Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr
There's a great question, why should a bicycle have free use of roadways if the cyclist isn't paying into it's use (even partially)? Cars do it through gas taxes and registration fees, transit agencies have to pay road maintenance and diesel tax, etc. I know that Oregon and Washington have proposed a registration fee for bikes and Colorado Springs charges an extra sales tax on bicycle purchases.
I actually think that the proposals to charge cyclists for road use is a great sign of how far cycling has come as a legitimate means of transportation. A few years this would have been laughed off as silly, now it's just a matter of time before cyclists will probably have registration fees and will be ticketed for riding a bicycle with expired tags.
|
You are like a broken record. That is a different argument that I had no intention to bring back up. AGAIN. You can discuss who is subsidizing who all you want. Those battles are eternal.
My only point was that bike commutes are a hobby for those with a choice but for those without they often become a necessity. The B-cycle system is even drawing a much more economically diverse clientele as people realize that a year membership is less then a month's bus pass. If we lose all affordable housing near the city's employment centers than it may become a rich man's-only issue. Until then or if we do manage to have workforce housing developed where it should be, bike safety in congested areas will be an issue absolutely relevant to the economically underprivileged.
If bunt wants to call it an easement expansion for improved property access in an increasingly dense environment, or soil sacrifice to placate the volcano gods dormant beneath Boulder, instead of transit improvement, that is fine by me. I still see it as a necessary part of a comprehensive approach to the use of our right of ways and more than just some 'rich white' man's fantasy. I also don't know why he keeps throwing white in there along side wealthy. I'm pretty sure three out of the four top earners in my fairly Denver representative social circle are not white. They may not be rich by some peoples scale of measure but to use rich and white together almost as to assume they are mutually assured is slightly offensive.
Edit: Actually I do know why. It's a common solicitor's tactic to redirect attention away from counter arguments by attacking an opponents viability as a reliable witness, often through easily conjured stereotypical images. (see what I did there?)
He makes like he is the champion of the under-served and underprivileged minorities, protecting them from the self-interested actions of the greedy powerful white man and his anti-working class pro-bike agenda. If this were the case he would be pushing hardest for comprehensive expansion of the current bus system so the 100000 people who currently use it are not averaging 1/10th of their non-working hours in transit. What he promotes, and I agree needs to be included for consideration, is investment into systems that are less scary and/or time consuming , for middle and upper class, likely predominantly white (if for some reason it matters to you), commuters than the buses already used by our truly disadvantaged members of society as a matter of necessity.
I only bring this up because it must be called out for what it is, and because I believe it has no place in a discussion revolving around fact and not character assassination. Besides, his arguments usually have a large impact on the debate even without employing such tactics, so I don't understand the need.
Prev
Linear Mode
