Cyclists can't win
Published: Tuesday, May 7, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
As a veteran road cyclist, I was struck by anger in the letters “Cyclists, share rules, costs I” and “Cyclists, share rules, costs II” (April 27 and TribLIVE.com) from Joe Betz and Jerry O'Neill, respectively, and their attitudes toward “so-called ‘cyclists'” not playing by the rules and not paying their fair share.
Most cyclists own and drive cars, trucks, even motorcycles. We pay our “fair share” of fuel taxes, registration fees, insurance premiums and inspections for these vehicles just like everyone else!
We choose to ride bicycles for recreation, the environment and/or health reasons. We do not need another hand in our pockets.
The trails have done a good job of getting bicyclists off dangerous roads, but there are a few times we need to venture in amongst the traffic.
In any confrontation between cars and bicycles, bicycles lose every time. Traffic is a constant threat to cyclists. The “4-foot” rule is virtually impossible to enforce.
Drivers who do not know how to overtake cyclists safely because they were never taught the proper way, inconsiderate drivers who create unsafe and sometimes deadly situations for cyclists, and distractions such as cell phones and texting are just some of the obstacles we experience. The list is endless.
Remember, I may dent your fender, but you will probably kill me. So if I break a few traffic rules, I'm doing it just to get out of your way.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Choosing judges I
- Choosing judges II
- Prevailing wage downsides I
- Lies and disrespect I taught …
- Prevailing wage downsides II
- Hero at rest
- Forcing their beliefs
- Valid comparison?
- Christians must vote
- Legacy: All lose