Google sponsored links
For those of you from South Carolina: does the state have any laws that require the use of bike lanes and sidepaths when they are available?
I visit some family members on Hilton Head Island on occasion, and I always bring my bike. It's a nice change from the hills of southwestern PA. Some of the bike lanes and sidepaths seem downright dangerous, and I'd rather avoid them in those cases, but I'm never sure if it's legal to do so. On the occasions where I'e ridden on the road near a sidepath, the cars have been rather indignent in a couple cases. That's not uncommon of course, but I'd rather know I'm in the right before getting too assertive about it.
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
http://www.dot.state.sc.us/getting/pdfs/bike_laws.pdf
SECTION 56-5-3430. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.
Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway.
I've heard some people argue that the word "usable" gives the cyclist wiggle room to legally stay off the path, and I've also heard some people argue that the wording "exclusive use of bicycles" doesn't apply to paths or sidewalks shared with pedestrians. But you might not be able to talk your way out of a ticket if you faced a tough judge in court.
Is there ANYPLACE in the US that doesn't allow bicycles free use of the roads, excluding freeways? I've never heard of such a thing. Sounds like a bad idea to me...
Is there ANYPLACE in the US that doesn't allow bicycles free use of the roads, excluding freeways? I've never heard of such a thing. Sounds like a bad idea to me...
Yes; many localities have mandatory sidepath (i.e. sidewalk bike path) laws that prohibit roadway use at such locations. A few states still have them. Cyclists in the city where I live and work got the city council to repeal its mandatory sidepath-use ordinance after the city proposed to build a new sidepath on an important road for bike commuting. A discussion of how we did this is given here:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/cyclinglaws.htm
I suggest that cyclists in SC lobby their legislature to eliminate their sidepath-use law while they have momentum in their bicyclist advocacy and the support of numerous politicians. I noticed an awful zig-zag sidepath called the "Pride Trail" alongside one side of Pine Street in Spartanburg when I was cycling there. I wouldn't want to be ticketed or arrested for not using it.
I strongly oppose any law forcing cyclists to use a sidepath or other bicycle facility instead of the road.
That's where I draw the line on bicycle facilities.
I work there, run a bike rental shop at that, and the local magistrate throws out tickets given to cyclists riding on the road with so called "bike paths" on HHI. The state law is spefic about bike exculscivity, but the Town of Hilton Head allows other non-motorized users on the pathways. The locals get ignorant because they clam they paid for the pathways with their tax dollars and we should be forced to use them. Fact is, the pathways are paid by hospitality taxes, 89% funded by out of town visitors.
Hey SC'ers.........
What is cycling like in the Summerville area ??
..::EDIT::. Sorry to derail thread !! :o
I work there, run a bike rental shop at that, and the local magistrate throws out tickets given to cyclists riding on the road with so called "bike paths" on HHI.
That's good to hear...
I work there, run a bike rental shop at that, and the local magistrate throws out tickets given to cyclists riding on the road with so called "bike paths" on HHI.
So the police are actually enforcing this law, eh?
As a vacationer at Hilton Head Island, it would be quite an inconvenience to have to travel back there at a later date to conduct a legal defense even if I could get it thrown out.
Why don't SC cyclists lobby to have the law repealed?
Is there ANYPLACE in the US that doesn't allow bicycles free use of the roads, excluding freeways? I've never heard of such a thing. Sounds like a bad idea to me...
Avon and avon lake have local invalid ords that state bikes must ride on the sidewalks and walk bikes through all intersections. In some cases those intersections are every 50 feet and nearly impossible to cross by walkign your bike through them.
The local ords there are invalid and go agaisnt state law makeing them worthless and they wont stand up in court.
Yes; many localities have mandatory sidepath (i.e. sidewalk bike path) laws that prohibit roadway use at such locations. A few states still have them. Cyclists in the city where I live and work got the city council to repeal its mandatory sidepath-use ordinance after the city proposed to build a new sidepath on an important road for bike commuting. A discussion of how we did this is given here:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/cyclinglaws.htm
I suggest that cyclists in SC lobby their legislature to eliminate their sidepath-use law while they have momentum in their bicyclist advocacy and the support of numerous politicians. I noticed an awful zig-zag sidepath called the "Pride Trail" alongside one side of Pine Street in Spartanburg when I was cycling there. I wouldn't want to be ticketed or arrested for not using it.
Those localities local ords dont stand up in court and tickets for them are tossed out imidiatly.
Those localities local ords dont stand up in court and tickets for them are tossed out imidiatly.
It should never get to court; the tickets should never be issued. Such laws send the wrong message about roadway cycling.
It should never get to court; the tickets should never be issued. Such laws send the wrong message about roadway cycling.
Well see they can legally do this unless state law has specific wording preventing localities passign these local ords. But in a court of law under challenge the tickets are dismissed and rendered void.
The city banks on the fact that most wont challenge the ticket for fear of loosign the case and having the cort costs to deal with.
Want the ords to not be enforced get a bunch of friends to break these local ords and go to court. Remember loosing party pays court costs. If the city isues say 100 tickets for it a month and all are challenged and the price of the ticket is 150 and court costs are 200. When the city looses those 100 cases and they will if challenged they will pay out $2000 in court costs and the money they paid their officers to patrol on the look out for cyclists breakign the local ords.
You only worry need be to make sure your state does not specifically allow these local ords to be passed and enforced. If no specific language allows it then you can use the state law to your advantage and get the laws dropped.
http://www.dot.state.sc.us/getting/pdfs/bike_laws.pdf
I've heard some people argue that the word "usable" gives the cyclist wiggle room to legally stay off the path, and I've also heard some people argue that the wording "exclusive use of bicycles" doesn't apply to paths or sidewalks shared with pedestrians. But you might not be able to talk your way out of a ticket if you faced a tough judge in court.
Eeek thats sc statelaw?
sorry to say any one in SC is sol you will need to try and get the law changed. Tickets will stand up in court because its state law. I beleive but am not sure federal law does allow for states to pass these sorts of laws. So you cant use the arguement that federal law prohibits and is in direct conflict with state law.
Let me do some digging while im not a lawyer i make it a point to know my local laws and such and have a fair bit of luck finding this stuff out.
Not finding any us federal guidlines or laws regarding cycling. Infact theres not much in the way of federal trafic laws at all. Some relatign to speed limits etc but nothing else. It would seem that its up to the state in question as to what your rights to the roads are in your state. Now considerign the fact that a locality can pass a law that grants you more rights in that locality and it will over ride state laws. You might want to try and get your local cityy to pass a local law or ord allowing cyclists to ride on the road way regardless of bike pat or lack there of.
Ill keep looking but im not very hopeful of finding any thing you can use.
Living in Myrtle Beach, my problem wasn't sidewalks or bike paths, there aren't any! It's the fact that SC doesn't believe in shoulders! I guess concrete and pavement is really expensive there...
Found something i beleive might be a federal mandate/law
uniform vehical code that classes a bike as a vehical. Unless theres exceptions in federal law allowing a state to specifically pass a law that is more restrictive in regards to bikes you can use the uvc to get tickets tossed out.
http://www.geocities.com/fredoswald/bike-laws/UVC.pdf
Im askign a couple people to find out for sure will post back with a update when i have one.
If its a mandate or law then tobad so sad for SC
I work there, run a bike rental shop at that, and the local magistrate throws out tickets given to cyclists riding on the road with so called "bike paths" on HHI. The state law is spefic about bike exculscivity, but the Town of Hilton Head allows other non-motorized users on the pathways. The locals get ignorant because they clam they paid for the pathways with their tax dollars and we should be forced to use them. Fact is, the pathways are paid by hospitality taxes, 89% funded by out of town visitors.
When looking at the the wording of the law, "whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway", I don't see any reference that it refers to a usable path set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. But does the magistrate interpret it as such, because of the exculsivity in the previous sentence, "persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles"?
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.