The following guest column was written in response to a recent opinion piece by columnist Tara Servatius, titled "Crash test dummies: The cycling epidemic."

As cyclists and cycling advocates who also drive cars when we have to, we read Tara Servatius' tired rant against cyclists with much dismay. In her opinion piece, Servatius ignores the many positives of cycling — both for the individual cyclist and the community as a whole — and engages in a callous stereotyping that plays fast and loose with the facts and fails to meet even the minimum standards of professional journalism.

First of all, Servatius’ comparisons of cycling to what she considers socially unacceptable behavior or risks are weak, illogical and completely out of context.

There really isn’t anything positive to be gained by giving a pregnant woman the H1N1 flu, putting a baby to sleep on her stomach, smoking, or texting while driving. Cycling, on the other hand, benefits individuals and society in general by addressing significant problems, like obesity, air pollution and oil dependency. For example, the Alliance for Biking and Walking recently published a comprehensive benchmarking report (available at www.peoplepoweredmovement.org) which found direct negative correlations between the level of bicycling and walking in all 50 states and obesity, diabetes and blood pressure. In other words, states with higher levels of cycling and walking scored better in all three categories.

Second, cycling isn’t some kind of new fad. We remember when kids could ride their bikes to school, or you could ride your bike to the grocery store without fear of death or serious injury. Government policies and practices have sanctioned bicycles and pedestrians on roadway rights-of-way for many decades with bike lanes, sidewalks, crosswalks and uniform signage. North Carolina law includes “bicycle” in its definition of “vehicle” and, in the Bicycle and Bikeways act of 1974, the North Carolina Department of Transportation recognized bicycling as a “bonafide highway purpose subject to the same rights and responsibilities” as motorized vehicles. More and more people recognize the value of communities not clogged with motor vehicle exhaust, where you can chat with your neighbors while walking or riding to restaurants and stores. Hence, the recent trend towards smart growth and compact, higher density neighborhoods and away from single family, auto dependent cul-de sacs.

Recognizing the needs and demands for safe, alternative transportation, the City of Charlotte has rightly undertaken an assertive policy in recent years to restore the balance among the different modes of travel. Implementing the “Complete Streets” or “Share the Road” concept, city engineers and planners are installing “traffic calming” measures such as narrower lanes, traffic islands, midblock pedestrian crossings, lowered speed limits and even reduced the number of auto designated traffic lanes where justified. This plan is validated by the Urban Street Design Guidelines passed by City Council in 2007. And this concept is not just a local idea; it has the full support of Ray LaHood, the United States Transportation Secretary.

There is no reason all modes of transportation cannot safely share our various avenues of transport. It just requires everyone using courtesy and common sense — drivers and cyclists alike. We know people whose only way to get to work is by bicycle. Would Servatius suggest banning them, too? Or banning kids from riding their bikes to their friends’ houses? The occasional cyclist who takes up a lane for safety reasons — and who might delay Servatius momentarily — is someone’s parent, spouse, grandparent, brother, or sister. Point is, cyclists are normal, everyday people, and making the roads safer for them makes the roads safer for everyone.

Servatius’ piece substitutes “shock” journalism for responsible discussion. Let’s have some constructive dialogue on this topic within an established legal and behavioral framework, one that strives towards balance instead of protracted combat. Stereotyping, sensationalism and distortion have no place in a dialogue over matters of life and death.

Ann Groninger, Attny.

www.mybikelaw.com

Martin Zimmerman

Executive Director, Charlotte Area Bicycle Alliance

Melissa Bell

Inside/Out Sports — cycle shop

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is gearing up for several public hearings on coal ash, which will be held across the continental United States. One of those hearings, actually a series of four hearings in one day, will be held right here in the Queen City on Sept. 14. You can sign up to speak at the meetings here.

So, what does the EPA want to talk about? Whether or not they should classify coal ash as hazardous waste. This is something they've been attempting to do for more than 30 years, but they keep getting stumbled up by coal and waste management lobbyists. And, let's face it, until the huge coal ash disaster in Tennessee a year and a half ago, not too many people were aware of coal ash or the hazards it represents.

Keep in mind, there are no — nada, zip, not a one — federal regulations governing coal ash. The states are in charge of overseeing the thousands of coal ash ponds in our country, which means regulations vary state to state. Our state, fortunately, does a better job than most, though the case can be made that our legislators aren't doing nearly enough to protect us from this toxic sludge.

What is coal ash, anyway? Most simply, it's what's left over after coal is burned to create the steam that powers the turbines that create the electricity you and I can't live without. It's a fine dust that looks a lot like black baby power. Water is added to the dust to keep it from floating out of the coal plants' smoke stacks. The water turns the ash into a heavy sludge that's pumped into holding ponds which are held in place by earthen dams.

What coal ash consists of varies greatly, and depends on what was in the coal to begin with. In some cases, coal ash can be highly radioactive. In fact, in 2007, a full year before the disaster in Tennessee, Scientific American published an article with evidence that coal as is more radioactive than nuclear waste.

More commonly, however, you'll hear people talk about the arsenic in coal ash. Other potential ingredients read like the periodic table: mercury, chromium, nickel, sulfur, lead ... and the list goes on. That raises a good question for the EPA — what is in the coal ash stored closest to Charlotte?

The EPA is only holding hearings in five states— ours, of course, as well as Virginia, Colorado, Texas and Illinois.

But, do you notice anything missing from that list? How about Tennessee, where the coal ash disaster occurred? Or maybe Pennsylvania and Kentucky, where other massive, but apparently less newsworthy, coal ash spills occurred. What about West Virginia, a state where tons of coal are excavated daily? And, why not hold hearings in Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Georgia? Those are the states with the most coal ash on hand. And, why did they skip Alabama (a.k.a. America's toxic waste dump), where the coal ash from the Tennessee disaster is being hauled?

Now, I'm not saying the hearings shouldn't be here. North Carolina has more — 12 — unlined, high-hazard coal ash ponds than any other state, four of which are near Charlotte. Two of those are a mere dozen miles from the center of Uptown. They sit on the edge of our main drinking water source, right upstream from where Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities sucks the water out, water that eventually pours from the faucets in your home.

With that in mind, we definitely deserve to have the hearings here — and I hope you'll attend.

Did you see the article in New York Times Magazine yesterday titled "The New Abortion Providers"? To sum up: Who needs a clinic with a big shoot-me sign on it to perform abortions — which by the way, for those who've forgotten, are 100 percent legal in our country and have been for nearly 40 years? No one needs a specialized, isolated clinic. With anti-choice protesters increasingly erratic and bent on murder, who would want one anyway?

You see, not every revolution requires guns or yelling or hatred or marches or picket signs. The new abortion providers are regular 'ol OBGYNs who are helping their patients exercise their right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, whatever their underlying reasons, quietly and peacefully.

In a time when working at an abortion clinic requires video surveillance, bullet-proof vests, patient escorts and armed body guards, this makes a lot of sense. One group, exercising their right to be in-your-face about their beliefs is chilling the rights of women to make a critical decision about their body, their life and their future ... and it's not right.

So bravo, brava to these brave doctors. Thank you not only for risking your own safety, but for helping your patients get the medical care they need and desire in a safer environment. No one should have to risk their life to exercise their rights and take care of their person.