I never said I was blaming you for coming up with these ideas, but you are supporting them.

I don't hate or resent people who ride bikes...I own and occasionally ride one. I also do so only on bike paths, the right side of the white line on roads that have a decent size shoulder, or the frick'n sidewalk. These are all places a bike actually belongs, not in a traffic lane of a road.

What I fail to understand is how we are going out of our way to accomodate bicyclists on roadways that were not built for their use, and that they don't directly help pay to maintain (extremely minor issue), or most importantly, build (the main issue). It's obvious that we are moving toward a more 'user fee' based tax system, and I'm ok with that. General funds are easier to confuse and abuse. But, this issue is an awful lot like...

Commercial fisherman, who recieve a huge subsidy to their industry because they pay almost nothing for access to often ridiculous amounts of allocation in almost every fishery. Most everyone seems to agree it makes no sense. So tell me, what's the difference?

Lowering speed limits and coverting car lanes to bike lanes to 'encourage' us to ride bikes? Really? Sort of a "if you build it they will come' kind of dream? How did carpool lanes work out? Is that dream not old enough to have had time to come to fruition yet?

And does that mean the various fisheries managers are trying to get us all to become commercial fisherman?

So many questions...