Mayonnaise

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

Theakston

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!

-=(8)=-

"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.

fordfasterr

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

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

John Wilke

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

jw

explody pup

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.

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

666pack

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

ignominious

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

sbhikes

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.

Mayonnaise

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

ghettocruiser

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.

BEARPAW!!!

+ a bajillion

Keith99

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.

youth

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.

No_Minkah

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

AlmostTrick

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

angelo

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.

AlmostTrick

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.

oscaregg

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.

jimmuter

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.

tomcryar

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.

EnigManiac

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.

slowandsteady

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.

banerjek

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.

randya

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?