Advocacy & Safety - Responding to a letter to the editor in my local paper

Just before turning in for the night I spotted a letter to the editor where a Mr. Szczepanski (what a name!) asked a series of rhetorical questions, the intent of which was to infer that it is unfair that we allow cyclists to use our roadways. I couldn't help myself. This morning I wrote this response to the St Pete Times. I wonder if it will be printed:

As one of the “’hobby’ bikers who often wear tight outfits” referred to by Mr. Szczepanski in his letter titled “Are bikes meant for roads or sidewalks?” I would like the opportunity to answer some of the questions he posed in his letter, which were intended to rhetorically suggest that bicycles are unfairly using and abusing our roadways.

Question: “…bikes have the same rights on the road as autos… shouldn’t that mean that bikes should stop for red lights, that bikes should obey signs, like “walk your bike across bridge span.”

Answer: Absolutely, bikes should stop at red lights and stop signs, and so should motorists! I think we can all agree there are both motorists and cyclists which run red lights, stop signs, and show a general disregard for traffic laws. That being said, unsafe driving puts us all at far more risk than unsafe cycling. Given that law enforcement resources are limited I would much rather they focus their limited resources on unsafe drivers steering 2,000 pound metal killing machines than at 200 pound cyclists which might, at worst, dent your fender.

Question: “If bikes ‘share the road’, why don’t they pay taxes in the form of license plates?”

Answer: We do. I own a car, and I pay for my license plate and pay gas taxes just like everyone else. I would guess that ninety nine percent or more of us “hobby bikers” all own cars and pay taxes for our roadways.

Question: “why don’t they pay a toll when crossing a bay area bridge?”

Answer: Bicycles take up far less space on the road, and the wear and tear on the roadway is negligible as compared to a car. Two days a week, I ride my bike 19 miles to work, so forty percent of my commutes to work are by bike (so if you don’t do it because you “live too far away”, think again).

Imagine how much less congestion and wear and tear there would be on our roadways if forty percent of ALL commuters were by bicycle, as is the case in Amsterdam (see

http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/06/in_amsterdam_more_trips_now_by.html).

If this were to happen, the need for additional roadways, and maintenance on existing roadways, would be reduced so much we would end up saving taxpayers millions of dollars. So the next time you see a person riding their bike on the road, thank them for not only paying the same taxes you do, but also saving your tax dollars by reducing their impact on the transportation infrastructure.

Question: “do bikes belong on sidewalks or streets or both?

Answer: this question is a bit more complicated. There are laws in some localities prohibiting bicycles from sidewalks. In other places it is allowed. As a “roadie”, I never ride on the sidewalk because I’m going way too fast, and I would put pedestrians in danger. One day a motorist in Ft DeSoto park shouted out his window at me “get on the bike path!” I was going over 20 MPH, and had just passed a family of four: Mom, Dad, and two siblings under the age of ten, riding their fat tire bikes about about 5 MPH on the bike trail. Where do you suppose they think I should be riding? My opinion is, if you have a fat tire bike and are going under 12 mile per hour, ride on the sidewalk, but please be courteous and slow down for pedestrians, and be prepared to go around them and leave them plenty of space (use the off road capability of that fat tire bike). That’s the same courtesy I ask of motorists when I’m on my bicycle on the road.

Well Said!

The other issue about riding on the sidewalk is that cars coming out of driveways can't see you in time/ blind corners/ obstructed views etc.

Please post a link to the article, as another St. Pete resident I'd be interested in reading it.

Question: “why don’t they pay a toll when crossing a bay area bridge?”

Answer: Bicycles take up far less space on the road, and the wear and tear on the roadway is negligible as compared to a car. Two days a week, I ride my bike 19 miles to work, so forty percent of my commutes to work are by bike (so if you don’t do it because you “live too far away”, think again).

Imagine how much less congestion and wear and tear there would be on our roadways if forty percent of ALL commuters were by bicycle, as is the case in Amsterdam (see

http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/06/in_amsterdam_more_trips_now_by.html).

If this were to happen, the need for additional roadways, and maintenance on existing roadways, would be reduced so much we would end up saving taxpayers millions of dollars. So the next time you see a person riding their bike on the road, thank them for not only paying the same taxes you do, but also saving your tax dollars by reducing their impact on the transportation infrastructure.

This part is an excellent point.


Question: “do bikes belong on sidewalks or streets or both?

Answer: this question is a bit more complicated. There are laws in some localities prohibiting bicycles from sidewalks. In other places it is allowed. As a “roadie”, I never ride on the sidewalk because I’m going way too fast, and I would put pedestrians in danger. One day a motorist in Ft DeSoto park shouted out his window at me “get on the bike path!” I was going over 20 MPH, and had just passed a family of four: Mom, Dad, and two siblings under the age of ten, riding their fat tire bikes about about 5 MPH on the bike trail. Where do you suppose they think I should be riding? My opinion is, if you have a fat tire bike and are going under 12 mile per hour, ride on the sidewalk, but please be courteous and slow down for pedestrians, and be prepared to go around them and leave them plenty of space (use the off road capability of that fat tire bike). That’s the same courtesy I ask of motorists when I’m on my bicycle on the road.

Leebo is right. Motor vehicle operators simply don't expect, nor look for, operators of other vehicles on the sidewalk.

You missed an opportunity to point out that 'gas tax' and license fees don't pay for PUBLIC roads at all. Income, property, and sales tax pay for roads. Gas tax partially pays for freeways, which are reserved exclusively for motor vehicles. Private vehicle drivers using public roads are, in fact, subsidized by users who step more lightly (walk, bike, transit), but who typically get the short end when it comes to adequate infrastructure. And that's before you tally up the social costs of emergency services and policing that accidents and unsafe driving necessitate.

Not trying to bash you, just trying to clear up that misconception that cyclists don't pay their own way. We pay WAY MORE than our fair share. Gas tax would have to be several dollars more per gallon before motorists were paying for what they cost.

Nice response ... but speaking as someone who used to edit letters to the editor, it is too long.

...That being said, unsafe driving puts us all at far more risk than unsafe cycling. Given that law enforcement resources are limited I would much rather they focus their limited resources on unsafe drivers steering 2,000 pound metal killing machines than at 200 pound cyclists which might, at worst, dent your fender.


I liked what you wrote except for the above. This is a bit of hyperbole that essentially accuses nearly all of the readers of operating "killing machines". That's not gong to get people on your side. Tone it down to match the reasoned tone of the rest of the letter.

You missed an opportunity to point out that 'gas tax' and license fees don't pay for PUBLIC roads at all. Income, property, and sales tax pay for roads. Gas tax partially pays for freeways, which are reserved exclusively for motor vehicles.

True in BC too, but I'm not sure if this is true everywhere. It's expensive, but we win this argument easily up here by paying way more than our fair share, as hshearer said.

Whenever I read the "they don't pay their share" argument, I automatically take that to its logical end. Why stop at the act of paying for gas? Let the reasoning extend to amount paid for all the taxes that apply to road construction. Income, property, sales, etc. It's easy to see where this is going. Privilege based on class. It's so obviously un-American in principle and an easy way to cut someone off at the knees.

Since we have a progressive tax system these people surely believe that anyone above the middle class paying the majority of taxes in this country should enjoy more government granted rights/privileges than them. Just another example of how their reasoning is not based on logic, but a prejudice in search of justification.

Linky here:

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/letters/bicyclists-should-obey-rules-on-roads-and-sidewalks/1075197

Why even bother responding to that? It is written with a condescending tone, as if the opinion of the writer is end-all and be-all law of cycling. Anytime I see something written like this, I can't help but wonder why do some people think their opinion is more valuable or more "right", then opinions of all the rest around them? A subtle, but obvious imposition of writer's opinion on bicycle related matters, to influence readers opinions is what is the subtext of that whole....article.

Repeat after me. The response to "bikes run lights" is: "That's illegal and they can receive the same ticket for it as motor vehicles, please tell your local law enforcement that you don't believe they pull over enough bikes running red lights."

It is not: "So do you!"

"Taxes": Subsidies. Cars don't pay for the roads, they pay a majority of the road costs. They're also the reason for the majority of the road costs with their weight, size, and speed requirements.

Otherwise, good on you for not just letting it go.


I find it really funny that he uses the veering dog argument as a reason to get bikes off trails.

Why even bother responding to that?

The point of a letter to the editor is not to persuade the jackoff who wrote the letter ... he's a lost cause.

It is to persuade all the other readers out there. The jackoff just gave you an opening, an opportunity. Take advantange of it.

As soon as you called cars "killing machines" you became a kook whose opinion can't possibly be reasonable.

Nice try though.

It is to persuade all the other readers out there. The jackoff just gave you an opening, an opportunity. Take advantange of it.

Thats a fine point. Well, it would be if most of the people would listen to reason. You could type the most elaborate, true, and objective answer to that letter he posted, and yet I somehow suspect that most of the readers simply would not get it. The problem is, most people are simply not interested in anything that deviates from the norm in any kind. And bikes deviate from the car norm. Car is the king of the society as far as transport is concerned. For the run of the mill people at least, that is. They see bike's as toy's, recreational devices and such. You could write the objective truth about less traffic congestion, less $$ spent for travel, more exercise, healthier lifestyle right there on their foreheads and they still would not believe it or really take into consideration anything you said. So having considered that, I opt to make more useful use of my time - going for a ride for example :D

You would insult the majority who read your letter to the editor. What is the point in that? You have BF to vent to for that purpose. Readers could easily take "killing machines" to mean you paint anyone who drives a car as malevolent, including cyclists who also drive. Instead, you should use the writer's opinion of scofflaw cyclists as an opportunity to make clear, the problems of enforcement, infrastructure, and driver / cyclist education, and how improving those on the whole makes co-existence easier for both motorists and cyclists.

Happens every year, typically in the April-May time frame. This guy's just a little early. We've heard all of it before. Did his diatribe mention having to "pay insurance"? That's a biggie here in MA, where auto insurance is compulsory. (Although the always resourceful MA drivers constantly engineer ways to try to beat the system. Methods include swapping plates from a registered, insured vehicle, to one that isn't, and making the first monthly or quarterly premium payment to get the registration, then just not paying again.)

Two facts most of us know already:

1. Bicycles were using American roads way before the first automobile made its appearance on said roads. Back then, cyclists shared the road with street cars and horse drawn buggies.

2. Everyone pays for infrastructure, including road maintenance and repair.

Thank you and good night!

You would insult the majority who read your letter to the editor. What is the point in that? You have BF to vent to for that purpose. Readers could easily take "killing machines" to mean you paint anyone who drives a car as malevolent, including cyclists who also drive. Instead, you should use the writer's opinion of scofflaw cyclists as an opportunity to make clear, the problems of enforcement, infrastructure, and driver / cyclist education, and how improving those on the whole makes co-existence easier for both motorists and cyclists.

"killing machine" does tend to note that the device was designed for killing. For example: A gun is a killing machine.

"dangerous machine" would probably be fine though. Or, just 2,000lb machine would work.

You really do have to be political when you write to the editor. You even have to be when you comment in internet comments sections: Some editor just might cut out a sentence and print it into the paper the next day. (Happened to me today on something unrelated. From the one sentence they printed I'm not sure I agree with myself!)

Thanks. We need cycling advocates who stand up and be counted when needed.. . Good job.

I sent in so many letters to the editor in response to people bashing cycling that the editor finally gave me my own column.

Now I get to advocate for cycling a dozen times a year.

Repeat after me. The response to "bikes run lights" is ...Well put.

"Taxes": Subsidies. Cars don't pay for the roads, they pay a majority of the road costs.This is likely to vary from area to area, but here in Texas ...

-- Gasoline taxes pay ONLY (by the Texas Constitution) for the state highway system (roads with numbers) and schools. The smaller roads, the ones that the cyclists typically use? They don't get a penny of this. (There are a few highways that cyclists use, but they're rare.)

And even so, gasoline taxes only pay about 1/3rd of the state highway system costs. The rest comes from sales taxes mostly I believe.
-- Car registration fees go to the state and the county, neither of which typically pays a penny for roads within city limits -- the roads that cyclists typically use.
-- Driver's license fees -- mostly go to pay for the DL system, but any left over basically goes to the state, who also doesn't pay for roads in city limits.

What does pay for the roads in the city, the ones cyclists use? Sales tax, property tax. However, when you buy a car, the sales tax is 6.25% and it all goes to the state -- who doesn't pay for roads in the city. If you buy a bike, the sales tax is 8.25% (in Austin -- other cities vary slightly) and 6.25% goes to the state, 1% goes to the city and 1% to Capital Metro (the bus.) Well, it's that 2% that pays for the roads. So if you buy a bike, some of that pays for the local roads. If you buy a car, NONE of that goes to pay for the local roads.'

On the bright side, if you buy new tires or other parts or accessories, that's at the 8.25% tax rate and some goes to the city.

Like I've said before, cars aren't paying their fair share. Now add in the cost of war for oil, water pollution, air pollution, highway patrol, oh, it goes on and on.
Good reply. I write a letter and then I read it again the next day before I send it in. The letters get more polished and concise so they never get edited.

What happened to the bumper stickers that said " If you don't like the way I drive----Get Off the Sidewalk!!!!!!!!!!!"

dogbitteneear