A Letter to the Editor that appeared in today's Bergen Record (NJ)



D

DaWei

Guest
DISCLAIMER: These are not, I repeat, *NOT* my opinions. I'm just
sharing something I read in the paper this morning with all of you, as
it will presumably lead to discussion.

Bicyclists are safety hazards

On Sunday, my husband and I were traveling northeast on Route 202 from
Oakland to Mahwah. This road is a narrow, two-lane road. A bunch of
cyclists going southwest toward Oakland would not yield to any cars.
Drivers who wanted to pass them had to use the opposite lane. Cyclists
just laughed as one oncoming auto almost hit our car.

Something has to be done about this. Cyclists need to be licensed and
have to pay insurance if they are going to ride the much-used main
roads. Licensing will bring much revenue to this state.

Bicycling is wonderful, but it causes hazards on our main roads. When a
bunch of children are killed on a winding road because of cyclists,
then maybe someone will wake up.

Betty Callahan, Mahwah
***

As for my two cents' worth, I strongly disagree with this lady, as the
vast majority of you presumably will as well. We need to be encouraging
people to bike/hike/use alternative modes of transportation, etc.
People seem baffled that there's an ever-worsening obesity epidemic in
this country. What I find baffling is that they're baffled. And
whatever happened to sharing the roads? Where does this lady, and so
many people like her for that matter, get off implying that motorists
are doing cyclists a favor by "letting" them use public roads? And if
she's so concerned about increased revenue for the state, how about a
luxury tax for all the gas-guzzling SUVs out there? (Yes, I realize
that's not about to happen any time soon, as that would be political
suicide for any elected official gutsy enough to actually suggest such
a thing.) Anyway, I was just wondering what the rest of you had to say
about this.

David
 
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 06:17:25 -0800, DaWei wrote:

> On Sunday, my husband and I were traveling northeast on Route 202 from
> Oakland to Mahwah. This road is a narrow, two-lane road. A bunch of
> cyclists going southwest toward Oakland would not yield to any cars.
> Drivers who wanted to pass them had to use the opposite lane. Cyclists
> just laughed as one oncoming auto almost hit our car.
>
> Something has to be done about this.

I agree. Drivers who pass when they either cannot see oncoming traffic,
or ignore the fact that there is oncoming traffic, are endangering
their own and others' lives.

Oh, and yes, passing vehicles are _required_ to use the opposite lane.

> As for my two cents' worth, I strongly disagree with this lady, as the
> vast majority of you presumably will as well. We need to be encouraging
> people to bike/hike/use alternative modes of transportation, etc.

This isn't about obesity, or "gas-guzzling SUVs". It is about people who
are ignorant of the rules of the road. BTW, in this case it includes the
cyclists. NJ law stipulates single-file cycling.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President
_`\(,_ | should on no account be allowed to do the job. -- Douglas Adams
(_)/ (_) |
 
Hi.

I realize that obesity and luxury taxes are somewhat off-topic, but in
my view they're nonetheless relevant in light of the fact that she's A)
suggesting something (licensing and insuring of bicyclists) that would
likely discourage some people from riding, B) she raised the issue of
increased state revenue, and C) promoting, rather than discouraging or
begrudgingly tolerating bicycling is what we should collectively be
doing, for reasons including but obviously not limited to fighting
obesity.

Point taken about the state law concerning single-file cycling however.
 
Cars are safety hazards

On Sunday, my husband and I were traveling on a narrow, two-lane road. A
bunch of motorists going the opposite direction would not yield to any
bikes. Bicycles who needed to be passed were forced into the ditch.
Motorists just laughed as one car almost hit our bike

Something has to be done about this. Motorists need to be better trained to
deal with bikes if they are going to drive on the much-used main roads.
Higher taxes to discourage driving will bring much needed revenue to our
state.

Cars are wonderful, but they cause hazards on our main roads. When a bunch
of children are killed on a winding road because of motorists, then maybe
someone will wake up.

Claire Petersky
 
DaWei wrote:
> DISCLAIMER: These are not, I repeat, *NOT* my opinions. I'm just
> sharing something I read in the paper this morning with all of you, as
> it will presumably lead to discussion.
>
> Bicyclists are safety hazards
>
The above statement is probably a view that is shared by many people who
don't / can't / wouldn't ride a bicycle if their lives depended on it.

> On Sunday, my husband and I were traveling northeast on Route 202 from
> Oakland to Mahwah. This road is a narrow, two-lane road. A bunch of
> cyclists going southwest toward Oakland would not yield to any cars.
> Drivers who wanted to pass them had to use the opposite lane. Cyclists
> just laughed as one oncoming auto almost hit our car.
>
"cyclist would not yield"? What does she mean by this? Does she want the
cyclist to stop and pull off the road when a car is approaching from behind?

> Something has to be done about this. Cyclists need to be licensed and
> have to pay insurance if they are going to ride the much-used main
> roads. Licensing will bring much revenue to this state.
>
insurance? What type of insurance would she like the cyclist to have?
Clearly the bicycle is not going to do very much property damage. And
death or injury? If the cyclist is involved in a collision it would more
than likely be the cyclist that would injured or killed.

> Bicycling is wonderful, but it causes hazards on our main roads. When a
> bunch of children are killed on a winding road because of cyclists,
> then maybe someone will wake up.
>
More children are killed every year by gumballs than are killed as a
result of a cyclist.

> Betty Callahan, Mahwah
> ***
>
> As for my two cents' worth, I strongly disagree with this lady, as the
> vast majority of you presumably will as well. We need to be encouraging
> people to bike/hike/use alternative modes of transportation, etc.
> People seem baffled that there's an ever-worsening obesity epidemic in
> this country. What I find baffling is that they're baffled. And
> whatever happened to sharing the roads? Where does this lady, and so
> many people like her for that matter, get off implying that motorists
> are doing cyclists a favor by "letting" them use public roads? And if
> she's so concerned about increased revenue for the state, how about a
> luxury tax for all the gas-guzzling SUVs out there? (Yes, I realize
> that's not about to happen any time soon, as that would be political
> suicide for any elected official gutsy enough to actually suggest such
> a thing.) Anyway, I was just wondering what the rest of you had to say
> about this.
>
> David
>
I don't suppose the paper published this persons contact information?
This person clearly has issues with the roads being for use by motor
vehicles. She is probably the type I mentioned before about not ever
riding a bike. Maybe she has never even owned a bike. Perhaps she was to
underprivledged as a child to have a bicycle. Whatever the case she has
issues.

Ken
--
You never have the wind with you - either it is against you or you're
having a good day. ~Daniel Behrman, The Man Who Loved Bicycles

Homepage: http://www.bikesandmoreonline.com/
 
No, there was no contacdt info. Just her name followed by her town
(Mahwah), as it appears at the end of the letter.
 
A quick google gave this (but looks like entry is 10 years old)
Real Name:- Betty Callahan Email address:- [email protected]
Your City,State and Country:- 6 MacMillan Ct, Mahwah, NJ 07430 USA
"DaWei" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No, there was no contacdt info. Just her name followed by her town
> (Mahwah), as it appears at the end of the letter.
>
 
Bjorn wrote:
> A quick google gave this (but looks like entry is 10 years old)
> Real Name:- Betty Callahan Email address:- [email protected]
> Your City,State and Country:- 6 MacMillan Ct, Mahwah, NJ 07430 USA
> "DaWei" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>No, there was no contacdt info. Just her name followed by her town
>>(Mahwah), as it appears at the end of the letter.
>>
>
>
>
Well hopefully the spammers will send her lots of good wishes for all
the cyclist in the world.

Ken
--
You never have the wind with you - either it is against you or you're
having a good day. ~Daniel Behrman, The Man Who Loved Bicycles

Homepage: http://www.bikesandmoreonline.com/
 
DaWei wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I realize that obesity and luxury taxes are somewhat off-topic, but in
> my view they're nonetheless relevant in light of the fact that she's A)
> suggesting something (licensing and insuring of bicyclists) that would
> likely discourage some people from riding, B) she raised the issue of
> increased state revenue, and C) promoting, rather than discouraging or
> begrudgingly tolerating bicycling is what we should collectively be
> doing, for reasons including but obviously not limited to fighting
> obesity.
>
> Point taken about the state law concerning single-file cycling however.
>

Would one of you tell me where the NJ law specifies that multiple riders
must ride single file? I'd like to be able to quote it to some of my
riding buddies.

Thanks,
EJ in NJ
 
Hi EJ,

(From
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/bike/regulations.shtm)

39:4-14.2, 39:4-10.11 Operating Regulations.
Every person riding a bicycle on a roadway shall ride as near to the
right roadside as practicable exercising due care when passing a
standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction. A bicyclist
may move left under any of the following conditions: 1) To make a left
turn from a left turn lane or pocket; 2) To avoid debris, drains, or
other hazardous conditions on the right; 3) To pass a slower moving
vehicle; 4) To occupy any available lane when traveling at the same
speed as other traffic; 5) To travel no more than two abreast when
traffic is not impeded, but otherwise ride in single file. Every person
riding a bicycle should ride in the same direction as vehicular
traffic.

In New Jersey, the law states a bicyclist must obey all state and local
automobile driving laws. A parent may be held responsible for the
child's violation of any traffic law.
 
"DaWei" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi EJ,
>> vehicle; 4) To occupy any available lane when traveling at the same
> speed as other traffic; 5) To travel no more than two abreast when
> traffic is not impeded, but otherwise ride in single file. Every person
> riding a bicycle should ride in the same direction as vehicular
> traffic.

I like no. 5 - that is how it's in Germany, but not in California. To me
that's also means that if a car can't safely pass a single rider (due to
oncoming traffic for example) it is ok to ride double-file as the traffic is
not impeded.

Now why can't I use No 4 to say that I *am* riding at the same speed than my
biking buddy :)

bjorn
 
[email protected] wrote:
> There is notheing worse than rude cyclist not riding single file. Those
> who ride in a pack blocking traffic need to brushed back!!!
>

Brushed back with what? An SUV? That doesn't sound very sporting.
 
DaWei wrote:
> Hi EJ,
>
> (From
> http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/bike/regulations.shtm)
>
> 39:4-14.2, 39:4-10.11 Operating Regulations.
> Every person riding a bicycle on a roadway shall ride as near to the
> right roadside as practicable exercising due care when passing a
> standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction. A bicyclist
> may move left under any of the following conditions: 1) To make a left
> turn from a left turn lane or pocket; 2) To avoid debris, drains, or
> other hazardous conditions on the right; 3) To pass a slower moving
> vehicle; 4) To occupy any available lane when traveling at the same
> speed as other traffic; 5) To travel no more than two abreast when
> traffic is not impeded, but otherwise ride in single file. Every person
> riding a bicycle should ride in the same direction as vehicular
> traffic.
>

First, this is all discriminatory weasel wording that should be
repealed. Second, "practicable" must be defined by the bicycle driver
(who else is gonna define it?). A bicyclist using the full lane (as he
is entitled to as a vehicle operator) need only say "It was not
practicable for me to allow motorists to use my lane to pass me."

Wayne
Bicyclist Empowerment Now
 
David L. Johnson wrote:

NJ law stipulates single-file cycling.

Bicyclists are required to ride single file if "impeding" other traffic.
What is the definition of impeding traffic in NJ?

Wayne
 
I have no idea to be honest. I simply Googled "Bicycling in NJ" or
something generic to that effect, to find the NJ Dept of
Transportation's Bicycling rules and regulations. That was in response
to the post by "EJ in NJ" who wanted to know what the state law was.
 
DaWei wrote:
> DISCLAIMER: These are not, I repeat, *NOT* my opinions. I'm just
> sharing something I read in the paper this morning with all of you, as
> it will presumably lead to discussion.
>
> Bicyclists are safety hazards
>
> On Sunday, my husband and I were traveling northeast on Route 202 from
> Oakland to Mahwah. This road is a narrow, two-lane road. A bunch of
> cyclists going southwest toward Oakland would not yield to any cars.
> Drivers who wanted to pass them had to use the opposite lane. Cyclists
> just laughed as one oncoming auto almost hit our car.
>
> Something has to be done about this. Cyclists need to be licensed and
> have to pay insurance if they are going to ride the much-used main
> roads. Licensing will bring much revenue to this state.
>
> Bicycling is wonderful, but it causes hazards on our main roads. When a
> bunch of children are killed on a winding road because of cyclists,
> then maybe someone will wake up.
>
> Betty Callahan, Mahwah
> ***
>
> As for my two cents' worth, I strongly disagree with this lady, as the
> vast majority of you presumably will as well. We need to be encouraging
> people to bike/hike/use alternative modes of transportation, etc.
> People seem baffled that there's an ever-worsening obesity epidemic in
> this country. What I find baffling is that they're baffled. And
> whatever happened to sharing the roads? Where does this lady, and so
> many people like her for that matter, get off implying that motorists
> are doing cyclists a favor by "letting" them use public roads? And if
> she's so concerned about increased revenue for the state, how about a
> luxury tax for all the gas-guzzling SUVs out there? (Yes, I realize
> that's not about to happen any time soon, as that would be political
> suicide for any elected official gutsy enough to actually suggest such
> a thing.) Anyway, I was just wondering what the rest of you had to say
> about this.
>
> David
>

just a rumor but I've been told by other cyclists: paved roads were
first installed in this country (USA) for cyclists not car drivers.
Brick roads were still acceptable for the low level of car traffic at
the time. So maybe she needs to get off our roads. j/k
 
>>Brushed back with what? An SUV? That doesn't sound very sporting.<<

Or car or mirror!!! NJ law requires riding single file if traffinc will
be obstructed. You know who you are . Do all cyclists a favor and
follow the law!!
 
[email protected] wrote:
>>>Brushed back with what? An SUV? That doesn't sound very sporting.<<
>
>
> Or car or mirror!!! NJ law requires riding single file if traffinc will
> be obstructed. You know who you are . Do all cyclists a favor and
> follow the law!!
>

It may very well be the law, but it is not the motorist's place to
enforce it.
 
[email protected] wrote:
>>> Brushed back with what? An SUV? That doesn't sound very
>>> sporting.<<
>
> Or car or mirror!!! NJ law requires riding single file if traffinc
> will be obstructed. You know who you are . Do all cyclists a favor
> and follow the law!!

Hey, Little Jimmy Buttpacker! (tm) Brush THIS!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

No_Positives
Nice letter to the editor on Lance and doping
Replies
33
Views
6K
Professional Cycling
Flyer
Flyer
C
Yet another letter to the editor
Replies
5
Views
391
Road Cycling
Tom Keats
T
E
Re: Another letter to the editor
Replies
5
Views
583
Recumbent bicycles
[email protected]
J
C
Another letter to the editor
Replies
30
Views
710
Road Cycling
[email protected]
J
C
Letter to the editor
Replies
20
Views
684
Road Cycling
LioNiNoiL_a t_Y a h 0 0_d 0 t_c 0 m
L
C
letter to the editor of The Age re "Drugs, dial, drive, bloody idiot?"
Replies
14
Views
728
Australia and New Zealand
DaveB
D
C
  • Locked
Another Hateful Letter to the Editor
Replies
46
Views
3K
Recumbent bicycles
Dj Blag
D
Dave Pace
Need some help with a letter
Replies
2
Views
678
Road Cycling
Dave Pace
Dave Pace
steve
Open Letter to Pat McQuaid from Greg LeMond
Replies
59
Views
4K
Professional Cycling
alienator
alienator
dot
I don't see any news on english-speaking cycling related sites about this letter
Replies
0
Views
3K
Professional Cycling
dot
dot
Top Bottom Back