sggoodri

- Page 226

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

https://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.

RaleighSport

>.> I want my federal tax dollars to go to bike projects not road projects then.

myrridin

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.

MMACH 5

Gotta love that they list it under "Bicycle Safety"

mikeybikes

Are you okay with the topic in the OP? A federal regulation banning cyclists from certain roadways?

myrridin

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.

ModeratedUser150120149

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?

noisebeam

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.

degnaw

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.

Bekologist

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.

myrridin

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...

Looigi

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.

sggoodri

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?

John Forester

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.

Keith99

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.

ModeratedUser150120149

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.

work4bike

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?

Chris516

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

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

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.

CB HI

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.

Bekologist

i am pretty confident that provision will be redacted from the bill.

work4bike

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.

rydabent

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.

myrridin

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...