How do you expect me to react to being called 'arrogant' merely because I submitted my reasons for not agreeing with the bicycle 'right to the road' article? It wasn't nearly as uncalled for as your response in your second post.

I wasn't ignoring your answers to my questions, I just didn't realize the distinction between 'vehicle' and 'motor vehicle' was what dictated the need for a license or not. I still think that's pretty silly, because anyone who expects to share the road should be tested so as to assure they are a responsible 'driver' who is aware of the rules of the road, not to mention paying the licensing fees that go towards supporting maintenance of said roads. And once again, no mention of speed limit considerations- if the speed limit somewhere is 40, and most bikers can't keep up with that, do you expect cars to just pile up behind the biker and wait for them to peddle along? If you're going to be on the road, you need to realize that people are going to pass because we don't all have the luxury of allotting 2 hours to get anywhere.

As well, instead of just complaining about my fossil fuel hamster death machine (which, quite obviously was a joke that you need to get over...but even if it were true, don't you know that hamsters love to run? It alleviates stress.) perhaps you could get involved in coming up with a practical alternative for those of us who have jobs that require a lot of travel and can't afford electric vehicles?

And as a general note, I would highly recommend you dismounting your self-righteous high horse (or should I say high bicycle?) because your attitude is unlikely to win over anyone who disagrees with you.