Yeah, I'm about done as well. It seems myrridin is far more dogmatic than he claims we are. He's ignored the citation he asked me to provide, yet when he is asked to provide a citation, he does not do so while including ad hominem attacks. Way to turn centuries of debate on it's ear.

He has no citations to back up the claim that cycling on arterial roads are a) particularly dangerous for cyclists and b) that it causes major, measurable delays to traffic in general.

He has no citation that any delays that would be caused would be significant enough to cause any measurable increase in pollution or economic effect (and seems to neglect the counter balance that a bike has, by causing no pollution by itself, and having less economic impact).

He seems too focused on the fact that bikes can't replace all the work cars do. This is absolutely true, and is a position pretty much no one is forwarding. The position is that a much larger percentage can be. And when a larger percentage of people are biking, it means fewer people are driving, which by it's very nature leads to less delays (he seems to be operating on the assumption that more cyclists = more delays, without factoring in the inevitable DROP in cars on the road). He seems to think this cannot be done, even though it has already been done in many communities.

Contrary to his belief, road taxes are not solely in place because of their commercial value, and I challenge him to find anything that states otherwise. While roads are a very valuable for distribution, that is not to say that is their only use - and even if it were, it would mean any road user, motor vehicle or otherwise, who was driving without any economic/commercial purpose, would also have no right to the road since that is not what their taxes are supporting.