Chris516

Excellent,They aren't a bunch of car-centric snobs.

roby

And pedestrians, pets, wheelchairs. Otherwise it's a MUP and not a Bicycle path.

dougmc

Can we also ban recreational drivers from driving on any road when there's a state owned highway within [do some math, cars go about 3x faster than bikes, so ...] six miles?

DirtRoadRunner

Highway 94 in St. Charles County is very popular with Harley-Davidsons, sport bikes, hot rods, convertibles, etc, on nice days. All of these uses are recreational, but create far more pollution (environment and noise) along with damage to the road. This is further exacerbated by the multiple wineries, B&B's, bars, etc along that part of the road.

In fact I dislike riding the Katy Trail next to 94 on nice days because it is a constant stream of obnoxiously loud motorcycles.

mconlonx

Some motorcycle riders are also not recreational riders, just like some bicyclists are not.

However.

Those driving recreational vehicles (RVs) really don't have a leg to stand on. They also go slow and block traffic.

Chris516

The first thought that came to mind in reference to pedestrians, pets and wheelchairs, while still thinking about cyclists' only using the path instead of the road, bike-only or MUP, If there is a tremendous mess(mud is a biggy) on the path, cyclists' won't bike on it, and people won't walk through the mud or allow their pets to walk through it. Wheelchair riders won't want to ride through the mud.

bhtooefr

Although, you do have a small population of RVers that use the RV as an extremely mobile home, with no fixed address.

atbman

Well, officer, it's like this, I'm riding on this state road to:
1. a school, to look it over and see if it's worth while moving there for my kid(s)
2. a friend's residence
3. a public facility
4. a church
5. a business
etc.
about a hundred miles thataway

Or, the Katy Trail (if it is accessible about a hundred miles thataway)

Not that I'm saying this legislation is unworkable or anything

gregjones

I just sent this to Bart Korman:

Dear Sir:

My grandparents were school teachers in Missouri in the early 1900's, my father was born in Joplin in 1930. I have vacationed in your state since I was a child in the 1960's. My wife and I stop in Missouri during our vacations twice a year.

We ride our bicycles in the late afternoons and early evenings to explore the local historical attractions.

I am a law abiding citizen and will not worry if it is legal to ride on any state highway.....in any state.

I feel sorry for the local residents of your state if your bill passes. I would resent being treated as low life to be outlawed because my particular mode of legal transportation happens to cause someone to hang up and drive and pay attention to other vehicles on a public funded roadway.

It will not be the first problem for my wife and I. We will reroute our travels around your state.


Thank you,
Gregory Alan Jones

FBinNY 

While I agree that 2 miles is certainly unreasonable and ridiculous, what is reasonable? 100 yards, 20 yards, directly along the road.

What isn't reasonable is to demand bikeways, then complain when governments say,"you asked, we provided, and now you're damm well going to use them"

IMO- the entire bikeway concept is one that will prove the truth of "be careful what you wish for, you might get it". Like many, I'm in favor of recreational bikeways in parks for families, but have for years been strongly opposed to thedivision of public roadways into roads for cars, and separate but unequal bikeways for bicycles. Drivers have always wanted to get rid of bikes or anything they see as in their way, endorsing the separation concept reinforces the notion that bicycles don't belong on the road. After all, if that weren't true, why are we building bikeways in the first place.

bhtooefr

Keep in mind that my mention of the distance requirement being 2 miles being ridiculous was an intensifier on the ridiculosity of it being required at all.

So, I feel that any REQUIREMENT to use cycling-specific infrastructure is wrong, but it's even more wrong when it's that bad.

In any case, bicycles belong on the roads, but they're a suboptimal match for car-optimized roads (as bicycles cannot maintain the speed of car traffic - but, car drivers have a duty to properly deal with slower than normal traffic). Similarly, a road that is optimized for cyclist traffic over car traffic, but is shared, is a suboptimal match for that car traffic (as the car traffic has to deal with significantly increased congestion) - and, because the majority of the voting populace in the US is significantly biased in favor of prioritizing car traffic, optimizing shared roads for cyclists in favor of cars is a very tough sell.

Segregated bikeways can be further optimized for bicycle traffic (and not support car traffic at all) for both cost and layout, and don't have to be equal in design to be equal in opportunity - for instance, the (closed to bicycle traffic) freeway through town is 4 lanes (and 6 or 7 lanes near downtown), and designed to carry 55 mph semi traffic, with breakdown lanes sized for semis, and merging ramps for the most part designed to allow semis to accelerate to the 55 mph speed limit. I don't want a duplicate of that for cyclists, I want something adequate for the expected cyclist traffic volume (although, I would like if the MUP that parallels the freeway weren't quite so hilly).

In any case, if a bikeway is done right, there won't be a need for a law to mandate that cyclists use it, because the vast majority of cyclists that use that route will prefer it anyway. If it's done wrong, then such a law is a bad law, as there's a reason cyclists aren't using it, and instead prefer to interact with car traffic.

Operating your bicycle as a driver is a great strategy for surviving where there's no infrastructure or there's bad infrastructure, and on streets where car traffic is sufficiently slow it's a great strategy overall, but bicycles are a different kind of traffic to cars, and bicycle operators are different from one another. Some cyclists can safely operate in car traffic and would prefer to do so, so they should be allowed to do so. Some cyclists would prefer to not operate in car traffic, and there should be an option for that when feasible.

CB HI

The biggest problem I see with the way the law is written is that it places a NEW mandate to ONLY ride on the shoulder when on a state highway. The law never uses the word recreational and is useless to banning any cyclist from using the highway. But the mandatory shoulder use could get cyclist cited. And cops would wrongly begin to cite cyclist on non-state roads as well.

DirtRoadRunner

Very few people here in Missouri "demand" bikeways. The Katy trail simply took advantage of an abandoned railroad line to create a trail across the state. In fact, the trail was made possible when the Edward Jones family bought 200 miles of unused rail right-of-way and donated it to the state of Missouri. Another 33 miles of right-of-way was donated by the Union Pacific Railroad. The Katy was almost entirely made possible by donations, not the State. No one "demanded" the Katy trail, a few people saw a golden opportunity to make our state better and seized it.

I imagine most of the anti-bike complainers (Rep. Korman and Brattin's constituents) don't know that the trail was a gift, and drive around thinking "they" paid for the Katy trail. Other than the Katy and a handful of local (city-funded) MUP's, Missouri has very little bicycle-centered infrastructure. Some municipalities are installing bike lanes, but MoDOT has done little to nothing. This states spends very little on on-motorized transportation.

DirtRoadRunner

It really isn't that hard - the roads with frequent cyclist-motorists conflicts need minimal extra infrastructure to work. High-traffic highways, that are often used by cyclists, need shoulders. Even high-traffic highways without cyclist use should also have shoulders, as they are safer for motorists and would open those roads up to cyclist use.

I ride a lot of highway shoulder here in Missouri and find them pretty nice. I'm sure MoDOT didn't think of cyclists at all when they designed them, but they happen to work pretty well anyway. I also ride a lot of shoulder-less, 55 mph, curvy, hilly rural highways and like them even better. Most have very little traffic so they don't need ANY bicycle-specific infrastructure to be rideable.

What they do that is bad is pave them with really coarse chip-and-seal rock that makes them really rough to ride. Using a smaller rock would cost little more and change the shoulder from unrideable to very rideable. Most of these things cost little and are a big benefit for both motorists and cyclists - it doesn't have to be an "either-or" choice between the two. I don't expect infrastructure just for me, but I would like to be thought of a little bit.

009jim

To be fair they should also ban cars on the road if there is a 4WD track nearby.

rydabent

No one said politicians intelligence rise to the level of barely functional.

As written it is one of the more stupid unenforceable laws I have ever seen.

BTW I do not ride crushed rock or dirt trails with my recumbents. I am strictly a road or improved bike trail rider.

FBinNY 

My comments were not specific to the Missouri law, or this trail, but a general commentary that the arguments in favor of roadside bikeways by advocates can be turned against us.

Many cities have become very "pro bike" and built large networks of bike exclusive lanes. Along with these exclusive tracks have come laws, saying that if there's a cycle track along the road, cyclists must use them --- what I call separate but unequal. This is tha case here in NY City, and I believe in Portland, OR, and many other cities.

You might say "what's wrong with that?" But no matter how you slice it, they are a reduction of a century old policy that bicyclists have equal rights to the road. The unequal part, is that these cycle tracks often have more litter and broken glass, and that many cyclists in major cities ride at speeds closer to that of cars, than that of slower cyclists who can't hold a lane.

Worse, it reinforces the idea already in the minds of many drivers that bicycles don't belong on the road, and ultimately lead to more restrictions, reversing a pattern of greater access fought for and won only a few decades ago.

wsbob

Chip seal does cost less to apply to roads than asphalt overlay. I've heard this to be so, some time back, but didn't recall a number for it cited. Easy search brought up a link to an Ohio DOT page with some helpful information: Excerpt:

"...Why Use Chip Seals?

1. Chip seals provide ODOT with the opportunity to maintain the roads for very low cost.
2. A chip seal is about one fourth to one fifth the cost of a conventional asphalt overlay. ..." https://www.dot.state.oh.us/districts...FactSheet.aspx

With transportation budgets strained, we'll probably be seeing more chip seal. It's been used for some time in the area of Oregon where I live.

As to this addition to its bike lane use law Missouri's legislators are considering, it doesn't appear it can be much more than a token gesture. It has exceptions included in it that will allow people that bike to use the road should they feel the need to. Your very brief description of existing room to ride on the right side of roads in Missouri, would describe Oregon roads as well. Shoulders and bike lanes adjoining main travel lanes are mostly created out of existing road right of ways...slightly narrowing main travel lanes, etc, to allow room to create a broader shoulder, or a bike lane.

Without direct comments from them, it's hard to know what Missouri legislators that sponsored this bill, besides having wanted to write it up and put it before the other legislators, really expect to be able to accomplish with the change to the law this bill would make, long term or short. Unless people riding the road near the trail/path are for example, a long string of mom and pop types with kids on bikes and in trailers (and they'd probably choose to be away from motor vehicle traffic and ride the bike path anyway.), it's questionable whether police would even stop to tell people riding to go down and ride the bike path.

jerseyJim

Originally Posted by Missouri House Bill 672 Notwithstanding any provision of this section or any other law, bicycle operation on a state-maintained roadway is prohibited when there is a state-owned bicycle path or trail that runs generally parallel to and within two miles of a state roadway, except a bicycle may operate on the shoulder of a state roadway when the bicycle is operated as a means to ride to or from the operator's home to another residence, to a place of business, to a school, or to any public facility.


I don't know about Missouri but here in New Jersey if you are taveling on a bicycle on the shoulder instead of in the roadway you lose the legal rights of a vehicle in the roadway. Also whatever entity that is responsible for maintaining the road is not responsible for maintaining the shoulder for safe travel. They are designated for emergency use only. Needless to say I try to avoid traveling on the shoulder.

If you were going to fight a bill like this these are issues you might be able to raise against it. Does Missouri have any statewide bicycle advocacy groups?

DirtRoadRunner

I'm a civil engineer by trade - I know all about asphalt . Chip and seal is just fine when you use a small enough aggregate in is (say, 3/4" maximum size). On some shoulders MoDOT has started using a very LARGE aggregate (estimated maximum size of 1.5 inches) which makes the shoulder very rough to ride on. I can comfortably go no faster than 15 mph on those shoulders on my CAAD9. Using a smaller aggregate would have a very small increase in cost (a few %, if at all), and make shoulder useable for bikes. Poor planning and car-centric thinking by MoDOT.

Riding on the shoulder is 100% legal in Missouri and explicitly allowed by the law. I like riding on the shoulder, especially concrete ones which are very fast. We have the Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation who is fighting this law and successfully repealed our last mandatory sidepath law in the mid '90's. They are also trying to change MoDOT bicycle policy to something that actually works.

rydabent

Note-----------You do not have to be very smart to get elected these days. That goes for both state and federal gov as we can see!!!!

If you havent heard, just to show you in Bell Calif where the Mayor set his pay at $100,000 when the city is broke, is now on trial. His defense att has said it is not the mayors fault since he is dumb, never even graduated HS, and cant read. It hard to make up stuff like that.

I-Like-To-Bike

What does it show about the proposed Missouri bicycle ban bill?

kmv2

Uneducated government representatives (ie. Brattin) are making kneejerk and ill advised proposals such as this one. Now, even if Brattin and Korman had PhDs, they are still proposing stupid decisions. I would imagine an intelligent politician would work with both groups to figure something out, instead of reacting to some vague complaints. If history shows anything, bans are usually the wrong solution.

Point is, people who "don't know any better" are elected into these positions somehow, despite being unqualified.

I-Like-To-Bike

Duplicate post

I-Like-To-Bike

Don't ya mean that your kneejerk reaction is - representatives, no matter what their background, who hold a different opinion than your own "don't know any better" and are unqualified for office, even when they are elected by the people in their district and may even be representing their constituents' views?