The 92nd edition of the Chicago Auto Show is over, so it's time for the annual awarding of bouquets for jobs well done and brickbats for less-than-stellar performances.

Bouquet to the Chicago Automobile Trade Association, the sponsor of the show, for keeping the tradition alive. And the $5 parking at Comiskey Park and free shuttle service was a nice touch.

A bouquet to Buick for unveiling its 2002 Rendezvous sport-utility hybrid in Chicago...

... etc..etc.. more of the same...

Yet another D/C bouquet for having a wheelchair lift to help visitors reach the raised stand where the Jeep Varsity was on display.

... etc..etc.. more of the same...

A bouquet to General Motors for unveiling the Chevrolet Traverse concept sedan/SUV hybrid and the Pontiac Piranha sport coupe/pickup hybrid in Chicago, as well as for bringing along the Chevy SSR pickup truck/roadster/convertible concept.

... etc..etc.. more of the same...

A brickbat to the handful of Knights in Spandex who staged a bicycle rally to the auto show to call attention to the idea that cars kill more people than cigarettes, guns or "Baywatch" reruns. If protesters were preaching safety, why were some riding without helmets?

...

If you had looked and listened a little more closely, reading our flyers, watching our performance, observing our interactions with car show patrons, you would have learned that there are many reasons to critique car culture.

Over-reliance on the private automobile is destroying our cities, our landscapes, our public spaces, our quality of life. Imagine a greener, cleaner, friendlier Chicago where people don't resign themselves to gridlock, long commutes and poor air quality by spending a ton of money for a second home on wheels closed off to the foul smells and sounds of every one else's mobile home. We're in a vicious cycle--the more our streets and land use patterns are dominated by cars, the more people feel they have no alternative to driving, even for a three block trip to the store. Walking and cycling--healthy, economical, environmentally low impact modes of travel--are being literally and figuratively relegated to the margins. This is a boon to the auto industry, but a "brickbat" for those of us who prefer not to or can not drive.

Fortunately, Chicago has the potential to be a great biking and walking city. With a little practice and confidence it's easy, safe and fun to ride, and many trips people need to take are under 5 miles. We've got sidewalks and plenty of neighborhood businesses. We've got beautiful architecture, a visual feast best enjoyed without the interference of a windshield. As more people recognize that they do have a choice, that they don't need to own a car to get around town, you'll find yourself covering the auto industry's desperate attempts to find a more dupable market.

Gin Kilgore

I would like to bring to your attention a few inaccuracies in your February 25th column. Your description of the cyclists protesting the Auto Show contained factual errors as well as misleading information: most of the protesters were wearing helmets; few, if any, were wearing spandex; "knights" is an inappropriate way to describe a mixed group of men and women; and finally, "handful" is not an accurate way to describe a group of over 30 people.

As a journalist of integrity, I'm sure you're concerned about the accuracy of your reporting. Perhaps your source of information about the protest was less than reliable.

In order to gain a more accurate, firsthand understanding of Chicago's cycling advocacy movement, I would invite you to join us for the next Critical Mass ride on March 31. The ride takes place on the last Friday of every month at 5:30pm leaving from Daley Plaza. Hundreds of cyclists typically participate in the two-hour, noncompetitive ride to show a positive alternative to our current transportation system based on the private automobile. Join us for the ride and you'll see that we aren't a bunch of "knights in spandex" but Chicagoans from all walks of life that are very concerned about the future of our city and are willing to do something about it.

More information can be obtained at www.chicagocriticalmass.org.

Sincerely,

Michael Burton

As one of the protesters, I take issue with your characterization of us as "Knights in Spandex." As far as I know, there was only one cyclist who was wearing spandex, and I and most of the others were in fact wearing helmets.

You are right about helmets: they should be worn. My helmet does protect me to some extent from serious head injuries. Unfortunately, it does not protect me from other dangers, for example the air pollution from car emissions or a broken limb as a result of an attack by a road-enraged motorist.

It does not prevent my tax money from being used for subsidies for auto, road and petroleum interests, at the expense of public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure.

My helmet does not protect me from the ill effects of car-clogged streets, the noise and visual pollution of a city that devotes 40% of its land area to accomodate the private automobile.

My helmet does not protect me from constant fear when I simply assert my right to public streets dominated by drivers encased in 4,000 pound vehicles.

My helmet does not protect me (or you) from global warming, directly related to so-called "mobile sources of pollution."

My helmet did not protect those two who died in yesterday's I55 tragedy nor console the families of the hundred or so others who also met a violent death on America's roads.

My helmet is little consolation to those hundreds of thousands of Americans maimed and injured each year (how many do you know personally?) in car-related accidents. (It is ironic that you award a "D/C bouquet for having a wheelchair lift to help visitors reach the raised stand where the Jeep Varsity was on display." I wonder how many of those being lifted up to the Jeep shrine received their disabling injuries in a car accident?)

My helmet cannot restore the wetlands, farmland, green space and wildlife habitat being constantly destroyed and replaced by asphalt to accomodate car-related sprawl.

My helmet cannot force the industry to accept financial responsibility for the disposal of the tons of toxic waste created in the production, use, and disposal of their products, nor can it prevent the rampant obesity and other health problems caused by the sedentary llifestyle encouraged by a car-centric society.

Yes, those cyclists should have been wearing helmets (to protect themselves from your brickbat, if for no other reason). But in your flippant dismissal of their concerns in favor of obsequious panderings and bouquet awards to auto companies you have become an unwitting extension of their advertising campaign. Perhaps, in the future, you should stick to your beat and avoid public commentary on issues which you have not researched.

Jim Redd