digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

US Transportation Secretary Doesn't Consider Bikes a Form of Transportation

pbs.org — MARY PETERS: "Well, there's about probably some 10 percent to 20 percent of the current spending that is going to projects that really are not transportation, directly transportation-related. Some of that money is being spent on things, as I said earlier, like bike paths or trails." Truly incredible.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • schroeder, on 10/10/2007, -8/+91Sure, tell that to billions of Chinese.
    • JayD16, on 10/10/2007, -6/+27Just to play the devil's advocate, bike lanes are transportation, bike trails and bike paths are recreation. Would you count race tracks as something the transportation department should deal with?
      • xaxxon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9EXACTLY. Please note what was said. Bike paths and trails are recreational - they aren't used by people to get from point a to point b. Nowhere does it say "anything related to a bicycle is not considered transportation."

        Please digg the parent up.
        • Cykaos, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12I agree that bike trails are usually recreational and the article doesn't say anything about bikes not being a considered transportation. However, many people do use bike trails for transportation. I for one rode the Burke-Gilman Trail bike trial from Ballard to the University of Washington campus every day. Thousands of people every day use bike trials as transportation from point a to point b.
        • jitterbits, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0There are many cities and towns that have dedicated bike trails for people to walk or ride and actually go from point a to b. Eugene, OR is awesome in this respect, and more places should emulate that model. Not only is it good for the environment, it's good for our health.
      • Bhima, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14As it happens I take a 'bike trail' to work most warm and sunny days; along with most of the people in my office.

        I suppose it's just the luck of the location of the building and layout of the bike paths in the city.
        • rebrad, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1On a long commute, I love bicyclist. They are fun to play tag with and do minimal damage to my SUV when you bump one.
          • inhaler, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5You mean that shortbus you ride on your trek to daycare, doing your best Terri Schivo impression as you stare out the window making dookie.
          • fitix82, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2fatty
      • lieutenantmudd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Bike lanes leading around the countryside are recreational, but alot of cities have urban bike trails that are grade separated and act as bike highways during rush hours
      • nakani, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I took a bike trail to work every day last summer and part of this summer *shrug*
    • jacquesm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5or to millions of dutch
      • komodovaraan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0some facts about bikes in the Netherlands (population 16 million)
        - 18 million bikes. (highest bike density in the world)
        - 20.000 kilometers of bike path
        - 13.000.000.000 bike kilometers / year.
    • omjeremy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Yeah, because USA has billions of Chinese people.
    • rbot2010, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2This is not a direct reply to schroeder's comment. I am hoping more people will likely see this request than the one I ask on my own without replying to a comment.

      Does anyone know Mary Peters' email, contact information? We can all comment about her ignorance of the modes of transportation, but I for one want to tell her directly. It's probably a long shot by phone, and I might not have a better chance with an email. However, I'd rather send her my views in written form. Or maybe that's not a form of communication? (insert smirk here)

      I've checked out the Dept of Transportation website: http://www.dot.gov/contact.html and supposedly there is an email address for the Secretary, but apparently "A team of information specialists answer every message sent from this home page." What happened to being able to directly contacting the person in question?
  • MercedRocks, on 10/10/2007, -22/+70Another reason why Americans are so fat...
    • halavais, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17Don't know why the parent is being dug down. New York City has more people walking & biking to work (along with public transit) than in any other city in the US, and they live longer and weigh less. Better walking and biking infrastructure is a health issue, an environmental issue, maybe even a national security issue, in addition to being a transportation issue.
    • mishabear, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2That must be it. Now explain to us why you're so stupid?
    • sendben, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Another reason why Americans are so wasteful of the Earth's natural resources
    • IEatHamburgers, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Hey, America's a lot more wide open than Europe or Japan. If you live out in the country and your job is 15 miles away, biking would be a huge pain in the ass. Especially if it's winter.
      • vornan19, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4But America never had to be.
        • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The frontier states developed differently than the eastern seaboard.

          living spread apart became a HUGE norm due to low population, and vast land. YOu don't need to live on top of each other.

          Or its very cheap to do so.. Here in OKlahoma of course.

          Universities tend to be in towns that use a European model.
    • joegibes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Another reason why Americans are so fat..."
      Because the DOT doesn't consider bikes transportation?
      (HINT: It's because Americans don't exercise and eat lots of crap)
  • reeder, on 10/10/2007, -10/+38What do you expect when they are all auto lobbyists Bush put in charge to pay back the companies that bribed him.
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7No, it's the fact that a bike trail and a bike path isn't part of transportation infrastructure.
    • antoniojvr, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Oh here we go... BUSH LIED WAHHH
  • keyboardduder, on 10/10/2007, -5/+27Of course, what money and benefit is there in classifying bicycles as a form of transportation? Their fuel is people's calories. Theres no money in that. Soon Sedans wont be, only SUVS and trucks, for the good of oil!
    • chinesedewey, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Oh, so people magically get their calories from the Sun? We're not Superman. We have to pay to eat food, too. And you might have guessed, but paying _does_ involve money.
      • enalios, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2but not GAS money.

        For the good of oil!
        So say we all!
        • csplinter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0What do you think farm equipment or, the trucks that bring food to your grocery store are powered by.
    • inhaler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Come on guys, rich people don't ride bikes: They get from point a to b on the backs of the proletariat.
  • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -8/+41yeah good... meanwhile all the other countries in the world have sections of the street JUST for bikers... While we here in the states don't even consider bikes a mode of transportation... -_-
    • smurf22, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5In my town we have bike lanes......
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10You're an idiot. First, we have bike lanes. Second, it's not bikes that aren't considered transportation, it's bike trails outside the roads. That's not the Dept. of Transportation's job.
      • AcesFullMoon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I don't know if I agree with your interpretation. She said "bike paths, trails..." Not bike trails. Now, one can debate what exactly a "bike path" is I suppose.
  • kevinmotel, on 10/10/2007, -8/+382,000,000,000 bikes in everyday usage throughout the world and its not a form of transportation?!
    • pb4upoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5 Not only are bicycles a current form of transportation in the US we need to push for them becoming the dominant form of transportation where possible. Obviously Minnesota in the middle of winter is not a situation where we have current bicycles that will do the job. But technology can cure many short comings once people make up their mind to get the job done.
      • Disfnord, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I live in Minneapolis, and I bike year round. As long as the roads are plowed and you keep aware of your surroundings, it's not that difficult to bike in the winter. Although sometimes it is ***** cold...
  • davidsmero, on 10/10/2007, -3/+45Anything can be considered transportation as long as it takes you from point a to b.
    • MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -6/+29Then Chuck Norris' roundhouse kicks are a form of transportation.
      • napsack, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Heh, one of the few times I actually laugh at a Chuck Norris joke.
      • joegibes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1*And also the most deadly form of transportation -- the 100% fatality rate is even worse than motorcycling without a helmet, in a volcano, naked.
    • ToadLeg, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9I think the point here is that bicycles are a MAJOR form of transportation. This isn't some obscure Segway or pogo-stick technology, but something that billions of people use to travel long distances.
      • jitterbits, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3hehe, I love the thought of a dedicated pogo-stick lane.
        • csplinter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0hahaha Thanks for encouraging me to visualize that.
    • hiPpymIck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2transcendental transportation (with bicycle)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaG0R2EjFgs
  • MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7What about invisible bike?
  • navitatl, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8As long as bike paths are being built, I don't really give a crap about how he classifies the activity.
    • CandidCanon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4She.

      The problem comes from where money is being pulled from. It's being pulled from the taxes on gasoline which are supposed to go to things like bridge maintenance.
    • airiox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Exactly, That's why he didnt classify it as transportation spending because he knows the source of his dept. budget. Cars. There are no taxes on bikers, yet the taxes from people who drive cars go to benefit the few bikers in this world. I wouldnt mind except there are people like you that feel like you are obligated to have these things without paying for them. The same mindset goes to bikers who decide to hog the rode and make it difficult for cars to travel down those roads. People wouldn't hate bikers so much if they were actually considerate and couteous instead of a bunch of pompous jackass's with the mindset of 12 year olds.
  • sleeknerve, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24I think he meant bike paths as in like bike trails in the mountains, not a as a way to get to work or through the city
    • ToadLeg, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3how much transportation money is used for trails in the mountains?
      • H0tKarl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5An amount between zero and some.
        • reddikilowatt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0closer to the zero end. Most mountain bike trails are maintained by volunteers. Many rails to trails projects have some money allocated to things like gravel and purchase of the right-of-way (and retaining a lawyer for the NIMBY types), but for the most part they are on their own.
    • multitude, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Still unfortunate wording. More attention needs to be paid to bike infrastructure, this public official should have been more careful.
    • brsteve88, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0People, Mary Peters is a woman. Not a he.
  • CandidCanon, on 10/10/2007, -9/+49Note that the secretary was quoted saying the bike paths and trails, IE park trails upon which rides bicycles for recreation are not directly related to transportation. Note that there was no mention of bike lanes being lumped in with park trails as not being related to transportation.

    Buried as inaccurate.
    • fober, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15HOW DARE YOU TAINT THIS DISCUSSION WITH TRUTHS AND RELEVANCY
      • CandidCanon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I'm sorry, I forgot I was on the new DIGG. Please, forgive me.
    • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15You will be buried for making sense.
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Also note that the quote is inaccurate. They left out parts of it. "There are museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing lighthouses." This is about pork barrel spending, where some congressperson finagles their way into getting the Department of Transportation into paying for things it's not meant to, like (as you said) recreational bike trails.

      Buried.
      • reddikilowatt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0TRANSPORTATION museums. And most of the time, bike paths in parks are part of the park. The ones that skirt along the edges of the park because the city already has the right of way are what usually comes under the federal funding.

        This is what happens with omnibus budgeting. Everything gets rolled up into a final budget that is voted up or down by the congress. The income is in one section, the spending is in the other.
    • falstaff, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11If this submission is any sort of proxy of how many people Digg the headline without bothering to RTFA, it's pretty sad.
    • halavais, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4"IE park trails upon which rides bicycles for recreation are not directly related to transportation." Consider the Burk Gillman trail in Seattle: clearly a bike trail, not on a major roadway, but just as clearly a major commuting artery for the city. I conclude that your "i.e." was pulled out of your ass, unless you have some kind of evidence that this is what the Secretary meant.
      • Disfnord, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Or the greenway in Minneapolis, to name another. 2,000-4,000 commuters per day on average.
    • manicallday, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Here in DC the Bike trails are fairly extensive and also used as a major thoroughfare for commuters.
      • foomojive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In Orlando there's a bike trail that goes diagonally across the city and saves me a huge amount of time compared to biking the same distance on streets. plus it's MUCH safer. I'd consider that transportation.
  • firrebutt, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5because it doesnt require war.
  • orangester, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7BREAKING: Walking For Poor People. SUV's Mandated by Gov't.
  • ClOlD, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Article's lacking in details to fully support the Digg headline claim, but based on the sentence grouping of "...bike paths, trails...", I get the distinct impression that this is referring to recreational unpaved paths for mountain biking, which has about as much to do with transportation as hiking trails have to do with sidewalks.
    • reuteler, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4huh? what gives you that impression? trails certainly, but paths almost always refer to segregated bicycle paths (as opposed to bicycle lanes which are alongside roads) used for transportation.
    • PixelVision, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2a bike path is a "road" for a bike. a bike is transportation. They're not all for getting you around the scenic parts. Bike paths are often in places away from roads so people can travel safely from point A to point B. I don't understand where you get your "distinct impression".
  • anarchytv, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2We have a mXiXsXsXlXe bike gap with the Chinese! This is a matter of urgent national defense. We must close this gap. Bikes are a critical mode of transportation in a time after a pre-emptive neutron bomb strike by our enemy, that disables everything electrical including cars. Millions of bikes must urgently be mass produced and distributed to the masses to keep our country strong. *you just got to know how to phrase/sell these things*
  • anarchytv, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2We have a mXiXsXsXlXe bike gap with the Chinese! This is a matter of urgent national defense. We must close this gap. Bikes are a critical mode of transportation in a time after a pre-emptive neutron bomb strike by our enemy, that disables everything electrical including cars. Millions of bikes must urgently be mass produced and distributed to the masses to keep our country strong. *you just got to know how to phrase/sell these things*
  • tavisjohn, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4If they were to actually consider Bikes a form of transporation, and make more and MORE Bike paths, then maybe, just MAYBE I would not have to worry about bikers riding the WRONG WAY down the middle of the street at night because they can afford gas or boose, but not both!
    • krnldmp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+190% of the time a person on the wrong side of the road with a bicycle is a kid with parents that hate bicycles.
    • shabuzen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Actually, I prefer if bicyclists rode against car traffic because I can see them coming. I could have seriously injured a bicyclist once because I was trying to change to the right lane and a bicyclist was in my blind spot on the right side. Luckily, I always check my mirror a minimum of two times before I change lanes and on the second look he had come into view. Bicyclists should either take up a a whole lane on the road or ride against traffic.
  • anarchytv, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2We have a mXiXsXsXlXe bike gap with the Chinese! This is a matter of urgent national defense. We must close this gap. Bikes are a critical mode of transportation in a time after a pre-emptive neutron bomb strike by our enemy, that disables everything electrical including cars. Millions of bikes must urgently be mass produced and distributed to the masses to keep our country strong. *you just got to know how to phrase/sell these things*
  • compgeek, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5not a form of transportation my ass. I use my bike to get around my town and I'll bike from my town to other nearby towns 30-40 minutes in between on rural roads. so if that person thinks it's not a form of transport they need to get their head out of their ass. I live in Canada and up here in the city we do actually have a section of the road that is specifically a bike lane. makes it much safer to bike and also is much faster than any other way

  • anarchytv, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2We have a mXiXsXsXlXe bike gap with the Chinese! This is a matter of urgent national defense. We must close this gap. Bikes are a critical mode of transportation in a time after a pre-emptive neutron bomb strike by our enemy, that disables everything electrical including cars. Millions of bikes must urgently be mass produced and distributed to the masses to keep our country strong. *you just got to know how to phrase/sell these things*
  • Richandler, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2The Transportation has no concern with bikes. Seriously do you want the government putting restrictions on your bike. I don't. Next they'll go after your feet.
    • AcesFullMoon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Who in God's name is talking about restrictions? Whole thread is about Transportation Secretary complaining that money gets spent on bike paths. Are you one of those kooky conspiracy guys?
      • pb4upoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Believe it or not there are indirect as well as direct restrictions. For example there is no legal way to walk from Ft.Lauderdale to Miami even though the two cities are adjacent to each other. Sections of super highway are the only connections and foot and bicycle traffic are both banned as well as travel by some low powered motor cycles, scooters etc..
  • vocalyouth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I ride as often as i can, I know I would ride more if the city provided more bike lanes / safe areas for me to ride. I love riding my bike. It's a fun, green way to get around.
  • Parker307, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6This is totally relevant and vitally important. If we had the infrastructure to live in a way where we didn't have to drive everywhere., Bike and pedestrian infrastructure, we would be healthier from more exorcise and cleaner air and we would be more secure from less dependence on foreign oil. Maybe we could save the oil we have in case we need it for national defense, for fueling jets, ships and other military gas guzzler's
    • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Most people would still drive, they are lazy.
    • gwhenning, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The article plainly states that the recreational trails aren't part of the infrastructure, but the money for the infrastructure is being used for recreation.

      They never claim that bikes are not transportation, just that a bike trail through a park is not considered infrastructure. I would be all for adding infrastructure for bikes, but I wouldn't want an entire city to start using the path through the park to commute to work on their bikes as it removes the enjoyment (and safety from traffic for the kids) of the park.
      • reddikilowatt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0What the hell? I thought that we lived (here in the US) in the richest country in human history. Why the hell can't we afford to have bridges in good shape AND bike paths?

        And, if everyone commuted to work on a bike, they could easily use the streets (as they can now). And they'd take up a lot less room than they do now.
  • Torpov, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I work at the NYC DOT's bike program, and this'll be news to them.
    • chuckiii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You need to fired if you really think she was saying that bikes are not a form of transportation. She was obviously talking about recreational trails, and not bike lanes.
  • lanthus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6OMG! The US Transportation Secretary doesn't think that spending $250,000 to put in a bike path in the park my senators kids use should be part of a highway spending bill. IMPEACH BUSH!!!1!!1
  • alciadanet, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Privatize the roads and the market will find out the optimal solution for both bikers and cars.
    • AcesFullMoon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If this is tongue-in-cheek, it is hilarious. If not...um...how do you privatize roads?
      • smurfsahoy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Well, you could semi privatize it by taking the highway bill and contracting out not only the actual construction, but also the planning to highest bidders. And you could completely privatize it by making all major roads into turnpikes. Plus monthly fees for the sidestreets that you live on as a mandatory part of auto insurance.
        • inhaler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Sounds like a great plan. Every time I need to pick up groceries two roads over I have to pay 50 cents to make a right on Pepsi Blvd. and an additional quarter as I cross Starbucks drive. Things like infrastructure should be relegated to the government, and transportation is one of those things. Unfortunately we're too busy spending tax money overseas right now.
        • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1News flash, the construction and actual fixing of most roads IS contracted out to the highest bidder in most states. Those 3 guys you see watching one guy work are employees of a construction firm, not state workers.

          Maybe you should learn how the hell things work before suggesting we do things the same way we already are?
        • jitterbits, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0So our goal is to give work to the highest bidder? No wonder our deficit is so high.
      • joe7845, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Ron Paul probably has some ideas.
    • shabuzen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Turn over our roads to Union workers? You gotta be kidding me. I bet you the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota was built by uioners
    • shabuzen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Turn over our roads to Union workers? You gotta be kidding me. I bet you the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota was built by uioners
  • PwnisherX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3It's not a practical form of transportation outside of city areas. Here in rural midwest, it would take hours to get anywhere. Screw that, I've got ***** to do.

    But on the other hand, in cities with large campuses, such as Madison, bikes are all over the place, they even have their own lane, right in the middle of motor vehicle traffic.
  • Kazenodeku, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Buried as inaccurate. It refers to bike paths and trails, not bikes themselves, and bike paths/trails are generally recreational and not used for getting from point A to point B.
    • manicallday, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Here is D.C. and many other cities they do.
      • Kazenodeku, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yeah I know. But you get the gist of what I was saying, and what that secretary was saying.
    • patbingsoup, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1*****. BIke Paths are those, painted directly on the road. They are more important than another type of infrastructure allocated for bikes, and serve a higher rate of return than any other transportation investment that could ever be made. Bike lanes cost paint, and nothing else. Bikes could never impact and degrade a road the way a truck or the weather will, and they provide no environmental impact plus server a larger audience than cars. ***** this.
      • btbridges, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2a bike lane does not equal a bike path. paths are recreational. lanes are on roads and used for transportation.
        • jitterbits, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0A bike path is no more recreational than the roads that surround Disneyland. It's all about what you do with them. Plus, it's much safer to have dedicated paths for bikes, just as it's safer to have sidewalks for pedestrians.
    • IlJaanevits, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Well biking next to cars that are going 60mph is not transportation IMO, it's recreational if anything. Those paths make it safer, and that is transportation issue.
  • COMCON4US, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Unicycles are more efficient than bicycles, because they require less parts, and they help people maintain the balance of power :)
  • bungoman, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Bike Punks ***** Off!
    • AcesFullMoon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What is a bike punk? Why so angry?
  • manicallday, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I was wondered how the Dark Ages came about. It's just odd that history goes from Rome and all its glory to just one of the crappiest periods ever. Then I read stuff like this and I understand.
  • billbacon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I'm in Japan. There are about 10 bikes to every car. Then again, you see souped-up scooters with after market parts and neon lites so to say the least it's a much different place. I think part of what makes it such a viable form of transportation here is the fact that you can leave a bike on a corner, without a 20lb chain looped around every detachable part, and it will still be there in a week.
  • tonyyarusso, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6A note for those who incorrectly labeled this as inaccurate:
    Here in Minnesota (the location of the bridge being discussed, interestingly enough), bike lanes do not exist in any remotely significant number. As someone who has used a bicycle to commute in the state, I can tell you that the needs of bike commuters are NOT being properly addressed by local, state, or federal agencies. Sidewalks are very unsafe and often illegal to ride on, and many roads lack even shoulders, not to mention a proper bicycle lane. Additionally, awareness and respect on the part of the population is dismal, and it is not uncommon for motorists to run you off the road (yes, I can touch their door - some come close enough to bump your handlebars), throw trash at cyclists, scream at them to get off "their" roads, etc. In short, bike paths are an EXTREMELY important part of many routes for both commuting as well as non-daily point-to-point travel, as they are often the only safe option. It is truly appalling that an official charged with the responsibility for all forms of transportation would be so blatantly either ignorant or dismissive of a form deemed less important by her department and the current administration, not to mention a dismaying percentage of the population/electorate at large. (Oh, and outside of St. Paul and Minneapolis proper, the suburbs lack any significant amount of public transportation options as well, so if you live in the suburbs, that's out.) You'd think the government would want to encourage behavior that lowers dependence on foreign oil and roadway maintenance spending, but apparently they still don't care.
    • pb4upoo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0It should be legal to cap people who throw things at you. When you catch up with them at a stop light just open fire with that little 25 you keep tucked in your jacket pocket.
    • KamelJockey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Would you be willing to pay more in bike registration fees so that the government can build better biking infrastructure for you?
    • tonyyarusso, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yes. Actually, I'd be willing to pay more in pretty much any area to get state services, since Pawlenty's aversion to providing such has resulted in a general deficiency statewide. For instance, I'd be quite happy to pay for the re-opening of the portapotties along the Willard Munger state trail. However, I'd be even happier if we could stop wasting funds and reapply what is being spent in intelligent ways first, but still, yes, I would support an increase of fees if I knew it would result in real gains.
      • pandira, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1you're already paying the fees, you're just not seeing the gains. The Feds need to stay out of our neighborhoods or before you know it there'll be a federal tax on your bike..
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0"You'd think the government would want to encourage behavior that lowers dependence on foreign oil and roadway maintenance spending, but apparently they still don't care."
      Wake up. Have you heard of the New World Order? Look it up. What you comment on is just a drop in the bucket. Tale a look at the big picture.
    • Lowrads, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0In my community, which is horribly designed around highways and suburbs, the option to create a bike path centered around converting (paving) an unused rail line. From an urban engineering standpoint, this was massively counter-productive.

      In the final analysis, it is probably a superior option to focus on municipal or county level government rather than turning to the federal or even state government for a multitude of reasons not excluding sensible design. More responsibility at those levels inevitably tends to shift resources to them. The fed certainly doesn't have a monopsony on competence.
  • Nyukin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I think I saw an article about bikes a week ago.
    It said they pwned cars.
    It front paged digg.
  • briansearles, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Tons of people can and do exercise around here on bikes, they just don't use it as a form of transportation. Unless they're going to class. In which case I laugh at them because they're silly.

    BTW, GJ on taking another quote out of context and putting it on digg. Wows, we'r smrt now!
  • spira, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6I hate to defend anyone in this administration, but this post is ridiculous - this official said nothing whatsoever about bikes not being transportation. Bike paths and trails aren't any more related to our nation's transportation infrastructure than the Indianapolis motor speedway. Paths and trails have far more in common with our nation's parks than our nation's roads, since they are primarily intended for recreational use. I fully support the building of bike lanes and efforts to make our streets and mass transit more friendly to bikes, but attacks on officials who are doing nothing but telling it like it is takes away focus from dealing with the many folks in Washington who do not have reality-based agendas.
  • LoneRanger85, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4What we need to do is have everyone in any position of authority resign and have the little Diggers take their place. The little Diggers know everything.
    • pandira, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3couldn't do any worse, at least maybe the DIGGers would make a mistake in our favo, once in awhile.
  • Kerath, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2It's pretty clear that she's talking about recreational trails and paths.
    • mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Clear to those that think. Remember that excludes most of the digg crowd with an agenda.
  • FonWin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5
    If you want bike lanes to travel around in town on, take it up with your local gov.

    We don't need the federal involved in crap like this. First of all it's not the feds job to make bike paths, govern interstate commerce yes, bike paths no. And when the fed gets involved it always comes with strings.
    • pandira, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Uh, Oh, you're showing some understanding of the Constitutional limitations on Federal government.....where are the Ron Paul/Constitution haters?
  • ubuntuedgy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Europeans use bikes a lot too; part of the reason their women have such nice bodies.
    • komodovaraan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0in the Netherlands live 16 million people that together own 18 million bikes.
      there is about 20.000 kilometers of bike path, on average we ride our bikes about 13.000.000.000 kilometers each year.
  • nullvector, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If you've ever worked in government, or read anything about the way governments work in your local area, bike paths and bike lanes come out of a budget marked "Recreation" rather than "Transportation".

    Usually its easier for governments to get recreational budget money approved, through grants, or other means, than it is for them to justify the traffic expense, risk to bikers, and traffic interruption of constructing bike lanes on the side of main roads.

    While you are taking "biking" literally as a mode of transportation, it is actually a mode of recreation or exercise for a majority of the public, at least in most suburbs.

    Biking in the city, and suburbs, is very different.
  • diggpotato, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Its an important depressing interview: the cost of healthcare due to obesity is vast: the impact of a healthier lifestyle including a positive attitude to cycling - is huge. In addition its part of the process of steering the good ship USA away from its oil habit. Interviews like that demonstrate how much of a problem the country has with ye olde vested interests.
  • bgarrett, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2In America, a bicycle is a TOY. There are not enough biike commuting miles to be significant
    • tonyyarusso, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Depends who you're talking to. I work in a bike shop. I dare you to try to tell some of our customers that their vehicle is a toy.
  • bgarrett, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0if America was serious about cutting gasoline consumption, the use of motorcycles would be an excellent idea.

    (they are only dangerous because of the idiots driving cars)
    • tarjan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Thats not the only reason they are dangerous, I'm sure you have seen the idiots riding with shorts and flipflops at 100+mph. Motorcycles are inherently less able to deal with tired riders, drunk riders, distracted riders or just plain stupid riders. The only fortunate thing is that some states still don't have helmet laws so those idiots don't come home and make more babies.

      I have always firmly believed that ALL Americans should be required to ride a motorcycle for at least a year with 30k+ miles under their belts before they can drink. That would it would be like a forced Darwin situation.

      (Yes, I ride though so far this year I have more miles on my bicycle than I do on my motorcycle and about the same as on my car.)
  • diggnationer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1bikes are the main transportation for people around the world. this guy is nothing but a retard.
    • brsteve88, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You should read the article before you post next time. This "guy" is a woman.
  • sodade, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3For every jackass that buys an F150 to commute in, a potential bike commuter decides that it is too damned dangerous. I am a hardcore cyclist. I ride my road bike on long open highways, but there is no way in hell that I would ride on a city street in the US.
  • nater0ss, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Oh come on... first of all, you're taking her comments out of context. She's considering maintaining the transportation infrastructure with "Rails to Trails" and other bike path initiatives. Second, I'm sure the people who lost loved ones in the bridge collapse will be relieved that there are more bike trails, however, I suspect they may have preferred it be spent on fixing the deficiencies identified in the bridge. She's saying we need to evaluate what we're spending our money on, if a community wants bike trails -- excellent. I love the ones in my area, however, if I had to choose between safe roads and bike trails... I wouldn't have to think long. If you really can't see that makes sense you're just being a partisan bigot.
  • evanpugface, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i ride a bike every day, don't have a car, bikes are the best, you guys sit in traffic enduring boredom and wait while i pedal on past with a smile
    • btbridges, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i've seen enough bike memorials in boston to know that i'd rather take the train or walk to work then get hit by crappy drivers. in theory, bike transportation is great. in practice, i don't really want to get sent to the emergency room just because some cab driver can't drive.
  • Buckler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm not quite so upset about her bicycle comment as I am about her take on lighthouse maintenance being a waste. Although in the age of GPS lighthouses may seem like little more than quaint tourist attractions, they are still a vital part of coastal navigation (not all vessels have GPS, and sometimes electronics go down). If this isn't directly a transportation issue, I don't know what is.
    • westvaco, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually the Department of Defense has stated that use of satellites for any purpose should always be secondary form of navigation and communication. For the simple reason as more and more players develop space capable missiles the ability the destroy ALL it's now only a matter of time before some conflict will result in the destruction of all satellites and the inability for space flight for a generation's times. For example, the Pentagon has predicted in a conflict with China the Chinese will have certainly destroyed all spacecraft with in 48 to 72 hours after initial hostilities. P.S. that's what the US government is spending billions on upgrades in ground based communications and navigation systems.
    • westvaco, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually the Department of Defense has stated that use of satellites for any purpose should always be secondary form of navigation and communication. For the simple reason as more and more players develop space capable missiles the ability the destroy ALL satalites and it's now only a matter of time before some conflict will result in the destruction of all satellites and the inability for space flight for a generation's time. For example, the Pentagon has predicted in a conflict with China the Chinese will have certainly destroyed all spacecraft with in 48 to 72 hours after initial hostilities. P.S. that's why the US government is spending billions on upgrades in ground based communications and navigation systems.
  • 955701, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You guys are smoking. She didn't say bicycles aren't a form of transportation. You need to understand what she is talking about. She isn't talking about bike trails which actually go anywhere, she's talking about leisure trails. These are old railroad paths which were paved as recreation for suburbanites - Silver Comet trail, WO&D, etc. She didn't say bike lanes!

    I agree that the other point is more sobering - she doesn't think a light house has anything to do with transportation.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.