At an enormous cost.
I don't get it.
I understand it is a healthy and pollution free pursuit (and yep, I have a bicycle) but whichever way you look at it, cyclists have been getting a pretty good deal, in terms of roadways and pathways, of late.
Half the Wellington waterfront is closed off for them.
And they don't make up the bulk of road users so how come the Auckland pedal pushers get such a financial edge?
Wanna cycle around Devonport and the North Shore?
Well, put the bike on the tow bar fitting, or in the boot, drive over the already established bridge, park up and go for a ride.
Then an hour or two later stick it back on and go home.
Ditto for walking.
Drive there and park up and get out and go for a good walk…like it's always been.
Meanwhile, health costs soar and many main road stretches are pretty much only basically maintained.
The proposed new link between Hawke's Bay and into Palmy appears to be still very much on the shelf.
In Europe or Japan they would have built the thing within a year of losing the old stretch.
Yet highly paid politicians appear to give the impression that things are all on the right track.
To where is anyone's guess.
The pedallers of political positivism can always use a bike.
No way, they've got taxpayer funded cars.
And don't mention the America's Cup allocation…don't get me started on that one.
For the sake of our wellbeing and future life put that several hundred million into health and housing.
Pay the medical staff a proper wage for the valuable work they do, and invest in top treatments and medications and medicines.
Look after all of us, not just those in Auckland with bicycle clips attached.
Money, when used practically, is a fine thing.
When it is strewn about like this it is not.
And let's not talk about the price of trousers.
Well of course we won't because no one ever does, except for grumbling greying old hacks seeking a venue to bare an idea…or their underpants.
Where is this missive going?
I've no idea…I sold my compass of common sense to some bloke in America who wants to be president again.
So anyway…you see the signs on the bar doors.
"No patches and no hoodies to be worn inside".
But you'll never see "Trousers must be worn inside."
So why can't a chap turn up trouserless and step within for a quiet pint?
I could put that to my lawyer and we could argue the case…except I can't because he's not up for parole until November.
Consequently, in the long run, the judge, I am sure, will quietly suggest I leave the courtroom and go and put my trousers on.
"Your underwear is far from up to scratch," he will advise.
"But I got three pairs of these for $11.99," I will whine.
"You were swindled," he will respond, insisting that in future the least I could do is wear a gown, or similar item of extensive coverage.
"I wear a gown," he will chide me with a proud smirk.
"Yeah, nice nightie," I will respond before being informed that I will now have a comfortable bed for the night, along with dinner and breakfast.
Forget the bacon and eggs.
It will be a pair of trousers on a tray.
