I'm a serious cyclist and most of my trips are by bike. I have to say that it's not that I don't care what the administration says, but basically nothing surprises me about them anymore, I'm long past outrage.

One thing about the Bushies that they have figured out is predictability. If there's a policy that makes any sense, particularly for a term spanning more than about eight months into the future, they can be counted upon to oppose it. Bicyclists take up little room, travel safe speeds, use no fossil fuels, and are getting exercise in the process. Hmmm... my guess is that the Bushies are against it! CORRECT!

This thinking will get you far with all Bush policies.

"Bicyclists take up little room, travel safe speeds, use no fossil fuels, ..."

reduce wear on roads, don't generate pollution, reduce vehicle traffic congestion, reduce the need for valuable parking spaces in tight city areas, cost less to operate and insure, ...

"...and are getting exercise in the process.

Remember the Peter Principle? (It states that each person will rise to the level of his or her incompetence.) I have trouble believing Peters has thought about the problem at all. She's likely another dimbulb political appointee who has no real idea what she's talking about.

As a cycling commuter in Los Angeles, I am angry that my government is casually contemptuous of me, but I don't particularly worry about losing bike path dollars. There is no way anyone is going to find room to stuff many useful bike paths into L.A. All they might do is paint some lanes on existing roads, and bike lanes are worse than nothing. As many organized cyclists have pointed out, they provide no actual protection from cars while reinforcing car driver's erroneous belief that cyclists don't belong out in traffic. Even worse, they are usually a perfectly unsafe guide to where a cyclist should travel. They are often painted immedietely to the left of parallel parking lanes, which makes following one the supreme way to get doored. And I've never seen one that knows what to do when it arrives at an intersection.

In mine any motor scooter 50cc or less capable of running no faster than 35mph does not require a driver's license, license plate, registration, inspection or insurance. At nearly 90mpg it's the cheapest form of rapid transportation available. As long as you stay off the highways you're completely legit. Since they have lights, mirrors and turn signals they're safer than bikes and at 200lbs they're less likely to get blown over in the wake of a truck. Plus they make more noise so people notice you. You don't even have to shift gears, they're automatic.

I owned a bike, not a car, until I was nearly 30. Even after that I lived in Chicago and mostly used public transportation and walking.

Now I live in the country and commute to work. When the price of gas goes high enough I may consider a scooter, or at least a tiny car. The one I drive now gets about 30 mpg, which isn't awful but not great either.

I am an avid transportation cyclist, that is I do not drive and only travel by car when going with someone else.

That said, I think that bike paths are not transportation infrastructure but parks. I also think that parks are a great thing to spend federal gas taxes on. We could have a heck of a lot more parks in our cities and suburbs if less room were taken up by roadways, so it seems to be a perfectly decent way to spend the money to me.

At least where I live you generally can't get to work or return your video rentals by using bike paths, you use the same damn streets as the motorists do. We need to spend our infrastructure funds related to cycling and walking on the streets and sidewalks that connect where we live to where we work and shop (and making those places nearer to each other, more than anything else). Slow the motor vehicles down and make it safer to walk and cycle and we will not need separate spaces for those things, they will become part of the fabric of our communities.

Ride the bus or train instead of your stupid SUV or pickup once in a while and find out what it is like to live together with your neighbors (and how much less aggravating life in modern America has the potential to be!).

"America -- love it or leave it!" they said in the 1960s, and they might as well be saying it now.

Well, if you really love bicycling infrastructure, you might as well give up on America and move to Amsterdam.

The Big Three killed by bike path.

Living in Washington State was bicycle heaven....

Most auto drivers had no problem sharing the road. City buses had racks and the Puget Sound ferries had special rates and cyclist boarded and deboarded first. Hundreds of miles of paths connect small cities and are free to ride on, you have to purchase a pass in Wisconsin to take advantage of their long distance paths.

Now I am in Hell. I moved to Phoenix in 8 of 05. Riding the roads is dangerous here, many cyclist are injured or killed...go here to see your states results:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2004/809912.pdf

and here:

http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html

However; the curbs along the bike lanes are sloped; getting upon the side walk to escape danger is a breeze. Also; if you plan your route right, you can stay off the streets by taking the canal paths but beware of the homeless and the occasional drunk speeding in their car down the path. Another downside; this is the first state I have seen where parking is allowed in the bike lanes during certain hours, the hours when they would be used most.

In all fairness, why should a city spend so much money on paths when they are not used year round, like CA or FL? Right now it is 109 and it's dangerous to ride in this heat.

Coolest thing though.....South Mountain Preserve has Silent Sundays, bring your bike and ride the center line, it's free and fun! Ride up to the summit or ride 8 miles in and out, a nice 16 mile ride, add more if you want.