Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 51
  1. #1
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,558

    Congress Moves to Push Bikes Off National Park Roads

    Bikeleague.org Blog » Blog Archive » Proposed law would force cyclists off roads on federal land and onto paths

    Section § 203 (d) (p. 226), the part dealing with the “Federal lands transportation program”, states:
    (d) BICYCLE SAFETY.—The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency shall prohibit the use of bicycles on each federally owned road that has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour or greater and an adjacent paved path for use by bicycles within 100 yards of the road.




    ALL ACTIONS:
    <dl><dt>11/7/2011:</dt><dd>Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. <dl><dt>11/9/2011:</dt><dd>Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably. </dd></dl></dd></dl>
    Sponsor: Barbara Boxer
    All info

    Co-sponsors
    Sen Baucus, Max [MT] - 11/7/2011
    Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] - 11/7/2011
    Sen Vitter, David [LA] - 11/7/2011


    I don't normally support LAB efforts, but this one is worthy of comment.

    Petition is here:
    League of American Bicyclists * Petition

  2. #2
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,865
    figures that pig boxer would sponsor this crap

    she is a great argument for term limits

    some roadiesszzz must have gotten in the way of her scumvee in yosemite

  3. #3
    Old, Slow and now FAT! :)
    Reputation: TheNormsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,314
    Sounds like a stupid law and a waste of money, HOWEVER, having dedicated bike paths along any road that has a 30+mph limit sounds like a win to me.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    154
    "and an adjacent paved path for use by bicycles within 100 yards of the road."


    I'm for that. Why should bikes be on the road if there is a dedicated bike path for them?

  5. #5
    Old, Slow and now FAT! :)
    Reputation: TheNormsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,314
    Okay, I just reread it. I thought it was proposing to build paths along all roads that were 30+. Now I see. It is only for roads that already have a path adjacent to a 30+mph road.

    I reverse my stand. It is a stupid law after all.

    Depending on the quality of the path I would choose it or the road depending on the flow of the path. Now my preference would be the path obviously, but some paths just suck and the road is sometimes the better choice (for a road bike).

  6. #6
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,865
    MUP = FAIL

    bicycles were on the roads in this country long before motor vehicles were

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    154
    I wish they'd make the law apply to 30th street... got these stupid roadies on a narrow road with a perfect bike path feet away...

  8. #8
    Rigid in Evergreen
    Reputation: topmounter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,538
    Bike paths are crazy dangerous on a road bike... especially when the bike paths are full of touristards.

  9. #9
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,430
    They'd be better getting rid of cars and motorhomes on park roads and putting everyone on bicycles.

  10. #10
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by topmounter View Post
    Bike paths are crazy dangerous on a road bike... especially when the bike paths are full of touristards.
    yabbut, you're blocking the road for some extreemo mountain bikersszzz on their shuttle drive in the road

    As far as National Parks go, people need to slow the hell down anyways. Are they really there to speed through it in their vehicle, or to actually see it? If they are in a hurry, they need to find some other destination, like gizneyland.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    They'd be better getting rid of cars and motorhomes on park roads and putting everyone on bicycles.

    Now that is the bell ringer!

    There was actually proposed legislation (that died unfortunately) that would require all visitors to national parks to hike or bike in. No motor vehicles.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,225
    And that will happen? dream on.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,253
    Bike lanes, bike paths, and multi-use paths serve to marginalize the legal rights of cyclists to use the roadway. Their narrow scope, short extent, and lack of education and training of users causes them to be no less dangerous than riding on the road.

    As KC said, bikes were using the roads before motorized vehicles were. In fact, one reason the LAB was established was to lobby for the paving of roads for cyclists.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,225
    If we banned all wheeled traffic we wouldn't need roads at all. After all, hikers were using the trails long before the bikes were.

  15. #15
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,430
    Excerpt from Abbeys Desert Solitaire, Chapter POLEMIC: INDUSTRIAL TOURISM & THE NATIONAL PARKS. Written in the 60s but still worthy of consideration.

    (1) No more cars in national parks. Let the people walk. Or ride horses, bicycles, mules, wild pigs — anything — but keep the automobiles and the motorcycles and all their motorized relatives out. We have agreed not to drive our automobiles into cathedrals, concert halls, art museums, legislative assemblies, private bedrooms and the other sanctums of our culture; we should treat our national parks with the same deference, for they, too, are holy places. An increasingly pagan and hedonistic people (thank God!), we are learning finally that the forests and mountains and desert canyons are holier than our churches. Therefore let us behave accordingly.

    Consider a concrete example and what could be done with it: Yosemite Valley in Yosemite National Park. At present a dusty milling confusion of motor vehicles and ponderous camping machinery, it could be returned to relative beauty and order by the simple expedient of requiring all visitors, at the park entrance, to lock up their automobiles and continue their tour on the seats of good workable bicycles supplied free of charge by the United States Government.

    Let our people travel light and free on their bicycles — nothing on the back but a shirt, nothing tied to the bike but a slicker, in case of rain. Their bedrolls, their backpacks, their tents, their food and cooking kits will be trucked in for them, free of charge, to the campground their choice in the Valley, by the Park Service. (Why not? The roads will still be there.) Once in the Valley they will find the concessioners waiting, ready to supply whatever needs might have been overlooked, or to furnish rooms and meals for those who don’t want to camp out.

    The same thing could be done at Grand Canyon or at Yellowstone or at any of our other shrines to the out-of-doors. There is no compelling reason, for example, why tourists need to drive their automobiles to the very brink of the Grand Canyon’s south rim. They could walk that last mile. Better yet, the Park Service should build an enormous parking lot about ten miles south of Grand Canyon Village and another east of Desert View. At those points, as at Yosemite, our people could emerge from their steaming shells of steel and glass and climb upon horses or bicycles for the final leg of the journey. On the rim, as at present, the hotels and restaurants will remain to serve the physical needs of the park visitors. Trips along the rim would also be made on foot, on horseback, or — utilizing the paved road which already exists — on bicycles. For those willing to go all the way from one parking lot to the other, a distance of some sixty or seventy miles, we might provide bus service back to their cars, a service which would at the same time effect a convenient exchange of bicycles and/or horses between the two terminals.

    What about children? What about the aged and infirm? Frankly, we need waste little sympathy on these two pressure groups. Children too small to ride bicycles and too heavy to be borne on their parents’ backs need only wait a few years — if they are not run over by automobiles they will grow into a lifetime of joyous adventure, if we save the parks and leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. The aged merit even less sympathy: after all they had the opportunity to see the country when it was still relatively unspoiled. However, we’ll stretch a point for those too old or too sickly to mount a bicycle and let them ride the shuttle buses.

    I can foresee complaints. The motorized tourists, reluctant to give up the old ways, will complain that they can’t see enough without their automobiles to bear them swiftly (traffic permitting) through the parks. But this is nonsense. A man on foot, on horseback or on a bicycle will see more, feel more, enjoy more in one mile than the motorized tourists can in a hundred miles. Better to idle through one park in two weeks than try to race through a dozen in the same amount of time. Those who are familiar with both modes of travel know from ex perience that this is true; the rest have only to make the experiment to discover the same truth for themselves.

    They will complain of physical hardship, these sons of the pioneers. Not for long; once they rediscover the pleasures of actually operating their own limbs and senses in a varied, spontaneous, voluntary style, they will complain instead of crawling back into a car; they may even object to retuming to desk and office and that dry-wall box on Mossy Brook Circle. The fires of revolt may be kindled — which means hope for us all.

    (2) No more new roads in national parks. After banning private automobiles the second step should be easy. Where paved roads are already in existence they will be reserved for the bicycles and essential in-park services, such as shuttle buses, the trucking of camping gear and concessioners’ supplies. Where dirt roads already exist they too will be reserved for nonmotorized traffic. Plans for new roads can be discarded and in their place a program of trail-building begun, badly needed in some of the parks and in many of the national monuments. In mountainous areas it may be desirable to build emergency shelters along the trails and bike roads; in desert regions a water supply might have to be provided at certain points — wells drilled and handpumps installed if feasible.

    Once people are liberated from the confines of automobiles there will be a greatly increased interest in hiking, exploring, and back-country packtrips. Fortunately the parks, by the mere elimination of motor traffic, will come to seem far bigger than they are now — there will be more room for more persons, an astonishing expansion of space. This follows from the interesting fact that a motorized vehicle, when not at rest, requires a volume of space far out of proportion to its size. To illustrate: imagine a lake approximately ten miles long and on the average one mile wide. A single motorboat could easily circumnavigate the lake in an hour; ten motorboats would begin to crowd it; twenty or thirty, all in operation, would dominate the lake to the exclusion of any other form of activity; and fifty would create the hazards, confusion, and turmoil that makes pleasure impossible. Suppose we banned motorboats and allowed only canoes and rowboats; we would see at once that the lake seemed ten or perhaps a hundred times bigger. The same thing holds true, to an even greater degree, for the automobile. Distance and space are functions of speed and time. Without expending a single dollar from the United States Treasury we could, if we wanted to, multiply the area of our national parks tenfold or a hundredfold — simply by banning the private automobile. The next generation, all 250 million of them, would be grateful to us.

  16. #16
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,558
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Excerpt from Abbeys Desert Solitaire, Chapter POLEMIC: INDUSTRIAL TOURISM & THE NATIONAL PARKS. Written in the 60s but still worthy of consideration.
    Edward Abbey. A bit out there indeed.

    An environmentalist, atheist, and anarchist.... and yet still a constitutionalist,
    anti-illegal immigration supporting patriot who was maligned after the Earth
    First! Rendezvous at the North Rim of the Grand Canyon in 1987 by
    Eco-Socialist/Communist nutjob Murray Bookchin for his stance on
    illegal immigration.


    "Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the
    common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed
    citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense
    against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.
    Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our
    rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among
    the outlaws."
    -- Edward Abbey, "Abbey's Road", 1979

    TheTownCrier: Edward Abbey: "Immigration and Liberal Taboos"

    From Abbey’s 1988 book One Life at a Time

    "To everything there is a season, to every wave a limit, to every range an
    optimum capacity. The United States has been fully settled, and more than
    full, for at least a century. We have nothing to gain, and everything to
    lose, by allowing the old boat to be swamped. How many of us, truthfully,
    would prefer to be submerged in the Caribbean-Latin version of civilization?"

    "We've got an army somewhere on this planet, let's bring our soldiers home
    and station them where they can be of some actual and immediate benefit
    to the taxpayers who support them. That done, we can begin to
    concentrate attention on badly neglected internal affairs. Our internal
    affairs."

    "Stop every campesino at our southern border, give him a handgun, a good
    rifle, and a case of ammunition, and send him home. He will know what to
    do with our gifts and good wishes. The people know who their enemies are. "


  17. #17
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,430
    HA, no doubt Abbey was pretty hard to pigeon hole into any neat category. He also said many times that a lot of what he wrote was deliberately out there just to get a rise. How deeply he felt what he was writing at one time or another, only he knew.

    PS: I always thought the quote about giving illegals at the boarder guns and ammo and sending them back to finish their revolution was amusing. Unfortunately we have been sending guns south across the border in exchange for drugs for a while and the effect hasn't been what Abbey hoped for.

  18. #18
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,558
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    HA, no doubt Abbey was pretty hard to pigeon hole into any neat category. He also said many times that a lot of what he wrote was deliberately out there just to get a rise. How deeply he felt what he was writing at one time or another, only he knew.

    PS: I always thought the quote about giving illegals at the boarder guns and ammo and sending them back to finish their revolution was amusing. Unfortunately we have been sending guns south across the border in exchange for drugs for a while and the effect hasn't been what Abbey hoped for.
    Unfortunately Holderbama gave the guns to the bad guys instead of the good guys. Drugs, prisons, and social work is big business.

  19. #19
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,430
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    Unfortunately Holderbama gave the guns to the bad guys instead of the good guys. Drugs, prisons, and social work is big business.
    Oh, I don't think anybody is giving guns to anyone. Gun thieves, those who abuse the loopholes in gun purchasing as well as international arms merchants and so on work with smugglers to sell arms to the drug cartels. It's all about profit; politics only enters when any legislation is proposed that has the intention of slowing the flow of arms south across the border that is perceived by gun advocates as a threat to gun rights.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2wheelsnotfour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,852
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Oh, I don't think anybody is giving guns to anyone.
    Fast and Furious.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by 2wheelsnotfour View Post
    Fast and Furious.

    Wasn't that a program run by the DEA.... ? You know people who have their jobs for more then 4 or 8 years at a time.

    And most likely a program that had more then 2 years in the making...



    Dude is just a figure head. Direct your issues to those who are responsible. Not the scape goat so ingeniously touted by the media as being all powerful.


    Do you people REALLY think the guy who has 4 years, or at best, 8 years in a given office is really let in on the important choices that effect things 10-20-30 years down the road?

    Come on!!!

    *you* can have a higher secruity clearance then the President. You know why? Because your job secruity is based on skill, NOT term limits.

    Think about how many people, positions and industries that encompasses...

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2wheelsnotfour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,852
    Quote Originally Posted by DrJosiah View Post
    Wasn't that a program run by the DEA.... ? You know people who have their jobs for more then 4 or 8 years at a time.

    And most likely a program that had more then 2 years in the making...



    Dude is just a figure head. Direct your issues to those who are responsible. Not the scape goat so ingeniously touted by the media as being all powerful.


    Do you people REALLY think the guy who has 4 years, or at best, 8 years in a given office is really let in on the important choices that effect things 10-20-30 years down the road?

    Come on!!!

    *you* can have a higher secruity clearance then the President. You know why? Because your job secruity is based on skill, NOT term limits.

    Think about how many people, positions and industries that encompasses...
    Not sure why you are defending an incompetent president so vehemently. But have at it. I hold the attorney general responsible for this and, yes, possibly higher. It was a strategy for discrediting the gun industry.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by 2wheelsnotfour View Post
    Not sure why you are defending an incompetent president so vehemently. But have at it. I hold the attorney general responsible for this and, yes, possibly higher. It was a strategy for discrediting the gun industry.
    Because people like you can't read, so it requires strong arguments to convince you to pull the wool off... I'm not defending the president. He doesn't need to be defended, because he doesn't do anything. None of them do, or ever will.

    "Dude is a figure head"

    The reality is the president, no matter who he is, has little to no power and certainly not any power to make real changes.

    So your efforts are pointed in the wrong direction. Turn them to the people who do make the policies and choices - major companies, military personal, etc



    I don't think the DEA gun issue was contrived to discredit the arms industry, it's not that diabolical - it's just flat out incompetence. Simple as that.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    258
    I think that building MORE paved paths in national parks is just a joke. Then, those bike paths will become cluttered with walkers and joggers and then it becomes impossible to ride a bike on it.

    The same thing can be accomplished by slowing down.

  25. #25
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,430
    Quote Originally Posted by bballr4567 View Post
    I think that building MORE paved paths in national parks is just a joke. Then, those bike paths will become cluttered with walkers and joggers and then it becomes impossible to ride a bike on it.

    The same thing can be accomplished by slowing down.
    I don't think this is necessarily true. Paved paths near parking lots, attractions and infrastructure just like in urban areas can indeed have a lot of use as you describe, but pathways in between those areas would most likely not.

    Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Bike paths (call them multi use paths or rec paths if you like) can and do have their places as ways to get bikes safely off busy roads. They can and do provide a great experience for cyclists as transportation and recreation corridors.

  26. #26
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,865
    MUPs = FAIL when the infrastructure is already there, which is the point here

    drivers need to slow the hell down, especially in national parks

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2wheelsnotfour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,852
    Quote Originally Posted by DrJosiah View Post
    Because people like you can't read, so it requires strong arguments to convince you to pull the wool off... I'm not defending the president. He doesn't need to be defended, because he doesn't do anything. None of them do, or ever will.

    "Dude is a figure head"

    The reality is the president, no matter who he is, has little to no power and certainly not any power to make real changes.

    So your efforts are pointed in the wrong direction. Turn them to the people who do make the policies and choices - major companies, military personal, etc



    I don't think the DEA gun issue was contrived to discredit the arms industry, it's not that diabolical - it's just flat out incompetence. Simple as that.
    Ok so someone said they didn't feel guns were being given away and I referenced Fast and Furious which was, essentially, putting guns in the hands of criminals and then you go on about the president when I didn't even mention the president. I think you're a bit over aggressive in your defense of the president. But now that you bring it up, in my opinion the president is a failure from an economic policy stand point. But actually this wasn't even about the president. Again, my reply was just a simple reply to the statement regarding giving guns away. Nothing more.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sbsbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,998
    More pavement is not what we need inside a national park, no matter who's safety is at stake. These Washington idiots should get to work balancing the budget and getting restrictions up on those banks that were "too large to fail", instead of legislating who rides where inside a park. If I did my job like Congress, I would have been fired many years ago.

  29. #29
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,558
    Quote Originally Posted by DrJosiah View Post
    Because people like you can't read, so it requires strong arguments to convince you to pull the wool off... I'm not defending the president. He doesn't need to be defended, because he doesn't do anything. None of them do, or ever will.

    "Dude is a figure head"

    The reality is the president, no matter who he is, has little to no power and certainly not any power to make real changes.

    So your efforts are pointed in the wrong direction. Turn them to the people who do make the policies and choices - major companies, military personal, etc

    I don't think the DEA gun issue was contrived to discredit the arms industry, it's not that diabolical - it's just flat out incompetence. Simple as that.
    Quote Originally Posted by DrJosiah View Post
    Wasn't that a program run by the DEA.... ? You know people who have their jobs for more then 4 or 8 years at a time.
    And most likely a program that had more then 2 years in the making...


    The ATF and DOJ (Eric Holder) were the ones running the operations.
    ATF Chief appointment requires Senate/Presidential approval. ATF reports
    to the DOJ, Attorney General Eric Holder.

    Project GunRunner was an ATF operation that started in August 2008.
    ATF Fact Sheet - Project Gunrunner

    Fast & Furious started in 2009 just after Holder was appointed by Obama
    and went one step further than Project Gunrunner by allowing the weapons
    to cross the border into Mexico. (See April 2009 in timeline)

    Also, you must have missed the reports of how those seasoned ATF agents
    you are speaking of threw up red flags and tried to put a stop to F&F
    before any agents were killed, but instead they were threatened and
    reassigned by higher ups in the ATF and DOJ. i.e. AG Eric Holder. The
    agents are not the bad guys as Holder/Obama/MSM would have you believe.
    ATF agent calls gun-tracking program a 'disaster' - USATODAY.com



    It all begins with the Clintons, the DNC Agenda,
    and the Grooming of Eric Holder for AG:

    1997
    Clinton nominated Holder to be the Deputy Attorney General under Janet
    Reno. Holder was involved with Clinton's last-minute pardon of fugitive and
    Democratic contributor Marc Rich.

    2004
    Holder helped negotiate an agreement with the Justice Department for
    Chiquita Brands International in a case that involved Chiquita's payment of
    "protection money" to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, a group
    on the U.S. government's list of terrorist organizations

    March 2004
    Holder and Covington & Burling were hired by Illinois Governor Rod
    Blagojevich to act as a special investigator to the Illinois Gaming Board.

    2007
    Holder joined then-United States Senator Barack Obama's presidential
    campaign as a senior legal advisor. He served on Obama's vice presidential
    selection committee.

    2008
    Holder joined the Reno-led amicus brief, which urged the Supreme Court to
    uphold Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and said the position of the
    Department of Justice, from Franklin Roosevelt through Clinton, was that
    the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and
    bear arms for purposes unrelated to a State’s operation of a well-regulated militia
    Eric Holder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    The Agenda is set:

    Within 96 hours of Obama winning the election, Obama and Biden posted an
    Internet webpage--at www.change.gov--outlining their “urban policy”
    objectives, which amounted to an anti-gun wish list.

    Its agenda items included:

    • Repealing the Tiahrt Amendment to open up sensitive law-enforcement
    gun-trace data for use in anti-gun grandstanding and politically motivated lawsuits;

    • Requiring government approval of every firearm transaction--at gun
    shows and presumably everywhere else;

    • Mandating technology to make guns “childproof” (in other words, less
    reliable)--technology that doesn’t exist, and that you likely couldn’t afford if it did; and

    • Reinstating the Clinton-Feinstein semi-automatic gun ban (which a
    congressionally mandated study found to have little effect because “the
    banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun
    murders” before the ban), and making those bans permanent.
    NRA-ILA :: Showing Their True Colors



    The Agenda is carried out:

    December 2008
    Obama names Clinton to top role in his team
    Defense Secretary Gates to stay on; Holder, Napolitano, Jones, Rice tapped
    Obama names Clinton to top role in his team - politics - White House - msnbc.com

    Early 2009
    Obama appoints Eric Holder as Attorney General.**

    February 2009
    AG Holder calls for reinstating the "assault weapon" ban, saying "I think
    that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."**

    March 2009
    Hillary Clinton visits Mexico, delivers a speech. "These criminals are
    outgunning law enforcement officials," ... since we know that the vast
    majority, 90% of that [weaponry] comes from our country, we're going to
    try to stop it from getting there in the first place," Clinton said."**

    April 2009
    President Obama visits Mexico. "said the U.S. is to blame for much of
    Mexico’s drug violence....said he wants to renew a ban on some
    semiautomatic weapons" He adds, "more than 90 percent of the guns
    recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops
    that lay in our shared border."**

    April 2, 2009
    "Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the
    backs of the cartels. My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel
    to the Southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing
    Project Gunrunner
    , DEA is adding 16 new positions on the border, as well as
    mobile enforcement teams, and the FBI is creating a new intelligence group
    focusing on kidnapping and extortion. DHS is making similar commitments,
    as Secretary Napolitano will detail." -- Eric Holder

    September 2009
    Operation Fast and Furious appears to begin at about this point
    .**

    October 2009
    Field Division establishes "Group VII." Its plans include allowing guns to
    "walk" to Mexico.**

    March 2010
    An email to Group VII supervisors informs them that the acting head of ATF
    and the Deputy Director of FBI are very interested in the operation and
    receiving weekly briefings. Some agents are objecting, since Agent Voth
    sends an email telling agents that if “you don’t think this is fun,” you should
    find another job.
    **

    April 2010
    Group VII reports the straw men purchased 359 firearms, including some
    .50 rifles, last month alone.**

    May 2010 (The PR Campaign begins)
    President Calderon visits Washington, calls for renewal of the "assault
    weapon" ban.**

    September 17, 2010 (Govt. Propaganda)
    ATF Recovers 1,300 Firearms in Arizona, Plans to Expand Teams to Curb
    Guns to Mexico According to U.S. officials, a majority of the guns seized in
    Mexican crimes are found to be sold in the United States by gun stores in
    Texas, California and Arizona.
    Politics News: Latest Political News and U.S. Elections Coverage - ABC News

    November 17, 2010
    Obama could appoint Traver to head ATF without Senate approval
    National gun rights Articles, National gun rights News | Examiner.com

    December 2010
    The Administration proposes to require reporting of multiple long-gun sales
    by dealers in border States. Dennis Henigan of Brady Campaign rejoices
    that it may be the end of appeasement, and calls for more: "The new ATF
    initiative to fight Mexican gun trafficking has crossed a line -- and the
    administration knows it. **

    December 10, 2010
    Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry is murdered, and Fast and Furious guns are
    found at the site.
    **

    December 22, 2010
    ATF agents Bloggers pick up the story.**

    January 2011
    Fast and Furious is suddenly shut down. ATF arrests the straw men. Agent
    Newell vigorously denies the agency allowed guns to "walk."**

    Feburary 2011
    Story goes mainstream when CBS Evening News covers it.**

    March 25, 2011
    ATF gunwalking: Who knew, and how high up? - CBS News Investigates - CBS News
    ATF gunwalking: Who knew, and how high up?
    In an exclusive interview with CBS News, the lead ATF official in Mexico at
    the time Darren Gil says somebody in the Justice Department did know
    about the case. Gil says his supervisor at ATF's Washington D.C.
    headquarters told him point-blank the operation was approved even higher
    than ATF Director Kenneth Melson. "Is the director aware of this," Gil asked
    the supervisor. Gil says his supervisor answered "Yes, the director's aware
    of it. Not only is the director aware of it, D.O.J.'s aware of it... Department
    of Justice was aware of it.

    March 30, 2011:
    Obama says of Gun Control..... "We have to go through a few processes,
    but under the radar."
    Obama: We're Working on Gun Control 'Under the Radar' - Guns - Fox Nation

    April 1, 2011
    Issa subpoenas ATF for Project Gunrunner documents
    Project Gunrunner Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive Darrell Issa subpoena | White House misses deadline on Issa subpoenas for Project Gunrunner documents | The Daily Caller

    June 20, 2011
    Obama Eyeing Anti-Gun Backer to Run ATF (The Fix is in)
    articlename

    July 12th, 2011
    Issa, Grassley name 12 senior Justice officials in Fast and Furious letter
    Darrell Issa | Chuck Grassley | 12 Justice Department Officials | The Daily Caller

    August 30th, 2011
    Eric Holder removes acting ATF director amid Fast and Furious scandal (The Patsy)
    ATF Director | Kenneth Melson | Eric Holder | The Daily Caller

    December 1, 2011
    Obama admin seals records of murdered Border Patrol agent (Covering their tracks)
    Eric Holder | Fast and Furious | Border Patrol | The Daily Caller

    December 08, 2011
    Gun control behind Fast and Furious? Holder claims he still hasn’t read the
    memos, emails (Play dumb)
    Dan Lungren | Eric Holder | Fast and Furious | The Daily Caller

    December 11, 2011
    Holder may be holding on to private emails about Fast and Furious (Play dumber)
    Eric Holder | Fast and Furious | Darrell Issa | The Daily Caller

    "So in Spring 2009 the Administration was pushing its agenda with
    references to American guns going to Mexico -- with spokesmen including
    the President, the AG, and the Secretary of State. In the following months,
    Operation Fast and Furious took form. The gunwalking involved offices in
    Arizona and Texas, and perhaps Florida, and involved FBI as well as ATF.
    FBI even bankrolled one of the smugglers. Occam's Razor

    ... gunwalking was meant to serve a political agenda that (at the outset)
    was seen as setting the stage for some major pushes, and that required
    lots of Mexican crime guns to trace to US dealers. And if a few hundred
    people got killed, that was just the price."
    David Hardy · 29 September 2011**

    ** Of Arms and the Law: A brief timeline for Operation Gunwalker


    Obama/Holder/Clinton need to go to jail for the rest of their life. They
    have committed treason against the people of the United States and have
    been accomplices in the murders of thousands of people in Mexico, in
    addition to US Border Patrol agents.

    Only a narcissistic ass would give guns to the Mexican drug cartels and
    then proclaim that he is innocent of any crime!

    Obama should be impeached immediately, but obviously there are still
    sheep in his flock, and more wolves at the table.

    "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be
    led, like sheep to the slaughter." -- George Washington

  30. #30
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by sbsbiker View Post
    More pavement is not what we need inside a national park, no matter who's safety is at stake. These Washington idiots should get to work balancing the budget and getting restrictions up on those banks that were "too large to fail", instead of legislating who rides where inside a park. If I did my job like Congress, I would have been fired many years ago.
    ^wut he said

    we're in for moar of the same old song and dance in dc if someone doesn't take the lead and deliver us from all of the special interests

    the occupy people had it all wrong, they should have been occupying dc and protesting in front of the capitol and the avenue of the lobbyists

    the enablers are always looking for moar pork and that includes bullshiznit "shovel ready" infrastructure jobs that are not a true priority...aka mups where there is a road already

  31. #31
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,865
    oh yeah, moar lulz from the cut n paste ready folder on uncleFAIL's pc named: tinfoil

    lulz to the tenth power

  32. #32
    formerly shabadu
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    951
    Tebow!

  33. #33
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,558
    Quote Originally Posted by KarateChicken View Post
    oh yeah, moar lulz from the cut n paste ready folder on uncleFAIL's pc named: tinfoil

    lulz to the tenth power


  34. #34
    What does a bean mean?!
    Reputation: COTarHeel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    137
    Why would someone click play on a video that's 0:00 long?

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    258
    Quote Originally Posted by sbsbiker View Post
    More pavement is not what we need inside a national park, no matter who's safety is at stake. These Washington idiots should get to work balancing the budget and getting restrictions up on those banks that were "too large to fail", instead of legislating who rides where inside a park. If I did my job like Congress, I would have been fired many years ago.
    This is what I was getting at.

    If that was the case, we would have 4 lane highways in most national parks now because the majority of the roads were built when cars were no where as popular as they are now.

    More concrete is not needed. Simple education is.

  36. #36
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,558
    Quote Originally Posted by COTarHeel View Post
    Why would someone click play on a video that's 0:00 long?
    The link must be broke.
    Here try this one.



  37. #37
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,430
    Quote Originally Posted by sbsbiker View Post
    More pavement is not what we need inside a national park, no matter who's safety is at stake. These Washington idiots should get to work balancing the budget and getting restrictions up on those banks that were "too large to fail", instead of legislating who rides where inside a park. If I did my job like Congress, I would have been fired many years ago.
    Whether this goes through or not, I doubt you'll see a multi million dollar bump in spending on new bike paths in parks. The park service has for years been a low spending priority in the federal budget and that's likely to continue. Like it says, put bikes of paved paths where they exist.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Whether this goes through or not, I doubt you'll see a multi million dollar bump in spending on new bike paths in parks. The park service has for years been a low spending priority in the federal budget and that's likely to continue. Like it says, put bikes of paved paths where they exist.
    Except, spending on bicycle/walking infrastructure is now over $1 billion a year. And the funds set aside, specifically for walking/cycling infrastructure can be used as a temporary general funds boost to add funding to a planned road project by placing poorly planned cycling/walking infrastructure. All the while the main goal is improvements for motorists. The cycling/walking infrastructure is merely secondary, and probably not as high as a priority as that. This, in spite of the fact that for cyclists the infrastructure is already there: the road. This isn't to discount pedestrians, who need increased infrastructure. However, it is a huge mistake of agencies to group cyclists and pedestrians together. This flies in the face of most vehicle codes, which state the cyclists are considered operators of vehicles.

    I would like to see more state and federal money spent on educating the public on how to ride on the road and how to operate a motorized vehicle on the road with cyclists. The two short sections in the state drivers handbook (sec. 12.4 and 16) and the under presented pamphlet put out by CDOT fail in their scope and implementation.The lack of training for cyclists in the country is deplorable. Anyone can ride a bike, but it is unfortunate that there is no concerted effort beyond the 3rd grade bike rodeo to provide continued education for cyclists on how to safely ride as traffic (not just recreation or sport).

    Personally, I learned through a lot of trial and error and two incidents in which, I was hit by motorists and was screwed by my own incompetence of the system. It's too bad it took a lot of scars and money to learn what I have.

    Back on topic: I think it would be a bad idea to eliminate cars from National Parks. Limiting the number of cars by encouraging bicycling and hiking would seem a better approach. The hitch though, is that behavior modification is hard and takes time. Slowing speed limits in National Parks to no more than 35mph and emphasizing safety for all road users could be a nice middle ground. Also, limiting the size of vehicles in the parks would be nice. Provide a rental fleet of Small SUVs for people with oversized recreation vehicles, etc.

    By saying only these modes are allowed and this mode is not allowed causes a full stop in any discussion. Obviously, "share the road" is a two-way statement. Let's not forget that. When both parties lose perspective the debate is abstracted and becomes meaningless.

  39. #39
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,558
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Except, spending on bicycle/walking infrastructure is now over $1 billion a year.
    Isn't that absurd? Not necessarily the total amount, but the lack of facilities that that kind on money annually buys?

    As one of my coworkers used to point out. Governments have champagne taste, but only beer money... and the public doesn't get it. They show up at planning meetings and think the sky is the limit.

    Many agencies don't even use budgets for projects. They develop the project, then develop the budget. If the money isn't there, then it doesn't get built. It's back asswards. Why do you think it takes JCOS so long to do anything?

    I was blown away last night reading the minutes of our local Bicycle Advisory Committees November meeting minutes when I saw that they were estimating $13 million to "complete" the Pikes Peak Greenway? WTH? The PP Greenway is already built. What is going to cost $13 million, converting more gravel trail to concrete? Why? Why not forget the concrete and build the connector trails we've been missing for 20 years now?

    Over and over I see "landscape architects" designing trails to look pretty instead of function safely and are cost effective. Maybe it's time we ask what exactly qualifies a landscape architect to design transportation facilities?

    Are we building trails to get from point A to point B, or is money spent on needless doohickeys and doodads that look pretty and cost a lot, but don't add anything appreciable to the safety or usability of a trail?

    Why are agencies wasting millions on bridges (pedestrian crossings) made out of new steel or even fiberglass, when a recycled railcar using old steel can be used in place at 30% or less of the total cost? And in most cases can be done much quicker and without the needless over-engineering. Bridges are the most expensive item of almost every trail project. Why I ask?

    Why are agencies building concrete trails in remote locations at $40+/ linear ft., when a gravel trail can be built at $13/ ln.ft. ? Why do you need a concrete trail in the first place, when 90% of the users ride a MTB?

    A bridge? About $2,000 linear foot. In fact I installed a 40' recycled railcar bridge for $35K, and bids for a "standard" Continental Bridge we're coming in at well over $200K. That's a 40' bridge across a 4' deep crossing that is dry 90% of the time. It took 4 guys, 3 days to install!

    We're screwing ourselves I tell you.

    In our Pikes Peak RTA non-motorized transportation category, "historical preservation" is lumped into the same category as bike/pedestrian facilities. So sidewalks, bike paths and bus stops compete for money with historical bridges or structures that require expensive "preservation". Why?

    More money on crap we "want" ? and less money for the things we "need"?

    People in this country really need to examine their priorities.

    So there's my rant for the day... I think I'll call the City now and find out why they are estimating $13 million to complete the PP Greenway.
    Did I read it wrong? Maybe they're planning on adding some more angular 24" granite rip-rap along the edge of the trail. Lord know I need a few more broken bones this year.... really great idea that rip-rap was... around a blind corner no less.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,253
    It is all in the context in which paths are built: to remove cyclists from the road to ease people's irrational fear of cycling as traffic, but most importantly to reduce impediments for motorists. Also, MUPs are not built with transportation in mind. They are a product of cycling for recreation. Used in that context they are great, a little slow. However, with transportation or sport in mind they are absurdly dangerous. Hence the posted 15 mph speed limit, and the proposed 8 mph speed limit in crosswalks (in Boulder, and possibly Denver). All of which, I agree with. The problem arises then when we look at the implications of MUPs. The most important is the most motorists assume all cycling is for recreation and should therefore be limited to bike paths, lanes, or MUPs. The failure is one of education not of infrastructure. Think of it as misplaced good intentions and ignorance of all types of bicycle usage.

  41. #41
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    It is all in the context in which paths are built: to remove cyclists from the road to ease people's irrational fear of cycling as traffic, but most importantly to reduce impediments for motorists. Also, MUPs are not built with transportation in mind. They are a product of cycling for recreation. Used in that context they are great, a little slow. However, with transportation or sport in mind they are absurdly dangerous. Hence the posted 15 mph speed limit, and the proposed 8 mph speed limit in crosswalks (in Boulder, and possibly Denver). All of which, I agree with. The problem arises then when we look at the implications of MUPs. The most important is the most motorists assume all cycling is for recreation and should therefore be limited to bike paths, lanes, or MUPs. The failure is one of education not of infrastructure. Think of it as misplaced good intentions and ignorance of all types of bicycle usage.
    well put, rog

    then again, you have to remember to whom you are preaching here

    the majority of the population on this website are not cyclists

    the non-cyclists are merely superheroic legends in their own minds, branding themselves simply as "mountain biker"


  42. #42
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,558
    Quote Originally Posted by KarateChicken View Post


    Superman comes in Hipster too.


  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by KarateChicken View Post
    well put, rog

    then again, you have to remember to whom you are preaching here

    the majority of the population on this website are not cyclists

    the non-cyclists are merely superheroic legends in their own minds, branding themselves simply as "mountain biker"

    Exactly, that's because most mountain bikers do not see cycling for any ends other than recreation. I suppose that is why there is so much vitriol spread on road using cyclists on this forum. And a general misunderstanding of cycling in general. Roads are not for the exclusive use of motorized vehicles. They are for the use of vehicles; which include pedal powered devices. I'll say it over and over, this is a problem of education (or lack thereof). It's too bad the sanctioned stance is one of marginalizing cyclists for the benefit of motorists.

  44. #44
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,558
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    I'll say it over and over, this is a problem of education (or lack thereof).
    While manners, politeness and empathy can be taught I feel there is
    something more to what we are witnessing on the roads.

    I definitely don't believe more trendy cliches on bumper stickers or PR
    campaigns by Bicycle Colorado is going to solve the issue. It hasn't worked
    yet, why do more of the same?

    I would lean towards driver training, not education, being a larger issue.

    Many drivers never really learned "how" to operate a vehicle beyond the
    basics; starting, turning and stopping. Maybe they don't have the
    coordination or motor skills to operate a vehicle past the basics, or maybe
    they have a disability that prevents them from doing so. A moving road
    cyclist in front of one of these people creates anxiety and discomfort to
    the point of rage.

    So drivers insecure with their abilities probably feel threatened by road
    riders. I tend to lean towards this as being the main reason drivers don't
    like bikes. The rest are just a-holes b/c they can get away with it.

    Reality is any warm body who walks into a DMV can walk out with a DL.

    Sure empathy, manners and politeness play a role and can be somewhat
    taught through education. But to some drunk on his way to a Bronco game,
    a grandpa or housewife you're just a moving speed bump, and they just
    wish you would get the hell out of the way. How is education going to fix
    that?

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    How is education going to fix
    that?
    Better driver training is part of education. For example, in German it takes 3000 hours of road and class work before a driver gets their license and bicycling education is upwards of 300 hours for a student leaving secondary school.

    It is going to take a lot of work to undo nearly a 100 years of cyclists marginalization.

    One of the problems is the enforcement and education of traffic laws, for everyone: motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians.

    A big issue is people are too comfortable in their cars. Nearly all motorists take their potential and kinetic energy for granted. For example, rolling through the "limit line" at intersections or speeding in an situation. There is a general irreverence toward operating a vehicle (motorized or pedal powered) in this country. For instance, look at the backlash from the NTSB's recommendation for banning all cell phone use in moving vehicles. Clearly there is a deadly trend among cell phone users and increased collision rates. Just like speeding the evidence for not doing it is overwhelming, yet the issue is ignored while the petty deflect the argument to some other subject.

    The "us vs. them" argument is moot. There is no them, only us: road users. Careful consideration and the temperament to obey posted traffic laws is the simplest, easiest way to reduce altercations between road users.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dutchman59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    63
    I signed up this morning and sent my petition in. Interesting I rode to Manny Park curve today. The speed limit signs have already been changed from 25 to 35 at the sheep lakes and Deer Mountain roads.
    Pain is temporary but Pride is forever.

  47. #47
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Better driver training is part of education. For example, in German it takes 3000 hours of road and class work before a driver gets their license and bicycling education is upwards of 300 hours for a student leaving secondary school.

    It is going to take a lot of work to undo nearly a 100 years of cyclists marginalization.

    One of the problems is the enforcement and education of traffic laws, for everyone: motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians.

    A big issue is people are too comfortable in their cars. Nearly all motorists take their potential and kinetic energy for granted. For example, rolling through the "limit line" at intersections or speeding in an situation. There is a general irreverence toward operating a vehicle (motorized or pedal powered) in this country. For instance, look at the backlash from the NTSB's recommendation for banning all cell phone use in moving vehicles. Clearly there is a deadly trend among cell phone users and increased collision rates. Just like speeding the evidence for not doing it is overwhelming, yet the issue is ignored while the petty deflect the argument to some other subject.

    The "us vs. them" argument is moot. There is no them, only us: road users. Careful consideration and the temperament to obey posted traffic laws is the simplest, easiest way to reduce altercations between road users.
    quoted in full for truth^

    irresponsible and/or entitled people are teh suck

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by KarateChicken View Post
    quoted in full for truth^

    irresponsible and/or entitled people are teh suck
    I think, irresponsible and entitled belong next to each other in that last statement. And you're right, those two adjectives fall on the suck side of the curve.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,225
    this is all very interesting?

  50. #50
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,558
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Better driver training is part of education. For example, in German it takes 3000 hours of road and class work before a driver gets their license and bicycling education is upwards of 300 hours for a student leaving secondary school.
    3000 hours?

    It's 28 hours of classroom and 35 hours on the road in Germany.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. WHAT! No bikes on National Parks roads.
    By Logover in forum North & South Carolina
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-28-2011, 01:59 PM
  2. Hybrid bikes on Forest Service Roads
    By mm9 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-07-2009, 11:19 AM
  3. Outta Stater asking about Pisgah National National Park
    By bonzi13 in forum North & South Carolina
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-11-2008, 08:41 AM
  4. Lost trails- Tell Congress to keep bikes
    By Howley in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-30-2006, 09:22 AM
  5. What is the difference between a National Rec. Area & National Park?
    By BelaySlave in forum Idaho, Montana, Wyoming
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-02-2005, 01:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •