Originally Posted by
genec
Good... while it is indeed true... that we must fight for what we want... government or no, the American people have little tolerance for bicycles or anything else that they perceive as blocking the way of their automobiles. We are in effect fighting not so much the government as we are fighting the majority... who happen to enjoy their subsidized motoring environment.
Now as to fighting "the government..." bear in mind that all 50 states clearly spell out in laws that cyclists do have very similar rights and access to the roads... I'd have to say that is a far more generous statement than that of perhaps the average motorist who has a tendency to think "get on the sidewalk."
The government is also burdened with the task of offering compromises to all of the citizens... so motorists get what they want, and cyclists get what they want. It is hardly the fault of "the government" that we cyclists have what we now have.
I do not understand the confusion inherent in your words. You say that it is not the fault of government that cyclists have the existing legal and physical conditions. The laws and the highways are products of government, yet you say that government is not responsible for their condition?
Furthermore, the program for bicycle transportation is a governmental program. It is not operated by religious institutions, commercial organizations, labor unions, environmental anti-motoring organizations, or any other type of organization that I can think of. The program for bicycle transportation is entirely a governmental program.
You ask me to bear in mind: "bear in mind that all 50 states clearly spell out in laws that cyclists do have very similar rights and access to the roads... " I presume that, bearing in mind the context of your discussion, you intended to make the comparison to motorists; but you failed to specify.
I take it that you have not been reading the great body of this discussion, where the positions have been rather fully stated. You appear to be content that cyclists are granted "similar rights and access to roads". Well, if you are happy with that inferior position, I'm sorry for you. For cyclists to be able to operate safely and usefully they need to have the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles, to be stated explicitly without other legal reservations. Nearly all states limit cyclists' rights under that clause, for purposes that don't bear scrutiny. And, where the fight may come, is in those jurisdictions in which government, and nobody else can do this, attempts to use those discriminatory restrictions to prohibit cyclists from operating in the manner lawful for drivers.
Pay attention and learn, genec.