Can we please get rid of those durn Bike-riding Liberals?

[Louis]

A letter to the editor in the local junk-paper that few are willing to buy, so they mail it to you. (Based on over ten years worth of glancing at this thing, the political slant of this individual is representative of the editorial page and the typical letter to the editor, and most likely most of the folks who live around here.)

To give you a bit more context, the road that leaves my subdivision T's into Wildhorse Creek Rd, and at this end (I live near the west end that has less traffic than the east end) it's very popular with cyclists. The east end is busier, but has a big shoulder and is perfectly rideable. This end has no shoulder.

Edit: Another thing, the "trails" he mentions are pretty useless for real riding. The Katy is very, very long, but gravel, and on the other side of the MO river. All are as flat as a pancake.

http://westnewsmagazine.com/2015/07/27/60022/bike-riding-liberals



Bike-riding liberals

To the Editor:

Pedal bike riders must have a sense of entitlement.

They must feel that the overwhelming mass of people who drive cars should cater to their bike riding, which supersedes normal courtesy and public safety caution.

As someone who rides often, I understand the love of bike riding. I ride for fitness and fun.

We are very blessed in West County and St. Charles County to have excellent, paved, well-maintained bike trails.

The trail around Creve Coeur Lake, connecting with the Katy Trail is awesome.The Chesterfield Levee Trail behind the Hardees IcePlex in Chesterfield Valley is very good and once the new bridge is completed, will be phenomenal.

Why don稚 bike riders use these instead of the roads?

One thing is absolutely certain: Bike riding should be prohibited by law on Marine Avenue, Creve Coeur Mill Road and Wild Horse Creek Road. There are two reasons why.

One, it is flat-out dangerous for people driving cars having to deal with these elitist riders who are in the road. Repeating, they are in the roadway. When the sun is out, there are times you will not see these people until you are almost right on them and the only thing the car driver is doing is driving his or her car on a road that was designed for exactly that purpose.

Two, bike riders on these roads interfere with commerce. Bike riders interfere with the public trying to get from one place to another, thus impacting their ability to transact business. And again, why? All because these elitists think they are entitled to interfere with the normal mode of transportation.

Marine Avenue, Creve Coeur Mill Road and Wild Horse Creek Road are not country roads with the occasional car passing by. They are heavily traveled. Drivers should not have to worry about bike riders getting in their way.

I have actually been riding on Creve Coeur Trail adjacent to Creve Coeur Mill Road and I see bike riders out on the road. Why, when the very safe trail is right there? Why do they not just use the trail? Is it simply because they feel they are too cool, or more accurately, entitled to ride on the road?

I was coming up the big hill on Marine Avenue on a recent Sunday morning, slowly moving behind about 10 cars and what was the hold-up? Yep, some entitled biker was riding up the hill.

The other day I saw a guy riding on Olive. Mind you, there is a shoulder, but where was he? You guessed it, in the traffic lane.

Please understand, I think these bike riders should be allowed to ride wherever they wish between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m., but the better solution to this specific attack on public safety would be to prohibit bike riding on the streets I have named and any others where the impact on the majority of people is significant, like Clayton Road, for example.

With the wonderful bike trails available in St. Louis and St.Charles counties, there is simply no rational reason to allow this entitlement to appease the few at the expense of the majority.

Elected officials from Chesterfield, Wildwood, Maryland Heights, St. Louis County and the State of Missouri need to show some accountability and exhibit some rational thought. They need to act accordingly and take action. The last thing we need them to do is nothing.

My advice? Do not go milquetoast into the night. Do your job.

Rob Schultz

[rustychisel]

Quoting Mr Schultz: "dangerous for people driving cars having to deal with these elitist riders".

Mr Schultz; I call BS. You are no cyclist. You are just one of the whining many who claim 'I'm a bike rider too' when called to account for your own poor judgement. If I had a dollar for every time some doofus has tried that line on me...

[cat6]

Insane. It's hard to have a healthy hobby/lifestyle nowadays. If you're killed on one of those roads by a drunk/distracted driver some idiot will reference this stupid submission and will say "We knew this would happen".

[buldogge]

Not that I care...but...whatever you do, definitely don't build any bike lanes in St. Louis County. Also, I noticed he didn't mention The City...

a) Because it "doesn't matter".

b) Because he would be worthlessly fighting the rising tide of bike infrastructure being added every month.

That would be some really nice riding out there...if you weren't surrounded by d'bags!

:D

-Mark in St. Louis

A letter to the editor in the local junk-paper that few are willing to buy, so they mail it to you. (Based on over ten years worth of glancing at this thing, the political slant of this individual is representative of the editorial page and the typical letter to the editor, and most likely most of the folks who live around here.)

To give you a bit more context, the road that leaves my subdivision T's into Wildhorse Creek Rd, and at this end (I live near the west end that has less traffic than the east end) it's very popular with cyclists. The east end is busier, but has a big shoulder and is perfectly rideable. This end has no shoulder.

Edit: Another thing, the "trails" he mentions are pretty useless for real riding. The Katy is very, very long, but gravel, and on the other side of the MO river. All are as flat as a pancake.

http://westnewsmagazine.com/2015/07/27/60022/bike-riding-liberals

[Louis]

I just love the fact that for him, someone doing something he disagrees with must therefore be a liberal. Because, of course never has a conservative person ever ridden a bike on the road. They wouldn't ever dream of it.

Impeccable logic.

Edit: I should point out that the "Bike Riding Liberals" heading that appears over the letter in the print edition and on the web was likely chosen by the "newspaper" not the letter writer, so my comment above would be better directed at them.

[velotrack]

Group ride, anyone?
(that is, between the hours of midnight and 5am.)

[JAllen]

I'm sure he rides his walmart special hybrid with an added gel pad to his decked saddle (or as he would call "seat") and knees splayed out to the sides like some sort of clown act. He's an authority of cycling!

Say now Mr. Schultz, should those pesky liberal cyclists wear a bicycle patch on their clothes while they are so kindly allowed to ride between the hours of midnight and 0500? Just so we can tell them apart from the righteous motorists...

[El Chaba]

There really is no need to drag politics into the equation, and the assumption that all cyclists are liberals is absurd. I am a staunch conservative and have been riding since the Carter Administration when the President's failed policies made gas too expensive to afford to drive....

[JonB]

Isn't he being an elitist by saying cyclists should be excluded from using the roads?

[tiretrax]

I guess he doesn't realize the bike industry, of which he is a self-described patron, is part of the stream of commerce, too.

[icepick_trotsky]

I, for one, refuse to go milquetoast into the night!

[regularguy412]

I guess he doesn't realize the bike industry, of which he is a self-described patron, is part of the stream of commerce, too.

Right. It's terrible, tho, when the facts get in the way of a good argument.;)

Mike in AR:beer:

[rugbysecondrow]

In fairness, he might not have determined the headline for this letter, so I wouldn't give the "Liberal" tag too much credence.

I agree with some of his points, but not others. He doesn't seem to have an extreme point of view, just different. I actually think there are roads which cyclists would do well not to ride on. We restrict vehicles from other roads, we disallow left turn on some roads during busy times specifically to allow traffic to flow better.

I enjoy riding, but I am not one of those riders who feels it is all or nothing. I think cyclists have a way of sometime jamming their wants down peoples throat, then complain when people choke and gargle.

No doubt this guy has encountered elitist cyclists, see the other recent thread regarding cyclists and their attitudes. http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=171768&page=4

This guy seems like an unpleasant fellow, but in the grand scheme of things, I am fine with disagreement, he doesn't advocate anything horrible or violent.

I guess, it is a typical letter to the editor, no big deal


A letter to the editor in the local junk-paper that few are willing to buy, so they mail it to you. (Based on over ten years worth of glancing at this thing, the political slant of this individual is representative of the editorial page and the typical letter to the editor, and most likely most of the folks who live around here.)

To give you a bit more context, the road that leaves my subdivision T's into Wildhorse Creek Rd, and at this end (I live near the west end that has less traffic than the east end) it's very popular with cyclists. The east end is busier, but has a big shoulder and is perfectly rideable. This end has no shoulder.

Edit: Another thing, the "trails" he mentions are pretty useless for real riding. The Katy is very, very long, but gravel, and on the other side of the MO river. All are as flat as a pancake.

http://westnewsmagazine.com/2015/07/27/60022/bike-riding-liberals

[FlashUNC]

Fair enough, by his logic the faster vehicle should always have priority for the infrastructure in place.

So when do we ban pedestrians from MUTs?

[fuzzalow]

There really is no need to drag politics into the equation, and the assumption that all cyclists are liberals is absurd. I am a staunch conservative and have been riding since the Carter Administration when the President's failed policies made gas too expensive to afford to drive....

That reads as a funny paragraph and I'd bet you didn't even intend it that way! But the political drole just blurts out anyway! Can't keep that kinda gripe bottled up inside, no.

[El Chaba]

That reads as a funny paragraph and I'd bet you didn't even intend it that way! But the political drole just blurts out anyway! Can't keep that kinda gripe bottled up inside, no.


To paraphrase Calvin Coolidge, you would lose that bet.....

[fuzzalow]

To paraphrase Calvin Coolidge, you would lose that bet.....

Then a tip of the hat to you sir on that construction. Well done.

All the way back to the Carter years, huh? Heck, I admire your endurance too.

[BlueFly]

LOL! THAT gets me fired up quicker than pulling the short hairs!
Stop whining, get yourself a bike and commute to work you "there's no such thing as global warming, Donald Trump lovin bee-atch! ( I digress. Apologies to those offended.)

Once I was stopped at a traffic light (2 lanes each direction) and an older (> 70yrs) lady pulled up next to me, to make a right on red, and told me "You in my way, You in my way!" I reminded her that if I was in her way, why was she talking to me? I also reminded her that in her country, bicycles are a common mode of transportation. With that the light turned green and I continued on with my ride. I'm just sayin..... :D

[oldpotatoe]

There really is no need to drag politics into the equation, and the assumption that all cyclists are liberals is absurd. I am a staunch conservative and have been riding since the Carter Administration when the President's failed policies made gas too expensive to afford to drive....

Actually-"But it gives the reader the impression that Jimmy Carter was the president who introduced price controls. Shultz knows better. It was his boss, Richard Nixon, who introduced price controls on everything and kept them on gasoline. Shultz, as Secretary of the Treasury at the time, was intimately involved with the details. It's true that Carter kept the controls and didn't try to get rid of them until early 1980, when he made a compromise with Congress--giving them their "windfall profits tax" on oil, which was really a graduated excise tax on oil, in return for phasing out the controls. But Nixon is the one who imposed them. So there were "Richard Nixon's gas lines" just as there were "Jimmy Carter's gas lines."

FRom-http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/07/a_short_history.htm

[shovelhd]

I'm not going into the politics. I think he has a valid point in a general sense. Should cyclists be banned from certain local roads like they are banned from interstate highways for the most part? At what traffic volume and shoulder width is it just stupid to be riding on certain roads? Can we have a rational conversation about that or will it devolve into rights, taxes, and precedent?

[tuxbailey]

So.....is Mr. Schultz your neighbor?

[shovelhd]

So.....is Mr. Schultz your neighbor?

Mine, or the OP?

[numbskull]

I'm not going into the politics. I think he has a valid point in a general sense. Should cyclists be banned from certain local roads like they are banned from interstate highways for the most part? At what traffic volume and shoulder width is it just stupid to be riding on certain roads? Can we have a rational conversation about that or will it devolve into rights, taxes, and precedent?

Yup. If the speed limit is above say, 30mph, and there is no shoulder AND alternate routes are available then blocking traffic with your bike has an element of selfishness to it that will piss plenty of people off.

Trouble is that some people will argue that if the road is narrow, winding, and has no shoulder cyclists are a nuisance period, even if speed limits are low.

[shovelhd]

So I guess the status quo is just fine then.

[bicycletricycle]

Yup. If the speed limit is above say, 30mph, and there is no shoulder AND alternate routes are available then blocking traffic with your bike has an element of selfishness to it that will piss plenty of people off.

Trouble is that some people will argue that if the road is narrow, winding, and has no shoulder cyclists are a nuisance period, even if speed limits are low.


I am curious as to what you mean by "blocking traffic"

Even a road with no shoulder is not "blocked" by a cyclist riding on the side of the road, although I guess it is partially obstructed, especially for huge cars that can't squeeze by as easily. Is that what you mean?

To me blocking the road would mean riding right in the middle of the lane and refusing to move over.

That would be selfish

[bart998]

Like most people he doesn't know the difference between a person on a bike and a "cyclist." But I'm trying to figure out why he thinks all cyclists are liberals. I know quite a few who are conservative, like me. Guess we have been stereo-typed. I think most riders choose their routes with a mind to safety... I know I do, especially since I live in the congested L.A. area. Like OP said though, a bike doesn't usually block even a narrow road, but you may have to wait a minute to pass. The letter writer is probably a cantankerous old dude with no patience and an "entitlement" mindset of his own.

[makoti]

Yup. If the speed limit is above say, 30mph, and there is no shoulder AND alternate routes are available then blocking traffic with your bike has an element of selfishness to it that will piss plenty of people off.


So... I can't ride anywhere around me except for neighborhood streets, then?

[bcroslin]

Like most people he doesn't know the difference between a person on a bike and a "cyclist." But I'm trying to figure out why he thinks all cyclists are liberals. I know quite a few who are conservative, like me. Guess we have been stereo-typed. I think most riders choose their routes with a mind to safety... I know I do, especially since I live in the congested L.A. area. Like OP said though, a bike doesn't usually block even a narrow road, but you may have to wait a minute to pass. The letter writer is probably a cantankerous old dude with no patience and an "entitlement" mindset of his own.

Funny, because I'm the lone crybaby-commie-liberal in a sea of conservative lycra on my rides. I actually had to reach out to several of my god-fearing-rugged individualist-conservative friends to let them know they wouldn't be rounded up after Obama's second win. I'm regularly referred to as an Obama lover by the jerks I ride with. :rolleyes:

[laupsi]

I'm not going into the politics. I think he has a valid point in a general sense. Should cyclists be banned from certain local roads like they are banned from interstate highways for the most part? At what traffic volume and shoulder width is it just stupid to be riding on certain roads? Can we have a rational conversation about that or will it devolve into rights, taxes, and precedent?

Nay I say. This takes us down a road darker than the one ridden between 12-5 am. Where to draw the line? The rest of the world accepts bicycling as a proper mode of transportation, why doesn't the rural US of A? Let's not forget, many a cyclist are also responsible drivers, contribute to society and pay their taxes.

[Louis]

It's more complicated than this, but here's one way of looking at it: At some level his having to share the road with anyone else bothers him. But he can't criticize car drivers, because he is one. So he criticizes roadies because he isn't one and they're an easy minority target.

[JAllen]

Funny, because I'm the lone crybaby-commie-liberal in a sea of conservative lycra on my rides. I actually had to reach out to several of my god-fearing-rugged individualist-conservative friends to let them know they wouldn't be rounded up after Obama's second win. I'm regularly referred to as an Obama lover by the jerks I ride with. :rolleyes:

Sounds like you guys all love each other enough to lay down your arms and ride together!

Dare I say bikes equal peace? :)

[JeffS]

I think something's wrong with your community.

The briefest mention of a bicycle on a public news site should result in countless rabid rants by cycle-hating motorists.

Even with such a click-bait title, in a heavily conservative Opinion section it receives no love.

[JeffS]

Yup. If the speed limit is above say, 30mph, and there is no shoulder AND alternate routes are available then blocking traffic with your bike has an element of selfishness to it that will piss plenty of people off.

Trouble is that some people will argue that if the road is narrow, winding, and has no shoulder cyclists are a nuisance period, even if speed limits are low.

What's the significance of the shoulder in your mind?

The shoulder isn't the road. It's the equivalent of riding on the grass beside the roadway.

--
If the criteria is not pissing off a motorist, then you could never ride a bike anywhere. It's simply not possible.
--

I'm not going into the politics. I think he has a valid point in a general sense. Should cyclists be banned from certain local roads like they are banned from interstate highways for the most part? At what traffic volume and shoulder width is it just stupid to be riding on certain roads? Can we have a rational conversation about that or will it devolve into rights, taxes, and precedent?

Starting the conversation by calling some cyclists stupid wouldn't be a good start to the proposed rationality.

Here's a question. What if the cyclists house is located on the "stupid" road? Or the place they need to get to is on one of these roads?

Many of these roads were public infrastructure before the automobile even existed. I'm loathe to tell anyone they cannot utilize them with their legal vehicle.

[bcroslin]

Sounds like you guys all love each other enough to lay down your arms and ride together!

Dare I say bikes equal peace? :)

That's the beauty of cycling - it brings very different people together to participate in an activity that we all love. I've met a very good friend who I now travel with routinely to do mtb races and he and I are from very different background and political persuasions.

[shovelhd]

Nay I say. This takes us down a road darker than the one ridden between 12-5 am. Where to draw the line? The rest of the world accepts bicycling as a proper mode of transportation, why doesn't the rural US of A? Let's not forget, many a cyclist are also responsible drivers, contribute to society and pay their taxes.

Rights, axes, and precedent. You managed to hit all three. Congratulations.

[shovelhd]

Starting the conversation by calling some cyclists stupid wouldn't be a good start to the proposed rationality.

Here's a question. What if the cyclists house is located on the "stupid" road? Or the place they need to get to is on one of these roads?

Many of these roads were public infrastructure before the automobile even existed. I'm loathe to tell anyone they cannot utilize them with their legal vehicle.

OK, how about "ill-advised"?

My street empties onto a state road, 50mph speed limit, narrow shoulders, popular cycling route. I'd be at risk of not being able to ride from my house. I still think it's a reasonable discussion.

[laupsi]

Rights, axes, and precedent. You managed to hit all three. Congratulations.

great, guess there's nothing to discuss.

[martl]

Let me translate:

"Dear Editor!

I have a) a small penis and b) an even smaller brain. a) forces me to drive a very big car with a lot of oomph wich -see b)- i am to stupid to drive without hitting other people on the roads. Not saying i'm not a good driver, i manage to stay obn the road on most occasions and boy, you should see me accelerate! but what's too much is too much.
So i ask all other people to stop using the roads. Otherwise i might hurt them. There, they've been warned. If i do, it will be entirely their fault!

yours sincerely,

XXX"

[Louis]

Update

In addition to the 13 online responses to the original letter (click on link in first post to see those; I think most if not all were pro-cycling) we now have this pro-bike letter published in this week's paper:

http://westnewsmagazine.com/2015/08/03/60198/in-response-to-bike-riding-liberals



To the Editor:

In response to Rob Schulz (Bike Riding Liberals, West Newsmagazine, July 22), are you not aware that many people ride their bike not just for recreation? Some people actually use their bikes to commute to work or to run errands. How would they be able to do that if they only used recreational bike trails?

If St. Louis County was more bike-friendly, I would be running errands with my bike every chance I got. But like most suburbs, roads have been designed and planned for automobiles with bike riders given barely a thought. In some places it's even hard to find a sidewalk. This is exactly why there is an overwhelming mass of people who drive cars?

Go to bike-friendly cities like Chicago or Portland (both places where I used to live and ride my bike easily) and you will see nearly as many bikes as cars. Oh, but I forgot, those are probably considered liberal cities.

I've seen bikers harassed and nearly hit by angry car drivers who don't want to share the road one too many times. But to those bike riders that choose to brave those obstacles, hats off to them. They are practicing their freedom that this newsmagazine holds dear.

St. Louis County has put in a few bike lanes here and there, and this was obviously a result of an increased amount of bike riding on the roads. So hopefully more bike lanes will be created, although Mr. Schultz, and others who are angered because they don't want to share the road, will oppose these as well.

Do we really want more traffic and more air pollution? Thank you to all of the commuting and errand-running bike riders out there who are helping to make the world a better place. If we could get some more bike lines out there, I'll be joining the rest of you bike-riding liberals.

Dan Wengler

[victoryfactory]

The ability of bikes and cars to coexist on the same road breaks down when
certain common conditions combine to make it uncomfortable.
I try to stay away from those roads. The kind of anger and intolerance I've
seen on both sides of this is depressing.
All we can hope for is a little education and tolerance.

If I was Emperor, I'd decree that no road can be constructed or rebuilt
without a bike lane.

Cars, bikes and pedestrians JUST DONT MIX in the same space.
Few public roads are big enough or empty enough to allow multi
use without issues.
In Nassau County, NY there are large areas of shopping malls and big
box retailers that were built without even sidewalks let alone bike lanes.
We stay away from those areas.
It will take a lot to turn this around.
VF