Roads shouldn't be governed by survival of the fittest

I heartily disagree with the state Court of Appeals and The Seattle Times ["Court right to reject Seattle traffic law," Opinion, editorial, Aug. 21] that a traffic infraction cannot turn into a crime.

It seems to me that turning illegally into the path of an oncoming vehicle -- whether bicycle or car -- and killing that other person demonstrates a certain "reckless manner" and "disregard for the safety of others."

The issue has nothing to do with the "tensions created by traffic congestion" or with "competition for road space" or with "sharing limited space." Drivers need to avoid killing other people whether the roads are crowded or not!

Driving is not a contact sport or a blood sport governed by the law of the jungle: survival of the fittest. If drivers are not held accountable for criminal actions, or criminal outcomes, then we are all at the mercy of the legions of drivers who commit traffic infractions through carelessness, thoughtlessness, stupidity, irresponsibility and incompetence.

-- Dale Flynn, Shoreline

Judge had duty to uphold state law

A motorist should be held accountable for the injury or death of a pedestrian or cyclist. I understand the anger at the overturning of the Seattle law.

However, the anger is directed in the wrong direction. The Seattle ordinance conflicted with state law, and judges have a duty to determine what the letter of the law is. The judge overturned the Seattle law because it was against state law.

The judge can't change the law and neither can The Times.

What really needs to be done is to change the state law so careless motorists are held accountable for their carelessness. Those angry about the court's decision should write to their state legislators urging a change in the law.

-- Bob Fleming, Seattle

Cyclists, pedestrians not just collateral damage in accidents

Is the life of a bicyclist or pedestrian worth no more than the life of a deer shot out of hunting season?

That appears to be the opinion of The Seattle Times in its Aug. 21 editorial ["Court right to reject Seattle traffic law," Opinion]. Per The Times and the Court of Appeals, drivers who kill or injure cyclists or pedestrians are at most guilty of traffic violations. Let the motorist pay a few hundred dollars to the city treasury and take his SUV back out on the road.

According to The Times, any death or injury is just an unfortunate result of "the increased competition for road space." Has the Times decided that the unfettered competition championed by its business columnists is an ideal policy for traffic as well?

Cyclists and pedestrians beware. You are potential collateral damage in the competitive road economy, and The Times says that's how it should be.

-- Ray Redd, Lynnwood

Court rejected accountability from motorists

Perhaps the Court of Appeals ruling isn't anti-cyclist ["Court rejects city traffic law," NWTuesday, Aug. 18]. But it sends an awfully disturbing message to the cycling community.

When I read the Motor Vehicle Laws and got my driver's license, I was sobered to learn that I would be held accountable for any damage I did with the several-thousand-pound vehicle I was being allowed to operate. Perhaps the court has rejected accountability for motor-vehicle operators by their ruling in this case, too.

The Times cited the defense attorney's earnest claim that his client had not failed to do anything that was asked of him. But he left one thing out: The motorist failed to observe the traffic law. He failed to yield the right of way to the cyclist, who subsequently died.

I learned of the circumstances of this case only through reading Times' accounts and opinions of it. Nonetheless, it now seems that all noble promises made by the Department of Licensing about traffic laws being equally enforced for all users of the roads are false, and those who take to the streets on bicycles had better ride as if every car on the road is out to do them serious bodily harm.

That certainly fits my experience of commuting to work on a bicycle. And it fits the facts of this case.

-- William Imhof, Seattle

Rethink the Mercer Mess

I was overjoyed to hear that West Marine is suing the city over their plans to "fix" the Mercer mess. This is the first good news I've heard in months and I hope that other business in the area join them.

Don't get me wrong. The Mercer Street interchange with Interstate 5 desperately needs fixing but the mayor's and City Council's plans are not it. The city claims that only about 39,000 cars use Mercer Street daily. I think they are only counting the morning commute out of town because that number seems very low.

Even if they are correct and they succeed in their plan, the capacity of eastbound Mercer will be cut in half. Where will those 20,000 cars per day go? To other onramps that are already backed up as bad or worse than on Mercer?

What Mercer street needs is, first, active traffic control for all the lights from Dexter to the east, and from Denny to Westlake, possibly live police officers. Second, reroute the on/offramps to and from Mercer on I-5 to the right-hand lane. Third, repave the road with freeway-thickness concrete, not asphalt. Forth, put some trees along sides of the road for people to look at -- not in the center.

I know the city wants to make Mercer pretty, but the cost is much too high. If they succeed, it will choke downtown in its own traffic. People are already avoiding the city center because they waste too much time getting there and back. This will make it many times worse.

Please urge our City Council to step back and rethink its half-baked plan and adopt a realistic one.

-- Tom Kesterson, Seattle

Bus message inappropriate

As a recent visitor to your city for a series of business meetings, I absolutely loved the culture, cuisine and beauty Seattle has to offer.

What a dynamic, energizing place!

One sizable disappointment, though, was the blatant political message I saw on the side of a city bus while I sipped coffee at a local cafe.

The message was "End the Siege of Gaza" and it was blazoned on the bus full of morning commuters.

For what I'm guessing is a quasi-public entity to allow one of its vehicles to be used as a "vehicle" for such volatile and subjective rhetoric is in very poor taste.

Next time, they should stick to cellphone and restaurant ads.

-- Patrick O'Connor, Indianapolis, Ind.

Stop the bike assaults

The article "Attacks on bicycle commuters spur rider-awareness campaign" [Local News, March 11] worries me. The real campaign should be to stop the assaults, rather than to spur our awareness.

If people are wearing hockey masks and determined to assault people as they come out of the tunnel, it doesn't really matter how aware we are; eventually, more people will get robbed or hurt. After all, there aren't too many places to exit the tunnel other than at the ends of it.

-- Paul Backstrom, Kirkland

Questioning the need for more rules when bikers break them

Share the road and stay 3 feet from bikers? For their safety? I have to think about that.
When they're ones that run red lights, split lanes and break all the other rules I, as a car driver, must follow for everyone's safety, I just don't see it.

What about my safety? I would like them to keep 3 feet from me -- and stop running lights. I am afraid the bikers in this town have some very dangerous habits.

-- Lynn Durfy, Seattle

A call for proportionate, not equal, responsibility

House Bill 1491 asks motorists to give pedestrians and cyclists a 3-foot berth as they pass. Simple enough. Who could argue with that? Surprisingly, Owen Linch of the Teamsters Local 28 opposes House Bill 1491 because he wants motorists and cyclists to bear equal responsibility.

Asking for equal treatment is a powerful opening argument, except it doesn't make any sense in this instance. What, Mr. Linch, is equal about the awareness of your truck driver as he overtakes an elderly couple walking along a rural roadway? What, Mr. Linch, is equal about the physics of your multi-ton truck colliding with a child on a bicycle?

If advance knowledge is unequal, if potential harm is unequal, if the ability to ensure another person's safety is unequal, then responsibility is -- must be -- unequal.
Our goal should not be "equal responsibility;" it should be "proportionate responsibility."

I would pose a simple question for Mr. Linch and those who agree with him: If 3 feet is too much, what number would you propose?

Take a stand and let us know how much margin for error you think is adequate. Is it 2 feet? One foot? Six inches? If it was your parent, or spouse or child, how much space would you want?

Three feet. It's not equal, but it's simple -- simple enough to make our roadways a little safer for everyone.

-- Ron Rhinehart, Oak Harbor

A vengeful takeover

Disgraceful invaders, also known as the "critical mass bikers" who litter our streets, are surely twiddling their wobbly behinds in delight with the proposed 3-foot law as a precursor to complete road takeover ["To pass a bicyclist, bill calls for 3-foot clearance," Local News, Feb. 17]. They already act as if they alone should be on the roads.

But irresponsible activism endangers everyone's safety; they are out of control, not acting as lawful bikers sharing the road. Olympia aids and abets them, foisting new bad laws at us faster than the speed of light. We poor souls are suffering the byproduct of one-sided government in this state.

We, who drive on roads built for cars, had better get the message: Move out of the way folks, bikers are taking over with a vengeance.

When a biker gets hurt it's automatically assumed the bike rider is merrily obeying traffic laws, not zipping in and out of cars and up and down sidewalks, running lights and hanging U-turns in front of moving cars like I see. This happens often, yet car drivers are always the ones vilified.

I enjoy riding a bike, but I am opposed to the creation of a free-for-all for bikers and war on lawful drivers.

-- Elaine Solberg, Shoreline

Refusing to pay for negligible damage

As a cyclist, I am insulted by James F. Vesely's assertion that by refusing to support a license fee for my bicycle, I fail to acknowledge my "role in the continued maintenance of our city and region" ["Unabashed joy in cycling with a license," editorial column, Feb. 1].

It is Vesely who refuses to acknowledge the basic facts of our local transportation-tax policy. Our city's streets are paid for primarily through sales and property taxes -- taxes we all pay.

Furthermore, bicycles inflict negligible damage upon public roads. The same could not be said for Vesely's car. Perhaps it's time for guys like Vesely to pay their fair share for transportation infrastructure and stop trying to get a free ride on the back of my bike.

-- Doug Nellis, Seattle

A petty proposal

Please give the bicycle-license idea a rest. In his response to James F. Vesely's first column ["No free rides: It's time for $25 bike fees," Dec. 7], David Hiller of the Cascade Bicycle Club already eloquently explained what a bad idea this is ["Encourage biking, don't tax it," guest columnist, Dec. 13].

While bank CEOs give themselves bonuses at taxpayer expense, your attack on cyclists -- a group that does a lot of good for society -- seems petty and unprofessional.

Why don't you dust off your old Schwinn cruiser and go for a ride around Green Lake?

-- Demian Godon, Seattle

Tax for biker minority

You are 100 percent correct in proposing a bike tax in Seattle ["Tale of two cycling cities, Chicago and

Honolulu," James Vesely column, Dec. 14].

The gas tax and general fund have been providing millions of dollars for bike lanes and paths to be used by a small, but vocal, minority of citizens.

It is about time the bike riders participated in paying for the facilities they enjoy.

-- Walter Appel, Lynnwood

Not worth the effort

I'm extremely disappointed in James F. Vesely's recent columns about taxing cyclists ["Impose license fee on King County cyclists," Dec. 7; "Tales of two cycling cities, Chicago and Honolulu," James F. Vesely editorial column, Dec. 14].

Transportation funding in Washington state doesn't just come from gasoline taxes -- both property and sales taxes contribute a large percentage. Except for the small percentage of cyclists who don't own any automobiles, most pay all of those forms of taxes.

Either Vesely is ignorant of these facts or he knows those facts and chooses to ignore them.
Reading between the lines of the two opinion pieces, the only factually accurate argument for creating a new tax like this is that "government needs the money." In that situation, creation of little user-fee-type taxes such as the one proposed is wrong on a number of levels, the most basic of which is complexity.

Adding a bicycle tax would necessitate creating new collection and enforcement mechanisms, and the net contribution of the new tax to state tax revenues would not be worth the effort.

-- John Hambacher, Woodinville

Time for strict enforcement

Your story in Saturday's paper, "Cycling enthusiast hit by car" [News, Dec. 13] was a fitting tribute and eulogy to Paul Ratliff, who was doing his part to relieve congestion and our country's dependence on foreign oil.

What saddens me was the response of law enforcement. According to Sgt. John Urquhart, Ratliff had the right of way, yet the driver was not cited, let alone arrested. It is time that our justice system realizes that bicyclists deserve protection on our roadways; strict enforcement of existing laws would reduce the harassment and danger to cyclists.

This would benefit everyone in the community.

-- Lee Zulch, Clyde Hill

Tragic, but not faultless

It broke my heart to read your story about Paul Ratliff's death. Here was a man doing everything he could to ride safely and legally on public roads and now he joins the ranks of cyclists killed by drivers.

Your story notes that the King County Sheriff's Office "stressed that the death was a tragic accident," while acknowledging that Rafliff had the right of way. Yet the 79-year-old driver has not yet been charged or even cited for his noted failure to yield. After the investigation is completed and assuming the stated facts haven't changed, he should be charged for criminal negligence and manslaughter.

I'm not sure how you can blithely violate the law and kill someone without being held responsible.
Cyclists continue to die in Washington and the police continue to shake their heads at how "tragic" it is. This is not a faultless tragedy. The police have an obligation to protect us by bringing charges against those who kill with negligence.

A man is dead because another man violated the law.

-- Colin Connolly, Woodinville

Pick on someone else

I was employed for 17 years until this past year at a biotech company downtown and I commuted to work almost every day. I have been subjected to rude, inconsiderate, unsafe and aggressive drivers a few of those days, but for the most part I have found drivers in Seattle to be courteous and aware of bicyclists. The same I feel is also true for the large majority of bicyclists ["Tales of two cycling cities, Chicago and Honolulu," James F. Vesely editorial column, Dec. 14].

I also drive a car, and I think you will find that most bicyclists are also drivers, but the reverse is probably not true. This point is important, since many people that try to single out cyclists for not paying their way.
You would be surprised at how many bicyclists would support something like this [paying a cycling tax] if they felt that they were getting something in return. In actuality though, a "use" tax as you propose is normally proposed by someone who is a nonuser to pick on some group that they feel is getting more than their fair share.

A case in point would be the trail fee charged for use of our national forests. This was a politically motivated program that hasn't paid much in the way of providing more trail maintenance or safety at the trailheads. If this program were equitable, it would have also charged true costs to timber companies, mining companies, cattle ranchers and everyone else who benefits from the use of the forests.

At this time, we should be encouraging as many people to get out of their cars as possible. I don't understand how people can sit in their cars day in and day out wasting their time and gas. I do have to drive in our traffic occasionally, and I know that a few bicyclists are not the reason why I have to move at a snail's pace during certain times of day.

If we could focus on providing more and safer routes for bikes and more efficient mass-transit choices, I think we can create a community in which all of us would enjoy living and one that we could be proud of as well.

If you really want to be provocative, propose a $1-per-gallon gas tax to fix our roads, provide for realistic mass transit, and to provide for realistic ways for people to get around effectively. Then you may get support for a bicycle tax from bicyclists.

Don't pick on one group, such as bicyclists, without first paying attention to what is causing the problems on our roads to begin with.

-- Rob West, Seattle

Not the time

Cyclists pay for public infrastructure through our share of property and sales taxes. Are you complaining about trails like the Myrtle Edwards Park or improvements to public spaces along the viaduct that benefit all members of the public ["Impose license fee on King County cyclists," editorial column, Dec. 7]?
Did you see King County's report: "Communities Count 2008"?

It stated, "On road vehicles are a leading contributor to air pollution, which also contributes to environmental and human health problems. Traffic congestion causes stress and reduces the amount of time spent with family or exercising. Incorporating alternate means to commute to work such as biking or walking benefits the health of people and the environment."

It's not time for cyclists to pay a license fee. Licensing would deter cycling. Improvement of public space should not be burdened onto people wanting to travel on public rights of way by bicycle and who already pay fair share of taxes for local infrastructure.

King County should begin taxing motorists further through establishment of a transportation benefit district already allowed by state law.

King County has no interest in providing barriers and disincentives to bicycling.

-- Beck Michaels, Seattle

An easy target

I hope that James F. Vesely's intent was only to kick the hornet's nest with his Dec. 7 editorial regarding $25 bike fees. If not, perhaps more facts and less condescension toward the cycling community could support his position.

I am a "serious" cyclist and would pay more for better bicycle facilities. I agree there is a need for frank discussions about user fees and other means to provide adequate funding. However, his point that the King County helmet law is an existing user fee doesn't even pass the laugh test.

He also did not consider the actual cost of his proposal. For the average cyclist, assuming 500 miles per year, the suggested $25 bike fee would cost $0.05 per mile. With the $0.36 per gallon state gas tax, motorists averaging 20 miles per gallon pay less than $0.02 per mile. So the average cyclist is supposed to brave the fringes of our unfriendly roads to get to a disjointed, incomplete trail network and pay twice as much per mile.

This is the time when we should be encouraging more people to ride rather than erecting barriers.
Our transportation system is already heavily subsidized; I find it ironic that the one mode that is self-powered takes the most heat for it. Cyclists just seem to be the easy target.

-- Kirk Wilcox, Lake Tapps

Doesn't match up

James F. Vesely's editorial suggesting a bike tax completely misses the mark on many levels.

First and foremost, taxes are a disincentive. Government tends to tax the things people should do less of, and create incentives for the things that build strong, healthy communities.

Cycling as transportation addresses three crises at once: congestion, pollution and obesity. Thus, the government should encourage cycling, not punish cyclists by instituting an additional tax.

The government uses our taxes to pay for lots of services. To think that you will directly use every service that your tax dollars pay for is absurd. But indirectly everyone benefits from such programs as schools that build an educated citizenry, or public transportation that reduces congestion. Bike infrastructure benefits even those who have never pedalled a stroke.

Cyclists already pay taxes in the form of income tax and sales tax. Furthermore, the percentage of transportation funding that go toward pedestrian and bike facilities, at 2 percent, does not match up to the 37 percent of road users who don't drive.

A bike tax would do more harm than good.

-- Sarah Bronstein, Seattle