EDITOR: I've been reading the ongoing bicycle debate with interest, since I am both a cyclist and a driver. As a driver, I scan for bicyclists in the greater vicinity and give them plenty of space, but I am particularly annoyed when they occupy the majority of the lane, especially on curvy or hilly roads where there is little visibility or room to pass. As a bicyclist, I fear for my life because of inattentive and aggressive drivers.
The latest push for more regulation, licensing and lawsuits seems to me to be a waste of time. The primary beneficiary of such regulation won't be bicyclists or drivers, but the government and lawyers. The root of the problem is that our county isn't bicycle-friendly at all when cars and bicyclists have to share the same space.
We would do better to follow the proven example of actually bicycle-friendly countries, such as the Netherlands, where cars and bicycles have separate roadways throughout the country. When the Dutch pave a road, they pave a bicycle path a few meters away, with connections at intersections. Each type of vehicle can move at its designed speed. Problem solved.
<b>Yes on 37</b>
EDITOR: Almost a million letters were written to the Food and Drug Administration requesting labeling of genetically engineered foods, and mine was one of them. Did the FDA do it? No.
An MSNBC poll taken Feb. 25, 2011 asked, "Do you believe genetically modified foods should be labeled?" Ninety-six percent of more than 45,000 people responded yes. I would have responded yes, too. I have also written to my representatives about labeling of GE foods (as have many others), yet when bills have been introduced in the House and Senate they have not even come close to passing. Now I am starting to wonder just who is being represented in the House and Senate.
For the 96 percent of us who feel poorly represented and want to see these foods labeled, we now have a ballot initiative in California that will do just that.