Cyclists face danger on Fort Valley road
The intent of this letter is to save a life.
Thursday, May 17, I was doing yard work. Within one hour I watched more than 30 cyclists go by on the main road in Fort Valley. When two of them stopped in my driveway to rest under a big shade tree and hydrate themselves I ap-proached them in a nice, constructive manner and said, "You like living dangerously, don't you?"
One responded, "Oh, the cars go so fast on the road." I said back to them, "No, they are doing the posted speed limit."
I have heard the expression, "We have the right to the road, also." Now the riders could be lawfully right. But, they could also be "dead right." Cyclists who travel this Fort Valley road do nothing but create a dangerous situation, especially on turns and hills. They try to wave you around them without them having to stop. If I remember right, in the manual to get a driver's license, there are laws that prohibit the passing on turns, hills and double lines. Don't compare tractors to bikes. I don't see 30 go by in an hour, and they will at least pull over and let you pass.
We tell our children, in the Fort and elsewhere, "stay out of roads and stay out of traffic." This letter is with no disrespect to the cyclists themselves. They are somehow being led to believe that Fort Valley is one big recreational area. The narrow and winding road that passs through the Fort is our only thoroughfare to get out of the valley to work and other places. I speak from experience. I have lost two sisters and many friends to accidents on this road.
I would like to ask the local government to do something about this (before some tragedy takes place), but they didn't listen on the regional jail, so I wouldn't expect them to listen on this. Maybe VDOT will/could if they are not politically controlled.
Danny Plauger, Fort Valley
Kudos to utility, county government
Hats off to Stony Creek Utility and Shenandoah County government for its $1.8 million dollar saving when they constructed our new leachate and septage pump station and pipeline connecting the county landfill and the North Fork wastewater treatment plant. The original estimate of construction costs was $2.6 million, while the final construction cost was $978,896.
Besides serving several businesses and public facilities, this pump station will convey the approximately 4 to 5 million gallons of landfill leachate per year equivalent to 1,300 to 1,700 truckloads, eliminating transportation costs.
Finally these connections will stimulate cost savings for existing onsite septic systems pump-outs, further protecting our drinking water and preserving the Shenandoah River. Once again, great job!
Where are the studies on NARTH website?
Regarding L. John Bost's letter to the editor (May 24), he claims that the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) has the numbers in their studies to back up the idea that folks can change their sexual orientation (presumably from homosexual to heterosexual). He says that "31 of 84 studies showed a quantitative outcome of individuals able to change sexual orientation."
Well, I went to look at NARTH's website to see these studies, and I did not find them. What I did find was a recent statement that NARTH posted on April 23, 2012, against SB 1172 in California, which seeks to limit, if not outlaw, sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) in that state. NARTH said it was against this proposed law for many reasons, one of which was that SB 1172 said that, "...there is no evidence that any type of psychotherapy can change a person's sexual orientation..." NARTH then goes on to protest that statement saying that " ... in the end the current research only allows the conclusion that, 'We simply do not know.'"
Now, you would think that if they had any evidence showing "a quantitative outcome of individuals able to change sexual orientation" that they would have included that evidence in their statement. The fact that they did not, and the fact that Mr. Bost says they have many studies showing such evidence is perplexing. So, after looking through the site as much as I could stand, I looked up NARTH on Wikipedia. They only came into existence in 1992, and there is no mention of any studies on Wikipedia tantamount to what Mr. Bost claims. It would be hard to conduct so many studies in so short a time. Yet, you would think that if NARTH had such studies, they would not let Wikipedia get away with not acknowledging them. So, I am led to believe there are no such studies; and Mr. Bost has misled us. Why would he wish to do such, all the while claiming the authority of the Bible? One can only wonder.