Civil disobedience at Colorado bicycle tour

On July 25th, bicycle riders at Colorado's Sunrise Century may encounter some protesters. An unsigned flier urges area motorists to engage in "civil disobedience" by blocking area roadways with their vehicles as a means of protesting the state's new three feet passing law. Like similar laws in other states, the Colorado version requires that motorists pass bicyclists no closer than three feet. Some drivers object, saying that the new law puts them in jeopardy while they attempt to pass on narrow mountain roads with limited sight lines.

Yes, it's the motorists claiming they're at risk around bicyclists. They could collide with another motor vehicle when they blindly pass without being able to see if the roadway is clear.  Cyclists are at fault simply for being there.  As we all know, a ton-and-a-half of steel and glass offers dubious safety around those pesky bicyclists, heavily armored in their Styrofoam hats and Lycra.

We have a word for motorists like this - whiners. Here's an excerpt from the news story:

Threats made to disrupt bicycle tour
posted by: Jeffrey Wolf written by: Dave Delozier

BOULDER - Alex Hearn has one word to describe the Sunrise Century: fun. It is not competitive and its primary purpose is to give people the chance to ride a bicycle through some of the prettiest canyons you will find anywhere.
Advertisement

So imagine his surprise when he learned this year's Sunrise Century was being targeted for civil disobedience. Hearn started to learn about it when fliers started showing up in mailboxes in the area of Left Hand Canyon north of Boulder. The flier carries a title of: "Civil Disobedience, July 25th Block Dangerous Cyclist Day, Boulder, CO."

...The flier goes on to say, "On July 25th in celebration of drivers' rights many cars will use the Left Hand Canyon Road, drive slowly and many may break down unexpectedly, blocking areas to the cyclists on the return leg of the 'Sunrise Century.' Please use judgment during this civil disobedience."

The Sunrise Century had already contacted the Colorado State Patrol and the Boulder County Sheriff's Office to provide traffic control and support for the ride. In light of the threat to disrupt the event, law enforcement officers may have an addition role to fill.

(MORE)

The news site had a photo of the note. Here's what I could read:

On August 5th new regulations limiting drivers rights regarding dangerous bicyclists will be STATE LAW.

CYCLISTS FLOUT COMMON SENSE, ENDANGER THOSE IN CARS ON MOUNTAIN ROADS IN THE NAME OF SELFISHNESS; CARS WILL BE FORCED TO CROSS DOUBLE YELLOW LINES ON DANGEROUS LIMITED VISIBILITY ROADS DUE TO THE EXPANDED RIGHTS OF CYCLISTS.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Where to begin? Give the author credit for getting the spelling right, at least.

Let's start with the Universal Right of Speed, a part of the vehicle code so obscure that no one has been able to find it. URS states that drivers in motor vehicles have the inalienable right to drive as fast as they want whenever they want. Speed limits are merely advisory and can be ignored if there are no law enforcement vehicles in the immediate area. Drivers may operate at or above the speed limit even when the road ahead is obscured by terrain, fog, rain, snow, or smoke. Anything that forces them to slow down (other than a police car parked alongside the road) is most likely illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral.

That's meant to be facetious, of course, but it accurately portrays the dubious mental processes some motorists employ. To be fair, these challenged motorist are few, but cyclists seem to attract their anger. Maybe it has something to do with the relative powerlessness of cyclists, because motorists seldom complain about other motorists, motorcyclists, farm equipment, or construction machinery moving slowly on public roads, perhaps because any one of them can do enormous damage to a car.

Gary Parker, another League Cycling instructor here in Tulsa, had this to say:

Motorists who say it is too dangerous for bicyclists to be on the public roads as they are likely to be hit by a car, are simply roadway bullies exactly like the playground bully who says, "This is my playground and I am bigger than you, and if you get hurt it is your own fault." They are simply blaming the victim.

We had similar comments on a news article here after a motorist killed two cyclists last week. 'Bicyclists shouldn't use ABC Road because it's four lanes with heavy, high-speed traffic.' And of course, someone else chimed in with 'cyclists shouldn't use XYZ Road because it's only two lanes with hills and curves.' The underlying complaint is that 'cyclists shouldn't use the road I'm on -they should go somewhere else.'

We're supposed to believe that Colorado is somehow special because it has mountainous terrain - yet the same arguments pop up here in relatively flat Oklahoma. Could it be that the motorists are just a bunch of whiny babies? Could it be that they have a sense of entitlement, thinking that roads belong to motorists alone? Could they simply be stupid?

This new law in Colorado is the same three feet passing ordinance that's been enacted in many other states, including my home state of Oklahoma. Oddly enough, the world did not stop spinning on it's axis. The Apocalypse did not arrive. Cats and dogs did not start sleeping together.

Our anonymous writer charges that cyclists have no "common sense" - another near universal complaint. By common sense, he means that they haven't accepted the conventional wisdom that insists riding a bicycle on a public road is an extremely dangerous practice. This is so widely believed that evidence to the contrary is ignored. Experienced cyclists know that this much-vaunted 'common sense' isn't grounded in reality.

There's a hysterical assertion made with complete lack of irony when he says that cyclists use roads out of selfishness. It's obvious that he wants cyclists off the road so he isn't inconvenienced by having to slow down even momentarily. So who's exhibiting selfishness? The saftey argument is specious. (And for our anonymous writer - 'specious' means having the ring of truth or plausibility while actually being fallacious. In short, a well-crafted lie.) The anonymous motorist has an entitlement mentality. The road is his and his alone. Again, who is being selfish here?

What about 'forcing motorists to pass on dangerous limited visibility roads'? When was the last time a cyclist forced a driver encased in a ton and a half of metal and glass to do anything? Name one motorist killed in a crash with a cyclist. Please. I read of bicycle/motor vehicle crash incidents all the time and I've yet to encounter one that resulted in the injury or death of a motorist. If you can't figure out how to pass a small, slow moving bicyclist, perhaps it's time to re-examine your ability to operate a motor vehicle competently and safely.

Every road user - regardless of his mode of transportation - is obligated to exercise due care toward every other road user. This isn't a courtesy we extend to each other. It's the basis of traffic law. Rights are accompanied by responsibilities. It's my responsibility when overtaking another cyclist or pedestrian to do so safely, exercising due care toward that person. And it's an overtaking motorist's responsibility to exercise that same due care when he's passing me, another motorist, a pedestrian, or a horse and buggy.

Would blocking roadways be an act of civil disobedience? Here's a dictionary definition:

"The refusal to obey civil laws regarded as unjust, usually by employing methods of passive resistance."...The New American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, 1976.

It would appear that blocking a travel lane could indeed be an act of civil disobedience, but think about it for a moment. What happens when a car 'breaks down' and blocks the lane? Cyclists just flow around it. Other motorists can't. The proposed action would impact those other motorists without having any detrimental effect on cyclists. In fact, by blocking travel lanes protesters would see that the cyclists had a car-free journey! How nice of them.

Another thing about civil disobedience is that those who engage in it expect and sometimes demand to be arrested. If a law is unjust, their action highlights that injustice. Remaining anonymous is not a means of engaging in civil disobedience. It seems to be aimed more at inciting others to perform some illegal act.

Anyone with an interest in bicycle racing has seen the protests mounted almost yearly at the Tour de France. Various groups have brought the race to a halt by blocking roadways. They get their cause on the nightly news by getting in front of all those television cameras. The police arrive and cart them away. The race resumes. It's as ritualized as kabuki theater. Granted, stopping Le Tour is probably easier than stopping a group ride in rural Colorado, mainly because the Tour has all those leading motor vehicles. My impression, however, is that this anonymous letter writer isn't truly interested in being arrested.

Ultimately, if you choose to break the law, you have to accept the consequences. A motorist who blocks a travel lane or harasses bicyclists by passing too close should expect to receive a traffic citation, just as a cyclist who runs red lights or rides against traffic should be ticketed. Cyclists don't ask for special treatment under the law. We simply expect equality. It's a public road, after all, and we each have the same right to use it.

Same rights. Same rules. Same road.