To the editor:

I am disheartened, frustrated, and bewildered that some people have reacted so strongly against the installation of simple, harmless street signs around Bristol meant to create a more bicycle-friendly community.

Why do such signs, which are identical in size and style to others that most people expect and accept, generate controversy? Perhaps some think they undermine Bristol’s “historic” character, which is absurd given other bigger changes that don’t generate backlash. Maybe politically-motivated opposition comes from the misguided view that cycling is a “woke” activity. Others who decry the signs’ “ugliness” have fragile and unreasonable aesthetic sensibilities. Some who have never ridden a bicycle may not understand or care about what makes cycling safer or just don’t want the “inconvenience” of “dealing with” cyclists, even though they’re already present. Maybe a few fear that the signs will attract large unruly gangs of bicyclists to who will overrun the town.

Regardless of the reasons, it’s enormously wrong that a few loud voices have caused the town to remove the signs much too quickly without due diligence to gather more community feedback. What about the views of the many residents who participated in the community-wide meetings about the bicycle network? What about the people who want or aren’t bothered by the signs?

Similarly, and just as unfortunately, the Phoenix’s article did not include comments from supporters and presented a very misleading and biased view that opposition is widespread, even though this can’t be known without a systematic survey of more people.

Ed Tanner suggested that “it’s about awareness” (assumedly regarding cyclists’ legal right to ride on town roads). However, this doesn’t emphasize more central concerns that support keeping signs in place. It’s about safety and easy steps to prevent accidents. It’s about encouraging health via exercising. It’s about reducing traffic congestion, air pollution, and spending money on gas. “Share the road” signs create a more welcoming environment for cyclists, which will make Bristol more attractive to visitors and homebuyers who specifically choose locations where they—and their children—can comfortably and safely cycle for commuting and recreation.

These more important concerns have taken a backseat to knee-jerk, irrational complaints from an unrepresentative sample of residents. Thus, the town’s needlessly hasty decision to take down signs is wrong and backwards looking. I disagree with Ed Tanner that the painted road markings are enough because, as he notes, they will fade and become easy to overlook; many people probably don’t know what they mean whereas the signs spell it out clearly.

I urge Bristol’s leaders to pursue a more measured response to this sign controversy by re-considering what voices they are “hearing” and the methods by which they gather residents’ feedback. It is not fair to the whole community to immediately placate a few anti-sign curmudgeons who have clearly overreacted. Certainly, the decision is not something that, in the words of Ed Tanner, will “get it right” for cyclists. Hopefully, a future headline will be “Bristol reinstalls bicycle signage following public criticism.”

Loren Byrne
Paull Street