Actually, if they would install more trails going across between rivers, similar to our freeway network, more people would get out of their cars and ride the trails, which would mean that freeway-widening projects could be delayed. IOW, cyclists reduce the costs of infrastructure. We don't increase it. Realistically, I think all this bill will do is reduce the number of people getting some much-needed exercise. This bill is not good for Oregon or for other states that might follow.
Rep. Krieger seems to have a chip on his shoulder from cyclists not stopping at stop signs and lights. Please, everyone, don't give people more fuel to hate us. Obey the laws. But I also have to say Krieger is wrong about the intended us of the roads. It was the League of American Bicyclists that originally pushed for paved roads a hundred years ago; and now that motorists have the paved roads, they want us off the roads (or at least damaging them in a car instead of riding a bike). It makes no sense.
Ever hear the saying; "The power to tax is the power to destroy."? Maybe Rep. Krieger is mostly interested in getting bikes off the roads, not in increasing revenue.
Yes, the LAW (as it was then known) was instrumental in getting the roads paved and those roads were then taken over almost exclusively for motor vehicles whose operators resent bicycles.
However, bicyclists were also the major force behind the first Rail-Trail conversions and on most of the resulting trails, the walkers, skaters, runners, etc., etc. now view bicyclist as dangerous and unwelcome intruders on "their" trails.