Cars real threat I
In response to Colin McNickle's “Saturday essay: Cyclists want respect?” (Oct. 12 and TribLIVE.com), I note recent observations:
• Day 1 — Lost count of the number of drivers I saw talking on a cellphone or engaged in some other distraction(s) while their vehicle was in motion.
• Day 2 — Drivers who travel near or at the speed limit are “rewarded” with “high-beaming” and close passes by other drivers inconvenienced by such a “slow” pace.
• Day 3 — Witnessed three drivers throwing lit cigarettes out their windows.
• Day 4 — My husband and I were rear-ended by a driver traveling too fast around a blind curve.
By no means is every cyclist a responsible, sympathetic figure, but recklessness on our roads is hardly confined to those on two wheels, who must be vigilant in order to preserve their safety. Yet Mr. McNickle condones singling out one at which his ire is targeted.
Why? What does this accomplish, other than placing someone in harm's way and creating on our roads a cycle (pun intended) of contempt and disrespect for our fellow man and woman? Will McNickle apologize to the family of the next cyclist at whom an object is thrown from a moving vehicle or who is run off the road by a 4,000-pound SUV due in part to encouragement from someone of his stature?
Upper St. Clair
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.
- Uncaring toward soldiers
- PETA & its tactics I
- PETA & its tactics II
- Bad cartoon
- Being a volunteer firefighter
- New Kensington block party thanks
- Biased? Guilty as charged
- Seeking Christ in kids