Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-21-17, 03:15 PM   #26
KingCat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Bikes:
Posts: 313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)
I lived in Montana for 23 years. Here are my thoughts....Missoula and the Bitterroot Valley are very bike friendly. The vast majority of the state is bike friendly.
This proposed law leaves me baffled for two reasons. # 1 - There is NO way it would ever pass. # 2 - in 98% of the state I would seriously doubt a motorist encounters a cyclist on the road more than once a month. Remember that the weather in Montana keeps cyclists off the road about 10 months of the year. The other 2 months most cycling is done off road. I RARELY ever seen cyclists on the two lane highways.
Montana is certainly not like southern California where cyclists are everywhere at all times of the year.
This legislator is out his mind.
KingCat is offline  
Old 01-21-17, 03:28 PM   #27
atbman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Leeds UK
Bikes:
Posts: 2,017
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
From Bike Walk Montana
Legislative Campaigns | Bike Walk Montana
LC2196Restricting bicyclists and pedestrians on certain rural highways, sponsored by Representative Barry Usher from Billings. After tons of input from Montanans, this bill as been pulled ‘back for redo’.


Surprise, surprise.
atbman is offline  
Old 01-21-17, 04:38 PM   #28
sumgy
Senior Member
 
sumgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
While I dont live in Montana (or the US for that matter), such a bill would mean I could not ride much further than the end of my street.
This would mean that I could not even ride to the shops in my suburb.
sumgy is offline  
Old 01-21-17, 04:43 PM   #29
gecho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Regina, SK
Bikes: 2009 Trek 520
Posts: 1,162
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
So many hateful anti-cyclist laws seem to pop up disguised in the name of "for your own safety". Whenever a non-cyclist plays the safety card they are typically trying to say they don't want cycling period. It generally boils down to, "I don't want to have to pay attention, and I'm not confident in my own driving skills".
gecho is offline  
Old 01-21-17, 05:00 PM   #30
Ty0604
Life at 10mph
 
Ty0604's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Bikes: 2017 Fuji Jari
Posts: 1,142
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 222 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gecho View Post
So many hateful anti-cyclist laws seem to pop up disguised in the name of "for your own safety". Whenever a non-cyclist plays the safety card they are typically trying to say they don't want cycling period. It generally boils down to, "I don't want to have to pay attention, and I'm not confident in my own driving skills".
Exactly what I was thinking. Laziness.
Ty0604 is offline  
Old 01-21-17, 05:23 PM   #31
WizardOfBoz
Senior Member
 
WizardOfBoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Bikes: 1980 Schwinn Paramount, 2014 Trek Domane 6.9
Posts: 710
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 205 Post(s)
Well, given that motorcycles are WAY more dangerous to ride (more fatalities, more serious injuries, more likely to be killed or seriously injured as a motorcycle rider than as a bicyclist), perhaps the bill should have a expansion: prohibit ANY vehicle with fewer than four wheels in which the rider is not completely enclosed. That is, motorcycles could be included in the prohibition.

Further, given that the bill is being offered on the pretext of safety, and the author views bicycles as unsafe, and the fact that motorcyles are even less safe seems to me to be a stipulation by an elected official that motorcycles are inherently unsafe. This should be useable as evidence in lawsuits against motorcycle manufacturers that they are making, and dealers are selling, an inherently unsafe product.

The asshat that proposed this law owns a Harley dealership, no?

Where is Diodorus Siculus when you need him?
"the man who proposed to revise any law should put his neck in a noose at the time he made his proposal of a revision, and remain in that position until the people had reached a decision on the revision of the law, and if the Assembly approved the revised law, the introducer was to be freed of the noose, but if the proposal of revision did not carry, the noose was to be drawn and the man die on the spot."
WizardOfBoz is offline  
Old 01-21-17, 08:06 PM   #32
sumgy
Senior Member
 
sumgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardOfBoz View Post
Well, given that motorcycles are WAY more dangerous to ride (more fatalities, more serious injuries, more likely to be killed or seriously injured as a motorcycle rider than as a bicyclist), perhaps the bill should have a expansion: prohibit ANY vehicle with fewer than four wheels in which the rider is not completely enclosed. That is, motorcycles could be included in the prohibition.

Further, given that the bill is being offered on the pretext of safety, and the author views bicycles as unsafe, and the fact that motorcyles are even less safe seems to me to be a stipulation by an elected official that motorcycles are inherently unsafe. This should be useable as evidence in lawsuits against motorcycle manufacturers that they are making, and dealers are selling, an inherently unsafe product.

The asshat that proposed this law owns a Harley dealership, no?

Where is Diodorus Siculus when you need him?
"the man who proposed to revise any law should put his neck in a noose at the time he made his proposal of a revision, and remain in that position until the people had reached a decision on the revision of the law, and if the Assembly approved the revised law, the introducer was to be freed of the noose, but if the proposal of revision did not carry, the noose was to be drawn and the man die on the spot."
Make it easier still and introduce a bill that says that if you are in a motor vehicle then you have right of way over all other road users and can kill those not in motor vehicles at will.
sumgy is offline  
Old 01-21-17, 09:20 PM   #33
WizardOfBoz
Senior Member
 
WizardOfBoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Bikes: 1980 Schwinn Paramount, 2014 Trek Domane 6.9
Posts: 710
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 205 Post(s)
Just to be clear, my note was hyperbolic, and was meant to use irony to wipe the idiot legislator's nose in his own c****y logic.

I'm not sure that the motor vehicle uber alles law wouldn't get some serious consideration.
WizardOfBoz is offline  
Old 01-21-17, 09:44 PM   #34
dedhed
SE Wis
 
dedhed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Bikes: '68 Raleigh Sprite, '02 Raleigh C500, '84 Raleigh Gran Prix, '91 Trek 400
Posts: 3,495
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 163 Post(s)
For much of American history, the right to travel included the right to travel by the vehicle of one's choice, and courts occasionally struck down regional regulations that required licenses or government permission to travel on public roadways. With the advent of the automobile, however, courts began upholding laws and regulations requiring licenses to operate vehicles on roadways.
dedhed is offline  
Old 01-22-17, 07:35 AM   #35
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Bikes:
Posts: 1,834
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 418 Post(s)
The judiciary committee held a hearing, first item on the agenda was HB 194.

The sponsor spoke in favor of the bill.
Nobody spoke in favor of the bill.
Multiple people (~10) spoke in opposition to the bill.

The bill passed favorably out of the judiciary committee.



-mr. bill
mr_bill is offline  
Old 01-22-17, 11:21 AM   #36
rydabent
Senior Member
 
rydabent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Cruiser
Posts: 6,199
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 495 Post(s)
Many states ban cycling on their Interstates. But----------even in several of those, if there is no other hiway connections, there are stretches of the Interstate that bikes are allowed to use.
rydabent is offline  
Old 01-22-17, 12:43 PM   #37
indyfabz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 13,289
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2757 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCat View Post
I lived in Montana for 23 years. Here are my thoughts....Missoula and the Bitterroot Valley are very bike friendly. The vast majority of the state is bike friendly.
This proposed law leaves me baffled for two reasons. # 1 - There is NO way it would ever pass. # 2 - in 98% of the state I would seriously doubt a motorist encounters a cyclist on the road more than once a month. Remember that the weather in Montana keeps cyclists off the road about 10 months of the year. The other 2 months most cycling is done off road. I RARELY ever seen cyclists on the two lane highways.
Montana is certainly not like southern California where cyclists are everywhere at all times of the year.
This legislator is out his mind.
1. Two months is a bit of an exaggeration. You will easily find people on the road from June through August and even beyond. Seen plenty of Crazy Guy journals of people riding in the state in September and beyond.

2. Are you forgetting that ACA's TransAm route goes from Lolo Pass to W. Yellowstone? I have done a portion of the MT TransAm piece several times in the last few years, including last year. I saw well over a dozen other cyclists each time in just a few short days on the route and have encountered other touring cyclists in other parts of the state on two-lane highways. Also, the GDMBR uses some two-lane paved roads in the state as does the Lewis & Clark Route and the Northern Tier route. ACA also runs its own organized ride--Cycle Montana--in the state.
indyfabz is offline  
Old 01-22-17, 12:49 PM   #38
indyfabz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 13,289
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2757 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sumgy View Post
While I dont live in Montana (or the US for that matter), such a bill would mean I could not ride much further than the end of my street.
This would mean that I could not even ride to the shops in my suburb.
It would be worse than that. The bill would also ban walking on two lane highways without shoulders.

What happens to the elderly who can no longer drive? Those with physical conditions that keep them from driving and/or obtaining licenses? Those who cannot afford cars and/or insurance?

This about more than cycling.

It takes a special kind of stupid to introduce legislation like this.
indyfabz is offline  
Old 01-22-17, 07:36 PM   #39
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Bikes:
Posts: 13,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 830 Post(s)
Plus the no wheelchairs puts the bill in trouble with the ADA.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 01-23-17, 06:32 AM   #40
IndianaRecRider
LET'S RIDE!!
 
IndianaRecRider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northwest Indiana
Bikes: 2013 Fuji Absolute 1.4
Posts: 1,441
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by indyfabz View Post
It would be worse than that. The bill would also ban walking on two lane highways without shoulders.

What happens to the elderly who can no longer drive? Those with physical conditions that keep them from driving and/or obtaining licenses? Those who cannot afford cars and/or insurance?

This about more than cycling.

It takes a special kind of stupid to introduce legislation like this.
Don't most politicians specialize in a special kind of stupid?



























That is, of course, a rhetorical question.




IndianaRecRider is offline  
Old 01-23-17, 07:04 AM   #41
Robert C
Senior Member
 
Robert C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Salt lake, UT
Bikes: This list got too long: several ‘bents, an urban utility e-bike, and a dahon D7 that my daughter has absconded with.
Posts: 1,915
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardOfBoz View Post
Well, given that motorcycles are WAY more dangerous to ride (more fatalities, more serious injuries, more likely to be killed or seriously injured as a motorcycle rider than as a bicyclist), perhaps the bill should have a expansion: prohibit ANY vehicle with fewer than four wheels in which the rider is not completely enclosed. That is, motorcycles could be included in the prohibition.

Further, given that the bill is being offered on the pretext of safety, and the author views bicycles as unsafe, and the fact that motorcyles are even less safe seems to me to be a stipulation by an elected official that motorcycles are inherently unsafe. This should be useable as evidence in lawsuits against motorcycle manufacturers that they are making, and dealers are selling, an inherently unsafe product.

The asshat that proposed this law owns a Harley dealership, no?

Where is Diodorus Siculus when you need him?
"the man who proposed to revise any law should put his neck in a noose at the time he made his proposal of a revision, and remain in that position until the people had reached a decision on the revision of the law, and if the Assembly approved the revised law, the introducer was to be freed of the noose, but if the proposal of revision did not carry, the noose was to be drawn and the man die on the spot."
The next, and reasonable, step would be to ban any vehicle that does not require a CDL from the National Defense Highway Network.
Robert C is online now  
Old 01-23-17, 07:08 AM   #42
Robert C
Senior Member
 
Robert C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Salt lake, UT
Bikes: This list got too long: several ‘bents, an urban utility e-bike, and a dahon D7 that my daughter has absconded with.
Posts: 1,915
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
Many states ban cycling on their Interstates. But----------even in several of those, if there is no other hiway connections, there are stretches of the Interstate that bikes are allowed to use.
Right, as an example, in California, once you get North of Redding (I actually I think it is Red Bluff) Bicycles are permitted on the freeway except for where it passes through towns. When I lived in Hornbrook I would regularly ride I5 on my way to Yreka. I would normally get off at 96; however, I feel I5 was a lot safer than 263. . . 65 and wide shoulders v. 55 narrow, very twisty, and no shoulders.
Robert C is online now  
Old 01-23-17, 07:31 AM   #43
prathmann
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bay Area, Calif.
Bikes:
Posts: 6,405
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert C View Post
Right, as an example, in California, once you get North of Redding (I actually I think it is Red Bluff) Bicycles are permitted on the freeway except for where it passes through towns. When I lived in Hornbrook I would regularly ride I5 on my way to Yreka. I would normally get off at 96; however, I feel I5 was a lot safer than 263. . . 65 and wide shoulders v. 55 narrow, very twisty, and no shoulders.
At least a few years ago I-5 was 'bike-legal' all the way from Tracy (SF East Bay area) down to Santa Clarita (just north of LA). Besides the climb over the 'Grapevine', the only other issue we had were a number of flat tires from the wires left behind by disintegrating truck tire fragments.
prathmann is online now  
Old 01-23-17, 01:58 PM   #44
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Bikes:
Posts: 13,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 830 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prathmann View Post
the only other issue we had were a number of flat tires from the wires left behind by disintegrating truck tire fragments.
Known as Michelin thorns.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 01-23-17, 02:35 PM   #45
mconlonx 
Nobody
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 7,474
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2872 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ty0604 View Post
The bill draft was requested by Republican Rep. Barry Usher, who lives outside Laurel and represents House District 40, which takes in Roundup and parts of rural Billings. He is also the owner of Beartooth Harley-Davidson at 6900 S. Frontage Road.
Ah, well then, the logical thing to do is to demand that motorcycles be included in this ban on riding 2-lane highways because they are so dangerous for riders and all...
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 01-23-17, 02:56 PM   #46
rm -rf
don't try this at home.
 
rm -rf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: N. KY
Bikes:
Posts: 4,178
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 258 Post(s)
Well, that didn't take long.


From another forum:
Here's an official statement from Rep. Barry Usher regarding LC2196. Please share this with everyone you know. Even though the draft bill is still on the legislative website, he will not be moving that forward as he indicates below:

"I want to update you on the exciting progress of Montana House LC2196! Since the bill draft had not yet been introduced, I have pulled it back in order to draft a bill that will address the concerns that I have heard from you.

My intent has and remains roadway safety and I appreciate all of the great feedback, ideas and suggestions I have received to improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. I am currently working with Bike Walk Montana, Cycle Greater Yellowstone and other bicycle advocacy groups in a positive direction to re-write this proposed bill, with NO BICYCLE OR PEDESTRIAN RESTRICTIONS.

At this point, we do not have any specifics we can share but will soon. We believe that this great group of safety minded advocates will come up with something to further enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety in the great state of Montana."

Barry M. Usher
Representative
Montana House District 40

And,

Update from Melinda Barnes, ED Bike Walk MT:
Hi all-

Barry Usher is now my new best friend and we’re working together, exploring other options for a bill draft, including the possibility of establishing a state bike/ped board, instead of a bill to restrict bicyclists and pedestrians. He’s trying to set up a meeting with someone at Commerce for us to talk with and he’s drafted a public statement we’re finalizing to send out far and wide. It has taken a very positive turn!!
rm -rf is offline  
Old 01-23-17, 03:39 PM   #47
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Bikes:
Posts: 13,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 830 Post(s)
How does one re-write this proposed bill exclusively for bicycle and pedestrian restrictions with NO BICYCLE OR PEDESTRIAN RESTRICTIONS.

Clear cut politician speak. I was losing votes so dam fast, I had to do something to pull my foot out of my ass. Please, please Melinda Barnes, ED Bike Walk MT, be my friend.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 01-23-17, 04:13 PM   #48
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 25,321
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2048 Post(s)
The irony is if he really wants to "improve roadway safety" all he has to do is lower the speed limits.
genec is offline  
Old 01-24-17, 09:53 AM   #49
Roughstuff
Punk Rock Lives
 
Roughstuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In a cabin in the adirondacks
Bikes: Fuji touring
Posts: 3,147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 40 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by work4bike View Post
I'd be curious to hear from cyclists in the area about the climate of cycling in Montana. Whenever I hear these stories of banning cyclists, I wonder of what caused this to even become an issue.
I found the climate for cycling in Montana to be excellent, from the touristy areas around Glacier and Yellowstone parks to the flat rural areas in the east, e.g. Glendive. Have mixed feelings on this bill: a wolf in the sheeps clothing of "safety." But dollar for dollar, the best investment we can make in improving bike safety on the roadways is to install and/or widen shoulders; if this bill was linked with a funded commitment to do so, I would consider it.
Roughstuff is offline  
Old 01-24-17, 10:07 AM   #50
KD5NRH
Senior Member
 
KD5NRH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Stephenville TX
Bikes: 2010 Trek 7100
Posts: 3,040
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 336 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
The irony is if he really wants to "improve roadway safety" all he has to do is lower the speed limits.
No. Eliminate them.

Good drivers will self regulate. Bad ones will stop using up valuable oxygen much sooner...and in much smaller pieces.
KD5NRH is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:45 PM.


 
  • Ask a Question
    get answers from real people!
Click to start entering your question.
I HAVE A QUESTION