Rate	Price	Duration
1 Year	$99.00	for 365 days
1 Month	$20.00	for 30 days
1 Week	$8.25	for 7 days

Rate	Price	Duration
1 Year	$60.00	for 365 days
1 Month	$12.00	for 30 days
1 Week	$5.00	for 7 days

Build bike lanes and they will come

Sep 19, 2025
Sep 19, 2025
8

Editor,

A recent letter to the editor complained “No poorly placed, rarely used bike lanes. Taxpayer money over misplaced priorities, please!”

(8) comments

Dirk van Ulden Sep 19, 2025 2:56pm

I am all for bicycles and rode one in the Netherlands until I came to the US. One of the reasons they are popular is that the Netherlands and Denmark, for example, are flat. Both of my sons, when attending CSM, rode their bikes down the hills from Belmont and then up Hillsdale to the college. It helped them when they joined the bicycle teams at UCSD and UCLA respectively. But, those were young legs so I can't wait to see Mr. Carlini lug up Ralston on his bike with his groceries, unless of course he lives in the flat areas of Belmont. Bike riding is not practicable for all. Most of our streets are now marked with share the road signs but I don't see a precipitous increase in bicyclists where we live. Are they still coming?

easygerd Sep 19, 2025 5:40pm

Dirk, why wouldn't you like bicycles?

... and no without bike lanes they will NOT come. "Sharing the Road" is absolutely nonsense in a country that doesn't want to share facts nor history these days.

But historically it was always Republicans that signed the best bicycles laws, no Democrat comes even close:

- 1967: Governor Ronald Reagan (R) signed bike lanes into California VC

- 1973: President Nixon (R) introduced bike lanes on the Federal level

- Ever since then, Federal bike lanes are explicitly designed to support and protect vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, bicyclists, and people using mobility devices.

- 1982: Idaho (R) gives the world the "Idaho Stop" law

- 1990: President George H. W. Bush (R) signed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) allowing motorized mobility devices.

- 2002: President George W. Bush (R) gave us e-bikes - Low Speed Electric Bicycles

- 2008: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) gave us the Complete Streets law (AB1358) - a law requires cities and counties to update their general transportation plans by adding a balanced, multimodal transportation network that safely and conveniently serves all users - including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, children, seniors, and people with disabilities.

Using all these laws, a one-legged Giuliano could use W's "Low Speed Electric Bicycle" aka "Motor Driven Mobility Device" and ride up Ralston Ave .... IF the Democrats ever decide to start doing some "green" things.

But the only thing the Donkeys are signing these days is ebike-bans now.

Terence Y Sep 19, 2025 8:49am

Thanks for your letter, Mr. Carlini. If cyclist infrastructure needs to be improved then cyclists should begin taxing themselves, quite a bit, to raise the funds necessary to institute bicycle infrastructure. It’s easy to advocate for building anything and everything if one doesn’t need to pay for it. As it is now, cyclists are riding “free” on the backs of car drivers. In addition, the “powers that be” are not, or should not be, in the business of pandering to a vocal minority that doesn’t contribute to road infrastructure over that of the majority who pay gas taxes contributing to road infrastructure. How much would you be willing to pay in bicycle taxes to support bicycle infrastructure?

joebob91 Sep 19, 2025 9:31am

Can cyclists get a refund on the taxes they are paying for highways that don't allow bicycle use? We are spending billions on US 101 projects. Much of that $ comes from sales taxes paid by all residents, not just drivers.

easygerd Sep 19, 2025 11:42am

TBot old friend, GAS TAX isn't an infrastructure tax - it's one of the SIN TAXES.

Which means, people on bicycles don't pay gas taxes because they aren't addicted to SLOTH or GLUTTONY as much as others.

“Excise taxes are designed to DISCOURAGE the use of products linked to health risks by making them more expensive and less attractive to consumers. The generated revenue should then be seen as an investment to improve society. Excise taxes are currently levied on products and services that are known to lead to substance abuse and behavioral addiction."

We are talking products like alcoholic beverages, tobacco, vaping products, sugar, cannabis, gambling, guns, tanning beds, coal, AND motor fuels.

Based on the will of the Framers, smart politicians over 100 years ago put motor fuels and luxury vehicles into the same category as alcoholism and or addiction to tobacco products.

Terence Y Sep 20, 2025 8:55am

Two for one…

Sure, joebob91, as long as drivers get a refund on the taxes they’re paying for cycling infrastructure. We are spending millions, perhaps billions on road diets and cycling infrastructure that meet only the needs of the very few to inconvenience and make transportation inefficient for the needs of the vast super majority. Much of that $ comes from sales taxes paid by all residents, not just cyclists. If you want to propose an audit of transportation funds to expose waste, fraud, and abuse, I’d vote for it.

eGerd - TBot here. I’m not sure what your point is because here in California, Governor Newsom and Democrats don’t care what kind of tax you call it as long as it is paid. Gas taxes provide more money to waste. Just read Dan Walters’s column from yesterday. And for all the talk about global warming, it’s just talk because when the rubber hits the road, these folks realize fossil fuels make the world go round. Why else are Democrats increasing oil production in California and considering giving one of the refineries millions of dollars to remain open. It’s never about global warming, it’s about the money. Sin taxes (as you allege) are acceptable to them if it means more green – as in money, not climate.

On a side note, my programmers (according to you, Russian) have noticed a parallel between your and Kamala Harris’s playbook. Harris alienated over half the country, if not more, with her railing against everyone who didn’t agree with her continuation of Biden’s America Last policies. You alienate over half the country, if not more, by railing against car owners who don’t agree with your inconvenient and inefficient bike lane policies. Based on book excerpts Harris is burning bridges with her fellow Democrats who she feels wronged her. In your comment, you are burning bridges with your fellow cyclists by implying bike riders who also own cars are sinful, slothful, and gluttonous. Harris burned through $1.5 billion dollars of someone else’s money and you want to burn who knows how much of someone else’s money to support your pet issue. We know how things turned out for Harris. Republicans and Democrats came together to recognize none of her Harris’s issues were worth supporting. Will you turn car and bicycle owners alike against bike lanes and wasting money on road diets? I’d say yes, especially since bicyclists aren’t willing to pay their way.

easygerd Sep 20, 2025 9:27am

The Gasoline SIN TAX was meant to DISCOURAGE driving and addicted behavior like speeding, reckless driving, road rage, ranking, squatting, etc. or in short entitled drivers. The money then went towards paying down government debt. Basic infrastructure was provided to people for free, but highways, bridges, ferries required tolls or other payment types. Check out New Jersey's turnpikes as one good example of how to do this.

But then Eisenhower used the SIN TAX - that is supposed to DISCOURAGE driving and pollution - and used it for creating freeways - a way to ENCOURAGE more polluting. But that wasn't enough, more infrastructure money was needed from them general fund AND most importantly the funding that used to pay down debt didn't exist anymore.

Republican President Eisenhower is responsible for starting the doom circle of encouraging more driving - because it's free almost everywhere - and completely ignored how to pay for it.

Drivers have never paid their fair share and Eisenhower made sure that China owes now US infrastructure through bonds. Not exactly "fiscally responsible", is it.

So how do we be absolutely sure that Bay Area Democrats - like Gavin Newsom - only like the "green" that pays for the French Laundry or gets them into Burning Man?

Easy, if they cared about the other "green" San Mateo County would have a solid bike lane network and SamTrans would be building bus shelters instead of buying hydrogen buses, which again are bad for GHG and the environment.

Terence Y Sep 21, 2025 8:39am

eGerd – Tbot here. So you’re basically doubling down on railing against car owners and car owners who also own bikes. Great job drumming up support - for folks who don’t want road diets. And still no word of cyclists paying their fair share… BTW, we’ve already gone over this…nobody cares about GHG and the environment. Why else are Democrats increasing oil production in California and considering giving one of the refineries millions of dollars to remain open. It’s never about global warming, it’s about the money. Sin taxes (as you allege) are acceptable to them if it means more green – as in money, not climate.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

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!