FBinNY 

Yes, but if the shoulder is fine for riding, that's a safer and more reasonable alternative. The issue is balancing the rights of cyclists to get from place A to place B by the best route with the same rights of the others who share that road.

OTOH if the shoulder isn't rideable it's much harder to find a fair and reasonable compromise.

I've ridden just about every kind of road, both legally and illegally. To me it's not about the law or rights to the road per se, but what the road means --- the ability to get from one place to another. I'm all for the cyclist here if riding the lane is her only reasonable option. OTOH- If the shoulder is decent, and the cyclist is riding in the lane on principle, she has no sympathy form me.

I've used the word reasonable often in this post, and leave it to the judge to decide what and who is reasonable.

Fortunately, this kind of case is narrowly based and doesn't create a precedent that other courts and jurisdictions will follow. What would be sad and harmful to many others would be for this case to be a basis for denying cyclists the right to tide that road entirely (including the shoulder). If I lived there, and rode that shoulder, I'd be asking to speak at that hearing to ensure that that doesn't happen.

trailmix

There are no good alternate routes.

turky lurkey

+1

I can never understand it when some cyclists on B.F.'s claim that they will obey the law at all costs. I absolutely agree that it's best to obey the law in most cases; however, in some cases wisdom trumps the law. You, may be bending the rules a bit but you aren't the one facing court trials and fines. According to your testimony and the pictures shown on the news I have to think the riding the shoulder is the best option for the road in question.

FBinNY 

Yes, I said so in the post you quoted (though I said it was third hand). As I said, this case turns on the reasonableness of the shoulder as an alernative, and if it's borderline, on what the city or county can and will do to make it rideable.

This is a bad case, let's hope it doesn't result in bad law.

trailmix

Sorry, reading comprehension error on my part. I thought you were saying there are good alternate routes. I'll go away now, my apologies.

trailmix

Another thing, that shoulder ends about 1 mile north of where the footage was shot. The road then becomes 6 lane with no shoulder.

FBinNY 

Why do you keep telling ME? Tell it to the judge. I've already said that there seem to be no reasonable alternative routes, (I'm sure there are others that may be unreasonably longer).

So, as I've said a few times, it's a question of whether the shoulder is OK, which at least one local who rides it daily says it is. As for the last mile in question, the ruling could be that she can ride the lane there.

I don't know the laws in that state, but it could happen that a pro cyclist ruling could result in the state's department of highways declaring that cyclists are banned from the entire highway. So a short term victory for the "rights" on one cyclist could result in a long term loss for all cyclists.

BTW- in many ways judges are like cats and shouldn't be cornered and forced to issue rulings. Often a judge will try to work out a compromise acceptable to both parties, but if cornered will rule against the one forcing the issue.

trailmix

I apologize, my mistake. We were making the same argument and I am too dim to realize it.

kickstart

FBinNY hit the nail on the head.

The question in this case is if a 55 mph highway lane is an appropriate place to ride a bicycle, and IMO it isn't.

CB HI

According to one "local" poster who says he has cycled highway 27 with her, she does use the shoulder but takes then lane for heavy debris and to ride legally in through lanes rather than charging through intersections from right turn only lanes.

So such a solution to banning legal riding by cyclist would also require law changes exempting cyclist from following the law.

Judges are not suppose to ignore law either when coming up with solutions.

mconlonx

If it was me on that road, I'd probably be riding the shoulder. I'd ride as far right as practicable.

I'm not about to assume what this particular rider thinks is practicable. Because if I did, I'd be no different than anyone else who thought she should be riding as far right as practical or possible...

I-Like-To-Bike

What is wrong with thinking like that in this situation?

CB HI

Are you aware of any real cases where such government over reach of a cyclist right to travel has actually worked in the long term.

It failed for Blackhawk, CO and helped end up with even more pro cycling laws within the state.

mconlonx

I'm not her, I'm not going to dictate what is practicable to another rider.

Oh, wait, this is A&S: crucify her!

kickstart

The thing is, this isn't about an outright ban on all roads like Blackhawk was, this is about a specific rider on a specific road who's actions stand out from all other users in a negative manner.
At this point there is no talk about banning or restricting any other cyclists on that road.

CB HI

Blackhawk was about one specific road, the main road running through town. Blackhawk tried to target only out of town folk.

What seems to make a difference to you, is even though she is riding legally, she rides different than you would, so by you she should be banned. It will really suck for you some day when you find yourself on the flip side.

kickstart

I think you should recheck your facts on Blackhawk. It was most roads in the town and severed the only reasonable paved through route.

I also don't think she should be banned from the road because she rides it differently than I would, but she should be held accountable for her decision to ride it in a way that causes unreasonable and unnecessary disruption unlike any other cyclists.

CB HI

The only Blackhawk tickets handed out were on the main road and that is the only road that was signed. The only people riding the other roads were locals and they were exempted from the law.

A claimed distinction without a difference. Pretty much, just double talk.

Kybicycle01

When I have a question on how to bicycle from point A to B and survive, I refer to the web site - bicycle safe (.com). It does not focus on laws but simply how not to get hit by a car. The explanation about invisibility covers what is being discussed in this forum thread very well. I re-read the site often to clear up the gray areas of riding/commuting and how to deal with them.

bruce19

Legal issue aside what she is doing is putting her life in danger on a daily basis.

Chris516

I wondered the same thing. But at the same time, the claim to her slowing down traffic is petty and bogus. She is only in one lane, not two. Also, She is not stopping people from passing her.

Chris516

Rumble strips are not practical, in exercising AFRAP.

Chris516

The fact of her riding on a 55mph road, in respect to danger, is moot. The only element of concern is, if the state has a max, of what roads with particular speed limits, a cyclist cannot go on. For instance, in Maryland, a cyclist cannot go on roads that have a speed limit above 50mph.

Metal Man

If this is like most roads I'm sure there are many locals that think the cars move too fast on this road. I'm also sure the police spend plenty of time writing tickets for speeding. It's funny how it doesn't work both ways. Or should that be funny how it does work both ways??

bruce19

From my perspective it matters little whether it's a 55 mph limit or whatever. I was just commenting on the inherent danger. I see it as extremely dangerous and there is no judgement as to her rights or the laws. But, in the end, dead is dead.