From time to time, elected officials propose laws designed to garner support from one group at the expense of another. Introducing these laws generates publicity and controversy. Politically savvy officials select laws based on a belief that their popularity will soar if they cater to a vocal group of supporters.
In Gainesville, Georgia, a state senator, Sen. Butch Miller, introduced a bill to ban side-by-side bicycle riding on roads. After hearing this, local cyclists wondered why, with all of the problems facing Georgia, he had time to waste on anti-bicycle laws.
His response was that his constituents wanted him to propose this bill. They objected to bicycle traffic on the ”curvy and increasingly mountainous roads” in the area. He claimed that the bill was not intended to be anti-bicycle, although he offered no explanation as to why he considered such a measure to be pro-bicycle.
A cycling advocacy group circulated a flier outlining the benefits of allowing cyclists to ride two abreast. Among the arguments they made in favor of permitting side-by-side cycling were increased visibility to motorists and giving parents an opportunity to shield children from cars by riding between them and traffic.
The senator reacted by offering a compromise bill which retained the current rules for side-by-side cycling, but required cyclists to move into a single-file line if a vehicle approached them on a two-lane road. Although he probably angered his constituents by making this concession, he managed to save face by trying to weigh the interests of both groups, while keeping safety and “common courtesy” in mind.
As might be expected, both sides showed up in the comment section to vent. And, as most cyclists could predict, rather than focusing on the senator’s performance, with respect to spending his time on something which should be a low priority for the state, the conversation turned to cyclist rights, and whether bicycles should be permitted on the road.
Early in the conversation, a commenter couldn’t resist posting a snide remark.
“Rockyiv: February 26, 2012 6:13 a.m.
If they would require motors on bikes then that would solve the problem.”
Then, someone, who clearly wasn’t following the conversation, interjected a pointed political rant:
“people_dont_get_it: February 26, 2012 8:35 a.m.
A bill or law will nor prevent people from riding two abreast, nor will a safety swimmer course keep people from drowning Mr. Miller.
Is there anyone from Hall county, under the goal dome who isn’t a democrat?
I elected you to downsize gov’t not figure out how tax/fine the citizens through goofy stuff like this.”
This was followed by a clever comment vividly depicting southern stereotypes to demonstrate how ludicrous it was to single out cyclists for slowing down traffic.
“johncitizen: February 26, 2012 9:04 a.m.
Reading some of these posts here, and other articles conjures up images of banjos being played on a front porch. So, farm tractors should not be allowed on the road? They do not have a tag. What about mopeds? They have a tag and insurance, but travel at a slower rate than most vehicles. What about cars traveling at a slower speed than you want them to go? Pedestrians are allowed to use the roadways, but I guess they are to blame if they are inconveniencing you in any way. We live in a community, and certain parts of the community are shared by everyone. Show a little respect, but I guess if someone else is not pigeon holed into your narrow view of the world, they need to be shut out and punished. Oh wait, what was that, are there more banjos playing? Better go get yours tuned up so you can join in.”
Of course, no anti-bicycle comment section would be complete without a detailed rant demanding the removal of bicycles from the roads.
“CheninBlanc: February 26, 2012 9:39 a.m.
In my opinion, bicyclists who ride on the roads are a big nuisance and are just “accidents waiting to happen”. Bicyclists should ride on bike trails in the parks, in the mountains or somewhere out in the country where they don’t interfere with the flow of traffic of cars and trucks. How many people do you know who use a bike as their primary means of transportation other than children? Children have no business riding a bike on the streets or roads anyway, so they shouldn’t even be a consideration in this issue. Other than motorcyclists who insist on ignoring the traffic laws and insist on weaving in and out of traffic, there’s nothing much more aggravating and annoying that trying to drive behind someone on a bicycle who’s moving at 10 or 15 MPH when you’re trying to get to work or trying to make it to an appointment on time. Frankly, I wish that non-motorized bicycles were not even allowed on public streets and roads just as they’re not allowed on the interstates. This day and time, roads should be for cars and trucks and should not be used for a leisurely bike ride or recreation. Most people on the roads (in cars and trucks) are either trying to get to work or have somewhere they need to be. They have a reason for being on the road. Most bike riders insist on riding right down the middle of the lane and make no effort to move over to the right to make it easier for cars to pass them more safely. Meanwhile, the number of cars and trucks behind them continues to build up. Often times, they’re in a “no passing” zone and drivers (of cars and trucks) can’t pass them and have no choice but to creep along behind someone who’s taking a leisurely ride on a bike. God forbid having an accident involving someone on a bicycle…you’re screwed! They know that they have the right to be on the road and most bicyclists have little or no consideration for the 10 cars who are backed up behind them because they can’t move any faster. Bicycles on the roads are nothing more than a nuisance and a safety hazard and bicyclists should have to follow the same rules of the road as those of us who drive cars and trucks. I certainly don’t support any new laws giving bicyclists any more rights than they already have.”
Shortly thereafter, the previous commenter was joined by his/her bicycle hating comrades.
“econheat: February 26, 2012 9:54 a.m.
Bicycles don’t belong on the roads. They are a hazard and a tremendous added liability to the motoring public and commercial traffic. A bicycle weighing less than 50 pounds has no business sharing roads with vehicles weighing 3,000 pounds or more. If they want roads tax them to death like they do cars and trucks and build them their own roads.”
Now this comment may shed some light on the mentality of anti-bicycle zealots.
“Lawnman: February 26, 2012 12:11 p.m.
Not pointing out any one group (because ol’ Al doesn’t need to come back to Gainesville), but their from south of the border. With that being said WHO IN THE WORLD IN THE’RE RIGHT MIND WOULD GET ON A BICYCLE ON OUR ROADWAYS WITH THEM DRIVING? They may stop for a railroad crossing with no train coming, the arms not down and no flaslhing lights, but pull out onto a busy highway and go straight for the fast lane within 20ft of entering the highway. You expect them to be able to pass a bicycle know matter how they ride, they can’t even pass an eighteen wheeler. No thanks I’ll take my 3/4 ton truck any day. At least they drive mostly imports.”
Fortunately, a more civilized person came around to set him straight, although the reply was probably lost on him.
“AtticusFinch: February 26, 2012 12:40 p.m.
Lawnman, let me get this straight: you’re turning an article on bicycles and drivers into a racist rant? ALL white American drivers are good drivers?
And I’m still waiting on the answers to pour in on my 11:29 a.m questions. Pools close at 7 so please hurry!”
And, finally, someone may have pinpointed the problem with this observation:
“Gault: February 26, 2012 7:24 p.m.
Come on bikers get off the road, all the fat asses are in a hurry to belly up to the the all u can eat buffet and you are slowing them down.”
What this bill, in its original form, amounts to is an elected official supporting laziness over endeavor and selfishness over sharing. Constituents of Sen. Miller wanted to get bicycles off of the roads so that they wouldn’t be inconvenienced by having to drive around them or having to wait behind a slower vehicle. And, for this reason, they felt justified in restricting the rights of one group of road users.
Many years will probably pass before lazy drivers finally get used to the idea that everyone has a right to use the roads. But, hopefully, in the end they will see that their hatred towards cyclists is misplaced because it is actually easier find an opening to pass a bicycle(s) than it’s to pass a slower car, tractor or construction vehicle. And, if cyclists diligently band together, to counter laws designed to strip them of their rights, the day when livable streets become the norm will eventually be upon us.
