yeah, i sent a nice letter to the editor back.

i decided to ignore his trolling and focus on the most egregious error i see repeated over and over again, that cyclists somehow don't pay for roads. shit dogg, if ya'll want to start paying the property tax at my house, i'm all for it. but until then, learn a little bit about how local road systems are funded before you open your mouth.

we really need to hammer home to people that in general, cyclists subsidize motorists on the roads - not the other way around.

By the angry montlake resident's arugment, pedestrians and rollerbladers shouldn't be allowed on the sidewalks either.

Between federal income taxes, local levys on property taxes, and sales tax, we all subsidize the roads more than the oft debated gas and car tab taxes.

...and then there is also his assumption that no cyclist is also a car owner.

Apparently my rebuttal letter is going to be in the Times tomorrow. It goes something like this:

Ugh. Why does the Seattle Times continue to print letters like Bob Humphrey's? The notion that bicyclists are "nontaxpaying" and "don't pay for" the streets on which we "play" is utter nonsense. If Mr. Humphrey were to familiarize himself with Washington state and Seattle's road funding policies, he'd discover that streets like Stone Way are funded almost entirely by property and sales taxes, not fees paid just by motorists. And since my bicycle creates much less wear-and-tear on these roads than does Mr. Humphrey's automobile, he is actually being subsized by me! You're welcome.