Originally Posted by randya

if less money was spent on the war in Iraq is probably a much better comparison

Originally Posted by John E

I would far rather be a dues-paying, voting, dissident member of an organization than an outsider-complainer.

Originally Posted by SweetLou

Or less money spent on social programs that do nothing but keep poor people poor.
Please stop adding political views into threads that don't need it. I come to these forums to learn about cycling, not to get into political arguments.

Originally Posted by donnamb

I don't think he was referring to the political nature of spending less in Iraq, but rather the amount of money necessary to rehabilitate our national highway infrastructure.

Originally Posted by donnamb

I don't think he was referring to the political nature of spending less in Iraq, but rather the amount of money necessary to rehabilitate our national highway infrastructure.

Originally Posted by SweetLou

Or less money spent on social programs that do nothing but keep poor people poor.
Please stop adding political views into threads that don't need it. I come to these forums to learn about cycling, not to get into political arguments.

Originally Posted by SweetLou

Well, of course if the subject is about government policy, then yes discuss it. This is the advocacy forum. That is why I said "political views into threads that don't need it". There is a difference between talking about your local government's policies that inhibit cycling and just bashing your political foes. I thought this forum was to help each other promote cycling and safety, not to turn into liberals vs. conservatives battle.
That does not help in any way, all it does is pull a thread into a us vs. them match. If you hate Bush or Pelosi, go ahead and talk about how they are destroying the US in a proper forum, but it doesn't help promote safety and advocacy. Unless Bush pushes for a law against bikes on federally funded streets or Pelosi tries to pass a mandatory federal helmet law, then go ahead and talk about that issue.

Originally Posted by nrdc article

"A lot of people belong to AAA because they think it's a nice place to get Triptiks and traveler's checks," says Daniel Becker, director of Sierra Club's global warming and energy program. "What they don't know is that AAA is a lobbyist for more roads, more pollution, and more gas guzzling."

Originally Posted by nrdc article

For example, AAA weighed in against the 1990 Clean Air Act, one of the most important environmental laws of the decade. A press release from its government and public affairs headquarters in Washington, D.C., claimed that the bill would "threaten the personal mobility of millions of Americans and jeopardize needed funds for new highway construction and safety improvements."

Originally Posted by nrdc article

Comments Paul Billings of the American Lung Association, "Building more roads to solve an air pollution problem is like buying a larger pair of pants to solve an obesity problem."

Originally Posted by nrdc article

No assessment of AAA's environmental agenda is complete without a look at its participation in the American Highway Users Alliance.

For annual dues of somewhere between $25,000 and $49,999, AAA is a patron member of this powerful lobbying group. When Highway Users holds a meeting, it uses AAA's deluxe conference room, and around the table gathers an improbable group with a highly misleading name. AAA and several of its affiliate clubs are the only members of Highway Users with any serious claim to represent ordinary drivers. Among the other members are Ford, General Motors, Goodyear, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Portland Cement Association, the Associated General Contractors of America, and a gaggle of truck and bus companies. More than three-quarters of the group's funding comes from companies that build roads or supply the vehicles and fuels that ply them. The progressive organization Common Cause investigated the biggest PAC donors in the highway lobby during the period 1987-1997, and found that seven of the top ten were members of Highway Users.

Originally Posted by nrdc article

AAA is big business. It is a not-for-profit organization (though it does pay taxes). Nevertheless, every year the association and its affiliated clubs sell $6 billion worth of insurance, $2.4 billion worth of traveler's checks, and $3.4 billion worth of travel agency services. They book 2 million car rentals and generate $4 billion in credit card transactions. By pursuing the same goals as the auto, oil, and roadbuilding industries, AAA benefits directly. The more cars there are on the roads, and the more roads there are for those cars to travel, the more revenue it earns.

Originally Posted by Mr. Underbridge

Can't understand them being against rails-to-trails, doesn't seem like it would have much to do with cars...?

Originally Posted by genec

They are very pro-motorist. That pro-motorist attitude may at times put them in conflict with cyclists best interests.

Originally Posted by banerjek

I'd say bikes benefit cars directly. Nothing frees up the roads for driving like reducing the number of cars. Can't say I've ever seen a situation where only 3 bikes could get through on a light cycle during rush hour. Less than 2 cars on a light cycle is commonplace.

Originally Posted by Booger1

...They don't offer trip tickets for bikes anymore? They used too.

Originally Posted by brokenrobot

AAA does NOT in fact offer bike services, despite whatever a salesperson might have said; call the service number and ask for service, and you'll learn that really quickly.