Advocacy & Safety - Compulsory Sidepath Laws

Do you believe that cyclists should be prevented from using the roadway if a bikelane or sidepath is available for use? Simple yes or no answer.

No.

I voted no, although I am okay with some of the current laws that have the "use the bike lane except in such-and-such cases (going as fast as traffic, intersections, obstacles, road-hazards, etc)"

Does it matter what cyclists think???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301606.html

Who the hell was the clown who voted yes?

No.

Who the hell was the clown who voted yes?
Probably Helmet Head. (Just so it wasn't unanimous...)


;)

Probably Helmet Head. (Just so it wasn't unanimous...)


;)

Mr. VC himself, say it ain't so!

I would not restrict rights, but practicality can make a difference in whether or not the sidepath gets used. Typical sidepaths are nothing more than glorified sidewalks... if they are glorified in any manner what so ever.

However a decent (clean) wide (10-12 foot) dedicated (not an MUP) path that is not at grade (designed like a freeway) can and will encourage cyclists to use the path vice the road. Anything else is just a waste of money, and invites dumb motorists to think they own the road.

I would not restrict rights, but practicality can make a difference in whether or not the sidepath gets used. Typical sidepaths are nothing more than glorified sidewalks... if they are glorified in any manner what so ever.

However a decent (clean) wide (10-12 foot) dedicated (not an MUP) path that is not at grade (designed like a freeway) can and will encourage cyclists to use the path vice the road. Anything else is just a waste of money, and invites dumb motorists to think they own the road.


Upkeep is also a concern. If I encounter a bikepath filled with glass, sticks, stones, etc., I won't use it. Just like I would use a stretch of road that is not properly maintained. Hence my reason for wanting the option to use either/or.

Who the hell was the clown who voted yes?

If you think that there is only one correct answer, why have a poll?

Who the hell was the clown who voted yes?

Who the hell gave you the power to tell me what my opinion should be?

If you think that there is only one correct answer, why have a poll?
So you're the second 'yes' vote?

;)

I'm trying. I'm really trying. I know a good pop of the bike paths in the Los Angeles area. Some are pretty nice.

But as try as I might I can not think of a sidepath that is contunous for more than 2 miles that is next to a street. Now some of the river paths come close to if not more than 40 miles but they take their own route. The bike path next to the Orange line is about 20 miles long, but the longest part without a street crossing that is the equivalent of coming off the sidewalk is less than 2 miles. (And technically the path ends with each crossing, at least that is what the signs say).

Forcing riders to use a path that will only exist for a couple of miles out of a 20 mile ride makes no sense.

So you're the second 'yes' vote?

;)

No, that was mine.

I voted "No", but there are some areas where I live that the MUP is next to the parkway. No bike riding there.

I voted "No", but there are some areas where I live that the MUP is next to the parkway. No bike riding there.
I would say that limited access roads are a special case.

The point I was trying to make with this thread is that 90% of the respondents do not agree with mandatory sidepath laws; most believe that cyclists should have their choice of options, and that cyclists' access to the roadway should not be denied. My conclusion is that it is primarily non-cyclists who advocate for compulsory sidepath laws. I believe this supports the proposal put forth by ChipCom that cyclists should be working together, from a position of unity and strength, to advocate for a wide variety of properly-designed on and off street improvements for cyclists, rather than bickering among themselves over the narrow-minded VC agenda. And that all cyclists, whether they self identify as VC, AC, or something else, should also be working together to oppose mandatory bike lane or sidepath laws, instead of opposing the lanes and paths themselves.

Do you believe that cyclists should be prevented from using the roadway if a bikelane or sidepath is available for use? Simple yes or no answer.
Where are sidepaths available for use in US urban areas outside of park lands or along side limited access highways?

... all cyclists ... should also be working together to oppose mandatory bike lane or sidepath laws, instead of opposing the lanes and paths themselves.As a cyclist, I don't advocate against facilities that cyclists can use. As a matter of fact, I just used some of them (public roads) this afternoon (and it felt great, thank you :)

As a citizen, I do oppose government sponsorship of facilities intended to separate individual travelers on the basis of a classification (i.e., governmental segregation involving a fundamental right). For example, a designated bicycle lane is defined as:


A portion of a roadway or shoulder which has been designated for use by bicyclists. where bicyclists is a classification.

The good news is that government sponsored segregation of public facilities is not necessary; almost all of them in the US were desegregated back in the previous century (and, BTW, most were not dismantled as a result).

The boogey man of mandatory sidepath laws. Oooh I'm so scared.

No. There are times and places and uses for side paths, and there are times, places and uses for the road. Knowing the difference is the key.

Who the hell was the clown who voted yes?
You sure get fired up fast.

Who the hell gave you the power to tell me what my opinion should be?


I DID ! !
NO, IT WAS ME ! !
SHUT UP, BOTH OF YOU! !

sorry....
(roses are red, violets are blue...











i'm schizophrenic,
and so am i.)

I would say that limited access roads are a special case.

The point I was trying to make with this thread is that 90% of the respondents do not agree with mandatory sidepath laws; most believe that cyclists should have their choice of options, and that cyclists' access to the roadway should not be denied. My conclusion is that it is primarily non-cyclists who advocate for compulsory sidepath laws. I believe this supports the proposal put forth by ChipCom that cyclists should be working together, from a position of unity and strength, to advocate for a wide variety of properly-designed on and off street improvements for cyclists, rather than bickering among themselves over the narrow-minded VC agenda. And that all cyclists, whether they self identify as VC, AC, or something else, should also be working together to oppose mandatory bike lane or sidepath laws, instead of opposing the lanes and paths themselves.
==
Say no to mandatory use of MUPs when MUPs are present. Agree

Work together to advocate for a variety of properly-designed on and off street improvements for cyclists. Agree

Where are sidepaths available for use in US urban areas outside of park lands or along side limited access highways?

We have a few around here and I generaly will avoid using them. Fortunately we don't have a mandatory side path law. I have read of them in other states that do have the law and how troublesome that it is.

I feel that your wording is unfair, albeit unintentionally. If a decent quality bike lane exists for use, then yes I think it is reasonable to use it and to require its usage. HOWEVER, that is a far cry from parallel "sidepaths" which are usually nothing more than glorious sidewalks with all their problems. So I am refusing to vote b/c my answer doesn't fit nicely with either choice.

Sidepaths are for joggers and roller bladers.

Bike lanes are part of the ROAD. If the law requires you to use it, your right to use the road is NOT being infringed because you are riding in a lane on the ROAD.

Bike lanes are part of the ROAD. If the law requires you to use it, your right to use the road is NOT being infringed because you are riding in a lane on the ROAD.
A more fundamental issue is whether or not the government's regulation is in compliance with the equal protection clause (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Equal_protection). In other words, does the regulation:

... treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances...
The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application...

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same right...
The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as ... the right to travel.
Note that motorists, which the regulation allows to engage in the activity of fully using the public roads in question, are a class of individuals (as the result of a classification) and that cyclists are other individuals.

Do you believe that cyclists should be prevented from using the roadway if a bikelane or sidepath is available for use? Simple yes or no answer.
When cyclists leave the bike lane, I think a bus should stop to let out a passenger to punch the offending cyclist. :p

Seriously, use of bike lanes should almost always be optional. Some lanes are poorly designed and should always be ignored (too narrow, door zone, 25 mph downtown streets, too many curb cuts, etc.). Even for well-designed lanes (and there such things as well-designed striped lanes), I just don't trust cops, judges and juries of non-cyclists to determine whether someone's reason for leaving the lane was good enough. How much debris is enough to permit a cyclist to leave the lane? That's something that cops, judges and juries of non-cyclists would decide.

The incident in Portland that I joked about above proves what we're up against. When a cyclist (rumored to be a member of this forum) rode to the left of a striped lane on a bridge because of debris, a bus driver stopped and let out a passenger who punched the cyclist. In the media, the universal reaction of non-cyclist members of the public to the film was that the cyclist should have been in the lane. If the lane was in bad shape, they said the cyclist should have walked his bike on the sidewalk. These are the people who would serve on any jury.

A more fundamental issue is whether or not the government's regulation is in compliance with the equal protection clause (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Equal_protection). In other words, does the regulation:

Note that motorists, which the regulation allows to engage in the activity of fully using the public roads in question, are a class of individuals (as the result of a classification) and that cyclists are other individuals.


Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same right...
The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as ... the right to travel.

You are really stretching it a lot here. First of all, cyclists are not a "class of individuals." Cycling is an activity which ceases when I stop doing it. The equal protection clause does not apply to me on my bike any more than it applies to a smoker who wants to light up in a restaurant.

Secondly, there are many roads that are restricted to certain vehicles. Large trucks get re-routed. Vehicles pulling trailers must travel at a lower speed. Cars with only one person in them cannot drive in diamond lanes. Bridges are often closed to vehicles over a certain weight limit.

My only right is to get from A to B. If the goverment wants to create a special lane for me to do that in, they have the right to do so.

A while back we had some clown of a Senator who decided to try to "save cyclists from ourselves" by introducing a bill that would have forced cyclists to use an MUP if there was one adjacent & parallel to a highway. He decided to do this after he came upon some cyclists riding on a 4 lane divided state highway with a MUP adjacent & parallel to the highway. I do not know what happened but I imagine he did not want to wait to around them or felt it was unessesary to change lanes to pass slow moving cyclists.

This bill got defeated because cyclists from across the state banded together with politcians against a law like this unless there were ammendments made to the bill. The changes were to include the state providing for facilities if this law was to be enforced. This would have cost the tax payers money. As a result the bill was dissolved. Out of this also came the birth of the Iowa Bicycle Coalition.

Sioux City, Iowa has an ordinance that states if there is a path parallel to as roadway cyclists are to use the MUP. I never follow this law. For one it is never enforced. In fact I have ridden with an off duty police officer on the roadway next to the path.

On one roadway it is safer to be on the road, then on the MUP. Because of traffic pulling out of a casino parking lot. There are all kinds of trees & shrubs along the path for beautification. The drivers exiting the casino parking lot are suppsoed to stop at the stop signs located there. Unless they are kept trimmed back, not that often, they block the stop signs & the view the drivers have of what is on the path. another problem is drivers are distracted by the excitment of going & wasting their money at the casino before they pull into the parking lot & they are pissed off for losing their money when they are leaving. They are barely able to concentrate on the roadway, let alone the traffic on the MUP.

Another reason I do this is to assert my right to the road. If I ever have a cop challenge & cite me on it I will take it to court.

The ordinance needs to be removed or modified to focus on certain age groups. I think that is why it was created, for the young children who ride bike. But it does not specify that.

...cyclists are not a "class of individuals." I'm not sure just what you mean by that. If you mean that bicyclist is not one of the suspect classes, I agree. On the other hand, the definition of class doesn't require that membership be static over time. For example, sometimes an individual is in the class motorist, sometimes pedestrian and sometimes bicyclist.


The equal protection clause does not apply ... to a smoker who wants to light up in a restaurant. Unlike travel, the courts have not held that smoking is a fundamental right.


Secondly, there are many roads that are restricted to certain vehicles. To be more precise, there are some roads from which the operation of vehicles that

pose an extraordinary danger to the public, and/or
exceed a performance limitation of the roadway (weight, noise, height, etc.)are restricted. The courts have not held that a bicyclist poses more than an ordinary danger to others, and there are few (if any) public roads on which a bicyclist would exceed any of the performance limits.


Cars with only one person in them cannot drive in diamond lanes.Regulations that govern whether or not a vehicle can be driven in an HOV lane are based not on a classification (such as motorist) but are rather based on merit (how many persons are in the vehicle). Laws and regulations which are based on the individual merit are not discriminatory.


My only right is to get from A to B. If the goverment wants to create a special lane for me to do that in, they have the right to do so.The power of the government is limited. Here's a quote about that from a Business Law/Legal Studies study outline:

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.
In the words of Thomas Paine (http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/wiacrev/wiacrev-idx?type=HTML&rgn=DIV1&byte=39777&q1=&q2=&q3=) (the revolutionary-era author of Common Sense):

A constitution is the act of the people in their original character of sovereignty. A government is a creature of the constitution; it is produced and brought into existence by it. A constitution defines and limits the powers of the government it creates.
BTW, 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) :)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I'm not sure just what you mean by that. If you mean that bicyclist is not one of the suspect classes, I agree. On the other hand, the definition of class doesn't require that membership be static over time. For example, sometimes an individual is in the class motorist, sometimes pedestrian and sometimes bicyclist.:)

The equal protection clause of the consitution only applies to groups to which a person belongs regardless of where they are or what they are doing. I am only a cyclist when I'm on my bike.


Unlike travel, the courts have not held that smoking is a fundamental right.

Travel is a fundamental right to be sure, but a particular mode of travel is not.


To be more precise, there are some roads from which the operation of vehicles that

pose an extraordinary danger to the public, and/or
exceed a performance limitation of the roadway (weight, noise, height, etc.)are restricted. The courts have not held that a bicyclist poses more than an ordinary danger to others, and there are few (if any) public roads on which a bicyclist would exceed any of the performance limits.

By your logic, only modes of transportation that cause a threat should be limited. Then should a pedestrian be allowed to walk down the middle of a busy street when there is a sidwalk?


Regulations that govern whether or not a vehicle can be driven in an HOV lane are based not on a classification (such as motorist) but are rather based on merit (how many persons are in the vehicle). Laws and regulations which are based on the individual merit are not discriminatory.

I think that my inability to keep up with traffic is an issue of merit. Granted, I'm fast but not fast enough to ride the posted speed limit on a 30 mph road. Lance Armstrong probably could because his merit as a cyclist exceeds mine.

I would say that limited access roads are a special case.

The point I was trying to make with this thread is that 90% of the respondents do not agree with mandatory sidepath laws; most believe that cyclists should have their choice of options, and that cyclists' access to the roadway should not be denied. My conclusion is that it is primarily non-cyclists who advocate for compulsory sidepath laws. I believe this supports the proposal put forth by ChipCom that cyclists should be working together, from a position of unity and strength, to advocate for a wide variety of properly-designed on and off street improvements for cyclists, rather than bickering among themselves over the narrow-minded VC agenda. And that all cyclists, whether they self identify as VC, AC, or something else, should also be working together to oppose mandatory bike lane or sidepath laws, instead of opposing the lanes and paths themselves.

i wonder what percentage of pot heads advocate the illegality of marijuana, i mean, come on who wants more laws regulating THEM, its the other guy that has to change...

that said, im against bike lanes in all but a few cases

The equal protection clause of the consitution only applies to groups to which a person belongs regardless of where they are or what they are doing.The equal protection clause (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Equal_protection) is intended to provide equal application of the laws among individuals or classes.


Travel is a fundamental right to be sure, but a particular mode of travel is not.The issue isn't the mode; it's whether or not the government's regulation violates an individual's right to equal protection from a law which affects the individual's fundamental right to travel. For example: closing a road to all travelers (including those using bicycles) infringes a fundamental right (travel), but if there is a compelling governmental interest that can't be satisified with less onerous means and the law is applied equally to all individuals and classes, then the infringement on its face is constitutional.


... should a pedestrian be allowed to walk down the middle of a busy street when there is a sidwalk?Or how about someone in a wheelchair? Or inline skates? Interesting questions (well, at least I think so), but these are the bike forums.


I think that my inability to keep up with traffic is an issue of merit. Let's say that the government established a minimum speed limit on a fully controlled access highway with grade separated interchanges (which allow travelers to stay above that limit while exiting and entering). If there is no discrimination in its application (i.e., the regulation was applied equally among individuals and classes), then the regulation would not be in violation of the equal protection clause.

i wonder what percentage of pot heads advocate the illegality of marijuana

Only the smart ones.
If it was legal, the government would tax the shyt out of it, and regulate the THC content.

Edit: Maybe that's being redundant?

The equal protection clause (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Equal_protection) is intended to provide equal application of the laws among individuals or classes.

The equal protection clause means that all cyclists are treated the same regardless of their race, creed, religion, or sexual orientation. All drivers are treated the same regardless of their race, creed, religion, or sexual orientation. All motorcyclists are treated the same regardless of their race, creed, religion, or sexual orientation.


Let's say that the government established a minimum speed limit on a fully controlled access highway with grade separated interchanges (which allow travelers to stay above that limit while exiting and entering). If there is no discrimination in its application (i.e., the regulation was applied equally among individuals and classes), then the regulation would not be in violation of the equal protection clause.

So if I can maintain the speed of traffic, then I should be allowed to ride on the road? That's exactly what most state vehicle codes say. The Oregon Cyclist Manual specifically says for bikes to take the lane when they are travelling the speed of traffic. I agree with you on that. If the speed limit is 20 mph and I can go 20 mph on my bike, then I should ride in the traffic lane (for no other reason than to avoid collisions with slower moving bicycles.)

But if I'm riding slower than the speed of traffic, the government is within its rights to make a special lane for me and require that I ride in it.

In a thread I started about bikes causing accidents, it was agreed that if a car tries to pass a cyclist and gets into a head on collision with another car, it is not the fault of the cyclist, but rather the motorist who attempted to pass when it was unsafe. But it's not to say that the government doesn't have a responsibility to keep that from happening. So then, to prevent motorists from stupidly killing each other, they create a bike lane and require slower moving bicycles to ride in it. That is a reasonable solution to the problem. Not the solution we want, but by no means an infringment on any of our constitutional rights.

Bruce, you don't understand what a classed individual is. I can put down my bike and take a walk or drive a car instead. I can't wash the skin color off my skin or go home and put on a penis. Well, ok, I can do the last one, but it won't have the desired effect of making me a real man.

Some of us, myself included, believe strongly that there is an "unalienable right" to freedom of mobility, particularly the right to go from point A to point B economically and efficiently, under one's one power. Driving a car is a PRIVILEGE, not a right, and therefore I should not be required to use one for any given trip.

YES

"Compulsory Sidepath Laws" should be about putting a separate sidepath on every road.

I think the initial poll was flawed. Sidepaths and bike lanes are not the same animal by any stretch if the imagination. There are some very good bike lanes on my ride to work and I use them. In fact, most bike lanes work quite well provided they don't get filled with parked cars.

Sidepaths, on the other hand, are inherently dangerous to cyclists in most cases. The description of them as glorified sidewalks is accurate. In fact, one of the dangers I've noticed on nearly every sidepath I've used are pedestrian traffic, which is actually far more unpredictable than auto traffic.

Some of us, myself included, believe strongly that there is an "unalienable right" to freedom of mobility, particularly the right to go from point A to point B economically and efficiently, under one's one power. Driving a car is a PRIVILEGE, not a right, and therefore I should not be required to use one for any given trip.

Even if I had an inalienable right to get from A to B via bicycle, it would still mean that if there were a requirement to use any available bike lane along my route my right would not be infringed. It would just mean that I could use the road if there were not any bike lane at all.

Where are sidepaths available for use in US urban areas outside of park lands or along side limited access highways?

In Cary, they are located along many arterials with driveways and intersections, including Davis Drive, High House Road, and Maynard Road. They have been proposed for many others. Cary's master plan for the development of the expanding northwest quadrant of the city proposes sidepaths (they call them multi-use-paths, installed where a sidewalk normally goes) for nearly all the useful through roads.

In Raleigh, there is Avent Ferry Road, Wake Forest Road, Western Boulevard, sections of Glenwood Ave, and a few others, all with lots of driveways and intersections. These are just the ones with signs for bikes. Raleigh stripes the outside lane narrow after they designate a sidepath. Avent Ferry Road was part of my daily bike commute to school. Lots of horn honks when I used the road, lots of close calls if I used the sidepath.

Between Raleigh and Cary, NCDOT is very proud of their new sidepath alongside a low-volume road, Old Reedy Creek:

http://www.ncdot.org/transit/bicycle/projects/highlights/offroad/images/ReedyCreek2Umstead-sm.gif

The artist's conception doesn't show the number intersections or the narrowness of the travel lane, but it does show the raised center median that prevents motorists from overtaking cyclists and guarantees harassment for using the roadway. The surrounding farmland is a hot property sought by developers because of its proximity to downtown, the beltline, and the new office parks in the surrounding area. NC State University owns it; when they finally sell, the sidepath will be crossed by lots of busy driveways to urban development.

Mandatory sidepath use is a slippery slope we should all avoid with utmost urgency. Concede that one, and before you know it we'll all be forced to ride on sidewalks.

The equal protection clause means that all cyclists are treated the same regardless of their race, creed, religion, or sexual orientation. In regards to the equal protection clause (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Equal_protection):

... the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes)... The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as ... the right to travel.

But if I'm riding slower than the speed of traffic, the government is within its rights to make a special lane for me and require that I ride in it.Of course, that's not how mandatory bike lane use regulations are written; those regulations apply to any individual in the class bicyclist regardless of their speed.


... to prevent motorists from stupidly killing each other, they create a bike lane and require slower moving bicycles to ride in it. That ... solution ... by no means an infringment on any of our constitutional rights.Since the government is infringing the fundamental right to travel of individuals in a particular classification (bicyclist), there's a legal precedent (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/394/618.html) that when it comes to the right to travel;

... any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary* to promote a compelling government interest, is unconstitutional.
*necessary in this context implies that there are no less restrictive means than the challenged regulation available to protect or promote the compelling government interest.

The government has never articulated an interest for bike lanes which meets that definition of necessary. The government has publicly stated that bike lanes are for safety, but always in the context of the cyclists' safety. Privately, other interests have been mentioned. For example, Michael Farrell (Transportation Planner II, MWCOG) once wrote in the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) list (http://archives.listserve.com/archiver/html/members/2006-06/msg00016.html) that:


... if you could get cyclists to take the lane, ... you would cause a lot of traffic congestion. If you want cyclists to ... not block motor vehicle traffic, put in the bike lane.

No, Bruce. The government does not infringe on the fundamental right to travel of individuals in a particular classification (bicyclist). There is no such classification of individual. You, the individual, are not prohibited from traveling. Your bicycle may be, but YOU are not.

I agree with Diane here (how often does that happen?). As a matter of policy, mandatory sidepath laws are a bad idea, but they aren't even close to being as immoral as making black people ride in the back of the bus.

Let's keep some perpective here. Mandatory BL and sidepath laws are bad policy, but they are not evil.

http://www.ncdot.org/transit/bicycle/projects/highlights/offroad/images/ReedyCreek2Umstead-sm.gif
I would have to say that they chose the center median design to limit the likelihood of head-on collisions, which are a much bigger risk than overtaking collisions between motorists and bicyclists (at least that's what the VC advocates always say).