Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 98
  1. #1
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Senate transportation bill bans cycling on federal roadways if path exists

    (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 11:08 AM.

  2. #2
    Warning:Annoying to jerks RaleighSport's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    STS
    My Bikes
    Leader 725, Centurion Turbo, Raleigh Team Technium, Schwinn Premis, GT Tequesta, Bridgestone CB-2
    Posts
    5,722
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    >.> I want my federal tax dollars to go to bike projects not road projects then.
    “Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”


    ― Ralph Waldo Emerson, Emerson in His Journals

  3. #3
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,325
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  4. #4
    Cycle Dallas MMACH 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Land of Gar, TX
    My Bikes
    Lucinda--2010 Jamis Aurora Elite & a few others
    Posts
    3,327
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Gotta love that they list it under "Bicycle Safety"
    That's gonna leave a mark.

  5. #5
    Senior Member mikeybikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Edgewater, CO
    My Bikes
    Tons
    Posts
    2,871
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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?
    My Bikes: 2009 Breezer Uptown EX | 1980 Miyata Six Ten | 1970 Hercules Three-Two-Speed
    Wife's Bikes: 2008 Globe City 7 | 1972ish Peugeot UO-18 (in progress)

  6. #6
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,325
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,340
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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?
    It is better to smell the flowers than taste the roots.

  8. #8
    Al noisebeam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    AZ
    My Bikes
    Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
    Posts
    13,893
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  9. #9
    Senior Member degnaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    1,577
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  10. #10
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  11. #11
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,325
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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...

  12. #12
    Senior Member Looigi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    7,020
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  13. #13
    Senior Member sggoodri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cary, NC
    My Bikes
    1983 Trek, 2001 Lemond, 2000 Gary Fisher
    Posts
    3,068
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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?

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(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.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Keith99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,716
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,340
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.
    It is better to smell the flowers than taste the roots.

  17. #17
    Senior Member work4bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Atlantic Beach Florida
    Posts
    606
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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?
    "The aim of science is to make difficult things understandable in a simpler way; the aim of poetry is to state simple things in an incomprehensible way. The two are incompatible."

    -- Paul Dirac

  18. #18
    24-Speed Machine Chris516's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Wash. Grove, MD
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike
    Posts
    4,930
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  19. #19
    24-Speed Machine Chris516's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Wash. Grove, MD
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike
    Posts
    4,930
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  20. #20
    24-Speed Machine Chris516's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Wash. Grove, MD
    My Bikes
    2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike
    Posts
    4,930
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  21. #21
    Cycle Year Round CB HI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    11,420
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  22. #22
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,016
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i am pretty confident that provision will be redacted from the bill.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  23. #23
    Senior Member work4bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Atlantic Beach Florida
    Posts
    606
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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 06:14 AM.
    "The aim of science is to make difficult things understandable in a simpler way; the aim of poetry is to state simple things in an incomprehensible way. The two are incompatible."

    -- Paul Dirac

  24. #24
    Senior Member rydabent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lincoln Ne
    My Bikes
    RANS Stratus TerraTrike Cruiser
    Posts
    3,765
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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.

  25. #25
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,325
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(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...

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •