BIKE: Proposed law for $5 MB trails set-aside

[Patrick Goetz]

Robert Farr wrote:
> I don't believe I've ever seen this particular point argued in this forum,
> but it's a really good one. I know it's true in my case.
> Bob
> 
> Hill Abell wrote:
> 
>>How many people on this list began their life of cycling by first using your
>>bike for transportation?  

hmmpf.  Well, I did, as did most other people who grew up before we 
became lame-ass nation.  Believe it or not, Hill, there was a time when 
kids actually walked or biked to school or the library or the pool 
rather than being ferried around everywhere in a giant SUV.  Oddly 
enough, no one talked about an "obesity epidemic" then, either, and 1 
out of 5 kids wasn't on anti-depressants or ritalin or some other 
mind-altering drug.  The term "soccer mom" didn't even exist. I'll let 
you ponder whether or not some of these phenomena might be correlated 
for a reason.  If I wanted to go some place, my bike was the way to get 
there if I didn't feel like walking.  I didn't wear spandex, a camelbak 
or a helmet with fierce looking lizards painted on the side, and my bike 
wasn't equipped with water bottle holders or SPD pedals.


 >>Recreational cycling is the portal to cycling for
 >>the vast majority of people who become riders, first for fun and then
 >>possibly transportation cyclists.
 >

This argument is completely specious and ridiculous.  Very few 
recreational cyclists are also transportation cyclists -- there's 
absolutely no connection between the two activities.  Consider, for 
example, that 99.9% of recreational bicyclists load their bikes on a car 
in order to drive to location they plan to bike at.  Clearly 
transportation and bicycling are not concepts that are in any way 
connected in their minds.

If you want to support a bicycle tax to pay for trail construction, 
fine; but please don't annoy us with inane justifications and ludicrous 
arguments.