Posted on 04/02/2011 6:48:43 PM PDT by OddLane
Cheers!
Been there, done that.
Cheers!
Anything over $1500 is for the more serious cyclists.
Cheers!
I apologize if my comment offended you. But the original poster said “whole” body spandex... not just shorts.
They just raised my car insurance. Thanks liberals! I’m just glad I’m not under 25 anymore because they try to deter young men from becoming independent adults.
It took a while but I finally noticed the bicycle.
And how much above and beyond normal taxes do bicyclists pay?
This is a week old, but still deserves a reply. As cyclist, spandex wearing one, I can say with confidence that I am not cruising for guys. Fraid you missed that mark by a mile, because I ride home to my wife of 20 years this June.
We wear spandex because it works. It’s skin tight so it pulls all the sweat to the surface where it evaporates. Clothing that is not a second skin allows the sweat to pool beneath without airflow and you get hot. It’s no more complicated than that.
He’s still riding too. I know a few folks who ride with him, and they he’s faster than most half his age.
Good luck getting FReepers to admit that. For reasons I still can’t fathom, otherwise logical conservatives here start foaming at the mouth at the mere mention of a bicycle.
Educate yourself. Helmets designed for road bikes (those with drop bars) don’t have visors because the lower riding position would necessitate lifting your head at an uncomfortable angle to see past the visor. Mountain bike helmets on the other hand almost always have a visor because of the more upright riding position.
I hope you're sitting down when you read this, because at $3k, you're only looking at an upper mid-level bike. Top of the line road and mountain sleds top $10k.
I can't say that I agree with your numbers. Using Cannondale (my new love) for example, the lowest end mountain bike they sell is $550. Like cellphones, computers, motorcycles, watches, etc, you don't want the lowest end. The bikes a beginning mountain biker should consider start at $1389.
The serious mountain bike line starts at $4k and goes to $10k.
If cyclists want to make use of the roads then they should be made to pay for them like those of us who drive do.
Let me get this straight. You want to raise taxes on "the other guy". You can turn in your "Conservative Card", you obviously are a pro-tax Liberal. Furthermore, it appears that you are an elitist who feels that others should pay for something you freely [ab]use while also denying access to it to those who also pay for it. I notice a complete absence of malice towards people who ride the buses that use that same roadway that actually cost you more in taxes. Where is the hate and contempt for them that you reserve only to bicyclists?
I would also like to correct a glaring error in your statement. Bicyclists do pay taxes for the roads since all surface roads are not paid by gasoline taxes but out of the local government's general funds. That is, the same streets that you drive on, that joggers run on, and that cyclists commute on are paid from general taxes like property, and sales taxes.
The State and Federal gasoline taxes allegedly are earmarked for limited access highways and the interstate - and the law properly criminalizes the use of those roadways by bicyclists.
I drive an older 3/4 ton (built like a tank) truck with grille guards for exactly that purpose.
I am well aware of the mindset, hubris and attitude of these creeps and they EARN their reward.
I'm glad you posted this because now if you are ever involved in anything concerning a bicyclist, this post of yours can be successfully used to throw your sorry criminal ass in prison for capital murder.
You have made it abundantly clear to all that you are a sociopath murderer just waiting for an opportunity. Any spandex jokes will also make you subject to additional penalties since your premeditated lethal attacks on a vulnerable bicyclist can easily be proven to be a hate crime since you think all cyclists are homosexuals.
Stupidity + hate. Not a good combination.
I simply believe that users of the roads should pay for them. Those of us who drive pay fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, tolls and other funds that cover the cost of highway maintenance. Those people who do not drive pay nothing. What could be more fair than that? And why shouldn't cyclists who make use of the roads, which are not free, be allowed to use them for free?
... you obviously are a pro-tax Liberal.
And your position that cyclists should use facilities for which they have not paid makes you a... what?
Or maybe you believe that drivers should continue to subsidize the costs of cyclists' use of the roads, just like we subsidize things like mass transit and other BS that has nothing to do with roads. Congratulations, you're now advocating for wealth redistribution. This also makes you a... what?
Furthermore, it appears that you are an elitist who feels that others should pay for something you freely [ab]use ...
Yawn. Sure I have.
I would also like to correct a glaring error in your statement. Bicyclists do pay taxes for the roads since all surface roads are not paid by gasoline taxes but out of the local government's general funds. That is, the same streets that you drive on, that joggers run on, and that cyclists commute on are paid from general taxes like property, and sales taxes.
Except that in most places roads are funded through fees and taxes directed specifically at drivers. And again, you've not made any case, other than "I hate you and you suck," as to why cyclists should get to use roads for free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.