The Chainlink

Forcing bikes off federally owned roads.. And onto greenways.

Views: 329

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The thread title is misleading. It would apply only within national parks, on roads with a speed limit over 30mph and that have bike paths within 100 feet of the road.

This reminds me of riding in Holland, MI where they have miles of bike paths parallel to roads. Many residents were upset with cyclists for choosing not to ride on the paths. When I rode through Holland on a tour, I didn't ride on the paths because they weren't graded the same as roads (so much more difficult), and about 100x more blind corners (most driveways were flanked with trees).

"The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency"

 

This is code for National Parks, BLM land, etc.

 

-jbn

M.A.R.K. said:

While most federally owned/maintained roads are within the parks system, the government does own/maintain others outside of it. Granted the list may not be huge, but it will force cyclists off those roads and onto sidepaths and greenways. I saw nowhere where it said it would only be limited to national parks, can you point out where? I may have missed it.

 

Duppie said:

The thread title is misleading. It would apply only within national parks, on roads with a speed limit over 30mph and that have bike paths within 100 feet of the road.

The way I read it:


Bicyclists can no longer use the road if all 3 criteria below have been met:

1. Federally owned road on federal land.

2. The speed limit is over 30 mph

3. There is a paved path designated for bicyclist use within 100 yard.

 

So your example about bridges does not apply, unless the bridge is on federally owned land.


M.A.R.K. said:

Right.. While I understand this, they also own/maintain places like the George Washington Memorial Parkway, which is not in a park. As I asked before where does this just limit it to the parks? And again maybe I am missing something.

 

Many bridges are included in this too from what I understand.. Which may be a good thing? As I read it. They will be forced to create side paths on federally owned bridges, unless I have read it wrong. And they are simply making it illegal to pass on federally owned bridges.?.?.?  I have no quandaries on separating bikes from cars on bridges. To make is illegal to pass on a federally owned bridgee is absurd(and Illegal if you ask me) if they do not provide a viable option.

 

Justin B Newman said:

"The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency"

 

This is code for National Parks, BLM land, etc.

 

-jbn

M.A.R.K. said:

While most federally owned/maintained roads are within the parks system, the government does own/maintain others outside of it. Granted the list may not be huge, but it will force cyclists off those roads and onto sidepaths and greenways. I saw nowhere where it said it would only be limited to national parks, can you point out where? I may have missed it.

 

Duppie said:

The thread title is misleading. It would apply only within national parks, on roads with a speed limit over 30mph and that have bike paths within 100 feet of the road.

Re: GW, large portions of it does not have a path within 100 yards. Even more, the roadway of neither GW Parkway nor BW Parkway (two major DC routes that this would apply to) would currently, in my opinion, be considered safe for a cyclist.

 

-jbn


Duppie said:

The way I read it:


Bicyclists can no longer use the road if all 3 criteria below have been met:

1. Federally owned road on federal land.

2. The speed limit is over 30 mph

3. There is a paved path designated for bicyclist use within 100 yard.

 

So your example about bridges does not apply, unless the bridge is on federally owned land.


M.A.R.K. said:

Right.. While I understand this, they also own/maintain places like the George Washington Memorial Parkway, which is not in a park. As I asked before where does this just limit it to the parks? And again maybe I am missing something.

 

Many bridges are included in this too from what I understand.. Which may be a good thing? As I read it. They will be forced to create side paths on federally owned bridges, unless I have read it wrong. And they are simply making it illegal to pass on federally owned bridges.?.?.?  I have no quandaries on separating bikes from cars on bridges. To make is illegal to pass on a federally owned bridgee is absurd(and Illegal if you ask me) if they do not provide a viable option.

 

Justin B Newman said:

"The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency"

 

This is code for National Parks, BLM land, etc.

 

-jbn

M.A.R.K. said:

While most federally owned/maintained roads are within the parks system, the government does own/maintain others outside of it. Granted the list may not be huge, but it will force cyclists off those roads and onto sidepaths and greenways. I saw nowhere where it said it would only be limited to national parks, can you point out where? I may have missed it.

 

Duppie said:

The thread title is misleading. It would apply only within national parks, on roads with a speed limit over 30mph and that have bike paths within 100 feet of the road.

I worked in Baltimore for a while and would drive part of the BW parkway daily. The BW parkway is only suitable for bicyclists with an acute deathwish, regardless of whether bicyclists are legally allowed on that road. Drivers act like raging maniacs and regularly go at speeds upwards of 70 mph. I would never want to interact with objects that move at that speed.

Justin B Newman said:

Re: GW, large portions of it does not have a path within 100 yards. Even more, the roadway of neither GW Parkway nor BW Parkway (two major DC routes that this would apply to) would currently, in my opinion, be considered safe for a cyclist.

 

-jbn


Duppie said:

The way I read it:


Bicyclists can no longer use the road if all 3 criteria below have been met:

1. Federally owned road on federal land.

2. The speed limit is over 30 mph

3. There is a paved path designated for bicyclist use within 100 yard.

 

So your example about bridges does not apply, unless the bridge is on federally owned land.


M.A.R.K. said:

Right.. While I understand this, they also own/maintain places like the George Washington Memorial Parkway, which is not in a park. As I asked before where does this just limit it to the parks? And again maybe I am missing something.

 

Many bridges are included in this too from what I understand.. Which may be a good thing? As I read it. They will be forced to create side paths on federally owned bridges, unless I have read it wrong. And they are simply making it illegal to pass on federally owned bridges.?.?.?  I have no quandaries on separating bikes from cars on bridges. To make is illegal to pass on a federally owned bridgee is absurd(and Illegal if you ask me) if they do not provide a viable option.

 

Justin B Newman said:

"The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency"

 

This is code for National Parks, BLM land, etc.

 

-jbn

M.A.R.K. said:

While most federally owned/maintained roads are within the parks system, the government does own/maintain others outside of it. Granted the list may not be huge, but it will force cyclists off those roads and onto sidepaths and greenways. I saw nowhere where it said it would only be limited to national parks, can you point out where? I may have missed it.

 

Duppie said:

The thread title is misleading. It would apply only within national parks, on roads with a speed limit over 30mph and that have bike paths within 100 feet of the road.

Having lived in the Baltimore-Washington region for about 10 years (I moved from Baltimore to Chicago this summer), I couldn't agree more. 

-jbn


Duppie said:

I worked in Baltimore for a while and would drive part of the BW parkway daily. The BW parkway is only suitable for bicyclists with an acute deathwish, regardless of whether bicyclists are legally allowed on that road. Drivers act like raging maniacs and regularly go at speeds upwards of 70 mph. I would never want to interact with objects that move at that speed.

Last time I checked, the City of Chicago still has a side path use law in place. I share your mixed feelings about such laws.

-jbn

M.A.R.K. said:

[snip]

I have mixed emotions on side paths, and laws that force you to use them. Thankfully, correct me if I am wrong, Illinois has abandoned this law. A lot of times they are poorly built, 

[snip]

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service