I received an email regarding legislation to cut funding for bicycles on roadways. I wrote my Senator and told him I would pay for a bike license. I ride a very narrow line on the way right shoulder and am fine with it also. The roads are narrow here and only a few drivers don't want to "give an inch".

What funding does VT provide for bicycles?

+1

Ignorance is on both sides as drivers and cyclists--some of the behavior that I see at times makes me wonder if some of us are from another planet?

A driver is a lot more dangerous than a cyclist to others no matter what!

Besides ignorance, impatience is number 2 and then you have the ones who are mad in every way! (too much of natural substances or not so natural)

They just rebuilt a section of road, East if here, in building this section of road, they made it 2m wider, they haven't put the lines on it yet, but from what it looks, the outer metre on each side, will be a bike lane. This is the cheapest way to add a bike lane.

Generally, no, gasoline taxes don't even begin to cover the cost of building and maintaining roads.
https://www.uspirg.org/home/reports/r...tation-funding

Maybe it's just the "race memory" of the cars from the early 1900's getting back at cyclists.
In a lot of North American cities early horseless carrages had to yield to everyone. I can't remeber if it was Wisconsin or Minnesota, that any horseless carrage entering a city/town had to have a man with horn precede the car by 50 ft, blowing the horn to announce the presence of this infernal vehicle by day, and a swingin latern by night.

Considering the fact that user fees extracted from motorists pay for less than half of the cost of building and maintaining roadways, not even counting police, emergency services, cost of human carnage, military costs to secure oil or the impact of pollution, it is rather outrageous to expect such a benign means of transportation as cycling to be the only mode that is expected to pay its own way. Many cyclists have been heavily subsidizing motorists, and will continue to subsidize them, for many years. If a wee bit of infrastructure is built with general funds that is not for cars it is rather pathetic that we have people who complain about it. Those same people complain when cyclists are on the roads (that are largely paid for and have the car-caused damage repaired with our tax dollars) and then they complain when a strip of asphalt is built to allow us to move about without being on the road.

Backlash can also occur as a response to irresponsible behavior in a changing environment. That would be the case for cyclists. As the number of cyclists increases, and even if irresponsible behavior remains the same rather than increasing, the "backlash" will increase - and it will be justified.

+2

1. I do think there is backlash
2. but I don't think you have to depend on the idea of a "general public good" (or even public health) to defend bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure development. I was at a big public meeting on local transportation planning last night and there is convincing evidence that Bike/Ped projects are a key element in preventing rampant and accelerating suburban sprawl, which is ridiculously inefficient and costly, and also turns central city neighborhoods into impoverished areas that do not produce any property tax dollars.

Yes, as opposed to the motoring public: https://www.gmacinsurance.com/SafeDri...essRelease.asp

And bear in mind that "passing" written license tests means you answer slightly better than two questions correctly for every question answered incorrectly. I have heard that people ride like they drive. Perhaps that is what you are seeing.

Sometimes we see comments repeated so often someone might start to believe they are based in fact. But there is no proof that cars started the suburbs. They may have made them easier to access but the trolley car suburbs came well before the car. What is never addressed is why people moved in the first place. Crime, heat, high cost of rent, slum lords, building restrictions, bad schools and no place for kids to play are a big part of it as well. Also some people simply don’t want to live stacked into a small area like pigeons in a hutch. (some don't mind it.) Cars may have allowed some to escape but they didn’t cause the conditions that made people want to leave the central urban areas in the first place.


And while getting a drivers license may not make someone and expert driver still if they get a DUI they can always ride a bike, a process that happens far more than people might like to admit. (you can't get a DUI on a bike and simply replace it with a car.) Just spend some time in the Car free forum and you will see people that want to be air conditioner free, Discussions on giving up a full time job for a part time one so you will have more time for whatever you might need more time for. When asked about health care they point to being able to use free clinics and the fact that a hospital can’t refuse to treat you even if you have no intention of paying. People talk about living cash free, the idea that personal hygiene might just be over rated. None of those things have anything to do with cars or highway taxes it has to do with choice. Everyone has the freedom to make a choice not to drive, not to live in a house, not to use air conditioning and not to feel bathing is as important as many of us do. But their choice doesn’t need to be legislated. If I want to live in the city I can pack my things and move. That is all it takes. But for many if they want to live in the city “everyone” should live in the city. It would be better for all mankind even if there is no evidence that it would be. The Navajo didn’t care for Bosque Redondo and the Japanese didn’t care for Manzanar. Some people may like better schools, a yard and a home of their own. That is not the car’s fault, and bicycles will not be the salvation of civilization.

I doubt licensing folks to cycle will do much. This evening I was riding, came up to a red light stopped, as did 3 or 4 other cyclists. As we are waiting for the green, we are passed by another cyclist who goes right through the red. I heard folks mumble some not so nice words, but a motorist yells at us, "Why don't you tell your friend what a red light is". I asked the other cyclist if they know the guy, they all shake their heads no. I caught up with the guy about 7 miles later, he was my age. I asked him if he saw the red, he said yes, and said "If a cop is there I stop, if no cops I don't stop". I tried to explain why he should but he would not listen. That is why I doubt licensing would help, most of those that are the problem know better, and won't change until they are bug splotch on the windshield, or they get a ticket, and there are a few that would do it again even after being cited or hit. There are some things in life you just can't fix.

https://www.ecospeakers.com/speakers/goddards.html

The author of "Getting There", Stephen Goddard, is a friend of mine from Hartford, CT. As a former member of my Town Council and as an advocate for transportation options other than the automobile I have been involved with this issue for decades. It is actually true that publicly financed road building allowed access to cheap land and, at the very least, provided an incentive for people to move out of the cities. People moved out of the cities for the same reason people always move from one place to another......to find a "better" life (as they saw it). They didn't move out for jobs because unless you were working the land there were none. Roads made it possible to live out of the city on cheap land (and made cars necessary) and still work in the city. Thus....suburbs.

That doesn’t make suburbs the fault of the car. In ancient Rome they built roads to get to the city from the country side. No cars had anything to do with it. The concept that cars somehow cause suburbs, urban sprawl and not based on fact. The only thing cars and roads did was allow people to exercise living preferences. Add the car and you add the fears of the Luddite. I am not saying cars don’t add to some of our financial woes or that they don’t add to human pollution. The problem is modern living does the same thing. Jobs moved to where cheap land was as well with the movement towards industrial parks. We aren’t fighting against cars because that is simply a transportation choice our fellow citizen made. But what we do have is a movement that tries to get us to take sides in the issue. Cycling is as you said simply another form of transportation but hardly one for the majority of people living in the USA.

There is a "war" escalating in Seattle between pro-cycling forces vs. "others." The "others" is tough to pin down -- opponents of Seattle's mayor (who is so pro-bike they call him Mayor McSchwinn); business interests; the pro-road lobby; the anti-transity lobby; etc. It's all wrapped up in local transit politics, left vs. right, proposals to build a new tunnel downtown, etc.

Last year, our local cycling club, Cascade Cycling (which claims to be the largest cycling club in the country), was torn apart because even local cyclists are split on whether cycling organizations should be about recreation and fun or political advocacy. The executive director left and went to work for the mayor.

Meanwhile, the bodies keep piling up -- at least 10 cyclists killed in Washington this year so far, vs. 10 in all of last year. There have been 3 deaths recently, including a long-term commuter hit and killed by a hit-and-run driver, that have gotten a lot of publicity.

The Mayor's opponents claim he has declared a "war on cars." After several recent deaths, the local alternative weekly, The Stranger, had this interesting story this week, "OK, It's War."

https://www.thestranger.com/seattle/o...nt?oid=9937449

Does one have to wear and arm band and carry a little red book to read that site? And if the idea of becoming political broke up a bike club isn't that an indication of some deep seated problem? If we fall for the political rhetoric calling for war between the classes we have to ascribe class to different groups. Once that has been done you simply choose up sides and the majority out votes the minority. The site calls some suburban slobs which can easily be countered with urban criminals because the crime rates are higher in urban areas. Neither slur may be applicable but the division is started and the political party catering to the larger group wins, every time.

Just look at a car free manifesto and see if we haven’t heard t it all before. https://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Carfree_movement

I think it would be good to remember that our iconic mental picture of what a suburb is no longer accurately represents the reality of what suburbs are (at least it doesn't fit any of the suburbs I've seen recently). We tend to picture a suburb as acres of near-identical single-family tract houses with no jobs, stores, or other services available locally. I grew up in one just like that, and despised it.

After many years of living in cities, I once again live in a suburb, and it is nothing like the one in which I grew up. I moved here for one reason -- my job is here (and so are hundreds of other jobs). I now have a 3-mile commute on streets that are great for bicycling. Many of the dwellings are multi-family buildings. Within a mile of my house are various grocery stores and specialty stores, restaurants, gyms, banks, a library, train stations, bike shops, etc. You really don't need a car; occasionally it would be a nice convenience, but basically, a car is a luxury here.

Ditto - except for the train station, and add 100's of miles of bicycle trails and a hospital. However, our public transportation is just not there yet. A couple or three buses throughout the day, but the Senior Center does provide transportation to appts., etc. However, given the places we like to go, a car is still a necessity, although, if dedicated, one could really do without.

There is a light rail station about 5 miles away that will take you anywhere you want to go.

That's so ironic. One would think that the "recreation only" folks would see the benefit of strong advocacy to keep the roads safe for that very same recreation.

There are 4 well known (locally) large-ish road bike clubs on Long Island as well as a Mt, Bike club. Every one of those clubs has members that are involved in the advocacy part, either keeping after the local governments to make sure cycling is considered when planning road projects, or to gain and maintain access to trail systems. I have never heard of any member complaining that the clubs advocate too strongly, the idea seems ludicrous.

Too bad they have fallen into the same thinking trap as so many others. Their faulty thinking is to think and act as if a bicycle is one thing to all people. That is as erroneous as thinking that motor vehicles are the same to all people. Motor vehicles and bicycles are all the things mentioned and much more. Each group that uses the machine, whether motor vehicle or bicycle, has its' own agenda. That agenda should be forwarded by those most interested and respected by all others.

In this Club's case they had a choice. They could redirect the Club to accomodate all users. Or, because they couldn't think big enough, they could fragment. They chose the latter. Too bad. We all suffer from such religiosity.

+1 same here.
I grew up in a classic suburb, went to a typical suburban high school and attended a typical college located in; you guessed it, a suburb. I have lived in Seattle and LA and having lived in both I prefer places just like you have described. I am not at war with dedicated urbanites even if they want to be at war with me. If however someone calls your living choice into question and even calls you and your neighbors slobs then when asking for their help in a vote for mass transit in an urban area we don’t use the ballot box is a method of revenge. Orange County California was always one giant suburb but you will be hard pressed to find people that don’t see it as bike friendly.

I listened to this very same debate when they elected Ford Mayor of Toronto. The claim some made during the election was that it was a war between the rich, right wing suburbanites and the poor left wing urbanites. Once they drew the battle lines it became cars verses mass transit. The majority had cars, and now look who the mayor is. When you ascribe enemy status to a group of people you shouldn’t be surprised when they vote against your interests.

I might point out that while there may have been 10 cyclist killed by cars in Washington so far this year they will have to get on the stick to catch up to the 30 murders reported in Seattle so far this year with 9 months already in the books. Can cars be blamed for these deaths as well?

Put in perspective and to be sure we are comparing like things, the oranges to oranges concept, how many people were killed in motor vehicle collisions? Without looking it up I venture to say that many times 10 have been died in motor vehicle collisions.

Then there is the matter of fault. Assuming the number "10" is correct who caused the death. In this context big difference between a death self-caused and one imposed by a passing motorist.

Still it points out you have a better chance, as a cyclist staying with oranges to oranges, of being murdered in Seattle than being hit and killed by a car.

Just saying if the numbers he posted were correct, he stated 10 in Washington, the city crime pages list 30 murders in Seattle alone so it would seem as if at least in this case people are more dangerous than cars. So do we have a movement to become people free? While any death may be considered a sad thing it doesn’t seem as if cars can be blamed for suburbs or for causing more deaths than living with other people with or without a car.

One thing the internet has allowed us is exposure to more people with more extreme ideas than we might be exposed to in normal daily life. Why some may ask? Because in normal daily life we would break from conversation before we ever got to the point of hearing the extreme ideas. In normal daily life we simply will not read articles by people we dislike or disagree with. In normal daily life when someone indicates they are at war with you they are marked as an enemy and you delight in anything that brings them discomfort.

The reason I don’t believe there is a backlash to cycling is because there never was a major gain. We may see more people on bikes but that could also be because we are looking for more people on bikes. Go to any open social gathering and cycling simply doesn’t come up. If it did it would be in passive interest because a cyclist might comment on the number of miles they ride and the average person finds that interesting. Not inspirational I might add, just interesting. To have a back lash you first have to be noticed and with just over one percent average for cycling commuters in the US it is hard to say we are noticed. Many of the city improvements we advocate for may not be taking place or may be voted against but that hasn’t changed much in the last 100 years.

It's hard to summarize quickly what happened -- but there was a a long-time executive director of the club who was a very outspoken advocate, and had been active on the state, local and suburban level. There was a disagreement on the board around a lot of things; one was around whether the club should be even *more* outspoken in its political stance, and others thought that the club was becoming a lightning rod for criticism and should adopt a lower profile, and for being too closely aligned with certain politicians, esp. the mayor.

According to some local folks, one of the flash points was a newspaper article in which the exec dir of the club was quoted as saying that drivers who kill cyclists should be "strung up and hung from a bridge on the edge of town" or something like that -- at a time when the club was already under fire for pushing too hard.

So I don't think it was so much that the club shouldn't do *anything,* but whether maybe a quieter approach would be more effective.

Lots of other internal club politics, personnel, and personalities involved as well - I followed from a distance.