Fed obligation to protect rights and fundamental freedoms cannot possibly extend past pretty clearly limited enumerated spending powers. If it did, then, in the instant example, Feds would be required to provide bike trails for everyone, everywhere. 14A, 5A. ‘Protecting’ does not and cannot encompass ‘providing’. Free speech protections, for instance, do not obligate federal govt to provide an audience to hear that speech. Or, in the other example of fundamental freedoms you cite, ‘protecting’ life and property (or liberty, privacy and travel) does not burden or authorized govt to ‘provide’ for it.

Don’t mean to get off on Constitutional treatises. But it is important. And, in a cycling community that boldly steps out to do so many right things right, exchanging this fundamental for parochial gain seems…unseemly.

R/ Jeff Gardner, Redding

I’ll point Tom to your comment for his response to the Constitutional question.

Yes, where to draw the line? How about the Constitution….which, in line with so much else cyclists stand for, means intellectually and ethically canning the total bastardization of the commerce clause since the 1880s. Because if, indeed, travel is a right and is without Art. I, Sec 8 Congressional control, then the Feds have no business funding it as privileged spending that Sec.’s Cl 17.

Sadly, for all the good work Commute by Bike does, in the end it is just another privilege group looking for federal dollars and saying their cause is better than others. That this is true (!) does not change the nature of the objection.

R/ Jeff Gardner
on the road in N CA

Thanks for your thoughtful follow-up comment one year down the line. Maybe it’s time to revisit the issue.

I grew up and have family in Massachusetts. I moved to California as a teen, but I return regularly to see family. To some extent the east coast retains vestiges of the old-line proper society–dishes match, shirts button, and there is a social tension among families and acquaintances in small social groups that demands a certain level of behavior. But put these folks in an anonymous setting and they become rude–cut in line at the store, and absolute monsters behind the wheel. Out west we are more inclined to be slobs drinking from jelly jars but to be more considerate of others in the anonymous context. Generalizations to be sure, but an element of truth.

“Where to draw the line” is the essence of our political disfunction. Those who deny that there is a continuous spectrum of political, social, and economic opinion and who cling to their poles do us all a disservice. Folks deride spending on non-motorized modes and mass transit but are blind to how deeply subsidized the other modes are. In California one current issue is the proposed high-speed rail. There are many valid points on which to debate, but many can’t get started because it requires government subsidy. The inevitable argument is comparison to flying. The unexplored lie is that the airlines are private sector so the cost of flying is defined by the efficiency of the markets. But take away the subsidized airports and what have we got? It’s all a matter of where we draw the line–we have to drop the dogma to understand the reality and make informed decisions.

To those that don’t see the value in the original post, I hope the point becomes clear. Strip away the social engineering point of view in your arguments and focus on communicating the cost of existing support of motorized modes and the potential for savings by promoting non-motorized modes. That is the language that most conservatives will understand.