"you give up your rights as a cyclist when staying on the road wherethe paths are available"

A police lieutenant wrote in our local parks and recreation guide:

"[...] you give up your rights as a cyclist when staying on the road
where the paths are available."

Can this be legally true?

? wrote:
A police lieutenant wrote in our local parks and recreation guide:

"[...] you give up your rights as a cyclist when staying on the road
where the paths are available."

Can this be legally true?

Where is "local"?

Highly doubtful the officer is correct.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.” - gene daniels

On Sep 13, 8:00*pm, "
wrote:
A police lieutenant wrote in our local parks and recreation guide:

"[...] you give up your rights as a cyclist when staying on the road
where the paths are available."

Can this be legally true?

You mean like the right to remain unrunover?
Obviously the intent, and an invitation to motorists to take a free
swipe.
--D-y

On Sep 13, 8:03*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
? wrote:
A police lieutenant wrote in our local parks and recreation guide:

"[...] you give up your rights as a cyclist when staying on the road
where the paths are available."

Can this be legally true?

Where is "local"?

Highly doubtful the officer is correct.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.” - gene daniels

Sorry, local for this issue is Wisconsin, USA.

On Sep 13, 9:00*pm, "
wrote:
A police lieutenant wrote in our local parks and recreation guide:

"[...] you give up your rights as a cyclist when staying on the road
where the paths are available."

Can this be legally true?

Was the officer named? If so, I'd complain to his superiors.

On Sep 13, 8:22*pm, "
wrote:
On Sep 13, 8:03*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:

? wrote:
A police lieutenant wrote in our local parks and recreation guide:

"[...] you give up your rights as a cyclist when staying on the road
where the paths are available."

Can this be legally true?

Where is "local"?

Highly doubtful the officer is correct.

Sorry, local for this issue is Wisconsin, USA.

I wonder which specific rights he may be talking about.

Maybe the right to a speedy trial? Or the right to non-
quaterage?

I'd hate to think that by cycling on the street I'd be
forced to house soldiers without my consent.

On Sep 13, 6:03*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
? wrote:
A police lieutenant wrote in our local parks and recreation guide:

"[...] you give up your rights as a cyclist when staying on the road
where the paths are available."

Can this be legally true?

Where is "local"?

Highly doubtful the officer is correct.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.” - gene daniels

In some states, like Oregon, if there is a bicycle facility (path,
trail, etc.) that has been deemed "safe" by some unnamed governmental
body, then bicyclists have to use it. If you stay on the road, you
can be ticketed. In Oregon, if you get ticketed, you have the burden
of proving that the bicycle facility is not safe or has not been
deemed safe. I totally ignore this law, as do most cops -- but I do
get yelled at sometimes. Now that bicyclists have so much political
clout in PDX, motorists feel they must push back and lecture any time
you fail to scrupulously follow the law. I liked it when no one cared
about us.

Also note that there is a developing push for an MHL for everyone in
Oregon, which I will oppose -- and I always wear a helmet. We are
also getting odd green boxes at lights, and the do-gooders want all
sorts of separate facilities. It is starting to get weird around
here, mostly because bicycling causes have been coopted by do-gooders
who don't ride more than a few miles a week on their wicked witch of
the west upright bikes (usually with fluorescent vests and safety
flags).-- Jay Beattie.

On Sep 13, 9:00 pm, "
wrote:
A police lieutenant wrote in our local parks and recreation guide:

"[...] you give up your rights as a cyclist when staying on the road
where the paths are available."

Can this be legally true?

Sounds like pseudo-legal babble speak for: "Get off the ****en
road!!!!!!!" Bad enough that this is that prevailing attitude of most
motorists. Now they've got an endorsement from a law enforcement
officer.

Anyway, doesn't really matter. In most places in the USA, "cyclists
rights" seem to be pretty well non-existent to begin with so it isn't
like you'd be "giving up" all that much.

wrote:
On Sep 13, 8:03 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
? wrote:
A police lieutenant wrote in our local parks and recreation guide:
"[...] you give up your rights as a cyclist when staying on the road
where the paths are available."
Can this be legally true?
Where is "local"?

Highly doubtful the officer is correct.

PLEASE HONOR THE SIGNATURE SEPARATOR.

Sorry, local for this issue is Wisconsin, USA.

Never heard of it. end silliness

From
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/vehicle/bicycle/docs/bikelaws.pdf:
---------
346.02 Applicability of chapter. 4) Applicability to persons riding
bicycles and motor bicycles. (a) Subject to the special provisions
applicable to bicycles, every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway or
shoulder of a highway is granted all the rights and is subject to all
the duties which this chapter grants or applies to the operator of a
vehicle, except those provisions which by their express terms apply only
to motor vehicles or which by their very nature would have no
application to bicycles. For purposes of this chapter, provisions, which
apply to bicycles, also apply to motor bicycles, except as otherwise
expressly provided. (b) Provisions which apply to the operation of
bicycles in crosswalks under ss. 346.23, 346.24, 346.37 (1) (a) 2., (c)
and (d) 2. And 346.38 do not apply to motor bicycles.

349.23 Authority to designate bicycle lanes and bicycle ways.
[...]
(3) The governing body of any city, town, village or county may by
ordinance prohibit the use of bicycles and motor bicycles on a roadway
over which they have jurisdiction, after holding a public hearing on the
proposal.
---------

Other than the ability for local authorities to prohibit bicycles on
certain roads, I see nothing indicating that cyclists would give up
rights even with a "bicycle lane or path" is present.

WisDOT seems to agree:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/vehicle/bicycle/wheretoride.htm.

---------
[...]Other vehicles are prohibited from using this space. In some
communities there are also bicycle or multi-use trails available to
bicyclists.

There is no requirement that bicyclists use these facilities instead of
the road or street. In fact, the bicyclist has the right to travel on
every roadway like any other vehicle operator, except for a limited
number of limited-access high-speed highways. The higher speed bicyclist
may legally take the center of the right lane, even if there is shoulder
space to ride in.

Roads that are prohibited for bicycles are marked as such. Everywhere
else the bicyclist may use the right lane or the shoulder, and other
lanes for left turns if left turns are permitted.[...]
---------

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia aka Wisconsin
“Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.” - gene daniels

aka T.P. wrote:
On Sep 13, 8:00 pm, "
wrote:
A police lieutenant wrote in our local parks and recreation guide:

"[...] you give up your rights as a cyclist when staying on the road
where the paths are available."

Can this be legally true?

You mean like the right to remain unrunover?
Obviously the intent, and an invitation to motorists to take a free
swipe.

Well, the state DOT encourages taking the lane when prudent:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/vehicle/bicycle/rules.htm.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.” - gene daniels