Visibly upset

In reference to The Acorn article of June 14, "Bicyclist in Agoura hit by motorist, Lack of visibility cited," did we really need a police detective from the Lost Hills Sheriff's Station to tell us the obvious?

"Lack of visibility?" Was the bicyclist negligent? Was he wearing all-black clothing or riding a bicycle without reflectors? Did he suddenly appear out of nowhere or did the driver of the truck fail to register brain activity before he hit him? What possibly could have prompted the comment "lack of visibility" by the journalist? Maybe the cyclist had doused himself with invisible ink before his ride.

Perhaps we should give Detective Richard Curry the benefit of the doubt when he cited a study, "While cars and trucks triggered noticeable brain activity, drivers had little to no brain reaction to motorcyclists or bicyclists." Maybe he had good intentions. Do you think?

After a single bicycle ride on city streets, a cyclist becomes well aware of the hazards posed by inattentive and rude drivers. Was Detective Curry suggesting that cyclists equip themselves with two tons of armor to afford protection from trucks? Or was he implying that cyclists should have an additional pair of eyes surgically implanted in the back of their heads?

Detective Curry should have reminded the cycling public of the old axiom, "Position yourself on the road to see and to be seen." Beyond that, cyclists are at the mercy of drivers to pay attention to their own conduct in traffic.

It's apparent this story poses more questions than it provides answers. The Acorn should pursue a follow up article to clarify the confusion. Jeffrey L. Wissot Westlake Village