Advocacy & Safety - Model T cars to parade on MUP!

During the centennial celebration of the Model T in Wayne County, IN next week, up to 150 cars per day will be permitted to drive on the Cardinal Greenway, which is the only pedestrian/bike trail in Richmond, Indiana. This will be on the "Nature Lover's Tour of Wayne County" for Model T enthusiasts.

More info here. (http://www.cyclelicio.us/2008/07/happy-100th-birthday-model-t.html)




This tour will be a real treat for the Model T nature lovers! Thanks to the generosity of the City of Richmond and the Parks & Recreation Department, Model Ts are being permitted to drive the Whitewater Gorge-Cardinal Greenway trail. Normally only open to hikers and bikers, this will be a real treat to drive, as well as a test of your driving skills!

Just a good, clean, fun event, on the surface. But I'm concerned about the precedence. Sounds like the camel putting his nose in the tent.

thats awsome considering some roads were that wide in some areas when the model t first hit the scene

Roads were originally built for pedestrians, then cyclists. The motorcar came along and forced pedestrians and cyclists off the road. Parading the model-T on a MUP at the expense of access to pedestrians and cyclists seems like an accurate reenactment of history to me.

Roads were originally built for pedestrians, then cyclists. The motorcar came along and forced pedestrians and cyclists off the road. Parading the model-T on a MUP at the expense of access to pedestrians and cyclists seems like an accurate reenactment of history to me.

Cyclaholic speaks great truth

Critical "T" on the MUP? :lol:

Does this mean the MUP users can use the street en masse for the duration of the Model T Greenway event? :roflmao:

Exceptions, exceptions - serving motorist's special interests, that's what it is. First time I've ever seen a situation wherein I believe a Critical Mass protest (on the normal streets, directed at the city) is called for.

-Kurt

Critical "T" on the MUP? :lol:

Does this mean the MUP users can use the street en masse for the duration of the Model T Greenway event? :roflmao:

Exceptions, exceptions - serving motorist's special interests, that's what it is. First time I've ever seen a situation wherein I believe a Critical Mass protest (on the normal streets, directed at the city) is called for.

-KurtActually, an even better idea would be to hold a ciclovia (http://bikeportland.org/2008/06/22/thousands-of-smiles-mark-success-of-sunday-parkways/) that day. :)

Just a good, clean, fun event, on the surface. But I'm concerned about the precedence. Sounds like the camel putting his nose in the tent.

I'd be more concerned about the fact that cities believe MUP's are parks and not roads and hence do not have to provide detours and there is no need to attempt to provide a reduced functionality road when the main roadway is under construction.

Then cities, and states, go and pass laws mandating the use of some MUP's.

I believe a Critical Mass protest (on the normal streets, directed at the city) is called for.

-Kurt

I think a huge amount of bikes on the MUP might just do the trick on this day.

I'd be more concerned about the fact that cities believe MUP's are parks and not roads and hence do not have to provide detours and there is no need to attempt to provide a reduced functionality road when the main roadway is under construction.

Then cities, and states, go and pass laws mandating the use of some MUP's.

My city does establish detours when doing repairs on MUPs; some are also plowed in winter.

Horsemen, horse drawn wagons, armies & expansion = road systems. Later on cyclists were certainly considered and had a great deal of input but the roads of the time were designed with industry in mind, linking road & rail to municipalities , connecting outlying areas to rail systems. Sunny looks back to a time when cyclists told the nation how to build its highways is a fab example of specialized revisionism that serves only to? I dunno how it provides outward credibility bragging on something no one alive had anything to do with, pointing back to a non existent time when cyclists were heeded on major transportation projects, doesn't that highlight mostly the fact that it is not so now? So it must only serve to make us feel good about....?

Sounds absolutely wonderful to me. Imagine the work those old guys put into restoring an old model T. There can't be much opportunity to actually drive one - has to be a pain where most people live to take a model T out in traffic. Thanks to this event they can take a scenic drive with their best gal by their side and enjoy the fruits of their labor. Good stuff.

I think a huge amount of bikes on the MUP might just do the trick on this day.

Plus peds, joggers, runners, etc.

-Kurt

I think a huge amount of bikes on the MUP might just do the trick on this day.

i asked about the event the police will shut down the trail

Roads were originally built for pedestrians, then cyclists. The motorcar came along and forced pedestrians and cyclists off the road. Parading the model-T on a MUP at the expense of access to pedestrians and cyclists seems like an accurate reenactment of history to me.

http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll189/shihochan/FacePalm.gif

Sounds absolutely wonderful to me. Imagine the work those old guys put into restoring an old model T. There can't be much opportunity to actually drive one - has to be a pain where most people live to take a model T out in traffic. Thanks to this event they can take a scenic drive with their best gal by their side and enjoy the fruits of their labor. Good stuff.

I understand and sympathize on that point. However, being what I would assume is a group drive + police presence, I see no reason why traffic would be of any concern on a normal road if the same drive were held on said "normal" road.

Taxpayers paid for that MUP for usage of it as it was intended - no motorized traffic. Why should there be exceptions? Either one of these "T" folks has connections with city managers, or the city is making a nice bundle of cash from it.

-Kurt

I understand and sympathize on that point. However, being what I would assume is a group drive + police presence, I see no reason why traffic would be of any concern on a "normal" road if the same drive were held on one.

Taxpayers paid for that MUP for usage of it as it was intended - no motorized traffic. Why should there be exceptions? Either one of these "T" folks has connections with city managers, or the city is making a nice bundle of cash from it.

-Kurt

MUP's are not built for motorized traffic but cycle and pedestrian traffic. By that I mean the road base on most MUP's is not strong enough to support the weight of cars, hence one reason for the restriction. The jurisdiction that allows such traffic is putting the integrity of the MUP at risk and potentially wasting taxpayer dollars for repair. Model T's today and a cement truck parade tomorrow?

This is a bad idea.

MUPs are designed for nonmotorized vehicles...no exceptions.

MUP's are not built for motorized traffic but cycle and pedestrian traffic. By that I mean the road base on most MUP's is not strong enough to support the weight of cars, hence one reason for the restriction. The jurisdiction that allows such traffic is putting the integrity of the MUP at risk and potentially wasting taxpayer dollars for repair. Model T's today and a cement truck parade tomorrow?

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the pavement of the MUP is not designed for the weight of automobiles - is this path cement or tarmac? Either way, a parade of reasonably light automobiles once would likely put less long-term wear on the path then constant heavy pedestrian and cyclist traffic.

That said, my perception remains as I mentioned above. This MUP, as with all others, was not designed with the intent of closing it up to everyone who paid for a road closed to motorized traffic.

What next?
http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/10/24/isetta%20trailer.jpg

-Kurt

Trust me, you do not want to bicycle, walk, or jog among a bunch of Model Ts. Those dinosaurs will quickly remind you of just how far we have come in automotive emission control technology. You also do not want to walk or bike in front of a Model T, which has primitive rear-wheels-only mechanical brakes and a bizarre control system (throttle on the steering column, low-high and reverse-forward gear change pedals, etc.), which is an open invitation for driver error. Henry Ford did not make a good car cheap -- he made a cheap car at a fair price. :)

I recently watched a series of Model T contests on in an enclosed arena at the Del Mar Fairgrounds, and it was great fun, but I would strongly oppose closing a pedestrian and bike trail for a Model T event. Why not have the Model T's parade along the right lane of a multilane highway? That would be far more appropriate.


Quiz: Does anyone know why many Model T drivers raced the steeper hill climbs in reverse?

Answer: The gas tank of the primitive gravity-feed fuel system was behind the engine.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the pavement of the MUP is not designed for the weight of automobiles - is this path cement or tarmac? Either way, a parade of reasonably light automobiles once would likely put less long-term wear on the path then constant heavy pedestrian and cyclist traffic.

That said, my perception remains as I mentioned above. This MUP, as with all others, was not designed with the intent of closing it up to everyone who paid for a road closed to motorized traffic.

What next?
http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/10/24/isetta%20trailer.jpg

-Kurt

I disagree. Most MUP's are blacktop over a shallow stone base. However light light a Model T is (around 1,200 pounds curb weight) by today's standards it is far heavier than any pedestrian or cyclist. MUP' s are simply not designed for traffic this heavy.

This is a bad idea.

MUPs are designed for nonmotorized vehicles...no exceptions.

Tell that to the people over in the ebike forum.

http://www.bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=258

I think a huge amount of bikes on the MUP might just do the trick on this day.
+1 the local clubs should be including the MUP for there rides that day.. at peloton pace.

Just curious...isn't there anywhere else that closes a State Highway to motorized vehicles for a bike event? There's one here: http://www.co.yakima.wa.us/biketour/
Seems to me if someone is so upset about a one day event on a MUP, you should contact your local politicos about some sort of 'payback' in the form of a road closure for a bike event.

Why? Logic says to clog the roads with bikes, and point out that your paths are full of cars. CM time.

Horsemen, horse drawn wagons, armies & expansion = road systems. Later on cyclists were certainly considered and had a great deal of input but the roads of the time were designed with industry in mind, linking road & rail to municipalities , connecting outlying areas to rail systems. Sunny looks back to a time when cyclists told the nation how to build its highways is a fab example of specialized revisionism that serves only to? I dunno how it provides outward credibility bragging on something no one alive had anything to do with, pointing back to a non existent time when cyclists were heeded on major transportation projects, doesn't that highlight mostly the fact that it is not so now? So it must only serve to make us feel good about....?

HUH?!?

The last time I checked, the League of American Wheelmen (now the League of Americian Bicyclists) was the motive force behind the drive to pave. Revisionism? Like to see your proof. Non-existent time? Talk about an oxymoron!

The whole point of things like this forum, besides the community spirit, is our LACK of 'feel good', and the need to address it as once WAS done with more efficacy. We have lost primacy on the roads, due to the development of the auto (inevitable, given the inborn sloth of people, and the desire for more ease and convenience), and now can only hope to be heard.

Model T's on a MUP? Not good....

Seems to me if someone is so upset about a one day event on a MUP, you should contact your local politicos about some sort of 'payback' in the form of a road closure for a bike event.

Now there's an idea. Use their little exception as a chessboard pawn for cyclist events - and pester them until they accede.

If they don't, THEN hold a CM straight up to city hall with the MUP issue as the central point of protest (complete with signs, etc). Get a central spokesman to get involved in engaging the media.

-Kurt

i should post this on several automotive boards to see their reaction cause you guys are blowing this way out of proportion

you have i list i would love to debate those that are there.

i should post this on several automotive boards to see their reaction cause you guys are blowing this way out of proportion

#1: I have nothing against Model T owners, or owners of any classic/vintage automobile. I have two Detroit tanks of the 1970s outside my driveway, and I enjoy them (and defend them) as I do my bikes.

Now if someone wishes to get into a cars are evil rant, that's their prerogative - I dare say a good old Tin Lizzy and its loving owner has far fewer negatives towards cyclists then any high-performance BMW with a blissfully silent interior compartment and a self-centered "I-own-the-road" jerk at the wheel.

#2: What I (and others here) have a problem with is the fact that the city feels themselves able to take away cycling/pedestrian/recreational facilities for purposes other then what it was built for. Simple as that - no reason why we shouldn't complain - after all, I motorists would throw a hissy-fit if some city decided to close down a couple miles of interstate highway for a bike ride.

P.S.: From the Cardinal Greenway's own website:


In rural areas of Cardinal Greenway, an earthen horse trail parallels the paved trail—please remember horses are not permitted on asphalt trails!

That proves OH306's point. Steel hooves on a heavy animal or rubber tires on a heavier automobile - the Greenway is not designed for such use.

-Kurt

...cause you guys are blowing this way out of proportion

No kiddin'. Many of them say they don't even like riding on MUP's anyway. All of a sudden a one day closure is a big deal?

We've had roads closed to motor traffic for bicycle rides/races before. Did any motorists complain? Probably! :lol:

No kiddin'. Many of them say they don't even like riding on MUP's anyway. All of a sudden a one day closure is a big deal?

Big deal to cycling advocacy in general, whether you use or desire MUP's or not.

-Kurt

HUH?!?

The last time I checked, the League of American Wheelmen (now the League of Americian Bicyclists) was the motive force behind the drive to pave.
Last time you "checked, where? Source?

LAW may have had an interest in the issue of paved roads/streets, even sent a few letters to some elected representatives or had a statement on their charter indicating their wishes; "motive force"? :rolleyes:

Of course, even if your source were correct, the relevance to people in this century is next to nil.

ILTB though i seriously doubt you do like to bike...as i have yet to see any evidence that you do:

"
In 1806, the federal government began its most ambitious project to date: construction of the National Road, also known as the Cumberland Road, from the Potomac River at Cumberland, Maryland, inland to the Ohio River at Wheeling, West Virginia. By 1831, revenue began drying up, completed sections of the Cumberland Road were turned over to the states, and the federal government halted all road funding. Local governments, however, oversaw all road construction and operation from the 1830s to the 1920s because the states had little interest in these activities. A major growth in immigration spurred western migration, and by the late 1880s, there were many established routes within and between cities, as well as established routes for interstate and transcontinental travel. Interest in improving roads began again in the late 1800s as bicycles proliferated and in the early twentieth century as cars became more common (Forman et al. 2003)."
From : http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11535&page=39

There is this little thing called an internet search engine you might find it useful before spreading FUD.

aynone from area of the effected MUP on this board? if so are you planning something?

Just a good, clean, fun event, on the surface. But I'm concerned about the precedence. Sounds like the camel putting his nose in the tent.

Bingo! My two burning questions are: 1) Does (or could) this event lead to monthly or even biweekly automobile or motorcycle parades? 2) What safe and convenient alternate routes exist for bicyclists and for pedestrians? This discussion should not be about a one-day event, such as a triathlon closing Coast Highway 101 even to bicyclists (I protest every year because of the lack of nearby alternate routes, but I otherwise simply deal with it), but about legal precedent.

A major growth in immigration spurred western migration, and by the late 1880s, there were many established routes within and between cities, as well as established routes for interstate and transcontinental travel. Interest in improving roads began again in the late 1800s as bicycles proliferated and in the early twentieth century as cars became more common (Forman et al. 2003)."
From : http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11535&page=39

There is this little thing called an internet search engine you might find it useful before spreading FUD.

Yes this is a little thing, a very little snippet of information, hardly a reference, let alone any substantiation for the claim that LAW ( or bicycling) was the motive force behind paving the roads of the U.S.

But it is a factoid posted on the Internet so therefore any reference to it supports any claim you desire, eh?

...let alone any substantiation for the claim that LAW ( or bicycling) was the motive force behind paving the roads of the U.S.

^
This isn't even an issue to the problem at hand - this isn't about debating history.

Please keep this thread on-topic.

-Kurt

I disagree. Most MUP's are blacktop over a shallow stone base. However light light a Model T is (around 1,200 pounds curb weight) by today's standards it is far heavier than any pedestrian or cyclist. MUP' s are simply not designed for traffic this heavy.

Have to go by contact patch, at 1200lbs/4 you get 300lbs per wheel, add in another 400lbs (for driver/passenger) with the model t tires having a contact patch about 4 or 5 times the size of a bicycle tire's you actually have the same weight per square inch on the roadway, assuming a 200lbs rider with narrow tires

Agree though, mups are supposed to be non-motorized except for maintenance vehicles.

Ken

Last time you "checked, where? Source?

LAW may have had an interest in the issue of paved roads/streets, even sent a few letters to some elected representatives or had a statement on their charter indicating their wishes; "motive force"? :rolleyes:

Of course, even if your source were correct, the relevance to people in this century is next to nil.

Here you go:


The deplorable conditions of the nations roads became a great public concern in the late nineteenth century with the invention of the bicycle and later the motor car. In the early 1890's bicycle clubs in the United States pushed hard for road improvements. These efforts brought about the "National League for Good Roads" in 1892. Continued dissatisfaction with the conditions of the nations roads resulted in the creation of the "Office of Road Inquiry" by Congress in 1893.

citing: http://curbstone.com/_macadam.htm

Please note the dates above and the fact that the automobile had not yet been invented...

Here is some more to substantiate the info above:


On October 3, 1893, General Roy Stone, a Civil War hero and good roads advocate, was appointed Special Agent in charge of the new Office of Road Inquiry (ORI) within the Department of Agriculture. With a budget of $10,000, ORI promoted new rural road development to serve the wagons, coaches, and bicycles on America's dirt roads.

At this same time, two bicycle mechanics in Springfield, Massachusetts, the Duryea Brothers, built the first gasoline-powered "motor wagon" to be operated in the United States. Lacking any brakes on its historic first run in September 1893, the vehicle was brought to a stop by simply driving it into a curb. The Duryea Brothers' success was little noted at the time, but it got the wheels turning for the introduction of the automobile, which would literally change the landscape of America. (Two other bicycle mechanics, brothers Wilbur and Orville Wright, would launch the aviation revolution at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, in December 1903.)

citing: http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcar3.htm

The first invention in the US of the beginnings of the motorcar came about in 1893, at least a year after the "National League for Good Roads" in 1892, which was spurred by cyclists.

Shall I continue?

I find it most interesting that the bicycle, which has been around for about 200 years, was perhaps the "seed" for the invention of both the motor car and the airplane... both of which require some form of fuel, and both of which have been around for only roughly 100 years.

And as far as your reference to "this century," are you referring to the date since 2000? or the last 100 years? I rather doubt that the oil fuel/gas powered auto we are familiar with today will last another 100 years; but I do suspect some form of human powered bicycle will be available well beyond that.

Oh, bear in mind that neither citing I listed above has any real connection to cycling per se... they are just reporting history as it happened.

The old fart has got you & pointed out the manner in which LAB fosters this rosy view of the past.

a. Interest & progress in road development in NA got a glance from the govt. between federalization and the Civil War.

b. Further development in roads connecting major cities & waterways were explored & developed locally by states & cities throughout the remaining century. Road development gained momentum and has since never ceased.

c. Bicycles indeed gained a great deal of popularity and proliferated among many during that time period between the Civil War and the late 19th century.

When you put a & b & c together in a paragraph it will seem to indicate that a few dandy's on their dandyhorse's were responsible for road development.

Responsible for that? When armies and industry have constantly clamored for better transportation routes westward and a new government (new as in *new*, not as in a change of leadership) for the first time has the opportunity (and thought incorrectly that it had the means) to answer?

Coattails, that's what you've got, coattails and revisionism. The push westward for access to land and it's resources via road & rail, no one imagined these would be had by bicycle. Heavy horse drawn wagons, horse drawn rail coaches, the new steam powered rail and strong interest in connecting navigable waterways with road and rail to assist in the movement of the resources, people and goods, these spurred road development. LAW was only demanding what EVERYONE was demanding, what Everyone had been demanding before the velocipede was a twinkle in Karl Drais' eye.

Coattails, that's what you've got, coattails and revisionism. The push westward for access to land and it's resources via road & rail, no one imagined these would be had by bicycle. Heavy horse drawn wagons, horse drawn rail coaches, the new steam powered rail and strong interest in connecting navigable waterways with road and rail to assist in the movement of the resources, people and goods, these spurred road development. LAW was only demanding what EVERYONE was demanding, what Everyone had been demanding before the velocipede was a twinkle in Karl Drais' eye.

The argument about history of roads and bicycle's involvement with them is irrelevant to this discussion about vintage automobile clubs using MUP's.

If you, ILTB, and the rest want to bicker about history, it would be kind of you both to start a new thread. Don't muddle the point at hand.

-Kurt

Model T's? Road development & usage rights?

How -did- this conversation devolve into a history discussion one wonders?

Okay, on topic..it's one day, for what amounts to a parade. Get over it. They see it as a celebration, some people here see it as the celebration of a mistake and in poor taste.

The MUP is a public facility, if the municipal or parks people say it's okay then it is okay. Go lay in front of the Model-T's if you want but they don't brake well.

Model T's? Road development & usage rights?

How -did- this conversation devolve into a history discussion one wonders?

Okay, on topic..it's one day, for what amounts to a parade. Get over it. They see it as a celebration, some people here see it as the celebration of a mistake and in poor taste.

The MUP is a public facility, if the municipal or parks people say it's okay then it is okay. Go lay in front of the Model-T's if you want but they don't brake well.

Frankly what they should do is escort the Model Ts with bikes... first with older vintage bikes like a high wheeler and then follow up with modern racing style bikes. Sort of a rolling time line if you will.

http://www.pedalinghistory.com/Images/highwhel.gif

The MUP is a public facility, if the municipal or parks people say it's okay then it is okay.

Roads are public facilities. If a municipality says they want to ban bicyclists from it because local cagers have no patience, is it OK?

There you go, same logic.

Give anyone an inch, and they'll take 50 yards. Give them an MUP for a day, and pretty soon, they'll take it over along with god knows what else.

Remember - they can call it an MUP, but any city can fool around with it until the time it is open to the public as an MUP is relatively nonexistent. Doesn't matter to them - they're probably getting grants out the wazoo for having XYZ miles of "bike paths" and "greenways" in the state/city.

-Kurt

Frankly what they should do is escort the Model Ts with bikes...

Preferably escort them straight off the MUP.

-Kurt

Better add horses to your timeline, led by people on foot and some poor sod in the front crawling.

That isn't the same logic at all as the Model-T parade is clearly an exception to the normal usage of the facility, as a parade of anything else would be on a public roadway. Bicycles are not an exception to the normal use of a public roadway, no parallel.

You would have a problem if people were driving on the MUP and authorities didn't enforce the rules applied to the MUP or looked the other way, or if no one used it and the only ones using it were motor vehicles. Or if the model-T crew did this without asking first or specifically uninvited pedestrians and bicyclists to the park that day.

None of that is true, they will cruise down the MUP and then drive or get a tow home. They did ask to be there, which bolsters the strength of the stated purpose of the MUP, establishing that this is clearly an exception to it's normal usage.

Better add horses to your timeline, led by people on foot and some poor sod in the front crawling.


Sure it could go that far, it is after all an MUP. I was just trying to "frame" the motor cars with cyclists...

Ahem;

My contention is that roads were developed to further the Glory of the God Mars and I have this citation to prove it.

citing: http://curbstone.com/_macadam.htm

"The Romans built an impressive road system in Great Britain during their occupation of the first through fourth centuries, of which many roads have been used as templates for modern British roadways.

Credit for modern road construction goes to the Roman Army, their military road building techniques are the prototype for the roads of today. Roman city streets, with their curbstones and elevated sidewalks are the basis for the modern street designs that we see today."

As for road policy in America being established by, for or at the behest of the LAW at the end of the 1800's, they were among many that clamored for roads, their appearance coincided with the ability of government to attempt to meet the need and as such novelty were included by all as it furthered everyone's interest in road development & the larger interest in the question of who would pay for it.



As for the gas engine attached to a bicycle being the precursor to the automobilestory....Benz was already in production at the time.

"
In 1879 Benz was granted a patent for his first engine, which had been designed in 1878. Many of his other inventions made the use of the internal combustion engine feasible for powering a vehicle.

His first Motorwagon was built in 1885 and he was awarded the patent for its invention as of his application on January 29, 1886. Benz began promotion of the vehicle on July 3, 1886 and approximately 25 Benz vehicles were sold between 1888 and 1893, when his first four-wheeler was introduced along with a model intended for affordability. They also were powered with four-stroke engines of his own design. Emile Roger of France, already producing Benz engines under license, now added the Benz automobile to his line of products. Because France was more open to the early automobiles, initially more were built and sold in France through Roger than Benz sold in Germany.
"

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa62/WiseFoxShots/ThreadGoing.jpg

*Yawn...*

-Kurt