cabana 4 life

got yelled at by a cop for being in the straight lane at a stop light. he told me to get on the side walk. so i looked it up in our city ordinance. me and some freinds are thinking about trying to get it changed plese give me your opinion. he is what the ordinance says


Section 6.31. Riding prohibited on limited access or multilane roadway.
(1) No person shall ride any bicycle on Apple Avenue, Laketon Avenue, Webster
Avenue, Muskegon Avenue, Sherman Boulevard, Seaway Drive, or any other
limited access or multilane roadway within the city, where parking has been
prohibited. Any person operating along these routes shall be required to use the
pedestrian walkway adjacent thereto.
(2) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction.
Section 6.32. After section 6.31, add section 6.32 as follows:
Section 6.32. Riding prohibited in specified areas.



Sec. 6.32 concerning riding prohibited in specified areas has been repealed.
(Ord. No. 2151, 5-24-05)
Section 6.33. After section 6.32, add section 6.33 as follows:
Section 6.33. Operation in dangerous districts.
(1) If the safety of the operator of a bicycle, the condition of the sidewalk or highway,
the foot or vehicular traffic, including the safety of pedestrians, is such in any
district as to require the operator of the bicycle to dismount and push the vehicle
or to avoid such district in the exercise of ordinary caution and prudence, it shall
be the duty of such operator of any bicycle to dismount and push the same
through such dangerous district or to avoid the district entirely while it is unsafe
for the operation of such bicycle.
(2) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction.
Section 6.34. After section 6.33, add section 6.34 as follows:

sggoodri

I worked with some other cyclists to repeal such a law in my city. I encourage you to do the same. Solicit the help of other cyclists, particularly bike club leaders, to help you. A tactful, organized approach will be most effective.

Here is a description of what we did, including our letter to the Town Manager and engineering department:

https://www.humantransport.org/bicycl...yclinglaws.htm

-Steve Goodridge

cabana 4 life

thanx steve. thats the kinda stuff i need.

JRA

Go get 'em. Those laws should be changed.

Bicyclists should never be required to ride on the sidewalk. The right of bicyclists to ride on the street should not be restricted.

As soon as bicyclists are are required to ride on a sidewalk, it's no longer a sidewalk; it's a sidepath and it becomes dangerous for both cyclists and pedestrians. It is the worst of all worlds.

That said, I am a strong advocate for the right of bicyclists to ride on the sidewalk (at pedestrain speeds) and I'm somewhat disappointed that the humantransport.org website doesn't strongly support all the rights of bicyclists and chooses to give only half-hearted support to some of bicyclists' rights:
("do not object to decriminalization" is what I call half-a$sed support - sheesh! - these people are bicycling advocates?)

Well, anyway...

I agree that bicyclists should never be required or encouraged to ride on the sidewalk.

noisebeam

No it doesn't. Cause the second part of the law eliminates this problem by requiring cyclists to dismount and walk if it is dangerous for any reason, including usage by pedestrians.

So essentially what the law says is that you can't go down that roadway on a bike, no matter if on pavement or sidewalk.

Al

Roody

That is a horrible law, patently unfair. Good luck fighting it, and please keep us posted.

operator

Well that's even more stupid meaning you can't ride on the road or sidewalk. Throw away your bike guys!

JRA

Well, yea. The two laws, taken together, basically say that you can't ride a bicycle at all on certain roads.

Those laws suck. You'll get no argument from me. Anything anybody can do to change those laws is good with me.

Helmet Head

So you can only ride on streets where there is a door zone to contend with?

This reminds me of my 1970s "The New Complete Book of Cycling". He says something like cyclists should never ride on streets where parking has been prohibited.

noisebeam

If this law was in effect here I wouldn't be able to bike anywhere! Not even more than 1/2mi from my house.

(where I live is set up on a 1x1mi grid of multilane arterial roads with no on street parking)

Al

genec

LOL... I have that book... was given to my by a friend many many birthdays ago. Probably set me up to hate all cycling books.

I may have a book from that same era about maintenance too.

Too Funny.

webist

You need to work on a voter initiative to ban motor vehicles from residential neighborhoods. Makes as much sense and would get you lots of attention.

Helmet Head

Figures.

Read the traffic cycling tips. They're hilarious. And this was a serious book back then. This was the thinking when EC came along... it's like night and day.

JRA

Oh, gimme a break!

It's a nice attempt on your part to hijack yet another thread to promote VC propaganda.

It's nonsense. I like the way VC-ists rewrite history.

Views expressed in The New Complete Book of Cycling were one opinion. The riding techniques described in Effective Cycling were in use long before John Forester wrote them down and got credit for them. Forester can rightly be given credit for some of the highly disputed, self-defeating, social, cultural and political theories that are the real "contributions" Forester has made to bicycling.

Yea, Effective Cycling was a serious book back then. What's hilarious is that some people still worship it.

CommuterRun

I would start by checking the state statutes.

Here in Florida, a local ordinance like this would be illegal under state law.

genec

Actually there are a number of things in Effective Cycling that are quite ridiculous today... and I frankly question the conspiracy like thinking that leads to the cyclo-segregationist and inferiority pseudo-physiological analysis that Forester was so well trained for.

Helmet Head

I don't personally know if that's true, but I do know your claim is consistent with what Forester says.

Regardless, I think Forester does deserve credit for popularizing vehicular cycling techniques, at least in the U.S., at least to the extent they have been popularized. FWIW, from my own observations, even today I'd say less than 1% of cyclists in San Diego County use VC techniques fairly consistently. Most ride "outside" of traffic, not with it.

I also don't know of any cycling books that describe VC techniques prior to the publication of EC. Do you?

Roody

As a psychologist, I don't agree with all of Forester's theories, either. (I don't recall them well enough to discuss in detail.)

However, I very much believe that many, probably most, cyclists do indeed have feelings of inferiority in traffic. I have felt it in myself, and I see evidence of it in most cyclists that I see riding in my city. I read a lot of it on this forum, also.

I always used to ride with the assumption that I had less right to be on the road than other (motorized) users. I believed that I had to stay out of their way to stay safe, and I especially fretted that I was "holding them up." It seemed that slower traffic had to make way to others at all times, and that I could never "win" a dispute with a cager because they were so much bigger than me. I transformed a lot of my fear and insecurity into rage against cagers, who I believed were out to get me.

As I started to ride more vehicularly, I began to realize that, as the cliche says, I'm not holding up traffic, "I am traffic." That was probably the single most liberating statement I ever heard. Once I internalized that belief, I began to intermingle (integrate?) more with other traffic. I started to hold my own with the cagers, and to argue and negotiate effectively with them more and more. I wasn't getting as angry; I wasn't trying to get even. I was just holding my own and not letting people push me around any more.

Now, although I still have much to learn, it's getting so that I really enjoy my interactions with cagers. It was especially a big relief when I had the epiphany that they were not trying to get me. Cagers, at least the vast majority of them, were really looking out for me. Like me, most drivers wanted our interactions to be safe, efficient and friendly. Of course there are rare exceptions, but now almost all my rides are pleasantly challenging, not scary or intimidating.

I know that this must seem elementary, even simplistic, to most of you here, who have more experience riding than I do. But, sometimes it's good to hear from the novices, and to remember maybe how it used to be for you!

DCCommuter

As an aside, I think you've hit on the real core concept of VC*. Forrester talks about cyclists having an exaggerated fear of being hit from behind, and makes overcoming that fear a key to learning VC. My feeling is that the fear of being hit from behind is actually an outward manifestation of an inner fear of "holding up" other traffic -- what makes you non-VC is not an exaggerated fear of being hit from behind, but an exaggerated fear of holding up other traffic. Only when you overcome the fear of holding up other traffic do you achieve vehicular status.

*(I read a quote recently that described western North Carolina as a place where every household is its own religious denomination and its own political party. Similarly, this forum is a place where every member has his own version of VC. So when I use the term "VC" I mean MY version of VC; yours may or may not be similar.)

Wow, it only took ten or so posts for this thread to become about VC. I think that's a record.

Helmet Head

Yes, but Roody's post #17 and your supplement #18 are among the best VC testimonials I've seen here.

Good job, guys.

pakole

Agreed, I know the same is true in MA. Bikes are consider vehicles, so they are supposed to be on the streets. If there is no state law and the local thing do not work out. YOu could probably go for a little change to the DMV rules by putting bikes on roads as other civilized states do. I do not know. Its just a plan B.

DieselDan

Motorcycle groups presued local ordinances that banned them from public roads in a few small SC towns with success. Ie the state allows bicycles on public roads, and I believe all states do except Illinois, find an advocacy lawyer and have at them.

cabana 4 life

i found these let me know what you think

257.657 Rights and duties of persons riding bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, or moped or operating low-speed vehicle.

Sec. 657.

Each person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, or moped or operating a low-speed vehicle upon a roadway has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to the provisions of this chapter which by their nature do not have application.


History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 439, Imd. Eff. Jan. 13, 1977 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 82, Eff. July 1, 2000 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 494, Imd. Eff. July 3, 2002

257.679a Limited access highway; pedestrians and certain vehicles prohibited; bicycles permitted on paths; violation as civil infraction.

Sec. 679a.

(1) A person shall not operate a motorcycle with less than a 125 cubic centimeter engine, moped, farm tractor, or other self-propelled farm implement, nor shall a pedestrian, bicycle, except as provided in this section, or other nonmotorized traffic be permitted on a limited access highway in this state. Bicycles shall be permitted on paths constructed separately from the roadway and designated for the exclusive use of bicycles.

(2) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction.


History: Add. 1961, Act 164, Eff. Sept. 8, 1961 ;-- Am. 1964, Act 222, Eff. Aug. 28, 1964 ;-- Am. 1969, Act 134, Imd. Eff. June 1, 1970 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 212, Imd. Eff. July 19, 1974 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 439, Imd. Eff. Jan. 13, 1977 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 510, Eff. Aug. 1, 1979


750.419 Operating or riding motorcycle; moped, or other motor vehicle on bicycle path or sidewalk; misdemeanor; exception.

Sec. 419.

A person who operates or rides a motorcycle, moped, or other motor vehicle, excepting motorized wheelchairs upon a bicycle path or a sidewalk regularly laid out and constructed for the use of pedestrians, not including a crosswalk or driveway, is guilty of a misdemeanor.


History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.419 ;-- Am. 1975, Act 281, Imd. Eff. Nov. 26, 1975 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 56, Eff. Mar. 30, 1979
Former Law: See sections 1 and 2 of Act 38 of 1917, being CL 1929, §§ 4221 and 4222.

257.660 Bicycles, electric personal assistive mobility device, low-speed vehicles, motorcycles, or mopeds; operation on roadway; use of bicycle path; passing; operation of bicycle or moped on sidewalk; operation of low-speed vehicle on highway, road, or street; exception; regulation of electric personal assistive mobility device.

Sec. 660.

(1) A person operating a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, low-speed vehicle, or moped upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction. A motorcycle is entitled to full use of a lane and a motor vehicle shall not be driven in such a manner as to deprive a motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection shall not apply to motorcycles operated 2 abreast in a single lane.

(2) A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, motorcycle, or moped upon a roadway shall not ride more than 2 abreast except on a path or part of a roadway set aside for the exclusive use of those vehicles.

(3) Where a usable and designated path for bicycles is provided adjacent to a roadway, a bicycle rider or an electric personal assistive mobility device operator may, by local ordinance, be required to use that path. Where a usable and designated path for bicycles is provided adjacent to a roadway, a bicycle rider who is less than 16 years of age shall use that path unless accompanied by an adult.

(4) A person operating a motorcycle, moped, low-speed vehicle, electric personal assistive mobility device, or bicycle shall not pass between lines of traffic, but may pass on the left of traffic moving in his or her direction in the case of a 2-way street, or on the left or right of traffic in the case of a 1-way street, in an unoccupied lane.

(5) A person operating a bicycle or an electric personal assistive mobility device on a sidewalk constructed for the use of pedestrians shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing the pedestrian.

(6) A moped or low-speed vehicle shall not be operated on a sidewalk constructed for the use of pedestrians.

(7) A low-speed vehicle shall be operated at a speed of not to exceed 25 miles per hour and shall not be operated on a highway, road, or street with a speed limit of more than 35 miles per hour except for the purpose of crossing that highway, road, or street. The state transportation department may prohibit the operation of a low-speed vehicle on any highway under its jurisdiction if it determines that the prohibition is necessary in the interest of public safety.

(8) This section shall not apply to a police officer in the performance of his or her official duties.

(9) An electric personal assistive mobility device shall be operated at a speed not to exceed 15 miles per hour and shall not be operated on a roadway with a speed limit of more than 25 miles per hour except to cross that roadway.

(10) The governing body of a county, city, village, an entity created under the urban cooperation act of 1967, 1967 (Ex Sess) PA 7, MCL 124.501 to 124.512, or township may, by ordinance, which is based on the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens, regulate the operation of electric personal assistive mobility devices on sidewalks, roadways, or crosswalks. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a governing body of a county, city, village, an entity created under the urban cooperation act of 1967, 1967 (Ex Sess) PA 7, MCL 124.501 to 124.512, or township may prohibit the operation of electric personal assistive mobility devices in an area open to pedestrian traffic adjacent to a waterfront or on a trail under their jurisdiction or in a downtown or central business district. Signs indicating the regulation shall be conspicuously posted in the area where the use of an electric personal assistive mobility device is regulated.

(11) Operation of an electric personal assistive mobility device is prohibited in a special charter city and a state park under the jurisdiction of the Mackinac Island state park commission.

(12) Operation of an electric personal assistive mobility device may be prohibited in a historic district.

(13) The department of natural resources may by order regulate the use of electric personal assistive mobility devices on all lands under its control.


257.660 Bicycles, electric personal assistive mobility device, low-speed vehicles, motorcycles, or mopeds; operation on roadway; use of bicycle path; passing; operation of bicycle or moped on sidewalk; operation of low-speed vehicle on highway, road, or street; exception; regulation of electric personal assistive mobility device.

Sec. 660.

(1) A person operating a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, low-speed vehicle, or moped upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction. A motorcycle is entitled to full use of a lane and a motor vehicle shall not be driven in such a manner as to deprive a motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection shall not apply to motorcycles operated 2 abreast in a single lane.

(2) A person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, motorcycle, or moped upon a roadway shall not ride more than 2 abreast except on a path or part of a roadway set aside for the exclusive use of those vehicles.

(3) Where a usable and designated path for bicycles is provided adjacent to a roadway, a bicycle rider or an electric personal assistive mobility device operator may, by local ordinance, be required to use that path. Where a usable and designated path for bicycles is provided adjacent to a roadway, a bicycle rider who is less than 16 years of age shall use that path unless accompanied by an adult.

(4) A person operating a motorcycle, moped, low-speed vehicle, electric personal assistive mobility device, or bicycle shall not pass between lines of traffic, but may pass on the left of traffic moving in his or her direction in the case of a 2-way street, or on the left or right of traffic in the case of a 1-way street, in an unoccupied lane.

(5) A person operating a bicycle or an electric personal assistive mobility device on a sidewalk constructed for the use of pedestrians shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing the pedestrian.

(6) A moped or low-speed vehicle shall not be operated on a sidewalk constructed for the use of pedestrians.

(7) A low-speed vehicle shall be operated at a speed of not to exceed 25 miles per hour and shall not be operated on a highway, road, or street with a speed limit of more than 35 miles per hour except for the purpose of crossing that highway, road, or street. The state transportation department may prohibit the operation of a low-speed vehicle on any highway under its jurisdiction if it determines that the prohibition is necessary in the interest of public safety.

(8) This section shall not apply to a police officer in the performance of his or her official duties.

(9) An electric personal assistive mobility device shall be operated at a speed not to exceed 15 miles per hour and shall not be operated on a roadway with a speed limit of more than 25 miles per hour except to cross that roadway.

(10) The governing body of a county, city, village, an entity created under the urban cooperation act of 1967, 1967 (Ex Sess) PA 7, MCL 124.501 to 124.512, or township may, by ordinance, which is based on the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens, regulate the operation of electric personal assistive mobility devices on sidewalks, roadways, or crosswalks. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a governing body of a county, city, village, an entity created under the urban cooperation act of 1967, 1967 (Ex Sess) PA 7, MCL 124.501 to 124.512, or township may prohibit the operation of electric personal assistive mobility devices in an area open to pedestrian traffic adjacent to a waterfront or on a trail under their jurisdiction or in a downtown or central business district. Signs indicating the regulation shall be conspicuously posted in the area where the use of an electric personal assistive mobility device is regulated.

(11) Operation of an electric personal assistive mobility device is prohibited in a special charter city and a state park under the jurisdiction of the Mackinac Island state park commission.

(12) Operation of an electric personal assistive mobility device may be prohibited in a historic district.

(13) The department of natural resources may by order regulate the use of electric personal assistive mobility devices on all lands under its control.

sggoodri

Cabana,

You may want to enlist the folks at the League of Michigan Bicyclists to assist you in petitioning your city to change these laws. I would suspect some of their advocacy people would take interest.

https://www.lmb.org/

Prohibition from actual freeways (no destinations attached, redundant to other roads) is one thing; prohibition from ordinary roads just for having multiple lanes per direction is ridiculous. Multiple lanes are found on the most useful roads for bicycling, and make it easier for drivers to pass cyclists.

Different states use different legal meanings for "limited access". In some states, limited access means a true freeway with no at-grade intersections and no driveway connections. In other states, limited access means only that the city can limit driveway connections in order to increase road performance, but does not eliminate them. These latter states use the term "fully controlled access" to refer to those freeways from which cyclists are usually prohibited. Here in NC, my city has designated a number of median-divided 4-lane roads as city bike routes; they are considered limited access in that the intersection and driveway spacing is about half a mile apart or more, but they are among the most pleasant and useful roads in the city for cycling - much more so than the narrow two-lane shoulderless state highways choked with commuter and truck traffic.

-Steve Goodridge

sggoodri

I looked at Muskegon on Google maps, toggling between the map and satellite view. The streets with bicycle prohibitions are not freeway-like streets at all; they feature many, many intersections and driveways. These are quite ordinary streets with on-street parking prohibited, just like is the case on all of the thoroughfares that my city of Cary, NC has designated as bike routes.

It would appear that your city intends to keep cyclists out of the way for the purpose of improving convenience for motorists, just as they got the parked cars out of the way. But forcing cyclists to ride on sidewalks likely creates more danger than it can possibly reduce. You could probably demonstrate this by asking your police department for its records on car-bike collisions, and comparing the sidewalk-related collisions to the on-road overtaking type collisions. In my city, the sidewalk collisions were an order of magnitude more frequent than the overtaking collisions reported, and were no less severe. Add to this the numerous traffic safety publications (ITE, bicycle driver manuals, NCUTCD member Richard Moeur's work) discouraging sidewalk cycling, and you can make a powerful case that the local ordinance is contrary to best practices for safe bicycle transportation.


-Steve Goodridge