I disagree with Chris Coulston's opinion expressed in the Feb. 5 Daily Collegian that cyclists are being assessed unfair penalties for breaking traffic laws, his assertion being that a bicycle is not a motor vehicle. Having myself been the victim of a hit and run incident in which three bicyclists struck me in a pedestrian crosswalk after running a stop sign, I have no sympathy for Coulston's complaint.

Is the pain experienced by a pedestrian being struck by a bicycle any less simply because a bicycle lacks a"motor"? Are injuries sustained by pedestrians from bicycles any less because a bicycle "does't require a license to operate?" For that matter, is the hazard to motor traffic caused by those cyclists who do not obey traffic laws any less than that caused by careless motorists?

In his list of differences between bicycles and motor vehicles, Coulston ignores one major difference, that is, how much easier it is for a cyclist to get away with breaking traffic laws than it is for a motorists. At least automobiles have license plates. Perhaps I could have identified the cyclists who ran me down if they had been in a car. Or, can you imagine someone driving a car down the campus mall? And yet, everyday, pedestrians have to contend with bicyclists using sidewalks as roadways.

There is, of course, one easy way for cyclists to avoid these penalties, and that is to obey traffic laws.