Living Car Free - The Constitution says that bikes are for recreation.

According to Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), a new member of the House Transportation Committee, the Constitution says that bikes are for recreation. Any federal money spent on cycling infrastructure is a waste.

http://www.thewashcycle.com/2011/01/the-constitution-says-that-bikes-are-for-recreation.html

There isn't a facepalm emphatic enough to express my dismay.

Aww crap.

Another lawmaker not in touch with reality.

Whenever a Republican comes out of CA, he always seems like a different species. Nixon and Reagan top the list, but there are lots of Duncan Hunters out there. I guess they feel the need to balance all those DFH's out west.

The responsibility to regulate interstate commerce means stopping tarrifs and unfair trade practices between the states. But, in the current Washington interpretation, it means the feds can control anything that 'affects' interstate commerce.

His conclusion is that planes and cars, trains and trucks, are all important to interstate commerce, and therefore spending in these areas deserves strict control by the feds. In reality, few people use, or would use, bikes for interstate commerce. Building an interstate bike path, for commerce, would make about as much sense as a series of tiny canals to allow people to travel the country by kayak to conduct business.

There is nothing I'd rather see from my tax dollars than an interstate for bikes. I would use it, for transportation and recreation. But it stands on its own, apart from trying to justify cycling as interstate commerce. Build the bike paths to encourage better health and a cleaner environment, to increase property values in the surrounding areas. Build them for recreation and fun, and because they are awesome.

But, you don't need to justify the bike path on the questionable basis that it would have a meaningful impact on interstate commerce. In that small sense, I agree with him.

He didn't say that according to the constitution bikes are for recreation. He said in his opinion, they are for recreation. He's talking about not spending interstate commerce money on bicycle infrastructure. He supports local municipalities spending money on bicycle infrastructure.

As a non-American I'm reluctant to offer an opinion but here goes.

The 'linked' interview doesn't seem to me to justify the headline.

As a European I think bike lanes and paths have their place but only as a small part a fully integrated transport system that includes highways, rail, bus and bicycle.

In Europe some countries have been more sucessful than others in developing their transportation systems. Why? Well, one reason is that when you are constantly either at war with your neighbour or planning for it you need efficient means to mobilise your human and other resources. Caesar, Napoleon, Bismark and Hitler all understood this.

I suppose that a strong argument could be made that according to the Constitution that those roads are for horses and horse-drawn vehicles only. Certainly the founding fathers weren't envisioning cars, trucks or bicycles when they wrote it.

In Europe some countries have been more successful than others in developing their transportation systems. Why? Well, one reason is that when you are constantly either at war with your neighbor or planning for it you need efficient means to mobilize your human and other resources. Caesar, Napoleon, Bismark and Hitler all understood this.

So did Eisenhower.

According to Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), a new member of the House Transportation Committee, the Constitution says that bikes are for recreation. Any federal money spent on cycling infrastructure is a waste.

http://www.thewashcycle.com/2011/01/the-constitution-says-that-bikes-are-for-recreation.html

We have such dangerous idiots in public office today! :notamused::notamused:

187911

We have such dangerous idiots in public office today! :notamused::notamused:

Voters like the ones who put Mr. Hunter into office are the reason those Nigerian e-mail scams are still so popular.

Posts like the last 3 are the reason there is a P+R forum. Isn't it possible that people can come to a different conclusion than you, while still retaining the power to reason?

In this case, it is not unreasonable to interpret the constitution very strictly, though you may choose to interpret it differently. The 10th ammendment says plainly that powers not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved for the states. If this man thinks that includes bike paths, perhaps you disagree. But, it is unfair to assume that he or anyone who voted for him has not considered or is not capable of considering the issue. How is calling them names useful?

Posts like the last 3 are the reason there is a P+R forum. Isn't it possible that people can come to a different conclusion than you, while still retaining the power to reason?

In this case, it is not unreasonable to interpret the constitution very strictly, though you may choose to interpret it differently. The 10th ammendment says plainly that powers not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved for the states. If this man thinks that includes bike paths, perhaps you disagree. But, it is unfair to assume that he or anyone who voted for him has not considered or is not capable of considering the issue. How is calling them names useful?

Well the congressman in question, party aside, has a poor understanding of the revenue stream in transportation policy. He seems to believe that the federal government funds only the interstate highway; in fact, that's only one portion of federal highway spending. Federal dollars are also spent on many projects besides the interstates--including projects where bike lanes often make a lot of sense. These funds are often spent where bikes are used there for purposes other than recreation and sport.

I'm sorry that Rep. Hunter has such a poor understanding of infrastructure, especially if it's true that he's been assigned to the transportation committee. Maybe he will grow into the job.

Now if you or Hunter would like to stop federal funding for highways, that's fine and dandy. Come out and say so rather than distracting people with silly arguments that bikes are toys. But then, please explain who will take up the slack in infrastructure funding? Obviously the statesw and municipalities are not in good shape at the moment. Also, please explain why this constitutional argument applies to bike lanes, but did not apply to previous transportation projects that were funded by the federal government, such as the Erie Canal, transcontinental railroad, the Panama Canal, airport construction, and the U.S. and Interstate highway systems.

Roody, it has been stated at least twice in this thread that he was talking about funds from interstate commerce. Bicycles are worthless for interstate commerce. Federally, they are realistically less than recreational devices. In some locales like NYC there is a larger % of people that use bikes for transportation and utility. But to suggest that we should use federal funds for bicycle infrastructure that would only be taken advantage of in a handful of states is irresponsible spending.

All Hunter is saying is to leave it up to the local municipalities that need it to build the infrastructure. It's the same concept of state roads not getting federal funding.

If you take money from the government, they will feel obligated to regulate you. You don't want that.

I have to disagree with the idea that bikes are worthless when it comes to interstate commerce. It's fairly obvious that the direct transportation of goods does not take place via bicycle. However, a number of people commute via bicycle to a job at a company which engages in interstate commerce. My husband worked in the warehouse of a small business, and part of his duties including shipping goods out of state on a daily basis. He got to that job on his bicycle. Additionally, cycling infrastructure encourages more people out of their cars and onto their bikes, therefore easing congestion and allowing for smoother flow of the aforementioned goods. Even bikes as recreation can add up to interstate commerce. People who ride for recreational purposes may be drawn to vacation in spots where cycling infrastructure is extensive, perhaps even across state lines.

On another front, many of our politicians on both sides of the aisle are fond of proclaiming that reducing our dependence on foreign oil is a national security issue. Encouraging cycling as a means of transport, though local, aims directly at that goal.

^
This. We haven't really strictly adhered to the Constitution for well... ever. Pretty stupid to say federal funding of bike lanes aren't constitutional when we're using the commerce clause to fix prices and make it illegal to grown food for your own use on your land because it effected interstate markets (New Deal). Of course bicycles have effectively nothing to do with interstate commerce directly. But then again, neither do gun-free schools zones, crop quotas on subsistence farmers, sex offender registration, forcing states to legalize gambling, etc etc.

I have to disagree with the idea that bikes are worthless when it comes to interstate commerce. It's fairly obvious that the direct transportation of goods does not take place via bicycle. However, a number of people commute via bicycle to a job at a company which engages in interstate commerce. My husband worked in the warehouse of a small business, and part of his duties including shipping goods out of state on a daily basis. He got to that job on his bicycle. Additionally, cycling infrastructure encourages more people out of their cars and onto their bikes, therefore easing congestion and allowing for smoother flow of the aforementioned goods. Even bikes as recreation can add up to interstate commerce. People who ride for recreational purposes may be drawn to vacation in spots where cycling infrastructure is extensive, perhaps even across state lines.

On another front, many of our politicians on both sides of the aisle are fond of proclaiming that reducing our dependence on foreign oil is a national security issue. Encouraging cycling as a means of transport, though local, aims directly at that goal.

Excellent points!

...I'm sorry that Rep. Hunter has such a poor understanding of infrastructure, especially if it's true that he's been assigned to the transportation committee. Maybe he will grow into the job.

Now if you or Hunter would like to stop federal funding for highways, that's fine and dandy. Come out and say so rather than distracting people with silly arguments that bikes are toys. But then, please explain who will take up the slack in infrastructure funding? Obviously the statesw and municipalities are not in good shape at the moment. Also, please explain why this constitutional argument applies to bike lanes, but did not apply to previous transportation projects that were funded by the federal government, such as the Erie Canal, transcontinental railroad, the Panama Canal, airport construction, and the U.S. and Interstate highway systems.

I can't speak for the congressman. I am only saying that there is a valid, logical argument to be made that trains, highways and canals are necessary for interstate commerce, and bike lanes are not. The federal government has reasonably extended the right to regulate to the right to control spending and construction for this reason: you don't want a 6 lane highway through Ohio leading to a dirt road through Kentucky. Poorer or sparsely poulated states would have little incentive to complete an interstate highway system on their own, yet there are important reasons to do it for the nation as a whole, for commerce and defense. It is fair to argue that the bike path does not fall under this line of reasoning.


I have to disagree with the idea that bikes are worthless when it comes to interstate commerce. It's fairly obvious that the direct transportation of goods does not take place via bicycle. However, a number of people commute via bicycle to a job at a company which engages in interstate commerce. My husband worked in the warehouse of a small business, and part of his duties including shipping goods out of state on a daily basis. He got to that job on his bicycle. Additionally, cycling infrastructure encourages more people out of their cars and onto their bikes, therefore easing congestion and allowing for smoother flow of the aforementioned goods. Even bikes as recreation can add up to interstate commerce. People who ride for recreational purposes may be drawn to vacation in spots where cycling infrastructure is extensive, perhaps even across state lines.

On another front, many of our politicians on both sides of the aisle are fond of proclaiming that reducing our dependence on foreign oil is a national security issue. Encouraging cycling as a means of transport, though local, aims directly at that goal.

This is a strong and well written argument to the contrary. Reasonable people can make a good argument for both sides.


Roody, it has been stated at least twice in this thread that he was talking about funds from interstate commerce. Bicycles are worthless for interstate commerce. Federally, they are realistically less than recreational devices. In some locales like NYC there is a larger % of people that use bikes for transportation and utility. But to suggest that we should use federal funds for bicycle infrastructure that would only be taken advantage of in a handful of states is irresponsible spending.

All Hunter is saying is to leave it up to the local municipalities that need it to build the infrastructure. It's the same concept of state roads not getting federal funding.

This is a valid defense of Hunter's side, again well made.

This is the discussion we should be having in the forum. There is little to be gained from distorting the comments of the congressman, or calling him or his supporters names. Is diminishes those who engage in it, and the forum, and alienates people who may have a different point of view. This is the main point I have tried to make in the thread.

Also, I have to agree with the congressman that it is a stretch to think that bike paths are critical to interstate commerce. I support the bike path, of course, but not for that reason.

But to suggest that we should use federal funds for bicycle infrastructure that would only be taken advantage of in a handful of states is irresponsible spending.
Well, maybe other states should jump on the civilization band wagon...
I'm not saying, I'm just saying...

good then duncan hunter won't mind if I quit paying taxes on the $$ I earn riding a bike

I have to disagree with the idea that bikes are worthless when it comes to interstate commerce. It's fairly obvious that the direct transportation of goods does not take place via bicycle.

incorrect

Interesting (and valid) points made from both points of view. That said, I think it is terribly important to recognize that the US is headed toward and ideas economy, if not already primarily there. Manufacturing goods, while important in certain pockets, is not going to sustain our economy in the long-term.

The question then becomes how do we transport those ideas? Obviously, telecommunications networks are probably the greatest factor here. But sometimes you need to get people together to work on an idea, and then human transport becomes the issue. I'm not going to argue that in many cases biking is the way to go (especially if we are considering interstate transport of said humans), but there are a large number of people who commute into NYC, DC, etc from out of state. If possible (infrastructure), would they ride bike? I can't say that I know, but it is something to consider.

good then duncan hunter won't mind if I quit paying taxes on the $$ I earn riding a bike

And from everything else you don't participate in and pay taxes for?

Interesting (and valid) points made from both points of view. That said, I think it is terribly important to recognize that the US is headed toward and ideas economy, if not already primarily there. Manufacturing goods, while important in certain pockets, is not going to sustain our economy in the long-term.

The question then becomes how do we transport those ideas? Obviously, telecommunications networks are probably the greatest factor here. But sometimes you need to get people together to work on an idea, and then human transport becomes the issue. I'm not going to argue that in many cases biking is the way to go (especially if we are considering interstate transport of said humans), but there are a large number of people who commute into NYC, DC, etc from out of state. If possible (infrastructure), would they ride bike? I can't say that I know, but it is something to consider.


I have to ask the obvious, why do you need to get people together simply to work on an idea? We can now teach whole college courses without a student ever once meeting with other students or instructor. We can teleconference from our computer in an instant and discuss ideas without ever getting out of our house. But we cannot deliver hard goods from the ports to the consumer by bicycles or from one coast to the other.
As pointed out funds have been diverted in the past for projects that are beyond the scope of what they were originally intended for and the National Highway system is no different. Still there is no direct relation between interstate transportation of commerce and bicycle paths or even bike lanes. Those tend to be a local issue in my opinion. And the great thing about our system is we don't have to agree, we just have to vote how we feel.

I have to disagree with the idea that bikes are worthless when it comes to interstate commerce. It's fairly obvious that the direct transportation of goods does not take place via bicycle. However, a number of people commute via bicycle to a job at a company which engages in interstate commerce.

I think you are reaching, and you probably either a) know that or b) don't understand what interstate commerce entails. Because by your logic, interstate commerce funds should also be spent on things like cell phone towers - because we all use our cellphones to call businesses that engage in interstate commerce. Or sidewalk paths, because a lot of people without cars walk to these businesses as well.

People need to get together to work on an idea because we are social creatures. Having worked some IT support, I know the difference between talking with someone on the phone/remoting onto their computer to fix a problem versus showing up at their office and talking with them in person; we are wired to react to real people, not just the idea of them. Maybe it isn't as distinct for others as it is for me, but that is my thinking in this regard.

I'm not necessarily arguing that bikes are the answer to interstate commerce, but rather trying to point out the fact that we are moving toward an ideas economy, and as such, our discussion of commerce should center not only on moving hard goods.

Roody, it has been stated at least twice in this thread that he was talking about funds from interstate commerce. Bicycles are worthless for interstate commerce. Federally, they are realistically less than recreational devices. In some locales like NYC there is a larger % of people that use bikes for transportation and utility. But to suggest that we should use federal funds for bicycle infrastructure that would only be taken advantage of in a handful of states is irresponsible spending.

All Hunter is saying is to leave it up to the local municipalities that need it to build the infrastructure. It's the same concept of state roads not getting federal funding.

But state roads DO get federal funding, and quite a lot of it. So do municipal streets and roads. This being the case, there is certainly justification for including money for bike infrastructure that would support transportational cycling. This is what Secretary LaHood (a Republican) is talking about doing. for exmple.

People need to get together to work on an idea because we are social creatures. Having worked some IT support, I know the difference between talking with someone on the phone/remoting onto their computer to fix a problem versus showing up at their office and talking with them in person; we are wired to react to real people, not just the idea of them. Maybe it isn't as distinct for others as it is for me, but that is my thinking in this regard.

I'm not necessarily arguing that bikes are the answer to interstate commerce, but rather trying to point out the fact that we are moving toward an ideas economy, and as such, our discussion of commerce should center not only on moving hard goods.

You would be right except that no amount of ideas is worth anything if they aren't converted into real goods or services, food, housing, defense, safety, medical and hardware. A great idea for cooling a building is worthless if no one builds the device and no one installs the device and no one transports the device to the building to cool. We are fast moving away from a society than needs to press the flesh to solve technical problems. We can do it from out of the country sitting in a conference room or the privacy of our own home. Shoot internet sales are increasing faster than mortar and brick store sales and you never have to see the sales person to get even hard goods. But you do need to transport them and bicycles aren’t part of the equation for interstate commerce by definition of what commerce is.

Inter city or even inter county is a different story and that falls under the purview of State government not federal. And even in cities and counties bicycles are rarely used for commercial commerce and never for interstate commerce. Even our computers, smart phones and entertainment, and tourism are delivered by interstate commerce and they aren’t supported by bicycle. They can be by boat, air, train and truck and that is what the interstate transportation was designed to support. Can they support city and county and state projects? If they want to they can but there is no imperative that the voting public has to support such a move. To disagree don’t make anyone anti bicycle it simply means they have a different idea of what the Federal government is responsible for.

I think you are reaching, and you probably either a) know that or b) don't understand what interstate commerce entails. Because by your logic, interstate commerce funds should also be spent on things like cell phone towers - because we all use our cellphones to call businesses that engage in interstate commerce. Or sidewalk paths, because a lot of people without cars walk to these businesses as well.

Cellphone towers were built with the help of government funding. Telecommunication companies wrote off taxes on every penny they spent on towers, and a decrease in taxes is exactly the same financially as a direct payment from the government. The reason for helping the companies out wasn't so much that Congress wanted to regulate interstate commerce in the form of cellphone companies.

The reason was that cellphones were a new technology that looked very promising for helping individuals and society as a whole to lead better lives. It wqould have been difficult for any private company to come up with the capital to build thousands of towers. So our elected representatives decided to give a little boost (in the form of tax breaks) to get this important new technology rolling along. If Congress had not supported cell phone companies, we'd probabably still have coverage in a few major cities, and the rest of the people would be getting pretty antsy about getting it.

I think investing in cell phone infrastructure was a good plan for both government and the private sector. Unfortunately, those who believe in a "strict" interpretation of the Constitution, like Rep. Hunter, would disagree. They would argue that federal funds should not be spent on private enterprises. If it was up to Hunter, we'd all still be looking for a pay phone, I guess.

Cellphone towers were built with the help of government funding. Telecommunication companies wrote off taxes on every penny they spent on towers, and a decrease in taxes is exactly the same financially as a direct payment from the government. The reason for helping the companies out wasn't so much that Congress wanted to regulate interstate commerce in the form of cellphone companies.

The reason was that cellphones were a new technology that looked very promising for helping individuals and society as a whole to lead better lives. It wqould have been difficult for any private company to come up with the capital to build thousands of towers. So our elected representatives decided to give a little boost (in the form of tax breaks) to get this important new technology rolling along. If Congress had not supported cell phone companies, we'd probabably still have coverage in a few major cities, and the rest of the people would be getting pretty antsy about getting it.

I think investing in cell phone infrastructure was a good plan for both government and the private sector. Unfortunately, those who believe in a "strict" interpretation of the Constitution, like Rep. Hunter, would disagree. They would argue that federal funds should not be spent on private enterprises. If it was up to Hunter, we'd all still be looking for a pay phone, I guess.

Yes but cell phones are under the FCC and the government issues channels and regulates the phone companies. Are we suggesting federal regulation and control of bicycles?

Roody, we're specifically talking about federal funds meant for interstate commerce. But if it helps your argument by all means, continue.

Rep. Duncan must have his head up in a very dark place . . .

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Cycling "advocates" have been sending the same message out for years anyway. As a lifelong transportational cyclist, I realised some years ago that probably 99.9% of the "bicycle infrastructure" that "advocates" campaign for is, at best, useless for a transportational cyclist, and often makes things worse. Bicycle Queensland even supported a campaign to have cyclists banned from a particular roadway because they wanted the government to build a bike path instead (fortunately, the police around here can't be bothered enforcing the ban, or any other law for that matter, so I can still use the road if I do it quietly).

My question is why, in view of the above, anybody finds any of this surprising.

According to Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), a new member of the House Transportation Committee, the Constitution says that bikes are for recreation. Any federal money spent on cycling infrastructure is a waste.

http://www.thewashcycle.com/2011/01/the-constitution-says-that-bikes-are-for-recreation.html


Alrighty then, I'll recreate to work, then recreate to the grocery store, maybe take a recreating spin to the beach if it's sunny out.

Right wing politicians are always about freedom and rights except when they don't like it. They are like spoiled little children. This short sighted goof needs a time out.

Cellphone towers were built with the help of government funding. Telecommunication companies wrote off taxes on every penny they spent on towers, and a decrease in taxes is exactly the same financially as a direct payment from the government. The reason for helping the companies out wasn't so much that Congress wanted to regulate interstate commerce in the form of cellphone companies.

The reason was that cellphones were a new technology that looked very promising for helping individuals and society as a whole to lead better lives. It wqould have been difficult for any private company to come up with the capital to build thousands of towers. So our elected representatives decided to give a little boost (in the form of tax breaks) to get this important new technology rolling along. If Congress had not supported cell phone companies, we'd probabably still have coverage in a few major cities, and the rest of the people would be getting pretty antsy about getting it.

I think investing in cell phone infrastructure was a good plan for both government and the private sector. Unfortunately, those who believe in a "strict" interpretation of the Constitution, like Rep. Hunter, would disagree. They would argue that federal funds should not be spent on private enterprises. If it was up to Hunter, we'd all still be looking for a pay phone, I guess.

I've been looking on the internet for discussions concerning tax breaks for cell phone towers. I understand that any capital expense can be amortized over a period of years. I don't consider this a tax break or a write off merely the cost of doing business and as such is a business expense. On large capital expenditures companies must amortize those expenses over a period of years rather than in the year they were incurred. Last year, as part of the stimulus package, congress allowed a one time "write off" of the entire amount of these large capital expenses. This allowed companies to write off the entire expenditure reducing their tax burden for 2010 but increasing their taxes in subsequent years as they would have used their entire deduction. I hardly see this as government funding for cell phone towers, merely choosing when you wish to pay your taxes.

...This allowed companies to write off the entire expenditure reducing their tax burden for 2010 but increasing their taxes in subsequent years as they would have used their entire deduction. I hardly see this as government funding for cell phone towers, merely choosing when you wish to pay your taxes.

This is a critical difference, and the reason that deferral of tax payments is a primary goal of modern business.

Say it's 10 million to build the tower. Instead of, say, straight-line deductions of 1 million a year for 10 years, you allow a company to write off the whole bundle in year one. What is the net benefit to the company?

At 40% corporate taxes, it means 3,600,000 to invest for free, getting back something like 400,000 in interest the first year. Then 3,200,000 to invest for free in the second year, and so on. The total benefit to the company ends up being something in the neighborhood of 4 million, on this deferral of tax payments from the 10 million investment. This is not insignificant.

I don't get Hunter's argument probably b/c it is politically motivated by an idea I don't particularly agree with.

I work for an MPO that constitutes 5 counties. We have hundreds of "regionally significant" roadways in our MSA and only a few of them have anything to do with interstate commerce. I'm talking about arterials that take traffic from smaller collector roads and feed them to schools, shopping and offices in a relatively small geographic shed. Most of these roads get 20% of their funding locally and 80% from the federal government. I guess you could argue that they could eventually feed into the interstates but what about 50+ years ago before interstates existed when they had nothing to do with interstate commerce?

I guess you could argue that they could eventually feed into the interstates but what about 50+ years ago before interstates existed when they had nothing to do with interstate commerce?

First 50 years were just waiting around for someone to build the freeways.

"Interstate commerce" is being used as some kind of code word. i hear about it in reference to right-wing federal judges, for example. I really don't understand the issue very well yet.

But I do know that Congress appropriates a lot of funds to state and municipal governments for use on local highways and streets. Sometimes these funds are in the form of matching grants, and sometimes they are what is called "earmarks". Whatever-- they are federal funds used for purposes that are only peripherally connected to interstate commerce. If these funds can be granted for car roads, I see no reason they can't also be granted for bike roads and pedestrian roads.

As cyclists, we do need to be aware that there will be enormous pushback from motoring interests in regard to bike infrastructure. Many motorists want to get us off the roads, but they don't typically want to provide us with any alternatives to the roads. I think this is something we should be studying up on. Anybody who has any facts (as opposed to political gobbledy-gook) about how this new emphasis on interstate commerce affects cycling--please let us know. It seems like it might be important in the near future of bicycling.

As cyclists, we do need to be aware that there will be enormous pushback from motoring interests in regard to bike infrastructure. Many motorists want to get us off the roads, but they don't typically want to provide us with any alternatives to the roads. I think this is something we should be studying up on. Anybody who has any facts (as opposed to political gobbledy-gook) about how this new emphasis on interstate commerce affects cycling--please let us know. It seems like it might be important in the near future of bicycling.

I disagree. I think the majority of motorists really couldn't care less whether cyclists are on the roads or not, given that we're probably less than 1% of the traffic they encounter anyway. If you don't believe me, why don't you keep a running tally of how many motorists make their feelings known to you on your next few rides -- I'd be surprised if it was even 0.1% of them.

In my experience, the people who shout loudest at me to get off the roads are cycling "advocates"! The ones who want me to use paths that don't serve my needs so the government might decide to build more of them. The same ones who resent me riding on the road because *they* don't particularly want to ride on those roads (even though I never said they had to). In fact, I've often wondered whether these "advocates" were really just agents of the auto lobby that supposedly wants us off the roads (even though it probably only represents about 1% of all motorists).

In my experience, the people who shout loudest at me to get off the roads are cycling "advocates"! The ones who want me to use paths that don't serve my needs so the government might decide to build more of them. The same ones who resent me riding on the road because *they* don't particularly want to ride on those roads (even though I never said they had to). In fact, I've often wondered whether these "advocates" were really just agents of the auto lobby that supposedly wants us off the roads (even though it probably only represents about 1% of all motorists).

I just love living in a city that boasts something like 120 kilometers of physically separated bike lanes AND having the option of riding on the street or even on the sidewalk if that's the safest option. I remember the "good old days" before the lanes were built, back when fewer that 1% of commuters were cyclists, and I don't want to turn back. We now have about 6% of commutes being done on bikes, and this number is growing. I'm one of those advocates you put in scare quotes and I'm damned proud of it!

I disagree. I think the majority of motorists really couldn't care less whether cyclists are on the roads or not, given that we're probably less than 1% of the traffic they encounter anyway. If you don't believe me, why don't you keep a running tally of how many motorists make their feelings known to you on your next few rides -- I'd be surprised if it was even 0.1% of them.

In my experience, the people who shout loudest at me to get off the roads are cycling "advocates"! The ones who want me to use paths that don't serve my needs so the government might decide to build more of them. The same ones who resent me riding on the road because *they* don't particularly want to ride on those roads (even though I never said they had to). In fact, I've often wondered whether these "advocates" were really just agents of the auto lobby that supposedly wants us off the roads (even though it probably only represents about 1% of all motorists).

No, I don't get hassles from motorists when I am one of few cyclists on the road, and I am riding properly. What I meant is that there will be pushback from motorists as more bike facilities come in--especially when these facilities take space away from "my roads" (meaning motorists).

I certainly have never had a bike advocate yell at me to get off the roads. On my continent, almost all bike advocates support cyclists using the roads.

I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but IMO you have a very weird and elitist attitude toward cycling in general.

In my experience, the people who shout loudest at me to get off the roads are cycling "advocates"! The ones who want me to use paths that don't serve my needs so the government might decide to build more of them. The same ones who resent me riding on the road because *they* don't particularly want to ride on those roads (even though I never said they had to). In fact, I've often wondered whether these "advocates" were really just agents of the auto lobby that supposedly wants us off the roads (even though it probably only represents about 1% of all motorists).

Who knew the guy in the Dodge Ram who advised me to get on the side walk was a cyclist in disguise? Could even have been John Forrester!

I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but IMO you have a very weird and elitist attitude toward cycling in general.

What's weird or elitist about wanting to ride on the road, or resenting those who would take that right away from me?

Who knew the guy in the Dodge Ram who advised me to get on the side walk was a cyclist in disguise? Could even have been John Forrester!

Who knew that the cycling "advocates" in Bicycle Queensland and other "cycling groups" who have lobbied for us to be banned from certain roads in this state were really just car-free cyclists who wanted a better deal for us all?

Who knew that the cycling "advocates" in Bicycle Queensland and other "cycling groups" who have lobbied for us to be banned from certain roads in this state were really just car-free cyclists who wanted a better deal for us all?

Damn, that's convoluted! I prefer scenarios where you know the bad guys 'cause they're riding Hummers while the good guys are on Treks.

What's weird or elitist about wanting to ride on the road, or resenting those who would take that right away from me?

Nothing elitist about wanting that for yourself--I do too. But you seem to think that all cyclists should be limited to your vehicular approach. I have observed that a lot of us would prefer riding in good bike lanes and other specialized facilities. I think it's a good thing that separate facilities would undoubtedly attract a lot more riders. I know from previous posts that you would rather not see more people cycling, as most new cyclists evidently don't meet your standards of what's "proper." I do find that to be weird and elitist.

As for pressure to take away our rights to ride on the road, it's weird to say that comes from bike groups. Overwhelmingly, it's fringe groups of motorists who want bikes to get on the sidewalks. not fellow cyclists.

Damn, that's convoluted! I prefer scenarios where you know the bad guys 'cause they're riding Hummers while the good guys are on Treks.

Welcome to the real world, a place where stereotypes don't always apply. Maybe that Hummer driver you see every day on the way to work doesn't harbour some secret resentment of cyclists after all, maybe he's just glad you won't be taking his parking spot.


Nothing elitist about wanting that for yourself--I do too. But you seem to think that all cyclists should be limited to your vehicular approach.

Really? When did I say that? All I've ever really said is that the top priority of advocacy should be rights of cyclists to use whichever roads they want or need to use on any given day at any given time. As a transportational cyclist, I *need* to be able to use those roads, otherwise, deadlines will ultimately force me to buy a car and start driving every day. I have never said that anybody should be prevented from using separate facilities if that's what they want to do, but in my experience of over 20 years of transportational cycling, those facilities are simply not suited to a transportational cyclist who has deadlines to meet and needs a direct route from point A to point B without a detour to point C along the way. They might be OK for a recreational rider on a Sunday morning, but for a commuter cyclist with a deadline, they're just inadequate.

I have seen first hand the way this position upsets cycling "advocates" who think I should be on the path every day because we supposedly need to show the government that it's being used, despite it's obvious limitations. Hence the contempt in which I hold them.


I think it's a good thing that separate facilities would undoubtedly attract a lot more riders. I know from previous posts that you would rather not see more people cycling, as most new cyclists evidently don't meet your standards of what's "proper." I do find that to be weird and elitist.

Perhaps you should take a little more time to read the posts, then. What I have said in the past (and the position I still hold) is that I'm ambivalent about having more cyclists on the roads (or paths for those who use them), and I've put forward a lot more reasons than any perceived inadequacy about newbie cyclists. Things like regulation and taxation. In fact, I recall it came from this thread: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/155944-Do-we-really-want-this-to-be-more-popular?highlight= and at the time you seemed to agree with me. Has your position radically changed?


As for pressure to take away our rights to ride on the road, it's weird to say that comes from bike groups. Overwhelmingly, it's fringe groups of motorists who want bikes to get on the sidewalks. not fellow cyclists.

My experience has been the opposite. I can only ever recall one instance of a motoring group wanting cyclists banned from a particular road -- the M1 debacle in 2002. And on that occasion, they had plenty of cycling "advocacy" groups supporting them. Additionally, since cycling advocacy groups seem to compromise about 1% of the total number of cyclists on the roads, I think it's fair to say that a lot of these fringe motoring groups you refer to probably make up a similar percentage of the total number of drivers on the roads. It's far more accurate to say that most motorists couldn't care less whether you ride your bike or not. In fact, as I said to the post above yours, some of them might even be glad you're not going to take their parking spot at the end of the commute.