Appreciative and Bothered by the “Rogue Bicyclist . . .” Article

To the editor:

I was both appreciative — and bothered — by the “Rogue Bicyclist . . .” article in the June issue of Whatcom Watch.

A bit of background: I am a cyclist (not a biker - bikers sit on top their motor; cyclists are the motor); I am also a motorist and a pedestrian. I ride occasionally in Bellingham — but mostly on country roads, occasionally on MUPs (multiple use paths). I motor in the usual places. I walk city streets, country roads and MUPs. As a pedestrian, I’ve been hit by a cyclist and by other pedestrians — thankfully, not by a motor vehicle. As a cyclist, I’ve been hit by other cyclists, and nearly hit by motor vehicles. As a motorist, I’ve been hit by another motorist, and nearly hit by a cyclist.

My appreciation for the article stems from my awareness of ‘rogue’ cyclists. I resent them, I believe them to be dangerous to themselves and other users of streets and trails; they generate the kind of frustration and anger evident in the June article.

I’m bothered by the article because it singles out cyclists — and ignores ‘rogue’ motorists and pedestrians. A balanced approach would give equal space for comments about them, as well.

And a final observation: we, all of us — cyclists, motorists, pedestrians — tend to focus on the ‘rogue’ behavior of the others and usually fail to note that the majority of each group is safe, respectful — and appreciative of the same in others.

Dave McConnell

Sedro-Woolley