I hate to beat a dead horse, but what about the intoxication comment?

Sorry.

Re: the June 10 article “Man faces additional charges in cyclist death.”

Thing is, the letter was not relevant to what we know: the cyclist had every right to be on the road and the motorist is facing additional (criminal) charges for the death of the cyclist.

Why did ADS publish an irrelevant letter? Of course cycling is risky. So is staying home all day in bed or whatever. We all know, sense, risk. duh. Why did ADS publish an irrelevant letter? What’s their motive?

Will Towle write a “Memorandum to the Court” that hears the accused’s case? If not, why not–after all, in for a penny in for a pound, right? Will the court even consider it?

And will Tony’s tedious and sophomoric struggle to clean up after Towle and some others above bear fruit?

John did not say he is angry at being slowed down from time to time by cyclists, but people are saying that he is.

I did not find his comment to be specious, but I guess I’m alone in that way.

John’s comment was not designed to blame anybody for anything, if it was he would have written something to the effect, like ‘I blame…’ which he did not; I guess if somebody says something that makes sense, but is unpopular to cyclists, they open themselves up to all sorts of abuse by bike-fanatics.

I’m not trying to make this comment especially interesting; I’m curious about how the readers of this blog have become so jaded.

More than anything else, that’s why I highlighted it on my Website.

EBR

Mr. Towle took the occasion of Mr. Okusako’s death to inform the readers of the AZ Star’s letter’s page of his (Towle’s) opinion that riding a bicycle alongside a roadway is a selfish act, because events mainly out of the control of a motorist could possibly lead to the death or injury of the cyclist. The motorist might become the unwilling agent of a cyclist’s death, and then have to carry that emotional burden forever.

It’s not a big step to conclude that his point is that people should not ride bikes on roads, in order to protect the emotional health of motorists.

I think what readers here are pointing out is that his reasoning does not lead where he says or thinks it does, and is probably specious anyway. (My own comment on the letter, that he was urging us to stay at home forever, was a comment on the speciousness.) There is selfishness involved, for sure, the readers above are saying, but he harbors it himself. He wants the road to be reserved for motorists alone.

And I believe it probably is not a genuine concern for the lives of cyclists that leads him there. It probably is his anger at being slowed down from time to time by cyclists.

That theory, admittedly, is not found in the text itself, but in the text’s cultural/historical/textual/social surroundings — its context. Like Coghauler, I’m inclined to stop there, but if you or someone can make the text interesting or useful beyond that point, be my guest.

EBR