Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I just read about the crystal-clear new law that says, according to the Star Tribune article, "bicyclists approaching a four-way stop intersection can treat their stop sign as a yield sign, scan for other vehicles while slowing down and then ride through if clear" ("Stop sign rules relaxed for bicyclists," May 29).

Wow. I won't go as far as calling this the "Big Doofus Bicycle Safety Act" (apologies to Bill Dooley) or the "I-Might-Stop" (apologies to Idaho), but I did read all the justifications for this law and still have questions about some of its more subjective parts.

Four-way stop intersections: only in these spots? While driving yesterday I encountered a bicyclist coming the opposite direction at a two-way stop that I reached first. Seems pretty straightforward one driver to another, but I was already going through the responsible driver's mental drill of: Will he even stop? Is he turning? Did he catch that I stopped before he did? Do his rules of the road trump mine?

Treating the stop sign as a yield: So many bikes (and cars) already do this — do we really want it happening more often and condoning it for some but not others?

Slowing down and scanning for other vehicles: The worrisome bikers in this situation are those who already seem to be racing an invisible opponent and are not really into slowing down for anything.

Those are some of my questions, but "Dorian Grilley, executive director of the nonprofit Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota, said last week that the new rules match 'what's accepted practice just about everywhere. This makes it safer by clarifying the rules.'"

Guess I'm a bit slow, because nothing about this law seems clarifying. Conversely, it adds even more points to the already lengthy checklist for drivers who encounter bicyclists. Additionally, not every driver saw this in the paper or on the news today or will remember it until Aug. 1 and beyond. Can't wait.

Laurie Eckblad Anderson, Minneapolis

•••

An honest, objective driver should ask, "Why doesn't the exception apply to me? I run more stop signs than those riders."

Those of you reading this who think, "That's not me," glance out your side window while stopped. If scenery is passing by, you're not stopped.

Count on drivers to do two things: Run stop signs and complain about bikes. Oh, and add to that: Exceed speed limits.

John Kaplan, St. Paul

•••

So letting bicyclists roll through stop signs is safer? Tell our kids that.

Maybe we should open that up to automobiles and trucks. Why waste all that gasoline and carbon emissions sitting at a stop light or stop sign?

Mary Delgado, Minneapolis

As we start Pride Month 2023, the cacophony of dog whistles and fearmongering is at a pitch I have not heard in 40 years. In the past year, an angry discussion about drag shows, light beer, apparel at Target, library books and pronouns is bringing to light a truth:

It was never about destroying our pride. It is about removing our visibility. My community is not just being attacked because of who we are but also because we are being seen.

For all of it, the rainbow flags, commemorative Swatches and unicorn tank tops on store shelves are less about identity and more about visibility. Now, in an unequal dichotomy, the response to that visibility is violence — the passive violence of boycotts, the oblique violence of online memes showing beer cans being blown up by assault rifles or the very real violence of masked, armed groups appearing outside of a church story hour.

Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California, said: "[If we're] invisible, we remain in limbo — a myth."

This is why I believe it is important to recognize LGBT Pride in the month of June, and why I will wear a silly shirt with a rainbow on it. I am not celebrating my differences or underlining my similarities. I am being visible, pure and short. Visible and joyous in the fact that I can see others. Visible and cantankerous because my life may not look like yours. Visible and very wary of any and all who are counting on all our invisibility, whoever we may be. Because somewhere, there are people who need us to be more visible than they are able to be. Sadly, there is someone else who is counting on the fact that we will all stay "invisible ... remain in limbo — a myth."

Michael L. Whistler, Minneapolis

I read with sadness "Requiem for a supercool kid" (Opinion Exchange) in Monday's paper. As a Vietnam War protester, I remember the time well. I've seen the 1960s romanticized as the Woodstock/hippie era. It was really a terrible time of strife, much worse than now, except for our mass gun slaughters. But today's political lying is nothing new.

During the '60s, we lived through rioting and burning in northern cities over civil rights and sit-ins in the South to finally integrate schools and facilities. We taught our children how to hide under desks in case of atomic bombs. We endured assassinations of two Kennedys and Martin Luther King Jr. And we faced a deceitful government left over from the Joseph McCarthy era.

Lying government leaders are nothing new. They are the reason we need a good educational system that covers history and social studies well. And we need a free press and journalists who ask the right questions.

Margaret Kolbek, Cumberland, Wis.

•••

"They bought time for us, so that we can do better than we have before."

President Dwight Eisenhower said that on the 20th anniversary of Normandy, among the graves of soldiers.

Are we?

How?