Although it misses the mark on a couple of key points, the Columbus Dispatch article "Motorists, cyclists need to learn how to share pavement" was a good look at the rise of bicycling in Columbus and the need for understanding about the rights and responsibilities of both parties.
Credit goes to Bob Vitale for getting the major message correct: that both motorists and cyclists need to be aware of the rights and responsilbilities they have and that the other party has. A key phrase in the beginning of the article is this:
But people's knowledge of the rules of the road hasn't kept pace with the biking boom.
There's an understanding at a high level that the rules of the road need to be learned by both motorists and cyclists. And I don't think too many people would disagree that this is the case.
And the article points out a number of key misunderstandings between cyclists and motorists - particularly in the realm of speed.
"There's an impression among both drivers and cyclists that there exists something called a minimum speed limit," Fellrath said.
A state appeals court ruled against that idea in 2001 by throwing out the case against a cyclist who had been ticketed for impeding traffic in the Dayton suburb of Trotwood.
Great to see Trotwood vs. Selz brought to public attention. This case has been key in establishing cyclists' rights on the road.
The problem with the article lies in the details. For example: this Examiner was interviewed for the article and a key point of discussion on controlling the lane was slightly missed. Here's the quote:
Jamie Fellrath, a cycling instructor who lives in Clintonville, said it's safest for bicyclists to ride in the right third of the right lane, not at the curb. The tactic is called "controlling the lane," and it tends to keep cars from driving right next to a bike.
The actual tactic described was to ride between 1/3 and 1/2 of the way across the lane to "control the lane." This is a tactic that is perfectly legal for areas where a car and bike can't safely sit in the lane side by side, or a motorist cannot pass a bicyclist while staying in the lane with the rider (City traffic code 2173.04 section C). The point is to force the motorist to change lanes completely to pass instead of trying to squeeze by them while staying in the lane.
Another point that was not accurate was this:
It also means that bicyclists must follow the same laws. They can't ride two abreast in the same lane or roll up to an intersection between or beside the vehicles that got there first.
Per city traffic code 2173.04, section B, cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast but no more than that.
With a bit more detail and fact checking the article would have been significantly more valuable. But it doesn't miss the mark by saying that both drivers and motorists need to increase their knowledge about how they should be operating their vehicles.
Comments