'My copy of the Constitution doesn’t even mention highways' (Roundup)

Traffic being slowed down, not by bikes
Traffic being slowed down, not by bikes | Photo: Boston Biker

Boston Biker has a fantastic rant titled, Let’s Make One Thing Clear, I Am Not Slowing You Down. I imagine Lewis Black on a bike, which is not an easy thing to imagine.

A person on a bicycle takes up 8-10 sq foot of road, a car takes up 100+ square feet of road. Road space is limited…do the math. Cyclists are not the ones slowing you down.

“But one time this guy on a bike got right in front of me and I had to go around, slowing me down!!!!”

You know one time I found a ten dollar bill on the ground, you know what happened the other 99.99% of the time, I didn’t. Cyclists are not the ones slowing you down.

Commute By Bike

My search continues for political leaders who commute to work.

It can’t help when British Members of Parliament are ridiculed–on page one of the tabloid Metro–when they do bike commute. That’s what happened to Hugh Bayley, the MP for York. Baily reportedly is the “only MP out of 650 to claim the 20p-a-mile [$0.28 per mile] allowance which covers bicycle maintenance and the extra cost of eating more because energy is burned up during exercise.”

Bike Biz notes, “There’s no complaint about MP’s who claim for car expenses while on Parliamentary business.”

Commute By Bike

Still in the UK, Spencer Ivy has launched a slick campaign to get people hooked on e-bikes. (This makes Pete Prebus’ insidious campaign to addict me to e-bikes look downright innocent.)

Again, via [BikeBiz].

Commute By Bike

Bike Paths are Unconstitutional. You heard it here first–unless, er, you read it first on Bike Commuters, or DC Streetsblog.

Duncan Hunter
Duncan Hunter | Photo: Duncan Hunter's Congressional website

Streetsblog (SB) interviewed Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), who is a new member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

SB: I was just in an EPW Committee hearing and there was some talk about the fact that some small amount of money in the reauthorization historically gets used for things like bike trails. Some people think that’s waste; some people think biking is a mode of transportation. What do you think?

Hunter: I don’t think biking should fall under the federal purview of what the Transportation Committee is there for. If a state wants to do it, or local municipality, they can do whatever they want to. But no, because then you have us mandating bike paths, which you don’t want either.

SB: But you’re OK with mandating highways?

Hunter: Absolutely, yeah. Because that’s in the constitution. I don’t see riding a bike the same as driving a car or flying an airplane.

SB: How is it different?

Hunter: I think it’s more of a recreational thing. That’s my opinion.

On Bike Commuters, the first person to comment was Bob p., who quipped, “I must have an old version of the Constitution, because my copy doesn’t even mention highways.”

Sign up for our Adventure-Packed Newsletter

Get our latest touring, commuting and family cycling posts and sales delivered to your inbox!
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

8 thoughts on “'My copy of the Constitution doesn’t even mention highways' (Roundup)”

  1. John says:

    Don’t take any notice of the metro headline, It’s sister paper is the Daily Mail over here in the UK. It printed this story a few days ago and the cycling blogs were anticipating it being frontline news on the metro very soon.
    The Daily Mail is scorned by so many people for coming up with stories like these that infuriate people so often.
    The paper appeals to a certain element of readers and that’s about all that can be said.

    1. Ted Johnson says:

      The paper appeals to a certain element of readers and that’s about all that can be said.

      I searched for a nice way to say that. On this side of the pond, “tabloid” pretty much sums it up.

  2. Kevin Love says:

    I wonder which part of Duncan Hunter’s constitution mentions airplanes?

  3. Chris says:

    Andy Kerr (D) is a reported bike commuter. He is a state representative in Colorado. He’s a good guy and he is an avid cyclist and cycling supporter.

  4. sirwnstn says:

    “Absolutely, yeah. Because that’s in the constitution.”

    *double face palm*

    (I’m a conservative cyclist too… *sigh*)

  5. Bob P. says:

    I take it back… The Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8.7 provides authority to the federal government to provide “post roads”. So the key to bike lanes is to get our Postal Service on bikes, and we’d then get the federal authority to build bike paths.

    1. Ted Johnson says:

      I think the authors of the Constitution, with their foresight and wisdom, envisioned bike bloggers who would post about their commutes, and thus the framers provided specifically for cycling infrastructure.

  6. John Hogan says:

    The Constitution does not mention california either.

Leave a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


20% off ALL Ortlieb Bag Closeouts! Shop Closeouts

Scroll to Top