No one rides them, yet bicyclesdictate our public policy

Mr. Muska,
Your article must be a joke because you cite baseless comments and ridiculous assertions to support an untrue headline. You also seem to be fond of using the effect of misguided transportation policy as proof of your unchallenged conclusion. To cite a few mistakes:
"{cyclists) means frustration for drivers attempting to safely navigate the winding, hilly, tree-lined roads of our suburbs and rural regions — i.e., just about every adult resident of the state."
What frustration is caused by a bicycle? Having to be alert while driving? Slowing down to a reasonable speed? Or do you consider following the traffic laws a frustration?
Also I would guess that the majority of residents in the state do own a bicycle and would like to ride it more.

"...adult cyclists with far too much time on their hands have morphed into a hysterical, junk-science- spouting lobby, and nowhere are these twerps — er, "advocates" — more active than in Connecticut."
What exactly is this junk science that I, as a cycling "twerp", would be spouting? That they pollute less that cars? I think this has been proven. That people who ride are healthier? Besides common sense there are several studies that have proved this.
"Randal O'Toole observes that Europe does have "bicycle-friendly inner cities, but most European urban areas as a whole are nearly as auto-oriented as Los Angeles.""
You cite this quote as evidence of what exactly? That some Europeans drive? I would take from this quote that their cities are more people and business friendly. I would also note that the EU has much lower carbon emissions that the US.
"Perhaps the grandest whopper cooked up by bicycle ninnies is that their preferred mode of transportation is a viable option for large numbers of commuters. According to the 2000 census, a pathetically small 0.18 percent of Connecticut's workers commute by bicycle. "
Citing a census stat to refute that something is viable is an exercise in futility. This is akin to saying that the cell phone is not viable because in 1985 only 2% of people had them.
".. so if cities could do only one thing to promote less driving, telecommuting would be a better bet than cycling.")"
Why does a city have to do only one thing? I thought the beauty of urban living was the plethora of options?
" politicians at the municipal, regional, state and federal levels cater to the cycling cabal, despite its miniscule membership. "
Being one of the "miniscule membership" of cyclists, I can attest to the fact that I am not being catered too. While inroads have been made with some members of government, the majority are fixated on preserving the oil derived culture that is increasingly impossible to sustain.
"During a recent interview on the "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters heroically pointed out that only about 60 percent of the revenue from the federal gas tax "actually goes into highway and bridge construction. " The rest, she noted, pays for inefficient transportation pork, including "bike paths." "
I would hesitate to call this interview "recent" as I heard about it over a year and a half ago. I would also like to note that her claim has been soundly refuted and she corrected her comments at a later date.
"A wildly impractical transportation option for a place with the topography, weather and demographics of Connecticut, bicycling is totally irrelevant to the lives of most Nutmeg State residents. "
What exactly about Connecticut's topography & population makes cycling impractical? It is small state with towns & cities that are close together. This provides many roads for bicyclists to ride and you are never far from services if you need them. Also CT residents usually live close to where they work (as shown by your earlier statement about people walking to work) and are generally healthy(11th in the country according to CQ Press).
You seem to have been given a soapbox to spout your opinions from but please refrain from posing them as facts. The fact is cycling is a great alternate to driving and if the state wants to prosper beyond the petroleum age bicycles should be considered in transportation planning.
Sincerely,
Ben Martin

Mr. Muska,
Your article must be a joke because you cite baseless comments and ridiculous assertions to support an untrue headline. You also seem to be fond of using the effect of misguided transportation policy as proof of your unchallenged conclusion. To cite a few mistakes:
"{cyclists) means frustration for drivers attempting to safely navigate the winding, hilly, tree-lined roads of our suburbs and rural regions — i.e., just about every adult resident of the state."
What frustration is caused by a bicycle? Having to be alert while driving? Slowing down to a reasonable speed? Or do you consider following the traffic laws a frustration?
Also I would guess that the majority of residents in the state do own a bicycle and would like to ride it more.

Hard core bicyclists -- of which I suspect Ben Martin is one -- are one of the most arrogant groups of people you will find. I drive many of the backroads in my town and they arrogantly drive right in the middle of the lane, forcing you to go the 15mph they are going for miles. And on top of it, there is a paved linear trail that the state spent thousands of dollars on just for them, yet they refuse to use and and instead clog the narrow backroads that are difficult to drive on to begin with without dodging bicyclists.

Yes it would be wonderful if everyone could use a bicycle as their only mode of transportation but for the vast majority of us that isn't an option.

What really cracks me up is seeing these idiots ride their bicycles to the commuter lots next to the trail and get in their SUVs. What a joke. And yes, I drive a hybrid.

Bike = 20lbs
Chevy Tahoe speeding down curvy rural roads = about 5000lbs
I still don't get it?? WTF are drivers arguing about again? Please slow down and be aware of your surroundings you are not sitting in your living room playing with the entertainment center. Cyclists have just as much right to be on the road as we do. Don't worry the bike can't hurt you well maybe just your wasteline.

Toyota Prius = 2900lbs
Bike = 20lbs

Where is the threat?

Oh my god, this is the dumbest article i've ever read. WHY would anyone think it is a bad idea to promote bicycle and pedestrian safety which is the primary purpose of a bicycle and pedestrian coordinator is someone that I can not take seriously.
I guess a car dominated society is a good thing? Good luck running for your life across parking lots as people in huge cars get even less used to looking for pedestrians. Dont come crying to me when you or your family gets hit by a car.
And by the way, CT spends a LOT less than most other state in the country on this type of planning so if you want to really complain, maybe you should move to a state that actually cares about this type of thing and doesnt just pay lip service to it.
Walking and biking are great healthy activities and to campaign against them does everyone a disservice. Why dont you write about how the state is spending so much money on transit planning while youre at it? Everyone knows only poor people take public transit and why would we bother funding something like that?

anon wrote:

Bike = 20lbs
Chevy Tahoe speeding down curvy rural roads = about 5000lbs
I still don't get it?? WTF are drivers arguing about again? Please slow down and be aware of your surroundings you are not sitting in your living room playing with the entertainment center. Cyclists have just as much right to be on the road as we do. Don't worry the bike can't hurt you well maybe just your wasteline.

On the road yes, not 3 across in thier lycra bodysuits blocking the lane. At least the suit keeps the parts together.

It's not a matter of not promoting bicycles and pedestrian safety, it's a matter of bicycles causing a serious safety problem on the roads that weren't meant to accomodate both car and bicycle. When bicycles are ridden in the middle of the travel lane, it's a problem for everyone. And they do it because they know you aren't going to just run them over -- you're going to have to slow down to the 15 mph they're traveling.

While I think Mr. Muska has gone unnecessarily on the offensive, I believe his message has hit the nail on the head. In my own experience, I have found that a majority of cyclists on the public-roads appear to be more like members of an exclusive club than citizens simply getting from one place to another. I regularly am inconvenienced during my homeward commute by parades of grown men on bicycles which I'm sure are worth more than my car. Each velocipedist dressed uniquely in the height of colorful bicycle fashion. I can only imagine that these overgrown boys enjoy the camaraderie and the opportunity to maintain their health…to that I say more power to them. But when they assert their rights to use the roadways for personal enjoyment at the price of disrupting an inordinate number of drivers, they cross the line of civility. Forgive my using this analogy, but we also have a right to fart in a packed elevator, but only the most self-absorbed and socially inept type of personality would do this. These roving cyclists I write of are a menace to public safety; ours and their own.

anon wrote:

Bike = 20lbs
Chevy Tahoe speeding down curvy rural roads = about 5000lbs
I still don't get it?? WTF are drivers arguing about again? Please slow down and be aware of your surroundings you are not sitting in your living room playing with the entertainment center. Cyclists have just as much right to be on the road as we do. Don't worry the bike can't hurt you well maybe just your wasteline.

All we ask is that you cyclists be aware of your surroundings and keep in mind that the person in the car behind you may have places to go, people to see and or a lack of interest at looking at you nylon encased rear ends blocking the road.
And we don't worry that your bike will hurt us, it won't, but that 5000 lb truck won't even notice driving over pretty little bike.

Yeah I suppose the person driving is far more important and has places to be and people to see as they speed to the next dunkin doughnuts or mcdonalds for the next fix. You smart one.

anon wrote:

Yeah I suppose the person driving is far more important and has places to be and people to see as they speed to the next dunkin doughnuts or mcdonalds for the next fix. You smart one.

I'm saying that the person in the car may not be out for a joy ride. I'm also agreeing with you that cars and bikes should share the road, but it works both ways. We don't run you into a ditch and you try not to impede the flow of traffic. Just simple curtesy.

It is a shame that people have to have their commute home DISRUPTED(!) for at least 15 seconds while they slow down to make sure that they dont hit someone also enjoying the public space of the road. I can really understand how they are so angered by this! And I'm sure these people are all obeying all of the rules of the road on their way home too when it comes to speed and tailgating. I commute via Rt 58 too - get real everyone, its not that big of a deal.

BPT RES wrote:

It is a shame that people have to have their commute home DISRUPTED(!) for at least 15 seconds while they slow down to make sure that they dont hit someone also enjoying the public space of the road. I can really understand how they are so angered by this! And I'm sure these people are all obeying all of the rules of the road on their way home too when it comes to speed and tailgating. I commute via Rt 58 too - get real everyone, its not that big of a deal.

I don't think anyones talking about having to slow down to go safely around someone, I'm talking to and about the arrogant cyclists who ride in the middle of the traffic lane oblivious to the 15 cars crawling behind them.

arrogant cyclists and arrogant drivers they exist and don't play nice together.

anon wrote:

Yeah I suppose the person driving is far more important and has places to be and people to see as they speed to the next dunkin doughnuts or mcdonalds for the next fix. You smart one.

You're the exact type of arrogant **** we're discussing. Thanks for proving our point.

And this isn't arrogant:??

"And we don't worry that your bike will hurt us, it won't, but that 5000 lb truck won't even notice driving over pretty little bike."

I take this as a threat sir.

anon wrote:

And this isn't arrogant:??
"And we don't worry that your bike will hurt us, it won't, but that 5000 lb truck won't even notice driving over pretty little bike."
I take this as a threat sir.

Just a fact, and you can take it however you want to, since I'm not going to convince you otherwise. As Ron White says, "you can't fix stupid"

lewday wrote:

just ram them

The worst part is trying to pick all those small pieces out of your tire treads.