Advocacy & Safety - Ordered onto the path

I read an account of a cyclist gentleman in Massachusetts who was ordered by a police officer to get off the roadway and onto the adjacent path. The cyclist argued successfully that the path had become too dangerous, due to a friend of his having been mugged there.

There seems to be a law stating that a cyclist can be required to use the path whenever the authorities compel him/her to, if the path is adjacent to the roadway.

But I was re-reading the Georgia code and saw something interesting: the law states that the path must be "designated for the exclusive use of bicycle riders." I can say with some certainty, there is no such animal here in Gawgia.

:D

That's insane. There a stretch of my commute that is roughly parallel to a bike path, but the street is faster and more direct. I would hate to be told to get off the street.

Chicago is going in a good direction, with more bike lanes added each year. We're holding strong to our right to the road.

Originally posted by Oscar
Chicago is going in a good direction, with more bike lanes added each year. We're holding strong to our right to the road.

The same is happening here on the Gold Coast, thanks to some tireless work from those involved in cycling advocacy. If any cop ever ordered me onto a path, I'd be going straight to a superior officer (the QLD chief commissioner of police if need be) and making a formal complaint about it. It is harrassment and nothing less.

What would they do if you didn't comply? Write you a ticket? What if you don't pay the ticket? Suspend your license? What if you don't have a license? Arrest you? "What are you in for?" , "Riding my bicycle." You would be the hero of the the jail house!

Originally posted by Pete Clark
the law states that the path must be "designated for the exclusive use of bicycle riders." I can say with some certainty, there is no such animal here in Gawgia.:D

I can say with some certainty that this animal exists nowhere.

I see the sole use designation signs here, but I have never seen any enforcement or anyone caring for that matter.

California has a mandatory sidepath law for pedestrians, but not for bicyclists. I always ride on Coast Highway 101 through the south end of my city, because the alternative is a berm-separated multiuse path littered with pedestrians, 'bladers, board-toting surfers, and wrong-way local and tourist cyslists.

My biggest problem is getting the local joggers to use a sidepath instead of a marked Class II bike lane.

That's the problem with a lot of the bike paths here- you have to contend with the usual types- bladers, some of whom wobble along at a snail's pace. And moron pedestrians who decide to amble into the middle of the path and have a conversation, etc. Of course, at certain times of day it's not so bad, and it's much worse on weekends. If you want to go more than 10km, you have to take to the road, and in some spots, the path is in terrible shape. ONe stretch passes by a busy shopping mall, and there are bus stops ON THE PATH. It's totally dangerous, so I use the road. I've never been ordered onto the path by a cop, but if that happened I'd tell him or her that I'm not going to endanger myself or pedestrians when it's safer on the road.

The law exists in some states.

It seems there is a real effort by the motor vehicle industry (and other profiting industries) to move bicycles off the road.

Snooze and lose.

:(

As happens a few times per year, I got honked at from behind this morning. I am pleased to report that I resisted the temptation to "salute" the offending motorist.

Here's the scenario: Through downtown Encinitas ("Poinsettia Capital of the World"), Pacific Coast Highway 101 is four lanes wide, with a 30mph speed limit, parallel parking towards the south end of town, and diagonal parking towards the north. To make dowtown more "pedestrian friendly," the city has just installed sidewalk/curb "bump-outs" at intersections and midblock(!). Because the lanes are only about 10-12ft/3-3.5m wide and because of danger from parked vehicles, I normally take the outer lane by holding a straight line about 1/3 of the way in from its outer edge. Even where there are significant gaps among the parked cars, the bumpouts make moving closer to the curb very dangerous. I am going to push hard for "share the road" signage, to convince motorists that bikes belong, even when the road design forces us to take the lane for our own safety.

Hey John, check out http://www.springcity.org/ and scroll down to see the "share the road" billboards that have been installed by the Alabama Department of Transportation (I might throw this idea around here a bit in the new year). I like the way these are done.

One of my favorite routes has a "share the road" designation- it runs along a lakeshore and is popular with cyclists and motorists wishing to take the scenic route.

I've also been out in some of the more rural areas, where there are simple two-lane roads with little traffic. The drivers actually go fast like maniacs but give cyclists a wide berth and never honk or yell at you.

All this just confirms me in my extreme view that bicycle paths should NOT EXIST.

Originally posted by JonR
All this just confirms me in my extreme view that bicycle paths should NOT EXIST.
Separate, but equal?

I am not against driving or against cars, but I am against a transportation system which intentionally and systematically removes all other choices for the purpose of perpetual profit.
Isn't that why tobacco companies are considered to be immoral?

Originally posted by Pete Clark

Separate, but equal?

I am not against driving or against cars,

I agree with JonR on this one. I am not against people who choose to drive being able to do so (although it may seem otherwise on occasions). However, I am against individuals who refuse to co-exist with others who choose to use the road that their taxes have helped to fund.

I can't speak for other jurisdictions, but in Idaho, bicycles are LEGALLY allowed on any road that cars are allowed on, and are recognized as a legitimate form of transportation. (Now... I don't want to imply that I never have a run-in with some rustic who doesn't know the law, or who doesn't think bikes belong on the road. But the LAW is on my side.)
I've got mixed emotions about bike lanes. (Bike PATHS are essentially "recreational" in use, not transportation.) Bike lanes give novice riders a sense of separation from motor traffic, and so it's possible they allow for some people to ride, who otherwise would not. BUT... they tend to foster the misconception that bikes don't belong on roads that don't have dedicated bike lanes.
If there's a bike lane, I use it. If there's not a bike lane, that's fine. I ride predictably and assertively, and I rarely have a problem. (Beyond the occasional ignorant honker or lecturer.)

Originally posted by bikeboy
I've got mixed emotions about bike lanes. (Bike PATHS are essentially "recreational" in use, not transportation.) Bike lanes give novice riders a sense of separation from motor traffic, and so it's possible they allow for some people to ride, who otherwise would not. BUT... they tend to foster the misconception that bikes don't belong on roads that don't have dedicated bike lanes.
If there's a bike lane, I use it. If there's not a bike lane, that's fine. I ride predictably and assertively, and I rarely have a problem. (Beyond the occasional ignorant honker or lecturer.)

I think your views pretty much tie in with mine. There's the odd bike path that I find useful (we've got a great long one from Whitstable to Canterbury, largely along the old route of Stephenson's second railway) , mainly the useful ones are short links between two roads. I generally avoid using those that run alongside a road on the pavement (footpath) and hate those that run along the footpath on the 'wrong' side of the road.

Bike lanes I generally use, although I do have some concerns about them encouraging novice cyclists into overtaking on the left (right in the US) of slow moving cars.

Canterbury has a few 'ahead lanes' at major intersections which I have mixed views on. They are basically a box between the lights and the forward most car, allowing cyclists an early (and more visible) get away on a busy junction. The box has a lead up lane on the left (US think right). Now if the lights are on red when you get in the lane, and stay on red until you get in the 'box' these are great... but... if you are in the lane and the lights change to green you're the wrong side of cars wanting to turn left (US think right)...

Richard

I know bike lanes are controversial, but I like having a wide, clear road shoulder, with or without bike lane demarcation, if the speed limit exceeds about 30mph/50kph, and I try to avoid 50mph/80kph roads which lack shoulders, bike lanes, or wide curb lanes. On slower roads, I just take the outer travel lane. Most San Diego area bike lanes are well-designed; for example, by becoming dashed or even vanishing at many intersections, and by running to the left of right-turn-only lanes, they encourage cyclists to position themselves effectively to avoid right-hook (in right-side drive countries) scenarios.

Originally posted by John E
I know bike lanes are controversial, but I like having a wide, clear road shoulder, with or without bike lane demarcation, if the speed limit exceeds about 30mph/50kph, and I try to avoid 50mph/80kph roads which lack shoulders, bike lanes, or wide curb lanes.

Any bike lane is acceptable as long as it is not separated from the road by a physical barrier that will reduce space for cyclists. As this is the case with 99.9% of off-road bike paths, I simply refuse to use them, even if they ARE the better option (which is extremely rare in my experience).

Originally posted by bikeboy
I can't speak for other jurisdictions, but in Idaho, bicycles are LEGALLY allowed on any road that cars are allowed on, and are recognized as a legitimate form of transportation. (Now... I don't want to imply that I never have a run-in with some rustic who doesn't know the law, or who doesn't think bikes belong on the road. But the LAW is on my side.)

Wow. The law in Sweden states that if there’s a bike path not too far away from the road, then the cyclist must use it. Even though the cops don’t bother to tell cyclists to get off the road, the car drivers do, which is annoying, knowing the law is NOT on my side. :cry: