You can read it if you give them your zip code and year of birth.
Not a great article. Tries to be "fair and balanced" by giving "both sides" but since the anti-bicycle argument was total crap it fails hard on the "fair" part. "Cyclists break the law sometimes" -- true, but even more true for autos. "Bicycles shouldn't be on the road because they aren't safe" -- they're demonstrably safer than motorcycles in single vehicle crashes, and equally (un)safe in multi-vehicle crashes. So...ban motorcycles, or allow bikes?
BTW, I can't think of a good reason
not to change bike laws in most places to match those in Idaho, where cyclists are allowed to treat stop signs as yield signs (proceed without stopping after making sure it's safe), and to treat stop lights as stop signs (right on red without stopping after making sure it's safe; full stop, look and proceed if safe if going straight or turning left). Can you think of a reasonable argument against that?
http://www.lostrivercycling.org/idcode.html
Still, it's good to see
any coverage of cycling, and at least the article does stress the right of cyclists to use the road in AL.