Blog
LaHood: “You have a full partner in Ray LaHood.”
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood energizes and thanks the crowd at the League of American Bicyclists National Bike Summit on March 11, 2010.
Ray LaHood pumps up the crowd at the National Bike Summit 2010
For more blog coverage of Secretary LaHood’s policy statement on bicycling and walking see:
LaHood: “This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.”
Should Bikes And Cars Be Treated Equally? pt. 2
Setting the Record Straight on US DOT’s New Nonmotorized Policy Statement
Support the USDOT Statement on Bicycling and Walking
LaHood: “This is what Americans want”
Keep up with us: http://www.bikeleague.org/blog/feed/
Darren Flusche
League Policy Director
Flusche joined the League in April 2009 and has a B.A. in history from Syracuse University and a Masters of Public Administration with a concentration in public policy analysis from New York University.
Subscribe
March 15th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
[...] the Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood stood on a table at the National Bike Summit to thank the crowd and show his support for bicycling and [...]
March 27th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
[...] with a momentous Congressional Reception, inspiring bike advocates from around the country – andSecretary of Transportation Ray LaHood – to bring the American bicycle movement to the next level! The 2010 Bike Summit was a paramount [...]
April 1st, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Hope it is coincidence, but today (April 1, 2010) I appeared to be an object of disgruntlment while cycling. Twice automobiles were steered over the center line toward me into my lane as if to make some point about my presence on a rural North Carolina road.
April 14th, 2010 at 5:15 am
[...] http://www.bikeleague.org/blog/2010/03/lahood-you-have-a-full-partner-in-ray-lahood/ [...]
April 14th, 2010 at 5:44 am
[...] http://www.bikeleague.org/blog/2010/03/lahood-you-have-a-full-partner-in-ray-lahood/ [...]
April 14th, 2010 at 5:44 am
[...] http://www.bikeleague.org/blog/2010/03/lahood-you-have-a-full-partner-in-ray-lahood/ More on Health [...]
April 14th, 2010 at 5:44 am
[...] http://www.bikeleague.org/blog/2010/03/lahood-you-have-a-full-partner-in-ray-lahood/ More on Health [...]
April 14th, 2010 at 6:28 am
[...] http://www.bikeleague.org/blog/2010/03/lahood-you-have-a-full-partner-in-ray-lahood/ [...]
April 14th, 2010 at 6:40 am
[...] LinkedIn [...]
April 14th, 2010 at 7:13 am
[...] http://www.bikeleague.org/blog/2010/03/lahood-you-have-a-full-partner-in-ray-lahood/ [...]
April 14th, 2010 at 7:48 am
[...] http://www.bikeleague.org/blog/2010/03/lahood-you-have-a-full-partner-in-ray-lahood/ [...]
April 14th, 2010 at 8:30 am
[...] http://www.bikeleague.org/blog/2010/03/lahood-you-have-a-full-partner-in-ray-lahood/ [...]
April 14th, 2010 at 9:16 am
I understand that cyclist want a bike lane, and I also feel its well needed, however, if there is to be the same concideration for cyclist as is given motorist, then there should be an equal and fair tax applied to cyclist that would equal an average motorist tax on petrolium products, equal rights, equal taxes to support those rights, and not have the expenses derived from what motorist are already paing to a bleeding transportation dept. in a recessive economy.
April 14th, 2010 at 9:25 am
Johnny, bicycling does not pollute, contributes to a healthier lifestyle, & thus, lowers healthcare costs. In addition,you could save the trillion dollars spent on wars started by the previous adminitstration to get more oil & ha ha fight “terrorism” by not using oil to commute. So, by biking you can help end terrorism & any need for “foreign” oil. Tax that.
April 14th, 2010 at 9:31 am
Awesome!
April 14th, 2010 at 9:32 am
I applaud Ray LaHood for having the courage to publicly stand up for his convictions and wholeheartedly support his concept that cycling and walking have parity with auto, truck and train transportation.
Non-motorized travel is a key element in the reduction of America’s consumption of fossil fuels and it’s consequent need for imported oil. It also is an important step into lowering pollution, especially in urban areas, and in diminishing our overall carbon footprint.
Regulations must be put in place to ensure that bicycle and foot traffic share equal opportunities to get from Point A to B. This may well mean “separate but equal” accomodations, but to discriminate against cyclists and pedestrians and put them into a category of second-class travelers should be unlawful.
In an era when energy usage and environmental considerations should be of utmost importance, it should stand to reason that “low impact” alternative forms of transport are to be encouraged. The use of a small portion of the Highway Trust Fund needs to be specifically dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian travel, much as it is for public transit.
On several occasions, due to a lack of signage or an inability to safely exit (either from congestion, higher traffic speeds, blocked lanes of travel or unsafe road conditions), I have found myself on roads where non-motorized vehicles were prohibited. Our present regulations have failed at these times, by creating situations that are both illegal and at high risk for serious or death.
Secretary LaHood’s ideas for a transportation policy in tune with the 21st century are most needed.
April 14th, 2010 at 9:40 am
I total agree. Make room for the walker and biker if you want Americans to reduce FAT. Lets make American lean…means we need to start WALKING/Biking. How may I help? (North Carolina)
April 14th, 2010 at 9:50 am
[...] On the Net: http://www.bikeleague.org/blog/2010/03/lahood-you-have-a-full-partner-in-ray-lahood/ [...]
April 14th, 2010 at 9:56 am
I would love to see more sidewalks (and people using them). I support bike lanes and more bicycle friendly traffic arrangements. Education for motorists should include a healthy dose of “share the road” instruction. But bicyclists need to do their share. Organizations like yours need to devote considerable time bicycle safety and the fact that sharing the road goes two ways. Bicycle riders should be subject to the same enforcement as other road users. Defensive driving should be part of every bicycle riders training (just ask an experienced motorcycle rider about the difference between being “right” and being alive.) If bicyclists want their share of the road and the road money, they should be willing to share the responsibility. Otherwise, it won’t work.
April 14th, 2010 at 11:29 am
YES FINALLY EQUALS TO PAY 400.00 TO 500.00 DOLLARS A YEAR IN REGISTRATION PER VEHICLE TO USE THE ROADWAYS. TO LONG HAS IT BEEN UNFAIR CYCLISTS ABUSE THIS PRIVELAGE WITH OUT PAYING!!!!
April 14th, 2010 at 11:39 am
Good! Maybe get some of the porkers out of the Lay-zee-Boy recliners & onto the streets.
Germany has cars in the streets, then two-way bike lanes, then sidewalks for pedestrians. They get it.
The more people ride bicycles, the fewer cars on the roads. And that’s a good thing.
April 14th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
I am a voting republican and I just want everyone to know that not all republicans are against promoting bike travel, just as not all democrats are for it. It bothers me that we are all lumped together. Yes, there are republicans who do not support it, but usually that is due to the source of funding, not the mode of travel. Since cyclists dont pay gas taxes to ride their bikes, it doesn’t make sense to republicans to pay for it from gas taxes. They want to see their gas taxes go to improving their roads. What we need to do is find a common sense source of funding…What about bicycle licensing, just like auto licensing – for bicycles on the road…I would be willing to pay for that. Or maybe an extra sales tax on bicycle purchases (excluding kids’ bikes)? I think that all republicans would support these types of funding. I would.I would also support a very small percentage of gas tax going to bike travel options also, with the understanding that it would eliminate some automobiles from the roadways, thereby decreasing traffic congestion a little bit.Republicans aren’t hateful adn stupid, they just look at funding and government differently. Even if they are cyclists, they don’t support funding it through fees and taxes unrelated to cycling. Put the two things together, and you’d have agreement. By the way, I am a Republican cyclist…Remember, no one is forcing the cyclist to pay gas taxes or auto licensing even when they don’t drive a car, so cyclists shouldn’t expect automobile drivers to pay for bike trails, etc when they don’t ride bikes…
April 14th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
I think some of you guys are falling into the cyclists vs. motorists trap. I think most cyclists are like me – they have cars as well, pay all those fuel tax and vehicle tax, and want to be able to ride bikes as an alternative. I don’t want to ride my bike for the 20-mile commute to work, but I sure do for my 7 mile grocery trip – but I’d have to bike on an unpleasant highway to do that. It isn’t either you have a bike OR you have a car!
besides, check out http://www.bikeleague.org/blog/2010/03/lahood-gets-it-others-do-not/ “The argument that bicyclists don’t contribute to road costs doesn’t hold water. Just over half of the cost of transportation at all levels of government is paid for by fuel and vehicle taxes and tolls. The rest comes from property taxes, general fund allocations, bond issues, and transit fares. Non-drivers are already helping to pay.”
April 14th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
I used to ride my bike to work for years, and sometimes it was close to 20 miles. I’m retired now. I’m also a republican who wants what is best for the ecology as well as the economy. It’s been proven too many times that what is best for all of us is also best for the planet. So “share the road”. A policy like this is so obviously in need that I haven’t thought about it in years. I never thought someone in politics would have the balls to do it! BRAVO
April 14th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
I have been a bike commuter in the DC area for many years as well as a recreational cyclist on the weekends. What I’m going to say will be unpopular among cyclists, but here it is. Cultural, if you are an American, you are about your car. In our culture, it’s an extension of who you are. And, the United States is too big and too geographically dispersed for biking to ever be a serious transportation mode here. Most cyclists ride because it is their hobby, nothing more. Yet, we insist on waving out “environmental correctness” flag in front of drivers. I have to concede that biking is impractical for most people, such as the old and infirm, parents who need to take their kids multiple places fast, and folks who live far out in the suburbss. For most people, even public transportation makes no sense at all. Driving is here to stay. So, if we cyclists want special considerations and special facilities–bike paths and bike lanes–we need to take the onus of paying for those things ourselves. I would propose local, regional, or national sales taxes on all bike sales, bike rentals, and bike repairs. Such revenues would go into firewalled funds, much like the National Highway Fund, to be distributed to localities and states for bike facilities. That way, we pay for our own hobby, for our own safety, and we’re not eating into the crucial highway and road funds upon which all Americans depend for their mobility and survival. Many may wish we were Holland or Denmark, but we are not. We cyclists need to get real, and pay our own way. That’s one of the few ways we can help convince ordinary Americans we aren’t at war with them, or their cars.
April 14th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Paraphrasing one of the comments above, with just a minor word change:
If we pedestrians want special considerations and special facilities – paths and sidewalks – we need to take the onus of paying for those things ourselves. I would propose local, regional, or national sales taxes on all shoe sales and shoe repairs.
April 14th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Finally…Ray LaHood is making a statement that is long overdue. We now are raising a generation that will live shorter lives. The main cause is due to the lack of exercise that includes bicycling. Is there anything more important than our children? Can we quibble about cost? As such, an argument can be made that priority should be given over that of motorized vehicles.
Comment has been made that bicyclists do not share the costs of highways. That is incredibly wrong. We cyclists already share these costs. Who among us do not own a car in addition to our bikes. Any additional taxes would be doubling those already being paid.
Yes…there are powerful lobbies that will attack any common sense discussions on this topic. There will be those that will even ridicule. We should be prepared and not be distracted…our children, our environment and our very future depend on moving forward on this enlightened policy. We can only elect those that share that belief.
I have been a long advocate of bicycling and shared responsibilities of the roadways with many comments on the internet and with two local bicycle clubs. I was there pushing for helmet use back in the 80’s. Then helping with many club and charity events. Now…look forward to participate with this policy!
RePete
April 15th, 2010 at 9:39 am
[...] http://www.bikeleague.org/blog/2010/03/lahood-you-have-a-full-partner-in-ray-lahood/ [...]
April 15th, 2010 at 10:59 am
While the comments about paying only for what you use sound common-sense, reality is different.
We were paying taxes for the development of the Internet far before anyone was using it.
We all pay for funding public schools because good schools make desirable towns and increase property values.
In short, we all pay a little to support infrastructure and services that serve the common good, even if we don’t use every single thing that our taxes pay for. I’m sorry so many U.S. citizens have lost sight of this aspect of patriotism.
Nice post Ann, about where transportation funding really comes from. I’m happy that my tax dollars will go to many modes of transportation in the future!
April 15th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Johnny,
Cyclists pay that tax via the subsidy that all tax payers (of income, sales, and property) provide to the highway fund. About 30% of the highway fund isn’t being shouldered by motor taxes (that’s gas, tolls, registration/licensing, and wheel taxes).
That Bicycle is not only getting less than a third of the space, but he’s causing less than a third of the damage and when he parks he’ll be creating a need for far less than a third of the expansion: Wonder why suburbs have huge parking lots and wasteful green spaces, it’s because that’s the spacing necessary for you to compute what you’re passing at 35mph and that’s the space needed for Christmas parking.
April 15th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
RePete,
Yea, some of us are car free, or car light (we own fewer cars than we would if we didn’t bike).
Certainly, when you bike instead of drive, you’re getting out of gas taxes and any mileage based wheel taxes.
April 15th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Cheryl,
I’d happily pay a tax on my bike, as long as it’s not a license or registration. Those are the wrong route. Since the bicycle tax would be fairly low (unless we’re gonna build a lot more infrastructure than we do now), much of the tax would be lost administering it.
I’d happily pay a tire tax, or a chain tax. And that might be doable at a federal level (it’s not at a city level).
I can certainly understand wanting gas taxes to fund roads for cars. It does seem reasonable.
What I can’t understand is that that’s no the rhetoric here. Some of these guys are even talking about trucking. Really, what does this have to do with trucking? We’ve already subsidized trucking so heavily with our interestates that trains (which make more sense for distance freight) are losing out…
Then there’s the anti-bike rhetoric. Apparently biking is Chinese/communism.
April 15th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
I LIKE TO RIDE MY BIKE AND USE IT WHEN PRUDENT TO DO SO. SHORT TRIPS FOR SMALL THINGS WHEN NESESARY. BUT THOSE WHO ARE RECREATING ON THE ROADWAYS OR PROVING THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY PLESE ON THE ROADS BECAUSE THEY ARE ON A BIKE RUIN IT FOR US ALL. PATHS AND WIDER ROAD WOULD BE A NICE LUXURY BUT ARE NEITHER PRACTICAL OR USED CORECTLY WHEN BUILT. AS THE SITUATION IS WITH OUT THEM IF YOU DO SOME RESERCH CYCLING IS NOT THE GREAT ENVIROMENTAL SAVIOR THAT ALL THINK. IT ATTRIBUTES TO ALMOST AS MANY AND WILL SURPASS THE ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY DRUNK DRIVING. IT ALSO CREATES MUCH POLLUTION FROM THESE VEHICLES BOTH BIKES AND CARS HAVING TO BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED. NUT TO MENTION THE CONGESTION AND GRIDLOCK FROM CYCLISTS ON THE ROADS.
April 15th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Please…why are we even addressing the how to pay. There is plenty of money in the federal budget and much time to address. Here are some ideas I expect to propose to my club…
• Update home page of website stating support for the policy
• Include a link to the policy from the home page
• Create small stickers/patches or arm bands for give away at our rides stating support for policy.
• Purchase large display of policy to be shown at rides.
• Create and maintain a signature book for people to sign showing support
• Enlist ideas and support from our sponsors
• Reach out to other clubs in area for support and help
• Plan to participate in any events supporting policy
We need to be united, vocal…visible and non-confrontational in our support.
Anyone have other ideas?
April 17th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
The sanctimony here is smothering.
And as a former recreational cyclist (motorized and pedal-powered) I appreciate the concern over the hostility from people on four wheels. But I think you guys have just potentially brought more of that down on your heads. People who would run a biker off the road are sociopaths, and having a marked-off bike lane is not going to stop them from harrassing you.
It’s great to tout bicyling if you are young enough, fit enough and live in an area where the terrain and weather permit it. But to suggest–as the president of the L.A.B. did on radio yesterday–that walking/biking would be a good alternative for people who were no longer able to drive b/c of age or infirmity, is just ridiculous.
All of you need to climb down from that high moral plateau if you expect acceptance from the mainstream.
April 17th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
BTW, I am just curious how many of the people in this discussion who have said that registration of bicycles is unworkable, too costly, or ineffective also happen to favor “gun control” laws?
The reason I ask is not to agitate, but to point out the parallels.
Would it be acceptable for a politician to say that bicycles should be banned from a certain place because of the number of injuries involving bicyclists? “Let’s get these dangerous devices off the streets.”
The issue I’m attempting to raise is utilitarianism versus individual freedom.
April 18th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Is it just short attention spans, a short news cycle, or is there no one here willing to engage in a discussion that might push the limits of their comfort zone?
April 18th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Ah…Stan…it is not short attention span but time. I’ve moved my focus to the bicycle club so I can speak with the voice of many…not simply that of myself.
Not sure how gun control came into this discussion…but, I a strong proponent of control.
Your comments on what is mainstream are interesting. But what was mainstream 50 years ago is no longer. So change is expected. We need to guide change so that 50 years from now our children have a better planet and better lives.
Yes, you are correct, people who would run a biker off the road are sociopaths. Not all drivers are that way and most are to opposite. Just yesterday I had a very pleasant ride with several drivers yield to me allowing me to pass. Regardless, what is the answer…to continue unchanged. You can see where that got us.
We are not advocating elimation of the auto…simply to allow wider use of pathways.
You can read my comments in the club’s website…where you can post further comments.
April 19th, 2010 at 2:59 am
I loved reading in the Monterey County Herald, 4/15/l0, US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s response to criticism of his bold support for bikeways and pedestrian walkways: “I’m not going to apologize for any of it. I think this is what the people want.”
Yes!
And thank you, Bike League, for your hard work that has led, at long last, to this recognition by our American government.
April 19th, 2010 at 9:42 am
I totally agree that bicycling is an excellent alternative to driving a car. Less fuel is consumed, no emissions are produced, and the cyclist gets the full benefit of the exercise. That helps with heart health, endurance and a whole host of things.
However, there is something inherently wrong when a town enacts legislation that is contrary to everything we teach our children from the first day we teach them to cross a street. “Stop and look both ways” is that first lesson.
I live in a college town where the pedestrians don’t stop but rather continue across the street as if they have no awareness that their frail bodies cannot stand up to the weight of a vehicle. Add to that a policy that makes it illegal to blow your horn (except when warning another driver).
This town considers cyclists drivers too. There is a conflict when a cyclist doesn’t obey the same law.
I personally had a confrontation with a bicycle cop last summer. The cyclist was slowing traffic for several blocks. Unaware of what the delay was, I patiently rode in line behind other drivers too. After several blocks, the others peeled off, turning left or right to their destinations. When I saw the cyclist bobbing and weaving across the lane, going nowhere in particular but taking an inordinate amount of time to get to wherever he was going, I decided to pass to the left when the roadway was clear. Because he was weaving, I honked my horn to warn him I was going around him. As I passed, he hollered “STOP!.” I did.
When the officer approached, the first thing he said was “it’s illegal to pass in downtown Columbia,” In my own experience, everywhere in this country, it is legal to pass when the path is clear and there is a broken yellow line, which was the case here. After the officer studied his handbook for over 20 minutes, he cited me for “following a bicycle, imprudent driving, honking the horn, and excessive speeding.”
At the place where I passed, the distance from that point till the officer hollered was less than 50 feet. In a 13 year old car, there would be no way I could have passed him at over 20 miles above the speed limit in that distance. Rate = Time / Distance. The officer claimed he could estimate my speed because of his experience yet he could not tell me how far I had traveled. There is something wrong with this picture.
At court, there was a trial. A “real trial” as if I had committed some terrible crime. According to the driver’s handbook, I did everything according to text. The judge noted he had never seen a case like this. He said I had done everything correctly according to the handbook but he still found me “guilty.” Absolutely AMAZING!
This is definitely adding up to the “twilight zone” effect. The officer claimed he “feared for his life when he heard rocks popping up off the pavement, and I was going 20 miles over the speed limit.” Not one of those things happened. I appealed.
In this town, they don’t keep a transcript of court proceedings. That meant I had no record of the lies the officer told to impeach his testimony at the next trial. (By the way. No one had every appealed a conviction in this town and the court clerk didn’t even know where the form was or how to fill it out for the appeal. I was in the “Twilight Zone” again.
I went to the police station to request a copy of the officer’s incident report because he told me I could read it there because he wouldn’t let me read the ticket at the stop before signing it. Although this is a state that has a “Sunshine Law,” the keeper of records required me to fill out a form to request that incident report. Then that keeper of records called me on the phone several days later to ask me why I wanted it. Needless to say, he didn’t produce the records claiming officers don’t have to file a report. “Twilight Zone” again.
My crime was that I had the audacity to pass a bicycle cop. Well, needless to say, the trial date came, the officer was a no call, no show at the hearing. The judge refused to dismiss the charges and rescheduled another hearing. At the next hearing, the officer was a very late arriver. My case was called early in the hearing. Again, no officer. Well, the wonderful judge put my case at the bottom of the pile and waited the hour for the officer to finally show up. Guess what the verdict was? “GUILTY!”
As a mother of 3 grown daughters and now 5 grandchildren, I have always taught my children to obey the law, look both ways before crossing the streets, be careful when cycling and respect cars; the police are your friends. Respect them and call them if you’re in trouble. I left that courtroom with a very bad taste in my mouth.
At the initial stop, when the officer lied about the illegalities of passing where there is a broken yellow line, I began to record the conversation on my Blackberry. I had my 9 year old grandson who was visiting from Florida for the summer with me. As a grandparent, it is my job to teach him to obey the law too. He was terrified and so was I. The stop was confrontational. The officer would not allow a 50 year-old grandmother with handicap license plates out of the car to read the ticket in the dark. He snatched his ticket book from my hands twice because I wanted to read it before signing. (My Constitutional Right). He even threatened to arrest me because I wouldn’t sign the ticket without reading it. Needless to say, I never signed it because the officer snatched it out of my hand so that I couldn’t read it.
At this point, I shudder to think about driving now because the town I live in has the attitude that they will make laws to suit their own agendas. As I told the judge in parting, “I’m afraid to drive now because if I obey the laws as they’re written on the books, I may run across a rogue cop who perjures himself in the interest of his ego to write a ticket because he feels like it.”
This new “bicycle friendly” city is shaping up to be not so friendly. With any idea or concept, it can be twisted for “evil intent.” I think this is happening here and I really think there should be another look at the application of this legislation.
May 5th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
If his position was one that we voted on, I would definitely vote for him
Go for it Mr. LaHood.
May 5th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Re: posters, or should I write posers: G, GovMcDonnell, Jason (below) and others of your pothead ilk, yes potheads. I doubt you will understand any of the following and politicians count on you and TV so that “Divided, We Fall.” Ps. I will try to avoid the spelling and grammar errors that all the “victims” of ..well..”life” and “environmentalists” always seem to point out, because their arguments otherwise fall flat. Most people who ride bicycles, then argue over their “rights” are usually losers who don’t work, but instead sit home and smoke pot. You don’t WORK because: 1) too burned out 2) stupid, 3) lazy, 4) all of the above. You can’t cope with how hard life is without “substances” to use to escape said life, and I use the term “life” loosely. Sorry to use all of this alliteration on you burn outs. I know I must sound like a current day “news” reporter from TV or NY Times, etc. They try to “sound” so educated at the expense of hard working people. I refer to those similar to you: ie: the poser pothead Jon Stewart, who had to change his name because he was ashamed of it apparently. (Why else does one change his/her name–if not shame). People like you probably tuned in for the “smack down” of an intelligent financial person.. Jim you know who…. And those such as Jon Stewart and self proclaimed “artists” (they can’t otherwise work for a living) rely on you idiots who also stay home to watch them, thereby validating their existence/self-importance. You are too stoned or stupid to understand that “celebrities” and politicians rely on you to validate their existence, or they would commit suicide. Then, you/they can keep “self medicating” and self gratifying. You hang on their every word because they kept you stoned. You are so stoned right now and can’t even understand this can you? People who have to blame others for their pathetic lives have this is common: bad childhood, blame syndrome, bike escape syndrome and/or other victimization by “others” especially “those republicans.” Yes, I am right. If you could hold a job, are capable of working, and only ride a bike because you are old, for leisure (enjoyment and/or family involvement), you would not complain about those working to pay taxes to fund said roads. That’s why I asserted my being “right,” as in correct, or accurate in my assertions. Why don’t you research the Department of Transportation. Dept of Trans/Highway Safety determined the standards of EMS, who bring people to the hospital, thereby supporting the “evil” doctors, insurance companies, etc. who all then benefit from people like you being hit on the road, brought to the emergency room, treated, billed or not billed (check the law regarding treatment of those “uninsured” patients whom the hospitals are not allowed to turn away as PER LAW). Wasn’t it 47 MILLION first? (Doubt you even follow where this narrative is going.) In the end, the corrupt politicians/”celebrities” rely on stupid burn outs like you to vote for them. There would be no argument that every person is “entitled” to have his life saved by others who have spent a small fortune to be educated to treat sick people, then in return be demonized by politicians, “news,” reporters, and losers like you, etc. You are actually supporting the need for all that medical treatment and then probably demanding that you be treated for free when you are hit by a motorist (going to work–i.e., paying taxes) to support losers like you to ride your bikes instead of working. If you really gave a damn about “the environment” you would stop causing more vehicles to be on the road to save your sorry a– when you are hit by a motorist, who has likely paid taxes for the road upon which he drives to work, support the DOT, their curriculum for EMS, education/funding for EMS, thereby contributing to demand for more docs, ERs, hospitals, “outrageous” hospital bills, “evil” insurance companies who support the “evil” hospitals and doctors who take care of you.
May 5th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
AMEN RAY DA HOOD
May 27th, 2010 at 9:05 am
[...] so it was that I found my self hearing Ray LaHood quoted once more about equal status for bicycling along with cars. I had to check out the window quickly to make sure I was still in Idaho, Lewiston, no [...]
March 4th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
[...] of Tuesday’s welcoming dinner — is already thinking about how he can top his famous Tabletop speech at last year’s Summit. This morning he blogged about his building anticipation and the [...]