Originally Posted by rydabent

Everyone is entitled to their opinion including me.

Originally Posted by rydabent

Frap and open to the decision of the person driving or riding.

Originally Posted by benjdm

Montana requires slow moving vehicles, including motorized ones, to be as far right as possible including the shoulder:

61-9-415. Slow-moving vehicles.


Kentucky doesn't have a bicycle specific FRAP law, as far as I know.

Originally Posted by dpeters11

Steve Magas (Ohio Bike Lawyer) helped Pro Bono, but isn't licensed in KY. He is not involved now. But even with an attorney working pro bono, there can be significant costs.

Originally Posted by -=(8)=-

Its not a personal attack. You are interjecting stuff that has nothing to do with anything. Hypotheticals snatched out of your/someone else's imagination.
I'm actually surprised a Mod hasn't come along and told you to stay on-topic. The fact the average Mod would not want to murder their own brain cells on this nonsense is probably what has spared you from their wrath.

Originally Posted by c_bach_115

I still maintain that if you support these rights to lane so much the best way to show this support is to come here and ride. Money donations are good I suppose, that shows that you believe and are willing to give. But right now the view is "we have one person" doing this is it not? I am not saying go to Jessamine county and get arrested either.

Originally Posted by trailmix

A cyclist even passed by on the shoulder while Schill was getting a ticket.

Originally Posted by spare_wheel

And a cyclist passed Ms. Schill when she was riding on the shoulder in another video.

Originally Posted by rydabent

ben

But according to the law you posted, it says as far to the right in the right lane or shoulder which again is Frap and open to the decision of the person driving or riding.

Originally Posted by benjdm

The Montana law? It says as far to the right as possible instead of as practicable. That said, I'm not sure it's worth discussing much as a tangent.

Originally Posted by jrossbeck

I love road riding, but when I read “U.S. 27” I’m picturing a 2 lane highway with medians and possibly a speed limit of 45 or maybe 55 MPH.

If I’m right - we have a road just like that not too far from me - I couldn’t even imagine riding on it - wayyyy too dangerous. Cars approaching that fast from behind have little time to find space and get around you.

I wonder if there is another route that gets her to where she needs to go in slightly more time, you can’t push things too far in your plan to use your bike more often. This could be one of those cases where someone is just trying to be a martyr vs. actually fighting for reasonable bike rights.

Originally Posted by wphamilton

Even that's ambiguous. It says "in the lane", and then "including the shoulder". Probably because it's the SMV statute.

The Montana FRAP statute MONT CODE ANN § 61-8-605 says "roadway", but redefines "roadway" for bicycles so as to include the shoulder! So Schill would have trouble in Montana as well.

I'm trying to see just how unusual the Kentucky law is, because both the prosecutor and judge seemed to lean on some "common sense" perspectives. If that perspective were demonstrated to be provincial enough in nature then perhaps she could posit an alternative interpretation of the Kentucky statutes.

Originally Posted by dru_

I am curious.

As cyclists discussing the issue, take a look at the attached image. Where *should* a cyclist ride. Keep in mind, this is GA, there is no bike lane, nor signage regrading bikes. This is a 45mph road, with average speeds well above that. It is a busy road, but not horribly dense. That shoulder is rough, but beyond the occasional road litter (rocks, gravel, glass, nails, used condoms ( that one remains a mystery, but I've seen it! ), etc) it is 'safe'. No grates, few manhole covers.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fgg15fazhh...oRide.PNG?dl=0

I am curious about the collective thought here. I ride this stretch of road many times in a given month and know it very well. Both sides of the road are like this. Both sections have intrusions that will force a cyclist into the lane at strange points.

Originally Posted by Doohickie

The wildcard in all this is that she is viewing the law through cyclist’s eyes. Trying to appeal something like this is very hard because the vast majority of law enforcement, the judicial system, and even prospective jurors will view the law through motorists’ eyes. That’s why these kinds of “standing up for our rights” stunts often fail. I hope she’s got a good lawyer. I’d like for her to succeed but I’m not optimistic.

I wonder if she took reasonable precautions for visibility: Hi viz clothing, bright flashing blinky (even in daylight), etc., and whether she used a rear view mirror.

Lulz at the comments on the article.

Originally Posted by trailmix

Good we finally agree, the shoulder is not completely unrideable as others have claimed.

Originally Posted by dru_

I am curious.

As cyclists discussing the issue, take a look at the attached image. Where *should* a cyclist ride. Keep in mind, this is GA, there is no bike lane, nor signage regrading bikes. This is a 45mph road, with average speeds well above that. It is a busy road, but not horribly dense. That shoulder is rough, but beyond the occasional road litter (rocks, gravel, glass, nails, used condoms ( that one remains a mystery, but I've seen it! ), etc) it is 'safe'. No grates, few manhole covers.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fgg15fazhh...oRide.PNG?dl=0

I am curious about the collective thought here. I ride this stretch of road many times in a given month and know it very well. Both sides of the road are like this. Both sections have intrusions that will force a cyclist into the lane at strange points.

Originally Posted by freedomrider1

I saw this and thought what the heck is she doing. Nice shoulder on the side, why put everyone at risk. And when the shoulder runs out keep to the side.What am i missing here. Might be right...dead right.

Originally Posted by wphamilton

Personally, I ride on the shoulder on that road (the south end of it, if it's Mcfarland).

Originally Posted by Just a doctor

This is a good case-study. Ms. Schill (is that pronounced skill or shill? could make a difference in persons’ judgments) has a right to use public access structures to get from home to work, or for vacation travel, or relocating residency. The federal government has say over U.S. highways, since their construction and maintenance is authorized by Congress, and paid for with federal funds. \

Which is to say that applicable usage rules for U.S. highways come under federal law and policy, and federal court jurisdiction, which favor bicycling.

Looking at a posted pictureof Ms. Schill, my impression is the rumble strip, whose purpose is to alert drivers, “You’re out of bounds, Wake up!” in the picture, is very wide. If there is a reasonably wide strip of smooth pavement for bike riders to use, such as 24 inches, somewhere in the shoulder area, without rumble strip, without dangerous debris, then the state of KY might have a sustainable case against Ms. Schill, but I doubt it,in federal court. Federal policy and court rulings allow cyclists to use “the roadway” which does not include the area to the right of the white line, which is not designated for vehicle travel. When there is a rumble strip, that definitely is designed to say, “This area is not to be used for vehicle travel.”

Some commenters here seem to think that rumble strip is ridable. On 40 mm MTB tires, it is, On 23 mm tires, I say you are ignorant. Yes, you can do it, but rumble strip is designed to be, “Don’t go over this, pull left.”

Ms. Schill could appeal to the KY Court of Appeals. She could alternatively file a lawsuit against the county, in the U.S. District Court, Western Kentucky. On a U.S. Highway, U.S. Courts have jurisdiction. Actually on any highway whose construction and maintenance uses federal funds, they have jurisdiction. On fundamental civil rights issues, such as persons’ rights to reasonable access to self-transportation from place to place, they have jurisdiction.

Kentucky could have built a designated bike lane to the right of the white shoulder line, if the state did not want cyclists to ride in the “motor vehicle traffic” lane. That was not done. Creating a rumble-strip “Move left” encumbrance, with no designed accommodation lane for cyclists, and then convicting a cyclist for failing to ride over non-traffic-bearing rumble strip, was potentially, a civil-rights violation. Is there a parallel road within a reasonable distance alternative route. If so, why didn’t Ms. Schill use that?

Originally Posted by Paul Barnard

She is an idiot for not using that wonderful shoulder.

I do not agree with the wanton endangerment charge.

Officer Kevin Grimes with Nicholasville Police says Schill was arrested for Second Degree Wanton Endangerment, for riding in the center of the right lane.
The arresting officer says he saw several cars braking and changing lanes erratically to avoid hitting her.

She should NOT be held responsible for the erratic operation of others. As a motor vehicle operator I am singularly responsible for maintaining safe following distances, not outdriving my lane of sight, changing lanes safely, changing lanes legally and slowing my vehicle as conditions warrant. If a motorist was limping along with a low tire in that lane, would that motorist be responsible for other operators who weren’t paying close enough attention to safely deal with the situation?

Originally Posted by dru_

I am curious.

As cyclists discussing the issue, take a look at the attached image. Where *should* a cyclist ride. Keep in mind, this is GA, there is no bike lane, nor signage regrading bikes. This is a 45mph road, with average speeds well above that. It is a busy road, but not horribly dense. That shoulder is rough, but beyond the occasional road litter (rocks, gravel, glass, nails, used condoms ( that one remains a mystery, but I've seen it! ), etc) it is 'safe'. No grates, few manhole covers.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fgg15fazhh...oRide.PNG?dl=0

I am curious about the collective thought here. I ride this stretch of road many times in a given month and know it very well. Both sides of the road are like this. Both sections have intrusions that will force a cyclist into the lane at strange points.

Originally Posted by dru_

I am curious.

As cyclists discussing the issue, take a look at the attached image. Where *should* a cyclist ride. Keep in mind, this is GA, there is no bike lane, nor signage regrading bikes. This is a 45mph road, with average speeds well above that. It is a busy road, but not horribly dense. That shoulder is rough, but beyond the occasional road litter (rocks, gravel, glass, nails, used condoms ( that one remains a mystery, but I've seen it! ), etc) it is 'safe'. No grates, few manhole covers.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fgg15fazhh...oRide.PNG?dl=0

I am curious about the collective thought here. I ride this stretch of road many times in a given month and know it very well. Both sides of the road are like this. Both sections have intrusions that will force a cyclist into the lane at strange points.

Originally Posted by spare_wheel

And Ms. Schill has stated multiple times that she feels more comfortable staying in the lane on stretches where she believes it's dangerous to continuously ride in and out of the shoulder. I see her point.

I also can see how someone who views cycling as a hobby or inferior form of transport would believe that Ms. Schill should get tires that allow her to ride through debris, learn how to fix flats, ride on poorly-designed rumble strips, and patiently wait to dart across a gap in traffic at right turns/exits.

Originally Posted by c_bach_115

I treat the shoulder as a bike lane myself so I would be in the shoulder unless I came up on something really bad.