Montana draft bill to ban bicycles from 2-lane highways
01-21-17, 03:15 PM
#26
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I lived in Montana for 23 years. Here are my thoughts....Missoula and the Bitterroot Valley are very bike friendly. The vast majority of the state is bike friendly.
This proposed law leaves me baffled for two reasons. # 1 - There is NO way it would ever pass. # 2 - in 98% of the state I would seriously doubt a motorist encounters a cyclist on the road more than once a month. Remember that the weather in Montana keeps cyclists off the road about 10 months of the year. The other 2 months most cycling is done off road. I RARELY ever seen cyclists on the two lane highways.
Montana is certainly not like southern California where cyclists are everywhere at all times of the year.
This legislator is out his mind.
This proposed law leaves me baffled for two reasons. # 1 - There is NO way it would ever pass. # 2 - in 98% of the state I would seriously doubt a motorist encounters a cyclist on the road more than once a month. Remember that the weather in Montana keeps cyclists off the road about 10 months of the year. The other 2 months most cycling is done off road. I RARELY ever seen cyclists on the two lane highways.
Montana is certainly not like southern California where cyclists are everywhere at all times of the year.
This legislator is out his mind.
01-21-17, 03:28 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Leeds UK
Posts: 2,085
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
From Bike Walk Montana
Legislative Campaigns | Bike Walk Montana
LC2196 – Restricting bicyclists and pedestrians on certain rural highways, sponsored by Representative Barry Usher from Billings. After tons of input from Montanans, this bill as been pulled ‘back for redo’.
Surprise, surprise.
Legislative Campaigns | Bike Walk Montana
LC2196 – Restricting bicyclists and pedestrians on certain rural highways, sponsored by Representative Barry Usher from Billings. After tons of input from Montanans, this bill as been pulled ‘back for redo’.
Surprise, surprise.
01-21-17, 04:38 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 740
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 85 Times
in
58 Posts
While I dont live in Montana (or the US for that matter), such a bill would mean I could not ride much further than the end of my street.
This would mean that I could not even ride to the shops in my suburb.
This would mean that I could not even ride to the shops in my suburb.
01-21-17, 04:43 PM
#29
Senior Member
So many hateful anti-cyclist laws seem to pop up disguised in the name of "for your own safety". Whenever a non-cyclist plays the safety card they are typically trying to say they don't want cycling period. It generally boils down to, "I don't want to have to pay attention, and I'm not confident in my own driving skills".
01-21-17, 05:00 PM
#30
Banned.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 1,155
Bikes: 2017 Fuji Jari
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
So many hateful anti-cyclist laws seem to pop up disguised in the name of "for your own safety". Whenever a non-cyclist plays the safety card they are typically trying to say they don't want cycling period. It generally boils down to, "I don't want to have to pay attention, and I'm not confident in my own driving skills".
01-21-17, 05:23 PM
#31
Generally bewildered
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Eastern PA, USA
Posts: 3,037
Bikes: 2014 Trek Domane 6.9, 1999 LeMond Zurich, 1978 Schwinn Superior
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1152 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
251 Posts
Well, given that motorcycles are WAY more dangerous to ride (more fatalities, more serious injuries, more likely to be killed or seriously injured as a motorcycle rider than as a bicyclist), perhaps the bill should have a expansion: prohibit ANY vehicle with fewer than four wheels in which the rider is not completely enclosed. That is, motorcycles could be included in the prohibition.
Further, given that the bill is being offered on the pretext of safety, and the author views bicycles as unsafe, and the fact that motorcyles are even less safe seems to me to be a stipulation by an elected official that motorcycles are inherently unsafe. This should be useable as evidence in lawsuits against motorcycle manufacturers that they are making, and dealers are selling, an inherently unsafe product.
The asshat that proposed this law owns a Harley dealership, no?
Where is Diodorus Siculus when you need him?
"the man who proposed to revise any law should put his neck in a noose at the time he made his proposal of a revision, and remain in that position until the people had reached a decision on the revision of the law, and if the Assembly approved the revised law, the introducer was to be freed of the noose, but if the proposal of revision did not carry, the noose was to be drawn and the man die on the spot."
Further, given that the bill is being offered on the pretext of safety, and the author views bicycles as unsafe, and the fact that motorcyles are even less safe seems to me to be a stipulation by an elected official that motorcycles are inherently unsafe. This should be useable as evidence in lawsuits against motorcycle manufacturers that they are making, and dealers are selling, an inherently unsafe product.
The asshat that proposed this law owns a Harley dealership, no?
Where is Diodorus Siculus when you need him?
"the man who proposed to revise any law should put his neck in a noose at the time he made his proposal of a revision, and remain in that position until the people had reached a decision on the revision of the law, and if the Assembly approved the revised law, the introducer was to be freed of the noose, but if the proposal of revision did not carry, the noose was to be drawn and the man die on the spot."
01-21-17, 08:06 PM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 740
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 85 Times
in
58 Posts
Well, given that motorcycles are WAY more dangerous to ride (more fatalities, more serious injuries, more likely to be killed or seriously injured as a motorcycle rider than as a bicyclist), perhaps the bill should have a expansion: prohibit ANY vehicle with fewer than four wheels in which the rider is not completely enclosed. That is, motorcycles could be included in the prohibition.
Further, given that the bill is being offered on the pretext of safety, and the author views bicycles as unsafe, and the fact that motorcyles are even less safe seems to me to be a stipulation by an elected official that motorcycles are inherently unsafe. This should be useable as evidence in lawsuits against motorcycle manufacturers that they are making, and dealers are selling, an inherently unsafe product.
The asshat that proposed this law owns a Harley dealership, no?
Where is Diodorus Siculus when you need him?
"the man who proposed to revise any law should put his neck in a noose at the time he made his proposal of a revision, and remain in that position until the people had reached a decision on the revision of the law, and if the Assembly approved the revised law, the introducer was to be freed of the noose, but if the proposal of revision did not carry, the noose was to be drawn and the man die on the spot."
Further, given that the bill is being offered on the pretext of safety, and the author views bicycles as unsafe, and the fact that motorcyles are even less safe seems to me to be a stipulation by an elected official that motorcycles are inherently unsafe. This should be useable as evidence in lawsuits against motorcycle manufacturers that they are making, and dealers are selling, an inherently unsafe product.
The asshat that proposed this law owns a Harley dealership, no?
Where is Diodorus Siculus when you need him?
"the man who proposed to revise any law should put his neck in a noose at the time he made his proposal of a revision, and remain in that position until the people had reached a decision on the revision of the law, and if the Assembly approved the revised law, the introducer was to be freed of the noose, but if the proposal of revision did not carry, the noose was to be drawn and the man die on the spot."
01-21-17, 09:20 PM
#33
Generally bewildered
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Eastern PA, USA
Posts: 3,037
Bikes: 2014 Trek Domane 6.9, 1999 LeMond Zurich, 1978 Schwinn Superior
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1152 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
251 Posts
Just to be clear, my note was hyperbolic, and was meant to use irony to wipe the idiot legislator's nose in his own c****y logic.
I'm not sure that the motor vehicle uber alles law wouldn't get some serious consideration.
I'm not sure that the motor vehicle uber alles law wouldn't get some serious consideration.
01-21-17, 09:44 PM
#34
SE Wis
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 10,515
Bikes: '68 Raleigh Sprite, '02 Raleigh C500, '84 Raleigh Gran Prix, '91 Trek 400, 2013 Novara Randonee, 1990 Trek 970
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2747 Post(s)
Liked 3,396 Times
in
2,056 Posts
For much of American history, the right to travel included the right to travel by the vehicle of one's choice, and courts occasionally struck down regional regulations that required licenses or government permission to travel on public roadways. With the advent of the automobile, however, courts began upholding laws and regulations requiring licenses to operate vehicles on roadways.
01-22-17, 07:35 AM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2112 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times
in
443 Posts
The judiciary committee held a hearing, first item on the agenda was HB 194.
The sponsor spoke in favor of the bill.
Nobody spoke in favor of the bill.
Multiple people (~10) spoke in opposition to the bill.
The bill passed favorably out of the judiciary committee.
-mr. bill
The sponsor spoke in favor of the bill.
Nobody spoke in favor of the bill.
Multiple people (~10) spoke in opposition to the bill.
The bill passed favorably out of the judiciary committee.
-mr. bill
01-22-17, 11:21 AM
#36
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
635 Posts
Many states ban cycling on their Interstates. But----------even in several of those, if there is no other hiway connections, there are stretches of the Interstate that bikes are allowed to use.
01-22-17, 12:43 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,239
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18415 Post(s)
Liked 15,551 Times
in
7,330 Posts
I lived in Montana for 23 years. Here are my thoughts....Missoula and the Bitterroot Valley are very bike friendly. The vast majority of the state is bike friendly.
This proposed law leaves me baffled for two reasons. # 1 - There is NO way it would ever pass. # 2 - in 98% of the state I would seriously doubt a motorist encounters a cyclist on the road more than once a month. Remember that the weather in Montana keeps cyclists off the road about 10 months of the year. The other 2 months most cycling is done off road. I RARELY ever seen cyclists on the two lane highways.
Montana is certainly not like southern California where cyclists are everywhere at all times of the year.
This legislator is out his mind.
This proposed law leaves me baffled for two reasons. # 1 - There is NO way it would ever pass. # 2 - in 98% of the state I would seriously doubt a motorist encounters a cyclist on the road more than once a month. Remember that the weather in Montana keeps cyclists off the road about 10 months of the year. The other 2 months most cycling is done off road. I RARELY ever seen cyclists on the two lane highways.
Montana is certainly not like southern California where cyclists are everywhere at all times of the year.
This legislator is out his mind.
2. Are you forgetting that ACA's TransAm route goes from Lolo Pass to W. Yellowstone? I have done a portion of the MT TransAm piece several times in the last few years, including last year. I saw well over a dozen other cyclists each time in just a few short days on the route and have encountered other touring cyclists in other parts of the state on two-lane highways. Also, the GDMBR uses some two-lane paved roads in the state as does the Lewis & Clark Route and the Northern Tier route. ACA also runs its own organized ride--Cycle Montana--in the state.
01-22-17, 12:49 PM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,239
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18415 Post(s)
Liked 15,551 Times
in
7,330 Posts
What happens to the elderly who can no longer drive? Those with physical conditions that keep them from driving and/or obtaining licenses? Those who cannot afford cars and/or insurance?
This about more than cycling.
It takes a special kind of stupid to introduce legislation like this.
01-22-17, 07:36 PM
#39
Cycle Year Round
Plus the no wheelchairs puts the bill in trouble with the ADA.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
01-23-17, 06:32 AM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,811
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Liked 353 Times
in
90 Posts
It would be worse than that. The bill would also ban walking on two lane highways without shoulders.
What happens to the elderly who can no longer drive? Those with physical conditions that keep them from driving and/or obtaining licenses? Those who cannot afford cars and/or insurance?
This about more than cycling.
It takes a special kind of stupid to introduce legislation like this.
What happens to the elderly who can no longer drive? Those with physical conditions that keep them from driving and/or obtaining licenses? Those who cannot afford cars and/or insurance?
This about more than cycling.
It takes a special kind of stupid to introduce legislation like this.
That is, of course, a rhetorical question.
01-23-17, 07:04 AM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kansas
Posts: 2,248
Bikes: This list got too long: several ‘bents, an urban utility e-bike, and a dahon D7 that my daughter has absconded with.
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 363 Post(s)
Liked 66 Times
in
48 Posts
Well, given that motorcycles are WAY more dangerous to ride (more fatalities, more serious injuries, more likely to be killed or seriously injured as a motorcycle rider than as a bicyclist), perhaps the bill should have a expansion: prohibit ANY vehicle with fewer than four wheels in which the rider is not completely enclosed. That is, motorcycles could be included in the prohibition.
Further, given that the bill is being offered on the pretext of safety, and the author views bicycles as unsafe, and the fact that motorcyles are even less safe seems to me to be a stipulation by an elected official that motorcycles are inherently unsafe. This should be useable as evidence in lawsuits against motorcycle manufacturers that they are making, and dealers are selling, an inherently unsafe product.
The asshat that proposed this law owns a Harley dealership, no?
Where is Diodorus Siculus when you need him?
"the man who proposed to revise any law should put his neck in a noose at the time he made his proposal of a revision, and remain in that position until the people had reached a decision on the revision of the law, and if the Assembly approved the revised law, the introducer was to be freed of the noose, but if the proposal of revision did not carry, the noose was to be drawn and the man die on the spot."
Further, given that the bill is being offered on the pretext of safety, and the author views bicycles as unsafe, and the fact that motorcyles are even less safe seems to me to be a stipulation by an elected official that motorcycles are inherently unsafe. This should be useable as evidence in lawsuits against motorcycle manufacturers that they are making, and dealers are selling, an inherently unsafe product.
The asshat that proposed this law owns a Harley dealership, no?
Where is Diodorus Siculus when you need him?
"the man who proposed to revise any law should put his neck in a noose at the time he made his proposal of a revision, and remain in that position until the people had reached a decision on the revision of the law, and if the Assembly approved the revised law, the introducer was to be freed of the noose, but if the proposal of revision did not carry, the noose was to be drawn and the man die on the spot."
01-23-17, 07:08 AM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kansas
Posts: 2,248
Bikes: This list got too long: several ‘bents, an urban utility e-bike, and a dahon D7 that my daughter has absconded with.
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 363 Post(s)
Liked 66 Times
in
48 Posts
Right, as an example, in California, once you get North of Redding (I actually I think it is Red Bluff) Bicycles are permitted on the freeway except for where it passes through towns. When I lived in Hornbrook I would regularly ride I5 on my way to Yreka. I would normally get off at 96; however, I feel I5 was a lot safer than 263. . . 65 and wide shoulders v. 55 narrow, very twisty, and no shoulders.
01-23-17, 07:31 AM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bay Area, Calif.
Posts: 7,239
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 659 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
Right, as an example, in California, once you get North of Redding (I actually I think it is Red Bluff) Bicycles are permitted on the freeway except for where it passes through towns. When I lived in Hornbrook I would regularly ride I5 on my way to Yreka. I would normally get off at 96; however, I feel I5 was a lot safer than 263. . . 65 and wide shoulders v. 55 narrow, very twisty, and no shoulders.
01-23-17, 02:35 PM
#45
Senior Member
Ah, well then, the logical thing to do is to demand that motorcycles be included in this ban on riding 2-lane highways because they are so dangerous for riders and all...
01-23-17, 02:56 PM
#46
don't try this at home.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: N. KY
Posts: 5,940
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 974 Post(s)
Liked 512 Times
in
352 Posts
Well, that didn't take long. 
From another forum:
Update from Melinda Barnes, ED Bike Walk MT:
Hi all-
Barry Usher is now my new best friend and we’re working together, exploring other options for a bill draft, including the possibility of establishing a state bike/ped board, instead of a bill to restrict bicyclists and pedestrians. He’s trying to set up a meeting with someone at Commerce for us to talk with and he’s drafted a public statement we’re finalizing to send out far and wide. It has taken a very positive turn!!
From another forum:
Here's an official statement from Rep. Barry Usher regarding LC2196. Please share this with everyone you know. Even though the draft bill is still on the legislative website, he will not be moving that forward as he indicates below:
"I want to update you on the exciting progress of Montana House LC2196! Since the bill draft had not yet been introduced, I have pulled it back in order to draft a bill that will address the concerns that I have heard from you.
My intent has and remains roadway safety and I appreciate all of the great feedback, ideas and suggestions I have received to improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. I am currently working with Bike Walk Montana, Cycle Greater Yellowstone and other bicycle advocacy groups in a positive direction to re-write this proposed bill, with NO BICYCLE OR PEDESTRIAN RESTRICTIONS.
At this point, we do not have any specifics we can share but will soon. We believe that this great group of safety minded advocates will come up with something to further enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety in the great state of Montana."
Barry M. Usher
Representative
Montana House District 40
And,"I want to update you on the exciting progress of Montana House LC2196! Since the bill draft had not yet been introduced, I have pulled it back in order to draft a bill that will address the concerns that I have heard from you.
My intent has and remains roadway safety and I appreciate all of the great feedback, ideas and suggestions I have received to improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. I am currently working with Bike Walk Montana, Cycle Greater Yellowstone and other bicycle advocacy groups in a positive direction to re-write this proposed bill, with NO BICYCLE OR PEDESTRIAN RESTRICTIONS.
At this point, we do not have any specifics we can share but will soon. We believe that this great group of safety minded advocates will come up with something to further enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety in the great state of Montana."
Barry M. Usher
Representative
Montana House District 40
Update from Melinda Barnes, ED Bike Walk MT:
Hi all-
Barry Usher is now my new best friend and we’re working together, exploring other options for a bill draft, including the possibility of establishing a state bike/ped board, instead of a bill to restrict bicyclists and pedestrians. He’s trying to set up a meeting with someone at Commerce for us to talk with and he’s drafted a public statement we’re finalizing to send out far and wide. It has taken a very positive turn!!
01-23-17, 03:39 PM
#47
Cycle Year Round
How does one re-write this proposed bill exclusively for bicycle and pedestrian restrictions with NO BICYCLE OR PEDESTRIAN RESTRICTIONS.
Clear cut politician speak. I was losing votes so dam fast, I had to do something to pull my foot out of my ass. Please, please Melinda Barnes, ED Bike Walk MT, be my friend.
Clear cut politician speak. I was losing votes so dam fast, I had to do something to pull my foot out of my ass. Please, please Melinda Barnes, ED Bike Walk MT, be my friend.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
01-23-17, 04:13 PM
#48
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
The irony is if he really wants to "improve roadway safety" all he has to do is lower the speed limits.
01-24-17, 09:53 AM
#49
Punk Rock Lives
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Throughout the west in a van, on my bike, and in the forest
Posts: 3,305
Bikes: Long Haul Trucker with BRIFTERS!
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked 45 Times
in
39 Posts
I found the climate for cycling in Montana to be excellent, from the touristy areas around Glacier and Yellowstone parks to the flat rural areas in the east, e.g. Glendive. Have mixed feelings on this bill: a wolf in the sheeps clothing of "safety." But dollar for dollar, the best investment we can make in improving bike safety on the roadways is to install and/or widen shoulders; if this bill was linked with a funded commitment to do so, I would consider it.
