Click on the links and read the info. to better understand what I mean.

This is the kind of thing the Siouxland Trails Foundation is working to overcome. Yes our purpose is to improve the rec. trails here in the tri-state area. But at the same time keep cycling legal on any and all roads, even if there is an adjacent trail. Our advocacy is not limited to just rec. trails. It covers all aspects of cycling. I'll post our mission statement later today. Which spells out our basic purpose.

The bill has to go before the senate now. Hopefully it will be deafeted there and not be passed into law.

Here are the links:

http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=524

http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=528

http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=529

Seems absurd to me.

South Carolina already has a similar law on the books but with a loophole: The pathway has to be exclusve for bike use. Multi user paths aren't bike exclusive.

South Carolina already has a similar law on the books but with a loophole: The pathway has to be exclusve for bike use. Multi user paths aren't bike exclusive.

If the trail is supposed to be exclusive for bike use for it to apply in SC, doesn't that imply that the exclusivity has to be enforced. Couldn't a cyclist still ride on the road legally with an adjacent exclusive for bike use trail adjacent if that trail actually had heavy jogger, pedestrian, roller blader, dog walker etc traffic? I would argue in court that just putting up a sign saying the trail is exclusive to bike use does not count. It has to be actually exclusive to bike use. So functionally speaking, the SC law probably does not have effect.

These kinds of laws are ridiculous. For those of us who don't want to be forced off the road, we must be ever vigilant. It seems these people never give up.

These laws are not for our protection, even if some say they are. These laws actually make cycling on the road more dangerous by reinforcing the impression that cyclists do not belong there. In some countries where cyclists must ride on paths, motorists have been known to become extremely aggressive against any cyclist who dares venture on to the street.

First, it's banning bikes from roads with adjacent paths. Next, it will be banning bikes from roads that have parallel alternate routes designated as "bike routes."
In the end, the goal is to eliminate bicycle transportation as an altenative to the motor vehicle. If it were not so, authorities would simply build "bicycle facilities" and let it go at that. No additional laws would be necessary.

A while back, Honda ran a magazine ad depicting a commuter on a child's scooter and made fun of it. I get the feeling car companies are feeling a threat from bicycle commuters. Well, good. I'm sick of being a slave to them and their whole blood-sucking system that grabs every red cent from my wallet.

What ever happened to "free enterprise?"

The bill was passed into law by the senate.

What I can't help but wonder is whether or not Senator Putney's reasons are what he says they are. Not really a safety issue for cyclists and motorists. but instead for him, he sees cyclists on the roads as an inconvienance. Maybe he was held up by a group of cyclists along this highway, even though it is a divided 4 lane. It is possible he could not get around them safely. Or he wanted to make a turn and had to wait until the cyclists were safely out of the way. So he got pissed off and decided to use his political powers because of a personal agenda. Isn't that unethical at best and illegal at worst for a Senator to do that?

Furthermore why was he refereing to the motorists being in danger? If they hit a cyclist the worse that will happen to them is minor damage to their vehicle. So how are they in danger?

Maybe I read the articles wrong, but the bill was not passed into law. It was merely passed out of committee in the Senate. If that's the case, wouldn't the bill then have to win on the floor of the senate, AND on the floor of the House, AND be signed by the governor.

It is a pain in the ass idea. Here in Chicago, we are not allowed to ride on any street that runs parallel to a trail. That includes the Lake Shore Drive "trail" that is over run with walkers, dogs and rollerbladers. I don't mind those types, in fact I join them, but I should be allowed to ride on the access roads of Lake Shore Drive at 20 mph, instead of stuck on the "trail" at 2 mph.

IMHO, cars act more predictably than dogs, rollerbladers, or young children. On top of that, if I hit a car, mostly I get hurt. If I hit a little kid, I'd never forgive myself (but it would probably be the parent's fault, in my experience.)

Cheers
Larry

More links regarding the Senate File. It's now been renamed. Take a look.

http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=534

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/GA/80GA/Legislation/SF/02000/SF02032/Current.html

You want a great analogy to show how absurd this is? Think back to the stand-up bit Redd Foxx used to do, ripping about those d@mn handicapped people parking in the "normal-people spaces". It's the same "logic".

I like having the option of paths b/c if I want to toodle along at 5 mph the highway is not where I want to be. But on the other hand if I'm out for a 25 mph ride I do not want to be on a path that frequently crosses driveways, is covered with gravel and debris and may have someone slower than me on it around the next corner. It's all about OPTIONS. I don't like being forced to be on the road - or on a path.

has there been recent problems with bicyclists on these 4 lane highways that this bill is now being proposed?

As I read it, the bill technically prohibits cyclists from leaving a bike lane to make a left turn or to avoid debris or an obstacle. This is unacceptable; worse, the overall tone of the wording reads like a first step toward confiscating our rights to roadway access.

"Senator Matt McCoy asked Sen. Putney to explain his reasoning for introducing the Bill. Sen. Puntney explained that he travels on hwy 330, a 4 lane divided highway between Melbourne and Marshalltown, and he rarely sees cyclists using the trail. One day he happened upon a group of cyclists using the road versus the trail. Between the safety issues of the cyclists on the road and a multi-million dollar trail built with taxpayers money and not being used, this bill was developed an introduced.

Sen Putney continued by stating it was a "Common Sense" issue and who would have the mentality to ride on the roads instead of a trail anyway."

I ask you cyclists, is this the kind of law you want? Some senator decides
he doesn't like the fact that cyclists don't seem to prefer using the trail, so he is introducing this bill to force cyclists to ride where they do not prefer to ride. After all, he says it's common sense, which automatically makes it a good law.

(Joe, do we have a "puking smiley?" This really calls for one.)

has there been recent problems with bicyclists on these 4 lane highways that this bill is now being proposed?

No, not that I've ever heard about.

And I ride on one of the trails in question once a year. Granted I do not ride on highway that is adjacent to the trail. But only because my route is totally on the trail. There is a point where the highway and trail are no longer adjacent. I have seen several cyclists on the highway before while I've been riding on the trail.

It would be nice to be able to ride on the highway if I choose to do so. But if this stupid bill passes into law I would have to ride on the trail for a ways, then be forced to make a turn somewhere so I could then ride on the highway. This is where the problem with the routes cyclists choose would not or be as direct or easy to follow if this thing passes.

My reading of the bill's history is that it has been approved only by the Senate committee. To become law, it still needs to be approved by the full Senate, a House committee, and the full House, and then signed by the Governor. Do not assume this is an automatic pass. This bill very well could be made it through the Senate committee because it is a pet peeve of the sponsor. There may be no one in the House with a similar motivation.

Any Iowan on this list should politely write--and possibly even call--their state senator. If it gets though the Senate, the Iowans should do the same with their State representatives. I used to work in the Iowa House, and elected officials there generally do listen to people in their districts. The legislators have virtually no staff (when I was there, they only got a secretary), so your informed letter may be the only "expert" advice they get.

The end of the session is in May or June, so this will move or die quickly. There are a number of cut-off days "funnels" by which bills must reach a certain point. Bills that miss one funnel day die. So if you live in Iowa, act fast.

This is now a win for Iowa cyclists. After a lot of criticism and some creative amendments, the sponsor of the bill has withdrawn it. To see the amendments, look at the bill history and click on the hyperlinks: http://www.legis.state.ia.us/GA/80GA/BillHistory/SF/02000/SF02032.html

For today's Des Moines Register blurb, see: http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4780934/23882461.html

Congratulations to all the people who worked hard on this one. All I know is what I read in the paper and on the legislature's home page. Does anyone have more inside information about what turned the tide?

Congratulations and thanks to Iowa cyclists! Persistence and vigilence pay.

Good work guys and gals. Thats rediculous that you can't ride a bike in a bike path. Screw them, money hungry polititions

I think it means that the path is painted on the road side, where the shoulder is.

And, if you live in Iowa, don't forget to vote (against Sen. Putney)!

On March 23 SF2032 was withdrawn from the Iowa Senate for consideration. The removal of this bill is a victory for cyclists' rights in Iowa. Bicyclists can continue to ride Iowa roadways without restriction. It is important to note the impact this bill would have had as a precedent for restricting bicycle usage on other Iowa roadways. This bill would have sent an awful message to Iowa motorists who believe they can drive without due regard for the safety of other persons using the roadway.

SF2032 has a silver lining! Iowa now has a strengthened advocacy movement which has pledged to sustain itself beyond this crisis. Iowa has a legislature that is willing to discuss cycling safety and we plan on taking advantage of that opportunity.

If you are interested in being a leader in the Bicycling Advocacy movement in Iowa, please contact me at mark@north-liberty.com.

how near by does this parallel trail have to be?

The bill did not say. That was part of the problem. One of the amendments would have required the state to post signs wherever the law applied. This was a sly amendment because it made sense AND imposed a financial cost. By making the bill cost money, the amendment would probably have required some sort of fiscal analysis (a bureaucratic hurdle). Also, in fiscally tight times, a bill that costs money is harder to pass.

From what I could tell, the bill was designed to apply to only one stretch of road that the sponsor frequently traveled on.

Somewhere, I think it was on the bikeiowa.com website, I saw some great materials on this bill. But I can't find them now. The materials explained exactly why cyclists would want to ride on the road when a path was nearby. It would be a service to all of us if the people who made the materials posted a link.

Yes, that information was posted at www.bikeiowa.com. It was a great resource to have a communication tool like that web site during this battle.

And, if you live in Iowa, don't forget to vote (against Sen. Putney)!
Plan to.
I have seen this "bike path" and I'm not even sure if it is multi use or not, I don't go to Des Moines enough to see who is using it. 330 is a high volume highway and for me would be the last choice to ride on.
But I sure don't want to be stuck riding on multi use paths with those urban assalt baby strollers!