...speaking of tedious. When you have a valid and semi-sane point to make, get back to us, m-kay snoop-dog?

Yo D.J. -
Take a stress tab or one of mommy's little helpers, and climb off your high, dead horse. You made the classic toddler's mistake of assuming that I was referring to a poor old soul - someone I have never seen nor heard about in my life, hello, not all of us live in Concord and travel those roads you mentioned at the anointed times - and mocking you by the reference. Your misinterpretation only reinforces my insinuation that you belong on a tricycle because of your proven immaturity.

Moving on, bad math and physics reveal incomplete thoughts, and always deserves a scorched earth return-of-serve, especially when you were trying to denigrate others in the process, and doing so in such tedious detail. Consider it Karma paying you back. (I heard she is such a B!†¢%)

Regarding the feasibility and reasonableness of implementing a pay-for-your-fair-share system for bikers to fund their own use of travel routes, you've proved nothing but assert your ignorance once again. The system is already in place for the State to collect taxes from those who own vehicles. As you and others have emphatically stated, bikers are not pedestrians, "a bicycle IS most certainly a vehicle." And that financing problem you mentioned? What could be better for those of you yammering about the poor quality of the road shoulders as you bike hither and yon? You who use it will pay to upgrade it! Or is that too unfair for you because you want those bad people who don't take to the roads on their bicycles to pay for your privilege to do so. You mentioned King George in a prior posting, but me thinks you are more like Queen Elizabeth. I obsequiously genuflect before you, and meekly defer.

Regarding the rest of what you addressed, I'm in general agreement, and said so on the prior rant-and-rap letter about road hogs:
"Mounted pedestrians: Steve Leavenworth, 8/15/08
Et tu, Brutus DePaolo?
Inch by begrudging inch, we are getting closer to agreement, though I do enjoy dropping trollish retorts on unsuspecting bicyclists. I too think bike paths and lanes are overkill; we have enough paved surfaces, and a wider, well maintained shoulder is much more cost and space efficient.

The one last sticking point between us on this topic, I think, is who should pay for these shoulder upgrades. People driving cars don't use them, bikers do, and admittedly those who walk along side roads. (Sidewalks are another topic for another day) But the walkers can also get along little doggy without the shoulder upgrade, so that just leaves the bikers. I'm just looking for equity here.

As stated in today's letter-to-editor on this topic, I agree with your riding style. And I don't want to hit anyone - bikers, pedestrians, other motorists. All should be held accountable and be subject to common sense laws on how to use the road, which includes single file use by all."

Not so sure I want to see D.J on her tricycle anymore because she might cry and yell at me,
- C. dog e. doG

Millennia said: "...the guy was jut barely pedaling, the corner was an 80 degree turn and he was IN THE ROAD!... ...She could out "drive" you any day of the week. The cyclist was a "hazard" at 3AM. No reflectors, none..."

I'm not trying to make a pissing contest out of this, but thank you for the additional details, it definitely completes the picture. I agree, now that you've provided more details, this guy is a total moron and gives us all a bad name. If this guy is following this ongoing debate, maybe he'll wake up and get a clue before he wake's up dead.

I'd like to say, based on the habits of other cyclists I know, that this guy is certainly not representative of the majority of the responsible side of the cycling community like me. Those who use lights, flashers and reflective garb in order to be easily seen by motorists, way in advance, especially in less than desirable lighting conditions.

OMG--I am afraid to be on the road with any of you, in or on any kind of vehicle! Can't we all just be nice to each other and get along? What is wrong with everyone?

I did not address the cyclist that my wife almost hit. I will do that now Dom.....the guy was jut barely pedaling, the corner was an 80 degree turn and he was IN THE ROAD! Got it.........nice mathematics and theory but I am talking about reality.

She could out "drive" you any day of the week. The cyclist was a "hazard" at 3AM. No reflectors, none..........but he did have the Tour de France garb. My point,,,,,,,

C. dog e. doG said: >> Though the car's relative speed with respect to the biker would be 5 m.p.h., it's actual speed of 20 m.p.h. is the relevant speed when contemplating the impact of the swerve for the driver of the car. (Remember, the road is stationary.) <<

Thank you Little Professor. How did I know you would pounce on the fact that I did not finalize this incomplete point after I posted it? Thank you for the simple math review though and the incorporated rhetorical assumption along with it. It was most refreshing.

I realize MilleNNia's wife was still doing 20 mph., that was not the point. What I was pointing out was that she had trouble navigating around an object she would be passing at approx. 5 mph given her claimed traveling speed. That sounds like a serious hazard for anyone and anything on the road in front of her as 5 mph is about the speed of a quick walking pace and navigating around an obstacle, at this adjusted passing speed, almost forced her into a ditch. Hence my concern with her ability to drive safely.

To finalize, bike paths suck, bike lanes are unnecessary and thinking a bike 'registration and inspection' process is an answer to the issue is completely nuts. Yeah, lets be the first state to pull this ridiculous move and actually fund it, that would be good idea given the fiscal state of our state.

The main thing that is required is for both parties in this heated debate to put the safety of others as the highest priority. Don't be stupid, don't assume every apple is bad because one shows how rotten it is and follow traffic laws regardless of what vehicle you use. Sharing the road is really not that difficult from my perspective of being both a conscientious driver behind the wheel and a conscientious rider behind the handlebars.

By the way, the woman that rides the trike northbound every morning up N. Main & N. State St. is mentally disabled. Maybe you could comeo up with some other clever quip to finalize your comments with instead of comparing me to her as if someone like her is a clown to be laughed at by comparison.

Let me set the record straight. I have NO issue with cyclists but due to the new law that was passed, I have commented.

I note that those who enjoy this sport also have a predisposition to criticize drivers. Even the Monitor's first story about this they quipped something about, "will the driver be changing a CD, etc." as if drivers are always at fault.

I see near accidents with bikes all of the time. I also see people driving autos that do not yield to bicycles. There is a militancy or sense of disdain for drivers by many cyclists.

I am sorry if that angers anyone, but, I see it constantly. In attitudes by cyclists, etc. I do not believe in bike lanes as that is too expensive a proposition for the traffic that exists.

The exercise factor can not be denied. I love to ride. I also pull over on side roads and let traffic pass. I note though that many people do not want to "lose their pace" or "interrupt their workout" and refuse to yield In that case, pick up a recumbent bike. To get from here to there, ride responsibly.

I criticize this because so many have written letters that are almost a 'stick in the eye' to motorists with a "good!" attitude. I hope that they are appreciative of the new law and are courteous as many drivers.

Troll is to Dominick as militant is to millennia. Note: two "n's" in millennia, DJ.

You should really practice what you preach. When a person makes pointed commentary using arguments it is customary for the respondent to answer those with points of their own.

You stated: "Also, "their" letters are fueled by utter shock at the level of blatant ignorance and lack of basic comprehension being displayed by people like you and Mr. St. Cyr with these venomous and preposterous ideals you spew forth repeatedly in your letters."

You first stated: "I'd hate to have either of you coming up behind me with all your pent up rage fueled by us 'militant' folks who might occasionally ride a bicycle to work or for pleasure and exercise"

Who sounds like they are angry?????? Practice what you preach Mr. DePaolo.

Next you wrote: "millennia said: "It is more about "image" and "statement" than help."

'Wrong, you're trying to sell your personal opinion as fact with this anger fueled, blanket statement.'

As an example of my "personal opinion", please read this quote from this string by Eric: "Cycling is dangerous, but sitting in a car with your arteries clogging is also."

My point is that there are many cyclists out there with that attitude that they are somehow enlightened and elite. I may remind you that 40 year old tri-athletes are having bypass surgery at alarming rates. Eric's attitude is the prevailing view by hard core cyclists.

Let me know when you evolve and your knuckles stop dragging. Maybe then you can conduct reasonable discussion and debate.

D.J. -
You are a fickle little minx, aren't you. And I dare say the venom spits both ways ... meeeoow!

Let's clear up a logical inconsistency of yours, shall we? You state: "We pay a fuel tax for the amount of fuel we use, that's the way a tax is designed. If one doesn't USE what's being taxed, why should one be TAXED on it? Is your name George? Is it 1774? Did you just move here from England? If not, let go of this flawed logic." With fiery rhetoric like that, you'll have to change your own initials, G.J..

For those among us who don't use bike lanes and road shoulders to take our tricycles out for a spin, why should they be forced to pay to enable others like you to reap this windfall profit? The beauty of the gas tax, if the politicians didn't screw it up, is that it is supposed to reflect how much of the road the motor vehicle owner uses and therefore should pay for. Why shouldn't you do the same through a registration tax for your tricycle? Are you somehow special, and should be excluded from the rules you think are fair for the other guys? This makes me think you are a politician. Am I getting close, D.J.?

Oh, and a point or two about image. If that didn't play a role, why all the tight fitting spandex, color-coordinated gloves and helmut, the latest and greatest sticker-shock conspicuous consumption bicycles, and dare I forget the Paris Hilton approved eye-wear? I realize there are some who don't fall for all this glitorati, and I commend them. But don't try to snow me that fashion and image aren't a huge part of what's out there - I see it every day.

And once again, your government school math is showing. Though the car's relative speed with respect to the biker would be 5 m.p.h., it's actual speed of 20 m.p.h. is the relevant speed when contemplating the impact of the swerve for the driver of the car. (Remember, the road is stationary.) Now who are the ones "fueled by utter shock at the level of blatant ignorance and lack of basic comprehension being displayed by people like you?" With such bad math skills, are you sure you're up to driving on public roads, let alone buying your coffee at Starbucks?

Now with all that said, if you do ride the way you stated, I applaud you. You go girl, but please pay for the shoulder upgrade. I don't need it, thanks.

Still wondering what D.J. looks like on her trike : )
- C. dog e. doG

I would have to agree that some cyclists do ride in packs and make it dangerous to pass not only for the driver who may have an oncoming vehicle but also for the cyclist who may be hit either by an oncoming vehicle or one going around them. However, I do not think that the issue here is how dangerous the situation may be but for the price of driving versus biking. We all need to face the fact that we ALL are paying too much for taxes, for food, for gas, for pretty much everything out there. We also need to just get over it because what it comes down to is it is not the motorist's or the cyclist's fault that we pay all these taxes. Just remember that. Maybe we all need to slow down and be polite to everyone on the road.

The only militancy I've seen so far is the venom spewing forth from you two malcontents in your chummy letter writing campaign. I'd hate to have either of you coming up behind me with all your pent up rage fueled by us 'militant' folks who might occasionally ride a bicycle to work or for pleasure and exercise.

Mr. St Cyr said: " One has to wonder why we have paved roads to begin with. Was it for bicycles? No, it was for automobiles. Paved roads, street signs, painted lines, street lights - certainly not built for or paid for by bicycles."

First, bicycles are inanimate objects, they don't pay bills. Second, it is all paid for, by taxpaying citizens, who may also own and ride bicycles, as well as roller skates, pogo-sticks and hippity-hop balls. Tell me, who pays for the sidewalks? Taxpaying citizens do, and people do more than walk on them. Do you want to start charging pedestrians for using sidewalks as well? Do you want them to tack a registration tag on their butts and talk a sidewalk usage safety course as well? Should we charge a 'usage fee' for people who are visiting New Hampshire and want to use a sidewalk? Your whacked out logic is telling me yes, you do. Maybe you could write a venomous letter accusing pedestrians of using something they haven't paid for properly.

Mr. St Cyr said: "I'm happy you park your car and ride your bike for seven months of the year, but I'm sure the state isn't. You don't pay a fuel tax for the use of the roads."

We pay a fuel tax for the amount of fuel we use, that's the way a tax is designed. If one doesn't USE what's being taxed, why should one be TAXED on it? Is your name George? Is it 1774? Did you just move here from England? If not, let go of this flawed logic.

millennia said: "Militancy is the word of the day the best describes cyclists. You can read in their letters to the Monitor that they feel somehow more elite and enlightened."

'Militancy' is YOUR word of the day millenia. I think it's pretty much been worn out by you as you use it about 3 or 4 times with every one of your submissions. Also, "their" letters are fueled by utter shock at the level of blatant ignorance and lack of basic comprehension being displayed by people like you and Mr. St. Cyr with these venomous and preposterous ideals you spew forth repeatedly in your letters.

millennia said: "It is more about "image" and "statement" than help."

Wrong, you're trying to sell your personal opinion as fact with this anger fueled, blanket statement.

millennia said: "A few mornings ago, my wife was headed for work in the wee hours of the morning. She rounded a corner and there was a cyclist, in full militant garb, smack dab in front of her at 3AM, in the road. She swerved and just missed him. Yeah, she was going 20 and pretty much wound up in the ditch on the other side of the road!"

(insert standard look of shock and awe here) Hmm, there's that overused word you love so much again. Ok, let's do the possible math here. Cyclist, probably doing about 15 mph. Milennia's wife, supposedly doing 20 mph. So with those numbers, she was actually coming upon this cyclist at about 5 mph. She had to almost swerve into a ditch to avoid a cyclist as she approached at 5 mph? Is it even possible to get a car into a swerve motion at 5 mph? I think a sharp turn of my steering wheel would pretty much stop my car at 5 mph. I'm not sure of your ages, but maybe your wife should think about turning in her license?

millennia said: However, like other citizen groups, they jockey for minority special rights as if they are due to them.

I'm not part of any citizens group aside from being yet another taxpayer. I'm simply jockeying for people like you and Mr. St. Cyr to get over your anger issues,
abide by the rules of the road and not turn me and others who ride their bikes into human road kill. Granted, there are cyclists out there who give us all a bad name, but for every one of those guys, there are 500 car drivers who are just as bad, and worse.

Speaking for myself, I'm not looking for bike paths, they are useless and usually lead nowhere practical. I'm not looking for bike lanes, only for the roads we already have to be maintained so everyone can use them safely and cyclists aren't forced close to traffic than they should be because the shoulder is worse than a warzone. I typically ride solo, not in a group. I don't condone riding multiple riders abreast unless it is a sanctioned cycling event with traffic control. I follow traffic signs and signals. I have a light on the front of my bike and a red flasher on the back so I can be better seen by motorists and I use them at all hours of the day. I am well aware of my surroundings and when I hear a car approaching me from behind, I get a close the edge of the road as safe my passage allows. I am NOT your enemy, try to remember that.

millennia said: "I guess they would have no issue with me taking out my horse and buggy, no matter what it does to traffic. I could tie up traffic and a full lane with that."

Yes, you could, provided you follow the rules of the road. See articles 17-1-1 through 17-1-17 of Concord's municipal code for details. Here's the link if that helps;

http://library3.municode.com/default/DocView/10210/1/100/101

Have a wonderful day gentlemen, and try some decaf soon.

signed,
Taxpaying motorist, motorcyclist, bicyclist & pedestrian.

Riding on my motorcycle back from Loudon this past weekend, I decided to take Hoyt Road back to I93...I came upon three(!) bicyclists abreast over the crest of a hill and even after tapping my horn, they wouldn't go single file...I had to go way over into the other lane to get around them and as I passed them, one of them shouted something at me (not sure what she said but it couldn't have been a good thing). That road is dangerous enough with it's curves and hills. Couldn't the cyclists have known that? I like to ride a cycle too but hardly ever do because the roads are just not set up for it in this area. It's just too dangerous to ride most of the roads with the amount of traffic on them and the little to no shoulders on the majority of roads. Speaking of which...when I was in Bretton Woods a few weeks back, I was on Rt. 302 heading into Twin Mountain. There is a shoulder as wide as the car lane on the road and a cyclist insisted on riding on the white fog line and wouldn't move over as I tried to pass him! There was at least 8 feet of shoulder to his right but he refused to move over...because there was traffic (lots) coming towards me, I couldn't safely go around him so I had to pace him for at least a quarter mile...when I could finally pass him, he looked at me in disdain as I went around him...

Why is it that when some arrogant cyclists disobey the rules, all cyclists are bad?
Do the idiot drivers make all drivers bad? Cycling is dangerous, but sitting in a car with your arteries clogging is also.
Also, if the writer from Loudon knew more about history he would know that the first US roads were paved through efforts of bicyclists.

All the people that ride bikes also own cars. They pay the same taxes as everyone. To say that bikers don't pay the taxes that support the roads is baloney.

Come on Ken! You are so discriminatory, you cold and hard hearted person, BUT, you are correct!!!!!!!

The precocious minority who ride their bicycles just want the rest of us to pay for them to have their own lanes. Yes, they dream of a day when they can slip into their spandex skin, attach their wind resistant helmets and work their way through their gears like Lance Armstrong in the Tour de France.

It is more about "image" and "statement" than help. A few mornings ago, my wife was headed for work in the wee hours of the morning. She rounded a corner and there was a cyclist, in full militant garb, smack dab in front of her at 3AM, in the road. She swerved and just missed him. Yeah, she was going 20 and pretty much wound up in the ditch on the other side of the road!

If a cyclist can not hear you at 3AM because they are so involved in their sport and does not yield then, what does the future look like for the new law?

Militancy is the word of the day the best describes cyclists. You can read in their letters to the Monitor that they feel somehow more elite and enlightened. Some claim that they do it to save money, others the environment and still others for the exercise.

Just look at the photo of the cyclist in Ray Duckler's article a week or so ago; in the middle of a traffic jam. If they were courteous and yielded to autos, I would have no issue sharing the road and this would be moot point. However, like other citizen groups, they jockey for minority special rights as if they are due to them.

I guess they would have no issue with me taking out my horse and buggy, no matter what it does to traffic. I could tie up traffic and a full lane with that.

Of course you notice that they never answer the question of bicycle training classes like drivers education, brake lights, handle bars that force them to sit upright and have a view of the road, signals, inspections, registrations, mirrors, etc. No, to force these on them, would mean that they would look so much like an Armstrong but more like a ninny.

Now cyclists will say, "I pay taxes too". If we took that approach, we would have wheelchair lanes, ATV lanes, snowmobile lanes, stilt lanes, tricycle lanes, jogging lanes, walking lanes, lanes for dog walkers.

That would make for a pretty wide road. You are correct Mr. St Cyr, two cyclists riding next to each other (which happens all of the time), seldom yield. But then again, reading some of the letters, they are, as I have said, a militant bunch!