Advocacy & Safety - freeway biking

I just returned from my first trip out West (in a car), during which I twice saw bicyclists on interstate highways. The first time was down a dangerously steep hill in Idaho (semi trucks had their engine brakes on all the way down). The second time was in South Dakota. This really surprised me, since I always thought bicycles were prohibited from interstate highways. However, I couldn't find the usual Restricted Access signs at the start of the onramps. I also noticed that these particular highways were labeled as both interstate and federal highways, and were the only reasonable way to get between two cities.

I assume that it was perfectly legal to ride on the shoulder of these highways. Is this common in certain parts of the country? I've never seen it until this trip.

Thanks,
joseph

A section of Inerstate 5 north of San Diego allows bicyclists on the shoulder. This is because there is no other access roads available for public use.

A section of Inerstate 5 north of San Diego allows bicyclists on the shoulder. This is because there is no other access roads available for public use.
Within California there are several Interstate Highway shoulder segments on which bicycles are permitted. I have used the I-5 link between Gene"see and Sorrento Valley/Roselle many times, without ever feeling intimidated or endangered. Freeway shoulders tend to be fairly level, very wide, and well-maintained. As long as bikes can enter, continue, or exit without crossing the paths of fast-moving motor vehicles, freeway shoulders are among the safest bicycle facilities available, and the accident statistics dramatically support this contention. The San Diego County Bicycle Coalition is currently trying to secure freeway shoulder access on a critical link of I-805, but has met irrational resistance from Car-Trance (oops, that's "CalTrans").

John E. Pretty much said it all about biking in the west. I have done it several times..Can't say exactly that I like it..Seems after exiting, every time, I Get a flat...That gets old...But then local freeways are much more traveled than say if you are heading east towards Neavada or Arizona...
The noise of the traffic is just too great. The pull of the trucks, seems like it could almost pull you into the road at times.
When driving east through the desert, I have seen caravans of cyclist heading east...The rule, if you have no other option for biking , you can use the freeways. At least for California...In the desert, you often have no other option..I recall seeing many a cyclist on the freeways of Arizona , too..

Colorado and New Mexico are states where you'll travel stretches on Interstate hyws I25 and I70 because of no available frontage road.

It's legal almost everywhere in Oregon to ride on limited access roads ('freeways') except in statute-defined areas within greater Portland and perhaps a few other stretches of road inside other larger cities (and there's not to many of those in Oregon outside of Portland).

As far as I know it's prohibited on I-15 in Utah, I know it is in northern, not sure about southern. Most of the highways that run east-west through the souther portion of the state allow bicycling though.

FYI: South Carolina prohibits bicycles on all interstate highways, but there is almost always a paralell route. The old US 15/301 bridge over Lake Marion was left up after it was condemed from highway traffic next to I-95 between 101 and 99 mile markers to allow for pedisirian and bicycle traffic. Otherwise, the detour would take an extra day of riding.

In Montana I believe it's legal everywhere. There's nowhere else to ride between cities. When I lived there briefly in the '80s I was told by a local that this was the land of the free and home of the brave, unlike in the East!

To me, it is all about access to public roads, freedom of mobility, and reasonable alternate routes. If there is a good lower-speed parallel route, such as a frontage road, I will generally select it, instead of the freeway, but too often, particularly between cities, there simply is no acceptable alternate route.

The worst elements of most freeways are the pedestrian-and-bicycle-hostile free merges, diverges, or right turns with which too many of their access ramps meet the rest of the roadway system.

It is prohibited in Va. and Tx. In Tx. I have been told by DPS that you cannot even ride on the access road since it is "part of the interstate."

Here in Australia Queensland (not surprisingly) is the only state that actually prohibits it. Having said that, I've done it on numerous occasions regardless. About the only thing that prevents me from doing it more often is the boredom associated with staring at eight lanes of traffic for a sustained period of time.

FWIW it's prohibited here in Illinois and I think Wisconsin also ... but there are alot of state hwy's and other older roads between most points A & B. Here, the few times I've seen them, the shoulders are a mess of broken glass, metal and other debris. It would not be a choice spot for bike tires.

man. tx doesnt even have shoulders alot of the time

If I'm not mistaken cyclists are allowed to ride on the interstate in South Dakota. The reason is there are not enough rural roads & highways to ride on between the towns.

In Iowa cyclists are prohibited from riding on the interstate or an other highway that has a posted minimum speed limit. But Iowa also has several & a very extensive state & county highway system that allows cyclists easy access to all of the towns & cities in the state.

What part of South Dakota were you in? What interstate?

Here in Washington It is legal outside the larger urban areas. Never do it though I prefer the scenery of the side roads.

Here in Tennessee it is illegal to ride on an interstate highway. With that said there are all kinds of 4 lane limited access highways with 65-70 mph. speed limits that are designated bike routes! Now for the life of me I can't see what the difference is! For instance US 51 between Union City and Troy is a bike route. It is an older 4 lane, not limited access, and with a narrow 2 foot or less shoulder!!!! :eek: This is one of the few roads that scare the crap outa me, so I don't ride it. The newer 4 lanes between UC and towns to the East and North East have link ups that are just like an interstate, limited access, 70 mph. I feel perfectly safe on the shoulders, 4-5 feet wide, most with a rumble strip between you and the traffic. Now I perfer back roads, but I have noticed that on the big roads the hills are long and shallow, verses short and steep with more of them, but there are not DOGS to contend with either! ;)

Here in NV the law is that if there are no other available roads (such is the case in many spots around Reno) then you can use the freeway and there will be a "bikes must exit" sign when a good route is then available. Did that yesterday on my first 40 mile ride. What a rush!

Here in Washington It is legal outside the larger urban areas. Never do it though I prefer the scenery of the side roads.

Just to expound upon what ngateguy said, it's legal to ride on all state roads in Washington with exception of the sections listed in this webpage (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/bike/Closed_Routes.htm). I agree that the scenery on the smaller roads is usually better but sometimes there's no real good way to get through the mountains other than to take the expressway.

I recall CO actually had marked bike lanes on the interstate-----but its been quite while('93) since I've ventured out that way---so could have changed for all I know.

Man---maybe its time for a road trip-----hhhhhmmm 4th of July weekend is coming up.

The only bicycles I have ever seen on a section of I-5 north of Los Angeles were stopped by high way patrolmen who appear to me to be writing a ticket. That section I know did permit bicycles but I am sure if the patroolmen didn't know that, they would issue a ticket in spite of all your arguing.

Wow, I'm from good ole' Ohio, and was completely unaware that people were ever allowed to ride on an interstate. However, it never really entered my train of thought that there may be no other option...(plenty of options here...)

In New York you can ride on Parkways, but not Expressways. ALL trucks are forbidden on Parkways also.

I can't think of any place in WI where it's allowed. I also can't think of any place in WI that's not just as easily, or more easily, accessible by surface roads. I don't quite get this idea of places that don't have surface road access. I mean, this country had a pretty-much complete network of surface roads long before the Interstate system was even started. Are there places that people go to now, that they simply didn't go to before the Interstate system? Or were the surface road accesses taken out when the Interstates were put in, in these cases?

I can't think of any place in WI where it's allowed. I also can't think of any place in WI that's not just as easily, or more easily, accessible by surface roads. I don't quite get this idea of places that don't have surface road access. I mean, this country had a pretty-much complete network of surface roads long before the Interstate system was even started. Are there places that people go to now, that they simply didn't go to before the Interstate system? Or were the surface road accesses taken out when the Interstates were put in, in these cases?


There are plenty of places (at least in the west/southwest) where you can go hundreds of miles on a freeway and have nothing else but dirt access roads to camp grounds and little 200 people po-dunk towns.

Are there places that people go to now, that they simply didn't go to before the Interstate system? Or were the surface road accesses taken out when the Interstates were put in, in these cases?

Consider the area around Seattle. If you want to travel east of the Cascades, you have to do it through the passes. These passes are only accessable via major highways. The Snoqualmie Pass just east of me is only accessable by way of I-90 although there is a tunnel that can be taken if you're on the old Ironhorse Trail. That trail is however unpaved.

Prohibited in Alabama and Georgia also.

Unless absoulutely necessary, you won't find me on the shoulder of a freeway! I've seen cyclists riding along Interstate 5 at Camp Pendleton (north of San Diego). The speed limit is 65 mph. However, no car seems to travel that stretch slower than 75 mph unless the popo is in sight. I've always thought it was so dangerous to cycle where there is such a difference between cycling and driving speeds. Just a small piece of gravel from a passing semi would do all sorts of damage.

-Shimpie

Unless absoulutely necessary, you won't find me on the shoulder of a freeway! I've seen cyclists riding along Interstate 5 at Camp Pendleton (north of San Diego). The speed limit is 65 mph. However, no car seems to travel that stretch slower than 75 mph unless the popo is in sight. I've always thought it was so dangerous to cycle where there is such a difference between cycling and driving speeds. Just a small piece of gravel from a passing semi would do all sorts of damage.

-Shimpie

I don't think that getting hit by someone going 40 is going to be any safer than someone going 75!

Admittedly gravel might be a problem, but at least around here in Colorado, the shoulders are generally pretty wide.

One strange advantage is that the rumble strips (which are now universally installed on freeways in this state) will give you some extra protection from errant and wandering mortorists. A rumble strip might have saved the life of the biker in Summit County killed by a 17 yo girl who was looking at the clock when she wandered into the shoulder, hitting and killing the biker.

We have lots of places where a freeway is the only way to get from one town to another - either because of mtn passes or simply a lack of roads between distant towns. If that is the case, bikes are allowed on the freeway. For example, from S of Colorado Springs to Trinidad and beyond. Have seen a number of bikes on the shoulder in this section. Even the Santa Fe Century utilizes about 10 miles of Interstate 25 on the official route. No problems that I have heard of.

Prohibited in Alabama and Georgia also.

With all the backroads in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, there is really no real need to bike on an interstate highway.

Unless absoulutely necessary, you won't find me on the shoulder of a freeway! I've seen cyclists riding along Interstate 5 at Camp Pendleton (north of San Diego). The speed limit is 65 mph. However, no car seems to travel that stretch slower than 75 mph unless the popo is in sight. I've always thought it was so dangerous to cycle where there is such a difference between cycling and driving speeds. Just a small piece of gravel from a passing semi would do all sorts of damage.

-Shimpie

You see a lot more bikes on that part of I-5 since they closed the trai; down that goes through the base.

There are plenty of places (at least in the west/southwest) where you can go hundreds of miles on a freeway and have nothing else but dirt access roads to camp grounds and little 200 people po-dunk towns.

The 200-person podunk towns sounds a lot like most of WI, north of the Dells or so. But for the most part, the roads are paved. Oh, duh, that's right, we had 14 years of a governor (member of the party that's always calling for term limits, but I digress...) who was in the back pocket of the roadbuilding industry.



Consider the area around Seattle. If you want to travel east of the Cascades, you have to do it through the passes. These passes are only accessable via major highways. The Snoqualmie Pass just east of me is only accessable by way of I-90 although there is a tunnel that can be taken if you're on the old Ironhorse Trail. That trail is however unpaved.


We have lots of places where a freeway is the only way to get from one town to another - either because of mtn passes or simply a lack of roads between distant towns. If that is the case, bikes are allowed on the freeway. For example, from S of Colorado Springs to Trinidad and beyond. Have seen a number of bikes on the shoulder in this section. Even the Santa Fe Century utilizes about 10 miles of Interstate 25 on the official route. No problems that I have heard of. So before the Interstate system went in, there were no paved roads thru these passes (WA) or between these towns (CO)? Wow, I never thought of the I-system as serving exclusive local city-to-city access (other than as a faster alternative to existing access). I had no idea that settlements so close geograpically were so isolated before the I-system.

So before the Interstate system went in, there were no paved roads thru these passes (WA) or between these towns (CO)? Wow, I never thought of the I-system as serving exclusive local city-to-city access (other than as a faster alternative to existing access). I had no idea that settlements so close geograpically were so isolated before the I-system.

No.

The interstates followed the same routes as the previous connector 2 lane paved highways, supplanting the former 2 lane roads. Strange they didn't do the same thing in Wisconsin? Did your road building governor keep both the old road and the new interstate? How wasteful!

http://transweb.sjsu.edu/publications/BikesAndPeds.htm

Colorado


Although Colorado officials replied that they did not have any standards for bicycle use of freeways, they noted that they used American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. Bicycles are allowed on all freeways except in urban areas. Cyclists must use the shoulder. Occasionally, warning signs are used to alert drivers of bicycle use of the freeway, but there is no set standard.

I had no idea that settlements so close geograpically were so isolated before the I-system

Strange as it may seem, they had paved roads between them. Those roads became the interstate system.

Colorado Springs - Pueblo 42 miles
Pueblo to Walsenburg - 44 miles
Walsenburg to Trinidad - 37 miles

And there are no other roads - paved or not, unless you might like to make a 150 mile detour through Rocky Ford? Or Canon City?

Once you get into New Mexico, towns are generally scores of miles apart.

No.

The interstates followed the same routes as the previous connector 2 lane paved highways, supplanting the former 2 lane roads. Strange they didn't do the same thing in Wisconsin? Did your road building governor keep both the old road and the new interstate? How wasteful! Well, the I-system was built decades before our road-happy gov took office. But yeah, this pretty-much describes the entire midwest, south and east coast. The state and US federal highways and county trunks are all still there. Wasteful? Hmm, haven't noodled that thru. True, generally, we've built too many roads. A local county board sup, who's also director of the area Sierra Club, quips "Paving your way out of a traffic congestion problem is like eating your way out of a weight problem." But surface roads between cities do serve a purpose. I don't think I'd want to bicycle the Interstate to, say, Milwaukee.

Wow, this whole notion of taking out surface roads for Interstates is a bit mind-blowing to me. Not sure what to make of it, socio-politically. Part of me sees the whole point of not over-paving. But part of me sees it as further expression of "screw those of you who don't want to go everywhere at 65 MPH". Puzzle, puzzle....

Wow, this whole notion of taking out surface roads for Interstates is a bit mind-blowing to me. Not sure what to make of it, socio-politically. Part of me sees the whole point of not over-paving. But part of me sees it as further expression of "screw those of you who don't want to go everywhere at 65 MPH". Puzzle, puzzle....

I grew up in the Chicago area. I used to spend many of my summers cycling around northern IL and much of WI. I for one loved the forgotten roads in WI. I do see the quandry you're facing but the thing is, the roads are already there. Yanking them out would require more resources to be spent in both time, material, labour and the added pollution accompanying that. I imagine that most of them have very little actual traffic these days as most people would opt to take the newer faster routes. This leaves you with roads that require much less maintenance and IMHO offer much prettier scenery for people like cyclists yet will get you to the same places as the freeways. Here near the mountains, it's expensive to simply build a new parallel route through the passes so the older roadways were simply built over with the newer ones and thus we have no choice but to ride the freeways. I don't like it and would prefer much quieter scenic roads than sucking down diesel exhaust from the 18-wheelers and worrying about the errant weekend driver with the swinging RV hanging off the back all the while toeing the line which seperates the right lane from the shoulder. FWIW, the amount of times I've actually cycled on a major expressway I can count on one hand.

Sometimes I don't think folks realize how spread out and isolated much of the west is.

And, our east-west network of non freeway roads is much better than our north south. Think of Colorado as 3 separate states -

1. The plains east of the rockies - actually about 1/2 of the state geographically. Movement in this area was east to west and roadways generally followed this pattern.

2. That tremendous barrier - the Rocky Mountains. You only build roads where you can put them through passes or tunnels. That is is. We have just two routes west from Denver - I-70 and US 285. US 6 is so dangerous and busy that bicycles are prohibited (rightfully so) - it is congested with usually over-drinking folks returning from the casinos in the Central City Area. MAny terrible accidents on this route. US 40 doesn't even start until you get past Idaho Springs in the mtns. There are also some roads connecting valleys and towns in the mtns, but to get there you must use one of the two routes. This causes tremendous congestion on weekends and holidays. These roads are tremendously expensive to build and maintain.

3. The Western slope, which does have a few north-south non-freeway corridors. Utah, to the west, is a vaasstt area of desert and openness. Over 100 miles between some towns, as is the case in parts of New Mexico.

So, the geography is quite different than Wisconsin, and therefore, the road system is different.

Yes like Smurfy said, riding on the interstate system is allowed in Montana. I find riding on the interstate much more enjoyable than riding on the 2-lane roads with less than a 2-ft shoulder with cars going by at upto 70 mph. About 80% of the semis will pull into the other lane on the interstate, if they are not blocked by other traffic, when passing cyclists. I also periodically get flats from the wire from radial tires and am concerned about rocks, etc., but overall the experience with the wide shoulders and rumble strips on the interstate is much better than on the 2-lane roads. I commute on 2-lane roads and prefer to avoid peak traffic times even in this small town with pop. 9,000.

Marshall

It is prohibited in Va. and Tx. In Tx. I have been told by DPS that you cannot even ride on the access road since it is "part of the interstate."

In Texas bicycles may be excluded from portions of interstates either by the state or local jurisdictions. However, those sections where bicycles are prohibited must be marked with official traffic-control devices. This is per Chapter 545.065 of the transportation code. I believe that, by default, the interstates are open to bicycles in Texas.

In fact, I know of two charity rides that use the frontage road of I-30 for their routes and the Adventure Cycling Southern Tier cross country route uses interstate highways (not frontage roads) in West Texas. At least, that's the impression I get from reading journals of those who have done it.

I have also ridden countless times on the I-30 frontage road East of Dallas and have never been stopped by any of the frequent DPS, county, or city police that patrol that road.