Help me respond to anti-cycling letter!
Yesterday's local newspaper, here in Fairbanks, Alaska, featured the following "Letter to the Editor:"
"This letter is in response to Leslie Almberg’s bicycling problems. Highways and roads are for motorized vehicles only. Bikes are allowed travel as an exception, not a rule, bikes will never be accepted as “traffic” because you lack the tools needed, a 'motor.' We can’t accept bikes as equals because there is no possible way you can afford all who travel on highways the same level of safety as in a motor-vehicle or vice versa. These taxpayer financed roads are engineered and regulated for travel with motor vehicles at 0-60 mph. Sidewalks are for pedestrians, people who walk or run at 0-10 mph. Bike paths are for … guess what, bikes. Bike paths are engineered to allow safe travel for speeds from 0-25 mph, Leslie stated bicyclists can travel up to 50 mph, that’s well over the limits for the design of the bike path so — slow down or get a car. If the bike path is obstructed by frost heaves or kids then complain to the Department of Transportation to have them repaired, don’t ask me to change my driving practices to accommodate their lack of path-repair funding. Do you see me dodging potholes by driving on the sidewalk? No. So why is it OK for them to dodge obstructions in their path by riding on the road? Let’s be realistic here, they choose to use a socially outdated system of transportation in an environment that makes construction and maintenance of a “road” bike path expensive and time consuming for taxpayers just so the very few who use it during a very short season can commute from day to day without any obstructions. Good luck with that, Lance Armstrong. My taxes aren’t paying for that."
I intend to draft a response to this letter, could you recommend some counterpoints to include in this letter? And what do you think of the phrase, "socially outdated system of transportation?"