yet another idiot letter

[Marlene Blanshay]

SOme shmuck wrote this in our local paper. A cyclist (commuter) was
killed when crushed by a truck last week:



Letter


Tuesday, October 11, 2005



Lessons learned from "Cyclist Crushed" (Gazette, Oct. 6): Cyclists
should stay off the roads! I'm sick and tired of seeing cyclists day in
and day out pedalling their 5-kilometres an hour bikes in the middle of
the roads, pretending they are registered vehicles authorized to use the
roads, slowing down traffic; but then in the blink of an eye they want
the convenience of being pedestrians so they pedal through red lights,
sway in and out of traffic and ride between cars stopped at red lights.

Cyclists are nothing more than fast pedestrians and should stick to
sidewalks. Newton's First Law tells us that force is equal to mass times
acceleration. God forbid an accident should happen on a sidewalk, but
the force equal to the mass of two people times the acceleration of a
cyclist is nothing compared with the force and bodily damage created by
the huge mass of a car or truck times the speed of the cyclist. It's
just common sense.

Tony Ruso

St. Laurent



Yeah.. the sidewalk. That's safe! ALl the pedestrians, kids, dogs...
what a moron.

 

[Neil Brooks]

Marlene Blanshay <[email protected]> wrote:

>SOme shmuck wrote this in our local paper. A cyclist (commuter) was
>killed when crushed by a truck last week:

[snip]

Any interest in penning a thoughtful response, representing the
cyclists' POV?

Likely many of us could help with the wording....

 

[bryanska]

> Any interest in penning a thoughtful response, representing the
> cyclists' POV?

I'd remind the author that roads are for people.

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"Neil Brooks" wrote: Any interest in penning a thoughtful response,
representing the cyclists' POV? Likely many of us could help with the
wording....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This guy is so screwed up with half-truths, mis-information, stereotypes
and cliches it is hard to know where to begin. However, I think a soft,
well written response would be good. The first thing you have to realize is
that you are not going to change him--the answer should be worded as though
it were directed to him, but actually it needs to capture the minds of
others. It should point out that bicycles DO belong on the road, not on
sidewalks, and that the vast majority of cyclists do not block traffic at 5
kph, weave in and out, or run lights.

BTW, if you are among the minority of cyclists to do the kinds of things
that the writer referred to, you should realize that you are unwittingly
supporting his position.

Also, it could be pointed out that, as gas prices soar, and the number of
cyclists increases in response, traffic flow will very likely IMPROVE, due
to the fact that you can fit a lot more bikes onto the streets than cars.
And, you might mention PARKING.

 

[Rich Clark]

"Marlene Blanshay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> SOme shmuck wrote this in our local paper. A cyclist (commuter) was killed
> when crushed by a truck last week:

> Lessons learned from "Cyclist Crushed" (Gazette, Oct. 6): Cyclists should
> stay off the roads! I'm sick and tired of seeing cyclists day in and day
> out pedalling their 5-kilometres an hour bikes in the middle of the roads,
> pretending they are registered vehicles authorized to use the roads,

When newspapers publish letters in which the writers are patently ignorant
of the law, the newspapers themselves should be obligated to point out the
truth, rather than leaving it up to another reader to respond. Newspapers do
have a duty to the truth.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and whatever a driver's opinion, rule of
law is the standard in Canada as well as the US.

RichC

 

[[email protected]]

Marlene Blanshay wrote:
> SOme shmuck wrote this in our local paper. A cyclist (commuter) was
> killed when crushed by a truck last week:
>
> [Letter]
>

The thing that surprises me is that the paper would select it for
publication ... either they are trolling for responses, or want bikes
off the roads themselves.

If you can stay calm (I might have a hard time keeping tension out of
my voice) maybe you could call and ask them what they were thinking,
and ask them if enhancing tensions between motorists and cyclists was
really good for public safety.

 

[lowkey]

"Matthew Venhaus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Marlene Blanshay <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>> pedalling their 5-kilometres an hour bikes
>
> Well at least they spelled pedalling right. And a cyclist traveling
> 5kph could safely travel on the sidewalk, but how often does a cyclist
> go that slow?

That was the figure that jumped out at me. I think I probably _walk_ faster
than 5 kmh.

 

[Matthew Venhaus]

Marlene Blanshay <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> pedalling their 5-kilometres an hour bikes

Well at least they spelled pedalling right. And a cyclist traveling
5kph could safely travel on the sidewalk, but how often does a cyclist
go that slow?

 

[Bill Henry]

bryanska wrote:
>>Any interest in penning a thoughtful response, representing the
>>cyclists' POV?
>
>
> I'd remind the author that roads are for people.

I'd also remind him that Newton's first law says nothing about the F=ma
equation, but rather deals with the law of inertia.

 

[Bill Henry]

Rich Clark wrote:

> When newspapers publish letters in which the writers are patently ignorant
> of the law, the newspapers themselves should be obligated to point out the
> truth, rather than leaving it up to another reader to respond. Newspapers do
> have a duty to the truth.

In general I agree, but in this case, the statements seem to be more
matters of opinion than matters of fact (the writer's misunderstanding
of Newton's First Law aside).

Saying "cyclists should stay off the roads!" is not the same as saying
"cyclists are breaking the law by riding on the roads." If that were
what the person had said, there should be an editor's note at the end of
the letter, correcting the person.

Often these letters have the opposite effect that the writer intends.
By viciously attacking cyclists, he makes himself look bad.

-Bill H.

 

[Bill Henry]

[email protected] wrote:
> Marlene Blanshay wrote:
>
>>SOme shmuck wrote this in our local paper. A cyclist (commuter) was
>>killed when crushed by a truck last week:
>>
>>[Letter]
>>
>
>
> The thing that surprises me is that the paper would select it for
> publication ... either they are trolling for responses, or want bikes
> off the roads themselves.

Not necessarily. In addition to providing news and (in theory)
un-biased reports, newspapers also act to a lesser degree as a public
forum for debate about current issues of public concern. Censoring
those opinions that some might find objectionable is, I think, a bigger
crime than printing the opinion of those we might disagree with.

> If you can stay calm (I might have a hard time keeping tension out of
> my voice) maybe you could call and ask them what they were thinking,
> and ask them if enhancing tensions between motorists and cyclists was
> really good for public safety.

Some may also argue (I being one of them) that by allowing this person
to get their say, that it actually REDUCES hostility because it provides
a sort of "safety valve". People, by their very nature, tend to want to
speak their minds, and not allowing them to do that freely and without
restraint is a recipe for disaster.

I hasten to add that this doesn't mean that newspapers are OBLIGATED in
to print whatever somebody sends in, but I DO think that in doing so, it
provides at least another opinion, albiet an unenlightened one.

 

[what does THIS button do?]

Marlene Blanshay wrote:
> SOme shmuck wrote this in our local paper. A cyclist (commuter) was
> killed when crushed by a truck last week:
>
>
>
> Letter
>
> Yeah.. the sidewalk. That's safe! ALl the pedestrians, kids, dogs...
> what a moron.

Editor,

I would like to thank you for printing Mssr. Ruso's letter of 10/11/05
(Lessons Learned). His unique rhetorical gifts compel this reader to
plead for Mssr. Ruso to please, tell us more. Could the editoral board
could make room for a weekly column from him on page [comics or
horoscope page number], where he might be best appreciated? Perhaps he
could be syndicated, thus shining the light of his intellectual glory
upon an even wider audience, while we bask in his radiating brilliance.
Do you know if he would be interested in a lecture tour?

Sincerely,
M.B.

or something like that.

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Leo Lichtman" <[email protected]> writes:

> The first thing you have to realize is
> that you are not going to change him--the answer should be worded as though
> it were directed to him, but actually it needs to capture the minds of
> others. It should point out that bicycles DO belong on the road, not on
> sidewalks, and that the vast majority of cyclists do not block traffic at 5
> kph, weave in and out, or run lights.

It could also be an opportunity to point out the
dangerousness of riding alongside large trucks.
A diagram showing those huge blind spots radiating
from a truck cab's right window and from the rear,
as well as the blind spot right in front, could be
quite helpful. Unfortunately, the incident in the
news story to which this Tony Ruso guy was responding
is not unique.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Rich Clark]

"Bill Henry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rich Clark wrote:
>
>> When newspapers publish letters in which the writers are patently
>> ignorant of the law, the newspapers themselves should be obligated to
>> point out the truth, rather than leaving it up to another reader to
>> respond. Newspapers do have a duty to the truth.
>
> In general I agree, but in this case, the statements seem to be more
> matters of opinion than matters of fact (the writer's misunderstanding of
> Newton's First Law aside).

The letter writer states "I'm sick and tired of seeing cyclists day in and
day
> out pedalling their 5-kilometres an hour bikes in the middle of the roads,
> pretending they are registered vehicles authorized to use the roads"

That bicycles are "authorized to use the roads" is not a matter of opinion,
a fact that the newspaper should point out.

> Saying "cyclists should stay off the roads!" is not the same as saying
> "cyclists are breaking the law by riding on the roads." If that were what
> the person had said, there should be an editor's note at the end of the
> letter, correcting the person.

Yes.

RichC

 

[Marlene Blanshay]

[email protected] wrote:
> Marlene Blanshay wrote:
>
>>SOme shmuck wrote this in our local paper. A cyclist (commuter) was
>>killed when crushed by a truck last week:
>>
>>[Letter]
>>
>
>
> The thing that surprises me is that the paper would select it for
> publication ... either they are trolling for responses, or want bikes
> off the roads themselves.
>
> If you can stay calm (I might have a hard time keeping tension out of
> my voice) maybe you could call and ask them what they were thinking,
> and ask them if enhancing tensions between motorists and cyclists was
> really good for public safety.
>

I am sure that if anyone sent them a letter with the opposite view,
they'd print it. Remember thses are LETTERS and don't reflect the
editor's viewpoint or aren't supposed to. What would be the point of
letters if everyone agreed? That's what letters to the editor and op-eds
are all about. I have written op-eds, one about how canadian broadcast
tv regulations suck- however, I am sure there are people who disagreed.
That's what freedom of the press is all about.

 

[Marlene Blanshay]

Matthew Venhaus wrote:
> Marlene Blanshay <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>
>> pedalling their 5-kilometres an hour bikes
>
>
> Well at least they spelled pedalling right. And a cyclist traveling
> 5kph could safely travel on the sidewalk, but how often does a cyclist
> go that slow?
>

for sure... i don't know about you but I'd fall over.

 

[Marlene Blanshay]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Leo Lichtman" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>The first thing you have to realize is
>>that you are not going to change him--the answer should be worded as though
>>it were directed to him, but actually it needs to capture the minds of
>>others. It should point out that bicycles DO belong on the road, not on
>>sidewalks, and that the vast majority of cyclists do not block traffic at 5
>>kph, weave in and out, or run lights.
>
>
> It could also be an opportunity to point out the
> dangerousness of riding alongside large trucks.
> A diagram showing those huge blind spots radiating
> from a truck cab's right window and from the rear,
> as well as the blind spot right in front, could be
> quite helpful. Unfortunately, the incident in the
> news story to which this Tony Ruso guy was responding
> is not unique.
>
> Unfortunately, what happened was just that= the poor woman was riding
NEXT to a big truck, something I would never do, and she slid on the
slick roads. There was a photo of the cops taking her bike away (some
sort of mountain bike it seemed with knobby tires) adn it was all mushed
and the wheels were bent like potato chips.

 

[Bill Henry]

Rich Clark wrote:
> The letter writer states "I'm sick and tired of seeing cyclists day in and
> day
>
>>out pedalling their 5-kilometres an hour bikes in the middle of the roads,
>>pretending they are registered vehicles authorized to use the roads"

Yeah, good point.

 

[Neil Brooks]

Marlene Blanshay <[email protected]> wrote:

> Unfortunately, what happened was just that= the poor woman was riding
>NEXT to a big truck, something I would never do, and she slid on the
>slick roads. There was a photo of the cops taking her bike away (some
>sort of mountain bike it seemed with knobby tires) adn it was all mushed
>and the wheels were bent like potato chips.

We lost one in San Diego in June ... just like that:
----
"PACIFIC BEACH – A man on a bicycle was killed after colliding with a
semi truck carrying 80,000 pounds of sand about 1:30 p.m. yesterday on
Garnet Avenue at Cass Street, police said.

He was identified as Jeffrey William Deblon, 52, a Pacific Beach
business owner, the county Medical Examiner's Office said.

The bicyclist and the truck were both westbound on Garnet Avenue, San
Diego police Sgt. Jeff Fellows said.

Deblon may have been attempting to squeeze between the truck and
parked cars at the time, when he may have misjudged his clearance and
struck the truck, said Fellows, citing witness accounts. Police said
the truck driver did not realize he had struck some one, continued
driving and was alerted by witnesses. He then returned."
----
You have to think the 80,000 pounds of sand was pretty much
superfluous at that point :-{

I get weary from dead cyclist posts, but ... you can usually be
reminded of something pretty mission critical by reading them.

 

[Matthew Venhaus]

what does THIS button do? <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Marlene Blanshay wrote:
> > SOme shmuck wrote this in our local paper. A cyclist (commuter)
was
> > killed when crushed by a truck last week:
> >
> >
> >
> > Letter
> >
> > Yeah.. the sidewalk. That's safe! ALl the pedestrians, kids,
dogs...
> > what a moron.
>
> Editor,
>
> I would like to thank you for printing Mssr. Ruso's letter of
10/11/05
> (Lessons Learned). His unique rhetorical gifts compel this reader to
> plead for Mssr. Ruso to please, tell us more. Could the editoral
board
> could make room for a weekly column from him on page [comics or
> horoscope page number], where he might be best appreciated? Perhaps
he
> could be syndicated, thus shining the light of his intellectual
glory
> upon an even wider audience, while we bask in his radiating
brilliance.
> Do you know if he would be interested in a lecture tour?
>
> Sincerely,
> M.B.
>
> or something like that.
>
My local newspaper routinely prints sarcastic letters but I am not too
fond of them in this forum. Much better would be a brief letter
outlining the rights and responsibilities of cyclists on the road and
the benefits of cycling to individuals and the community, remembering
that most readers will not remember the letter to which you are
responding. Ideally the letter would come from an officer of a local
cycling advocacy group (or at least have their name and organization
signed to it).