More Bad Bike-Related Legislation: Require Cyclists to Dismount Their Bikes for Motorists (South Dakota)

Similar to the poorly thought out proposal in Missouri, "Proposed Missouri Law Requiring Cyclists to 'Fly a Flourescent Flag'", the chair of the South Dakota House's Transportation committee is proposing a law to require cyclists to dismount their bike for cars to pass them. 

Members of the South Dakota legislature, proposed a bill last week, which would remove the “substandard lane width” exception to the state’s “far right as practicable” law, and require cyclists to stop, move off of the roadway, and dismount when followed by faster traffic.

The proposed law states, "If a person is operating a bicycle within a no passing zone on a roadway that has no shoulder or a shoulder of less than three feet in width, the person shall stop the bicycle, move the bicycle off the roadway, and allow a faster vehicle to pass."

According to reports, 11% of the South Dakota House of Representatives, along with 9% of the State Senate are listed as co-sponsors of bill, with the prime sponsor being, 71-year-old Mike Verchio who chairs the House’s Transportation Committee.

Unfortunately, there’s currently no cycling advocacy group in South Dakota to challenge the legislation.

However, a bike shop owner in Rapid City, Tim Rangitsch, told the local TV station,“to actually required cyclists to dismount and exit the roadway is impractical and fairly unenforceable,” he said. “It’s very unsafe for the cyclist and the motorist. I don’t think this bill is very well thought out. In fact, I think it’s asinine.”

In other news, South Dakota continues to rank amongst the highest in the nation when it come to political ignorance.

So, in other words, to satisfy the impatience of some motorists who don't like having to go around cyclists, they are proposing a law that will take more time for the cyclist to dismount and move over than it would for the motorist to pass them with a safe amount of space. And putting cyclists in more danger. As the article mentions, they don't have an advocacy group in South Dakota so, even though this proposed (and poorly thought-out) law is completely ridiculous, this may be something that gets implemented. 

Full article:

http://capovelo.com/legislation-proposed-in-south-dakota-requiring-...

Views: 797

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paul Lazzaro on January 27, 2016 at 7:43am

I assume this bill is intended to provide some legal protection for drivers who run over cyclists.  It would be interesting to know what prompted its introduction.

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on January 27, 2016 at 7:56am

The legal protection is a good point. This legislation will likely put more legal responsibility on cyclists while removing responsibility from the motorist.

Here's a little more background on the prime sponsor:

The prime sponsor is 71-year-old Mike Verchio, a Republican member of the South Dakota House of Representatives who chairs the state House Transportation Committee. Verchio’s track record involves consistently voting against measures to improve road safety, such as restriction on mobile device use while driving, and voting in favor measures to decrease safety, such as higher speed limits.
https://momentummag.com/south-dakota-bill-would-require-cyclists-to...

Also, Dakota Free Press breaks down the concerns with the law:
http://dakotafreepress.com/2016/01/27/hb-1073-drives-bicyclists-and...

Permalink Reply by David Barish on January 27, 2016 at 8:11am

Understood.  However, there is a big difference between smart cycling and smart law.  Smart cycling may tell you to get off the bike in such circumstances.  I agree that the proposed law may empower a motorist to  simply remove the obstruction failing to recognize the humanity of his/her action. The proposed law may also leave the grieving widow[er] with limited recourse. As few choices of roadway as  there may be near Luddington I suspect they are even more limited in Representative Verchio's state. The  representative may be facing a real issue balancing policy and available budget but he seems to be solving the problem by spreading napalm on the roadway.

I don't wish ill of anyone but his disregard for the safety of  both bicyclists AND motorists seems to be a plea to forces beyond his control for karma  to  be applied when least expected. I  hope he keeps his  eyes on the road and both hands  on the wheel when he is  yakking on the phone with his supporters.

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on January 27, 2016 at 8:23am

Thanks David. Well said.

Permalink Reply by David Barish on January 28, 2016 at 5:08am

Well, perhaps "napalm" was a rhetorical flourish. A flourish  intended to show the negative peripheral consequences of the current  proposal regarding bicyclists.  Perhaps "distraction" would be a better term. Rather than deal  with road issues as CLP has been eloquently informing us, the representative is choosing to scapegoat bicyclists ,distracting the conversation. This makes almost as much sense as (admittedly political reference coming) invading Iraq in retaliation for mayhem committed by Al Qaeda.   

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on January 27, 2016 at 10:11am

Yes, well said.

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on January 28, 2016 at 3:14am

I do agree that infrastructure can have a huge impact and this is a serious issue for everyone using the roads. That said, in my experience, riding on roads in Wisconsin with no shoulder, motorists seem to have a solid understanding of "share the road" as they carefully pass cyclists.

"The fact that they close their roads for bike rides a few hours each year is hardly germane to this argument."

I think Iowan RAGBRAI/cycling culture has a lot to do with it. The police are involved for more dangerous crossings, towns benefit a great deal by RAGBRAI coming through, and people gather their kids to cheer for passing cyclists. It's truly part of the Iowan culture. If you haven't done this ride, I highly recommend it - it truly is the best example of friendly bike culture I've seen. 

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on January 28, 2016 at 4:20am

I agree. My guess would be the RAGBRAI and all the benefits it's brought to Iowa have everything to do with it. Being better educated doesn't hurt.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on January 28, 2016 at 5:34am

Agreed. Time to start lobbying our legislators for higher gas taxes.

Gas used to cost $4/gal not so long ago; now that it is down to $2 and falling, why can't the American public see the picture, and demand better roads rather than stupid legislation, and add $1-$2/gal in gas taxes to pay for them?  If you've ever biked in Europe, you can see the difference that reasonable gas taxes make to bike safety and comfort.  How long will the US be a 'third-world' country in regard to our roads and infrastructure?

Permalink Reply by Irvin Steinert on January 29, 2016 at 4:13am

Cars, power, politics are all real obstacles. To quote (sort of) Tony Montana "first you get the money, then you get the power, then, THEN, you get the biking infrastructure!"

Intelligent consideration really has little to do with it.

Permalink Reply by Juan 2-3 or more mi. on January 29, 2016 at 5:45pm

Dashboard politicos. SAD

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service