More on the "right to drive"
...
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.
...
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.'
...
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.
<a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-7204-Tulsa-Alternative-Transportation-Examiner~y2009m6d18-Civil-disobedience-at-Colorado-bicycle-tour">http://www.examiner.com/x-7204-Tulsa-Alternative-Transportation-Examiner~y2009m6d18-Civil-disobedience-at-Colorado-bicycle-tour</a>;