Yeah, but do to the bike lane proponents, there it is. And the motorist ARE going to expect cyclists to use it.

I am not terribly familiar with their history, but I understand that many of these laws were passed during a period of low bicycle usage in the US. From what I gather from Forester's articles/books, there was (? is ?) also a period of misinformation, whereby legislation was passed for our own good.

If you accept those two things, it is easy to see how a lot of crazy laws could be passed.

Since one aspect of the Division as I understand it is whether cycling advocacy should include outreach and increasing ridership ...

Has anyone ever determined the relationship between bicycle usage and legislation that limits that usage? Thinking abstractly, I do not see a clear relationship between the two. Suppose cyclists compose a small minority of road users and then cycling usage increases. One might think that since the political base of cyclists increase, legislation that is more favorable to cyclists should pass too. However, it could be the case that with more cyclists on the road, cyclists become more of an irritant to the majority auto drivers. Consequently, legislation less favorable to cyclists is enacted.

My guess is that in the US where individual rights seem to have a higher degree of protection than other Western countries, one is probably better off increasing the political base of cyclists.

Didn't we cover this already?

:lol:

That might have to do with the level of enforcement. It use to be the case that many states had anti-sodomy laws as well (do they still have them?) despite little support for them. Until a motivating incident occurs or a large percentage of the constituancy deeply cares about an issue, it is hard to get legislators to act on an issue.

I can't expect government to represent the people's will without direct oversight? That is, I can't expect them to do their job?

Note: There is an obvious amount of sarcasm there. But citizens have the right to complain about government and well as lobby/protest their government. IMO, it is reasonable to have some expectation of good governance. Although I understand the practicalities of your point.

Hey that doesn't sound so bad. I half expect someone to respond that Bek is "the crack in the @ss" given some of the virulent conversations in the forum.

Just so I don't start something ... this is a joke. I am not implying that we are all part of some massive butt. :D

If it happened often enough, it might even make you a bikeway skeptic. You might demand to see the engineering details of any project before daring to support it just because the planners call it a "bikeway." You might recommend that some streets be left alone - gasp! - rather than trying to shoe-horn in badly designed facilities.

But then, as a result of your inability to provide blanket support for bikeways, the bikeway advocates would call you an anti-facilities elitist. You would become demonized as the opponent of cycling utopia, intent on reducing bicycle use in favor of increased automobile use, pollution, childhood obesity, and bad breath.

North Carolina has an anti-sodomy law. Sodomy between consenting adults is a Class I felony here. The police enforce it whenever the perpetrators do something (or are someone) the police don't like.

The lesson for cycling is that if you want the police to leave you alone, don't leave laws on the books that they can exploit as an excuse to stop or even arrest you. For instance, in Florida, some police had a habit of stopping and searching cyclists essentially for "bicycling while black" in the wrong part of town. The police simply used the local "bell or gong" ordinance requirement to stop anybody they didn't like the looks of, because odds were they didn't have a bell.

The purpose of mandatory-use laws was to control cyclists for the benefit of motorists' convenience. They were copied from European nations where the cycling population was large enough that cyclists might leave the bikeway due to bicycle traffic congestion on the bikeway, or because the bikeway was not suitable to them, and this could delay motorists. The laws were copied in the USA because at the time, bicycling was increasing (hence the effort to build bikeways) and the traffic engineers feared that the bicyclist volumes might delay motorists.

So, if you violate the mandatory-use law but no motorists have to slow down, the police will probably leave you alone, but if another driver has to slow down because you stay out of a door zone bike lane, and the police don't like that, the officer will likely stop you and cite you. Depending on how the law is written, it may be a traffic ticket, or it may be a misdemeanor.

Actually, BonB happens the last Friday of every month on two bridges, the bike week event was an extra bonus day. And it's not discounts given by restaurants; it's free, and it's done by cyclists for cyclists, with donated comestibles. And everything is hauled to and from the site by pedal power.

ZooBomb always takes the lane. Check it out!

:)

And if cops on bicycles show up looking for breakfast, they're welcome to join us. :)

I'm about to let myself get roped into helping out. You'd better start showing up for the one on the Hawthorne, dude! :p

I totally agree that we should work to revoke these laws. As you might already know, DC has a mandatory bike registration law while making it difficult to register one's bike. I in fact tried to register at two stations where (1) it took forever to find someone familiar with the process and (2) it turned out that they lacked the necessary equipment to register my bike. So yes, the registration law is (rarely) used to harass messengers and whoever else crosses an officer.

But when it is rarely enforced, as in DC, it is difficult to motivate people to rally against the law. Although the local advocacy group is bringing this to the mayor and commissioner again. It appears that all sides agree that the law in ineffectual. Now we have to get someone to sign the piece of paper.

A year ago I discovered that a town in Georgia was attempting to develop a mandatory registration requirement for bicycles for the purpose of discouraging out-of-towners from bicycling through town, particularly on the narrow roads where some local motorists felt inconvenienced. The city staff researching bicycle registration laws in an effort to draft the law were unhappy with the task they were given by their political leaders, so they were very open to discuss the intended purpose and side effects of the proposed law. Given the cost that would be incurred by local residents to register their bicycles, enforcement on locals would be highly unpopular and probably not done. However, it would give the local government the power to do what they wanted: a legal excuse to pull over groups of suspected out-of-town cyclists and ticket them, in order to discourage their cycling through town.

I gave the local planners there some references to cases where state courts ruled that local vehicle registration schemes that significantly interfered with the rights of out-of-towners to travel through the community were unconstitutional (right to travel, and 1st and 14th amendments). I pointed out that the fact that the proposed ordinance was specifically designed to discourage travel pretty much guaranteed a court challenge. I don't think it went anywhere after that.

Hmmm, that is interesting. I should forward your note to WABA.org. Thanks SG.

Just for a quick reference ...

http://waba.org/takeaction/dc.php

I understood all of that, my comment was sort of thinking out loud about other cities, that only do something during bike week. It would be cool to have a year round breakfast discount in most cities for commuting cyclist.:D

I am not aware any good studies on the subject of mandatory side path/bike lane use laws. There were a couple of studies done on mandatory helmet use laws that indicated cycling decreased after the laws passed.

Cyclist have gained the greatest power with the internet. When a new mandatory side path use law gets proposed nowadays, word spreads pretty quickly. The offending legislature gets flooded with mail, e-mail and calls. The proposal usaully gets dropped quick, especially if the area is a tourist destination.

But once a law is already on the books, it is a much steeper uphill battle.

I agree that preventing bad legislation is much easier than removing bad legislation. In my example above regarding the mandatory bike registration in DC, bike advocates and the police commissioner agree that the law should be revoked, but for whatever reason, it has been difficult getting movement on the issue.

Here's a little more detail on a local-registration legal case in the town next-door to where I live:

Also: http://www.ci.morrisville.nc.us/webA...6/2007-025.pdf

This recognizes reciprocity between communities, allowing vehicle registration in one place to be recognized elsewhere, and reduces the ability of an ordinance to be designed to discourage travel. However, if it is logistically very difficult for an outsider to obtain registration, for instance if one's own municipality does not offer it, then one could still make the case that the ordinance requirement is an unlawful infringement. This is why I oppose mandatory local registration programs but support voluntary ones for vehicle recovery after theft. All of my bikes are registered in Cary.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...003651408.html

Here is a photo of Seattle's finest facilities. Which cyclist is on which side of the 'Division'??

the plan is to improve that facility, galen.

3 cyclists riding outside the door zone, in the bike lane, one cyclist passing another cyclist in the lane.

the master plan has Seattle improving that bike lane with a door zone 'buffer'. do you want seattle to get rid of bike infrastructure? you are clearly anti-facilites, galen. if you lived here, you'd probably ride in the bike lanes when safe and leave them when conditions dictated. galen, you'd likely take advantage of the MUPs that move cyclists long distances across the metro Seattle area for your 'fitness' rides.

Seattle has a goal of increasing trips by bike via bike infrastructure, and, following the lead of other cities around the world, has developed plans and infrastructure to do so. and its improving every day, with the input of cyclists and advocacy groups. anti-facilties blowhards like galen still use bike facilties.

Yesterday, at the unveiling of the master plan, one of the vocal anti-facilities foresterite "Bicycle drivers" showed up riding on the BIKE PATH,:eek: despite a street 30 feet away!

he then spewed his anti-bicycling 'vehicle parity' slant to the radio shock jockeys. what a putz.

The fact is that all three cyclist are riding VC and the painted line has absolutely no impact on their ability to do so or their safety. The bike lane as shown in the photo is heinous. The right-side line is under the tires of parked cars for crying out loud. The locals have obviously adapted and ride basically on the outer line of the bike lane (which, if faster motor vehicles were not paying attention and moving left, would have them close-passing the cyclists). The lane is plenty wide for vehicles to pass safely without the paint line. If the great bicycle master plan is going to move the existing bike lane out of the door zone than it will be a lot of money spend for paint strips (double the cost since the bike lane stripes were painted once already) and will accomplish nothing as far as cyclists riding safely down that particular road are concerned.

your analysis is incorrect, galen.

paint striping is not expensive, that street is a de facto bicycle avenue for commuters, the bike lanes encourages less curb hugging than wide outside lanes, and the improvement of the bike lane is a welcome addition to seattles' bike infrastructure.

removal of bike infrastructure would leave the roads more autocentric, lead to more curb hugging and more sidewalk bicycling.

and you don't want that, do you, chestbeater?

Looks like the cyclist already disregard the bike lane pretty much already. Don't see any curb to hug, just parked cars. So, you are incorrect sir. The locals have already figured out that the stripe is meaningless.