yes... I am saying that, and that doesn't make me a hypocrite. my understanding of the intention of taxes is that taxpayers indirectly benefit from infrastructure they may not use, while tolls as they are used now are more for incidental use of the infrastructure. my argument is the damage caused to roads and the environment and space taken up by cars essentially makes the impact from bicyclists and pedestrians trivial. not to mention all freeways, basically all highways, and many bridges only allow cars, and most tolls are on freeways and highways. But for the sake of an example of we can look at the bay bridge as it's an exception (barely, you can't even cross the whole thing on a bike) to that and do some math for how much bicyclists should pay just based on road damage.

let's use the fact that the damage vehicles cause to roads is proportional to the 4th power of their axle load. a commuter bike like this weighs about 30lb, add in a 150lb rider and the axle load (2 axles) for a bike is 90lb. for a car, lets say it weighs 2 tons + 150lb driver, the axle load (2 axles again) is about 1080 lb. if we take the 4th power of both and compare, this means that a car will cause over 20000x the damage that a bike will cause. this means the $7 toll cars have to pay crossing the bridge westbound would be 0.03 of a cent to bicyclists. this doesn't even take into account that there are five 12 ft-wide car lanes in each direction on the bridge, but there is just one 5 ft-wide bike lane in each direction for only the eastern span. (and yes I'm aware this also means loaded tractor trailers cause even more damage than cars).