Advocacy & Safety - First Blackhawk, then N+2 ?

Bike bans in two cities designated as Bicycle Friendly Communities - Albuquerque, N.M., and Charleston, S.C. Ironically, both come in the aftermath of tragic fatal crashes involving cyclists in those communities, and neither of the bans really does anything related to solving the causes of the crashes. In Albuquerque, "No Bicycling" signs appeared last week on Chappell Road - a popular connecting route for area cyclists - and in Charleston riders are threatened with enforcement of a ban on the James Island Connector, a critical link from downtown Charleston to the west.

LAB

Albuquerque, N.M. case (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=ah8attcab&et=1109095588015&s=877&e=001PqaGAO0MNl1rH7X_BqdPBoncFmGUwmW_-TSwqfPyxATe8IjK3P0tgcpli8kLKMFj0-yKFDJbotKkk0T_-xP1LXlFtifZgjjO7tYHiFzCHIg=)

http://www.charlestonmoves.org/

http://charlestonmoves.blogspot.com/2012/01/please-keep-cool-for-now.html

There are a lot of folks who would like to ban cycling from many, most, or all roads. We have a pretty regular campaign around here to ban us from Territorial Hwy, an historic roadway that started out as a horse and wagon road connecting OR to CA.

Since the right to travel along the public right-of-way is a common-law right that predates the Constitution, it could get interesting if some of these bans start being challenged in court on those grounds. It could get even more interesting if the U.S. military is correct in their report from May of 2010 wherein they predicted an end to cheap oil by 2015. If that comes to pass, a great many people who are opposed to the use of bicycles may well find themselves in the saddle. I wonder if we will then see moves to ban motor vehicles from the roads?

Apart from a ban in VA that was proposed for a specific road last year following an accident, if there are(or have been) any other ban petitions that have happened in the MD-DC-VA region, I haven't heard about them.

It is surprising. I guess cyclists' are blessed in this region.

Or to be fair, cities could ban autos from an equal number of miles.

Or to be fair, cities could ban autos from an equal number of miles.

This gave me a sort of funny thought. What if someone at least switched from a gas-powered car(a bike would be better)to an electric-powered car, and there was a power outage. It made me think 'Good(switching to electric-powered car) but not good enough'.

Is everybody else as tired of the epidemic spread of Stupid as I am?

NO EXCUSES, grown people should know better.

Is everybody else as tired of the epidemic spread of Stupid as I am?

NO EXCUSES, grown people should know better.Pretty much, yes!

Is everybody else as tired of the epidemic spread of Stupid as I am?

NO EXCUSES, grown people should know better.

Typical!!! Before I fly into Albuquerque again, I want to find out more about their ban, and the pomposity of it.

And the ban has cost Blackhawk a deal of money. I know several cyclist myself included that will not go there because of the ban. Used to go there once a month.

Apart from a ban in VA that was proposed for a specific road last year following an accident, if there are(or have been) any other ban petitions that have happened in the MD-DC-VA region, I haven't heard about them.

It is surprising. I guess cyclists' are blessed in this region.

The NPS has banned bicycles from two roads in the area. GW Pkwy south of Old Town and Clara Barton Pkwy in DC/Montgomery County.

http://www.waba.org/blog/2011/08/nps-reconfirms-ban-on-biking-on-parkways-without-engaging-cycling-community/

Is everybody else as tired of the epidemic spread of Stupid as I am?

NO EXCUSES, grown people should know better.

What do you believe is causing this spread of "Stupid," and how may it be stopped? (of course this question may change the whole course of this thread...

The NPS has banned bicycles from two roads in the area. GW Pkwy south of Old Town and Clara Barton Pkwy in DC/Montgomery County.

http://www.waba.org/blog/2011/08/nps-reconfirms-ban-on-biking-on-parkways-without-engaging-cycling-community/

The ban on the GW Mem. Pkwy is the one I was referring to but hadn't mentioned it by name. Regardless, I didn't know about the ban on the Clara Barton Pkwy. The stupid thing about those bans is, they are too specific. There should be a respective statewide ban on roads with certain speed limits. Not specific heavily traveled roads. Just like, bikes not being allowed on 270, 370, 295, 395, 495, etc.

And the ban has cost Blackhawk a deal of money. I know several cyclist myself included that will not go there because of the ban. Used to go there once a month.

I wouldn't be surprised if they ban pedestrians.

At least Black Hawk doesn't have a LAB friendly award. Ft. Collins on the other hand, a platinum city, bans bikes from a few miles of the main road through the city.


Also, btw, the Colorado supreme court has agreed to consider the arguments regarding the Black Hawk ban. Maybe one day cyclists will again be able to ride in Black Hawk.

At least Black Hawk doesn't have a LAB friendly award. Ft. Collins on the other hand, a platinum city, bans bikes from a few miles of the main road through the city.

Hmmm......:notamused:


Also, btw, the Colorado supreme court has agreed to consider the arguments regarding the Black Hawk ban. Maybe one day cyclists will again be able to ride in Black Hawk.

Let's hope so.:)

At least Black Hawk doesn't have a LAB friendly award. Ft. Collins on the other hand, a platinum city, bans bikes from a few miles of the main road through the city.


Also, btw, the Colorado supreme court has agreed to consider the arguments regarding the Black Hawk ban. Maybe one day cyclists will again be able to ride in Black Hawk.

A ban in of itself is not a death knell for cycling... I really have no issue with a ban on specific roads IF there is a suitable alternative route that gets you to the same destination... I feel the same should also apply to automobiles... they too can and should be banned from certain roads (and ARE in some places).

The interstate freeway system is an example of cyclists being banned from certain roads... the ban is not universal, nor based on speed, it is posted at on ramps... some areas you can ride on the interstate, others you may not.

Now in the case of Blackhawk or Albuquerque, N.M., and Charleston, S.C.... is there an alternative route? If not, then that should be protested... as access itself is being denied.

Is anyone here on BF in any of those areas, or are we just armchair quarterbacking?

The NPS has banned bicycles from two roads in the area. GW Pkwy south of Old Town and Clara Barton Pkwy in DC/Montgomery County.

http://www.waba.org/blog/2011/08/nps-reconfirms-ban-on-biking-on-parkways-without-engaging-cycling-community/

While I didn't know about the CB Pkwy ban, the Wikipedia page for the GW Mem. Pkwy, has pictures of both. The only thing I could think of was, why would people want to bike on those roads anyway. They are high speed roads with no shoulder or bike lane.

A ban in of itself is not a death knell for cycling... I really have no issue with a ban on specific roads IF there is a suitable alternative route that gets you to the same destination... I feel the same should also apply to automobiles... they too can and should be banned from certain roads (and ARE in some places).

The interstate freeway system is an example of cyclists being banned from certain roads... the ban is not universal, nor based on speed, it is posted at on ramps... some areas you can ride on the interstate, others you may not.

Now in the case of Blackhawk or Albuquerque, N.M., and Charleston, S.C.... is there an alternative route? If not, then that should be protested... as access itself is being denied.

Is anyone here on BF in any of those areas, or are we just armchair quarterbacking?

I go out to Santa Fe once or twice a year by flying into Albuquerque. When I go between Albuquerque n' Santa Fe, the road ban doesn't make much of a difference, since the state has a good trail system.

When I lived in Duluth(MN) back in 2004, I once took a trip intending to go to a community not far south of MSP. In Duluth, I had left my apartment connecting with the Willard Munger State Trail a few miles away. The trail parallels I-35(goes from Duluth south to Houston, TX). I didn't go on I-35 regardless of the ban, because it was too dangerous. The same for the GW Pkwy and the CB Pkwy. They are too dangerous to bike on.

And the ban has cost Blackhawk a deal of money. I know several cyclist myself included that will not go there because of the ban. Used to go there once a month.

Boo hoo on Blackhawk....'Stupid(Blackhawk) is, as stupid does'.

While I didn't know about the CB Pkwy ban, the Wikipedia page for the GW Mem. Pkwy, has pictures of both. The only thing I could think of was, why would people want to bike on those roads anyway. They are high speed roads with no shoulder or bike lane.

well, chris, sometimes people have to use "high speed roads" while bicycling to get somewhere. or want to. Bicyclists shouldn't be banned from roads with a speed limit some riders -or municipalities- find unreasonable for bike traffic.

sometimes, in suburban areas, 'high speed' roads without shoulder or bikelane are, unfortunately, the only expedient way to get places on a bicycle. they should be better engineered for bike traffic, but they shouldn't have bans enacted simply due to speed differential.

While I didn't know about the CB Pkwy ban, the Wikipedia page for the GW Mem. Pkwy, has pictures of both. The only thing I could think of was, why would people want to bike on those roads anyway. They are high speed roads with no shoulder or bike lane.
GW parkway is probably a nice road to ride on sometimes. The problem is all the people that live in the sprawl around D.C. that use it to commute. It really doesn't have much non-commuting traffic

well, chris, sometimes people have to use "high speed roads" while bicycling to get somewhere. or want to. Bicyclists shouldn't be banned from roads with a speed limit some riders -or municipalities- find unreasonable for bike traffic.

sometimes, in suburban areas, 'high speed' roads without shoulder or bikelane are, unfortunately, the only expedient way to get places on a bicycle. they should be better engineered for bike traffic, but they shouldn't have bans enacted simply due to speed differential.

Nice thinking Bek, but this IS in fact the case with much of our interstate highway system that even usually has 8+ foot wide shoulders that are far nicer to ride on than a 3 foot+ gutter pan bike lanes on 55MPH roads.

gee, gene. i've ridden plenty of miles of interstates where its legal to ride. its not the speed differential. and you do see i suggest high speed roads SHOULD be better planned for bike traffic?

GW parkway is probably a nice road to ride on sometimes. The problem is all the people that live in the sprawl around D.C. that use it to commute. It really doesn't have much non-commuting traffic

It is a major rush-hour artery that, isn't much slower during non-rush hours.

well, Chris, sometimes people have to use "high speed roads" while bicycling to get somewhere. or want to. Bicyclists shouldn't be banned from roads with a speed limit some riders -or municipalities- find unreasonable for bike traffic.

sometimes, in suburban areas, 'high speed' roads without shoulder or a bike lane are, unfortunately, the only expedient way to get places on a bicycle. they should be better engineered for bike traffic, but they shouldn't have bans enacted simply due to speed differential.

In the case of GW Mem. Pkwy, it parallels the Mount Vernon (bike/ped) Trail. So there is an alternative that motorized vehicles are obviously banned from using.

But yes, a lack of 'cycling infrastructure' does necessitate, the possibility of having to travel on 'high speed' roads.

Nice thinking Bek, but this IS in fact the case with much of our interstate highway system that even usually has 8+ foot wide shoulders that are far nicer to ride on than a 3 foot+ gutter pan bike lanes on 55MPH roads.

Very true!!!

Chappell has a parallel MUP with only a diversion channel between. Literally a stone's throw if you have a decent arm. There is a large cement plant and a gravel pit, that generate gobs of truck traffic. It isnt even very car friendly.

gee, gene. i've ridden plenty of miles of interstates where its legal to ride. its not the speed differential. and you do see i suggest high speed roads SHOULD be better planned for bike traffic?

If it is not speed differential, then why is it that cyclists are banned (where signed) from the interstates? And yes, I too have ridden a number of miles on the interstate... in fact part of my commute used to include about a 1/2 mile chunk of I 5.

when you're riding on the shoulder of an interstate, there is no conflict with minimum speed regulations.

Banning bikes from roads because of preemptive, presumptuous and unfounded safety concerns (like blackhawk's and the NPS standards) are unacceptable and an affront to the freedom to travel by bicycle.

when you're riding on the shoulder of an interstate, there is no conflict with minimum speed regulations.

Banning bikes from roads because of preemptive, presumptuous and unfounded safety concerns (like blackhawk's and the NPS standards) are unacceptable and an affront to the freedom to travel by bicycle.

Then why am I banned from miles and miles of perfectly good accessible road shoulder that could actually even improve my commute?

In the US the automobile gets the best and most direct routes... of course part of that is because both industry and housing end up being built near freeways... the end result for cyclists is that we get shunted to side streets, indirect routes and often have to go longer to get to the same place as a motorist... not to mention having to deal with inertia robbing traffic controls.

If we cyclists could simply jump on the interstates from one entrance to the next exit, we would likely find nearly flat, fast, commuting routes. But often such routes are off limits due to signs that say "no bicycles." I know in certain limited cases cyclists are allowed on the interstates... but usually there is an extensive petition process involved.

If we are not access limited due to speed differential, then why are we not allowed on posted freeways?

I wasn't aware the road thru blackhawk was a high speed freeway or limited access roadway, gene.

you sound quite apologist about bike bans, dude - you don't think the speed cutoff for banning bikes should be 40mph perhaps, like some of the other posters implicitly believe?

I think its very unfortunate 'parkways' such as the GW parkway have become so freeway like the NPS has issued bicycling bans there. Freeway like and limited access roads are distinctly different from a 20mph main street in a historic mining town district in Colorado.

reading a letter of complaint from WABA to the NPS, it appears the 'alternate routes' aren't plowed in winter..... necessitating a rider that needs to use that transportation corridor to either break the law or not bike.

I wasn't aware the road thru blackhawk was a high speed freeway or limited access roadway, gene.

you sound quite apologist about bike bans, dude - you don't think the speed cutoff for banning bikes should be 40mph perhaps, like some of the other posters implicitly believe?

I think its very unfortunate 'parkways' such as the GW parkway have become so freeway like the NPS has issued bicycling bans there. Freeway like and limited access roads are distinctly different from a 20mph main street in a historic mining town district in Colorado.

reading a letter of complaint from WABA to the NPS, it appears the 'alternate routes' aren't plowed in winter..... necessitating a rider that needs to use that transportation corridor to either break the law or not bike.

I don't know that it is a high speed road... my only contention is that I would accept bans on some roads as long as there is a reasonable alternative. I further supported my point by indicating we accept bans on some roads now due to the fact that there is an alternative... and the example I gave was freeways. I also indicated that freeways really can be useful as they have wide shoulders and often are shorter than the alternative, yet we still accept being banned from them.

Those are my points. You want to spin it to something else... have a good time. I won't be there.

I don't know that it is a high speed road... my only contention is that I would accept bans on some roads as long as there is a reasonable alternative. I further supported my point by indicating we accept bans on some roads now due to the fact that there is an alternative... and the example I gave was freeways. I also indicated that freeways really can be useful as they have wide shoulders and often are shorter than the alternative, yet we still accept being banned from them.

Those are my points. You want to spin it to something else... have a good time. I won't be there.

At: http://www.speedtrap.org/view/Virginia/18953

It says "GW Parkway is U.S. Park Police area of patrol. Posted speed limit is 40mph however safe/common travel speed is around 60 mph."

That pretty much means, the State of Virginia doesn't care about speeders, otherwise they would be making a bundle of $ from it since that is a major traffic corridor in NoVA.

hmm. neither the blackhawk or the parkways bans are viable alternatives. the GW parkway paths aren't plowed in the winter. and the blackhawk ban routes cyclists miles out of their way on a gravel route.

hmm. neither the blackhawk or the parkways bans are viable alternatives. the GW parkway paths aren't plowed in the winter. and the blackhawk ban routes cyclists miles out of their way on a gravel route.

Then the bans are bad. There, that simple. Gravel road for bikes... please, may as well ask ice skaters to walk on unfrozen lakes.

Now in the case of Blackhawk or Albuquerque, N.M., and Charleston, S.C.... is there an alternative route? If not, then that should be protested... as access itself is being denied.

Is anyone here on BF in any of those areas, or are we just armchair quarterbacking?
Banning cyclists from roads in Black Hawk prevent access to the businesses within the town, as well as the only direct paved route from Black Hawk to Central City.

hmm. neither the blackhawk or the parkways bans are viable alternatives. the GW parkway paths aren't plowed in the winter. and the blackhawk ban routes cyclists miles out of their way on a gravel route.

The GW Pkwy path definitely isn't a viable alternative in the winter.

The ban on the GW Mem. Pkwy is the one I was referring to but hadn't mentioned it by name. Regardless, I didn't know about the ban on the Clara Barton Pkwy. The stupid thing about those bans is, they are too specific. There should be a respective statewide ban on roads with certain speed limits. Not specific heavily traveled roads. Just like, bikes not being allowed on 270, 370, 295, 395, 495, etc.So you wish to prohibit cyclist from riding many of the only reasonable routes in many western states that even allow cyclist to use certain freeways. With CA speed limits, they would almost have to give up cycling outside their cul-de-sac.

In the case of GW Mem. Pkwy, it parallels the Mount Vernon (bike/ped) Trail. So there is an alternative that motorized vehicles are obviously banned from using.

But yes, a lack of 'cycling infrastructure' does necessitate, the possibility of having to travel on 'high speed' roads.The Mount Vernon (bike/ped) Trail stinks for cycle commuting. It was not even that good for slow recreational riding back in 1989-1990. I used the GW Mem. Pkwy whenever I cycled that area.

Ft. Collins on the other hand, a platinum city, bans bikes from a few miles of the main road through the city.


Indeed!
First time I rode into Ft Collins, I found myself facing a "No Bicycles" sign on a bridge carrying four lanes of traffic, with no alternative for cyclists nor pedestrians. Who were the damned fools who thought that was a good idea???

The Mount Vernon (bike/ped) Trail stinks for cycle commuting. It was not even that good for slow recreational riding back in 1989-1990. I used the GW Mem. Pkwy whenever I cycled that area.

I am glad you have prior experience.

The other thing that bugs me about the bike/ped trails NoVA is, the lack of trail signage. Unless someone knows the area(trail system) in NoVA like the back of their hand, they would only have a vague idea of whether on Mount Vernon Trail or, the Custis Trail. The Washington & Old Dominion Trail goes north for 45mi., but with it intersecting other trails, the yearning to ride the whole length of the W&OD is tempered by the lack of signage on the trail.

So you wish to prohibit cyclist from riding many of the only reasonable routes in many western states that even allow cyclist to use certain freeways. With CA speed limits, they would almost have to give up cycling outside their cul-de-sac.

Not just ban. But that the state build an extensive trail system commensurate with the extent of a ban.

There should be a respective statewide ban on roads with certain speed limits. Not specific heavily traveled roads. Just like, bikes not being allowed on 270, 370, 295, 395, 495, etc.


The only thing I could think of was, why would people want to bike on those roads anyway. They are high speed roads with no shoulder or bike lane.


well, chris, sometimes people have to use "high speed roads" while bicycling to get somewhere. or want to. Bicyclists shouldn't be banned from roads with a speed limit some riders -or municipalities- find unreasonable for bike traffic.

sometimes, in suburban areas, 'high speed' roads without shoulder or bikelane are, unfortunately, the only expedient way to get places on a bicycle. they should be better engineered for bike traffic, but they shouldn't have bans enacted simply due to speed differential.


its not the speed differential. and you do see i suggest high speed roads SHOULD be better planned for bike traffic?


In the case of GW Mem. Pkwy, it parallels the Mount Vernon (bike/ped) Trail. So there is an alternative that motorized vehicles are obviously banned from using.

Bek pretty much nails the points, IMO, here.

Does the speed differential increase the risk to unreasonable levels? No one seems to suggest making motorcycling illegal yet it appears to be far riskier than cycling. And if you think it's riskier due to other people's illegal behavior -- speeding on GW Pkwy -- then there are lots of analogous situations that we should restrict too. You can look up the Solomon Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_curve) for the evidence about speed differentials. In short, the evidence is underwhelming at most speeds we see in the US.


I don't know that it is a high speed road... my only contention is that I would accept bans on some roads as long as there is a reasonable alternative. I further supported my point by indicating we accept bans on some roads now due to the fact that there is an alternative... and the example I gave was freeways. I also indicated that freeways really can be useful as they have wide shoulders and often are shorter than the alternative, yet we still accept being banned from them.

Reasonable can be a tricky word here and consequently abused by the majority. Whatever the question and decision-making process is, I'd prefer very high standards for protecting civil liberties. In the case above, determining who has the onus of explaining the motive for banning, the evidence to support their assertions, and providing such an alternative is also important. I'm also not particularly sure that "we" accept being banned on them as much as riding on all roads is pretty low on LABs agenda and that politically speaking, arguing that cyclists should be allowed on say I-405 between LA and Long Beach is a monumental waste of time.

FWIW, for anything above a moderately slow pace, the Mt Vernon Trail blows due to substandard construction and wild overcrowding, IMO. Other than the Humpback Bridge, not much has changed since CB HI's experience other than its probably more congested.


The Mount Vernon (bike/ped) Trail stinks for cycle commuting. It was not even that good for slow recreational riding back in 1989-1990. I used the GW Mem. Pkwy whenever I cycled that area.

Bek pretty much nails the points, IMO, here.

Does the speed differential increase the risk to unreasonable levels? No one seems to suggest making motorcycling illegal yet it appears to be far riskier than cycling. And if you think it's riskier due to other people's illegal behavior -- speeding on GW Pkwy -- then there are lots of analogous situations that we should restrict too. You can look up the Solomon Curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_curve) for the evidence about speed differentials. In short, the evidence is underwhelming at most speeds we see in the US.

A motorcycle is an unfair tool to illustrate your position. I remember as a kid, riding on the back of my father's Suzuki GS750. A motorcycle is basically, structurally the same as a bicycle. But mechanically, it is the same as a car/truck/van. So a motorcycle is definitely not something that should be banned from the GW Pkwy.


FWIW, for anything above a moderately slow pace, the Mt Vernon Trail blows due to substandard construction and wild overcrowding, IMO. Other than the Humpback Bridge, not much has changed since CB HI's experience other than its probably more congested.

I definitely agree about the construction, overcrowding, and congestion.

A motorcycle is an unfair tool to illustrate your position. I remember as a kid, riding on the back of my father's Suzuki GS750. A motorcycle is basically, structurally the same as a bicycle. But mechanically, it is the same as a car/truck/van. So a motorcycle is definitely not something that should be banned from the GW Pkwy.

The point is that by the rough estimates out there, a motorcycle is an order of a magnitude more deadly than a bicycle. Yet I see few -- any? ... I don't recall one but I never looked -- people going around trying to ban motorcycles. So I find just about any argument for banning bicycles because of safety reasons to be an excuse for getting bicycles "out of the way". How is this unfair?


I definitely agree about the construction, overcrowding, and congestion.