Another plea to share roads

A couple of months ago, I wrote of the “touchy coexistence” between two-wheeled and four-wheeled vehicles.  The motorized two-wheelers, motorcycles and scooters, sometimes suffer the effects of size-disparity among four-wheeled cars and trucks.  More vulnerable, however, are the bicyclists, who have a disadvantage of size AND speed.

Since it is rarely possible for bicycles to keep up with motor vehicles, they are regularly seen as a nuisance by automobile drivers.  Many of those drivers don’t believe cyclists have a right to use the roads — but they do.

When car and truck drivers complain about bicyclists, they often cite that cyclists pay no registration fees.  Actually, a majority of two-wheel owners using major roadways own property and other vehicles too, so many of them are paying road fees in other ways.

Nevertheless, as the law is currently written, bicyclists have certain rights (and duties).  Revised Code of Washington 46.61.755 specifies, “Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter.”

That’s why it’s incumbent upon bicyclists to follow the rules of the road, so they are not perceived as scofflaws.  But, the Washington RCW, similar to others across the country, makes it clear that bicycles and their riders have rights of road use.

Though many of my columns over the years have covered this topic, the volume of emails I receive about it indicate I should cover it even more.  One such email, from reader C.D. simply makes a plea to drivers that indicates concern for his life.

C.D. wrote, “I know this topic has come up frequently in your Saturday column, but I wonder if you could do another “share the road” article for us? I am a lifelong cyclist, just back from a beautiful Sunday ride that was marred by two close calls caused by inattentive/rude drivers. The first guy passed with literally inches to spare, and he would have hit me if I didn’t drop into the gravel and ruts off the edge of the road. The second guy was just a jerk in a hurry.”

I printed his plea, because it reflects the terror that cyclists experience from close calls.  The name-calling is an example of the “touchy coexistence,” but that’s an attitude induced by the concern of being run over by a motor vehicle.

Also, the shoulder is not always easily navigable, as C.D. puts it, “A lot of us cyclists enjoy the back roads up in the hills and more remote areas of the region. Unfortunately, those roads also are narrow, often have gravel or glass on the “shoulder” (such as it is), and usually have other obstacles that cyclists have to maneuver around (snarling dogs, crumbling pavement, animal carcasses, etc.). If drivers could slow down and take a second to pass safely, that would be terrific.”

So, I don’t think I could make the case any better than C.D.  Cyclists face a real peril at times, confronted with varying road conditions and inattentive or inconsiderate drivers.

Please try not to perceive bicyclists as inconvenient obstacles, but rather as good citizens trying to get some exercise while enjoying the scenery.  As I’ve said, courtesy goes both ways for autos and bicycles, but bicyclists are the more vulnerable entities in such matchups.

Readers may contact Bill Love via email at precisiondriving@spokesman.com.