Advocacy & Safety - Bike riders do more harm than good

Letters to the Editor: Chicago Sun Times

August 14, 2006

The proliferation of bicycles on public roads is damaging the quality of life, and it's time we all faced some realities on the subject.

First, people need their motor vehicles and aren't going to give them up. It is simply not practical to flood our streets with bicycles while it remains vital to society that people and goods get where they're going with the speed, efficiency and comparative safety that motor vehicles provide.

Second, bicycles are not going to stop global warming. What today's cars and bicycles have in common is that they are both outmoded technologies. Part of the answer to global warming is clean automotive technology -- not, as Seinfeld told Kramer, ''Just what the city needs -- more cumbersome, slow-moving vehicles,'' which in this case save less than a drop in the bucket's worth of pollution.

It is true that cycling is good exercise. So are walking, jogging, swimming, aerobics, working out at the health club and any number of sports activities that don't block traffic or expose the exerciser to broken limbs. Given the options, bicycling is one of the poorest choices possible.

Driving a motor vehicle requires maximum attention at all times. The more bikes are on the street that motorists have to defer to, the more attention is taken from everything else they have to watch for. The more cyclists take to the streets, therefore, the more accidents they are going to cause.

The amount of unnecessary stress this causes motorists, who more often than not are just trying to get to or from work or get their errands done, is unconscionable. But if motorists must put up with bicycles on the road, would it be too much to ask that cyclists take some responsibility for their own safety? Requiring cyclists who want to use the same roads as motor vehicles to carry insurance the same as motor vehicles would be a good start.

Ultimately, there is not one valid argument in favor of increased bicycle activity, and plenty of arguments against it. Please leave the bicycles at home. They are doing more harm than good.

C.R. Green, Albany Park

OK He's right I'll hop in my Hummer and drive to the gym while talking on my cell phone all the way there. What was I thinking? If I had known that my selfish activity was causing the poor motorists such stress and the onerous burden of paying attention to the traffic and other roadusers I would never have been so inconsiderate to ride a bike in the first place!

"The amount of unnecessary stress this causes motorists, who more often than not are just trying to get to or from work or get their errands done, is unconscionable. "

And getting run off the road getting to our jobs or errands is not nearly
as traumatic because we are nothing.........?
Absolutely unbelievable. The height of ME-ME-ME selfishness.
We cant win.
Its hopeless.

This guy is a big fat lazy ******.

I bet he gets mad when there is a car ahead of him when pulling into the McFatass drive-through because it'll take an extra 2 minutes to get his McBurger...

We (friends and I) just spent 90 minutes driving across Chicago on Saturday ... bicycles were the least of our concerns.

jw

I can never figure out how to counter this kind of crap. I know a few people like that at work and they think their logic is infallible and discussing it with them leads nowhere. The only thing I have on my side against these tools is the law.


Driving a motor vehicle requires maximum attention at all times. The more bikes are on the street that motorists have to defer to, the more attention is taken from everything else they have to watch for. The more cyclists take to the streets, therefore, the more accidents they are going to cause.

Apparently this rocket surgeon doesn't realise that this argument applies to motorvehicles, as well.

critical mass c.r. green's place in albany park!

First, people need their motor vehicles and aren't going to give them up. It is simply not practical to flood our streets with bicycles while it remains vital to society that people and goods get where they're going with the speed, efficiency and comparative safety that motor vehicles provide.

WRONG: This is a common myth that really needs busting on a global scale. The need is a product of two things, marketing and civic design. Even the second doesn't make for an absolute as many people, such as those in the car-free forum, clearly prove. Living car-free, or even car-light, is not only attainable but even quite practical in most situations. The vitality of speed, efficiency and safety (another myth) is also erroneous and only true because of a majority adhering to social contructs that could be changed.


Second, bicycles are not going to stop global warming. What today's cars and bicycles have in common is that they are both outmoded technologies. Part of the answer to global warming is clean automotive technology -- not, as Seinfeld told Kramer, ''Just what the city needs -- more cumbersome, slow-moving vehicles,'' which in this case save less than a drop in the bucket's worth of pollution.

WRONG: True that bicycles alone will not stop global warming but the effort is not negligible and part of a bigger solotion. Certainly there is a lot of progress that can be made in automotive technology, however to regard bicycles as outmoded is a fallacy and reliant on more on social contructs than on actual fact. Note that if a bicycle is but a drop in the bucket it is worth remembering that there are a bucket's worth of drops available. As for slow moving I refer to the following statistics; Average mph of vehicles during rush hour in London, Car - 2.8, Bus - 4.6, Bicycle - 5.6. In addition, a number or European studies already recognise that increased bicyle use improves the flow of motor vehicle traffic.


It is true that cycling is good exercise. So are walking, jogging, swimming, aerobics, working out at the health club and any number of sports activities that don't block traffic or expose the exerciser to broken limbs. Given the options, bicycling is one of the poorest choices possible.

WRONG: The writer here really fails to understand th genuine risks of cycling, even in hostile urban environments. Evidently this is opinion formed without any form of research. Given the options available then cycling is in fact one of the best options as it is economic and also combinative with our need to travel making it practical.


Driving a motor vehicle requires maximum attention at all times. The more bikes are on the street that motorists have to defer to, the more attention is taken from everything else they have to watch for. The more cyclists take to the streets, therefore, the more accidents they are going to cause.

WRONG: Considering cyclists a cause of accidents over and above vehicle drivers once again demonstrates a bare ignorance of the facts. Futhermore, the writer is wrongfully segregating between bicycles and all other vehicles where in reality they should be included and treated as such. Even more furthermore, increased bicycle usership in an urban environment very clearly allows for rethinking existing civic design that would reduce space conflict issues. Several examples of workable high bicycle use exist in Europe which actually show a decline in cycle related accidents. This is to the point that it is a widely held truth that increase in cycling directly improves the safety for both cyclists and vehicle drivers.


The amount of unnecessary stress this causes motorists, who more often than not are just trying to get to or from work or get their errands done, is unconscionable. But if motorists must put up with bicycles on the road, would it be too much to ask that cyclists take some responsibility for their own safety? Requiring cyclists who want to use the same roads as motor vehicles to carry insurance the same as motor vehicles would be a good start.

Finally the writer gets to a valid point, albeit one that is difficult to properly implement. However, it is worth noting that the insurance industry has "found" that an insured rider is often of a better calibre in road skills from an uninsured rider. However, they are not eager to promote bicycle rider insurance as insured riders are more likely to pursue and succeed in a claim in the event of an accident.


Ultimately, there is not one valid argument in favor of increased bicycle activity, and plenty of arguments against it. Please leave the bicycles at home. They are doing more harm than good.
C.R. Green, Albany Park[/QUOTE]

TRUE: there is not one valid arguement in favour of increased bicycle activity, there are many. Those arguments are often formed of ignorant prejudice.

Wow. How do you counter that kind of argument. It's just so sensible and grown up. Get out of my car-driving way. I'm doing important business. Running errands and just trying to get to work. And you are doing...what? Exercising?

By all means let's opt for the cars as long as we have to choose between two outmoded technologies. That'll make everything better. Stimulate capitalism along the way, too, since we'll have to buy our exercise in our spare time, you know, like after we crawl our way home from some giant traffic jam.

My question is, why would the Sun-Times publish this letter?

Whatever. The guy bases his argument on "facts" he made up on the spot to match his own lifestyle choices.

It's a bit irresponsible of the newspaper to print it, but hardly worth much addition thought.

critical mass c.r. green's place in albany park!

+ a bajillion

It is true that cycling is good exercise. So are walking, jogging, swimming, aerobics, working out at the health club and any number of sports activities that don't block traffic or expose the exerciser to broken limbs. Given the options, bicycling is one of the poorest choices possible.

C.R. Green, Albany Park

I've engaged in lots of sports. I honestly can not think of any worth doing that don't expose the exerciser to broken limbs. Stress fractures are part and parcel of running. Any team sport has the chance. Swimming can come pretty close, but no flip turns (yes I had a teammate who broke his heel doing a flip turn).

CAN bikes be part of a solution? I think so, one could even argue they are in fairly major ways. Every time you see a bus with a bike or two on the front remember that is one more bus rider who otherwise might be driving the whole way to work. Even the most annoying of cyclists (at least to me) the wrong way on a beater bike just might be someone who without a bike would somehow find a way to get a beater car, motorcycle or scooter (given no other choice) and those typically spew out at least 10 times as much as other vehicles.

Also look at some of the areas where bikes at first glance seem worst. College campuses. At the local campus rush hour it often looks like (and is) a madhouse. BUT try to imagine how it would be if all those bike riders were in cars.

Most of the counter-arguments have already been made, so the only thing I have to add is this: I do my job on a bicycle because it's necessary. You want to talk about getting work done-- or getting from location to location-- quickly and efficiently? I'll beat this guy and his oil-war-driving outmoded vehicle from any location to another in Downtown Richmond any time, any day. That's what my job is all about. He wouldn't be able to function properly in his big adult world without kids on bikes.

Did you happen to notice how cool, good looking, and sweet smelling we were? CHICAGO HO!!!!

Don't just preach to the choir, send your letters here: letters@suntimes.com

Some people just can't handle it when they see a cyclist cruising past them as they are mired in automobile traffic. Some, like that letter writer, even complain that bicycles are somehow implicated in their misery.

How sad.

My question is, why would the Sun-Times publish this letter?

Because that's what "Letters to the editor" is for... all view points. This is what makes the page interesting to read and respond to. Unfortunately the views of this writer are all too common.

Correspondent Green obviously hates his country--he's a no good raghead-loving traitor who wants to see Al Qaeda continue to be lavishly funded.

I like the writer's mention of the 'comparative safety' of automobiles. Relative to what? Auto accidents are one of the leading causes of death in the U.S.

Don't just preach to the choir, send your letters here: letters@suntimes.com


Absolutely!!!! Flood their butts with letters from all over--overwhelm them--and the letter writer....But like with most papers, you probably have to give your address and daytime phone numer. I don't know that for sure, though, their website doesn't say..........show them how many people think they are wrong! Remember, the paper isn't the BF, they will most likely discard any profanity or defamation.

This is a copy of the letter I have submitted to the Chicago Sun Times in response:

Mr. Green's perception of cyclists is, unfortunately, rather standard
for motorists entrenched in a car-culture with a misguided sense of
entitlement and elitism. Mr. Green should be reminded that bicycles
are legal status vehicles that must operate on the road. They are an
equally viable, vital, convenient and efficient form of transportation
as a motor vehicle, particularly in urban areas. They are subject to
most of the same rules and regulations a motor vehicle must abide by
and while there are many cyclists who fail to observe the rules of the
road, there are also an equivalent percentage of motorists who operate
similarly, but with far deadlier consequences. Bicycles may not
prevent or reverse global warming, as Mr. Green suggests, but they do
not contribute to it either. Even the most efficient engines found in
the finest cars continually add to smog and poor air quality. Mr.
Green is quite correct in observing that motor vehicles are necessary
and will not go away, however, most motorists rely upon their vehicle
for all their transportation needs including short commutes and
errands, never considering a more environmentally responsible
alternative when approriate.

Roads are public spaces, free to pedestrians, cyclists,
roller-bladers, etc. and there are some who believe that because a
motorist, whether in a slow or fast-moving motor vehicle, requires a
license, they are, in fact, a GUEST, upon public roads and must earn
the privelege to share that road with all other users who have the
inherent right to be there. Any experienced and skilled motorist
should pay attention and be alert to all traffic, regardless of its'
form: it is, in fact, their responsibility to drive safely,
predictably and responsibly, putting no other operator at risk and if
Mr. Green is becoming frustrated by the fact he must, by law, share
the road fairly, he has other options available to him including
public transportation and a bicycle.

Sometimes people are just so wrong it's funny. Outdated technology he says. Well, so is riding my horse. I guess we should do away with horses. Farm tractors slow me down almost every day. Let's do away with farms. They slow me down too much and stress me out. I am trembling just thinking about it. Perhaps we should do away with anything that is in anyway entertaining and just have shuttle buses to get us to and fro. Or even better, let's not even leave the house. Too stressful and time consuming. Talking to people takes too long. Let's just grunt and gesture.

What this guy doesn't get is that it isn't about the destination, its about the trip in between.

I can never figure out how to counter this kind of crap.
There's no point in worrying about it. It's a waste of time to reason with dogs that don't like cyclists. Same goes for idiots.

Save your energy for reasonable people.

My question is, why would the Sun-Times publish this letter?
1. Controversy sells newspapers.

2. Newspapers rely on motor vehicle sales ads for a significant percentage of their revenue.


Albany Park is undoubtedly in the suburbs, correct? Would Mr. Green have the option of taking the train into the city from Albany Park?

There's no point in worrying about it. It's a waste of time to reason with dogs that don't like cyclists. Same goes for idiots.

Save your energy for reasonable people.

Arguing with this writer may be a waste of time, but sending letters to the editor is not. The papers routinely print a few of the best counter responses to almost all letters. Certainly we will see some published response to this. Some who read these responses will be "reasonable people" who may have a change of attitude, or at least have a better understanding of the issue at hand. (Oh! I didn't know bikes on the road was legal! I thought they belonged on the sidewalk.)

Albany Park is undoubtedly in the suburbs, correct? Would Mr. Green have the option of taking the train into the city from Albany Park?

Albany Park is in the city. Look up his address on Switchboard.com (it's there). This guy is about three blocks away from the Brown Line El, and he's got an express bus to downtown that stops at his doorstep about a hundred times a day. I'd like to hear his rant against public transportation.

To the Critical Mass guy - he's at Mozart and Montrose. See you there!

I heard a similar spout of illogic on KNBR's call-in sports show a few weeks back. The caller was peeved because every morning he drives to work he has to pass at least eight (!) cyclists on his way to work. What really got him mad was that road is just so peaceful and tranquil in the early morning and these jerks in spandex so rudely snap him out of his reverie and make him have to pay attention to the road to pass them!

It's not so much the letter-writer that a response to the paper will influence. Clearly, people like him are so narrow-minded and insulated against opposing points of view that their own illogical and irrational sense of self-righteousness seems perfectly acceptable. It is those who will be influenced by people like him that a response is intended to target, so that they can appreciate that there are conflicting opinions with facts to back them up.

The stupidity and ignorance of some people just continues to amaze me.

The stupidity and ignorance of some people just continues to amaze me.
Welcome to the US of A in the 21st century.

:o :(

Secretly written by one of the big three CEOs.

This guy is a big fat lazy ******.

I bet he gets mad when there is a car ahead of him when pulling into the McFatass drive-through because it'll take an extra 2 minutes to get his McBurger...

LOL!

Albany Park is in the city. Look up his address on Switchboard.com (it's there). This guy is about three blocks away from the Brown Line El, and he's got an express bus to downtown that stops at his doorstep about a hundred times a day. I'd like to hear his rant against public transportation.

To the Critical Mass guy - he's at Mozart and Montrose. See you there!

I'd like to visit my sister in Naperville, just so I could participate. I'd like to block this guy for about 2 hours!

It's not so much the letter-writer that a response to the paper will influence. Clearly, people like him are so narrow-minded and insulated against opposing points of view that their own illogical and irrational sense of self-righteousness seems perfectly acceptable. It is those who will be influenced by people like him that a response is intended to target, so that they can appreciate that there are conflicting opinions with facts to back them up.

Bingo!

Any responce needs to be very aware that you are playing to an audience. Being extreem in the opposite direction will make it look like two jerks arguing. Stay rational and there is only one jerk and you win. Simply pointing out that each bike that it is perhaps difficult to pass means one less car which it would be impossible to pass can be enough to win. Or that even if a bike is a nusance while you are both on hte road once you get there the bike (that replaces a car) means one more space for you, the driver.

It is simply not practical to flood our streets with bicycles while it remains vital to society that people and goods get where they're going with the speed, efficiency and comparative safety that motor vehicles provide.
This is my favorite part. Evidently increasing traffic by some number of cars will make his travel more efficient than increasing it by the same number of bicycles.

Absolutely!!!! Flood their butts with letters from all over--overwhelm them--and the letter writer....But like with most papers, you probably have to give your address and daytime phone numer. I don't know that for sure, though, their website doesn't say..........show them how many people think they are wrong! Remember, the paper isn't the BF, they will most likely discard any profanity or defamation.
My paper, and I have to think most, will call you to confirm that you sent the letter, and that you've only sent it to them (to discourage people spamming multiple newspapers). I'll also bet they would be very unlikely to print a letter from someone outside their local area. Surely this will get plenty of responses from Chicago cyclists.

This is a copy of the letter I have submitted to the Chicago Sun Times in response:

Mr. Green's perception of cyclists is, unfortunately, rather standard
for motorists entrenched in a car-culture with a misguided sense of
entitlement and elitism. Mr. Green should be reminded that bicycles
are legal status vehicles that must operate on the road. They are an
equally viable, vital, convenient and efficient form of transportation
as a motor vehicle, particularly in urban areas. They are subject to
most of the same rules and regulations a motor vehicle must abide by
and while there are many cyclists who fail to observe the rules of the
road, there are also an equivalent percentage of motorists who operate
similarly, but with far deadlier consequences. Bicycles may not
prevent or reverse global warming, as Mr. Green suggests, but they do
not contribute to it either. Even the most efficient engines found in
the finest cars continually add to smog and poor air quality. Mr.
Green is quite correct in observing that motor vehicles are necessary
and will not go away, however, most motorists rely upon their vehicle
for all their transportation needs including short commutes and
errands, never considering a more environmentally responsible
alternative when approriate.

Roads are public spaces, free to pedestrians, cyclists,
roller-bladers, etc. and there are some who believe that because a
motorist, whether in a slow or fast-moving motor vehicle, requires a
license, they are, in fact, a GUEST, upon public roads and must earn
the privelege to share that road with all other users who have the
inherent right to be there. Any experienced and skilled motorist
should pay attention and be alert to all traffic, regardless of its'
form: it is, in fact, their responsibility to drive safely,
predictably and responsibly, putting no other operator at risk and if
Mr. Green is becoming frustrated by the fact he must, by law, share
the road fairly, he has other options available to him including
public transportation and a bicycle.
Great rebuttal!

Hey, maybe that guy would like to set his bike up on rollers in the garage, close the door, hook up a hose from the rear end of his bike and try to commit suicide with it. Oh wait. That won't work.

Excellent letter, EnigManiac.
The chowderhead should live in Europe for a year. He'd find out just how necessary a car is in Copenhagen (not at all, everyone rides a bike) or Berlin (four kinds of public transport AND bicycle paths) or Paris (terrific walking, and commute by boat as well as by public transport!)
Cars are only indispensible if you don't consider any of the alternatives.

and for the record I have lived in all of the above cities and find them a lot easier to get around than all American cities save New York.

It is simply not practical to flood our streets with bicycles while it remains vital to society that people and goods get where they're going with the speed, efficiency and comparative safety that motor vehicles provide.

C.R. Green, Albany Park

Efficiency? Efficiency? :crash: :roflmao: :lol: :cry:

Too bad any give newspaper wouldn't take the time to publish the math, but here's a bit of math on efficiency.

Lets say C.R. Green's car gets 20mpg city, a generous notch above the national average.
87 octane (what most people put in the tank) is 31 thousand kilocalories.

that works out to 1550 kilocalories per mile. that means to go 2 miles, CR has to burn enough energy to feed a very athletic person for a day.

for a 160-170lb person, cycling ranges from 7.8 to 15.6 kilocalories a minute depending on speed and hills.
lets say they do 15 miles of a commute, twice a day at about 15mph, burning about 12 kcals a minute.

30miles/15mph = 2 hours = 120 minutes = 1440 kcals round trip

1440kcals/30miles = 48 kcals per mile.

That works out to CR using something like 32 times as much energy to go a given mile.

Others have discussed the increased temporal efficiency. as for safety, I believe Effective Cycling outlines city-cyclocommuters as the safest bunch in the cycling community. (when you ride through the gauntlet every day, you sorta get used to it)

now I do think I spend more time working on my bike per mile than I would on a car, but what's a few hours of wrenching per week among friends?

I've seen so many of these over the years, that I wish I had a dollar for every one. I could retire right now. The funny thing is that they all sound alike. Oh sure, some words and catch-phrases change, but basically, they're all the same. It's interesting how the "they should have to pay insurance" bit always comes up. The only thing interesting here is that he states that "the proliferation of bicycles on public roads is damaging the quality of life.." Well Mr. Green, that is one hell of a coincidence. I've that same exact thought about motor vehicles. With the pollution, noise, endless congestion, endless accidents, and all the rest, I'd call that a pretty damaged quality of life. Everything else aside, it sounds like Mr. Green feels threatened somehow.

Hey Mr. Green, guess what? I'm not going to give up my bicycle. This evening, I used it to get home from my job, and do some errands along the way. Do you understand?

Yes, the purpose of the "letters to the editors" section of major market newspapers are for people to express opinions. Most newpapers will publish opposing viewpoints. So, as others have mentioned already, take advantage of this.


McFatass... Excellent!!!:roflmao: Can I use that?

If you really want cheese off one of this species, just say that the bicycle was here way before the automobile, and it will still be here after the last SUV has been hauled off to the junkyard, crushed, shredded, and shipped off to Japan, where they'll turn it into consumer electronics.

Then watch for the characteristic bulging eyes, red face, pulsating forehead veins, foaming at the mouth,, Hey! I think I just came up with an ad campaign for a blood pressure medication!

Unlike some here I drive most of the time. Cycling is a recreation, not a need or basic means of transport. So I started trying to think of the last time a cyclist held me up when driving in any way that mattered. Now since I am a cyclist too I often am 'held up' when other driver would not be. There is a nasty dip into a creek (think two hills, this is the part right between and no flat at all). Just as I got to the top I came upon a cyclist. I decided to hang back and let him decent and at least carry some speed back up in peace. I then passed cleanly and safely when we both started back up. By the top of the hill I was right behind the car ahead of me. There is another section where I had to wait for a cyclist. About 1/2 mile next to the freeway. This time the cyclist was a jerk, he blew the stopsign at the start of this. A 4 way stop with cars lined up all 4 ways. Still By hte end of that section I had to wait behind cars already lined up at the next stop sign.

Oh wait I finally thought of one. On the last street before I turn on to my street one time a cyclist was in just the wrong place. He was getting to my street and going straight just as I would have gotten there. I had to wait 4 or 5 whole car lengths and then actually make the turn at a speed that was a bit slower than required to be safe.

Make yourselves known.........don't waste your time posting here--send a letter to the editor.

Keith99: Better rephrase that. "Cycling is a recreation, not a need or basic means of transportation, for you."
It certainly is necessary for me. It's my main transportation. It also helps me repair a heavily damaged skeleton (smashed up in a car wreck.) And I can get down to one of the colleges faster than the bus or a car. If the roads were safer I'd ride all the way to work.
It's basic and necessary for millions of people.

I've never seen a bicycle inconvenience or delay a car. That is simply ridiculous. Might as well say pedestirans also are an inconvenience.

If it wasn't for my bicycle, I would still be 35 lb overweight, have 75 + points of cholesterol higher, have high blood pressure, stomach ulcers, acid reflux disease ... etc... etc...

Now I am perfectly normal, healthy weight, low cholesterol, normal bp, no stomach or acid problems... in super shape... better off than I ever was before I started using my BIKE to get to work and back every day.

=)

C.R. Green can S.M.D.

The proliferation of bicycles on public roads is damaging the quality of life, and it's time we all faced some realities on the subject.
:roflmao:

1) I absolutely detest exercising indoors.
2) Due to a busy schedule I also have limited time for gyms. Also, see #1.
3) I will not be limited to trails.
4) I replaced one of our 2 cars with a bike
5) My main form of transportation is said bike
6) I lost 42 lbs over the last 14 months
7) I freaking love my commute (or at least like it). How many motorists can actually state that their favorite part of the day is the commute to and from work?
8) i am not an evironmentalist and do not care much about that aspect of cycling. It's the fitness for me.
However, it is a nice side affect.
9) I cost motorists all of a second or two in travel time. I feel so sad for them <-- sarcasm. Perhaps they should complain more about the traffic lights and their timing.

Letters to the Editor: Atlanta Sun Times

August 14, 2006

The proliferation of automobiles on public roads is damaging the quality of life, and it's time we all faced some realities on the subject.

First, people need their bicycles and aren't going to give them up. It is simply not practical to flood our streets with automobiles while it remains vital to society that people and goods get where they're going with the efficiency and comparative safety that bicycles provide.

Second, automobiles are not going to help global warming. What today's cars have in common is that they are outmoded technologies. Part of the answer to global warming is clean human powered technology, which saves an average of 1.5 tons per year, per automobile, of pollution added to our already smog-laden cities.

It is true that cycling is good exercise. So are walking, jogging, swimming, aerobics, working out at the health club and any number of sports activities. Given the options, bicycling is one of the best choices possible.

Driving a motor vehicle requires maximum attention at all times. The more bikes are on the street that motorists have to defer to, the more traffic is calmed, avoiding the crashes they so often cause. Each year, motorists are involved in crashes killing 40,000 Americans, which is almost as many Americans that were killed in the entire decade of the Vietnam War.

The amount of unnecessary stress this causes all of us, who more often than not are just trying to get to or from work or get their errands done, is unconscionable. But if cyclists must put up with automobiles on the road, would it be too much to ask that motorists take some responsibility for their everyones safety? Requiring motorists to carry insurance is a direct result of the damage and carnage they are responsible for.

Ultimately, there is not one valid argument in favor of increased motorist activity, and plenty of arguments against it. Please leave the automobiles at home. They are doing more harm than good.

Callmee Green, Atlanta Park

........

You rock !!! :D

The proliferation of bicycles on public roads is damaging the quality of life, and it's time we all faced some realities on the subject.

Ahhh... when?