RSS
Home
USA Today column about "Two-wheel troublemaking" is off the mark
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
USA Today recently posted an op-ed piece on the "problem" of motorists having let bicyclists rights "go too far." The title of the piece, "Two-wheel troublemaking: Have motorists let bicyclist 'rights' go too far?", makes so many assumptions and glosses over so many issues brought up by the article that the author should be forced to comment on his own faults in writing this piece. Let's take a look.
First, the title: "Two-wheel troublemaking: Have motorists let bicyclist 'rights' go too far?" The assumption here is that motorists are the ones who are responsible for giving out rights to everyone else. This assumption could not be further from the truth. It's the law that gives out rights, not a body of people. And the last time I checked, the law was written by elected bodies, not by a mob rule of motorists. So the very notion that "motorists [have] let bicyclists' rights go too far" is absurd at best.
The article proper begins:
Have bicyclist "rights" gone too far?
For a decade, urban bicyclists have become more brash. In some cities, groups such as Critical Mass organized mass rush-hour bike rides that tied traffic in knots, delaying commuters rides' home by minutes or hours. They are hardly tactics that will win sympathy from drivers.
First, judging the behavior of all cyclists based on a once-a-month happening like Critical Mass is akin to judging all dogs based on the behavior of Pit Bulls. Critical Mass is a monthly unorganized demonstration of bicycles as traffic that takes place in many cities around the globe. But using that as your example of bicyclists' normal behavior is absolutely ridiculous.
We continue:
In the aftermath and as their numbers have increased, cyclists have become emboldened to take over the road. That is, instead of riding to the right or on the shoulder, some are now riding in the center of the lane. Two incidents underscore how they are putting themselves in danger. One incident involved a cyclist hit and killed by accident. The other case is a motorist who is alleged to have tried to make bicyclists crash into his car on purpose:
In most places, cyclists have the right to ride in the middle of the lane if it's the only way to ride safely. And, in most places, it's unsafe to share a lane with a car trying to pass without leaving the lane. There really aren't that many lanes of traffic in this country wide enough to accept a bike and a car with enough buffer between the bike and the car, and the bike and the curb. The fact that more cyclists are doing so simply stems from the fact that more cyclists know that they are allowed to do so, and have been all along.
In the first case, a driver on the way to work struck a St. Mary's County, Md., bicyclist earlier this month and killed him, police told The Washington Post. The driver, a 20-year-old in her Honda Accord, told police she never saw the biker. But the accident might have been prevented if the 47-year-old bicyclist had been riding in the right, not in the dead center, of the lane, a major contributor to the accident.
Let's see if this is clear: the bicyclist was riding in the safest place in the lane, right in the middle, where it's easiest to see a cyclist. The driver, a young lady, didn't see this cyclist riding there. Is there anything here that would indicate any other possibility than that the driver in this case was distracted by something else, if she wasn't looking through her front windshield? The entire paragraph is an admittance of the motorist's guilt.
In the second case, a Los Angeles doctor is on trial for allegedly slamming the brakes on his car to cause two bikers to run into him. They did, suffering bloody injuries. The doctor, Charles Christopher Thompson, was allegedly peeved over having to slow down for three bikers blocking his path, refusing to pull to the right and flipping him off as he passed. He is on trial for having pulled in front of them and, according to testimony, hitting the brakes so that bikes were sure to hit. One biker needed 90 stitches.
Interestingly, the trial in this case has just begun. But how does this incident show that cyclists have "too many rights?" In many places, cyclists have the right to ride two-abreast. There's no law that says cyclists have to move over to allow anyone through. It's as if the writer of the article doesn't understand that assault with a deadly weapon (in this case, Dr. Thompson's car) is against the law.
For a little perspective, Drive On sought out Jeff Peel, a program specialist heading the League of American Bicycle's campaign for Bicycle Friendly Communities. His contention is that the road is "not motorist space. It's people space." Bicyclists are road users, too, even if they travel at the fraction of the speed of a car. In fact, he says, that's good.
"The idea is you are slowing traffic, which may be frustrating to some motorists but making the road safer for everyone," Peel says. "Creating safer roadways and right-of-ways for all users sometimes requires taking space away from automobiles."
This just makes sense. Slower traffic is safer for everyone. The federal government wouldn't have spent decades trying to enforce the 55 mph speed limit, and police wouldn't have the right to stop people for speeding, if speed wasn't a safety factor. And cyclists most certainly have the right to the streets, the same as pedestrians (who almost universally have the right of way, period) and any other road user.
Taking space away from cars? Ouch. When late to work, it pains a driver to slow down for a bunch of bicyclists hogging the roadway. In the past, you might have tried to steer around them. These days, they are right in front of the car.
It will be interesting to see how far this goes, whether bicyclists are allowed to stay in the middle of the highway. As the deaths mount, maybe it will become clear they need ride to the right.
Motorists can steer around them now, too. It doesn't matter how far out the cyclists are riding, that option always exists. You just might have to wait a bit longer. Or perhaps plan your time more effectively.
It's interest here, too, to point out that the columnist asks about whether "bicyclists are allowed to stay in the middle of the highway." Why only the highway? Is he already of the opinion that cyclists are allowed to stay in the middle of the road on non-highways?
And finally, his comment about "as the deaths mount" should be disturbing to everyone. It's as if he's suggesting that motorists bear no responsibility to drive safely and share the road with all other road users, even as the percentage of motorists as road users continues to fall and the number of cyclists, pedestrians, and transit riders continues to rise.
Everyone on the road is responsible for safety, and that means no distracted vehicle operation, period, and following the law. Sure, cyclists aren't perfect in this regard, but neither are motorists or pedestrians. It's incumbent upon law enforcement to enforce the law as written, and upon their department heads to make sure their officers know how to properly enforce it.
And it's incumbent upon the operators of the most dangerous vehicles to drive in a way that is not going to cause injury and death to more vulnerable road users - no matter how slow they're going.
Related Articles:
Comments
