Advocacy & Safety - Yet another "Bicycle License" argument

Apparently, someone called in to the local paper's Sound Off (http://www.sunherald.com/soundoff/story/925183.html)column to whine about bicycles needing licenses.
If bicycle riders think they have the same rights as the automobiles, they need to have their turn signals, their lights and a bicycle tag. They also need insurance, then they can have the right of way of the highway.

I was asked by one of the members of the local bicycle club if I'd like to write a response. Oh, would I? :innocent:


To the Sound Off reader who wrote “Get insurance, then rights”. You said, “If bicycle riders think they have the same rights as the automobiles, they need to have their turn signals, their lights and a bicycle tag. They also need insurance, then they can have the right of way of the highway.” I would like to address your arguments one at a time, so as to clarify any misunderstandings.

First of all, bicycles do have the same rights and responsibilities as automobile drivers. The Mississippi Code Sec. 63-3-207 states:

Every person riding a bicycle or an animal or driving any animal drawing a vehicle upon a highway shall have all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle under this chapter, except those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.

That is a right guaranteed under the law. The exception is for controlled access facilities, such as Interstate Highways.

As to turn signals, bicyclists, as well as motorcyclists and automobile drivers, can use hand signals to indicate intention to turn and stop. Sec. 63-3-709 states:

The signals required in this article shall be given either by means of the hand and arm or by a signal lamp or signal device of a type approved by the department. When a vehicle is so constructed or loaded that a hand and arm signal would not be visible both to the front and rear of such vehicle, then said signals must be given by such a lamp or device.

Sec. 63-3-711 goes on to clarify:

All signals given by hand and arm shall be given from the left side of the vehicle in the following manner and such signals shall indicate as follows:

1.Left turn – hand and are extended horizontally.
2.Right turn – hand and arm extended upward or moved with a sweeping motion from the rear to the front.
3.Stop or decrease speed – hand and arm extended downward.

In regards to the use of lights, the MS Code Sec 63-7-13 states:

Every bicycle shall be equipped with a lighted white lamp on the front thereof visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of at least five hundred feet in front of such bicycle and shall also be equipped with a reflex mirror reflector or lamp on the rear exhibiting a red light visible under like conditions from a distance of at least five hundred feet to the rear of such bicycle.

However, this is applicable only “during the period from sunset to sunrise and at any other time when there is not sufficient light to render clearly discernible any person on the highway at a distance of five hundred feet ahead”. (Sec. 63-7-11)

As to bicycle tags, there is no requirement in the State of Mississippi, nor in any other state, that requires bicycles to have tags. The idea, while attractive to some, has been tried in the past and proved to be both ineffective and inefficient. In 1935, the City of Toronto, Ontario, required bicycles to be licensed and to display the tag; that measure was repealed in 1956, for a long list of reasons. Among the reasons were: ineffective in preventing bicycle theft; bicycle license not needed by police to enforce existing traffic rules; and developing a bicycle testing and licensing system would cost more than the funds it would generate and divert attention from enforcing existing traffic rules.

In regards to insurance requirements, there is no such requirement under Mississippi Law requiring bicyclists to purchase insurance. In fact, most, if not all, insurance companies do not even have such policies available. In addition, most bicyclists already have health and automobile insurance.

I would also like to point out one other law in the MS Code, Sec 63-3-1112:

Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter or the provisions of any local ordinance, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian or any person propelling a human-powered vehicle and shall give an audible signal when necessary and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated or intoxicated person.

Having said all of that, I, as a bicyclist, adhere to these regulations, as do many other bicyclists. That does not mean that there are those who do not, just as there are motorists who do not adhere to all traffic laws. As a bicyclist, I am well aware of the vulnerable position I am in every time I ride. However, I do everything within my power to mitigate the risks involved, as everyone does with any and all activities they undertake, such as driving. I ride with head lights and tail lights and a helmet, not because it is required by law, but rather to reduce my risks of accidents and injury. I avoid, whenever possible, using heavily trafficked streets, such as Pass Rd. and Highway 90, but that is not always possible to do. I have witnessed other bicyclists riding in dangerous and unlawful ways and I do not like it any more than you do because it reflects poorly on all bicyclists; much the same way that bad drivers reflect poorly on all drivers in general.

Bicycling is a safe, healthy, relaxing and enjoyable means of not only exercise, but of transportation as well. I bicycle to work at least two to three times a week, not to save money on gas, but because I enjoy it and the health benefits that come with it. I would no sooner give up my rights to ride my bicycle than I would give up my right to free speech or ask others to do the same.


To quote Joel from MST3K, "Whadda think, sirs?"

Only one problem - Sound Off emails are limited to 70 words

Only one problem - Sound Off emails are limited to 70 words

Yeah, which is one of the reasons I submitted it as a letter to the editor. The other was to not be an Anonymous Coward. ;)

Apparently, someone called in to the local paper's Sound Off (http://www.sunherald.com/soundoff/story/925183.html)column to whine about bicycles needing licenses.

I was asked by one of the members of the local bicycle club if I'd like to write a response. Oh, would I? :innocent:



To quote Joel from MST3K, "Whadda think, sirs?"

You are wasting your time and electrons, unless you just like to Sound Off. Who do do think is going to pay any attention to anything written to a local paper sound off page if it is in conflict with their own beliefs?

Mostly good until you started flinging the BS below:

"I have witnessed other bicyclists riding in dangerous and unlawful ways and I do not like it any more than you do because it reflects poorly on all bicyclists; much the same way that bad drivers reflect poorly on all drivers in general."

You are wasting your time and electrons, unless you just like to Sound Off. Who do do think is going to pay any attention to anything written to a local paper sound off page if it is in conflict with their own beliefs?
I don't believe it is a waste of time at all. I think it is wonderful that there are people out there willing to set the record straight and speak their mind. We cannot get comfortable with the way things are. If we do then it is one step forward and two steps back. Kudos for making your voice heard.

The fact that motor drivers have licences doesnt stop them going through stop signs or speeding.

The fact that motor drivers have licences doesnt stop them going through stop signs or speeding.

Yes but with a legible license plate a ticket can be issued by the stop light or speed limit cameras. I figure it's only a matter of time before some enterprising government agency decides to go after an additional revenue stream by requiring plates on bikes.

Yes but with a legible license plate a ticket can be issued by the stop light or speed limit cameras. I figure it's only a matter of time before some enterprising government agency decides to go after an additional revenue stream by requiring plates on bikes.

Why bother when there is still ample low hanging fruit given the antics and disregard displayed by motorists? I rarely drive or ride anywhere without seeing numerous and flagrant traffic violations. For police, catching these people must be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Yes but with a legible license plate a ticket can be issued by the stop light or speed limit cameras. I figure it's only a matter of time before some enterprising government agency decides to go after an additional revenue stream by requiring plates on bikes.

Any revenue generated from bicycle license would be greatly outweighed by the cost to set up and administer a whole new department just to test and license bicycle riders. It also proves to be ineffective in curbing problems associated with bicycles (theft, unlawful behavior, etc.) when compared to enforcing existing laws. The city of Toronto tried this before (http://www.toronto.ca/budget2005/pdf/wes_translicensingcyc.PDF) and ended the program for those very reasons.

And, yes, I do think it's important to respond to the Sound Off writer. To let such a comment go without a rebuttal is a sign of weakness; that is how rights are taken away.

And, yes, I do think it's important to respond to the Sound Off writer. To let such a comment go without a rebuttal is a sign of weakness; that is how rights are taken away.

You must be might busy if you feel compelled to respond to every nutball rant that gets printed/posted/spoken on local media for its shock effect.

You must be might busy if you feel compelled to respond to every nutball rant that gets printed/posted/spoken on local media for its shock effect.

This is the first (since I've been here) that has been posted in the local paper, so, no, not that busy. However, if no rebuttal is given, then other voices may join in and then it will be too late; it's much easier to put out a burning bush than it is a crown fire. By rebutting the remark with factual information, you defeat a weak argument, strengthen your position, educate the masses, and, most importantly, retain your rights. It's easy to be cynical (I should know), it's easier to do nothing (which is what they're hoping), and easier still to come back with an emotional rather than a logical response (which is what they want), but to defend your position with irrefutable facts defeats your opponents and makes them look like the uninformed fools that they are.

This is the first (since I've been here) that has been posted in the local paper, so, no, not that busy. However, if no rebuttal is given, then other voices may join in and then it will be too late; it's much easier to put out a burning bush than it is a crown fire. By rebutting the remark with factual information, you defeat a weak argument, strengthen your position, educate the masses, and, most importantly, retain your rights. It's easy to be cynical (I should know), it's easier to do nothing (which is what they're hoping), and easier still to come back with an emotional rather than a logical response (which is what they want), but to defend your position with irrefutable facts defeats your opponents and makes them look like the uninformed fools that they are.

You are making the assumption that the dingbats who write loony arguments/rants to letters to the editor/Sound Off media (and the people who are too dumb to recognize it for what it is) are amenable to rational arguments.

You are making the assumption that the dingbats who write loony arguments/rants to letters to the editor/Sound Off media (and the people who are too dumb to recognize it for what it is) are amenable to rational arguments.

Then they will be shown as fools to those who are amenable to rational arguments.

Then they will be shown as fools to those who are amenable to rational arguments.

Hey I've been outing foolish statements for years on BF but the fools never get it. And it stirs up a nest of other fools whose feelings get hurt when their sacred cows are gored.

Decent response harleyfrog. Send it if you wish; or not. Whatever works for you. Don't worry if others approve or not. It's your response.

Nice job, Mr Frog!

You may want to copywright it, and then give permissions for others to use, substituting their own states' laws.

'"Throw enuf bullpoop up against a wall, and some of it is bound to stick!" (Author unknown)

You may want to copywright it, and then give permissions for others to use, substituting their own states' laws.

He wrote it, therefore it IS copyright protected. Same as a photo - copyrighted the moment you take, marked or not.

He wrote it, therefore it IS copyright protected. Same as a photo - copyrighted the moment you take, marked or not.


Or copyleft or Creative Commons. :D

Or copyleft or Creative Commons. :D

I :love: Creative Commons licenses. As a working photographer (thus affected by IP laws) I :mad: current copyright systems. Protect corporations, harm the arts and creative fields, and make it nearly impossible to *easily* and *effectively* release something into the public domain.

On professional photography forums, my sig line is "Share art, not greed" :p

Yes but with a legible license plate a ticket can be issued by the stop light or speed limit cameras. I figure it's only a matter of time before some enterprising government agency decides to go after an additional revenue stream by requiring plates on bikes.Not likely since some cities are not renewing the contracts with the camera companies. Seems that too many motorist are obeying the law and those cities are no longer making enough money to cover the contract cost.

Not likely since some cities are not renewing the contracts with the camera companies. Seems that too many motorist are obeying the law and those cities are no longer making enough money to cover the contract cost.

Hey, it must be true 'cause I read it on the interwebs.

:rolleyes:

I am amused when motorists try to arrogate to themselves the same rights and privileges of other roadway users. It is motorists who operate unbelievably dangerous machinery and insanely high speeds. Motorists need insurance because of all the mayhem they cause.

Bob Mionske argues a legal theory that the only way the State can require motorists to be licensed is because it is in fact a privilege to operate a motor vehicle on the roadways. By contrast, the public's right to use the roads (sans motor vehicle) can be traced back to English common law.

Ask your editorialist when was the last time a bicycle crashed into a house and killed a family of four. It's absurd to require the same level of accountability for the less dangerous roadway users.

I still wish I could get insurance for my bike. I'd like:
* Theft insurance.
* Medical and property liability.
* Personal medical (I'll replace the bike).

My main concern is having a bad accident and running up a significant chunk of my lifetime allowance on rehabilitation.

It shouldn't really be that expensive. $10 a month sounds about right, but it'd take an insurance company and some time to get better figures.

I wouldn't want it to be mandatory, just optional.

I still wish I could get insurance for my bike. I'd like:
* Theft insurance.
* Medical and property liability.
* Personal medical (I'll replace the bike).

My main concern is having a bad accident and running up a significant chunk of my lifetime allowance on rehabilitation.

It shouldn't really be that expensive. $10 a month sounds about right, but it'd take an insurance company and some time to get better figures.

I wouldn't want it to be mandatory, just optional.

Now if I had a $2000+ bike (like, say, oh, a custom made Seven, for instance), then I would like to have it insured. I'd hate to think of dropping that much change on a bike then have some JAM in a cage turn a finely crafted bicycle into a metal pretzel. :notamused:

The article was printed today. http://www.sunherald.com/opinion/story/937438.html

I still wish I could get insurance for my bike. I'd like:
* Theft insurance.
* Medical and property liability.
* Personal medical (I'll replace the bike).As I understand it, if you have a homeowners or renters policy, it will often provide liability insurance for damage you cause on your bicycle, and will also cover theft of the bicycle. (Though your deductible may be large compared to the price of the bicycle.) As for medical, if you have a car and have PIP insurance, that may cover accidents on the bicycle as well.

Check with your insurance provider to be sure, of course.

And if something isn't covered, contact your insurance company -- they may be able to add it to an existing policy somewhere. Though it might not be as cheap as hoped ...

You can insure your bike. I talked to my agent about that and he told me it would be covered under my homeowners policy. You may have to have a rider attached to the policy like I do for my cameras and jewelry, but it is available.

The point of writing a rebuttal to the Sound Off is that there are reasonable and intelligent people who could be swayed or corrected in their thinking. It may not be original neanderthal that wrote the letter, but others.

The point of writing a rebuttal to the Sound Off is that there are reasonable and intelligent people who could be swayed or corrected in their thinking. It may not be original neanderthal that wrote the letter, but others.
My contention is that reasonable and intelligent people either do not read Sound Off type rants at all, or only for amusement purposes, like peeping at a freak show. Recognizing the value/credibility of a Neanderthal's rant for what it is, is the mark of reasonable and intelligent people. The rest are not likely to be swayed/stay swayed by a rational response.

The same logic applies to responding to the recent spate of truly nutty posts being dished out by one poster on A&S; does any response clear the air?

Personal property insurance is available and has a lower deductible.

Before I needed either homeowners or renters insurance, I was covered under a $0 deductible personal property insurance. Knew a guy with the same policy, who collected when he lost his $10 cross pen.

You must be mighty busy if you feel compelled to respond to every nutball rant that gets printed/posted/spoken on local media for its shock effect.

That is freakin' hysterical! I looked up your post #s since you joined BF on 10-28-2004. Your total number of posts as of this moment is 10,356! About 2500 post each year or roughly 7 post per day - every single day for f-o-u-r years.

You should leave the OP alone. If it makes him feel better, what do you care?

That is freakin' hysterical! I looked up your post #s since you joined BF on 10-28-2004. Your total number of posts as of this moment is 10,356! About 2500 post each year or roughly 7 post per day - every single day for f-o-u-r years.

You should leave the OP alone. If it makes him feel better, what do you care?
If replying to a silly rant made the OP feel better, he wouldn't need to ask "Whadda think, sirs?" I answered his question.

I'd have to post a lot more if I replied to every silly comment made on BF by self appointed experts on cycling technique, equipment, law, economics, etc.

If replying to a silly rant made the OP feel better, he wouldn't need to ask "Whadda think, sirs?"

I disagree.



I answered his question.

Not exactly. Originally, you told the OP he was wasting his time. That answered his question.

"You are wasting your time and electrons, unless you just like to Sound Off. Who do do think is going to pay any attention to anything written to a local paper sound off page if it is in conflict with their own beliefs? "

I can agree with that. But a few posts down as your response to his rebuttal:

You must be might busy if you feel compelled to respond to every nutball rant that gets printed/posted/spoken on local media for its shock effect."

Far as I can tell, he responded to one nutball. I would imagine that made him feel better, then he came here (what a mistake) to share that with us. "Whaddaya think?" is always a mine field at BF - his mistake for sure - but dang...cut a brotha a break around here.

On the other hand, his remark to you included "To let such a comment go without a rebuttal is a sign of weakness" and would lump me (and I presume you as well) into a category of weakings that neither of us deserve. I am not weak, just lazy and apathetic and having a hard time getting to sleep tonight. :D

I'd have to post a lot more if I replied to every silly comment made on BF by self appointed experts on cycling technique, equipment, law, economics, etc.

While I appreciate your campaign, and often get a good chuckle at the responses you get, it's probably a waste of electrons ;)

Sometimes it is worth responding to nutjobs in the paper, even if it's just to put your own mind to rest. I tend to favour brevity though, so the only objection I have ot the OP's response is it's length. It's probably also worth recognising that it's unlikely to change anyone's mind, but that's undoubtedly true of the rant that prompted all this too. It's all good fun, eh?

Yes but with a legible license plate a ticket can be issued by the stop light or speed limit cameras. I figure it's only a matter of time before some enterprising government agency decides to go after an additional revenue stream by requiring plates on bikes.

That would require that the amount of bikers on the road would generate enough revenue to actually sustain the system to enforce said licenses. Beside, do you think that the police officer really wants to be checking little Timmy or Suzie's bike for the proper plates? What is he going to do, take the lunch money as a fine?

While I appreciate your campaign, and often get a good chuckle at the responses you get, it's probably a waste of electrons ;)

Sometimes it is worth responding to nutjobs in the paper, even if it's just to put your own mind to rest. I tend to favour brevity though, so the only objection I have ot the OP's response is it's length. It's probably also worth recognising that it's unlikely to change anyone's mind, but that's undoubtedly true of the rant that prompted all this too. It's all good fun, eh?

I agree, a waste of electrons. But hey, That's Internet Entertainment:thumb:

I wrecked on my bike without any health insurance. Neither my home nor car coverage would cover anything. It would only cover if I damaged something of someone elses.

My contention is that reasonable and intelligent people either do not read Sound Off type rants at all, or only for amusement purposes, like peeping at a freak show. Recognizing the value/credibility of a Neanderthal's rant for what it is, is the mark of reasonable and intelligent people. The rest are not likely to be swayed/stay swayed by a rational response.

The same logic applies to responding to the recent spate of truly nutty posts being dished out by one poster on A&S; does any response clear the air?

I fully support the OP for trying to raise awareness in my neck of the woods. Rest assured, his contribution WILL raise awareness with otherwise uninformed motorists and no amount of cynicism on your part will take that away or negate it. Cyclists need every vocal advocate we can get. How do you think laws got put on the books in the first place? It was people like the OP who is willing to assert himself and exert the effort. Not lazy azzes like you and me who are all to happy to have others do the dirty work for us. Bike paths (many of them are actually great), signage, educational campaigns, laws to protect us...they all came about as a result of the efforts of people like the OP. Instead of bagging on him you ought to thank him for having the sack enough to do something you are too lazy to do. Dick.

I fully support the OP for trying to raise awareness in my neck of the woods. Rest assured, his contribution WILL raise awareness with otherwise uninformed motorists and no amount of cynicism on your part will take that away or negate it.

I support him as well. But here is the deal. He is speaking Portuguese to Eskimos. Like trying to explain Newton's laws of physics to Tarzan of the Apes. Most motorists do not have a cycling foundation of knowledge to understand his words, much less the ideas behind them.

I am speaking from experience. I have many non-cycling friends from many walks of life including cops, lawyers, doctors, laborers, clerks. They all think I am just out of my mind because I don't have a car and bike everywhere. Speaking to them face to (blank) face is practically useless. The notion that they would actually READ more that three words of a cycling piece, much less understand the concepts contained within is wishful thinking.

All of us here at BF have a common language and similar experiences with cycling, plus a passion for it on some level. The non-cycling public couldn't care less, except of course - when we are in their way.

But...I still think folks who have not become jaded should write rebuttals to such rants if they feel like it. They should also post them here so I can feel less compelled to reply to Tarzan about swinging on vines.

Just my two wasted electrons for the day.

Joey thinks public information campaigns are a waste of time. Got it.

Thinking out loud here. Some cities are known for being very bike friendly. I wonder how that came to be.

Joey thinks public information campaigns are a waste of time.

Putting words in my keyboard?

Filling a town hall meeting with cyclists from a community would not be a waste of time. Voting for a sympathetic member of the City Council, and campaigning for that person would be good too. Critical Mass? Not so sure. Responding to an irate motorist? Not sure either.

My actual feelings about the OP were expressed in my post. You do not need to add more of "my thoughts" to that post.

Putting words in my keyboard?

Filling a town hall meeting with cyclists from a community would not be a waste of time. Voting for a sympathetic member of the City Council, and campaigning for that person would be good too. Critical Mass? Not so sure. Responding to an irate motorist? Not sure either.

My actual feelings about the OP were expressed in my post. You do not need to add more of "my thoughts" to that post.

You said.

"He is speaking Portuguese to Eskimos."

I guess I'm silly for assuming you meant that was a waste of time.

Now before Joey and Paul start some weird online cage match, let me say that I can see and appreciate both sides. Yes, it's easy to become jaded, cynical, frustrated, angered, even bitter trying to get through to someone who doesn't share your beliefs, insight, experience, etc., (gods know I tried with some relatives of mine :rolleyes: and I can be (and often am) very cynical about things, too). I did my part in a way that I feel comfortable with; that may or may not be the way others would do it, but that's fine, too. Some would let it slide; others would fire off another Sound Off. I decided to take the approach I did because my inspiration comes from true revolutionaries: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr.

I rebutted an argument that was obviously posted on the Sound Off with much passion (that's why it's called a Sound Off and not something like, oh, A Civil Discourse ;)). However, the feelings of one person are often shared by others and that lends credibility (falsely, in some cases) to the argument. I sought I correct (or even prevent) a growing opposition by responding not in a heated, passionate manner, but rather with facts and evidence, much like a lawyer trying a case. Granted, there are those readers who the article will make as much sense to them as trying to read "War and Peace" to them in the original Russian; but then there are those who will read the article and understand (hopefully among those will be elected officials) and that will, in turn inspire discourse and open the way to change.

What may come out of this in the long run, I can not say, but it does let the general public know that there is (yet) another voice to be heard and perhaps this may open a dialog with public officials and Gulf Coast bicycle riders. There was one Sound Off post since the one I rebutted that was in support of bicyclists, so maybe some good will come of this, who knows? Much like New Orleans, we're still recovering from Katrina and, as such, we have an opportunity to not only recover, but rebuild the coast into something grander than before.

Not many places have the chance or choice to make that change, but we, as bicyclists, can point to many examples of cities transforming themselves into bicycle friendly cities; Washington, D.C., Boston, Louisville are just some of the examples of this. Others have already made the transition and are shown as examples of what can be; Seattle, Oregon, Amsterdam, Berkley, etc., are all fine examples of this, and I salute the efforts made by all those involved. That is what advocacy does, or at least makes an attempt for: change.

As motorized vehicles become more expensive to own, operate, and maintain, people are going to stop using them. The Government (Federal, State, and Local) is NOT going to let the funds acquired from road taxes, fuel taxes, registration, and operator's permits just dry up and go away. The Government will replace the money generated to the coffers from cars to all other means of transportation, including raising fares for mass transit, and registration of bicycles, roller blades, roller skates, skate boards, and so on. The insurance companies are not going to let their slice of the automotive income pie vanish either, and will pressure the states to pass laws requiring liability insurance on bicycles, roller blades, skate boards, and possibly even shoes and boots, to prevent those who would try and get around having to buy the insurance, by walking or taking public transport. While folks in areas that do not get snow and ice could walk around bare foot year round, those in the areas that do get snow and ice cannot go barefoot year round, (assuming they wish to keep their toes and/or feet) and would thus be forced to buy the liability insurance for their shoes and boots.

As motorized vehicles become more expensive to own, operate, and maintain, people are going to stop using them. The Government (Federal, State, and Local) is NOT going to let the funds acquired from road taxes, fuel taxes, registration, and operator's permits just dry up and go away. The Government will replace the money generated to the coffers from cars to all other means of transportation, including raising fares for mass transit, and registration of bicycles, roller blades, roller skates, skate boards, and so on. The insurance companies are not going to let their slice of the automotive income pie vanish either, and will pressure the states to pass laws requiring liability insurance on bicycles, roller blades, skate boards, and possibly even shoes and boots, to prevent those who would try and get around having to buy the insurance, by walking or taking public transport. While folks in areas that do not get snow and ice could walk around bare foot year round, those in the areas that do get snow and ice cannot go barefoot year round, (assuming they wish to keep their toes and/or feet) and would thus be forced to buy the liability insurance for their shoes and boots.

Don't forget to forward this "argument" to your local Sound Off tabloid/radio call in show/ Letters to the Editor.

Don't forget to forward this "argument" to your local Sound Off tabloid/radio call in show/ Letters to the Editor.

So you think the Government and insurance companies are going to willingly give up several hundreds of millions of dollars a year a year???

So you think the Government and insurance companies are going to willingly give up several hundreds of millions of dollars a year a year???

Just pray that "they" don't confiscate tin foil headwear.

I still commend you for your reply to the Sound Off column.

If nobody else reads that page, all of the newspaper people, and politicians, and most police officers, do.

It's always nice to be able to help educate those in power.

As motorized vehicles become more expensive to own, operate, and maintain, people are going to stop using them. The Government (Federal, State, and Local) is NOT going to let the funds acquired from road taxes, fuel taxes, registration, and operator's permits just dry up and go away. The Government will replace the money generated to the coffers from cars to all other means of transportation, including raising fares for mass transit, and registration of bicycles, roller blades, roller skates, skate boards, and so on. The insurance companies are not going to let their slice of the automotive income pie vanish either, and will pressure the states to pass laws requiring liability insurance on bicycles, roller blades, skate boards, and possibly even shoes and boots, to prevent those who would try and get around having to buy the insurance, by walking or taking public transport. While folks in areas that do not get snow and ice could walk around bare foot year round, those in the areas that do get snow and ice cannot go barefoot year round, (assuming they wish to keep their toes and/or feet) and would thus be forced to buy the liability insurance for their shoes and boots.

This may just be the coolest conspiracy theory I've read in a while. Lol!

Just pray that "they" don't confiscate tin foil headwear.


Is there such thing as tin foil? I thought it was aluminum.