Editorial:Opinions wanted

[vaxn8r]

This editorial was written in the paper today regarding Jane Higdon's death. Worth responding to? Fanning flames? Won't do any good anyway? Responses welcome.

PS. This is exactly the type of driver who feels it's his right and responsiblitiy to make an example for a cyclist by teaching him or her a life lesson with his 8 ton truck!

Bicycles don't pay for roads

As a person who has seen first-hand while riding as a passenger in a log truck out on country roads, it is very disconcerting when the truck rounds a corner and right there is a group of bicyclists, not in a line but all bunched up like it is a social gathering.

Do they understand 200 pounds versus 80,000 pounds and what it takes with the laws of physics to slow down or dodge a road hazard and still be alive yourself?

Then I read about how the drivers are to blame for their vehicles that use the road that they have paid for. Until all these bicyclists can buck up and get licensed and insured and pay a registration fee so that they may help pay for the use of roads now paid for by drivers, I say quit whining and understand that you choose to endanger yourself because no one ordered you to ride out there.

No one person owns the roads, but the roads are designed for vehicular traffic. Like was stated earlier in this letter, bicyclists need to take responsibility for their actions and step up to the plate and pay for a share of the road instead of whining about it and hoping everyone else will pay for their recreation.

As I see it now, everyone is paying a stiff price for a few to enjoy what others pay for - be it a truck driver who has to live with what happened or the cyclist who is not living because of what happened.

PAT ANDERSON

Harrisburg

[atmo]

"Until all these bicyclists can buck up and get licensed and insured and pay a registration fee so that they may help pay for the use of roads now paid for by drivers, I say quit whining and understand that you choose to endanger yourself because no one ordered you to ride out there."



this is pathetic atmo.

[Fixed]

bro I know junkies who can justify eveything they do too.
cheers

[EdK]

simpleton idiot....... Unfortunately probably the opinion shared by most non-cycling highway users.

[goonster]

Neither registration fees nor fuel taxes pay for roads.

But then, everybody here knew that already . . .

It's pathetic when drivers somehow assume that the cyclists they see don't own cars or don't drive. The riders in my local club own nicer cars than any other demographic I know.

[Kirk Pacenti]

I never understood this "pay for the road" argument. Nearly every cyclist I know also owns a car. In fact, most drive to their ride, so they actually do pay to use the road with their vehicle taxes (or whatever taxes pay for roads). Why should they have less of a right to use the road on their bikes? :confused: :confused: :confused:

[manet]

i ain't got no kids and i pay school taxes _ effin' kids

[CNY rider]

As angry as that article makes me, I'd agree it's likely pointless to argue with that individual. There's not a lot of brain activity going on there. You know what they say about wrestling with a pig........

[Erik.Lazdins]

In the Tulsa World a few weeks ago there was a letter complaining about cyclists written with the same "Roads are for cars that pay taxes" ignorance.

The article angered me, but I was pleased to see 2 very well written rebuttals by local cycling advocates, citing the law that allows bicycles to occupy the same roads.

I would encourage a well-written reply to be submitted.

[bcm119]

Thats a tough one... its hard to resist writing a strongly worded response atmo. Whether it would do any good is the question...probably not. I don't even understand what he means by the registration fee... for bicycles? Or does he assume cyclists don't own cars? Who pays for the roads has nothing to do with this anyway... I'd write a response, and mention that the cyclists were riding single file as close to the edge as possible.

[zeroking17]

The snarling tone of that letter sickens me. As though "ownership" were the entire issue, trumping any moral value that might attach to human behavior.

The belief that road cyclists either pay for it, or "pay for it," is widespread. We've all experienced this first-hand.


...

[catulle]

Plato: Democracy sucks.

[davep]

The guy is an idiot, and based on his level of thinking probably doesn't pay a whole lot of the taxes we all pay for roads. I agree that it would be pointless to argue with him, but a well reasoned letter in response would give the thinking portion of the readership the bicylist's perspective. If you don't do it, who will?

[davids]

I don't think it's pointless to respond...

It's worth it to point out that: (1) Roads are paid for from a variety of revenue sources, (2) that cyclists are usually also motorists and, as such, are paying the same kinds of fees/taxes as non-cyclists, and (3) bicycles are legally entitled (and even obligated) to use the very same roads as motorized vehicles. And that the legal right would exisit irregardless of whether cyclist paid an effen dime.

I'd also point out that this statement - "bicyclists need to take responsibility for their actions and step up to the plate and pay for a share of the road instead of whining about it and hoping everyone else will pay for their recreation." - is logically tortured.

As far as the first part - Yes, cyclists should take responsibility for their actions. That's a nearly meaningless assertion.

As far as the rest of the statement - As I've pointed out, cyclists, as taxpayers, do pay for the roads. And *** is this about "whining" cyclists? It's not at all clear to me what he claims we're whining about. It's probably worth asking (a rhetorical question, atmo.) Cuz I think he's got no answer to that.

...what an effen ef...

[atmo]

"Until all these bicyclists can buck up and get licensed and insured and pay a registration fee so that they may help pay for the use of roads now paid for by drivers, I say quit whining and understand that you choose to endanger yourself because no one ordered you to ride out there."



this is pathetic atmo.

this is pathetic atmo.
sorry - i couldn't help myself.

[manet]

Plato: Democracy sucks.

was'nt she a ballerina?

[bcm119]

FYI, Harrisburg sucks too.

[catulle]

this is pathetic atmo.
sorry - i couldn't help myself.

Hell, don't feel bad.

THIS IS PATHETIC, ATMO...!!

[Ginger]

was'nt she a ballerina?
Yeah, but she's not as light on her toes as she used to be.


Someone will respond to this editorial. Actually if writing a well reasoned response with appropriate references to state and local laws will help you work through it. Write the sucker.
Put it in a drawer for a day.
Pull it out. Read it. If you don't come across as as much of an idiot as the original editorial writer. Mail it.

[Grant McLean]

Government ofOntario bans bicycles from provincial parks



June 14, 2006 - Toronto, Ontario–Bill 11 - Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act has been amended in such a way that it will effectively ban bicycles from Ontario provincial parks until such time as the Minister of Natural Resources passes regulations permitting existing cycling activities to continue. The amendment changes the wordnon-motorized in the existing legislation that allows park visitors to, “…travel primarily by non-motorized means…, to the word non-mechanized. Bicycles though un-motorized and muscle-powered are nonetheless mechanical. The Bill is now slated for 3rd reading.



Janet O’Connell, Executive Director of BTAC notes that, “…the 11th hour amendment to Bill 11 ejects a most enthusiastic, supportive and active segment ofOntario provincial park users. The effect will be to disenfranchise a highly motivated demographic group of advocates that have been actively engaged in protecting green spaces throughoutNorth America.” Ms. O’Connell adds that, “Access toOntario provincial parks and conservation areas for cycling builds a sense of pride and ownership in those parks. We want Ontarians to interact with the natural environment because through their interaction they gain a sense of the inherent value of the natural environment and the need for its conservation and preservation. Cycling is a healthy, environmentally friendly and sustainable way for that interaction to occur.”



Scientific evidence from numerous jurisdictions that have undertaken systematic assessments of various land-use activities shows that mountain bikes ridden on designated trails have no more ecological impact than hikers. Paul Nielsen, President of BTAC remarks that, “Given what we know about the impact of bicycles of designated trails the public policy rationale for this amendment is perplexing”, adding that, “The objective should be to get more Ontarians to enjoy parks and conservation areas and thus become their proponents and defenders, not less.”



BTAC’s position is that the language in the Bill should revert to the use of term “non-motorized”. However, should the legislation be passed as currently drafted BTAC will be advocating that the regulations allowing existing cycling activities in provincial parks and conservation areas be enacted upon implementation of theProvincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act.

[Erik.Lazdins]

Thats a tough one... its hard to resist writing a strongly worded response atmo. Whether it would do any good is the question...probably not. I don't even understand what he means by the registration fee... for bicycles? Or does he assume cyclists don't own cars? Who pays for the roads has nothing to do with this anyway... I'd write a response, and mention that the cyclists were riding single file as close to the edge as possible.

I would check the local laws. In Oklahoma the law allows cyclists to ride 2 X 2 occupying the lane of traffic. Riding as close to the edge as possible raises the buzz-contact risk. If the lane is not wide enough for a car or truck to pass safely in the lane, the cyclist or cyclists have the right (in many states) to occupy the lane.

Question:
If a group of cyclists are riding 2 X 2 on a winding road and are being approached from the rear by a logging truck, are the cyclists not traffic themselves?

If the logging truck driver approaches a line cars driving slowly or motorcycles he must slow down to avoid hitting the slower moving traffic. A group of cyclists is no different.

[catulle]

was'nt she a ballerina?

Actually, she was Diogenes' girl friend, atmo. But ask Fixed, he ought to know, iirc.

[manet]

Actually, she was Diogenes' girl friend, atmo. But ask Fixed, he ought to know, iirc.

he mumbled something _ he was flossing.

[Ginger]

So they're banning wheelchairs from provincial parks? I guess you guys don't have to be ADA compliant.





Government ofOntario bans bicycles from provincial parks



June 14, 2006 - Toronto, Ontario–Bill 11 - Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act has been amended in such a way that it will effectively ban bicycles from Ontario provincial parks until such time as the Minister of Natural Resources passes regulations permitting existing cycling activities to continue. The amendment changes the wordnon-motorized in the existing legislation that allows park visitors to, “…travel primarily by non-motorized means…, to the word non-mechanized. Bicycles though un-motorized and muscle-powered are nonetheless mechanical. The Bill is now slated for 3rd reading.



Janet O’Connell, Executive Director of BTAC notes that, “…the 11th hour amendment to Bill 11 ejects a most enthusiastic, supportive and active segment ofOntario provincial park users. The effect will be to disenfranchise a highly motivated demographic group of advocates that have been actively engaged in protecting green spaces throughoutNorth America.” Ms. O’Connell adds that, “Access toOntario provincial parks and conservation areas for cycling builds a sense of pride and ownership in those parks. We want Ontarians to interact with the natural environment because through their interaction they gain a sense of the inherent value of the natural environment and the need for its conservation and preservation. Cycling is a healthy, environmentally friendly and sustainable way for that interaction to occur.”



Scientific evidence from numerous jurisdictions that have undertaken systematic assessments of various land-use activities shows that mountain bikes ridden on designated trails have no more ecological impact than hikers. Paul Nielsen, President of BTAC remarks that, “Given what we know about the impact of bicycles of designated trails the public policy rationale for this amendment is perplexing”, adding that, “The objective should be to get more Ontarians to enjoy parks and conservation areas and thus become their proponents and defenders, not less.”



BTAC’s position is that the language in the Bill should revert to the use of term “non-motorized”. However, should the legislation be passed as currently drafted BTAC will be advocating that the regulations allowing existing cycling activities in provincial parks and conservation areas be enacted upon implementation of theProvincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act.

[jasont]

His ignorant opinion is out there for everyone to read so a rebuttal is definitely necessary (assuming they publish them)

[bcm119]

Question:
If a group of cyclists are riding 2 X 2 on a winding road and are being approached from the rear by a logging truck, are the cyclists not traffic themselves?

If the logging truck driver approaches a line cars driving slowly or motorcycles he must slow down to avoid hitting the slower moving traffic. A group of cyclists is no different.

You're right, that is the law here in OR too. If its unsafe to pass, bicycles must be treated as slow moving vehicles.

Mentioning that to this wing nut may be a little too much for him though- he might go into a frenzy and run over the nearest cyclist. You have to use baby steps with these folks atmo.

[catulle]

he mumbled something _ he was flossing.

Flossing...?

[Climb01742]

while riding in italy i was amazed at how much leeway drivers gave riders. it was heavenly.

[zap]

A few thoughts.

Roads were originally built for.........cyclists. Not really important, but something for motorists to chew on.

Regarding road tax, revenue or whatever. Despite the obvious that most cyclists own cars, many own houses and according to stats I've seen, have higher than average incomes, a good chunk of revenue collected for roads is used for road maintenance.

How much damage do cyclists cause to roads compared to trucks and cars. None.

By far the most important point is that motorists who drive cars and trucks are in control of a weapon that can kill.

You will need to check your state law regarding 2 abreast riding. Legal in many states but of course must single up to let vehicle's pass.

[Ray]

Mentioning that to this wing nut may be a little too much for him though- he might go into a frenzy and run over the nearest cyclist. You have to use baby steps with these folks atmo.
Don't forget, though - you're wouldn't be talking to this guy in particular. You'd be talking to the same mass audience he was talking to, most of whom will be open to rational thought. Don't let this idiot put his stuff out there without making sure that someone - whether its you or someone else - gets a more sane position stated just as publicly.

-Ray

[vaxn8r]

I've heard some good things to put in a response. Keep them coming. I probably will write something to the paper.

[keno]

I strongly encourage you to write a response. The target of the response is not the idiot who wrote the piece you quoted but anyone who might have read it and sided with his view in the absence of any other information. Additionally, folks who read your response and have not read the idiot's piece may become allies, albeit silent ones. I see no downside to a well-thought-out response.

All forms of media, including the internet, are places in which lies and faulty reasoning become, if repeated often enough, the truth to many. If the editorial folks have any integrity, I would hope they would feel compelled to print your response. If you wait, perhaps a cyclist not up to speed might take the editorial space with an insufficient reply.

Ginger, love the wheelchair point on the Canadian parks legislation. I guess roller skates and blades, skate boards, and those sneakers with the rollers would be out, as well. What about those electric vehicles that some paralyzed folks use? Walkers? Nah.

keno

[bcm119]

Don't forget, though - you're wouldn't be talking to this guy in particular. You'd be talking to the same mass audience he was talking to, most of whom will be open to rational thought. Don't let this idiot put his stuff out there without making sure that someone - whether its you or someone else - gets a more sane position stated just as publicly.

-Ray
You're right Ray, my comment was a little tongue in cheek.

As for most people being open to rational thought... thats true, but I'm not sure how many of those people are the ones that need convincing of a cyclists' rights to the road. This area in particular strikes me as very polarized on the topic of cyclists. Most people are overwhelmingly supportive of cyclists and are probably angry about the letter, while a fraction of people are vehemently anti-cyclist and not open to rational thought. You're right that the law is certainly worth mentioning, but these types of people have an instinctive hatred of cyclists, and I doubt reading any state laws will change that.

[Ozz]

This editorial was written in the paper today regarding Jane Higdon's death. Worth responding to? Fanning flames? Won't do any good anyway? Responses welcome.

PS. This is exactly the type of driver who feels it's his right and responsiblitiy to make an example for a cyclist by teaching him or her a life lesson with his 8 ton truck!

Bicycles don't pay for roads

As a person who has seen first-hand while riding as a passenger in a log truck out on country roads, it is very disconcerting when the truck rounds a corner and right there is a group of bicyclists, not in a line but all bunched up like it is a social gathering.

Do they understand 200 pounds versus 80,000 pounds and what it takes with the laws of physics to slow down or dodge a road hazard and still be alive yourself?

Then I read about how the drivers are to blame for their vehicles that use the road that they have paid for. Until all these bicyclists can buck up and get licensed and insured and pay a registration fee so that they may help pay for the use of roads now paid for by drivers, I say quit whining and understand that you choose to endanger yourself because no one ordered you to ride out there.

No one person owns the roads, but the roads are designed for vehicular traffic. Like was stated earlier in this letter, bicyclists need to take responsibility for their actions and step up to the plate and pay for a share of the road instead of whining about it and hoping everyone else will pay for their recreation.

As I see it now, everyone is paying a stiff price for a few to enjoy what others pay for - be it a truck driver who has to live with what happened or the cyclist who is not living because of what happened.

PAT ANDERSON

Harrisburg

Bicyclists do pay for roads...see others comments.

Seeing unexpected objects in the road when driving too fast is always "disconcerting" whether they be cars, bicyclists, wildlife or small children.

Bicyclist can ride "bunched" up if they want to....check local laws to see how this is applicable, but generally, bicyclists can take up as much of the road as they need to to ensure their safety. When it is safe, they should move to the side and let traffic pass.

Do truck drivers understand the physics of what it takes to stop 80,000 lbs safely? I would say most of them do...but some do not.

I have no idea how to respond to next paragraph??
"Then I read about how the drivers are to blame for their vehicles that use the road that they have paid for. Until all these bicyclists can buck up and get licensed and insured and pay a registration fee so that they may help pay for the use of roads now paid for by drivers, I say quit whining and understand that you choose to endanger yourself because no one ordered you to ride out there"
I am not sure what she is trying to say?? (I am assuming "Pat" is a woman, cuz she rides in the passenger seat of a log truck.) I think she believes that even though bikes are allowed on the road, it is OK if cars run over them. Maybe someone smarter than me can figure this one out??

Yes, roads are designed for vehicles, but bikes are allowed on them by law. So, if she understood that cyclist DO pay for the roads, they she would be OK with bikes on the road? Very good then. Case closed.

People have to live with mistakes everyday...some are just more significant than others, and riding a bike legally on a public road is not a mistake.

Drive safely out there.

there are a dozens of other directions you can take with your letter...good luck and please respond to this person.

[dbrk]

... You'd be talking to the same mass audience he was talking to, most of whom will be open to rational thought....snip, etc.-Ray

First, not one thing was surprising about that idiot's comments and as for Ray's surmise, well...

I just flat disagree. I think this idiot from the paper _does_ represent the views of the vast majority of drivers in America regarding the rights and presence of cyclists. Regarding this subject (and of course not only this subject), not only do I believe that the marjority people are invinciably ignorant but also incapable of being truly perusaded rationally to assume a more reasonable position. That said, I don't often find people in cars trying to kill me (we have fairly benign drivers), but they would surely assume the same position if they did kill me.

There, I said it.

dbrk

[1centaur]

If the primary point of a response is to stop inattentive readers from agreeing with the original pathetically stupid letter (OPSL), then it should avoid the strong temptation to make lots of other points, thus:

"OPSL suggested that because cyclists do not pay for the roads, they should not whine if their kind are run over by careless drivers.

Two points:

1) Cyclists do pay for the roads. They own cars and houses and pay income taxes (they average high incomes) and otherwise contribute to road maintenance as much or more than most drivers. They then "wear out" roads less than cars. Good deal for the drivers!

2) Since when does how much you pay for something determine whether it's more or less okay to kill you while using that thing? Kids and poor people don't pay much for roads; shall we shrug if they are run over?

The attitude that cyclists are somehow fair game for fatal accidents is pathological. Those with that attitude should be viewed with contempt by the rest of us.

Sincerely"

[jasont]

If the primary point of a response is to stop inattentive readers from agreeing with the original pathetically stupid letter (OPSL), then it should avoid the strong temptation to make lots of other points, thus:

"OPSL suggested that because cyclists do not pay for the roads, they should not whine if their kind are run over by careless drivers.

Two points:

1) Cyclists do pay for the roads. They own cars and houses and pay income taxes (they average high incomes) and otherwise contribute to road maintenance as much or more than most drivers. They then "wear out" roads less than cars. Good deal for the drivers!

2) Since when does how much you pay for something determine whether it's more or less okay to kill you while using that thing? Kids and poor people don't pay much for roads; shall we shrug if they are run over?

The attitude that cyclists are somehow fair game for fatal accidents is pathological. Those with that attitude should be viewed with contempt by the rest of us.

Sincerely"

Heh, I like this.

[67-59]

You have lots of great comments about how to deal with the road use tax issue. Here's a thought you might want to add on the safety issue:

The author also makes reference to the laws of physics, and how diffficult it is for her to stop her 80,000 pound vehicle if she comes upon a cyclist. Her solution is simply to clear the road of bicycles. Wouldn't it be a better solution to drive that 80,000 pound vehicle at a safe rate of speed, so that it CAN be stopped if she encounters unexpected hazards?

[catulle]

His interpretation of the rights resulting from paying license and registration fees is a travesty of sound judgement. Indeed, his main argument seems to be that 8000lbs beat 200lbs, which is typical of bullies and people of weak character and unsound psychological makeup. Evidently, according to him, the few dollars he pays for his license and registration would allow him to run over any cyclist he may find on his paid for roads. This is the type of people who would rather see his money go to baseball than to teachers. This is the type of people who would make Plato believe that democracy was for the birds.

If you would provide me with an address for contacting the paper's editor, I would gladly send him an e-mail. A newspaper of any worth must mind its editorial content. ATMO.

[Frog Hair]

I'm going to make some enemies with this one...but before you throw stones, I too am a cyclist (obviously, hanging out here). I've lost more than one friend to getting hit by a car, and I've had way too many friends hit and injured. I hate to see this stuff happen. I want to see our world a better place for cycling.

What if we as road-using cyclists had to follow all of the same protocol as cars. IE: a bicycle gets registered, gets a license plate, rider carries insurance and possibly even an endorsement on their license to ride on certain roads.

Yeah I know, this sucks all the joy right out of riding a bicycle. I never had a license to ride my bike when I was a kid (nor did I have a helmet). Cycling has for the most part always been "free." At this point, maybe we better position ourselves to be treated fairly, both socially and legally.

But as this point, just about every time a cyclist is hit somewhere, the story is the same. Car wins, driver usually walks away and we all feel sorry for the lowly pedler. A few angry letters surface in the paper (from both drivers and riders), and in the end, nothing improves. Maybe a bike lane pops up in a city, but is that really any result of another rider getting hit?

I ride a motorcycle. I have to register with the state, have a license, carry insurance and you know what - I get treated with a lot more respect on my moto than I ever do on my bicycle. Ture, I'm not as slow as a bicycle, and I can certainly blend into the pace of traffice better and do I get the occassional blind mini-van driver, but unless I'm riding like a knobb, no one ever really messes with me.

On my bicycle however, I might as well be wearing a target on my back. In my 20+ years of road riding, I'd say that 7 times in 10 I have an experience on the road that I wish I did not. I pedal responsibly, I dress visibly and behave professionally (although I don't always want to). I always feel as though the cars that do mess with me are thinking "what have I got to loose." When messing with a licensed, insured, registered rider - perhaps the legal ramifications would change the way the car driver is thinking.

I don't want to see another rider get hit. It makes me want to sell my bike every time I read one of these stories. But teaching drivers to respect cyclists is like trying to social equality among nationality/ race.

Final bit of rant: on one my local rides, there is a path. It is actually a very wide and well maintained sidewalk. It is next to a road that I would never ride. A 50mph, 4 lane road, with narrow lanes. It is not cycling friendly and imho, you are asking to get killed by riding on this road. The path however is very well suited for riding, even if you are a "racer." There is no excuse in the world not to use this path. It only lasts about 1 mile and is 100% safer than the road. Yet I see cyclists who will "push" their right to ride the road. They get out there, cause traffic back-ups (cars cannot go around very well, there is no shoulder) and you can smell the road-rage from the cars brewing. All at the same time, there are dozens of other cyclists going by using the side-path. I even get angry when I see cyclist ride in the road here because I know that the drivers they are pissing off are only going to hate me that much more when I ride my bike. Its just plain common sense to choose the safest option, not just the "legal" option.

Some better planned laws and requirements for cyclist, with established consequences for both is the only way to make an improvement. If the cyclist is at fault-punish the cyclist. If the car is at fault- punish the car. Make both equal in terms of the requirments to play on the same field.

All said, I feel terrible when any rider is hit. I love cycling and it genuinly breaks my heart. I hope that via a board like this, some good ideas can be forced to the surface.

[vaxn8r]

....Final bit of rant: on one my local rides, there is a path. It is actually a very wide and well maintained sidewalk. It is next to a road that I would never ride. A 50mph, 4 lane road, with narrow lanes. It is not cycling friendly and imho, you are asking to get killed by riding on this road. The path however is very well suited for riding, even if you are a "racer." There is no excuse in the world not to use this path. It only lasts about 1 mile and is 100% safer than the road. Yet I see cyclists who will "push" their right to ride the road. They get out there, cause traffic back-ups (cars cannot go around very well, there is no shoulder) and you can smell the road-rage from the cars brewing. All at the same time, there are dozens of other cyclists going by using the side-path. I even get angry when I see cyclist ride in the road here because I know that the drivers they are pissing off are only going to hate me that much more when I ride my bike. Its just plain common sense to choose the safest option, not just the "legal" option.
We probably have more bike trails per capita than any city in the USA. The problem is that the bike paths are used by walkers, joggers, children on trikes and bikes. We (race cyclists) have no business on bike paths. We really don't. Our place is the road and everyone needs to learn to share it.

I've never once seen a letter to the editor complaining about tractors slowing down logging trucks and that happens every day here. It isn't about the slow down, it's them against us, sadly. It's a one way war and we take all the casualities.

[catulle]

.

I think you make a good point. Moreover, no one here is arguing that cycling must be free. However, as it is, the sheer vulnerability of a cyclist must be reason enough for a driver to be careful and behave responsibly when nearing someone on a bicycle, atmo.

[Frog Hair]

We probably have more bike trails per capita than any city in the USA. The problem is that the bike paths are used by walkers, joggers, children on trikes and bikes. We (race cyclists) have no business on bike paths. We really don't. Our place is the road and everyone needs to learn to share it.

I've never once seen a letter to the editor complaining about tractors slowing down logging trucks and that happens every day here. It isn't about the slow down, it's them against us, sadly. It's a one way war and we take all the casualities.


I think this is subject to the path. We too have paths that are also not suitable for cycling as they are packed with walkers, etc. Its not a black and white statement that pertains to all paths. I race, commute, etc, etc. And I don't like to use a walkers path anymore than anyone else. But I'm not suicidal either, and when I need to compromise for the better of both the cars and myself, then I will do so in favor of my own longevity. There are roads that I know where it is perfectly leagal to ride, there is a big shoulder, I have the right to ride in the lane, etc. But I know I'll be living a shorter life if I opt to ride those roads. They are not all safe. So I choose what makes the most sense for me on a bike.

In the end, too many drivers don't know that cyclists have any rights on the road. "Thank-you for sharing the road" bumper stickers just don't get that message out there. And like I said before, there is not enough consequence for the driver who hits a bike.

So what do we do? Will an emotionally charged letter to a congressman or paper editor be enough? Or do we volunteer some structural changes on our end to accomodate our needs as cyclists? I'm not saying I'm right...but I am saying that I don't see any previous efforts working. I'd like to see an example of a community that suffered driver/ cyclist problems that were then resolved to the satisfaction of both sides. I'm not aware that this scenario exists. :crap:

[Ray]

First, not one thing was surprising about that idiot's comments and as for Ray's surmise, well...

I just flat disagree. I think this idiot from the paper _does_ represent the views of the vast majority of drivers in America regarding the rights and presence of cyclists. Regarding this subject (and of course not only this subject), not only do I believe that the marjority people are invinciably ignorant but also incapable of being truly perusaded rationally to assume a more reasonable position. That said, I don't often find people in cars trying to kill me (we have fairly benign drivers), but they would surely assume the same position if they did kill me.

There, I said it.

dbrk
Well, OK, no point in arguing about percentages of rational vs irrational folks - I'd want to reach as many of the rational ones as possible. So I'd write the letter anyway. I really don't care what position a motorist assumes after they kill me - I'd already be dead. And I assume even you or I would react as defensively and irrationally as we had to in order to assure continued freedom if one of us hit and killed a cyclist - I hope I'm wrong but I don't trust any of us when our backs are well and truly against the wall.

I'm way more interested in the 'benign drivers' part of your statement. We have fairly benign drivers around here too. I find the vast majority of them very considerate of my rights and my space on the road whether they like it or not. I'd go so far as to say that well over 99% of the drivers I encounter are benign and fairly considerate. We remember the fraction of a percent that are a$$holes, but there really aren't very many of them in my experience. If that many people are reasonable enough to honestly try not to kill me when I'm out riding, I gotta believe some of the remaining fraction can be reached as well. And in any case, I'd want to reinforce the generally positive approach of the great majority.

So I'd write the letter.

-Ray

[Frankwurst]

My Dad has the same attitude towards cyclists "Damm bike riders don't pay road taxes" and every time I hear him say that I remind him my brother and I have 10 semis, 15 route trucks and 20 delivery vans on the road. His argument is not every rider can make that claim. Mine is, I'm helping pay for the ones who can't. :beer:

[Kevan]

You haven't ridden a bike until you've taken one to a drive-in movie. Why, when I go... I steal my honey inside my saddlebag and wait for the stars to come out before freeing her (I save money that way so I can buy extra inner tubes). In one waterbottle I keep my buttered popcorn and in the other my rootbeer sod'r pop. I hang the little speaker off my handlebar and all the while perform a trackstand so as to keep upright.

You might wanna try it yourself.

See you on the road,

Dodger


Look... there's is absolutely no way you're going to convince this idiot different from what it's already thinking. If you can't convince it, confuse it.

[Ti Designs]

What if we as road-using cyclists had to follow all of the same protocol as cars. IE: a bicycle gets registered, gets a license plate, rider carries insurance and possibly even an endorsement on their license to ride on certain roads.

Can someone point out an advantage to cyclists being registered? Standing around at the DMV isn't my idea of fun, the insurance to cover medical expenses is duplicated by health insurance, and what's left is insurance for damage to other people or proporty. I've seen an SUV take out a phone pole, I've seen a phone pole take out a cyclist - see the difference? The other manditory insurance (at least in my state) has to do with passengers or uninsured drivers. I counted the number of seats on my bikes, 'cept for my tandem they all have one. As for uninsured drivers, I thought that insurance coverage was manditory, which would make driving without it a criminal act - how did this become my problem???

The issue of respect is a simple one, bikes are smaller, slower and more fragile than almost anything else out there. If I produced a car that weighs 200 pounds, gets 200 miles per gallon but is limited to 25 MPH, people would say the exact same things. Registered, licensed, insured - doesn't matter. It's in their way. Never underestimate the public's ability to be lazy, selfish or just plain stupid.

[Fat Robert]

It is best not to respond to those who have basic problems with cohesion, sentence fragments, and clarity.


(Plato was right)

[ClutchCargo]

Definitely respond to this letter ... actually, you characterized it as an editorial but it looks to me more like a letter to the editor. hopefully, dbrk's post notwithstanding, most readers of the letter would've reacted to it with the sense that the letter's author is not only mentally challenged but an @$$hole to boot. in any event it cannot hurt for you to submit a reasoned response to his pathetic letter (amazing, isn't it, how he so easily places bicycles in the "road hazards" category! ).

many good points have been made here. I like centaur1's post and Ginger's suggestion (thoughtful editing will improve your good response on this subject). you'll be helping your local cycling community by responding. you might also want to think about contacting other cyclists to respond as well.

[gasman]

There have been a lot of letters to the editor in the local newspaper about Jane's death. This one is from one of the biiger idiots. There have been a lot of good letters in support of bicyclists, mostly by bicyclists. I think responding to this letter is a good idea but it will probably not change his mind, it is too closed.

[catulle]

It is best not to respond to those who have basic problems with cohesion, sentence fragments, and clarity.


(Plato was right)

There you go, Robert...! Of course, Plato would be right if you and I belonged to the Guardians, atmo.