police say it is illegal to ride bicycle on the street

Jeff,

In addition to the other helpful responses regarding state code, you
can ask Barney for the specific code he is referring to. Ask politely,
as if you're asking him for a favor. Part of this politeness, of
course, is avoiding referring to him as "Barney."

RFM

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 15:28:09 GMT, max wrote
in message :

Sounds like Illinois cities can require
bikes to ride on the path if it's available.

Interesting. Given that international research shows that sidewalk
riding is more dangerous than riding in the carriageway I wonder what
other rules they have which require people to increase their risk for
the greater convenience of those who are posing all the danger in the
first place...

My bet is that the cop is plain wrong.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

max wrote:
In article .com,
" wrote:

Thanks for the cites. I disagree with your conclusions, and have
excised
the irrevelent text make it easier to read.

Illinois State Law bans subordinate governments from passing such
laws.
[...]
Sec. 11-207. Provisions of this Chapter uniform throughout
State.
The provisions of this Chapter shall be applicable and uniform
throughout this State and in all political subdivisions and
municipalities therein, and no local authority shall enact or
enforce
any ordinance rule or regulation in conflict with the provisions of
this Chapter unless expressly authorized herein. Local authorities
may,
however, adopt additional traffic regulations which are not in
conflict
with the provisions of this Chapter[...]

(625 ILCS 5/11-208) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-208)
Sec. 11-208. Powers of local authorities.
************************************************** ******************
* (a) The provisions of this Code shall NOT be deemed to
PREVENT*
* local authorities with respect to streets and highways under
their *
* jurisdiction and within the reasonable exercise of the police
power *
* from:
************************************************** ******************

I read the boxed clause above to mean that despite what it says at
the
top, cities are not prevented from [look down]


1.
[...]

Chapter 15;
8. Regulating the operation of bicycles [...]

Regulating the operation --- Sounds like Illinois cities can require
bikes to ride on the path if it's available.

I don't see how it can be read any other way.


Here's the St. Charles Illinois reg, 10.11.2320, Riding bicycles on
roadways:
http://www.stcharlesil.org/codebook/Title-10/Printable/T10-CH11.html#2320
which says:

"Whenever a usable path for bicycle has been provided adjacent to a
roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the
roadway. (Ord. 1987-M-74 =A7 2.)"

Ack!! right!?

I suspect the St. Charles ordinance is one result of the Home Rule
clause http://tinyurl.com/ajqkl in the amended 1970 Illinois
Constitution. I looked around and found a cite
http://tinyurl.com/882ew asserting that 45 states have some degree of
home rule.

Thus, it's likely that an unexpectedly many hitherto unsuspecting
people in this group live in -- or ride through -- communities with an
ordinance like St. Charles'.

..max

max wrote:
max wrote:

Here's the St. Charles Illinois reg, 10.11.2320, Riding bicycles on
roadways:
"Whenever a usable path for bicycle has been provided adjacent to a
roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the
roadway. (Ord. 1987-M-74 § 2.)"

Interesting read. They also require a bell and license plate.

Rich

max wrote:
perhaps, perhaps not -- the cite above is insufficient to know.

Some municipalities' ordinances include very specific language about
bicycles and bike paths, _specifically_ _requiring_ cyclists to use a

bike path if it's available/adjacent to the road. I know mine (St.
Charles, Il.) does because i looked it up recently. Although
unlikely,
it's possible that Horn Lake requires sidewalk riding, or possibly
the
section of sidewalk relevant to this thread was actually a designated

bike path (it happens, for ex the last northward jog on the Illinois
Prarie Path's Geneva Spur takes a sidewalk for 1/4 mile).

there may also be some sort of age-related weirdness.


Of course, the cop may in fact be wrong. Until we read the Horn
Lake
city / village municipal ordinances as amended we cannot know.

It doesn't appear to be available on-line, so I sent them a direct
question. Stay tuned!

--Karen M.
who speaka da lingo of City Hall

I would peruse the Mississippi Vehicle Code for guidance first. The
Vehicle Codes for most states more or less came out of a uniform
template. Many states, including California and others where I have
lived, limit extensions/changes that local units can adopt. In
California, for example, the Vehicle Code gives local units (towns,
cities, etc.) the discretion as to whether or not to allow riding on
sidewalks but local units have no authority to deny access to public
roads. Check to see whether or not the state would allow local
government that authority; it is does not then any such local
ordinance, if it exists, could be invalidated.

- rick

Without going through the Illinois Vehicle Code, and any amendments
that might allow the home unit discretion to make such an ordinance,
the mere existence of an ordinance does not mean it is allowed or
enforcable. I'll leave it to the Illinois folks to sort through the
laws and figure this one out.

Back to the general premise and a local example. Many state vehicle
codes do not allow local jurisdictions much leeway in redefining what
is set forth in the vehicle code. The reason is obvious; vehicle codes
should be uniform across large areas so one does not get trapped by
obscure local ordinances. California limits local authorities from
making changes in very few regards and for cyclists there are two main
areas where local authorites have discretion: whether or not to allow
cyclists on sidewalks, and local registration of bicycles. One local
township a few years back decided to enact more restrictive rules for
bicycles. One ordinance defined a full stop on a bicycle as putting
one's foot down for a minimum of 3 seconds. The ordinance and its
enforcement was challenged on two counts; one, the enforcement was
discriminatory as it did not define a full stop of a motor vehicle as
being a minumum of 3 seconds at a stationary position, but most
importantly that the ordinance exceeded the authority of the town to
amend the state vehicle code. The town was forced to rescind the
ordinances and stop discriminatory enforcement of the vehicle code.
But at the time the ordinance was on the books someone could have cited
that as an example of home rule ... but it turns out it was illegal
home rule.

- rick