Bike-ban clarification

This letter is in response to Zach BibeaultâÄôs letter on Oct. 20. Going with your theme of supposed âÄúlogic,âÄù your arguments are neither valid nor sound. This âÄútemporary ruleâÄù was actually enacted well before any accidents. In fact, students were asked to dismount bikes before the semester even started in an e-mail on Sept. 3. The stated reason for this request was âÄúto keep everyone safe,âÄù not as punishment for one biker who supposedly ruined it for the rest of the bikers on campus. However, many bikers chose to ignore the request and in order to keep everyone safe, they were regrettably forced to take more drastic measures in the form of a fine. Your example comparing a major car crash to the ban of riding bikes inside is also horribly flawed. For one, a car crash is cleaned up and dealt with in a matter of hours versus months in the case of the bridge. And in the situation of a major crash, caution signs are typically involved and motorists are asked to slow down significantly (comparable to bikers dismounting bikes to slow down). Additionally, highways have been closed in the past due to major traffic accidents. So no, the bridge situation is not comparable to your proposed broken logic. However, your complaint about pedestrians in bike lanes is a valid one. I agree that pedestrians should stay out of the bike lanes to help prevent accidents and keep everyone safe. And perhaps a fine for violating the bike lane rule would help to deter potential violators. You should inquire with the University Police Department about it if you are so inclined. I think overall that people need to be more understanding and not adopt the âÄúus versus themâÄù attitude that is currently dominating discussion. David Ray University student