Should cyclists be charged a special tax for bike lane construction and maintenance? What about sidewalks, should you need a pedestrian pass?

1. As soon as the roads are all paying best-possible-use property tax for the space they take up and it's completely paid by automobiles, in addition to all maintenance, we should try to proportionally assign dedicated bicycle infrastructure costs toward bicycle users, now and anticipated.

2. Everyone is a pedestrian.

People accuse communists of being unrealistic idealists, but they have nothing on the libertarians.

That's the first I've heard of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax (and, less directly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism ) being libertarian!

fuck cars

User pay formerly-public-infrastructure is what I identified as libertarian. Would you also advocate for residents of high crime areas to pay more taxes for police coverage?

"User pay" is typically associated with regressive per-use taxes. It's perfectly compatible with socialism to ensure the cost of the road system is applied to only automobile users in a progressive manner. Relatedly, Finland moving violation fines are not a fixed fee and are proportional to income: https://nri.today/wealthy-speedsters-beware-finlands-million... Stop thinking "cars=default", they are not.

Legally criminal actions are violations against the state, which is why a prosecutor decides whether to file charges and does not need the consent of the victim to do so. We already have what you suggest with civil law and private security.

It's pure pedantry to distinguish between "user pay" and "progressive fees" based on usage. You're advocating for private payments on public infrastructure, it doesn't make it socialism just because it's infrastructure you disapprove of.

It'd be interesting to try charging vehicles relative to the road damage they do as it's proportional to around the fourth power of weight. It would likely change the nature of logistics as it could mean that large trucks would be more expensive that using two or three smaller trucks. Similarly, buses would benefit from being smaller and lighter.

Trucks already have lots of axles and wheels for this reason, because it's weight per wheel that matters.

I suspect the number of axles and wheels is to generally improve the strength/weight ratio rather than to minimise road surface damage.

Nope, the requirement comes from government standards intended to reduce road damage and specifies maximum ground pressure.

Okay, so there is a maximum. Charging proportionate to the road damage costs would still change the cost benefits of using single large vehicles vs multiple smaller vehicles, or possibly lots more axles.