Editor,
Gary Isoardi (Letters, Aug. 1) is correct that more bike lanes haven’t significantly increased cycling over the past 20 years, and car ownership has grown.
Editor,
Gary Isoardi (Letters, Aug. 1) is correct that more bike lanes haven’t significantly increased cycling over the past 20 years, and car ownership has grown.
However, with rising costs of insurance, fuel and maintenance, car ownership is becoming increasingly unaffordable and will push more people to seek alternatives. Without serious investment in safe bike infrastructure — mere painted lines on the road aren’t serious — commuting options will remain limited.
Prioritizing cars, as we’ve done for decades, has made our communities less safe and less livable for both cyclists and pedestrians. Abandoning efforts to expand bike lanes in San Mateo County is short-sighted. If local leaders fail to plan for a future where fewer people can afford cars, and don’t invest in viable alternatives like biking and public transit, they risk making our cities even more unaffordable and unpleasant.
John Lambert
Millbrae
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(7) comments
Thanks for your letter, Mr. Lambert. As long as you’re not promoting bike riding as saving the environment or imposing unnecessary inefficiencies on vehicles, I’m sure there are reasonable compromises and alternatives. I’d first recommend finding ways for bike riders to begin paying their fair share in infrastructure costs related to bicycles.
Tbot, you first.
Call me when you paid your overdue debt to society and with interest please.
According to all research available, drivers have never paid there fair share in gas tax for infrastructure nor sales tax for all the emergency services nor have they ever cleaned the air they polluted. (source: Tax Foundation).
Bicycles on the other hand don't use gas, so why would they pay gas tax, tax for cleaning gas storage tanks or pay for pollution by gasoline?
eGerd – TBot here. You seem to continually ignore the fact that bicyclists expect dedicated bicycle infrastructure when they don’t contribute anything to pay for that infrastructure. Bicyclists don’t need to pay gas tax but they should begin paying something since they’re free riding on bicycle infrastructure. And are you implying energy used to manufacture bicycles didn’t pollute our air? Energy which was derived from fossil fuels. BTW, how about the air pollution from tires (as rballard noted in another LTE)?
Bicycle tires are an insignificantly-small contributor to pollution when compared with car tires. Bike tires are much smaller, bikes have two wheels instead of four, and vehicle weight is a major contributor to the amount of tire pollution shed. (Unfortunately, EVs with heavy battery packs are pretty bad in that regard -- especially with the shift to big SUVs in general -- even though EVs need to be one part of the transit shift to decarbonize).
Property owning bicyclists pay property taxes in San Mateo. Renters pay property taxes indirectly (property taxes increase rent). So they are funding the city. We pay income taxes too, funding the state. For costs, bicycles create far less road wear than cars, and require far less road space, with far lower negative externalities (serious injuries and deaths, carbon footprint, space use, etc). So bicyclists are paying more than their fair share.
Humans roamed earth for 400000 per ship, walking or riding.
Then came the car industry and its politicians and took over all human space without paying their fair share.
People centric infrastructure is not about requiring dedicated infrastructure for people. It's about taking back infrastructure that was stolen from the people by the automotive and fossil fuel industry to make them rich and people unhealthy and obese.
Imagine that ... there are people out there ... all they do is driving 10 grocery bags around all day long, meanwhile forgetting the skill of 400,000 years of how we survived without cars.
Make Amerika Strong and Healthy again - ride a bike.
btw the energy to produce one bicycle equals the energy of driving a family of 4 and treating them to a nice steak dinner.
For an ebike make that two steak dinners.
After that the ebike or escooters are regarded as the ONLY real zero-emission vehicles.
Two for one…
Thanks for your response, rballard. It should be noted that property owning car owners pay property taxes, renters owning cars pay property taxes indirectly (property taxes increase rent), and car owners pay income taxes too so they “cancel” each other out. However, car owners are also paying vehicle registration fees and gas taxes, whereas bicyclists get a free ride. Doesn’t sound like bicyclists are paying their fair share.
eGerd – TBot here. Unless, of course, you need to lug home 10 bags of groceries or a case of bottle water. And how can you consider e-anything of being a “real” zero-emission vehicle? I guess if you ignore the emissions emitted from mining the raw materials used for manufacturing bicycles and batteries and the emissions generated from the fossil-fuel powered generating plant to power e-bikes. If you ignore those, I’ll ignore your zero-emission claim. Question…if someone recently consumed beans or cabbage or bran or dairy (or pick your own), they’re also guilty of emitting carbon, aren't they? And with those staples and 8 billion people world-wide… People far outnumber cows, don't they? That reminds me, steak for dinner.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.