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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-08-11, 12:04 PM   #1
sggoodri
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
sggoodri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cary, NC
Bikes: 1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
Posts: 3,073
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Senate transportation bill bans cycling on federal roadways if path exists

Quote:
(d) BICYCLE SAFETY.—The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency shall prohibit the use of bicycles on each federally owned road that has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour or greater and an adjacent paved path for use by bicycles within 100 yards of the road.
- Page 226

http://www.thewashcycle.com/2011/11/...il-exists.html

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...7-c9f4ff22484f

Just another example of sidepath promotion and funding leading to a government attempt to ban roadway cycling.

Clarification: the cycling ban applies to roads through federal lands, not all federally involved road projects.

Last edited by sggoodri; 11-08-11 at 12:08 PM.
sggoodri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-11, 12:23 PM   #2
RaleighSport
Hogosha Sekai
 
RaleighSport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: STS
Bikes: Leader 725, Centurion Turbo, Scwhinn Tempo, Schwinn Premis, GT Tequesta, Bridgestone CB-2,72' Centurion Lemans
Posts: 6,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
>.> I want my federal tax dollars to go to bike projects not road projects then.
RaleighSport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-11, 12:44 PM   #3
myrridin
Banned.
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaleighSport View Post
>.> I want my federal tax dollars to go to bike projects not road projects then.
I don't want FEDERAL dollars going to any such projects. Roads/Bicycle facilities can and should be the responsibility of the state and/or local governments.
myrridin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-11, 12:50 PM   #4
MMACH 5
Cycle Dallas
 
MMACH 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Gar, TX
Bikes: Lucinda--2010 Jamis Aurora Elite & a few others
Posts: 3,613
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Gotta love that they list it under "Bicycle Safety"
MMACH 5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-11, 12:51 PM   #5
mikeybikes
Senior Member
 
mikeybikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edgewater, CO
Bikes: Tons
Posts: 3,214
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by myrridin View Post
I don't want FEDERAL dollars going to any such projects. Roads/Bicycle facilities can and should be the responsibility of the state and/or local governments.
Are you okay with the topic in the OP? A federal regulation banning cyclists from certain roadways?
mikeybikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-11, 12:59 PM   #6
myrridin
Banned.
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeybikes View Post
Are you okay with the topic in the OP? A federal regulation banning cyclists from certain roadways?
If the Feds aren't paying for it, they have no business regulating it. That said if as someone said, the bill restricts riding on federal land where an alternative path exists as opposed to all federally funded roads (since there actually aren't "federal roads"), then I don't see a problem. Having ridden/driven on many extremely crowded national park roads, there is much to said for separating the two poorly behaved populations.
myrridin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-11, 01:21 PM   #7
HawkOwl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Bikes:
Posts: 2,635
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wonder exactly how many and where the roads are that would be affected by this. Just interstates and roads in national parks that have bike paths near them?
HawkOwl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-11, 02:08 PM   #8
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Posts: 14,109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
It would seem to implement something like this would take a lot of work and additional signage.

Every stretch of road on fed land between every possible destination would need to be reviewed to determine if there is a paved path within 100ft. that connects those destinations. I can see the possibility that if applied strictly then there could be roads that have alternating sections of allowed/prohibited - and unless signed impossible for the cyclist coming thru to know otherwise.
noisebeam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-11, 02:12 PM   #9
degnaw
Senior Member
 
degnaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bellevue, WA
Bikes:
Posts: 1,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't know about any national parks, but in, say, Presque Isle State Park in Pennsylvania, the "bicycle path" is maybe 4-5 feet wide and is typically filled with children and families, joggers, pedestrians pushing strollers, etc. Road cyclists almost universally stick to the road, and since the isle is completely flat, i can usually maintain 3-4 mph under the speed limit (25).

Of course, it does piss people like this off.
degnaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-11, 02:22 PM   #10
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
egads, that's horrendous.

this country is in a race to the bottom, with a plutocracy at the helm.

I predict gravel interstates at some point.

hope the LAB is all over this, haven't checked Email yet today.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-11, 02:24 PM   #11
myrridin
Banned.
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkOwl View Post
Wonder exactly how many and where the roads are that would be affected by this. Just interstates and roads in national parks that have bike paths near them?
Interstates are not "federal" roads. They like many other roads simply receive federal funding. The only "federal" roads are those on "federal" land, so national parks, military bases, etc...
myrridin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-11, 02:55 PM   #12
Looigi
Senior Member
 
Looigi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 8,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sggoodri View Post
Just another example of sidepath promotion and funding leading to a government attempt to ban roadway cycling.
Exactly. It's segregation. Bicycle infrastructure is of absolutely no benefit to me and simply fosters the idea that bikes should be kept off the road.
Looigi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-11, 03:30 PM   #13
sggoodri
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
sggoodri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cary, NC
Bikes: 1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
Posts: 3,073
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Looigi View Post
Exactly. It's segregation. Bicycle infrastructure is of absolutely no benefit to me and simply fosters the idea that bikes should be kept off the road.
There are some bike paths that I like and use. My concern is how they are emphasized. As supplemental facilities, alternative routes, and linear parks, I think some of them are great. But when bike paths are promoted as essential for safe bicycling, with the implication that roadways are unsafe, so much so that path advocates demand federal funding be used to build paths to get cyclists off the roadways, how can we expect anything else from organizations of mostly motorists who are being asked to fund the bike paths?
sggoodri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-11, 04:30 PM   #14
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sggoodri View Post
There are some bike paths that I like and use. My concern is how they are emphasized. As supplemental facilities, alternative routes, and linear parks, I think some of them are great. But when bike paths are promoted as essential for safe bicycling, with the implication that roadways are unsafe, so much so that path advocates demand federal funding be used to build paths to get cyclists off the roadways, how can we expect anything else from organizations of mostly motorists who are being asked to fund the bike paths?
The moment that I read of this proposal, I became concerned about cycling in Washington DC, where many important roads run through federal land, in this case parts of the Capitol Park System.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-11, 05:15 PM   #15
Keith99
Senior Member
 
Keith99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 5,866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
We need to lobby to make the speed limit on all federal roads to be 29.99 MPH or less.

Honestly I can see the motivation for this. In may parks there are lots of people riding who never ride otherwise. Encouraging such to stay to the paths is good, requiring it not.

And some of the paths really suck, as in cross roads without warning or sightlines.
Keith99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-11, 07:17 PM   #16
HawkOwl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Bikes:
Posts: 2,635
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkOwl View Post
Wonder exactly how many and where the roads are that would be affected by this. Just interstates and roads in national parks that have bike paths near them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by myrridin View Post
Interstates are not "federal" roads. They like many other roads simply receive federal funding. The only "federal" roads are those on "federal" land, so national parks, military bases, etc...
So it is who has the title to the land and not who pays the bills?

If so, that even eliminates a lot of roads that pass through federal land. From the teminology when they say "bike paths" do they mean paths constructed and maintained exlusively for bikes? Or, do they mean what is commonly called Multi Use Paths(MUPs)?

At this point it looks like a jobs program for engineers, surveyors and lawyers and won't mean much for years to come.
HawkOwl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-11, 08:01 PM   #17
work4bike
Senior Member
 
work4bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlantic Beach Florida
Bikes:
Posts: 778
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkOwl View Post
From the teminology when they say "bike paths" do they mean paths constructed and maintained exlusively for bikes? Or, do they mean what is commonly called Multi Use Paths(MUPs)?
Does it matter? I've never seen a dedicated bike path, maybe in name, but never enforced. Is there such a thing as a bike path in which the only traffic are bikes?
work4bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-11, 08:34 PM   #18
Chris516
24-Speed Machine
 
Chris516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike
Posts: 6,054
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
U.S. Senators' (Barbara)Boxer and (James)Imhofe are definitely NOT 'on my Christmas list'.

Since it applies to roads going through federal lands, I am sure they would intend to include road projects going through federal land, once those roads are completed.
Chris516 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-11, 08:40 PM   #19
Chris516
24-Speed Machine
 
Chris516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike
Posts: 6,054
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by myrridin View Post
Interstates are not "federal" roads. They like many other roads simply receive federal funding. The only "federal" roads are those on "federal" land, so national parks, military bases, etc...
Hmmm.....I cut through the Fort Myer Army Base, to get to rides in Northern Virginia. Because I won't go Rt. 50 that goes around a portion of the base. If they bar cyclists, they should bar anyone with no connection to the base, regardless of bike or motorized vehicle.
Chris516 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-11, 08:45 PM   #20
Chris516
24-Speed Machine
 
Chris516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike
Posts: 6,054
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
The moment that I read of this proposal, I became concerned about cycling in Washington DC, where many important roads run through federal land, in this case parts of the Capitol Park System.
I was thinking that too. I go through the Fort Myer(VA) Army Base, to get to bike rides in Northern Virginia since I have never found any other alternative to going along Rt. 50 around the Base.
Chris516 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-11, 09:25 PM   #21
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Bikes:
Posts: 11,954
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
If it is intended to include military bases, then a conflict will be put in place, as military bases are directed to comply with state traffic laws in which they are located.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-11, 05:53 AM   #22
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i am pretty confident that provision will be redacted from the bill.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-11, 07:10 AM   #23
work4bike
Senior Member
 
work4bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlantic Beach Florida
Bikes:
Posts: 778
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
I haven't been able to open the link, but just by reading the short excerpt in the OP (copied below) it sounds as if this won't effect us much because it doesn't include sidewalks, although I guess it's all in how you interpret "paved path".

However, I find this very unsettling. I've always had a concern about the construction of too many "bike paths", because it gives a foundation to those who want cyclists off the roads. And since there is no such thing as a bike path we cyclists would be relegated to narrow paths in which we must, by law, yield to everyone else.

Say goodbye to fast cycling. I'm a commuter and I've learned to ride fast, since my bike is my transportation I can (thanks to traffic) get to many places either quicker than cars or not much behind the car (at the same time obeying traffic laws). However, on a MUP/sidewalk, my travel time would, at least, be doubled, forcing me to ride a car in many cases.

(d) BICYCLE SAFETY.—The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency shall prohibit the use of bicycles on each federally owned road that has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour or greater and an adjacent paved path for use by bicycles within 100 yards of the road.

Last edited by work4bike; 11-09-11 at 07:14 AM.
work4bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-11, 08:22 AM   #24
rydabent
Senior Member
 
rydabent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Cruiser
Posts: 5,704
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
While I believe that cyclist should be able to ride on any road they want to, I also personally would ride a nearby trail. Why fight with drivers if there is a good trail nearby or along side. BUT and that is the big but it has to be a very good trail.

BTW since this bill is offered by both a far left democrat and a republican, no one can blame just republicans in this case.
rydabent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-11, 08:44 AM   #25
myrridin
Banned.
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Bikes:
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris516 View Post
Hmmm.....I cut through the Fort Myer Army Base, to get to rides in Northern Virginia. Because I won't go Rt. 50 that goes around a portion of the base. If they bar cyclists, they should bar anyone with no connection to the base, regardless of bike or motorized vehicle.
Yes they should bar anyone who doesn't have a reason to be on the base; however, there is nothing in this law that bars you from using the alternative route (bike path) if it exists and if it doesn't then it doesn't prevent you from using the road...
myrridin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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 05:37 PM.