EnigManiac

I truly truly truly hope you sent that letter to the Chicago Sun Times and that they print it. I'll be watching for it. Great job!

moxfyre

Seriously... for all the good arguments posted on here, nobody in the "mainstream" car-loving world's gonna read them. Well-written letters the Sun Times will get read by a LOT more people

+1 to Enig Maniac for having sent a letter already!!!

ChezJfrey

This is precisely what has me baffled. Why can't these people figure out that a delay behind a bicycle is merely temporary and ultimately affects nothing? The slight delay merely means that the person usually spends that much less time stopped at the next controlled intersection where the light is red. In other words, the 2 seconds waiting behind the bicycle just means you wait 2 fewer seconds when you end up stopped at the next light! Your overall trip time is entirely unaffected.

For some reason, these people (the ones holding Mr. Green's viewpoint) fail to grasp this incredibly simple concept. I see it every week in certain sections of my commute that require me to occupy some of the lane. A seemingly impatient driver (or two, or three, or n) slows slightly, makes a dash for a miniscule to non-existent gap (sometimes eliciting a honk from the cut-off driver in the other lane), roars by me only to then jam the brakes slightly further ahead when they reach the next stop light or even another, albeit slower, auto. These simpletons obviously can't piece together the larger picture...

P.S. Oh, and LittleBigMan, nice! I chuckled over that one.

EnigManiac

Alas, it does not appear my reply will be published. As an experienced 'letter to the editor' writer, I know that if they don't print it the next day, it isn't likely to be printed at all. I checked the paper this morning and there were no published retorts whatsoever.

The Human Car

But what if we apply the same standard to everything on the road?

C.R.’s first point: Anything that is on the street that does not have the same speed, efficiency and comparative safety [sic] that motor vehicles provide should be prohibited. Response: This should include buses, heavy trucks and motor cycles before cyclists inter the picture.

C.R.’s second point: Clean automotive technology is what should be on the road. Response: This should also prohibit diesel buses, heavy trucks and most cars currently on the road. The fact that some bicycle friendly cites are replacing 40% of car trips with bike trips shows you can do both and make a significant dent in the problem.

C.R.’s next point: The risk of injury or death is greater by cycling. Response: In 2004 (the latest reporting year for NHTSA) there were 1356 crash fatalities which included 25 cyclists and there were 961 significant injuries of which one was a cyclist. This does not support the claim that cycling is overly more dangerous then driving in a car. I will also point out studies have shown that experienced cyclist have a half to one fifth fewer accidents then elementary kids who are currently over represented in cycling crash statistics. The risk of an accident on a bike can be reduced through education both for motorist and cyclists.

C.R.’s next point: Driving a motor vehicle requires maximum attention at all times. Response: So cyclists are more of a problem then of cell phone use? Let’s try and stick to major problem and issues, ok?

C.R.’s next point: [Motorists] who more often than not are just trying to get to or from work or get their errands done, [inconveniencing them] is unconscionable. Guess what, cyclists more often then not are trying to get the exact same things done you are yet you are promoting creating even a greater inconvenience to them, greater health risks and environmental damage, that is truly unconscionable. Cyclists are less of an inconvenience then cars turning without a dedicated turn lane, then being stuck behind a bus or heavy truck or just too many cars on the road. The problem is too many cars not too many cyclists.

C.R.’s next point: The amount of unnecessary stress this [cyclists] causes motorists. Response: Time to wake up and smell the coffee, the very fact you cannot tolerate a few seconds of “delay” (which is often negated by the next light or traffic jam) caused by a fellow human being indicates how severely you are already stressed. And do you really think by adding more cars to the current traffic problems is a better solution then a few cyclists? Next time you are stuck in traffic, picture everyone ahead of you on a bike and that most likely you will be able to pass them all in less then a minute. If you are driving a car to save time, then where is all that time you saved that you can spare a few seconds for a bit of tolerance for a fellow human being?

I bike because it saves me time (no need for an extra trip to the gym and I am not that slow even at age 50,) it helps lower my stress levels and I just love spending money on “filling up” on a good steak dinner. The National Center of Disease Control says that inactivity is the #2 killer in the United States just behind smoking and it recommends combining exercise with daily activities as the best way to combat inactivity. Be part of the solution not the problem.

Zeuser

I'm surprised this guy didn't blame the price of gas on the prolifiration of bicycles.

rando

this is great.

JohnBrooking

That might be true for your paper, but not for all. Mine prefers to group letters together by topic, which means they might wait anywhere from a few days to a few weeks to gather together all the ones on a given topic, select out the most well-written or representative ones, and publish them on the same day, to give the discussion more coherency (I presume).

webist

Not me. I've come to expect it.

Keith99

I think the 'for me" was implicit in what I wrote.

BUT point well taken and if I had been writing to the newspaper it is an important point to make and make overly clearly. A good reason to run idea past other friendly but critical readers.

blue steal

+1 webist

Keith99

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

catatonic

1)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.

A)O RLY? And your maltuned, smogfactory isn't? Pot, this is Kettle...Kettle, this is Pot.

2)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.

b)How about *gasp* USING THE OTHER LANE, or *ohmigawd* P-A-S-S-I-N-G them?

3)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.

c)And how will a vehicle that produces zero emissions but still consumes a significant amount of power fix global warming? You do know that cars run cleaner than the average powerplant, right? Someone should buy some prime real estate in the tundra....it's waterfront.

4)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.

d) Walking and jogging are NOT comparable transportation. I have yet to see a swimmer on the road, nor see someone stair-step their way to work, nor a moving health club. That's akin to me telling you to rollerskate to work. So, speed vs efficiency, which is best, Einstein?

5)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.

e)Wrong, drive the damn speed limit, and stop beong a self-righteous, impatient moron. If you do those three, you will realize how easy it is to actually pay attention.

6)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.

f)Cry me a river about stress...you think you are having a hard time, go out there on a bike and have some fool in a 4,000lb machine on your back tire, horn-humping for the next mile, when they had many chances to pass. As for insurance...how much damage will a bike do to you?

7)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.

g) Actually, I fail to see any point you have made. Give real numbers. All I heard here was needless whining. Are you hurt? Do you need the Waaambulance?


Really, this guy's rant is meritless. Lots of "facts" that he forgot to wash the BS off of, and the rest is just outright opinion disguised as fact.

If he doesn't like cyclists on his roads, he needs to build his own damn roads.

LittleBigMan

It's interesting that in 2000, car crashes killed 41,945 Americans (and 3.4 million injured.) In the same year, there were 15,517 murders in the U.S.

slagjumper

I tend to think that the person who wrote the letter had other, unmentioned reasons for writing. Why does someone get so worked up as to write a letter to the editor over the proliferation of bicycles? Here are some possible, unmentioned reasons that he cares:

1) He stands to lose money if there are less cars. That is he might own an interest in an auto dealership or an auto-focused sales organization.

2) He is old and, since he could not turn his head to the left, because of his arthritic neck, a cyclist surprised him as he was making a right turn last week. This caused him to jerk his head and caused him great pain.

3) He does not ride bikes and does not want to pay for more cycle infrastructure in his city. If he did not have kids he would say that public education is a waste, "children could get a far more useful education on the streets, rather than by attending public schools."

4) He is a business owner and his employees have started riding to work. This behaviour is not compatible with his outdated management techniques and he perceives that this might have a negitave effect on his bottom line. He best employee left last week for a postion with a rival, because they allowed bike commuting and provided showers.

5) He is profiting from the Oil Wars, by reselling Chinese kevlar jackets to Haliburton and seatbelts to GM.

6) Doesnt realize that economics is compelling the use of lower-energy transportation and there is nothing that he can do to reverse that.

7) He is a-scared of the less-oil-future and is lashing out, in vain. Cars-- to the American it's like baseball, apple pie and mom.

8) He is bigoted and sees great numbers of urban cyclists as a sign that the US is becoming like the China of yesterday. And he cannot take that. First it was the replacement of rice for potatoes in the American diet and now bicycles for cars. Are rickshaws and eating chicken feet next?

9) He is only strong enough to operate gas and brake pedals.

10) His daughter is commuting to work. He is truley concerned for her safety out there. However, since the world has beaten him down, he believes that he cannot make it safe for her, so he is trying to convince her to just give up the bike and come back to the car.

Here is the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation response--
https://www.biketraffic.org/content.php?id=951_0_16_0_C
Chicagoland Bicycle Federation response to Aug. 14 Chicago Sun-Times letter:

Contrary to the claims made in C.R. Green's Aug. 14 letter ("Bikes Do More Harm than Good"), there are many good reasons for people to use bicycles on Chicagoland's streets. In the city, particularly, the scale and density of neighborhoods and streets favors light, easily parkable, human-powered transportation. Bicycles are a perfect fit for urban transportation and in the overwhelming majority of situations, motorists and bicyclists cooperate smoothly and predictably as they share public right-of-way. Besides reducing congestion and pollutants, bicycling is time well spent.

Nevertheless, there are too many road users (motorists and bicyclists alike) who tend not to cooperate in traffic. This does not mean there is a war on the streets between cars and bikes. We must keep all of our behaviors on the streets civil, rational and defensive. When we operate a vehicle, we take responsibility not only for our own lives, but the lives of others who are more vulnerable users of the road including children, seniors and people with disabilities. To learn about road-sharing, please visit the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation on the Web at www.biketraffic.org or the Secretary of State's Rules of the Road page at www.cyberdriveillinois.com.

AlmostTrick

Below are three letters published Sunday, August 20, in the Chicago Sun Times in response to C.R. Green's original letter to the editor in which he ranted about cyclists being a big problem for him and everyone else. While the responses are good, I have to admit I enjoyed some of the responses on this forum a little more. The final writer, who also claims to be a car free biker, calls law breaking cyclists to task.

https://www.suntimes.com/output/lette...dt-vox20a.html

It's not all bicyclists' fault

I respectfully disagree with C.R. Green's conclusion that ''bikes do more harm than good'' [featured letter, Aug. 14]. Green implies that bicycles are the cause of accidents between bikes and cars. He adds that cyclists cause ''unnecessary stress'' on motorists.

It's stressful to be riding a bike or driving a car today. But I'd assert that the near-exponential increase in vehicles on our roads, and the increasingly distracted and impatient drivers (witness the number of red light-blowers on your next commute, or count the additional stop lights that have sprouted to regulate traffic in recent years) are the real culprits.

Green also paints cyclists as the cause of accidents. In virtually all the accidents and near-misses I've witnessed, there's only one or two where the cyclist was solely at fault. And, for those in which a driver stayed around to tend to a downed cyclist, many questioned why the cyclist was on the road in the first place, apparently unaware that Illinois law requires the sharing of roads between cyclists and motorists.

The answer to the issues Green raises is not to admonish bicyclists to stay home. A better bet: Yet another call for everyone to heed the rules of the road, look out for each other and be safe.

Lance Helgeson,
Portage Park

More bicycling isn't a problem

I have news for C.R. Green: We're not going away, so he'd better get used to us. Bicycle riding is increasing, for GOOD reasons. Bicycle commuting is a great way to get exercise. Many in Chicago can cycle to work in less time than it would take on public transit, or driving. And for those who don't save time, factor in the cost of that drive to the health club, and it may still be a net saving. And then, of course, we have the skyrocketing price of gasoline.

I'm also a driver. I frankly don't know what Green is talking about with his whining about the need to pay attention when he drives. I have no trouble paying attention to cyclists when I am driving, and Green wouldn't either if he would lose his bad attitude. Paying attention is one of the things a driver (and more so, a cyclist) has to do. If Green can't handle it, maybe he shouldn't be driving.

Steven M. Cohen,
Evanston

Bicyclists need to follow rules

As a lifelong bicyclist who no longer owns a car, I am not anti-car. I share C.R. Green's frustrations with bicyclists (a distinct minority) whose approach to dialogue with motorists is screaming, Two Wheels Good, Four Wheels Bad, as they roll by. I am pro-alternatives for transportation, especially since I pay the city and county taxes that maintain the streets. And yes, bikers should take responsibility for our safety. I share the frustration over bikers who don't wear helmets, hop on and off the sidewalks, go the wrong way on one-way streets, as well as cheat traffic lights and stop signs.

Essentially, I believe that it is the responsibility for cyclists and motorists, as well as local governments, to work out effective and fair ways for sharing the streets. As for his suggestion about bike insurance, it's definitely worth considering.

Garth Katner,
Lincoln Square

ThatWhichRolls

Garth Katner's letter implies that it is indeed the bicyclists who are the problem; his "minority" exception doesn't cut it. I mean, cheers to him for calling out all the law-breaking cyclists, but otherwise he misses the point: the author of the original letter is distinctly anti-bike and for unfounded reasons, and needs to be taken to task for it.

Retem

hmm something about driving to the gym in my hummer chowin down a cheesburger and chattin it up on my cell yeah thats good pre work out stuffs oh crap abicycle whats that ahh

those hippies on bikes damn communists trying to ruin american capitolist system oh where is the world coming to it is starting to look like sygon around here hey bill bob i gotta get off my phone and whipe the spandex off my windshield

a warning to the author of this letter I hope you have lotsa money because windows for cars and mirrors since on most hummers and cars of the like are motorized heated cooled light and all they are expensive

ThatWhichRolls

Don't even bother looking at it like that. The guy's probably going to suffer in all sorts of other horrible ways as well, or probably is already. You don't just make uninformed generalizations like that without being a complete and total ass in a lot of other respects. He is, in all likelihood, a bad person prone to making flippant statements, and thus will one day get stabbed in the back during a bar brawl in Morrocco.

Okay, maybe not Morrocco, or a bar fight, or even stabbed, but you know, some vaguely, symbolically equivalent bit of nastiness brought on by his own thick-headed behavior and crassittude.

tomcryar

It's called Karma--that which you put out to the world will come back to you.

greywolf

Lets put a stop to walking as a means of getting about too, thats even more outdated than the bicycle!

TomatoSue

What about the concept of using bikes FOR work? I do (I'm a bike tour guide) but thankfully in Sydney there arent too many burger-eating Hummer-drivers although the urban 4WD/mobile phone users seem to be a universal species

Retem

okay so the grease trap that is his vascular system will get clogged causing a major anurism whilst trying to please a woman he will sh@** himmself and then roll over a vegitable

hmm after all those cheese burgers I end up a celery stick

oboeguy

Wow, the writer who wrote in messed-up pretty badly. Here's the fixed version of the letter:

dead_canary

Just a reminder...Critical Mass is tonight. 5:30 at Daley Plaza. Here's a map, themed "The Proilferation of Bicycles on Public Roads", that weaves through Albany Park.

Clicky Clicky