Why are Bicyclists Being Targeted by Congress?

[marmar]

from OnTheCommons.org:



Why are Bicyclists Being Targeted by Congress?
Minneapolis' rise as America's top bike city owes a lot to federal programs

By Jay Walljasper



About one-third of Minneapolis bike commuters ride at least some days during the winter. And a higher than average number of local cyclists are women. (Credit: Low under a Creative Commons license from flickr.com)


The commons is under attack in Washington, D.C..

There’s nothing new about that— what belongs to all of us from the environment to public services have been continually threatened over the past two years—but the latest target comes as a complete surprise: bikers and pedestrians.

What in the world could be less controversial than biking and walking? They’re good exercise, fun to do and—as an alternative to driving everywhere—help us save money and the environment.

Both activities have recently become potent symbols of the commons; when I ask people at meetings to name a favorite commons in their community, bikepaths, sidewalks and trails are often mentioned. Biking and walking are on the upswing for transportation and recreation today, thanks in large part to a recent flowering of federally-funded trails, bikeways and pathways that make getting around on two wheels and two feet safer and more convenient. ..............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://onthecommons.org/why-are-bicyclists-being-targeted-congress

[Scuba]

1. Um, 'cause they don't burn oil?

[Javaman]

3. +1. nt

[AsahinaKimi]

7. Thats probably pretty close to the truth

I bet you are correct!

[alfredo]

9. They won't be happy until some Saudi owned company erects

toll booths on bike and pedestrian paths.

[fredamae]

2. Our "Big Govt"

has parsed out separate attacks on Many individual groups:Just look arouns you and add it up---Womens Reproductive Rights, Medical Marijuana/States Rights, LBGT, Voting Rights, Seniors, Educators, SocSec/Medicare, Drs, Nurses, LE, Firefighters, Unions, Veterans, First Responders, EPA, First Amend Rights-Anything and Everything has "deserved" being singled out for destruction under the republicans "small govt" mantra---everything Social and Beneficial for ordinary Americans, that is.

What they Do Want is BIG GOVT in your bedrooms, in your Drs office, in your shopping cart, in your bank account, in your Church, refrigerator, basically all things personal---so they can create a law that will "house you" in a For Profit Correctional Facility--Stop and think about the consequences of the Laws they pass and introduce at both the State and Federal Levels.

[Aerows]

5. At the rate they are going

It's going to be impossible not to break a law - but of course, only the "little people" will be held accountable.

[Lance_Boyle]

4. because with precious few almost entirely urban/suburban-based exceptions

bike path and greenway projects are more appropriately funded under recreation budgets than transportation budgets. Why should transportation money be used to fund the addition of a bike lane to a rural highway that might connect 2 or 4 residences to business along its 15-mile path when 99.99999% of the use of that bike lane is recreational? This is not in the purview of Transportation, especially at the Federal level. Fund them from a different budget. Where bike lanes make sense for actual transportation/commerce purposes (mostly between business centers and their immediately-surrounding suburbs), funding bike paths from the transportation budget is entirely appropriate.

[Fumesucker]

6. When oil gets high enough those bike lanes won't be so recreational any more..

Ten dollar a gallon gas will get quite a few people out of their cars and onto bikes.

It 's only a matter of time before that happens.

ETA: There's also a "chicken and egg" situation here, people don't ride bikes to some extent because in a lot of places there's nowhere safe to ride them. A narrow rural road with a culvert on either side and no shoulder is a damn dangerous place to ride with drivers not expecting to see bikes on the road.

The bicycle/car accident rate actually drops when you get more bikes on the road, drivers get used to looking for them.

[Lance_Boyle]

8. They'll always be primarily recreational in rural areas

where a bicycle commute to any sort of employment center would be 30+ miles one way. Fund those projects from the appropriate recreation budget and reserve the transportation budget for transportation.

[Fumesucker]

10. You are assuming that technology will stay the same forever..

China is building over twenty million electric bicycles a year.. Use is skyrocketing worldwide.

Federal law treats a bicycle with pedals and an electric assist unit (up to 750 watts, Lance Armstrong or better power level) the same as a pure bicycle, you are specifically allowed to ride on bike paths and lanes in my state.

[Lance_Boyle]

12. And when they can go 55+ MPH maybe people will switch.

Until then not many are going to voluntarily extend a 30 minute one-way commute to a 2 hour one-way commute regardless of how fabulous the ride is or how cheap the electricity. Rural areas at this time do not benefit transportation-wise from the use of transportation funds on bicycle projects and I don't expect that to change very much unless bicycles can get rural residents where they need to go as fast as cars or motorcycles can. Bikes are a *great* transportation alternative in many places, but not everywhere. Doesn't mean we shouldn't fund their use as transportation where it works and makes sense to do so, but we ought not allow that funding to be confused with what amount to purely recreational projects for the benefit of a tiny minority of recreational users in other places.

[Fumesucker]

13. When did I say it would be voluntary?

It's happening already, people are being forced out of cars by the ever increasing costs, not only of fuel but insurance, purchase, maintenance. I've been involved with it for years now and the forum I read and post on is getting new people every day.

If you could go Lance Armstrong speeds, particularly uphill, with minimal or even no effort and it cost you only pennies for the energy to do so, at what range does the tradeoff start?

I think the tradeoff would vary for different people.

[alfredo]

11. Rand Paul doesn't believe in the commons.