 |
Re: Placerville Branch public meetings re bike lane conversion
Author: The Exchequer
Date: 04-11-2015 - 20:57
M. Harris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> False and misleading logic. While many bicyclists
> are also (motor vehicle) drivers, comparatively
> very few motor vehicle drivers are also
> bicyclists. Thus, a disproportionate tax burden
> for funding bicycle infrastructure falls upon the
> motor vehicle driver, who has little choice in the
> matter. Classic social engineering by
> redistribution of wealth.
Only 1.6% of the federal transportation budget is spent on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. That is NOT redistribution of wealth.
You also avoided dealing with the fact that local roads are not funded from gasoline tax revenues. Therefore you cannot make logically make the claim that drivers are subsidizing bicycle usage on local roads (which comprise a significant amount of the roads used by bicyclists).
>
> "Much more visible examples of transportation
> "bullying" are evident where new highways were
> built through dense urban neighborhoods during the
> last century, forcing thousands of residents out
> of their communities and creating barriers in
> those communities which still stand today."
>
> So, today's version of bullying is justified and
> excused by citing an alleged past example?
> Really?
I made this point not to justify the attitudes of some current bicyclists, but highlight that whatever their views are, they are insignificant compared to the much greater damage caused by expressway advocates.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> False and misleading logic. While many bicyclists
> are also (motor vehicle) drivers, comparatively
> very few motor vehicle drivers are also
> bicyclists. Thus, a disproportionate tax burden
> for funding bicycle infrastructure falls upon the
> motor vehicle driver, who has little choice in the
> matter. Classic social engineering by
> redistribution of wealth.
Only 1.6% of the federal transportation budget is spent on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. That is NOT redistribution of wealth.
You also avoided dealing with the fact that local roads are not funded from gasoline tax revenues. Therefore you cannot make logically make the claim that drivers are subsidizing bicycle usage on local roads (which comprise a significant amount of the roads used by bicyclists).
>
> "Much more visible examples of transportation
> "bullying" are evident where new highways were
> built through dense urban neighborhoods during the
> last century, forcing thousands of residents out
> of their communities and creating barriers in
> those communities which still stand today."
>
> So, today's version of bullying is justified and
> excused by citing an alleged past example?
> Really?
I made this point not to justify the attitudes of some current bicyclists, but highlight that whatever their views are, they are insignificant compared to the much greater damage caused by expressway advocates.
