ShareThis Page
Trib editorial: Question PennDOT’s free ride for cyclists |

Trib editorial: Question PennDOT’s free ride for cyclists


The online survey PennDOT’s using to gather input for updating its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan offers little opportunity to question what seems to be the agency’s underlying assumption: Like it or not, Pennsylvania will be getting more bike lanes, but no revenue from — or greater accountability for — their users.

Only an “anything you’d like to add” box allows survey participants to challenge PennDOT’s assumption, which underlies the master plan, too. The agency says it will “identify and help prioritize strategies that increase the number of people … bicycling.”

So, motorists, expect even more of the dollars you spend on license and registration fees and one of the nation’s highest state gasoline taxes to fund even more bicycle-centric infrastructure you won’t use — while cyclists’ free ride continues.

Licensing, insurance and registration requirements for bicycles and their riders would end those free rides — and help police enforce traffic laws that too many cyclists have gotten away with violating for too long. That would help even things out between motorists and cyclists in terms of who’s paying the infrastructure bills and legal accountability. But PennDOT apparently prefers more of the unquestioned status quo.

Even this survey’s timing — in the midst of a hard winter that’s producing a bumper crop of potholes that ought to be PennDOT’s top priority of the moment — should be questioned. Remember that, too, when you get to the survey’s “anything you’d like to add” box.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.