In reference to Tim Leland's, Larry Sim's and other recent letters, I would like to state the following:

I stand by my statement that I have witnessed "innumerable" (too many to count) bicycle related issues on the Chappy Road. Perhaps the difference in my experience and the experience of others (those who claim that they have never been witness to any problems) lies in the fact that I have traveled the road far more frequently than they. On average, I'd estimate that I either run, drive or bike the Chappy Road four times a day during the summer season. The frequency of which I am on the Chappy Road thus qualifies me as an accurate reliable observer of the issues involved.

Furthermore, I'd suggest that before Tim Leland infers exaggeration from my quoted statement, that perhaps he might curb his own imagination. In all three of his recent letters he makes several large leaps of logic. Simply because Tim states that a bike path will lead to: "porta-potties"; "paved dirt roads"; and "hundreds of bike tourists a day" does not make it so. Tim may have a facility with words, but that talent does not necessarily lend itself to clairvoyance or precognition.

Tim also clearly states his distaste for the "tourists", and while several letter writers from the opposition camp have attempted to distance themselves from this sentiment, the subtext of their comments support what Tim is honest enough to admit. Personally I agree that we, as a community, have the right to attempt to affect decisions that have significant consequences to our island. But, as I stated previously, we are not a gated community nor do we have the privilege of denying access to Chappy to those who wish to pay to visit. To attempt to do so only reinforces a misconception of Chappy residents as elitists.

More importantly though is that, regardless of one's opinion on tourism, there exists an issue on Chappy that needs some resolution: vehicular traffic and pedestrian/bike traffic are not able to coexist during the summer season. Yes, while it is true that the pedestrian and bike traffic do contribute to a desired slowing of vehicular traffic, the question remains -- at what cost? Putting people in harm's way is hardly the most desirable option to slowing traffic. These are human obstacles that the opposition references, not man-made speed bumps.

Moving on, Mr. Sims suggests that one must create bike paths everywhere if one is to create a bike path somewhere. He does not explain why this must be so however. Logic seems to dictate that providing people an option for travel from point A to B does not necessitate also providing them an option to points C, D, and E. Logic also seems to indicate that by taking a percentage of bike and pedestrian traffic off the paved Chappy Road, at least in part, would mitigate the congestion that now exists.

In addition there exists within the opposition's arguments an opinion that education could solve the present problem. But there is no suggestion as to what this "education" might be, or how it would be implemented. The bicyclists and auto drivers that travel the Chappy roads are comprised of a large cross-section of the larger population. Some are experienced cyclists/drivers, some are not. Some are familiar with the Island roads, some are not. Some are old, some are young. Some are here for the summer, some are here for the day. Coordinating an education program that would accommodate the needs of all these people seems to be a far greater task than creating a bike path form the ferry to the dike. And I understand that many experienced bicyclists actually prefer riding on the road as opposed to a bike path, and as a group have difficulty understanding why others could not be educated to feel thusly. But I'd suggest that there is a large difference between growing up in a culture that respects bicyclists' right to use the road, and trying to teach a broad spectrum of people this same ethic. It would be wonderful if all the drivers and cyclists either had recently moved here from Europe or were part of the MV Cycling Club, but this just isn't the case.

There has also been much reference to the statistics indicating the relative safety of road travel to bike path travel. But one statistic that has been greatly ignored is the percentage of fatalities associated with bike path accidents to those that involve bikes on the road. In fact, the statistics clearly indicate that most fatalities occur during "overtaking" accidents. These are accidents that occur when a vehicle attempts to pass a biker on the road. So, while statistics may indicate that there is a greater frequency of accidents on bike paths, these same statistics state that the consequences of on-road accidents are far greater. Ultimately, all the statistics in the world can not directly address our current situation. There is only one example upon which we can all draw: our narrow winding Chappy Road. 

Finally, to quote Eric Tate (from his letter to the CIA)

"Where we need strict "rules of road" is on a bike path....not on a narrow and winding, 2 lane - 2 way road..... with increasing numbers of 5,000 lb+ vehicles, blended with a mix of motorcycles, mopeds, runners, bikers and walkers....all moving in opposite directions, and at varying speeds" 

What form this bike path takes (e.g. a meandering path through the woods, two one way paths to and fro, or a single path) has yet to be determined. So I'd ask all those who endeavor to stop the process before it even gets started to give adequate consideration to exactly what is being proposed: $27,000 to further an engineering study. Has Chappy really asked that much from the Town that $27,000 seems like an unreasonable amount of money to invest in this process? (Even in "these tough economic times" several Chappy residents appear to be able to individually divest themselves of similar funds for their monthly landscaping).

Sincerely,
Brad Woodger