Who lives in Minnesota
#1
24-Speed Machine
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Posts: 6,058
Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Who lives in Minnesota
I would like to know because, I am in the process of starting a grass-roots campaign against the state, over the double talk between, what it says in the 2003-'04 Minnesota State Drivers Manual and, the Minnesota State Statutes for 2004.
Christopher
Christopher
#2
Not exactly a newb
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
What discrepancies are you referring to? I do live in the Twin Cities and would like to see even more lanes for bicycles all over.
Shannon
Shannon
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Podunc, Minnesota
Posts: 416
Bikes: '14 Bacchetta Corsa, '93 Ryan Vanguard, Action Bent SWB USS
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I too live in Minnesota, I need more information.
#5
one hot mama
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: minneapolis, mn
Posts: 11
Bikes: single-speed raleigh - a little too big for me. i have a HUGE cog.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I live in Minneapolis. I'd like to hear more about what you're referring to...
#7
24-Speed Machine
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Posts: 6,058
Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by ShannonH
What discrepancies are you referring to? I do live in the Twin Cities and would like to see even more lanes for bicycles all over.
Shannon
Shannon
Minnesota State Statutes
Chap. 169(Traffic Regulations)
Sec. 222
Subd. 1
Subd. 4
Subs. 3
Part (a), (c), (d) and (f)
The Parts, is where the ambiguity starts because, they are exceptions to, riding 'as close to the curb as possible'
In Part (a), they use the phrase 'reasonbly necessary'. The use of this phrase, calls into question, the judgment capabilities of a cyclist, compared to a motorist. Why define a bicycle as a 'vehicle', in the state's drivers manual then, call into question their judgment capabilities at the same time?
In Part (c) it says that a cyclist shall ride within a single lane, without impeding traffic. This particular exception, in and of itself, is intimating that a cyclist impedes traffic so, therefore, a motorist should not have to care about a cyclist being on the road, in the first place. The definition of 'Impede' is, 'to interfere with or slow the progress of'. A cyclist is not impeding traffic if, there are a bunch of cars behind him, with an open lane on the left. Also, That a cyclist shall ride in a single lane.
In Part (d) it says we are not supposed to ride on the highway, unless, we can get one foot on the ground. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND, WOULD RIDE A BIKE ON I-35!!!!!!
In Part (f) it says that, we shall have all the rights and, responsibilities, applicable to a pedestrian. One minute, the bike is considered a vehicle, the next....a person!!
Under the states' drivers manual, it says that, we should ride, as close to the curb 'as possible'. You might say, that, I am 'splitting hairs' but, the phrase 'as possible', leaves a lot of discretion up to the individual cyclist.
Also, In the state statutes, a bicycle is 'defined' as, a vehicle.
#8
24-Speed Machine
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Posts: 6,058
Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by Raiyn
This guy's gone, we may never know what he's talking about because he hasn't been back since he posted this thread.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Western Morris Cty, NJ
Posts: 558
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by Chris516
In Part (a), they use the phrase 'reasonbly necessary'. The use of this phrase, calls into question, the judgment capabilities of a cyclist, compared to a motorist. Why define a bicycle as a 'vehicle', in the state's drivers manual then, call into question their judgment capabilities at the same time?
In Part (f) it says that, we shall have all the rights and, responsibilities, applicable to a pedestrian. One minute, the bike is considered a vehicle, the next....a person!!
Also, In the state statutes, a bicycle is 'defined' as, a vehicle.
In Part (f) it says that, we shall have all the rights and, responsibilities, applicable to a pedestrian. One minute, the bike is considered a vehicle, the next....a person!!
Also, In the state statutes, a bicycle is 'defined' as, a vehicle.
#11
You need a new bike
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5,433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris516
In Part (a), they use the phrase 'reasonbly necessary'. The use of this phrase, calls into question, the judgment capabilities of a cyclist, compared to a motorist. Why define a bicycle as a 'vehicle', in the state's drivers manual then, call into question their judgment capabilities at the same time?
Originally Posted by Chris516
In Part (c) it says that a cyclist shall ride within a single lane, without impeding traffic. This particular exception, in and of itself, is intimating that a cyclist impedes traffic so, therefore, a motorist should not have to care about a cyclist being on the road, in the first place. The definition of 'Impede' is, 'to interfere with or slow the progress of'. A cyclist is not impeding traffic if, there are a bunch of cars behind him, with an open lane on the left. Also, That a cyclist shall ride in a single lane.
Originally Posted by Chris516
In Part (d) it says we are not supposed to ride on the highway, unless, we can get one foot on the ground. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND, WOULD RIDE A BIKE ON I-35!!!!!!
Originally Posted by Chris516
In Part (f) it says that, we shall have all the rights and, responsibilities, applicable to a pedestrian. One minute, the bike is considered a vehicle, the next....a person!!
Originally Posted by Chris516
Under the states' drivers manual, it says that, we should ride, as close to the curb 'as possible'. You might say, that, I am 'splitting hairs' but, the phrase 'as possible', leaves a lot of discretion up to the individual cyclist.
Originally Posted by Chris516
Also, In the state statutes, a bicycle is 'defined' as, a vehicle.
I see nothing to campaign against here. Your laws look to be very similar to every other state's laws. There is no ambiguity. It seems that you have some disagreement with the requirement to ride as far to the right as conditions warrant. If that's your beef, then by all means try to change it if you like. But there's really no inconsistancy in what you presented.
#12
Dictator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Minnesota, Saint Paul, East Side; Dayton's Bluff
Posts: 160
Bikes: What... all of them?!?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I guess I'm late to this thread. There is a lot to cover on these forums.
As far as advocacy and legislation go, a good place to start is https://www.bikeped.org Though this organization hasn't quite made it to lobby efforts yet, it has been discussed at the table.
As for the discrepancies, the best (and most reality based option) we can hope for is that enforcement officers see the spirit of they law, rather than get tied up in vague language. And the spirit of these laws is this: A bicyclist should avoid obstructing faster traffic by staying to the right side of the road, except in situations where doing so would endanger the cyclist. Note also that highways are not linguistically equal to Interstate highways. Bicycles are forbidden on most sections of interstate highways. Lastly, it would seem that the bike as vehicle or pedestrian issue has already been answered quite well.
Good call for brining this to folks attention Chris. In most cases these issues don't warrant much or any attention, but when law enforcement agencies such as the Minneapolis PD use vague language to their unscrupulous advantage, it is good to know that there is someone out there eager to clarify the language.
Now if I could take a moment to make my own demands for legislation and/or change, here is a guide for such that I have tried to pursue with both the state and local municipalities at various times in the last few years (feel free to comment y'all):
Concepts for the creation of new laws in St. Paul
Definitions:
Spoke = A roadway or a portion of a roadway that stems from an intersection.
“T Junction” = A 3-way intersection where one roadway does not fully bisect the other.
New St. Paul laws regarding traffic signal sensors:
Option # 1
Eliminate the use of all traffic sensors in the city of St. Paul.
Option # 2
Make all traffic sensors in the city capable of detecting all bicycles (made of any materials), even when the sensor is under a layer of dense snow.
Option # 3
Eliminate the use of all traffic sensors at intersections containing 5 or more spokes.
New St. Paul laws regarding bicyclists’ responsibility at stop signs:
At 4-way stop signs:
Bicyclists approaching the intersection can proceed through the intersection without stopping provided that:
a) There are no other vehicles stopped at the intersection.
b) Other vehicles approaching the intersection will not have come to a stop until after the bicyclist has proceeded through the intersection.
At 3-way “T Junction” intersections:
Bicyclists travelling along the top of the “T” can proceed through the intersection without stopping provided that:
a) The bicyclist is not turning left.
b) There are no vehicles turning left from the bottom of the “T”.
Bicyclists traveling along all other portions of the “T” must follow the rules below (see “At intersections controlled by 2-way or irregular stop signs”)
At intersections controlled by 2-way or irregular stop signs:
Bicyclists approaching the intersection along a spoke with a stop sign can proceed through the intersection without stopping provided that the bicyclist is, without question, in no way interfering with another vehicle’s right of way.
As far as advocacy and legislation go, a good place to start is https://www.bikeped.org Though this organization hasn't quite made it to lobby efforts yet, it has been discussed at the table.
As for the discrepancies, the best (and most reality based option) we can hope for is that enforcement officers see the spirit of they law, rather than get tied up in vague language. And the spirit of these laws is this: A bicyclist should avoid obstructing faster traffic by staying to the right side of the road, except in situations where doing so would endanger the cyclist. Note also that highways are not linguistically equal to Interstate highways. Bicycles are forbidden on most sections of interstate highways. Lastly, it would seem that the bike as vehicle or pedestrian issue has already been answered quite well.
Good call for brining this to folks attention Chris. In most cases these issues don't warrant much or any attention, but when law enforcement agencies such as the Minneapolis PD use vague language to their unscrupulous advantage, it is good to know that there is someone out there eager to clarify the language.
Now if I could take a moment to make my own demands for legislation and/or change, here is a guide for such that I have tried to pursue with both the state and local municipalities at various times in the last few years (feel free to comment y'all):
Concepts for the creation of new laws in St. Paul
Definitions:
Spoke = A roadway or a portion of a roadway that stems from an intersection.
“T Junction” = A 3-way intersection where one roadway does not fully bisect the other.
New St. Paul laws regarding traffic signal sensors:
Option # 1
Eliminate the use of all traffic sensors in the city of St. Paul.
Option # 2
Make all traffic sensors in the city capable of detecting all bicycles (made of any materials), even when the sensor is under a layer of dense snow.
Option # 3
Eliminate the use of all traffic sensors at intersections containing 5 or more spokes.
New St. Paul laws regarding bicyclists’ responsibility at stop signs:
At 4-way stop signs:
Bicyclists approaching the intersection can proceed through the intersection without stopping provided that:
a) There are no other vehicles stopped at the intersection.
b) Other vehicles approaching the intersection will not have come to a stop until after the bicyclist has proceeded through the intersection.
At 3-way “T Junction” intersections:
Bicyclists travelling along the top of the “T” can proceed through the intersection without stopping provided that:
a) The bicyclist is not turning left.
b) There are no vehicles turning left from the bottom of the “T”.
Bicyclists traveling along all other portions of the “T” must follow the rules below (see “At intersections controlled by 2-way or irregular stop signs”)
At intersections controlled by 2-way or irregular stop signs:
Bicyclists approaching the intersection along a spoke with a stop sign can proceed through the intersection without stopping provided that the bicyclist is, without question, in no way interfering with another vehicle’s right of way.
Last edited by trystero; 11-16-04 at 07:38 AM.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Western Morris Cty, NJ
Posts: 558
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by trystero
New St. Paul laws regarding traffic signal sensors:
Option # 1
Eliminate the use of all traffic sensors in the city of St. Paul.
Option # 2
Make all traffic sensors in the city capable of detecting all bicycles (made of any materials), even when the sensor is under a layer of dense snow.
Option # 3
Eliminate the use of all traffic sensors at intersections containing 5 or more spokes.
#14
Dictator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Minnesota, Saint Paul, East Side; Dayton's Bluff
Posts: 160
Bikes: What... all of them?!?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by steve_wmn
Are there bike friendly traffic sensors that would make Option 2 work? ...and there is one intersection where the only button is in a terrible spot for bikers. At this intersection I am much more likely to "cheat".
#15
Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Minneapolis,MN
Posts: 33
Bikes: 2003 De Rosa Dual / 2002 Trek 5200 / Time VX Special Pro / 2001 Pinarello Prince
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Sorry for going slightly off topic, but I would be absolutely thrilled if they would just clean the streets here in DT Minneapolis. I live near & ride through DT daily & it's reached the point of ridiculousness. I went so far as to Email the Mayor's office (with no response). Anyone who cycles DT , especially the day after a football game likely knows what I'm talking about. Broken glass & crap everywhere. Does anyone happen to know who's responsibilty it is to keep the streets around the parking lots that are used for tail-gating clean....?
#16
LeMond Lives!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Edina, MN
Posts: 560
Bikes: In 1963 my sister taught me to ride on her girl’s frame (no wonder I shave my legs) Schwinn it was blue and it weighted a billion pounds. – Gone, 2nd bike - a Schwinn Colligate (Gold) 5 speed – Traded in, 3rd bike – 1971 Schwinn Continental (Maro
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris516
I would like to know because, I am in the process of starting a grass-roots campaign against the state, over the double talk between, what it says in the 2003-'04 Minnesota State Drivers Manual and, the Minnesota State Statutes for 2004.
Christopher
Christopher
Cheers,
Dusk