LETTERS: Cyclists shouldn’t emulate boorish behavior

Boorish bicycling

As a fellow cyclist, I believe Benedikt Negro's missive begs rebuttal ("Drivers and bicyclists," Sept. 17 Review-Journal). I'm certainly in agreement that navigating Las Vegas traffic via bicycle, foot or car can be best described as a moron-a-thon. Mr. Negro purports to be a victim of sorts, then emulates the behavior of his aggressor, the me-first driver, as a solution.

Sorry, that Tour de Farce logic escapes me. Being on a bicycle doesn't give us the yellow jersey of privilege. To respond in kind suggests we need more automobiles blowing through stop signs, stoplights and generally further ignoring basic rules of the road. What will Mr. Negro's reaction be when his 20-pound bike meets the 3,000-pound auto while they're both "blowing through the light," as he puts it?

Riding a bicycle with abandon — giving every other road user the proverbial finger — only makes the mean streets of Las Vegas that much more dangerous for the rest of us. We can't cull the dim-witted from travel outside the home, but let's not join them either. It is incumbent upon all of us — drivers, cyclists and pedestrians — to exhibit basic civility and common courtesy to others, while aggressively condemning the boorish and dangerous behaviors we see on the streets.

Jim Fitch

Henderson

Reid on nuclear deal

In an article on the Iran nuclear deal, the Review-Journal quoted Sen. Harry Reid as saying, "Now the United States has a choice to make: We can enforce an agreement that forces Iran to walk away from any nuclear weapons program, or we can walk away from that agreement and assume responsibility for the consequences." ("Reid calls Iran nuclear pact 'last best chance,'" Sept. 9 Review-Journal).

Did anyone ask Sen. Reid where in this agreement he found wording that forces Iran to walk from any nuclear weapons program? Was Sen. Reid asked to define how we can enforce an agreement that forces Iran to walk away? Has Sen. Reid been asked if he is going to assume responsibility for the consequences when the attacks on Israel increase, when Hamas and Hezbollah have more advanced rockets, bombs, missiles, IEDs and, likely, dirty bombs? Or if Sen. Reid really believes Ayatollah Khamenei was only joking when he said Israel would be gone in 25 years?

As a result of this agreement, there will likely be stepped up attacks in the Middle East by Iran and its proxies with more advanced weapons, which means more Israelis and others will die, likely in the thousands. These attacks will likely spread beyond the Middle East to include Europe and the United States.

A recent Pew Research poll showed only 21 percent of Americans in favor of this agreement. This is another terrible deal crafted by Democrats for Democrats (see Obamacare), except in this deal, far more people will be impacted and far more people will die. When does the media plan to ask President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, Sen. Reid, Hillary Clinton and others who back this nuclear agreement if they are taking full responsibility for the deaths and destruction to follow?

Sen. Reid has invested most of his 32 years in national elected office taking care of himself first, then his party and moneyed supporters. I don't know where Sen. Reid's interests are in this deal, but you can rest assured it is not to protect Israelis or the United States.

Al Maddox

Henderson