebars don’t move when downward pressure is applied, wheel is true, wheels have air, etc.).
Tip 5. Learn and practice basic safety maneuvers:
- Brake hard using both brakes, but note that the front brake will result in much greater deceleration that has a tendency to push you forward over your handlebars. To compensate, move your center of gravity backwards.
- Look over your shoulder while still riding in a straight line. It’s not as easy as it sounds.
- It’s counter intuitive but to make a really tight turn first position the wheel opposite the intended direction and then cut hard. In dangerous situations when you don’t have enough room to brake, such as a car making a right turn in front of you, you can sometimes use this skill to avoid an accident.
Tip 6: Take the full lane, but *only* if you can generally keep up with the cars (10-20 MPH). The main reason to do so is that it communicates that you exist. This tip helps prevent many common accidents such as cars cutting you off when they turn right, and getting ‘doored’, which is to collide with an opening driver side door of a parked car.
Tip 7: Be cautious in bike lanes, which I affectionately refer to as 'death traps'. In SF they put you to the right of traffic you risk not being seen and are dangerously close to parked cars. As an alternative to bike lanes some streets have sharrows, which I feel is a much safer alternative.
Tip 8: When crossing railroad tracks be careful not to let your wheel ever become parallel with it.
Tip 9: Most accidents happen in trouble spots, for example at intersections, running red lights, or stop signs, when it's wet or there is debris, or when a biker is weaving in between traffic. After some experience, your gut instincts should help. Before performing that fancy maneuver that may save you a few seconds meditate on whether it’s worth the risk. When you're first starting to bike you should take things slow and cautious until you learn to read the road.
Tip 10* (more controversial and unfortunately illegal): Treat stop signs as yield signs. This means that if its a four way stop and there's a car traveling perpendicular to your route who is there first, stop. It also means that if there are no cars then don't stop. I've never seen a cop pull over a bike for doing this in SF although I've heard that it does occasionally happen.
Tip 11: Accelerate and bike as fast as is reasonable. This means getting in shape enough to travel at 20+ MPH on flat ground and have appropriate gear, such as road tires and clipless pedals, to allow you to accelerate quickly. Unfortunately, many auto drivers go faster than necessary. When the light turns from red to green, in a few seconds they accelerate to 30+ in a 20 MPH zone and slam on the brakes when they inevitably must stop at the next red light. I don't have much sympathy for these folks and feel fine blocking them. If I get honked or cursed at I generally try to start a conversation. I've found that leading politely with 'I'm sorry my driving as upset you' goes a long way to ensuring successful communication.
Unfortunately the existence of automobiles significantly increases the danger of biking. Also unfortunate is that the law is not designed with bike safety in mind, as it is in many other countries as covered by the economist here. Nevertheless, biking can be an efficient form of transportation that is nearly as safe as driving. In San Francisco it’s not too uncommon to see the trifecta: A biker running a red light at a busy intersection, wearing no helmet, and having ipod plugs in both ears. This type of behavior is funny but pretty irresponsible. Any accident between an auto and a bike will result in physical injury to the biker, emotional trauma to both parties, and property damage. It also sometimes results in physical injury to the driver and other parties, especially if the driver maneuvers to avoid the biker.
In my opinion the key to biking safely with cars is based on mutual awareness and communication. First, be extremely aware of other cars, especially erratic drivers. I’ve seen cars run stop signs and red lights without slowing down. Generally drivers behave very predictably, so identifying the outliers is often straightforward. Secondly, make sure they're aware of you and be sure to ride in a predictable way that minimizes conflict and accidents.
The following tips may appear obvious, but please trust me when I say that I've learned the hard way to follow many of them.
Tip 0. Wear a helmet and optionally gloves.
Tip 1. Use lights, front and rear, and turn them on when it’s dark outside. For the front light I prefer one with rechargeable batteries such as the cordless night rider as they are brighter and last longer.
Tip 2. Wear some colorful shirt or jacket. Since my favorite color is orange this is easy for me.
Tip 3. Don’t listen to music or use your phone while biking or driving. If you think about it cars actually make quite a bit of noise that music will prevent you from hearing. Music or talk radio is also a dangerous distraction
Tip 4: Before every ride check that your bike still works (brakes brake, handlebars don’t move when downward pressure is applied, wheel is true, wheels have air, etc.).
Tip 5. Learn and practice basic safety maneuvers:
- Brake hard using both brakes, but note that the front brake will result in much greater deceleration that has a tendency to push you forward over your handlebars. To compensate, move your center of gravity backwards.
- Look over your shoulder while still riding in a straight line. It’s not as easy as it sounds.
- It’s counter intuitive but to make a really tight turn first position the wheel opposite the intended direction and then cut hard. In dangerous situations when you don’t have enough room to brake, such as a car making a right turn in front of you, you can sometimes use this skill to avoid an accident.
Tip 6: Take the full lane, but *only* if you can generally keep up with the cars (10-20 MPH). The main reason to do so is that it communicates that you exist. This tip helps prevent many common accidents such as cars cutting you off when they turn right, and getting ‘doored’, which is to collide with an opening driver side door of a parked car.
Tip 7: Be cautious in bike lanes, which I affectionately refer to as 'death traps'. In SF they put you to the right of traffic you risk not being seen and are dangerously close to parked cars. As an alternative to bike lanes some streets have sharrows, which I feel is a much safer alternative.
Tip 8: When crossing railroad tracks be careful not to let your wheel ever become parallel with it.
Tip 9: Most accidents happen in trouble spots, for example at intersections, running red lights, or stop signs, when it's wet or there is debris, or when a biker is weaving in between traffic. After some experience, your gut instincts should help. Before performing that fancy maneuver that may save you a few seconds meditate on whether it’s worth the risk. When you're first starting to bike you should take things slow and cautious until you learn to read the road.
Tip 10* (more controversial and unfortunately illegal): Treat stop signs as yield signs. This means that if its a four way stop and there's a car traveling perpendicular to your route who is there first, stop. It also means that if there are no cars then don't stop. I've never seen a cop pull over a bike for doing this in SF although I've heard that it does occasionally happen.
Tip 11: Accelerate and bike as fast as is reasonable. This means getting in shape enough to travel at 20+ MPH on flat ground and have appropriate gear, such as road tires and clipless pedals, to allow you to accelerate quickly. Unfortunately, many auto drivers go faster than necessary. When the light turns from red to green, in a few seconds they accelerate to 30+ in a 20 MPH zone and slam on the brakes when they inevitably must stop at the next red light. I don't have much sympathy for these folks and feel fine blocking them. If I get honked or cursed at I generally try to start a conversation. I've found that leading politely with 'I'm sorry my driving as upset you' goes a long way to ensuring successful communication.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)