Cyclist provides another perspective on letter writer’s suggestions

This letter is in response to Ed Costanza’s letter “”Laws should be changed to improve cyclists’ safety,”” which appeared in Friday’s Other Voices section. I would like to see legislation pass making it mandatory for motorists to:

1) Take a course on vehicular safety and operation on the roadways. If motorists insist on using the public roadways they should be required to demonstrate the ability to share the roadway respectfully and safely with other vehicles – including bicycles.

2) Motor vehicles should be outfitted with equipment that shuts off the engine and will not allow it to restart without permission of law enforcement any time a collision is detected. This will prevent motor vehicles from leaving the scene of an accident after they hit a bicyclist. This has happened to me twice in the last year alone here in Tucson.

3) Mandate a regular safety checks for all motor vehicle equipment. No matter how aggravating and dangerous a bicyclist with no brakes is, it poses a small fraction of the danger to other members of the roadway-using community compared to a motor vehicle with faulty brakes, lights, etc.

4) Have motor vehicles restricted from driving after-dusk on roadways that are adjacent to a bicycle lane. Since motorists pose such a great danger to bicyclists at night the two groups should be separated. If bicycles were to use sidewalks and crosswalks – it is against the law for them to do so in Tucson – they would pose an unacceptable danger to pedestrians.

We are a part of a new era where the amount of resources a person uses and the amount of pollution they produce directly affects their neighbors’ well-being. Under these considerations a tax should be placed on all vehicular emissions that would work to discourage the use of motor vehicles except when absolutely necessary.

I hope that we can all learn and I hope that I have succeeded in pointing out the ridiculousness of the aforementioned article for the benefit of us all. If you are a cyclist please know the laws before you go on the road.

Grey Nearing
soil, water and environmental science graduate

Proposition 102 celebrates marriage, ‘difference’ between genders

Men and women are different. It’s not a sexist remark, it’s just fact. If there’s not enough evidence for this in day-to-day life, consider what we just saw in the Olympics. Men and women around the world train for years to compete, and yet the performances in men’s events and the performances in women’s events are different. The grace is different, the winning times are different and even some of the events themselves are different.

One gender is not superior to the other, they are just different. Men and women are built differently. They have different needs and different emotions, and there is nothing wrong or belittling about that. There is a lot of talk on this campus about celebrating diversity – let’s celebrate the fact that there are special differences between men and women. Nowhere are these differences more valued than in marriage and family. Men and women contribute differently to a marriage and to a family.

In our eight years of marriage, my wife and I have learned to appreciate and depend on our different strengths. We have a special bond as husband and wife that is beautiful and good. Our gender differences complement each other and give us stability and strength. Our gender differences allow us to have children. Our gender differences are important in rounding out the development of our children. Husband and wife are the foundation for strong families. Nations are strong when their families are strong. That is why marriage is different and more treasured than any other kind of friendship.

There are well-funded movements with persuasive advocates who want to recast marriage as if it were merely a formality – a culmination of affection. No other relationship is on equal grounds with marriage between a man and a woman because no other relationship has the same potential to create and to influence for good the generations to come. Please don’t allow experimentation on something so critical to society and so time-tested as marriage and the family. When you vote this November, please vote yes for marriage, yes on Proposition 102.

Bruce Pixton
optical sciences graduate