I am fortunate to live in Seattle, a fairly civil city, where motorists treat bicyclists with some respect - not a lot - but some.

Every time an editor writes that we cyclists need training and that money spent by the city on making cycling safer is somehow short-changing the motorist and pedestrian, I wonder if we are making progress toward becoming a completely civil city. An argument based on false assumptions does not make for a very sound argument, as I am sure, the editor knows. If this was a zero sum game of who gets attention, the argument might fly, but it is not. Just because life may get better for the bicyclist, life for the motorist and pedestrian does not get worse.

The question with merit is this. Why is it that we bicyclists must grovel for attention when we are also taxpayers who fund roads and sidewalks? Most of us drive and walk and have interest in the infrastructure that support those activities, but we also have interest in the safe use of bicycles. Most of us are also concerned about our health as well as the health of the city and the environment. By riding a bicycle we do our part to reduce the need for more parking space (It would be great to have some attention given to bicycle parking, however.) We also reduce engine emissions and do not damage the roadways on which we ride.

Maybe the general hostility toward bicyclists expressed by some editors and a small but dangerous number of car drivers can be explained metaphorically. Bicyclists are sometimes the targets of dogs for reasons only these dogs understand (Why don't they tell us what the reason is so we can combat it?) Maybe the same is true for some editors and drivers. We are there, therefore were are targets. It is unfortunate that the false arguments presented by some editors and some drivers are held up as sound reasons.

The next time you read an editorial that tells the bicycling community that they are somehow stealing from the needs of "the children" or hear an enraged driver in his/her canine mode scream "get off the road," ask yourself this question: Where are we bicyclists to go? Maybe we should sit on the couch or be good and stay on sidewalks "where we belong."

What is the point of this letter? It is just that to those few drivers who think we bicyclists do not belong on the road, and you editors who say the same in thinly veiled fashion, get over it. We bicyclists will not disappear because we have finally found a voice both politically and legally. We will be heard. Yes, you will still win in the minds of those few editors and drivers who think we do not belong. And, yes, you will win in a collision between car and bicycle, but what will you be winning?

I, the voice of one bicyclist, will be heard. I will not be bullied into going away.

David Kannas

Admiral