Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, September 6, 2011
News License Bicycle Riders!
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:10 AM
Gas taxes! Car tab fees! Drivers pay to use the roads! So why shouldn't cyclists? Um, because cyclists pay to use the roads already and they subsidize the roads for drivers, the ultimate welfare queens:
That same media is also littered with driver self-pity over the high costs of driving and there is a false perception that driving is exorbitantly expensive. It is a bit ironic because drivers are actually the prime beneficiaries of socialism in North America, and our gas prices are among the cheapest in the world.... From subsidies given to oil companies to produce cheap oil, to government bailouts/ownership of auto manufacturers, to road construction and maintenance on streets that cost nothing to use, to highly subsidized parking spaces, to government health care costs associated with pollution from automobiles, to the detrimental health that results from sedentary lifestyle that cars promote, to the vast government policing forces required to enforce our streets: it is undeniable that driving places enormous costs on our society, and this cost is highly subsidized by our government.
Unlike other forms of socialism that benefit society as a whole, the benefits of motorist socialism are outweighed by our roads being overly congested, our air polluted and the growth of alternative modes of transportation are stifled.
Furthermore, the perception that drivers somehow "overpay" for the privilege to use our streets is one of the root causes of animosity that some motorists have that reduces or eliminates their willingness to share a small part of the roads with bicyclists. In reality, people who seldom drive cars are subsidizing those who use the roads most....
To further illustrate this point, we can compare the cost of a litre of gasoline to that of a one-way ticket on public transit. In China a litre of gasoline ($0.946) is almost 3 times the cost of a one-way ticket on local public transport ($0.32). In the United States a one-way ticket on public transit ($1.94) is almost double the cost of a litre of gasoline ($1.00).
We have kept gasoline and driving in general artificially cheap in an effort to attempt to sustain the “American Dream”. Meanwhile, people are sitting in their cars for hours each day—stuck in traffic—wondering whether they’ve been sold on a false promise.
Via Sullivan.
1
Chinese public transit, in particular outside Shanghai and Beijing, can be pretty shocking. I don't know how else to describe it.
Americans would never use the cheap public transit common to China.
Americans would never use the cheap public transit common to China.
2
I don't own a car, and haven't in over ten years now. (But I don't ride a bike. I walk to most places and take public transit if it's too far.) I do get your point that non-drivers are subsidizing drivers. It's not like gas taxes are paying for 100% of roads, etc. The difference is paid by all taxpayers, drivers and non-drivers alike (not to mention oil subsidies, etc. which you've also mentioned).
But it's not strictly true that non-drivers get zero benefit. In addition to benefitting when we are on the road in other forms of transportation (taxis, busses, etc.), we also benefit when the food we eat and other items we buy are able to get to nearby grocery stores. (We also pay for the gas taxes that trucking companies pay through higher prices on those consumer items.)
But yes, non-drivers are already paying for their fair share through other forms of taxes. Gas taxes allow drivers to pay more because they contribute disproportionately more to the wear and tear of our infrastructure and other related problems like pollution.
But it's not strictly true that non-drivers get zero benefit. In addition to benefitting when we are on the road in other forms of transportation (taxis, busses, etc.), we also benefit when the food we eat and other items we buy are able to get to nearby grocery stores. (We also pay for the gas taxes that trucking companies pay through higher prices on those consumer items.)
But yes, non-drivers are already paying for their fair share through other forms of taxes. Gas taxes allow drivers to pay more because they contribute disproportionately more to the wear and tear of our infrastructure and other related problems like pollution.
3
There's a glaring omission from that list of subsidies to gasoline. The US military, and especially the Navy is basically the oil industry's mall cop. They're out patrolling the shipping lanes 24/7/365. The real price of gas in the US is as high as anywhere else in the world.
4
Apparently, if cyclists are to be believed, their vehicles, bike locks, bike shorts, helmets, backpacks, and daily meals are all manufactured and prepared with the use of horse-drawn carriages and solar power, thereby exempting them from any benefit from, or responsibility for, the oil economy whatsoever. Oh, to smell the sweet scent of smug bicyclist excretions! So delicious!
I long to see bicyclists advocate for their mode of transportation (a valid cause, really) in ways that aren't so consistently dishonest.
I long to see bicyclists advocate for their mode of transportation (a valid cause, really) in ways that aren't so consistently dishonest.
6
Jurisdictions need to be made and within the ones where this is of greater concern then the cost of enforcement: cyclists should have to carry current state issued ID - state ID/passport/military. Therefore cops can pull them over for violations and issue tickets. Repete offenders would get greater fines/consequences. Giving incentive to not be that douchy bike rider who makes everyone cringe.
7
@4
No one is saying that someone who rides a bike is exempt from the oil economy. Not Dan, not the article you he posted, and not anyone engaging in these pointless shitfights on Slog. But it's an easy argument to refute, isn't it? Deliciously tempting, I know.
What people are arguing is that bicyclists use less oil than someone who drives a SOV everywhere they go. That is not a dishonest argument. Let me provide a real world example of this concept: I have been riding my bike to work for the last six years. In other words, I have used very little gasoline to get to work in the last six years. If I had driven to work every day for those six years, how much gasoline would I have used? More, or less?
I long to see drivers advocate for their mode of transportation in ways that aren't so consistently irrational.
No one is saying that someone who rides a bike is exempt from the oil economy. Not Dan, not the article you he posted, and not anyone engaging in these pointless shitfights on Slog. But it's an easy argument to refute, isn't it? Deliciously tempting, I know.
What people are arguing is that bicyclists use less oil than someone who drives a SOV everywhere they go. That is not a dishonest argument. Let me provide a real world example of this concept: I have been riding my bike to work for the last six years. In other words, I have used very little gasoline to get to work in the last six years. If I had driven to work every day for those six years, how much gasoline would I have used? More, or less?
I long to see drivers advocate for their mode of transportation in ways that aren't so consistently irrational.
8
@6
Did you know that we are already required to carry ID? It's like, a law or something! I KNOW! Some cyclists even have a DRIVER'S LICENCE! What in the world!!!!!!!!
And let me drop an even bigger bomb: police can pull over cyclists right now! And do it all the time! OMG!
Did you know that we are already required to carry ID? It's like, a law or something! I KNOW! Some cyclists even have a DRIVER'S LICENCE! What in the world!!!!!!!!
And let me drop an even bigger bomb: police can pull over cyclists right now! And do it all the time! OMG!
9
@The tiny cost and low amount of materials involved in the bike, shorts, helmets, etc (and the fact that they are purchased far less frequently compared to gas) compared to that required to build, maintain, and feed cars, roads etc kind of negates your argument. Especially since the author at the end acknowledges the need for things like food transportation. Hell my bike is 25 years old, and contains maybe 10 lbs of steel and rubber, my car on the other hand is 5 years old, thousands of pounds of steel, and it would be a miracle if it made it to 25.
The argument isn't that bikes don't require materials at all, but that we as a society need to rethink our values rather than bitching about the fictional "war on cars" when cars are socialized more than any other portion of our society, to our detriment in many ways.
The argument isn't that bikes don't require materials at all, but that we as a society need to rethink our values rather than bitching about the fictional "war on cars" when cars are socialized more than any other portion of our society, to our detriment in many ways.
11
It seems silly to talk about a subsidy when what you are talking about is used in some way by every single person in the country be it in a car(or bike or bus) or by using a good that requires shipping.
Bikes are like hobos. Politically I am all about supporting them, but in my day to day life they can be annoying and their lifestyle is unappealing.
Bikes are like hobos. Politically I am all about supporting them, but in my day to day life they can be annoying and their lifestyle is unappealing.
13
@2 FTW
Everyone in this country depends on roads and trucks for everything they eat wear consume and for whatever employment they have.
Everyone in this country depends on roads and trucks for everything they eat wear consume and for whatever employment they have.
14
Stupidest idea ever. It's been tried (San Diego?) and discarded, as it cost more in bureaucracy than it generated in revenue.
STUPID STUPID STUPID
STUPID STUPID STUPID
16
We actually had a "bike tab" briefly here when I was a kid (early 70's). Only lasted a year or two before they gave up on the idea entirely...
But, hey.... what about the real subsidy for bikes: Freedom!
And do you think the freedom to choose to ride yer bike comes without any costs?!? Well, wake up! Freedom isn't free, dude!
[AMERICA! FUCK-YA!!!]
But, hey.... what about the real subsidy for bikes: Freedom!
And do you think the freedom to choose to ride yer bike comes without any costs?!? Well, wake up! Freedom isn't free, dude!
[AMERICA! FUCK-YA!!!]
17
".....Um, because cyclists pay to use the roads already and they subsidize the roads for drivers"
ummmmm....how do bikers pay to use the roads already?
and how do they may so much more to use the roads that they subsidize cars?
ummmmm....how do bikers pay to use the roads already?
and how do they may so much more to use the roads that they subsidize cars?
18
Also almost all of Seattle's transportation budget goes to roads, and almost all of it is paid for by property taxes and sales taxes. The 1/3 of Seattleites who don't commute by car massively subsidize the 2/3 who do.
http://publicola.com/2010/08/31/we-all-p…
http://publicola.com/2010/08/31/we-all-p…
19
I don't think revenue is the main motivator for licensing cyclists. In my mind, a licensing fee for bikers would just be to cover administrative overhead for plates. Is a license plate on a bike so dickhead riders can be easily reported for being dickheads (similiar to how dickhead drivers can curently be reported for being dickheads) really the end of the world? You'd think that it would be in the best interest of the majority of good cyclists to be able to easily weed out the small % of dickheads.
21
Getting pissed off that bikes involve less expense than cars makes absolutely no sense. The only costs bicyclists are avoiding are the ones directly associated with owning a car, and with the benefits of it. Any indirect benefits that a cyclist gets from trucking, shipping, road infrastructure, etc. are paid for when they pay their taxes or buy their groceries. Any benefits they get from bike lock manufacturing are paid for when they buy their fucking bike lock. Even if non-commercial motorists didn't benefit from oil subsidies at all, the only thing you could bitch about is the fact that your bicyclist neighbor isn't buying part of your gas for you. Talk about entitlement.
If you buy an expensive lunch, and your friend gets his lunch on the house, feel free to bitch. But if you buy an expensive lunch, and your friend stays home and makes his own lunch, you don't get to bitch that his lunch was cheaper. Cyclists are forgoing a lot of the personal benefits of driving, and in exchange they pay less. If you really think they're getting such a wickedly good deal, sell your car and buy that cushy, resource-consuming bike you're so jealous of.
If you buy an expensive lunch, and your friend gets his lunch on the house, feel free to bitch. But if you buy an expensive lunch, and your friend stays home and makes his own lunch, you don't get to bitch that his lunch was cheaper. Cyclists are forgoing a lot of the personal benefits of driving, and in exchange they pay less. If you really think they're getting such a wickedly good deal, sell your car and buy that cushy, resource-consuming bike you're so jealous of.
22
My take away from this article is that Dan is implying Michelle Bachmann is a socialist by her advocacy of bringing gasoline prices back to $1.79/gallon.
Yeah! more subsidies for big oil (insert sound of lead balloon plopping down here).
Yeah! more subsidies for big oil (insert sound of lead balloon plopping down here).
23
Wasn't the title of the post supposed to be a joke? Isn't the point of the article that someone (Faux News) has built this false animosity in order to further and support oil company subsisidies. How many what's the matter with Kansas moments can this country endure?
24
If a driver owns 2 cars (vehicles that use the road), they still have to pay for registration twice. If a cyclists owns both a car and a bike (vehicles that use the road), they should still have to register the bike. Drivers who dont use the bus or own a bike (majority of drivers) are probably getting tired of having to pay for both bike lanes and bus lanes. They'll put up with buses, but it wont be long before cyclists (who use the same road as cars) have to register.
Hands on your buzzer, 5 answers are on the board, we surveyed 10 web forums, "Name a reason why cyclist shouldnt have to register their bikes".
1) Dont want to pay.
2) Saving the planet.
3) We should be doing alot more to encouraging this lifestyle, even if its at the expense of car owners.
4) It would cost too much to setup & enforce.
5) Its just stupid & so are you for merely suggesting this.
You can either pass a law now, on your terms that brings your bike into compliance thats fair and sensible, or you can just wait until drivers get even more pissed off and let Tim Eyman push a law that you might not just like.
Hands on your buzzer, 5 answers are on the board, we surveyed 10 web forums, "Name a reason why cyclist shouldnt have to register their bikes".
1) Dont want to pay.
2) Saving the planet.
3) We should be doing alot more to encouraging this lifestyle, even if its at the expense of car owners.
4) It would cost too much to setup & enforce.
5) Its just stupid & so are you for merely suggesting this.
You can either pass a law now, on your terms that brings your bike into compliance thats fair and sensible, or you can just wait until drivers get even more pissed off and let Tim Eyman push a law that you might not just like.
25
@18 Why are you only counting commuting? 85% of households in Seattle have a car. And I would bet that a good chunk of the remaining 15% have had or will have a car at some point.
Highways are mostly funded by gas taxes, as they should, and local roads by more broad-based taxes since their users are more multi-model. Not really a lot of subsidizing going on except for the same sort of disparities in taxation that you find on everything. e.g. some people with more (or less in some cases) pay more in taxes.
Highways are mostly funded by gas taxes, as they should, and local roads by more broad-based taxes since their users are more multi-model. Not really a lot of subsidizing going on except for the same sort of disparities in taxation that you find on everything. e.g. some people with more (or less in some cases) pay more in taxes.
28
@24: Can't wait for the Tim Eyman law that INCREASES government. Don't hold your breath.
If drivers are getting tired of paying for bike and bus lanes (tell me - how much do you pay for bike and bus lanes? In real dollars. Seriously.) then they'll be truly outraged when they calculate their share of the billions of dollars in "national defense" spending required to stabilize overseas oil markets. Not buying the oil, just making sure there's enough capitalists in place to constitute a market.
Do you think if I got rid of my car I could "opt out" of that?
If drivers are getting tired of paying for bike and bus lanes (tell me - how much do you pay for bike and bus lanes? In real dollars. Seriously.) then they'll be truly outraged when they calculate their share of the billions of dollars in "national defense" spending required to stabilize overseas oil markets. Not buying the oil, just making sure there's enough capitalists in place to constitute a market.
Do you think if I got rid of my car I could "opt out" of that?
30
@27 - You're right! And they have their own special lanes (sidewalks) and traffic calming measures (crosswalks)! Plus this one guy jaywalked this one time and was a complete dick about it. And I hear they get those fancy shoes from things that take gas! Add in marathons and "fun runs" in which they destroy a motorists ability to get around. I hear some neighborhoods are demanding even more subsidies for their quaint "lifestyle choice" by constantly whining they don't have sidewalks.
Good heavens, we must do something about this scourge immediately, pedestrians have declared war on all the good, honest, god fearing people who drive. It's a travesty and I won't rest until anyone walking on our public roads pays to have a license.
Good heavens, we must do something about this scourge immediately, pedestrians have declared war on all the good, honest, god fearing people who drive. It's a travesty and I won't rest until anyone walking on our public roads pays to have a license.
31
I'm guessing the people proposing this expensive boondoggle -- which would provide negligible benefits while unquestionably adding to the state payroll -- also proponents of LESS government.
32
#24 - But you left off the real reason -- because it has no social benefit and the only people who ever propose this moronic idea are vindictive assholes who want to do whatever they can to stick it to cyclists.
33
Tabs should be required, and, bike lanes or not, should (at least) be priced to offset the mean external cost of bicycle accidents, which are estimated to be almost 4 times greater than the mean external cost of automobile accidents.
Very few of those fucking hipsters, flying through our intersections on their fixies without helmets on, have adequate (or any) insurance. Who do you think picks up the tab when they eat asphalt (or a buss) and land in the ER (or the Morgue)?
Very few of those fucking hipsters, flying through our intersections on their fixies without helmets on, have adequate (or any) insurance. Who do you think picks up the tab when they eat asphalt (or a buss) and land in the ER (or the Morgue)?
34
@33: While I'm also irritated by cyclists who run intersections and don't wear helmets, thinking back on the cyclist fatalities in Seattle from the last few years I'm only coming up with maybe one that might described as a 'hipster', the guy that died over by the University bridge.
35
@33 - You have data showing that the large majority of bicycle accidents are caused by hipster cyclists on fixes to support your strawman, right?
36
@33: You forgot to offset the externalities of bike accidents with health benefits and decreased pollution, but I'm sure you were getting to that.
Haha, they're all hipsters! You sure nailed it!
Haha, they're all hipsters! You sure nailed it!
42
I'd kinda like there to be an easier way to enforce bicycle laws.
Every time I stop my bike at a stoplight, it seems like two or three other cyclists decide to go right past me and through the red light. A little enforcement of the traffic laws would be nice.... and maybe if we had plates or tabs some drivers would feel more inclined to treat us as belonging on the road.
Every time I stop my bike at a stoplight, it seems like two or three other cyclists decide to go right past me and through the red light. A little enforcement of the traffic laws would be nice.... and maybe if we had plates or tabs some drivers would feel more inclined to treat us as belonging on the road.
43
Let's agree to pass a bike license law, in a package bill to require motorists to wear helmets. Hipster car drivers cost our healthcare system billions of dollars by not wearing helmets and kill thousands of unhelmeted children. It's only fair.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/aus…
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/aus…
44
I'd love to see the day that cyclists like myself need licensing. Along with the day the police enforce the no cycling on the sidewalk laws.
Why? Because I'd like to see the media outrage as 5 year olds are ticked for cycling without a license and 10 year olds are ticketed for cycling on the sidewalks.
Why? Because I'd like to see the media outrage as 5 year olds are ticked for cycling without a license and 10 year olds are ticketed for cycling on the sidewalks.
45
@42 I agree, there is a severe lack of traffic law enforcement all around though, not just for cyclists. I'm a pedestrian most times and I see people crossing against that light as well, sometimes right in front of cops. Then there are the number of times almost being hit by stupid motorists running lights as well. It's more dangerous to travel in Seattle (especially downtown) than it is to go sky diving now.
46
I'd be fine with better enforcement of traffic laws for cyclists (a vehicle is a vehicle; running a stop sign is running a stop sign), but posts like #24 really crack me up. To act like bus commuters and cyclists are mooching off of the generosity of drivers is, for lack of a more polite way of putting it, stupid. Not only does the article we just read state otherwise, but even without the article, how can a person miss the benefit that DRIVERS have from buses, bicyclists, and devoted lanes?
You are less likely to collide with a bus or a cyclist when they have their own lane. You are less likely to be slowed down by a bus or a cyclist if they have their own lanes. On top of this, each bus represents several cars that are NOT adding to your morning traffic.
I've had my fair share of rude cyclist hipsters running stop signs while giving me the finger and wearing ugly spandex. However, I've also had a ton of traffic incidents with other cars; focusing on the shitty cyclists is nothing more than confirmation bias, and it doesn't take away from the fact that we are better off when they have their own devoted lane, and we would be no better off if these same rude hipsters were driving cars instead.
So even if all the money for bus and bike lanes came from drivers (which it doesn't), you wouldn't just be paying for some asshole's free ride to work: you, as a driver, would also be benefiting from it.
You are less likely to collide with a bus or a cyclist when they have their own lane. You are less likely to be slowed down by a bus or a cyclist if they have their own lanes. On top of this, each bus represents several cars that are NOT adding to your morning traffic.
I've had my fair share of rude cyclist hipsters running stop signs while giving me the finger and wearing ugly spandex. However, I've also had a ton of traffic incidents with other cars; focusing on the shitty cyclists is nothing more than confirmation bias, and it doesn't take away from the fact that we are better off when they have their own devoted lane, and we would be no better off if these same rude hipsters were driving cars instead.
So even if all the money for bus and bike lanes came from drivers (which it doesn't), you wouldn't just be paying for some asshole's free ride to work: you, as a driver, would also be benefiting from it.
47
@19: Traffic offenses are citation offenses, so the officer has to actually see you do something wrong to cite you. License plates on bikes wouldn't make any difference in this equation.
48
@30 I know, right! Not to mention the liberal elite's plot of complete indoctrination of OUR CHILDREN into this pedestrian lifestyle. See Spot Run? Dick and Jane need to stop freeloading and get a motherfucking CAR. I'm thinking sidewalk tolls.
49
The other reason to require a license before operating your vehicle on the roadway is that you must pass a written test before plunging into traffic. You must be of a certain age, and/or have had instruction.
There is a crazy idea that the driver of a car is supposed to prove their knowledge the laws but not bicyclists.
There is a crazy idea that the driver of a car is supposed to prove their knowledge the laws but not bicyclists.
50
The real cost of gas is somewhere around $15-18, depending on the cost of a barrel of oil.
@49: You're comparing a $25,000+ piece of machinery to an invention that makes use of simple gears. You test whether or not someone can handle said $25k+ machine AND negotiate traffic. With a greatly simplified machine like a bike, the burden is far less.
But okay, I'll accept the idea of licensing bikes if we require motorists to fully acknowledge and understand the true cost of driving and make changes to their attitude and entitlements accordingly.
@49: You're comparing a $25,000+ piece of machinery to an invention that makes use of simple gears. You test whether or not someone can handle said $25k+ machine AND negotiate traffic. With a greatly simplified machine like a bike, the burden is far less.
But okay, I'll accept the idea of licensing bikes if we require motorists to fully acknowledge and understand the true cost of driving and make changes to their attitude and entitlements accordingly.
51
@48 - You're right, we must think of the children! If Bill Gates really cared for the kids, he'd be making sure all our schools had Power Wheels.
52
Running a stop sign isn't the same on a bike. Most of the time, when someone screws up driving a car, it's because they "spaced out" (or frequently, fell asleep!). This, while operating a deadly weapon. "Sorry 'bout that!"
When bikers run a light, they look first (and, nobody ever falls asleep while biking).
When bikers run a light, they look first (and, nobody ever falls asleep while biking).
53
@3-"The real price of gas in the US is as high as anywhere else in the world. "
The real price, sure. The price people think about is the one they pay at the pump.
The real price, sure. The price people think about is the one they pay at the pump.
54
@49- The crazy idea is that the majority of cyclists don't have driver's licenses.
My daughter (she's eight) has already had bicycle education in school.
My daughter (she's eight) has already had bicycle education in school.
55
@47 A few months ago, I saw a guy on a bike plow right into a pedestrian and completely take her out while riding on the sidewalk. Then he got back on his bike and peddled away without even asking if she was OK.
While a police officer may have had to witness the incident to cite the cyclist, I'm guessing that the pedestrain who was taken out would have probably liked to have been able to track that cyclist down if she had medical bills resulting from the incident. Also, if the cyclist thought that he wouldn't be able to ride off anonymously, he may have even stuck around to ask if she was OK.
While a police officer may have had to witness the incident to cite the cyclist, I'm guessing that the pedestrain who was taken out would have probably liked to have been able to track that cyclist down if she had medical bills resulting from the incident. Also, if the cyclist thought that he wouldn't be able to ride off anonymously, he may have even stuck around to ask if she was OK.
56
@55- Or he might have just driven off like that driver who killed a bicyclist in Seattle last week. That driver who has never been identified.
57
@56 Maybe. You think they'd have an easier time finding him if cars weren't required to have license plates?
I guess I just don't really look at this as a tit for tat situation. Running over and killing somebody before fleeing the scene is a pretty fucked up thing to do. So is running over somebody and not killing them before fleeing the scene.
I guess I just don't really look at this as a tit for tat situation. Running over and killing somebody before fleeing the scene is a pretty fucked up thing to do. So is running over somebody and not killing them before fleeing the scene.
58
@57- Maybe you're just not looking at this situation with any kind of logic at all. License plates do nothing to stop drivers from committing traffic violations. Fear of punishment is the least effective motivator of positive behavior. The driver and cyclist fled precisely because they didn't want to take the consequences of their actions, a license plate didn't make any difference.
59
First, #58, license plates can help, and they do in most cases, and helping in most cases is better than no help at all.
But the licensing bicycles, rather stupid. Enforcement alone would cost too much to be of any help, most cops have much more important things they should be taking care of. Consider the number of kids (young ones) who use bikes for recreation, do you really want to give them an excuse to sit around playing nothing but video games? No, enforcing the laws already on the books, that's pretty much all that is really needed, though I would like it to be illegal for bikes on the sidewalks here as well but meh, I'd probably be voted down on that one. The reckless rider should be punished, but a license isn't needed, they are on bikes so you can see the rider clearly and report them if they do hurt someone. Really, people just need to be more involved in their community in this matter than anything. As for curbing costs and such, already covered that, so meh.
But the licensing bicycles, rather stupid. Enforcement alone would cost too much to be of any help, most cops have much more important things they should be taking care of. Consider the number of kids (young ones) who use bikes for recreation, do you really want to give them an excuse to sit around playing nothing but video games? No, enforcing the laws already on the books, that's pretty much all that is really needed, though I would like it to be illegal for bikes on the sidewalks here as well but meh, I'd probably be voted down on that one. The reckless rider should be punished, but a license isn't needed, they are on bikes so you can see the rider clearly and report them if they do hurt someone. Really, people just need to be more involved in their community in this matter than anything. As for curbing costs and such, already covered that, so meh.
60
@59- The only problem is that driver's think there is a problem. Nothing needs to be fixed except the attitude of a large collection of assholes, most of them in cars.
61
@60 I can't argue that at all, and agree to most of the assertion. Motorists scare me as a pedestrian, but so do bicyclists really, just a car will hurt a lot more.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) Says Members of His Party Have Rocks for Brains by Charles Mudede
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
Barack Obama Smoked a Lot of Pot as a Young Man by Paul Constant
-
The Limits of Keynesianism by Charles Mudede
-
Rural America by Charles Mudede
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (61) RSS