RE THE May 1 editorial "Safety on two wheels": Enforcing the same rules on a bicyclist, who rides a 30-pound bike, as you would a driver, sealed up inside a one-ton car, is a ridiculous idea. It can only be the brainchild of a red-light victim, tired of watching as cyclists happily weave through traffic and carefully cross quiet intersections. That must be maddening, but you can always get a bike of your own.
To enforce the same rules, in this case, would threaten cyclists' safety and turn back the clock on commuter biking in Boston. At most intersections, the safest place for a cyclist is front and center and between car lanes. If there are no cars crossing, it is safer for the cyclist to cross to the other side, where there is no traffic at all to contend with. It is as safe as jaywalking, and no one appears to be in any hurry to support tickets for that.
Issuing a slew of traffic tickets without any proof of a public nuisance or a safety problem is hardly in harmony with Mayor Thomas M. Menino's pro-biking efforts. It would work against them, at a time when the country sorely needs to reduce its oil and gas consumption.
Instead, why not require helmets and lights? Evidence would support that idea.
PETE STIDMAN
Jamaica Plain
THANK YOU for your editorial on bicycle safety. I was surprised that the tenor of the editorial seemed to be anti-bicycle. In this day of skyrocketing pollution, increased fuel costs, and an obesity epidemic, I would think the Globe would want to encourage more cyclists and more motorist awareness of bicycles on the road.
In addition, as a cyclist, I would like to see more driver and pedestrian education. Rather than see a prosecutorial stance toward cyclists, I would like to see the Globe embrace a balanced informational tone. We need more bicycle lanes and more protection if we are going to get more people exercising and fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
CATHLEEN LONDON
Brookline
