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 10-24-12, 08:51 PM   #1
rjkfsm
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The closest hotel to where I am working that week
Bikes: 2013 Fuji Sportif
Posts: 93
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Alabama's sidepath rule

Alabama has a law that states...

"Wherever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway."
(Acts 1980, No. 80-434, p. 604, §12-105.)

Does this mean sidewalks too? If it does, since there is no law here stating that bikes must yield to peds, does that mean I can run over small children, little old ladies, and puppy dogs with impunity and abandon?


OK, seriously, does the word "usable" provide an out?

RK
rjkfsm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-12, 10:27 PM   #2
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 rjkfsm View Post
Alabama has a law that states...

"Wherever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway."
(Acts 1980, No. 80-434, p. 604, §12-105.)

Does this mean sidewalks too? If it does, since there is no law here stating that bikes must yield to peds, does that mean I can run over small children, little old ladies, and puppy dogs with impunity and abandon?


OK, seriously, does the word "usable" provide an out?

RK
This made me think about a bike path on road near me. The straight lanes are to the left of the bike lane. The right-turn lane is to the right of the bike path. There is no way I will ride in that bike lane, the way people drive in this region.
Chris516 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-12, 11:13 PM   #3
silmarillion
Senior Member
 
silmarillion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Bikes: 2012 Cinelli Mystic Rat, Nashbar CX
Posts: 720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Good question.

I would suppose if there is a MUP paralleling a roadway, you have to use the MUP. I hope that doesn't spread. I don't like riding on MUP's because they are poorly maintained. At least they are here. And like you say, they are full of ped traffic.

PLAY FREEBIRD MAN !!!

(I wonder if I'm the first person to yell that on the BF...)
silmarillion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-12, 05:37 AM   #4
rjkfsm
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The closest hotel to where I am working that week
Bikes: 2013 Fuji Sportif
Posts: 93
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I really hate riding on sidewalks. I guess I'm going to have be a rebel.
rjkfsm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-12, 06:03 AM   #5
ItsJustMe
Seņior Member
 
ItsJustMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Bikes: Windsor Fens, Giant Seek 0 (2014, Alfine 8 + discs)
Posts: 13,063
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
I wouldn't think that this would include sidewalks, or indeed any place that's intended as a pedestrian way.
__________________
Work: the 8 hours that separates bike rides.
ItsJustMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-12, 08:15 AM   #6
spivonious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Lancaster, PA, USA
Bikes: 2012 Trek Allant, 2016 Bianchi Volpe Disc
Posts: 1,857
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
There was a similar law in PA, but it was repealed.

But I'd interpret it as a bike path or lane, not a sidewalk or MUP.
spivonious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-12, 09:02 AM   #7
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)
One of the unintended consequences of infrastructure advocacy, restriction of bicycles to that infrastructure, whether explicit as in this case or implicit in the minds of the motorists.
Looigi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-12, 10:04 AM   #8
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 rjkfsm View Post
Alabama has a law that states...

"Wherever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway."
(Acts 1980, No. 80-434, p. 604, §12-105.)

Does this mean sidewalks too? If it does, since there is no law here stating that bikes must yield to peds, does that mean I can run over small children, little old ladies, and puppy dogs with impunity and abandon?


OK, seriously, does the word "usable" provide an out?

RK
This wording got put into the Uniform Vehicle Code in 1944, along with the FTR law. California motorists attempted to have this put in the California Vehicle Code in 1972, but cyclists stopped them by demonstrating the dangers. As a result, states who had adopted this statute started repealing it.
John Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-12, 11:00 AM   #9
gmt13
Half way there
 
gmt13's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Durham, NC
Bikes: 69 Hercules, 73 Raleigh Sports, 74 Raliegh Competition, 78 Nishiki Professional, 79 Nishiki International, 83 Colnago Super, 83 Viner Junior
Posts: 1,107
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think you could present some argument about what "usable" means. The way I see it, some so-called paths are not usable because of debris, the way they handle crossing streets, the presence of pedestrians, etc. If you take usable to the most liberal definition you could say that sidewalks, front lawns, and even railroad tracks are usable - but is that what the statute means.

Perhaps you could do some legal research to determine if any citations were made using this.

-G
gmt13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-12, 02:23 PM   #10
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Looigi View Post
One of the unintended consequences of infrastructure advocacy, restriction of bicycles to that infrastructure, whether explicit as in this case or implicit in the minds of the motorists.
And realy a reasonable position from a motorists point of view. You have yuor own path, let me have mine!

I know I tend to feel that way if I happen to ride the bike path in the Sepulveda Flood Control basin and joggers get in my way.

Being on a bike that is not all the time. Bikes are slow enough and bike path traffic low enough that one cen look around and notice when hte running trail is muddy. So then I understand. BUT when it is dry and in good shape it is even more upsetting. Then they have a surface that is actually batter for running, yet some insiste on running the bike path.

In what is perhaps a bit of irony that is also a place where a lot of cyclists take the road. In some part becaseu the bike path is non optimal, but even more becaseu it only lasts a couple of miles and is a real pain to get on ond off of. BUT any (non-cycling) driver who passes a cyclist in that strech is not very apt to think of this.
Keith99 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 08:19 PM.