I'm still formulating my response to Joyce's ridiculous opinion below. Please feel free to let Joyce know your thoughts. I've seen Joyce types on Sunday mornings...driving the big car (to church?) and won't give you an inch even if there is plenty of room for them to do so. Please bcc me at gonecks@attbi.com on any messages sent to Joyce.
OPINION -- Beware of bicycles - they could be hazardous to your health.
There are 55 bicycle trails in Illinois.
In fact, within "bicycle distance" of where we live is the Chain of Rocks bridge. This bridge crosses the Mississippi River, which connects the Illinois bicycle trail beginning at Pere Marquette State Park near Grafton, Illinois, to the well-known Katy Trail in Missouri. The Chain of Rocks Bridge was recently renovated especially for pedestrians and bicycles and was paid for by we the taxpayers.
With that wonderful recreational provision, why would 4,500 bikers (mainly from St. Louis) choose to make a 100 mile bike ride on roads already heavy with tourist traffic that are two lane, curvy, hilly roads under construction?
That is what Derry Brownfield of the Common Sense Coalition would call "ignorance gone to seed."
Last Sunday on our way to church, we had the "privilege" of having our patience tested. We were behind one batch of these bikers going up a normally busy road with a steep winding hill, blind curves, no road shoulder. And these bikers were not about to budge out of the way. To top it off, the road was freshly milled in preparation for a new surface.
To see these two wheelers peddling up the hill with rear ends stuck in the air in tight fitting britches is a humorous sight. But it wouldn’t have been funny to have seen one stretched out along the road with tire marks across him. These Sunday road warriors were literally risking their lives to prove they had the right.
We were in our car. We had our seat belts on as required by the law - our insurance and license fees were paid. We had paid fuel tax when we purchased our gasoline. Now wouldn’t you think that would give us a bit of a priority?
What was that biker’s investment that would give him the right to go down the middle of the highway? Bikers have no license, no vehicle insurance, no seat belts, no fuel tax. They are not making any contribution into the local economy in the way of tourism dollars. They had their own manned rest stops that furnished them with food and water, and they certainly can’t pack home much from the local shops on the back of their bikes or in those tight britches.
Maybe we should blame the route sponsor and not the bike rider for being guilty of this stupidity, but if these people cared about their lives, they should have just said "no - I won’t go on this unsafe route." Whatever spared someone from being run over - or these bicyclers causing a vehicle to have an accident - must have been God’s hand of protection, because it wasn’t their common sense.
For a number of years bikers have made riding on our twisting, dangerous roads, putting themselves and others at risk, a common weekend occurrence in our area.
Bikers have the reputation of having an attitude of superiority and are not popular in rural communities. Many are very rude. They choose to take the middle of the highway as their right-of-way, disregarding local residents who are trying to get to their destinations... and they refuse to budge. They appear to be saying, "I just dare you." They readily ask for help when they have a problem but show little appreciation.
They demand the government to provide and pay for their "entertainment and recreation." The government must provide parks, paths, scenic areas, fishing and boating opportunities, tourism, and all kinds of free outings. To accommodate these provisions, the property is many times taken from private property owners to make public areas. Then, these "recreational demanders" choose not to use those areas but to infiltrate areas not intended for their use.
I don’t know about you, but our recreation and exercise is not paid for. For one thing, we have little time for recreation these days trying to earn enough to pay the taxes that pay for bike trails which bikers choose to avoid. Our exercise comes from our work.
Sustainable training
Are these groups really into recreation and exercise, or are they being mentally trained for the Sustainable Communities where bicycles will be a way of life? Automobiles are not popular in Sustainable Communities. They may never be totally outlawed as people would protest too much, but they can price the middle class out of affording a vehicle. If there is no gasoline, or it is so expensive you cannot afford it, what good is the car? Only the rich and elite would own and drive cars in a Sustainable Community.
Smart Growth, which passed in Illinois last year, is the design for Sustainable Communities. This is where everything we need is stacked together, and we can ride our bicycles and walk for most of our needs and use mass transit for any other needed travel.
Read about the "road diet" for Smart Growth below (from www.smartgrowthamerica.com):
What does a "smart growth" transportation system look like? Smart Growth transportation provides choice and convenience, and is coordinated with the way the community is growing.... Other communities have put some highways on a "road diet," taking unneeded lane space for amenities such as sidewalks, plantings, express buses or bicycles.
Below are some primary features of smart transportation (from www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org):
The Bicycle Friendly Community Campaign is an awards program that recognizes municipalities that actively support bicycling. A Bicycle-Friendly Community provides safe accommodation for cycling and encourages its residents to bike for transportation and recreation.
What is interesting in the following Smart Growth report are the demands for our highways. They demand the same values that are listed in the Federal Register as intrinsic values to be protected on Scenic Byways (www.scenic.org):
Roads and highways play a significant role in the visual quality of our communities, making transportation design a key component of smart growth and scenic stewardship. Citizens can demand "context-sensitive" highway design from their state department of transportation (DOT) to ensure that all road design considers an area's built and natural landscape; takes into account the environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, community, and preservation impacts of a road project; and provides access for other modes of transportation such as bicycles, pedestrians, and mass transit.
In addition, citizens can encourage state lawmakers to adopt legislation to foster context-sensitive road design standards on a statewide basis. (See model state legislation.)
Rails to trails
The Rails to Trails program has presented major controversy. Railroad tracks that run through private property were intended to revert back to the property owner upon abandonment by the railroads. All across the nation these abandoned tracks have been taken over to be used as bicycle trails. Law suits are popping up everywhere by property owners who border the route where their property has been confiscated for bicycle trails (www.railtrail.org).
Bicycles have been around for a long time and brought joy to many. If used responsibly, a bicycle is a wonderful source of exercise and recreation. But are we being prepared to be forced to use bicycles for our major mode of transportation? Could it be this activity is purposely being placed into an elitist status with no restrictions and licensing in an effort to lure people into this mental mode?
If you are a biker, please ride responsibly on a trail that has been provided for your entertainment, and for your own safety and the safety of others, please keep off the highways.
Joyce Morrison
Joyce Morrison lives in Jersey County, Illinois. She is a chapter leader for Concerned Women for America and she and her husband, Gary, represent the local Citizens for Private Property Rights. Joyce is Secretary to the Board of Directors of Rural Restoration/ADOPT Mission, a national farm ministry located in Sikeston, MO. The group's SOWER Magazine features Joyce's writing. Joyce is an activist and serves as a member of the agricultural advisory board of U.S. Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL).
Rich Clark
07-18-03, 08:33 AM
I wouldn't give such right-wing whacko extremists the correct time, let alone dignify their rantings with a response, or legitimize their position by engaging them in debate.
The Internet can make anybody look good. Twenty years ago this would have been an ink-smeared mimeographed flyer being haded out on streetcorners.
RichC
uciflylow
07-18-03, 09:15 AM
God forbid that this "lady" might be late for sunday school because she put a tred down one of our backs!!!!! I have seen the results of people being ran over by autos and it's not pretty!
God, please forgive this woman for her evil words twards her fellow man!
I don't guess it bothers her when people are fishing etc. non Sunday morning does it. Only the people who slow her down a little!
jester69
07-18-03, 10:52 AM
You know,
that is very near to here and she is complaining about an area in all likelihood i will ride. I tried to think of a good way to write her but coudn't.
Why? well, If she is as dumb as she sounds in that article, it won't change her mind a bit, and will negatively impact my frame of mind. I have tried to argue with her sort before and its about as useful as arguing with a brick wall. The fact that her "paper" is a far right rag doesn't help either. If you asked them to talk to her about this they'd laugh you out of the room.
She tells all bikers to use the rail to trails exclusively, then goes on about how the right of ways these trails are built on are illegal. You can't have it both ways lady, get a grip.
And as for her fuel taxes and registration entitling her to more access to the roads than a bicyclist, get real. I pay taxes too & as long as the law allows me to ride on the road, I will.
and another thing, bicycles are viable personal transportation, not just "entertainment and recreation."
In her defense, I don't think many recreational cyclists when in a pack pay much heed to prohibitions against riding abreast. I also think cyclists in groups tend to be bolder and less likely to stay as far right as is safe.
So, we need to do our part to follow cycling laws, and she needs to do her part and shut it ;)
peas,
Jester
caloso
07-18-03, 10:57 AM
Bikers have the reputation of having an attitude of superiority and are not popular in rural communities. Many are very rude. They choose to take the middle of the highway as their right-of-way, disregarding local residents who are trying to get to their destinations... and they refuse to budge. They appear to be saying, "I just dare you."
This is exactly my experience (if you substitute "motorists" for "bikers").
Huh. I didn't realize that what I was doing this morning was for my own entertainment. Here I was thinking I was commuting to work to earn the money that pays the taxes that helps build the roads, among other things.
Bobatin
07-18-03, 11:02 AM
A well thought out response sent to the paper will probably get published. She needs to go back for a liscence reexamination.
joeprim
07-18-03, 12:36 PM
I can understand that sahe doesn't like bikers, but most of what else she says is garbled. I don't think even the internet can make her look good.
Joe
Dave Stohler
07-18-03, 02:23 PM
I guess that I'll never stop being amazed by all the hatred in the hearts of people who are so sanctimonious. Imagine getting so pissed off about a slight delay while going to church??
cycletourist
07-18-03, 06:18 PM
Look at the bright side- she gave us links to two very nice web sites, Smart Growth America and Bicycle Friendly Communities.
John E
07-18-03, 07:11 PM
Joyce Morrison commits several common errors:
1) She actually believes that gasoline taxes cover all costs of building and/or maintaining public roads. The private automobile is the most heavily government subsidized, most socialistic form of transportation ever devised.
2) She fails to acknowledge that public roads are for people, not merely for people in cars.
3) She fails to acknowledge that Class I bike paths do not always go where a cyclist needs or wants to go.
4) She does not understand that some multiuse trails are dangerous for serious bicyclists.
5) She fails to acknowledge that many people cycle for transportation and out of environmental commitment, as well as for recreation or exercise. What is wrong with combining business with pleasure?
6) She fails to acknowledge that many cyclists do follow traffic laws. Lawful vehicular cyclists resent guilt by association.
bac
07-18-03, 07:18 PM
Man, that lady has WAY too much time on her hands. :rolleyes:
blwyn
07-18-03, 07:26 PM
Ironic, a farmer complaining about someone else taking advantage of tax dollars and subsidies.
TandemGeek
07-18-03, 07:40 PM
From elsewhere on the Internet comes this information:
It's relevance to this article is that Joyce Morrison is purportedly the spouse of L. Gary Morrison who -- based on the data at the ewg.org website -- has been the beneficiary of nearly $130,000 in farm subsidies over the past six years.
My letter to Joyce with .cc to the editor of the Leader and my most recent exchange with "Fran" are appended. At the time I read Joyce's article (based on a posting to Tandem@Hobbes) I hadn't thought to check the other forums. I am now confident that the offer I received from Fran to submit my comments can be answered by those of you who live in Illinois as I'd hoped. Be sure to share your comments to Joyce with Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL) whom she apparently advised on matters related to Agriculture.
------------------ Begin Email -------------------------
> From:
> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 19:54:50 -0400
> To: <fran@_____>
> Subject: Re: Conservatives Ride Bicycles Too
>
> In the event a conservative cyclist does not come forward from within Illinois
> to provide the other side of the debate -- someone who's opinions your readers
> in Illinois are more likely to accept as relevant versus comments from a
> cyclist in Georgia -- I will gladly put my thoughts together for the Leader.
>
>
> Regards
> --
>> I have received your comments, and have given them serious thought.
>>
>> Mrs. Morrison's comments are her opinion, and her experiences have led her
>> to her conclusions.
>>
>> We would be happy to publish your comments and let our readers decide for
>> themselves which side they should take in this debate.
>>
>> We are open to free discussion on the Illinois Leader.
>>
>> Fran _____
>> Managing Editor
>> IllinoisLeader.com
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: \
>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:12 PM
>> To: jmorrison@_____
>> Cc: dan@_____; fran@_____
>> Subject: Conservatives Ride Bicycles Too
>>
>>
>> As a life-long republican and conservative, I'm deeply saddened by your
>> comments with respect to cyclists. Your article entitled "Beware of
>> bicycles" demonstrates a serious lack of consideration and understanding of
>> who cyclists are, why they ride and their rights. I would take the time to
>> explain why you are in error on each point but, sadly, I believe it would be
>> a waste of my time since your article belies an emotional edge that suggests
>> you're not about to be swayed by facts that run counter to your intolerance
>> of fellow citizens who are by law permitted to share our public roads.
>>
>> I'm conservative, I vote Republican, I ride a bike and I'm a cycling
>> advocate. My friends and peers who are predominantly liberal and who vote
>> Democrat would argue that the last two are diametrically opposed to the
>> first two and my ability to convince them otherwise just got harder. If you
>> question my Republican roots check the voter rolls for Cook County circa
>> 1978 - 1982 when I last lived in Illinois.
>>
>>
------------------ End Email -------------------------
P.S. I know I promised to abstain from posting to Advocacy & Safety some time back. However, this just got under my skin coming on the heels of the loss of two more tandem cyclists in Canada this past week and the recent running down of the cyclists in Florida -- where yet another couple we know from Indiana were visiting friends in Florida and were the first ones hit by the Lincoln. We've just lost or nearly lost too many cycling friends and acquaintances over the past few years... it's all about mutual respect and tolerance for your fellow citizens and Joyce has no more of it than the gentleman who mowed down the cyclists in Florida.
Chris L
07-18-03, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by livngood
P.S. I know I promised to abstain from posting to Advocacy & Safety some time back. However, this just got under my skin
I still don't see why you felt the need to abstain, I always valued your opinions here. John E is basically correct in the way he addresses the idea of registration fees. I can only add that cyclists also pay income taxes and consumption taxes and so on that make up the majority of road funding, meaning that we do pay user fees as much as anybody else.
The truth to this issue is that when we look at the total amount of money that it costs governments to provide for cyclists against what it costs to provide for motorists (considering wear and tear on the roads caused by the vehicle weight, the amount of space each demands on the road, pollution and it's associated societal costs etc etc), it's only justified that bicycles cost less to register. Let's also remember the amount of damage one can do with a car vs a bike, but I'm digressing.
I remember reading on a newsgroup (or possibly here) that the Tasmanian government did a study into the "user pays" fee for bicycles, and found that such a fee would invariably come out at around $10 per year - not even enough to cover the administrative costs of such a system. Paying $10 per year wouldn't bother me too much, but would the motoring public be prepared to accept a system that ran at a loss and was costing the taxpayer money? Somehow I doubt it.
The other thing is that motoring registration fees are not compulsory. If drivers get tired of paying these "fees", the solution is simple, sell the car and have done with it! End of story. Driving is a choice (and it is still a choice regardless of how many other people in society take the same choice). By choosing to drive, the author of the article is choosing to pay the fees - so my message is a simple "quit whining".
On the topic of responses - these articles are nothing new. There seems to have been a recent trend in the US media toward what I refer to as "anti-cyclist trolling". Someone posts some right-wing fascist "get bikes off the road" rant and watches the responses roll in. Unfortunately it now looks to be catching on out here. The only way to stop it is not to give the responses they are looking for. Just ignore these articles and the "trollers" will find another subject.
jester69
07-18-03, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by livngood
> In the event a conservative cyclist does not come forward from within Illinois
> to provide the other side of the debate -- someone who's opinions your readers
> in Illinois are more likely to accept as relevant versus comments from a
> cyclist in Georgia -- I will gladly put my thoughts together for the Leader.
Mark, you seem well informed on this, and a former Illinois resident to boot (heck, play it up like you miss it a lot & want to move back even, for all I know you do.)
If you feel motivated to put together a well reasoned and well researched letter, I say do it and let the leader decide which one to publish? If you wait for someone else to step forward it might never happen. (i'd do it but am not a conservative, so would be lambasted as a leftist pinko or somesuch.)
Just MHO as a resident of a neighbor state to IL, MO.
take care,
Jester
Oh and PS, sucking at the public trough to the tune of 130k, and then complaining that bikers don't pay for the roads is just too rich. Perhaps if she hates public money subsidizing special interests so much she should have her husband pay back the farm subsidies on the basis of fair play.
cyclezealot
07-19-03, 12:24 AM
What the b+++++ does not realize, their is no law stating every citizen must own an automobile- thank god. And then, the US does a rotten job at providing mass transit. Other taxes are utilized for roads. Then we have no rights to mobility.?
Many jobs do not pay enough to support the auto habit. So then, for many of us, who are trapped in the urban jungle- no bike no job.
The twit owes us a welfare check.
uciflylow
07-19-03, 08:18 AM
Ironic, a farmer complaining about someone else taking advantage of tax dollars and subsidies.
Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen!!!!!
I was raised on a farm, in a farming family, and very big farm dependent county in west Tennessee. I can tell you from battling with my family members that farmers vote with those subsidies (for the party that gives them out generously)! It is so ironic how much we subsidize farming yet the government preaches about free market forces?? We pay farmers NOT to grow crops for heavens sake! No one has ever been able to explain to me how this benifits the general public. I also know in most of the country farm tractors and harvesters are not a heavy user of the highways, but here they use the roads almost as much as autos, and they pay no taxes for road use. Farmers grain trucks fall into the same catagory and pay very little usage fees. Please don't get me wrong, farmers are a nessity for this country and much of the world. I just think that it could be a little better utilized.
I am willing to bet that the vast majority of cyclist own autos and pay just as much as this woman does in the taxes she spouts about.
cyclezealot
07-19-03, 09:05 AM
In my town, each morning the farm workers, who locals hate/love for their cheap labor- can be seen riding to work in mass, on bicycles. Good move, with gas approaching $2 a gallon.
Paige
07-19-03, 09:26 AM
She seems to be imlpying rights are means tested. What she doesn't understand is driving is a privilege which requires meeting certain requirements.
Grendel
07-19-03, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by John E
Joyce Morrison commits several common errors:
1) She actually believes that gasoline taxes cover all costs of building and/or maintaining public roads. The private automobile is the most heavily government subsidized, most socialistic form of transportation ever devised.
2) She fails to acknowledge that public roads are for people, not merely for people in cars.
3) She fails to acknowledge that Class I bike paths do not always go where a cyclist needs or wants to go.
4) She does not understand that some multiuse trails are dangerous for serious bicyclists.
5) She fails to acknowledge that many people cycle for transportation and out of environmental commitment, as well as for recreation or exercise. What is wrong with combining business with pleasure?
6) She fails to acknowledge that many cyclists do follow traffic laws. Lawful vehicular cyclists resent guilt by association.
7) She fails to acknowledge that many of those cyclists (probably most) that she sees on the road also own cars and trucks and pay all the same vehicle-related fees and taxes as she does.
Chris L
07-19-03, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by uciflylow
I am willing to bet that the vast majority of cyclist own autos and pay just as much as this woman does in the taxes she spouts about.
And those such as myself who don't are not costing the taxpayer as much money because it costs the government considerably less to provide facilities for one bike than it does for one car. Here endeth the lesson.
bikeboyrick
07-20-03, 01:03 AM
he sounds like a right tit
MediaCreations
07-20-03, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by bikeboyrick
he sounds like a right tit Not a left one?
Chris L
07-20-03, 02:39 AM
Originally posted by MediaCreations
Not a left one?
:roflmao:
Max
07-20-03, 05:33 AM
Originally posted by livngood
I know I promised to abstain from posting to Advocacy & Safety some time back.
Never say never.
Seriously, - why?
Is there something wrong with the Advocacy & Safety department? Or with its participants?
uciflylow
07-20-03, 08:01 AM
Well, Joyce and I live in the same time zone and it's about time for Sunday school. I shure hope she doesen't get behind any of those slow poke cyclist. If she does I hope she refrains from "putting a tread" down the back of any of us.
I'm going to Sunday school myself, maby I won't get behind because of a farm tractor.:p
SamDaBikinMan
07-20-03, 09:21 AM
And Christians who are actually patient and open minded have to put up with bad apples with a cause like this woman.
If she is really going to church for something other than hob nobbing for political reasons she would not be spouting this useless garbage.
I am a cyclist and raised up in Christian chruch but never had this problem with my thought process. HMMM maybe she needs to take up cycling for a few years and then she will have an informed opinion and not just conjecture.
SamDaBikinMan
07-20-03, 09:24 AM
BTW.. after reading the opinions column in our own Atlanta journal a bit too much I have decided the printings placed there are just useless jibberish 99% of the time.
Papers should stick to the news and throw opinions into the toilet. After all opinions are just like *****holes anyway. We all have em and they usually stink.
oscaregg
07-20-03, 10:22 AM
Hearing a similar spew on the radio last week has motivated me to finally join our regional advocacy organization--BTA, you'll see my money this week.
John E
07-20-03, 06:38 PM
I took two bike rides today -- a fast, fun, hilly lycra-clad 25km sunrise training ride on the Bianchi (I had to break in my new crankset and BB bearings!), followed by a 6km round-trip ride to church (www.sdumc.org) on the UO-8, in street clothes. I am also a tight-fisted fiscal conservative (Scottish DNA) and registered Republican of the John McCain / [San Diego Mayor] Dick Murphy school.
Chris L
07-20-03, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by SamDaBikinMan
BTW.. after reading the opinions column in our own Atlanta journal a bit too much I have decided the printings placed there are just useless jibberish 99% of the time.
Papers should stick to the news and throw opinions into the toilet. After all opinions are just like *****holes anyway. We all have em and they usually stink.
You're right, of course. The unfortunate part is that merely reporting the news as it happens doesn't sell as many newspapers as blatant trolling does. :(
SteveE
07-20-03, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by SamDaBikinMan
After all opinions are just like *****holes anyway. We all have em and they usually stink.
Sam,
I was going to ask for your opinion on this topic. But on second thought, I think not! :D
Lonnie Seachris
07-21-03, 07:07 AM
I just wish that Joyce would have left out the part about church.
I am a Christian and attend church on Sunday mornings. However church is not the issue , her impatience is.
I would venture to say that a vast majority of the riders she was complaining about all own autos and thus have to pay taxes , etc.
As for the bash on farmers receiving handouts from the restonse I was seeing ,the Gov. tells them what and how much they can plant on their own land.thus restricting their production.
We all have in one way or another received something from the government and rely to heavily on it .
TandemGeek
07-21-03, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by Max
Never say never.
Seriously, - why?
Is there something wrong with the Advocacy & Safety department? Or with its participants?
There's nothing wrong with A&S or its participants; it is what it is because the participants shape the group to fit their interersts and/or needs.
When I initially began partipating in the A&S threads I had an expectation the discussions would tend to be goal-oriented, i.e., sharing information on advocacy and safety with the purpose of educating and increasing participation in prositive, pro-active advocacy efforts. However, what I found was A&S seemed to provide an outlet for "venting" on A&S related topics and it was often times a stuggle to insert objectivity in to what many times became emotionally charged issues with political undertones and the occasional ad hominem exchanges.
Just not my cup-of-tea. Thus, I have and will continue to limit the majority of my postings to the tandem threads since that is my cup of tea.
cyclezealot
07-21-03, 09:54 AM
livingd. Respectevely- should entities say you can't put your tadem on lanes using government asphalt , you might be living less good.
From the point of time you put water into your water bottle and put your bike into a bike lane that involves public policy, government and hence politics.
Public policy is set by government; so you can't ride your tandem w/o the permission of your city council all the way to federal law. Public policy is set up by government and that effects everything, incuding whether or not you have the right to get on your bike. Any community action is a collective action and that starts with you. Just a thought.
TandemGeek
07-21-03, 10:33 AM
Wrong interpretation of "political undertones".
FOG
07-21-03, 11:12 AM
Part of the problem here is that conservatism is an uneasy mix of two strains, traditionalism and libertarianism. The CWA is clearly traditionalist, and does not speak for libertarian conservatives a fair portion of the time. That said, she has a good point in that those who pay for something usually get a say in how it is used, and motorists do pay a substantial portion of the costs of a highway. Maybe we should have user fees for bicyclists using highways, on the condition that all highways be made useful for cyclists, and that road planning take into account cyclists needs, eliminating barriers like cul de sac developments.
The argument about leisure uses is not persuasive, however. Most motorist use of highways could be characterized as leisure related, and were it not so we would not have such things as scenic highways. Certainly, there is no imperative in the Constitution that the Government pay for roads to church, nor of course should there be a ban in providing raods whih facilitate church going.
Stor Mand
07-21-03, 03:37 PM
I had this in another thread but seems more fitting here for some reason.
What's going to happen when you become "equal" is that you're going to need a license and your "vehicle" is going to require brake lights, directionals, headlight and yearly inspection. Although, now that I think of it, brake-lights probably aren't a bad idea ...
bac
07-21-03, 03:44 PM
That gal just isn't getting any. This is my theory, and I'm sticking to it! :D
Chris L
07-21-03, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Stor Mand
What's going to happen when you become "equal" is that you're going to need a license and your "vehicle" is going to require brake lights, directionals, headlight and yearly inspection. Although, now that I think of it, brake-lights probably aren't a bad idea ...
And as I've said in many other threads in the past, the reason that drivers have to sit a licence every year and cyclists don't is the difference in the amount of damage each can do when mishandled. Yes, I realise that in extremely rare occasions and from very obscure angles, a bicycle can inflict a fatality on a third-party. However, this is far less likely (and happens far less frequently) than the issues with autos.
I suppose you could have laws licencing pedestrians too - especially as they are generally far less predictable (and have more $ spent of their infrastructure) than cyclists do. The question is how far do you wish to take the whole licencing argument?
Originally posted by FOG
Part of the problem here is that conservatism is an uneasy mix of two strains, traditionalism and libertarianism. The CWA is clearly traditionalist, and does not speak for libertarian conservatives a fair portion of the time. That said, she has a good point in that those who pay for something usually get a say in how it is used, and motorists do pay a substantial portion of the costs of a highway. Maybe we should have user fees for bicyclists using highways, on the condition that all highways be made useful for cyclists, and that road planning take into account cyclists needs, eliminating barriers like cul de sac developments.
The real problem is that the original article is an over-simplified one-sided argument exclusively designed for the purpose of trolling. The fact of the matter is that the bulk of the funding for highways comes from the income taxes and consumption taxes that we all pay. The other fact is that bicycles (by virtue of the fact that they are lighter and take up far less space) actually cost less for the government to provide for than other vehicles. In a true user-pays society, the driver of the bigger vehicle will always pay more because they demand more.
And anyway, I don't see anyone charging pedestrians for all the signalised crossings and footpaths they get. How far do you wish to take the whole registration argument?
Allister
07-22-03, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Chris L
The real problem is that the original article is an over-simplified one-sided argument exclusively designed for the purpose of trolling.
Nah, the real problem is that the author is a dimwit that couldn't find her own arse if she used both hands.
If I may quote the offending article 'That is what Derry Brownfield of the Common Sense Coalition would call "ignorance gone to seed.'
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Allister
07-22-03, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by bac
That gal just isn't getting any. This is my theory, and I'm sticking to it! :D
Or she is getting it, but has to pay for it, and therefore dislikes anyone that's getting it for free.
FOG
07-22-03, 10:46 AM
Around two-thirds of the total costs of highway building come directly from highway users, or revenues from interest on unspent highway user fees.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs01/hf1.htm
chadster
07-22-03, 11:58 AM
...and she definitely has a fascination with biker-butts :)
cbhungry
07-22-03, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by chadster
...and she definitely has a fascination with biker-butts :)
Look at her picture, she probably has skinny butt envy.
foehn
07-22-03, 01:19 PM
probably shapely big butt envy, too.
Chris L
07-22-03, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by FOG
Around two-thirds of the total costs of highway building come directly from highway users, or revenues from interest on unspent highway user fees.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs01/hf1.htm
Very well then, charge me my little $10-$20 per annum that it costs the government to do all the road maintenance for all the damage that my little bike causes. I won't complain. Nor will I expect anyone else to complain when the whole system is swallowed up under administrative costs and ends up costing the taxpayer even more to sustain that loss.
As I said before, we live in a free world - if you don't want to pay driver fees, don't.
caloso
07-23-03, 01:09 AM
Well, if they want to take 2/3 of the highway, I'll gladly accept the use of the remaining 1/3. Too often, I'm only allowed a foot or so, maybe 1/100 of the width of the road.
I would also gladly pay $20 per year for hassle free cycling on the road that I helped build with all the sales tax I've paid.
Another study, detailing what we know abut bicycle statistics, which shows that real data is hard to come by, although the bottom line is that not too much commuting by bicycle goes on:
The bottom line to me is that at present cyclists account for a miniscule proportion of trips, and if we want to show that cycling is a great way to use transportation resources, we have to do our part and recruit cyclists to other than pure recreational uses of their bikes, and by this I mean where the riding is the only activity, as opposed to riding a bicycle to other entertainment or recreation.
If riding a bicycle is limited to recreation for its own sake, then planners trying to allocate increasingly scarce resources (highways) are going to put cycling much lower down the priority list than if cycling is diverting trips from automobiles. If cycling moves a traveller out of his or her automobile, then more highway is freed up for drivers. If a cyclist is only out for a spin then more restrictions on the cyclist make the remaining highway users better off. We can also act to make the last consideration less of a factor by being responsible cyclists and not impeding traffic any more than we have to.
Grendel
07-23-03, 11:05 PM
The Texas Bicycle Coalition has some interesting facts (http://www.biketexas.org/pdf/Fair_Share_ResSheet.pdf) regarding road use by motorists and cyclists and who pays what. Although the information is in some ways specific to Texas, many of the same funding mechanisms and usage patterns apply to other states. One of the more interesting and often overlooked points is that in Texas the gas taxes that motorists always point to are used to build only about 40% of the roads in the state and many of those are interstates which bicycles cannot legally use. In fact, in Texas only about 5% of bicycle travel is on state or federal higways. This is a moot point anyway since it is estimated that 95% of cyclists own cars or trucks and pay those gas taxes anyway. Almost half of the roads in Texas are city or county roads funded primarily through property taxes which cyclists pay just like everyone else. Demographics indicate that the average cyclist is well above the median income and many are business owners, so they more than likely contribute more to this pool than the know-nothing got-nothing redneck trying to run them over. The info at the link I gave goes on to break down the costs per mile for each form or transportation and how much each pays or is subsidized per year -- it's interesting reading and good info to have on hand when this argument comes up with motorists.