Can and Should

[ehammarlund]

I was thinking that one should be careful if he advocates bikers acting to the extent of their legality, like most here do. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's a good idea, polite, or safe.

In a car:

I can pass a cyclist on a downhill, get 50 feet ahead, and then take a right into a driveway after braking hard. He's behind me; he's not legally my problem. Hope he doesn't crash into me. Hope the road's not sandy oor wet. Oh well.

I can cross the bike lane in my area without stopping. The bikers have a stop sign and it's their problem to stop. If I hit someone who blows off the stop sign, it's not my fault.

I can open my car door on a crowded city street when a biker is 50 feet away. Maybe he'll have to stop. maybe he'll have to get off his bike. He's got enough warning so that my conduct isn't negligent. If he's inconvenienced, it's not my problem; I've got a legal right to do it.

I can block the right side of the road at a stoplight to prevent bikers from filtering past. They've got no right to my lane; I can 'take the lane' so long as I'm ahead of them. I can't go in the shoulder, of course, but i can make their lives miserable.

I can get ahead of a group of riders on traiing who are going 25, slow down to 19, and take the lane. they probably won't want to pass me on the left; they'll just have to wait until it's safe. Silly them for expecting me to go faster. It's a speed LIMIT, remember?

I can ride my horse on the bike path. Horses were around 1000 years before bikes (that 'bikes were here first' argument always cracks me up). Or perhaps my chariot.

I can 'fail to see' bikers who violate traffic laws (though I won't sleep well at night)

I can walk four abreast down any sidewalk when I see a biker coming. I'll either force them into the road by my inattentiveness or move aside only after they unclip and stop.

And so on.

So--are people here REALLY sure that saying "we have a right to do it on a bike" is justification, or equivalent, to saying "we should do it"? Next time you start spouting 'advocacy' that ignores politeness and just focuses on what you think you are entitled to do, be careful. You may start a trend... and you'll lose the war.

[twahl]

hehe...good points! You'll smoke a turd in hell for posting them here though.

['nother]

Not exercising your rights and freedoms is the first step to losing them.

[-=£em in Pa=-]

Rights and freedoms are grreat theories but they dont always work out
in real life. If you excercise your legal right to vehicular cycling on
the farm roads around here you are nothing more than a BigFoot target.
You know who will care about who had the right-of-way and who
was wrong ??? Only you as you are picking yourself and your broken bike
up out of a ditch.

[DCCommuter]

hehe...good points!

No they're not. He's a troll. He's making a completely straw man arguement. Nobody is advocating that cyclists act "to the extent of their legality."

[ehammarlund]

No they're not. He's a troll. He's making a completely straw man arguement. Nobody is advocating that cyclists act "to the extent of their legality."

I'm not a troll, and this isn't a straw man argument, though I don't subscribe blindly to the 'anything cyclists do is great' theory. One common reply to a request for cyclist courtesy here, or for any limit on cyclists' ability to do something, is "there's a legal right to do it, so do it..." While I agree it's a silly point, it's not a straw man that _I_ made up.

in fact, that response often gets applause. And (amusing to me, at least) it often pops up in the same threads where a car driver's actions that gave rise to the complaint were technically legal, albeit idiotic.

The examples are illustrative. My points are simply that 1) a legal right to do something doesn't make it wise; 2) lots of people here advocate cyclists taking the full extent of their legal rights without regard to their effect; and 3) that particular type of advocacy is stupid. Do you really consider that a troll?

[Dchiefransom]

You might want to increase those distances. If I was on a jury, I wouldn't consider 50 feet "clear" as in the legal definitions.

[Bikepacker67]

Can and Should

The difference between the idealist and the pragmatist.

[CRUM]

Laws are not always just or right. They are nothing but limits placed on human activities that either society or more often, the leaders of that society feel need limiting. Laws are suggestions with specific penalties attached should one decide to ignore the suggestion. Break them at your own risk. But never assume they are right just because they are the law.

Today on a road ride, we had to navigate our way through a section of road under construction. Legally, we should have stayed far to the right and allowed cars to pass. That would have been hazardous and unsafe for us and the traffic behind us. Since we were cruising at 25 to 30mph anyway, we took the whole lane until the 200 yards or so had been safely negotiated. I knowingly broke the law, but it made for a safer situation for all, cars included. And what suprised me were the 2 thumbs up a couple of cars gave us when they did pass us.

[Bikepacker67]

Since we were cruising at 25 to 30mph anyway, we took the whole lane until the 200 yards or so had been safely negotiated. I knowingly broke the law

No you didn't.

Taking the lane to avoid obstacles isn't illegal.
But riding two/three abreast on a winding hilly road, with 10 cars behind you is rude.

[Roody]

In a car:

I can pass a cyclist on a downhill, get 50 feet ahead, and then take a right into a driveway after braking hard. He's behind me; he's not legally my problem. Hope he doesn't crash into me. Hope the road's not sandy oor wet. Oh well.

I can cross the bike lane in my area without stopping. The bikers have a stop sign and it's their problem to stop. If I hit someone who blows off the stop sign, it's not my fault.

I can open my car door on a crowded city street when a biker is 50 feet away. Maybe he'll have to stop. maybe he'll have to get off his bike. He's got enough warning so that my conduct isn't negligent. If he's inconvenienced, it's not my problem; I've got a legal right to do it.

I can block the right side of the road at a stoplight to prevent bikers from filtering past. They've got no right to my lane; I can 'take the lane' so long as I'm ahead of them. I can't go in the shoulder, of course, but i can make their lives miserable.

I can get ahead of a group of riders on traiing who are going 25, slow down to 19, and take the lane. they probably won't want to pass me on the left; they'll just have to wait until it's safe. Silly them for expecting me to go faster. It's a speed LIMIT, remember?

I can ride my horse on the bike path. Horses were around 1000 years before bikes (that 'bikes were here first' argument always cracks me up). Or perhaps my chariot.

I can 'fail to see' bikers who violate traffic laws (though I won't sleep well at night)

I can walk four abreast down any sidewalk when I see a biker coming. I'll either force them into the road by my inattentiveness or move aside only after they unclip and stop.

And so on.
You live in a dream world. Motorists do each of the things you mentioned all of the time. That is precisely why we cyclists have to assert our rights. The only way to prevent cyclist injury in the situations you mentioned is for the cyclist to take the lane. I must move to the left to avoid car doors, left hooks right hooks, etc.

Do you do a lot of street riding? Maybe you have some alternatives for us? Some constructive suggestions are always welcome here.

[CRUM]

No you didn't.

Taking the lane to avoid obstacles isn't illegal.
But riding two/three abreast on a winding hilly road, with 10 cars behind you is rude.

Yeah, I know. But at age 53, it still felt good to play the scofflaw even if it was only in my mind.

[CB HI]

I can pass a cyclist on a downhill, get 50 feet ahead, and then take a right into a driveway after braking hard. He's behind me; he's not legally my problem. Hope he doesn't crash into me. Hope the road's not sandy oor wet. Oh well.

I can cross the bike lane in my area without stopping. The bikers have a stop sign and it's their problem to stop. If I hit someone who blows off the stop sign, it's not my fault.

I can open my car door on a crowded city street when a biker is 50 feet away. Maybe he'll have to stop. maybe he'll have to get off his bike. He's got enough warning so that my conduct isn't negligent. If he's inconvenienced, it's not my problem; I've got a legal right to do it.

I can block the right side of the road at a stoplight to prevent bikers from filtering past. They've got no right to my lane; I can 'take the lane' so long as I'm ahead of them. I can't go in the shoulder, of course, but i can make their lives miserable.

I can get ahead of a group of riders on traiing who are going 25, slow down to 19, and take the lane. they probably won't want to pass me on the left; they'll just have to wait until it's safe. Silly them for expecting me to go faster. It's a speed LIMIT, remember?

ehammarlund

I did not know you lived in Hawaii. At least now I know who the driver is that I see on most daily commutes.

By the way, cutting in front of another vehicle (car or bicycle) and slamming on the brakes is illegal. The insurance industry calls it “swoop and stoop”.
A road rager that did it several years ago caused a death. The road rager went to jail for 20 years. Side note: clearly the road rager did not do this to a cyclist - that would have been a $500 fine.

[Bikepacker67]

By the way, cutting in front of another vehicle (car or bicycle) and slamming on the brakes is illegal. The insurance industry calls it “swoop and stoop”.



So when the "other vehicle" is a cyclist on the right side and in the blindspot of the driver, he should feel a rush of last second self rightiousness before his brains splatter across the safety glass rear window of the minivan?

[CB HI]

So when the "other vehicle" is a cyclist on the right side and in the blindspot of the driver, he should feel a rush of last second self rightiousness before his brains splatter across the safety glass rear window of the minivan?
Bikepacker67 - Your post makes no sense.
ehammarlund’s post dealt with the scenario that a driver passes, cuts in front and slams on the brakes. How did you get a blind spot out of that.

I also missed the part where I said anything about “should feel a rush of last second self righteousness before his brains splatter”. Please point it out to me.

All I did was have a little fun with ehammarlund. I also pointed out that one of the scenarios that he states as legal, is in fact illegal. The insurance industry worked very had to make it so, to stop the large number of scams doing exactly that scenario with 5 people in their car and all 5 some how ending up with neck and back problems after the hapless victim rear ends them.

[Bikepacker67]

Bikepacker67 - Your post makes no sense.
ehammarlund’s post dealt with the scenario that a driver passes, cuts in front and slams on the brakes. How did you get a blind spot out of that.

.


A car that passes you, (assuming your riding to the right) NO LONGER SEES YOU, even in his rear view mirror for a short while after the pass.

That's called a blindspot. Make sense now?

[phinney]

I was thinking that one should be careful if he advocates bikers acting to the extent of their legality, like most here do. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's a good idea, polite, or safe.

In a car:

I can pass a cyclist on a downhill, get 50 feet ahead, and then take a right into a driveway after braking hard. He's behind me; he's not legally my problem. Hope he doesn't crash into me. Hope the road's not sandy oor wet. Oh well.

I can cross the bike lane in my area without stopping. The bikers have a stop sign and it's their problem to stop. If I hit someone who blows off the stop sign, it's not my fault.

I can open my car door on a crowded city street when a biker is 50 feet away. Maybe he'll have to stop. maybe he'll have to get off his bike. He's got enough warning so that my conduct isn't negligent. If he's inconvenienced, it's not my problem; I've got a legal right to do it.

I can block the right side of the road at a stoplight to prevent bikers from filtering past. They've got no right to my lane; I can 'take the lane' so long as I'm ahead of them. I can't go in the shoulder, of course, but i can make their lives miserable.

I can get ahead of a group of riders on traiing who are going 25, slow down to 19, and take the lane. they probably won't want to pass me on the left; they'll just have to wait until it's safe. Silly them for expecting me to go faster. It's a speed LIMIT, remember?

I can ride my horse on the bike path. Horses were around 1000 years before bikes (that 'bikes were here first' argument always cracks me up). Or perhaps my chariot.

I can 'fail to see' bikers who violate traffic laws (though I won't sleep well at night)

I can walk four abreast down any sidewalk when I see a biker coming. I'll either force them into the road by my inattentiveness or move aside only after they unclip and stop.

And so on.

So--are people here REALLY sure that saying "we have a right to do it on a bike" is justification, or equivalent, to saying "we should do it"? Next time you start spouting 'advocacy' that ignores politeness and just focuses on what you think you are entitled to do, be careful. You may start a trend... and you'll lose the war.


You're making a great point. Combining "common courtesy" with "common sense" makes road cycling a reasonably safe activity.

[Bikepacker67]

You're making a great point. Combining "common courtesy" with "common sense" makes road cycling a reasonably safe activity.


You're making a great point. Combining "common courtesy" with "common sense" makes road cycling a reasonably safe activity.


You're making a great point. Combining "common courtesy" with "common sense" makes road cycling a reasonably safe activity.


Just thought that needed repeating.

[ehammarlund]

I didn't intend to suggest illegality in my first post, just to give examples. Though i think you probably knew that... I meant to describe the situation where a car safely passes, and then at some point after the passing is complete (and it has transitioned back to the 'person in back is at fault' general situation) the car stops suddenly. It happens all the time between two cars.

I dunno why it annoys me when people are rude. I guess it's just that there are two ways to easily solve bike/car problems: restrict cars, or restrict bikes. (yeah, i know, even acknowledging the existence of #2 disqualifies me as any type of advocate for this forum). Bikers are already outvoted in many places. If they're outvoted and obnoxious, it doesn't take much to guess which way that scale's going to swing. The 'coexisting with courtesy' thread can turn into the 'single file ticket' thread without much difficulty. I don't want that to happen.

But the truth is that so long as there are few bikers, it frequently makes sense to restrict them. If you have a road that's used by 10,000 cars daily and 100 bikers, most unbiased people would think that---on the face of things--you might want to avoid inconveniencing the cars for the sake of 100 bikers; it's more sensible to slow the bikers down. It's probably an easier example to swallow here if you flip 'cars' with 'bikes'. And once you get past that--and admit the other side has a valid point--you start talking about real world solutions.

[CB HI]

A car that passes you, (assuming your riding to the right) NO LONGER SEES YOU, even in his rear view mirror for a short while after the pass.

That's called a blindspot. Make sense now?
Is that how you drive? You see a vehicle ahead of you, you begin to pass them, as soon as they reach the blind spot = they must no longer exist, so it is OK to move right.

No, that kind of thinking does not make sense to me.

[Roody]

I didn't intend to suggest illegality in my first post, just to give examples. Though i think you probably knew that... I meant to describe the situation where a car safely passes, and then at some point after the passing is complete (and it has transitioned back to the 'person in back is at fault' general situation) the car stops suddenly. It happens all the time between two cars.

I dunno why it annoys me when people are rude. I guess it's just that there are two ways to easily solve bike/car problems: restrict cars, or restrict bikes. (yeah, i know, even acknowledging the existence of #2 disqualifies me as any type of advocate for this forum). Bikers are already outvoted in many places. If they're outvoted and obnoxious, it doesn't take much to guess which way that scale's going to swing. The 'coexisting with courtesy' thread can turn into the 'single file ticket' thread without much difficulty. I don't want that to happen.

But the truth is that so long as there are few bikers, it frequently makes sense to restrict them. If you have a road that's used by 10,000 cars daily and 100 bikers, most unbiased people would think that---on the face of things--you might want to avoid inconveniencing the cars for the sake of 100 bikers; it's more sensible to slow the bikers down. It's probably an easier example to swallow here if you flip 'cars' with 'bikes'. And once you get past that--and admit the other side has a valid point--you start talking about real world solutions.So where the hell are we supposed to ride our bikes? Around and around in circles in a parking lot? We sure would hate to inconvenience anybody!

I asked you in an earlier post if you ride on streets or roads. I guess I have my answer--you obviously do not. Your posts seem to show a misunderstanding of even the most basic principles of cycling. Would you like some suggestions on some reading material?

[ehammarlund]

So where the hell are we supposed to ride our bikes? Around and around in circles in a parking lot? We sure would hate to inconvenience anybody!

I asked you in an earlier post if you ride on streets or roads. I guess I have my answer--you obviously do not. Your posts seem to show a misunderstanding of even the most basic principles of cycling. Would you like some suggestions on some reading material?

Wow, you sure seem know a lot about me and we haven't even been on a proper date yet... yes, i ride on streets, and roads (though I confess that I don't really know the difference between the two as long as they get me where I'm going). I even ride on (gasp!) bike paths on occasion. As urban as Boston, on down to rural. Both on road and off.

I think I "understand the most basic principles of cycling," though perhaps I missed the "never admit you're wrong" principle. What book is that in? Or maybe you think just because I disagree with you that I must not ride a bike? Now THAT'S arrogance, or stupidity by any other name.

And, of course, if you actually DID try to avoid inconveniencing others (while bemoaning your own inconveniences) your posts would make more sense. But I fear you're just being poorly sarcastic.

[Chris L]

Well, I've not logged in here often lately. I guess it's easy to forget just how many trolls are getting around this place these days. Thanks for the reminder.

[JRA]

Ehammarlund has made some good points which seem to have gone right over the heads of some people. The way he has been attacked only illustrates how posters in this forum "circle the wagons" when someone has the audacity to suggest an idea that doesn't fit neatly in their view of the world.


You're making a great point. Combining "common courtesy" with "common sense" makes road cycling a reasonably safe activity.Neither common sense nor common courtesy are as common as those terms would suggest.


I can ride my horse on the bike path. I've encountered horses on the bike path more than once. I can't complain because:
a. It was the mounted police.
2. They don't usually stay on the bike path long.
3. They also ride on the street (I love it when they stop cars).
d. The bike path was once a bridle path (although it was actually a bike path before that, in the 19th century)



Horses were around 1000 years before bikes. (that 'bikes were here first' argument always cracks me up).Me too. It's what's called ancient history. If I'm not mistaken, the first roads were built for pedestrians.

[tippy]

...I can ride my horse on the bike path. Horses were around 1000 years before bikes (that 'bikes were here first' argument always cracks me up). Or perhaps my chariot.
http://www.nps.gov/natr/
Natchez Trace
Travel the route of the Old Natchez Trace and imagine the experiences of those that have traveled before you. The 444-mile Natchez Trace Parkway commemorates an ancient trail that connected southern portions of the Mississippi River to salt licks in today’s central Tennessee. Over the centuries, the Choctaw, Chickasaw and other American Indians left their marks on the Trace. The Natchez Trace experienced its heaviest use from 1785 to 1820 by the “Kaintuck” boatmen that floated the Ohio and Miss. rivers to markets in Natchez and New Orleans. They sold their cargo and boats and began the trek back north on foot to Nashville and points beyond. Today, visitors can experience this National Scenic Byway and All-American Road through driving, hiking, biking, horseback riding and camping.

d.tipton

[slagjumper]

So--are people here REALLY sure that saying "we have a right to do it on a bike" is justification, or equivalent, to saying "we should do it"? Next time you start spouting 'advocacy' that ignores politeness and just focuses on what you think you are entitled to do, be careful. You may start a trend... and you'll lose the war.

There is no right to the road. That is no right to drive anything anywhere. The state decides who can use the roads and can take that away. Sometimes when you are following the laws that govern road use you have an accident. That does not mean that you should stop doing the things that the law entitles you to do. Also I am not sure that a policy of politeness alone will change anything. Being polite might get kudos from mom, but other than that it goes unnoticed.

[DCCommuter]

I was thinking that one should be careful if he advocates bikers acting to the extent of their legality, like most here do.

Who are these "most" and "one" characters you refer to? Strawmen! Name names and quote quotes, or go back in your cave, troll.

[CRUM]

Being polite might get kudos from mom, but other than that it goes unnoticed.

And that's too bad. Courtesy and politeness are rare commodities now days. The tone of your post indicates your acceptance of that fact. And that is the really sad part.

[noisebeam]

I was thinking that one should be careful if he advocates bikers acting to the extent of their legality, like most here do. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's a good idea, polite, or safe.

In a car:

I can pass a cyclist on a downhill, get 50 feet ahead, and then take a right into a driveway after braking hard. He's behind me; he's not legally my problem. Hope he doesn't crash into me. Hope the road's not sandy oor wet. Oh well..
This may not be legal passing depending on specifics. There could be other laws broken by passing car as well. Point is that passing is not the only activity to judge legality on, for example tickets can be issued for reckless driving, driving to fast for conditions, etc.
But also if this maneuver is not done dangerously (which would probably get the driver a ticket if obsevervd by attentive officer) then there is nothing wrong with it and cyclists (and all drivers) should expect it as a normal driving situation. i.e. So what?


I can cross the bike lane in my area without stopping. The bikers have a stop sign and it's their problem to stop. If I hit someone who blows off the stop sign, it's not my fault.
.
There are many places you can cross a BL without stopping. I don't understand the point being made. Of couse cyclist need to stop for stop signs.

I can open my car door on a crowded city street when a biker is 50 feet away. Maybe he'll have to stop. maybe he'll have to get off his bike. He's got enough warning so that my conduct isn't negligent. If he's inconvenienced, it's not my problem; I've got a legal right to do it.
.
Of course. Cyclists and all vehicle drivers must watch out for obsticals ahead. I always slow down for people pulling out of their driveways, etc. Again a normal vehicular situation.


I can block the right side of the road at a stoplight to prevent bikers from filtering past. They've got no right to my lane; I can 'take the lane' so long as I'm ahead of them. I can't go in the shoulder, of course, but i can make their lives miserable.
.
It is good if vehicles block the right lane or bike lane if making a right turn. This is good motorist behavior.

I can get ahead of a group of riders on traiing who are going 25, slow down to 19, and take the lane. they probably won't want to pass me on the left; they'll just have to wait until it's safe. Silly them for expecting me to go faster. It's a speed LIMIT, remember?

I can ride my horse on the bike path. Horses were around 1000 years before bikes (that 'bikes were here first' argument always cracks me up). Or perhaps my chariot.

I can 'fail to see' bikers who violate traffic laws (though I won't sleep well at night)

I can walk four abreast down any sidewalk when I see a biker coming. I'll either force them into the road by my inattentiveness or move aside only after they unclip and stop.

And so on.

So--are people here REALLY sure that saying "we have a right to do it on a bike" is justification, or equivalent, to saying "we should do it"? Next time you start spouting 'advocacy' that ignores politeness and just focuses on what you think you are entitled to do, be careful. You may start a trend... and you'll lose the war.
Not sure overall of your point. Drivers of all vehicles must follow the law. But the laws are more complex and interact and several can apply to one situation. (i.e. green does not mean go, it means proceed with caution if the way is clear.) It also means that if you can stop to avoid hitting someone you must and you can be found at fault even if you have the right of way. It means if the speed limit is 55 and it is raining, dark and you are going around a curve at 55mph you can be pulled over for speeding.

Al

[ehammarlund]

Who are these "most" and "one" characters you refer to? Strawmen! Name names and quote quotes, or go back in your cave, troll.

Why do you persist on calling this a 'troll' post, unless you're trying to be obnoxious? in any case, this isn't a straw man, as you probably know ifyou actually read posts here. I'm not especially inclined to take my time and effort to quote people, as you've got the same access to the forums that I do and you'll probably just ignore it anyway. Of course, I might reverse the challenge, and ask you to provide some examples of recent posts where there ISN'T someone advocating 'do what you must and $%^$! anyone who is inconvenienced; it's your legal right'. There are a few threads recently, but not many. (if you want a simple example of someone promoting 'act to the extent of legality', you don't even have to leave this thread).

Now go and learn some manners. And if you want to have a real argument, feel free to post again--but you'll need to put forth a point of view first.

[Roody]

Why do you persist on calling this a 'troll' post, unless you're trying to be obnoxious? in any case, this isn't a straw man, as you probably know ifyou actually read posts here. I'm not especially inclined to take my time and effort to quote people, as you've got the same access to the forums that I do and you'll probably just ignore it anyway. Of course, I might reverse the challenge, and ask you to provide some examples of recent posts where there ISN'T someone advocating 'do what you must and $%^$! anyone who is inconvenienced; it's your legal right'. There are a few threads recently, but not many. (if you want a simple example of someone promoting 'act to the extent of legality', you don't even have to leave this thread).

Now go and learn some manners. And if you want to have a real argument, feel free to post again--but you'll need to put forth a point of view first.Why can't you answer his question? Why do you insult everyone who disagrees with you?

Very few cyclists, here or elsewhere, advise "do what you must." Can you quote any who did? Most experienced and thoughtful cyclists do advise, "Do what is legal and also safest for yourself and all other users of the road." Often, that requires use of a whole lane, or at least riding out of the gutter and off the sidewalk. Of course, we will go back to the right as soon as we can, but only when it is safe for the cyclist (and safe for the overtaking driver) to allow the motorist to pass us.

Every single last cycling safety advocate advises this approach. If you know of any exceptions, or if you have startling new evidence that everyone else is wrong, please post here. I am certainly willing to read and think about any new evidence you have.

So far, all you have given us (other than smug insults) is your unsupported opinion that motorists are miffed by normal and safe cycling activity.

[scarry]

hehe...good points! You'll smoke a turd in hell for posting them here though.

I wonder, ehammarlund, how's that cigar tasting? Hot enough yet?

[Bruce Rosar]

There is no right to the road. That is no right to drive anything anywhere. The state decides who can use the roads and can take that away.Q. Why is the following observation from the Bicycles and the Traffic Law (http://www.bicycledriving.com/trafficlaw.htm) guide true in the USA?In all states, motor vehicle operators, but not cyclists, must meet additional requirements such as driver licensing, vehicle registration, and liability insurance.

A. From a state Supreme Court decision (http://www.wisbar.org/res/sup/1996/93-2842.html):The right to travel has long been recognized by the courts as inherent in our constitutional concepts of personal liberty...
Because that right is fundamental, the [U.S. Supreme] Court reasoned, "any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling government interest, is unconstitutional."

The courts have consistently held that the extraordinary danger to others and their property posed by heavy equipment operation in a public way (i.e., driving most motor vehicles) is such a compelling government interest. On the other hand, human powered travel (whether on foot or wheel) is, almost without exception, never heavy enough to create a level of danger to others which is sufficient to justify additional government requirements for such travel.

Freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society ... once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer.
-- Former Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

[ehammarlund]

I wonder, ehammarlund, how's that cigar tasting? Hot enough yet?

Tasty--goes well with rum :D

I find the different perspectives interesting, to say the least.

BTW, whoever that was posting above this: a general "right to travel" (highly protected) isn't the same as a "right to travel on a specific road" (not protected as far as I know, though I may be wrong). You're absolutely correct that it would be unconstitutional to generally restrict travel. It would be stupid to disallow travel by bicycle, but so long as other methods were available I don't think it would be unconstitutional. I believe the test is essentially is whether a restriction on a method of travel is effecting a restriction on travel itself. I doubt the bike issue will ever hit the Supreme Court, and it's clearly not in the original text... ;)

That's the last I'll post in this thread, though. I thought it could be an interesting discussion: when it is appropriate (or wise) to deliberately cede your position to others, in order to get them on your side? But it seems that you've got the 'common courtesy' folks (of whom I am one), the 'screw the cagers' folks, and the 'you're a troll for raising this' folks, and ne'er the three shall meet. Oh well, off to bed...

[slagjumper]

And that's too bad. Courtesy and politeness are rare commodities now days. The tone of your post indicates your acceptance of that fact. And that is the really sad part.
Sounds like you agree too. Responding with courtesy and politeness is by far the most common way that I deal with the world. But there are just too many cases where these are not enough to succeed in affecting change.

[Bruce Rosar]

It would be stupid to disallow travel by bicycle, but so long as other methods were available I don't think it would be unconstitutional. I believe the test is essentially is whether a restriction on a method of travel is effecting a restriction on travel itself.
Travel is a fundamental right in the USA, as is noted in a Business Law/Legal Studies study outline (www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~albert/lstu130/als-outline/LCE-CH04.html):
Chapter 4 -- Constitutional Law
The U.S. Constitution is the fundamental law of the United States and takes precedence over any other source of law... it imposes limits on the power of government.
From section 4.4 of that same outline:
LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL AND STATE POWERS
Judicial Scrutiny of Governmental Regulation.
The U.S. Supreme Court has developed three primary levels of scrutiny for determining whether governmental regulation (state or federal) is valid under the Constitution: strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and the rational relationship test...
1. Strict scrutiny. It is the most demanding of all. This test is sometimes referred to as the compelling interest test.
The strict scrutiny test is applied when legislation affects fundamental rights, e.g., voting, privacy, travel, free speech, and religion.
The test is also applied when legislation affects suspect classifications, e.g., classifications based on race or national origin.
Any legislation subject to strict scrutiny must be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest.
1)"Necessary" implies that there are no less restrictive means than the challenged regulation available to protect or promote the interest.
2) EXAMPLE: If Kansas enacted legislation calling for segregation in its public school system, the Supreme Court would apply the strict scrutiny test because the legislation affects a suspect classification, i.e., one based on race. The Supreme Court would rule that such legislation does not promote a compelling governmental interest. The state statute should be held unconstitutional and invalid.
I doubt the bike issue will ever hit the Supreme Court, ...
More from that state Supreme Court decision (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wi&vol=sc%5C93-2842&invol=2)The right to travel has long been recognized by the courts as inherent in our constitutional concepts of personal liberty. The Supreme Court acknowledged that to enjoy the freedom to travel, citizens must be allowed to move "throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict that movement."

... and it's clearly not in the original text... ;)
While there's no explicit mention of the right to travel in the US Constitution, there doesn't have to be. (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553383_3/Bill_of_Rights.html) :)
Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Comment: The Ninth Amendment declares that just because certain rights are not mentioned ... does not mean that they do not exist. Courts may not infer from the silence of the Constitution that an unlisted right is unavailable to protect individuals from the government.

[ehammarlund]

Travel is a fundamental right in the USA, as is noted in a Business Law/Legal Studies study outline (www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~albert/lstu130/als-outline/LCE-CH04.html):
...
While there's no explicit mention of the right to travel in the US Constitution, there doesn't have to be. (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553383_3/Bill_of_Rights.html) :)

It's absolutely a fundamental right to travel--no disagreement there. And because it's a fundamental right, any 'no travel' law is subject to strict scrutiny, otherwise known as the 'you're almost definitely going to overturn the law' test. My point is much more limited (and doesn't disagree with yours, I think): there is no constitutional right to travel BY BICYCLE. That does *not* mean that there's a constitutional restriction against bicycles, of course. It's just that travel by bicycle could be restricted if they felt like it, and it would almost definitely pass Supreme Court review.

You could not constitutionally restrict travel by foot ('walking is illegal') for a variety of reasons, which I will explain if you want; this is more fun than bar studying. But you could ban any other form of travel except possibly wheelchairs, including cars, bikes, airplanes, rockets, ATVs, motorcycles, and the like.

Congress has very wide authority to legislate for the general welfare, which includes pretty much anything ostensibly safety-related, and certainly includes this sort of hypothetical law. Imagine if they voted for a 'no bicycle bill' and you tried to challenge it. You couldn't get it under a fundamental right (eg voting, free speech, travel, etc). The closest you could get would be 'right to travel'. It wouldn't burden that right because you can still travel, just not on a bike. You wouldn't get any intermediate scrutiny, because bicyclists are not a protected class like minorities, women, etc. Then, seeing as it would be considered a general law which is not aimed at a protected class, you're looking at rational basis review, a.k.a. the 'the law will be upheld test'. Any rational explanation for the law would justify it, even if the explanation was different from the actual legislative motive. And the law would be upheld.

(BTW, I am sure you know this, but just in case: a state supreme court would usually be interpreting the state constitution, and not the federal constitution. Also it would only have effect in its own state. As a result, that case is not especially relevant for federal law, though it's an interesting case).

the 9th amendment isn't really useful to promote a right that's not mentioned at all in the constitution, unless that right springs from implication from the rest of the document. what the 9th is for, basically, is to protect the Framers from writing down each and every little thing they wanted to protect, and to allow them to use some more flexible language. Absent the 9th amendment, you might run into trouble if you said 'the right to be secure in their home and persons agsint search' and you didn't think to put in 'and their hotel rooms'. The normal legal standard is frequently "if there's a list and something is omitted, it's intentional". The 9th allows the Court to work around taht rule, which is one of the reasons we have a short Constitution and not a 200-pager like some other countries that try to cover every contingency.

When I think about it some more, though, I might agree that a total ban on bikes would fail even rational basis review, in some circumstances. But it would be hard to acheive.

[DCCommuter]

Here is an article that discusses the right to travel, and the right to travel by a particular conveyance:
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/6886.0.html

Quick summary: the courts have been inconsistent, but generally there is a right to travel, but not by a particular conveyance. Probably the most relevant case is Wherrett v. Doyale.

[Bruce Rosar]

... there is no constitutional right to travel BY BICYCLE. There is a fundamental right to personal liberty."Personal liberty... is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."
--16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987
You could not constitutionally restrict travel by foot ... But you could ban any other form of travel except possibly wheelchairs...
Congress has very wide authority to legislate for the general welfare, which includes pretty much anything ostensibly safety-related, ...
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens."-- II American Jurisprudence (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

Imagine if they voted for a 'no bicycle bill' and you tried to challenge it. You couldn't get it under a fundamental right... Travel is a fundamental right in the USA, as noted in that Business Law/Legal Studies study outline (http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~albert/lstu130/als-outline/LCE-CH04.html#.4)

The closest you could get would be 'right to travel'. It wouldn't burden that right...Perhaps we're using different definitions of burden?burden
n. Resulting in a load which is not necessarily tangible, but places a burden upon something else. This includes ... (matters that limit, restrict or is onerous such as a fee or license for passage) ...
the 9th amendment isn't really useful to promote a right that's not mentioned at all in the constitution, unless that right springs from implication from the rest of the document.
The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property hereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
-- II American Jurisprudence (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

[ehammarlund]

There is a fundamental right to personal liberty.

Perhaps we're using different definitions of burden?

I think that may be it. 'burden' in this context is part of a balancing test which has 'weight added' to one side depending on what type of law is being challenged. It's not simply a question of 'does this burden XXX'. Rather, it's 'does this burden XXX _more than is appropriate_'. this is sensible because almost any law can be said to burden just about anything else. You have to stop at red lights, so you can't bike as fast. This is obviously a burden, sure--but it's balanced by the safety considerations.

Remember that as a general rule Congress can legislate the vast majority of stuff without any judicial intervention. The fundamental rights are actually relatively limited.

incidentally, be careful of sites that selectively quote Supreme Court cases, or constitutional provisions. Context is everything. in particular, watch out for sites that base their arguments on the constitution itself. Most of that document is subject to various interpretations, but only the one espoused by the Supreme Court is actually law. How a particular site chooses to interpret the Constitution on its own is essentially irrelevant; they can say 'bicycle travel is a fundamental right' till they are blue in the face, but if the Supremes say differently, the site is wrong.