Advocacy & Safety - Senate transportation bill bans cycling on federal roadways if path exists

(d) BICYCLE SAFETY.—The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency shall prohibit the use of bicycles on each federally owned road that has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour or greater and an adjacent paved path for use by bicycles within 100 yards of the road. - Page 226

http://www.thewashcycle.com/2011/11/senate-transportation-bill-is-bad-for-cyclists-bans-biking-where-trail-exists.html

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=20f89548-8b2e-4498-89f7-c9f4ff22484f

Just another example of sidepath promotion and funding leading to a government attempt to ban roadway cycling.

Clarification: the cycling ban applies to roads through federal lands, not all federally involved road projects.

>.> I want my federal tax dollars to go to bike projects not road projects then.

>.> I want my federal tax dollars to go to bike projects not road projects then.

I don't want FEDERAL dollars going to any such projects. Roads/Bicycle facilities can and should be the responsibility of the state and/or local governments.

Gotta love that they list it under "Bicycle Safety" :rolleyes:

I don't want FEDERAL dollars going to any such projects. Roads/Bicycle facilities can and should be the responsibility of the state and/or local governments.
Are you okay with the topic in the OP? A federal regulation banning cyclists from certain roadways?

Are you okay with the topic in the OP? A federal regulation banning cyclists from certain roadways?

If the Feds aren't paying for it, they have no business regulating it. That said if as someone said, the bill restricts riding on federal land where an alternative path exists as opposed to all federally funded roads (since there actually aren't "federal roads"), then I don't see a problem. Having ridden/driven on many extremely crowded national park roads, there is much to said for separating the two poorly behaved populations.

Wonder exactly how many and where the roads are that would be affected by this. Just interstates and roads in national parks that have bike paths near them?

It would seem to implement something like this would take a lot of work and additional signage.

Every stretch of road on fed land between every possible destination would need to be reviewed to determine if there is a paved path within 100ft. that connects those destinations. I can see the possibility that if applied strictly then there could be roads that have alternating sections of allowed/prohibited - and unless signed impossible for the cyclist coming thru to know otherwise.

I don't know about any national parks, but in, say, Presque Isle State Park in Pennsylvania, the "bicycle path" is maybe 4-5 feet wide and is typically filled with children and families, joggers, pedestrians pushing strollers, etc. Road cyclists almost universally stick to the road, and since the isle is completely flat, i can usually maintain 3-4 mph under the speed limit (25).

Of course, it does piss people like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-UN_fRpQcI) off.

egads, that's horrendous.

this country is in a race to the bottom, with a plutocracy at the helm.

I predict gravel interstates at some point.

hope the LAB is all over this, haven't checked Email yet today.

Wonder exactly how many and where the roads are that would be affected by this. Just interstates and roads in national parks that have bike paths near them?

Interstates are not "federal" roads. They like many other roads simply receive federal funding. The only "federal" roads are those on "federal" land, so national parks, military bases, etc...

Just another example of sidepath promotion and funding leading to a government attempt to ban roadway cycling.

Exactly. It's segregation. Bicycle infrastructure is of absolutely no benefit to me and simply fosters the idea that bikes should be kept off the road.

Exactly. It's segregation. Bicycle infrastructure is of absolutely no benefit to me and simply fosters the idea that bikes should be kept off the road.

There are some bike paths that I like and use. My concern is how they are emphasized. As supplemental facilities, alternative routes, and linear parks, I think some of them are great. But when bike paths are promoted as essential for safe bicycling, with the implication that roadways are unsafe, so much so that path advocates demand federal funding be used to build paths to get cyclists off the roadways, how can we expect anything else from organizations of mostly motorists who are being asked to fund the bike paths?

There are some bike paths that I like and use. My concern is how they are emphasized. As supplemental facilities, alternative routes, and linear parks, I think some of them are great. But when bike paths are promoted as essential for safe bicycling, with the implication that roadways are unsafe, so much so that path advocates demand federal funding be used to build paths to get cyclists off the roadways, how can we expect anything else from organizations of mostly motorists who are being asked to fund the bike paths?

The moment that I read of this proposal, I became concerned about cycling in Washington DC, where many important roads run through federal land, in this case parts of the Capitol Park System.

We need to lobby to make the speed limit on all federal roads to be 29.99 MPH or less.

Honestly I can see the motivation for this. In may parks there are lots of people riding who never ride otherwise. Encouraging such to stay to the paths is good, requiring it not.

And some of the paths really suck, as in cross roads without warning or sightlines.

Wonder exactly how many and where the roads are that would be affected by this. Just interstates and roads in national parks that have bike paths near them?


Interstates are not "federal" roads. They like many other roads simply receive federal funding. The only "federal" roads are those on "federal" land, so national parks, military bases, etc...

So it is who has the title to the land and not who pays the bills?

If so, that even eliminates a lot of roads that pass through federal land. From the teminology when they say "bike paths" do they mean paths constructed and maintained exlusively for bikes? Or, do they mean what is commonly called Multi Use Paths(MUPs)?

At this point it looks like a jobs program for engineers, surveyors and lawyers and won't mean much for years to come.

From the teminology when they say "bike paths" do they mean paths constructed and maintained exlusively for bikes? Or, do they mean what is commonly called Multi Use Paths(MUPs)?Does it matter? I've never seen a dedicated bike path, maybe in name, but never enforced. Is there such a thing as a bike path in which the only traffic are bikes?

U.S. Senators' (Barbara)Boxer and (James)Imhofe are definitely NOT 'on my Christmas list'.

Since it applies to roads going through federal lands, I am sure they would intend to include road projects going through federal land, once those roads are completed.

Interstates are not "federal" roads. They like many other roads simply receive federal funding. The only "federal" roads are those on "federal" land, so national parks, military bases, etc...

Hmmm.....I cut through the Fort Myer Army Base, to get to rides in Northern Virginia. Because I won't go Rt. 50 that goes around a portion of the base. If they bar cyclists, they should bar anyone with no connection to the base, regardless of bike or motorized vehicle.

The moment that I read of this proposal, I became concerned about cycling in Washington DC, where many important roads run through federal land, in this case parts of the Capitol Park System.

I was thinking that too. I go through the Fort Myer(VA) Army Base, to get to bike rides in Northern Virginia since I have never found any other alternative to going along Rt. 50 around the Base.

If it is intended to include military bases, then a conflict will be put in place, as military bases are directed to comply with state traffic laws in which they are located.

i am pretty confident that provision will be redacted from the bill.

I haven't been able to open the link, but just by reading the short excerpt in the OP (copied below) it sounds as if this won't effect us much because it doesn't include sidewalks, although I guess it's all in how you interpret "paved path".

However, I find this very unsettling. I've always had a concern about the construction of too many "bike paths", because it gives a foundation to those who want cyclists off the roads. And since there is no such thing as a bike path we cyclists would be relegated to narrow paths in which we must, by law, yield to everyone else.

Say goodbye to fast cycling. I'm a commuter and I've learned to ride fast, since my bike is my transportation I can (thanks to traffic) get to many places either quicker than cars or not much behind the car (at the same time obeying traffic laws). However, on a MUP/sidewalk, my travel time would, at least, be doubled, forcing me to ride a car in many cases.

(d) BICYCLE SAFETY.—The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency shall prohibit the use of bicycles on each federally owned road that has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour or greater and an adjacent paved path for use by bicycles within 100 yards of the road.

While I believe that cyclist should be able to ride on any road they want to, I also personally would ride a nearby trail. Why fight with drivers if there is a good trail nearby or along side. BUT and that is the big but it has to be a very good trail.

BTW since this bill is offered by both a far left democrat and a republican, no one can blame just republicans in this case.

Hmmm.....I cut through the Fort Myer Army Base, to get to rides in Northern Virginia. Because I won't go Rt. 50 that goes around a portion of the base. If they bar cyclists, they should bar anyone with no connection to the base, regardless of bike or motorized vehicle.

Yes they should bar anyone who doesn't have a reason to be on the base; however, there is nothing in this law that bars you from using the alternative route (bike path) if it exists and if it doesn't then it doesn't prevent you from using the road...

I haven't been able to open the link, but just by reading the short excerpt in the OP (copied below) it sounds as if this won't effect us much because it doesn't include sidewalks, although I guess it's all in how you interpret "paved path".

However, I find this very unsettling. I've always had a concern about the construction of too many "bike paths", because it gives a foundation to those who want cyclists off the roads. And since there is no such thing as a bike path we cyclists would be relegated to narrow paths in which we must, by law, yield to everyone else.

Say goodbye to fast cycling. I'm a commuter and I've learned to ride fast, since my bike is my transportation I can (thanks to traffic) get to many places either quicker than cars or not much behind the car (at the same time obeying traffic laws). However, on a MUP/sidewalk, my travel time would, at least, be doubled, forcing me to ride a car in many cases.

(d) BICYCLE SAFETY.—The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency shall prohibit the use of bicycles on each federally owned road that has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour or greater and an adjacent paved path for use by bicycles within 100 yards of the road.


So to summarize, you don't want other users to slow you down? Sounds a lot like the complaint that motorists make about cyclists...

So to summarize, you don't want other users to slow you down? Sounds a lot like the complaint that motorists make about cyclists...

So? Being slowed down by other legal users is not the same as mandating a specific group to slower facilities.

So? Being slowed down by other legal users is not the same as mandating a specific group to slower facilities.

There is nothing inherent about a bicycle path that makes it slower... Only congestion does that... Same as with a road. If you have no problem forcing others to slow, then live with the fact that you too can be slowed by others...

There is nothing inherent about a bicycle path that makes it slower... Only congestion does that... Same as with a road. If you have no problem forcing others to slow, then live with the fact that you too can be slowed by others...

Not true. Many side paths offer poor sightlines at intersections and driveways which reduce safe cycling speeds regardless of path congestion.

Being slowed down by other traffic is not the issue though. Why should cyclists be forced off the road when other users are not?

Not true. Many side paths offer poor sightlines at intersections and driveways which reduce safe cycling speeds regardless of path congestion.
Correct.

Also the path width, blind corners, narrow passages, etc. all reduce normal operating speed vs. roadway.

Some are posted at 15mph max.

John Allen's blog post on the subject:

http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=3754
Transportation Bill Includes Draconian Mandatory Sidepath Provision


Note that this applies not only to roads in parks but to any Federally-owned road. If there’s a trail within 100 [yards] of a road, then to get to a destination on the other side of the road this law would require you to lug your bicycle through some environmentally-sensitive area in a National Park, or through private property, or swim across a river. If the trail is covered with snow but the road is clear, you would still have to use the trail. The legislation does not even state that the trail has to serve the same destinations as the road, or refer to any standards for design, etc. Excuse me. The conclusion the states reached in the 1970s is based on a simple principle: let bicyclists decide. If the trail is better than the road, they will use it.

Furthermore, the Federal Government does not have jurisdiction over traffic laws. The states do. The predictable outcome is dozens of court battles which will be an embarrassment to the Congress. There also is liability exposure in restricting bicyclists to a substandard path.

Not true. Many side paths offer poor sightlines at intersections and driveways which reduce safe cycling speeds regardless of path congestion.

Yes it is true. Indeed the bolded portion of your quote also equally true of roads, particularly those which are designed for slower speed (<35 mph).


Being slowed down by other traffic is not the issue though. Why should cyclists be forced off the road when other users are not?

May not be your point, but it most certainly was the point of the poster I responded to. That post was an excellent example of an all too common attitude; "I have the right to inconvenience others, but no one has the right to inconvenience me..."

As too not forcing other users to not use the road. There is nothing unique or different about that. We design railroad tracks for trains, and correctly ban both cars and pedestrians from them. We design roads for vehicles and correctly ban pedestrians from them (at least on the busy ones)... Many places have designed their freeways/expressways for motor vehicles and correctly prohibit pedestrians and cyclists. Heck, we have even constructed facilities that are not only designed for motor vehicles, but require a direct usage fee (toll) to use, and we ban everyone who doesn't fit those two categories.

Can we find an example of a road which would be affected by this law? I don't think there are very many federal roads, running through federal land, that have parallel bicycle paths. I don't want to get attacked by a bear either, so could we stay on the main road?

Bicycle paths are often too bumpy to be ridden on.

And another thing, I could watch my rear view mirror, and move over if a car comes up behind me, my bike would not slow traffic. As if there is much traffic on a logging road anyway.

I think the law is meant to protect motorists from charges if an accident occurs.

Correct.

Also the path width, blind corners, narrow passages, etc. all reduce normal operating speed vs. roadway.

Some are posted at 15mph max.The Santa Ana River trail (which is 30 miles long) is 10mph max, though it doesn't run adjacent to any federally owned roads that I'm aware of. It would not surprise me at all to see paths in national parks with low speed limits for pedestrian safety.

The fact is that most of these so called bicycle paths are actually multi-use paths that include pedestrians including children and many people bring their dogs with them which makes it very tough to ride both quickly and safely.

I've seen many paths that are very winding and twisty in an effort to be scenic. That reduces visibility and slows things down as well.

One usually doesn't see park benches and seating on the roadways, but non uncommon on MUPs.

So to summarize, you don't want other users to slow you down? Sounds a lot like the complaint that motorists make about cyclists...Yes, it does sound similar on the surface, but it's not the same thing. Most roads I ride on I don't even slow down vehicles, but yes on occasion I do and they also on occasion slow me down, especially when I'm in the lane at redlights in traffic, that's all part of being a part of traffic.

However, on bike paths (very narrow bike paths) I've been on, such as the ones in D.C. you are surrounded by not only other cyclists (some of which are lancewannabes -- which is alright, but not on narrow congested bike paths), walkers (including dog walkers on long leashes), joggers, rollerbladers, skateboarders and the worst -- little kids on bikes.

Then on top of that everytime the path crosses a road you got to yeild/stop to traffic, some of these paths are crossing roads all the time, whereas on a bike your not crossing roads, rather you're transiting through intersections. Then you got the blind corners...

BTW, all my years of riding has disproved one myth about bikes on roads. Myth: Bikes are always slowing down cars. This is absolutely false other cars slow down cars more than bikes. I can't count how many times I've seen a car hit its brakes because a car in front of him decided to all of a sudden make a right. Or merge into traffic at a much slower speed than all the other cars already in traffic. Or make a left turn in front of oncoming traffic. So the fact is cars slow down cars on the roads much more than a cyclist does. And when I do slow down cars it's in a predictable way, unlike another car pulling in front of a fast-moving vehicle.

Why should cyclists be forced off the road when other users are not?I was thinking about this today as I was riding my bike. Why would they even put this in the bill? Who's pushing this crazy stuff.

Just another example of sidepath promotion and funding leading to a government attempt to ban roadway cycling.

Yeah, I wonder where that guy is who said in another thread that this stuff is extremely rare? :lol:

I don't want FEDERAL dollars going to any such projects. Roads/Bicycle facilities can and should be the responsibility of the state and/or local governments.

The naivety of this post is astounding. Have you ever served in local or state government and tried to fund road projects? I didn't think so. Perhaps, if someday the Feds take less of a bite and the states/localities are able to build a tax base of their own to fund such things, I would agree with you...but for now I have to live in the real world of today.

Can we find an example of a road which would be affected by this law? I don't think there are very many federal roads, running through federal land, that have parallel bicycle paths.

I'm not sure, but this might apply to the Cuyahoga Valley National Park in some places where the roads are owned by the park but within 100 yards of the towpath.

While I believe that cyclist should be able to ride on any road they want to, I also personally would ride a nearby trail. Why fight with drivers if there is a good trail nearby or along side. BUT and that is the big but it has to be a very good trail.

BTW since this bill is offered by both a far left democrat and a republican, no one can blame just republicans in this case.

Whay did you feel the need to inject your political bias into this discussion?

The naivety of this post is astounding. Have you ever served in local or state government and tried to fund road projects? I didn't think so. Perhaps, if someday the Feds take less of a bite and the states/localities are able to build a tax base of their own to fund such things, I would agree with you...but for now I have to live in the real world of today.

I suspect that the naivety is yours, I have spent a career designing roads and more recently working on alternative funding mechanisms. The simple fact is that most roads are locally funded, and that historically they were even more so. Like so many things the federal government got involved and then started mandating. Which is why we now have federal transportation dollars being spent on rail to trails projects that aren't even paved...in other words purely recreational facilities...

Yes, it does sound similar on the surface, but it's not the same thing. Most roads I ride on I don't even slow down vehicles, but yes on occasion I do and they also on occasion slow me down, especially when I'm in the lane at redlights in traffic, that's all part of being a part of traffic.

However, on bike paths (very narrow bike paths) I've been on, such as the ones in D.C. you are surrounded by not only other cyclists (some of which are lancewannabes -- which is alright, but not on narrow congested bike paths), walkers (including dog walkers on long leashes), joggers, rollerbladers, skateboarders and the worst -- little kids on bikes.

Then on top of that everytime the path crosses a road you got to yeild/stop to traffic, some of these paths are crossing roads all the time, whereas on a bike your not crossing roads, rather you're transiting through intersections. Then you got the blind corners...

BTW, all my years of riding has disproved one myth about bikes on roads. Myth: Bikes are always slowing down cars. This is absolutely false other cars slow down cars more than bikes. I can't count how many times I've seen a car hit its brakes because a car in front of him decided to all of a sudden make a right. Or merge into traffic at a much slower speed than all the other cars already in traffic. Or make a left turn in front of oncoming traffic. So the fact is cars slow down cars on the roads much more than a cyclist does. And when I do slow down cars it's in a predictable way, unlike another car pulling in front of a fast-moving vehicle.

So you are only complaining because users of other modes slow you down? How is that different from a motorist making the same complaint again?

And despite your claim based upon your "vast" experience riding a bike on a facility where the rest of traffic can proceed at higher speeds is most definitely slowing down the other traffic; though how much will depend upon how many cyclists are doing so. So maybe you simply don't want "a lot" of pedestrians on those paths?



Then on top of that everytime the path crosses a road you got to yeild/stop to traffic, some of these paths are crossing roads all the time, whereas on a bike your not crossing roads, rather you're transiting through intersections.


I guess that this may be a surprise to you, but road intersections also include yield/stop requirements. But I now understand your complaint about other users slowing you down, it is just like those pesky traffic control devices (stop lights and signs) that you ignore.

As too not forcing other users to not use the road. There is nothing unique or different about that. We design railroad tracks for trains, and correctly ban both cars and pedestrians from them. We design roads for vehicles and correctly ban pedestrians from them (at least on the busy ones)... Many places have designed their freeways/expressways for motor vehicles and correctly prohibit pedestrians and cyclists. Heck, we have even constructed facilities that are not only designed for motor vehicles, but require a direct usage fee (toll) to use, and we ban everyone who doesn't fit those two categories.

Your examples are not relevant because in those situations the facilities were designed for a specific type of traffic from day one. No granted rights were being taken away by prohibiting cars from using railways. Cyclists on the other hand have had the right to use most roads since the beginning. So yes, it is quite different.

I suspect that the naivety is yours, I have spent a career designing roads and more recently working on alternative funding mechanisms. The simple fact is that most roads are locally funded, and that historically they were even more so. Like so many things the federal government got involved and then started mandating. Which is why we now have federal transportation dollars being spent on rail to trails projects that aren't even paved...in other words purely recreational facilities...

Designing roads isn't the same as sitting on a governing body and trying to come up with the funds to keep your roads in decent condition. Your simple fact isn't nearly as simple or factual as you think it is...and it has little to do with federal mandates.

Please feel free to show us the percentage of annual federal transportation funds that are being used on purely recreational facilities. Also provide some examples of those facilities so we can determine just how "purely" recreational they are.

So you are only complaining because users of other modes slow you down? How is that different from a motorist making the same complaint again?

And despite your claim based upon your "vast" experience riding a bike on a facility where the rest of traffic can proceed at higher speeds is most definitely slowing down the other traffic; though how much will depend upon how many cyclists are doing so. So maybe you simply don't want "a lot" of pedestrians on those paths?Dude, you just don't get it. Makes me wonder how much you commute by bike. BTW, as far as I'm concerned the bike paths can remain recreational; I'll stick to the roads, I got no hard feelings about people that use the bike paths for other purposes, my only problem is a law that says bikes don't have equal access to a 30mph roadway.





I guess that this may be a surprise to you, but road intersections also include yield/stop requirements. But I now understand your complaint about other users slowing you down, it is just like those pesky traffic control devices (stop lights and signs) that you ignore.I stop at all stop signs and lights. Again this statement makes me wonder how much you commute by bike on the roads. Yes there are some intersections in which I get the redlight, and I stop. However, there are many more in which I get the green light and on roads I transit a lot I can time my pace so I get the green. However, when on a bike path you must stop/yeild at EVERY intersection, don't you see the difference.

There's this one bike path that parallels a road I ride and I'd be stopping every 1/4 mile, and this is a 6 mile road that maybe has 5 intersections for regular traffic. So it's not just normal intersections on bike paths. IT IS EVERYTIME THE PATH CROSSES THE ROAD. When I said it may double my commute time, that's a conservative estimate.

I really don't get the 100 yard rule. 100 yards is a large distance and a path 100 yards away from the road might not even serve the same destinations. The bill makes no distinctions regarding that.

Designing roads isn't the same as sitting on a governing body and trying to come up with the funds to keep your roads in decent condition. Your simple fact isn't nearly as simple or factual as you think it is...and it has little to do with federal mandates.

So did you intentionally misread what I wrote? Not only designing roads, but working on funding mechanisms.. Things like impact fees, toll financing, etc... And this proposed law that you'll are whining about is yet another example of federal mandates.


Please feel free to show us the percentage of annual federal transportation funds that are being used on purely recreational facilities. Also provide some examples of those facilities so we can determine just how "purely" recreational they are.

Given the bloated nature of the federal government, rail to trail projects are a very small percentage of the budget; however, that doesn't fundamentally alter the fact that the entire amount is a misappropriation of tax dollars and a misuse of the federal mandate.


Oh, and here are a couple of examples local to me; The Lake Mineral Wells Trailway and the Caprock Canyons State Park Trailway.

I still don't get what the problem is in the first place. Are we talking about bicycles causing a motorist to be delayed? or is this some nanny-state nonsense intended to protect the cyclists from themselves?

Furthermore, the bill doesn't address the issue of the cyclists speed- a cyclist might possibly be moving at a rate of 30MPH, which would cause no delay to the motorists. And you wouldn't want to go 30MPH on a narrow "bicycle path".

And if I wanted to, I could apologize to the motorists, and ride slowly and carefully, watching my rear-view mirror, and whenever I see a car coming, I could pull over to the edge of the road, dismount, and wave the car past.

So what is the issue exactly? I could do the speed limit, or pull over to let traffic go past. I believe most cyclists are very courteous, and we yield to cars even when we may technically have the right-of-way.

What exactly is the issue? Someone honked at a cyclist and the cyclist flipped him the bird? I don't know what the fuss is about.

Your examples are not relevant because in those situations the facilities were designed for a specific type of traffic from day one. No granted rights were being taken away by prohibiting cars from using railways. Cyclists on the other hand have had the right to use most roads since the beginning. So yes, it is quite different.

I suspect you missed the irony in your statement. Roads, especially those with higher speed limits (>35 mph) were in fact also designed for motor vehicles. Despite wishes to the contrary there is ample legal precendence for banning bikes (or other specific modes) from transportation facilities. The usual reason given is safety...