Why I hate bicycle advocacy groups

[Peter Cole[_2_]]

From http://www.bicyclelaw.com/blog/

"In the past few weeks, the subject of taxes—specifically, taxes on
bicycles—has come up once again. On November 12, Bikeportland reported
that the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (a bicycle advocacy
organization based in Portland, Oregon) and Metro (the regional
government for the Portland metropolitan area) both support a
recommendation by Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski’s Transportation Vision
Committee to create a “point-of-sale excise tax on the purchase of adult
bicycles.” The proposed excise tax—a fee in the range of $5-$20 per
bike—“should be used to enhance bicycle transportation, including Safe
Routes to Schools.”"

"Karl Rohde, the Government Affairs and Public Relations Director for
the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (commonly known by its acronym,
BTA), explained that there are two reasons for the BTA’s support for the
tax. First, Bikeportland reports, Rohde feels that it will be an
important political tool to counter arguments that bikes don’t pay their
share to maintain and build roads. Second, the BTA believes that the
revenue generated by a bike excise tax would provide a more reliable
funding stream for bike programs than the gas tax. Interestingly,
although supportive of the bike excise tax, Metro apparently contradicts
that second argument, arguing that the purpose of the tax is to “address
concern, however mistaken, that cyclists don’t carry their weight. This
may be an important equity effort, rather than a key funding source.”"

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

[Frank Krygowski[_2_]]

On Jan 12, 7:03*pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
> *Fromhttp://www.bicyclelaw.com/blog/
>
> "In the past few weeks, the subject of taxes—specifically, taxes on
> bicycles—has come up once again. On November 12, Bikeportland reported
> that the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (a bicycle advocacy
> organization based in Portland, Oregon) and Metro (the regional
> government for the Portland metropolitan area) both support a
> recommendation by Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski’s Transportation Vision
> Committee to create a “point-of-sale excise tax on the purchase of adult
> bicycles.” The proposed excise tax—a fee in the range of $5-$20 per
> bike—“should be used to enhance bicycle transportation, including Safe
> Routes to Schools.”"
>
> "Karl Rohde, the Government Affairs and Public Relations Director for
> the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (commonly known by its acronym,
> BTA), explained that there are two reasons for the BTA’s support for the
> tax. First, Bikeportland reports, Rohde feels that it will be an
> important political tool to counter arguments that bikes don’t pay their
> share to maintain and build roads. Second, the BTA believes that the
> revenue generated by a bike excise tax would provide a more reliable
> funding stream for bike programs than the gas tax. Interestingly,
> although supportive of the bike excise tax, Metro apparently contradicts
> that second argument, arguing that the purpose of the tax is to “address
> concern, however mistaken, that cyclists don’t carry their weight. This
> may be an important equity effort, rather than a key funding source.”"
>
> With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Those are the same folks who applaud striping of bike lanes in door
zones, and striping of bike lanes right up to the intersection. The
former resulted in prosecution of at least one cyclist who left the
lane for his own safety. The latter resulted in some well-publicized
cyclist fatalities, when the riders were run over by right turning
vehicles.

So to cure the latter, the "advocates" pushed for green "bike boxes"
so the cyclists can ride up on the right, then swerve out in front of
the first car or truck stopped at a red light, to sit in the center of
the lane. But what happens if the light turns green as the cyclist
passes on the right or swerves left?

Why not just have the cyclist in the center of the lane whenever
traffic stops?

BTA are prime examples of people who think ANY bike facility is a good
bike facility. With fools like this, who needs enemies?

- Frank Krygowski

[The Troll Feeder]

On Jan 12, 7:06*pm, Frank Krygowski > wrote:

>
> So to cure the latter, the "advocates" pushed for green "bike boxes"
> so the cyclists can ride up on the right, then swerve out in front of
> the first car or truck stopped at a red light, to sit in the center of
> the lane. But what happens if the light turns green as the cyclist
> passes on the right or swerves left?
>

The car or truck immediately accelerates into the green area, running
over the cyclist. I've seen it countless times, and it's why I always
wear a helmet.

[[email protected]]

Around here we fund the state's Children's Health Insurance Program
(CHIP) partly or wholly with funds generated by the cigarette tax. I
think that funding bike-related projects partly or wholly from the gas
tax follows some pretty sound precedent. I hope some cyclist(s) in your
area will give some calm, reasoned, clearly documented testimony about
that bill if and when it comes up.

Bill (thinking of going by Frumious in this group)

| No one is exempt from the call to find common ground.
__o | -- Barak Obama
`\(, | A dictatorship would be a lot easier.
(_)/ (_) | --George W. Bush


Peter Cole > wrote:
> From http://www.bicyclelaw.com/blog/

> "In the past few weeks, the subject of taxes???specifically, taxes on
> bicycles???has come up once again. On November 12, Bikeportland reported
> that the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (a bicycle advocacy
> organization based in Portland, Oregon) and Metro (the regional
> government for the Portland metropolitan area) both support a
> recommendation by Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski???s Transportation Vision
> Committee to create a ???point-of-sale excise tax on the purchase of adult
> bicycles.??? The proposed excise tax???a fee in the range of $5-$20 per
> bike??????should be used to enhance bicycle transportation, including Safe
> Routes to Schools.???"

> "Karl Rohde, the Government Affairs and Public Relations Director for
> the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (commonly known by its acronym,
> BTA), explained that there are two reasons for the BTA???s support for the
> tax. First, Bikeportland reports, Rohde feels that it will be an
> important political tool to counter arguments that bikes don???t pay their
> share to maintain and build roads. Second, the BTA believes that the
> revenue generated by a bike excise tax would provide a more reliable
> funding stream for bike programs than the gas tax. Interestingly,
> although supportive of the bike excise tax, Metro apparently contradicts
> that second argument, arguing that the purpose of the tax is to ???address
> concern, however mistaken, that cyclists don???t carry their weight. This
> may be an important equity effort, rather than a key funding source.???"

> With friends like this, who needs enemies?

[Bill Sornson[_5_]]

wrote:
> Around here we fund the state's Children's Health Insurance Program
> (CHIP) partly or wholly with funds generated by the cigarette tax.

So 25-year-olds and kids in families making up to $85,000.00 per year get
free medical care! God bless those coffin-nail addicts!

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Around here we fund the state's Children's Health Insurance Program
> > (CHIP) partly or wholly with funds generated by the cigarette tax.

> So 25-year-olds and kids in families making up to $85,000.00 per year get
> free medical care! God bless those coffin-nail addicts!

Actually, I think it's targeted mainly at low-income and otherwise
un- or under-insured. No 25-year-olds, no upper income families. Your
statement is inaccurate.

Bill

__o | What is objectionable, and what is dangerous about extremists
_`\(,_ | is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant.
(_)/ (_) | --Robert F. Kennedy

[landotter]

On Jan 13, 10:41*am, "Bill Sornson" > wrote:
> wrote:
> > * Around here we fund the state's Children's Health Insurance Program
> > (CHIP) partly or wholly with funds generated by the cigarette tax.
>
> So 25-year-olds and kids in families making up to $85,000.00 per year get
> free medical care! *

It's amazing how Right Wing Nut Jobs think they can simply LIE with
the internet and all. That's why RWNJs like Bill are completely
dismissable as fruitcake kooks.

CHIP is available to higher incomes with a monthly premium. Why RWNJs
would be against something that makes total economic sense is lost on
me--other than what appears to be an addiction to outrage and
authoritarianism--the "lie fuel". When you get more folks on a plan,
even those that are paying a full premium, the better it works. Duh!

Not the first time you've been caught straight up lying Bill. What a
dope.


Here's my documentation:

http://www.chipcoverspakids.com/assets/pdf/2008_FPIG_CHART_web.pdf

Where's yours, liar? That's right, you got nuttin'. You'd be a barrel
of laughs--if there weren't so many lying dopes like you clogging the
internet tubes. Repetition does not create reality.

[Bill Sornson[_5_]]

wrote:
> Bill Sornson > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Around here we fund the state's Children's Health Insurance
>>> Program (CHIP) partly or wholly with funds generated by the
>>> cigarette tax.

>> So 25-year-olds and kids in families making up to $85,000.00 per
>> year get free medical care! God bless those coffin-nail addicts!

> Actually, I think it's targeted mainly at low-income and otherwise
> un- or under-insured. No 25-year-olds, no upper income families.
> Your statement is inaccurate.

Two-second, carbon-eating Google (MANY hits):

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm1546.cfm

And from
http://roskam.house.gov/Newsroom/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=71426:

"To date, over 45% of all Illinois SCHIP beneficiaries are adults. Current
provisions cover individuals up to 25 years of age as "children" under the
...."

So the smokers are funding health care for families making as much as
$80,000; and "children" 25 years old.

Bill "the term 'bloggers in their mothers' basements wearing underwear'
comes to mind" S.

[landotter]

On Jan 13, 3:06*pm, "Bill Sornson" > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Bill Sornson > wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>> * Around here we fund the state's Children's Health Insurance
> >>> Program (CHIP) partly or wholly with funds generated by the
> >>> cigarette tax.
> >> So 25-year-olds and kids in families making up to $85,000.00 per
> >> year get free medical care! *God bless those coffin-nail addicts!
> > * Actually, I think it's targeted mainly at low-income and otherwise
> > un- or under-insured. *No 25-year-olds, no upper income families.
> > Your statement is inaccurate.
>
> Two-second, carbon-eating Google (MANY hits):
>
> http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm1546.cfm
>

Heritage.org? The antiAmerican front for the US's anti-democracy
dominionist mullahs?

Hahahahahahahaha!!! I see you haven't addressed the lie you told about
free health care for kids whose parents make $85K.

Got any more lies or links to organisations that are a threat to
democracy?

*fingermustache*

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Peter Cole > writes in part:
> From http://www.bicyclelaw.com/blog/

[snip]

> "Karl Rohde, the Government Affairs and Public Relations Director for
> the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (commonly known by its acronym,
> BTA), explained that there are two reasons for the BTA’s support for the
> tax. First, Bikeportland reports, Rohde feels that it will be an
> important political tool to counter arguments that bikes don’t pay their
> share to maintain and build roads. Second, the BTA believes that the
> revenue generated by a bike excise tax would provide a more reliable
> funding stream for bike programs than the gas tax."

[snip]

> With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Public mobility, whether by driving, riding, walking or
public transit, is beneficial to The Economy.

Citizens are downright /owed/ mobility-conducive streets 'n
roads (and sidewalks,) in order to both get to work to earn
money, and to access the businesses we patronize to spend the
money we earn.

Maybe *businesses* should pay their fair share to maintain and
build roads, since they are the main beneficiaries.

Maybe they already do, but it's all too easy for gov'ts to evoke
misbegotten perceptions (e.g: that bicyclists are non-contributing
joyriders) in order to rationalize their tax grabs.

Maybe local govt's should spend more on improving transportation,
and less on "fact-finding junkets" to Barbados or The Azores.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Tom Sherman[_2_]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> wrote:
>> Bill Sornson > wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> Around here we fund the state's Children's Health Insurance
>>>> Program (CHIP) partly or wholly with funds generated by the
>>>> cigarette tax.
>
>>> So 25-year-olds and kids in families making up to $85,000.00 per
>>> year get free medical care! God bless those coffin-nail addicts!
>
>> Actually, I think it's targeted mainly at low-income and otherwise
>> un- or under-insured. No 25-year-olds, no upper income families.
>> Your statement is inaccurate.
>
> Two-second, carbon-eating Google (MANY hits):
>
> http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/wm1546.cfm
>
> And from
> http://roskam.house.gov/Newsroom/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=71426:
>
> "To date, over 45% of all Illinois SCHIP beneficiaries are adults. Current
> provisions cover individuals up to 25 years of age as "children" under the
> ..."
>
> So the smokers are funding health care for families making as much as
> $80,000; and "children" 25 years old.
>
Sorni can stop supporting those who are indigent through the choice of
having the wrong parents with his taxes, when the rest of can stop
supporting the protection of the property and privileges of the wealthy
with our taxes - a fair deal, no?

> Bill "the term 'bloggers in their mothers' basements wearing underwear'
> comes to mind" S.
>
Sorni, you are an idiot if you believe that.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

[Dennis P. Harris]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:06:55 -0800 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Bill
Sornson" > wrote:

> Bill "the term 'bloggers in their mothers' basements wearing underwear'
> comes to mind" S.
>
How did you fall out of my killfile? PLONK.