Mark Snyder wrote: "I remember specifically when the St. Paul officer handed me my ticket, he said that I should be careful to watch my speed in that area because residents had been complaining enough about speeders to make it a high priority for the St. Paul police."
This raises an important question. Is the MPD as responsive as their counterparts across the river? Having lived in both cities and interacted with the cops in both, I'd have to say no. This points to another question: why not? Tim Bonham wrote: "Automobiles & their drivers pay the majority of the costs for our transportation 'system', so it's built mainly for their needs." As a bicyclist, I pay for others' reliance on automobiles every single day. Does the gas tax pay for filling potholes? How about installing and maintaining traffic signals? Paying cops to clean up after traffic accidents like the one near Ken's house, or just to pull over the sorts of people who cause them? Or treating the people without health insurance who, when injured in car accidents, are brought to HCMC and saved at taxpayer expense? No, no, no, and no. I'm being taxed for these functions of government, through property and sales taxes. I'm paying for "services" whose necessity I did not create. (Though I may, at some point in the future, be forced to use them. Perhaps the next time somebody opens their door into me as I bike past. No, wait. I have health insurance. I'll have to cover the deductible on my broken bones myself.) But hey, that's part of living in a modern society and I accept it. I understand that we help one another, and that maybe less than 100% of my tax dollar will come directly back to me. All we bicyclists are asking for - whether we're talking set-aside lanes, trails, or streets - is fair and equal treatment, and maybe to recoup some of the investment we've made in y'all's nasty habit. And for even raising this issue, we hear a response like Tim's. How much better an example of the tyranny of the majority could one hope for? Seems to me his quote is off. Rather than "them that pays the gold write the rules," we should admit it comes down to "them that's GOT the gold (or sufficient numbers to bully...) write the rules." Tim also ignores the secondary purpose of taxation. If there are two individuals who both expect local infrastructure to support their habits, but one dabbles in hideously destructive behaviors(think drug use or automobile driving) and the other prefers behaviors which not only have a positive impact on the individual in question, but the larger society (think education or bicycling)... who do you tax and who do you subsidize? What if the former places far greater strains (even per capita) on the infrastructure in question? Don't we have a responsibility to discourage destructive behavior with any method available to us? Or think of it in a free market sense. Automobile drivers are not being forced to pay for the true costs of their choices. They're forcing others to pick up their tab. We will never make adequate progress on getting people out of their cars as long as this is true. Robin Garwood Seward P.S. Hey, it's payday! Looks like I've spent $1,789.98 so far this year on health care insurance. How much of that money (or of the 50% of their income HMOs actually spend on healthcare, but that's a different discussion) enabled the dirty car habit of my neighbors? Take into account the cost of ERs, asthma, emphysema, cancer, and the lack of exercise which fuels obesity, heart disease... starts to feel like quite a bit. I wonder - could Minneapolis ever build enough bike lanes to reimburse me for all the money I've shelled out to keep motorists in their cars? _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
