I agree that many American motorists think that cyclists don't belong on the roads, but I think that the motivations for this view are much more complicated than just the tax issue. I think that the tax issue is merely an easy excuse for the belief, and militant motorists certainly advance several more arguments as soon as the subject occurs. Many states (I don't know how many, and the roster probably changes over the years) recognize this to the extent of inserting statements into the official driver instruction manuals that cyclists are legitimate road users. However, none that I know of has applied detailed arguments as to the various issues in this subject. I think that doing more than the bare statement is not likely to occur, partly because of space and partly because of controversy.

If the existing official motorist manuals are deemed to be always insufficient, through what other medium could cyclists deliver it? Where would we get the money to do that?

In any case, what is the actual desired message? That cyclists pay taxes that contribute toward roads? That cyclists don't need to be licensed? That even cyclists who disobey the law are legitimate road users? Or messages that would be so maliciously interpreted by militant motorists?

I mentioned controversy. Consider the governmental official with responsibilities for the bicycle transportation program. Sure, he can say that cyclists are legitimate road users, and that won't raise much controversy. But does he say that they should be treated as drivers of vehicles? Doesn't the controversy about that issue within this group indicate how great would be the controversy in the political world with the militant motorists chiming in? America has had probably the longest history in the motoring world of motorist dislike of bicycle traffic. No government anywhere familiar to me has been able to reverse the dislike. I suspect, though nobody I know of has measured this, that Germany is likely to have the next strongest anti-cyclist tradition, and it must be only half the duration of America's.

I wrote of controversy, but have you considered the effect of such controversy on your position, if the change became anywhere near to being successful? I can imagine the effect of the clearest and most obvious social and governmental implementation of cyclists' right to use the road like anybody else, something far greater in effect that any financially possible propaganda program. That is, the demonstration that cyclists have the normal right to use the roads implemented by removing the bikeway program (except for some recreational off-road paths), repealing the discriminatory anti-cyclist laws, undertaking to make the roads better for lawful cyclists, and insisting that cyclist obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. That would be the most powerful demonstration of cyclists' right to use the roads that I can imagine. But who are the few in this group who would support such a demonstration of cyclists' rightful rights to use the road?