# sign the dang thing okay



## mattm59 (Jul 7, 2011)

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/:beer:


----------



## Nick (Jul 7, 2011)

Page not found for the link, but looks interesting. 

What is the goal of this petition exactly... ? Just general "I like bikes"?



> One for all.
> Whether you’re a bike commuter, a roadie, a mountain biker or just a casual rider, by uniting your voice with a million others, we can build a national movement to improve bicycling in our country. We can make a statement through our sheer numbers by raising public awareness and demonstrating our passion to our leaders in Congress and in cities and states throughout the country.





> I am for bikes. I'm for long rides and short rides. I'm for commuting to work, weekend rides, racing, riding to school, or just a quick spin around the block. I believe that no matter how I ride, biking makes me happy and is great for my health, my community and the environment we all share. That is why I am pledging my name in support of a better future for bicycling—one that is safe and fun for everyone. By uniting my voice with a million others, I believe that we can make our world a better place to ride.


----------



## mattm59 (Jul 7, 2011)

*from what i read*

in the e-mail i got, it looks like funding is going to be cut for bike paths/ walking paths etc...rails to trails programs etc...ahhh, here's the e-mail

Dear Matt,

This is Urgent!

Federal funding for bicycling and walking is in jeopardy. We need you to send a short email today to your members of Congress.

Today, Congressman John Mica of Florida, Chairman of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, outlined his plans for the new transportation bill and called for the elimination of dedicated funding for biking and walking programs, which he suggested, “do not serve a federal purpose.”

In the Senate, James Inhofe of Oklahoma is leading a similar attack. Inhofe, a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said that one of his top-three priorities for the next multi-year federal transportation bill is to eliminate “frivolous spending for bike trails.”

If Representative Mica and Senator Inhofe get their way, dedicated funding for three crucial programs -- Safe Routes to School, Transportation Enhancements, and Recreational Trails -- will be eliminated. The cost-effective federal investment in bicycling that is making our nation better will shrink dramatically. We can’t allow this to happen.

That’s why we are asking you to reach out to the two U.S. Senators and the U.S. Representative who represent you in Congress. Ask them to support ongoing, dedicated funding for biking and walking in the next transportation bill. (You can find your representatives and send your note directly from our website. Click here to review clear, basic, suggested text for your email. Feel free to customize it and/or add a personal story.)

Your simple messages will make a difference. You can help refute Representative Mica’s and Senator Inhofe’s unreasonable, counterproductive cuts. You can help assure that progress will continue in all 50 states to make bicycling safer and better for people of all ages.

At peopleforbikes.org, our goal is to unify support for bicycling and celebrate all the great things that happen when people ride bikes. Occasionally, we need to stand strong together to keep bicycling on track. This is one of those times!

Thanks for your support and your quick response to this call to action.

Tim Blumenthal
Director, Peopleforbikes.org

I'm in my 50's, and have never seen such polarization (i.e. a-holes) since Nixons time, and I have gotten more vocal in support of what I believe are good causes lately. Doing things legally this time around:roll:


----------



## mattm59 (Jul 7, 2011)

oh yeah, click "sign the petition" to the right of the "page not found" section. If nothing else, it's easy and will make you feel a little better hopefully.


----------



## mondeo (Jul 8, 2011)

Yeah, um, gotta agree there. No reason to spend federal money on this stuff.


----------



## TheBEast (Jul 8, 2011)

I view this more as one of the many ways we can improve this countries transportation system, making it easier for people to bike commute and get around without cars.  Without the funding the existing stuff is likely to suffer.  I support the cause.  Yes, it would be better to have private money funding these types of projects, but if this country is going to get serious about cutting our reliance on oil, this along with lots of other more sustainable modes of transportation are important in the long term.


----------



## mondeo (Jul 8, 2011)

TheBEast said:


> I view this more as one of the many ways we can improve this countries transportation system, making it easier for people to bike commute and get around without cars. Without the funding the existing stuff is likely to suffer. I support the cause. Yes, it would be better to have private money funding these types of projects, but if this country is going to get serious about cutting our reliance on oil, this along with lots of other more sustainable modes of transportation are important in the long term.


How do bike paths impact interstate commerce?

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just saying it shouldn't be done at the federal level. Furthermore, just because we like bikes, doesn't mean we shouldn't be objective. Is building more paths really the more cost effective option? Or better driver education, making the existing roads safer? Tighter enforcement of the 3' law? Is there any actual payoff at all? Honestly, I see no reason for more bike paths in most of CT. The roads

The resistance the cycling community is showing here is a good example of why we have budget problems in this country. You can cut anything unless it hits me.


----------



## TheBEast (Jul 8, 2011)

mondeo said:


> How do bike paths impact interstate commerce?
> 
> I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just saying it shouldn't be done at the federal level. Furthermore, just because we like bikes, doesn't mean we shouldn't be objective. Is building more paths really the more cost effective option? Or better driver education, making the existing roads safer? Tighter enforcement of the 3' law? Is there any actual payoff at all? Honestly, I see no reason for more bike paths in most of CT. The roads
> 
> The resistance the cycling community is showing here is a good example of why we have budget problems in this country. You can cut anything unless it hits me.



Good points.  I use the path from NoHo to Amherst as a good example.  While it's not promoting interstate commerce, it does provide a safe alternative way to travel between the two towns since Rt. 9 is a mess to bike.  You better believe if I lived in NoHo and had some errands to run in Hadley I'd be ridding my bike from my house to there to #1 get some exercise and #2 reduce the miles I drive my car and #3 reduce my car's carbon output.  All of these reasons are why I started taking advantage of the locker room in my building to bike 14 miles to work at least once a week.  It's certainly not feasible every day if I have errands to run that can't be done on the bike (hauling home stuff from Costco would be quite difficult on my road bike) but is something I enjoy doing a day or two a week.  

I agree there should be more done to make overall roadways safer for cyclists, but frankly I think that's probably harder to do in most areas due to land use issues.    

I'm not saying we need more paths per say in areas that already have them, I'm just saying cutting off all funding for them entirely will simply kill off existing paths that need money for upkeep to make them viable for the community if other forms of funding is not available.

Should there be other sources of funding, yes.  Should the feds probably do less here, yes.  But the money we're talking here isn't going to make a dent in this countries money issues.  Working on the entitelment programs (medicare/medicaid and social security) and defense spending are the only ways this country is going to SERIOUSLY change our fiscal position.

Good article: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/the-bicycle-dividend/


----------



## TheBEast (Jul 8, 2011)

Perhaps this is one of the reasons for budget issues......Lots of things wrong with this government of ours.  Dropping funding for bicycling and pedestrian infrasture will have no impact on our larger, more systemic issues in government.

Sorry this probably starting to get too political.  I'll leave it at that and get back to the heart of the thread, supporting funding for alternative modes of transportation (bicylcing in this case) and recreation in this country.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/buy-congress-back-from-special-interests/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheBigPicture+%28The+Big+Picture%29


----------



## bvibert (Jul 8, 2011)

Definitely getting political.  Lets just talk about bikes, mmkay?


----------



## TheBEast (Jul 8, 2011)

mmkay, sorry for the digression...


----------



## Nick (Jul 8, 2011)

FWIW I"m actually considering one of those Nissan Leafs. Can I drive that on the bike path? 

Just kidding, of course. I'm all for more bike paths, and I think the cause is a good one in general, funding sources aside. 

I can't disagree with the statement, "I love bikes".


----------

