Clip and Clipless Pedals Illegal on New York State Roadways!?

How do clip and clipless pedals jibe with New York Vehicle and Traffic
Law Section 1233:

§ 1233. Clinging to vehicles. 1. No person riding upon any bicycle,
coaster, in-line skates, roller skates, skate board, sled, or
toy
vehicle shall attach the same or himself or herself to any vehicle
being
operated upon a roadway.

(i.e. you can't attach your bike to your body)

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 02:04:04 +0000, Daniel Norton wrote:

How do clip and clipless pedals jibe with New York Vehicle and Traffic
Law Section 1233:

§ 1233. Clinging to vehicles. 1. No person riding upon any bicycle,
coaster, in-line skates, roller skates, skate board, sled, or
toy
vehicle shall attach the same or himself or herself to any vehicle
being
operated upon a roadway.

(i.e. you can't attach your bike to your body)

You can't hitch yourself onto a passing truck, really, is what that means
to say. I can see that, logically, if the bicycle is a vehicle on the
roadway, then yes, you could argue that being clipped-in would violate the
statute.



--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

In article ,
Luigi de Guzman wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 02:04:04 +0000, Daniel Norton wrote:

How do clip and clipless pedals jibe with New York Vehicle and Traffic
Law Section 1233:

§ 1233. Clinging to vehicles. 1. No person riding upon any bicycle,
coaster, in-line skates, roller skates, skate board, sled, or
toy
vehicle shall attach the same or himself or herself to any vehicle
being
operated upon a roadway.

(i.e. you can't attach your bike to your body)

You can't hitch yourself onto a passing truck, really, is what that means
to say. I can see that, logically, if the bicycle is a vehicle on the
roadway, then yes, you could argue that being clipped-in would violate the
statute.

Interesting. Ontario's highway traffic act says pretty much the same
thing (section 178 (1)), and the OP's interpretation never occurred to
me, but it does seem like it could be taken to mean that.

The next subsection is also interesting for what it DOESN'T say:
--------
Bicycle passengers

(2) No person riding on a bicycle designed for carrying one
person only shall carry any other person thereon. R.S.O. 1990,
c. H.8, s. 178 (2).
--------
But if you have a bicycle designed for carrying two people, there's no
legal restriction on how many people you can (try to) carry on it.


dave

--
Dave Vandervies
I thought it might be a syntax error (given that a keyword is being used in the
wrong place), but every time I say "syntax error" in this newsgroup I get
jumped on by half a dozen people with sharp teeth. --Richard Heathfield in CLC

In article ,
Luigi de Guzman writes:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 02:04:04 +0000, Daniel Norton wrote:

How do clip and clipless pedals jibe with New York Vehicle and Traffic
Law Section 1233:

§ 1233. Clinging to vehicles. 1. No person riding upon any bicycle,
coaster, in-line skates, roller skates, skate board, sled, or
toy
vehicle shall attach the same or himself or herself to any vehicle
being
operated upon a roadway.

(i.e. you can't attach your bike to your body)

You can't hitch yourself onto a passing truck, really, is what that means
to say.

Back in the long-ago days of my youth we used to call
that "bumper shining". If one had good rapport with
the coal/sawdust, bread, or milk delivery truck driver,
one could hitch up to the left side of the truck and
be recognizable in their outside mirror, and get a
boost back to school after lunch if running late --
as long as we didn't overly exploit the favour, or
act goofy while doing so.

In British Columbia it is also unlawful to ride no-hands.

It's also unlawful to ride double. Some of my earliest
childhood, pre-school memories involve being ridden
home at night from my grandmother's place, double on
my older brother's bike. That was when I learned to
love the "feel" of being on a bicycle, and also became
enamoured with astronomy -- how I enjoyed looking up in
wonder at the stars during those homebound rides! I'm
sure it was much better than being cooped up in some
stoopid trailer.

At first I'd sit right on the handlebar. Then I got bigger,
and sat sidesaddle on the top tube. Then I got my own bike
and was free to get myself around.

I think the great ease with which I learned to ride boils down
to my having ridden double as a passenger on my older brother's
bike -- the experience taught me about balance, and not fearing
bicycles.

I still enjoy starry night rides. Except I've got my own bike.
No passengers (usually).


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

"Daniel Norton" wrote in message
oups.com...
How do clip and clipless pedals jibe with New York Vehicle and Traffic
Law Section 1233:

§ 1233. Clinging to vehicles. 1. No person riding upon any bicycle,
coaster, in-line skates, roller skates, skate board, sled, or
toy
vehicle shall attach the same or himself or herself to any vehicle
being
operated upon a roadway.

(i.e. you can't attach your bike to your body)

It doesn't say you can't attach your bike to your body. It says while on a
bike/skates etc, you can't be towed by another vehicle being operated upon a
roadway. Your interpretation would make seat belts illegal.

On Jul 1, 11:05 pm, "OzCableguy" wrote:
It doesn't say you can't attach your bike to your body. It says while on a
bike/skates etc, you can't be towed by another vehicle being operated upon a
roadway. Your interpretation would make seat belts illegal.

Sorry, but I don't know where you're reading. What I posted clearly
says "attach" and doesn't specifically restrict it to towing. Yes, it
seems to me that a seat belt on a bicycle actually would be illegal
according to this law.

The second paragraph of this same section 1233 seems to reinforce the
attached-pedal prohibition:

2. No person shall ride on or attach himself to the outside of
any vehicle being operated upon a roadway.

Here are the laws online:

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/me...MMONQUERY=LAWS

Select "VAT Vehicle & Traffic" on that page, then "Article 34 - (1230
- 1241) OPERATION OF BICYCLES AND PLAY DEVICES" on the next page.

--
Daniel

Okay, I figured there was a reasonable and well-defined explanation
(but that's not always the case). There's an artful definition of
"vehicle" in that same article of the law that doesn't include
bicycles:

§ 159. Vehicle. Every device in, upon, or by which any person or
property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway,
except devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon
stationary rails or tracks.

So you can legally grab onto a light rail car from your bicycle.

--
Daniel

In article .com,
Daniel Norton wrote:
Okay, I figured there was a reasonable and well-defined explanation
(but that's not always the case). There's an artful definition of
"vehicle" in that same article of the law that doesn't include
bicycles:

§ 159. Vehicle. Every device in, upon, or by which any person or
property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway,
except devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon
stationary rails or tracks.

Ontario doesn't have that, so clipless pedals are illegal here if the
OP's reading is correct:

From the definitions in section 1(1):
--------
vehicle includes a motor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm
tractor, road-building machine, bicycle and any vehicle drawn,
propelled or driven by any kind of power, including muscular power,
but does not include a motorized snow vehicle or a street car;
(véhicule)
--------

Section 178(1), which I referred to but didn't quote in a previous reply
to this thread:
--------
Bicycle riders, etc., clinging to vehicles

178. (1) A person riding upon a motor assisted bicycle, a
bicycle, a coaster, roller skates, skis, a toboggan, a sled or a toy
vehicle shall not attach it, them, himself or herself to a vehicle or
street car on a roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 178 (1).
--------


So you can legally grab onto a light rail car from your bicycle.

They've covered that one here, though.

I don't think motorized snow vehicles can legally be driven on the road,
but if I'm wrong about that the winter cyclists can still get a tow
from them.


dave
(that's an even better one than "reflective material on the forks" for
if I ever get the chance to ask an idiot driver what section of the HTA
I'm in violation of: "I know which one, but it's not the one I think
you think it is.")

--
Dave Vandervies
The ultimate language has a slightly different legal construct:
do what I should mean
--Michael Rubenstein in comp.lang.c

I'm not a lawyer, but I think I know this much. If a citation were ever
issued for this "violation," the court would take into account the obvious
intent of the law--which is that you are not permitted to hold onto another
vehicle and be towed. Judges don't like people wasting their time with dumb
cases. I can only imagine what they would say to the officer for writing
such a ticket.

"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message
news
I'm not a lawyer, but I think I know this much. If a citation were ever
issued for this "violation," the court would take into account the obvious
intent of the law--which is that you are not permitted to hold onto
another vehicle and be towed.

I'm a lawyer and you're correct that a court normally would (or should) take
the intent of the law into account. In Texas, and probably many other
states, the legislature has enacted laws on how its laws should be
construed. Go to this link http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/gv.toc.htm
and look at sections 311.021 and 311.023 for some examples.