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

Jay Beattie wrote:


We are
also getting odd green boxes at lights, and the do-gooders want all
sorts of separate facilities.

What sort of odd green box? And that is a separate facility for what?

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).

Amen.

--

David L. Johnson

When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that
your initial objective was to drain the swamp.
-- LBJ

On Sep 13, 9:25*pm, "David L. Johnson"
wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:

* We are

also getting odd green boxes at lights, and the do-gooders want all
sorts of separate facilities. *

What sort of odd green box? *And that is a separate facility for what?

The "boxes" are designated areas ahead of traffic at certain lights
and intersections. They are green and created with that applied
striping material -- so when the anti-skid wears off, they will be
like ice skating in the rain. There was actually a movement to create
raised bicycle lanes ala Amsterdam -- and to create a bicycle and
pedestrian only bridge in to a chic part of town with plenty of
existing access. Luckily, the City didn't have the money. I'm a dyed
in the wool Dem, but I wish the uber-liberal PDX government do-gooders
would concentrate on filling pot holes and not putting in unnecessary
"we're special" bicycle facilities. -- Jay Beattie.

In article
,
" 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?

No. From time to time a municipality will attempt to
ban bicycles from the public roads. The bans are
eventually disallowed.

--
Michael Press

On Sep 13, 10:55*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
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.

Thanks, I'll try to edit my Google-generated reply... See if this
works.

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.[...]
---------

Thanks Tom. I think Monona doesn't like bikes. To me the irony is that
I'm pretty sure the road in question is on a designated bike route,
the "Lake Loop".

I found a blog by 'sconnyboy that has photos of the "path" the officer
says cyclist are giving up their rights by not using:
http://sconnyboy.blogspot.com/2008/0...structure.html

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:48:31 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie wrote:

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.

By wearing a helmet, you are supporting the push for a law.

How many people see you wear a helmet?

How many will you tell that you oppose such a law?

The first is likely to larger than the second by several orders of
magnitude.

If no-one wore helmets, there would not be the (invalid) beilef in
non-cyclists' minds that cycling is dangerous; and lawmakers would be
reluctant to vote for a measure which, though they may know it to be
(possibly less than) worthless in term of public health, they feel would be
opposed by a large measure of the people who elected them.

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?

No. Obviously written by Officer Authoritarian looking for some
conflict.

wrote:
On Sep 13, 10:55 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
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.

Thanks, I'll try to edit my Google-generated reply... See if this
works.

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.[...]
---------

Thanks Tom. I think Monona doesn't like bikes. To me the irony is that
I'm pretty sure the road in question is on a designated bike route,
the "Lake Loop".

Well, Madison hates birds, so Monona was left with hating bicycles.

I found a blog by 'sconnyboy that has photos of the "path" the officer
says cyclist are giving up their rights by not using:
http://sconnyboy.blogspot.com/2008/0...structure.html

Well, that is still not as bad as the two-way "bicycle lane" on
University Avenue in the campus area. I am still surprised that more
cyclists using that are not run over by motorists turning to southbound
Park Street.

The commment by Lieutenant Fred Fenton that "you give up your rights as
a cyclist when staying on the road where the paths are available" sounds
like the fictional Spike Bike scenario. I am certain that Wisconsin law
does not allow motorists to take free shots at cyclists riding on any
street.

I have no clue to where Lieutenant Fenton got the idea that bicycle have
four lug nuts. Weird.

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

landotter 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?

No. Obviously written by Officer Authoritarian looking for some
conflict.

From City of Monona Wisconsin Ordinances Sec. 10-2-2 General Bicycle
Regulations.

"(7) Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a
roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the
roadway." [1]

Whether the City of Monona has the right to enforce this regulation that
creates "separate but unequal cyclist ghettos" in accordance with
Wisconsin state law and what "usable" actually means will require
consulting a Wisconsin lawyer or judge familiar with traffic regulations.

[1]
http://www.monona.wi.us/vertical/Sites/%7B4EF64B30-DEE6-486B-A007-DF1B9404319B%7D/uploads/%7B298FDD42-F10A-48B4-9AFE-C2DE3D6E7FF8%7D.PDF.

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

nmp wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:

I think there's a need to have the details of the officer's superiors,
so that complaints can be filed against him. He is clearly either
unaware of the wisconsin law, or is deliberately witholding the
protection of the law for his own reasons.

Or perhaps he is just honest about his department's policies?

It unfortunately appears the officer may be correct to some extent:

Sec. 10-2-2 General Bicycle Regulations. [...]
"(7) Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a
roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway.
(8) No person may operate a bicycle or moped upon a roadway where a sign
is erected indicating that bicycle riding is prohibited."

See
http://www.monona.wi.us/vertical/Sites/%7B4EF64B30-DEE6-486B-A007-DF1B9404319B%7D/uploads/%7B298FDD42-F10A-48B4-9AFE-C2DE3D6E7FF8%7D.PDF.

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

Phil W Lee wrote:
Tom Sherman considered Sun, 14 Sep
2008 11:51:57 -0500 the perfect time to write:

landotter 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?
No. Obviously written by Officer Authoritarian looking for some
conflict.
From City of Monona Wisconsin Ordinances Sec. 10-2-2 General Bicycle
Regulations.

"(7) Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a
roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the
roadway." [1]

Under the state law you posted earlier, they don't have the right or
authority to impose that without 1st holding a public enquiry, and
then erecting prohibition signs.

Seems like they are declaring UDI from the state of Wisconsin.

What is the approved way of dealing with rogue administrations and
police departments who make up illegal laws as they go along?

An individual cited under the ordinance could challenge its legality. At
that point it would be up to the courts to decide.

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