Discussion: County-wide Bike Ban near St Louis

I was browsing bicycle club websites...and found this alarming proposal for St Charles County, just north of St Louis.

Recently area-wide bike bans have become more popular in the US. Instead of expanding road standards to include a rideable shoulder, government officials are apparently going the other way...and banning bikes entirely!

"...There's no shoulders, there's limited sight distance, and the speed limit is 55mph. It's very dangerous to be riding bicycles on these roads and you're putting the motorists in danger."...supporters of the ban are using the story of a young girl who crashed her car into a tree in 2003 and sustained serious injuries after swerving to avoid a bike (her badly swollen and stitched up face and her mangled car make an appearance in the TV coverage).

With the budget squeeze on county and local governments, road repair and construction will inevitably be reduced too. And road widths may narrow. We've already seen closure of some prime orienteering areas around the country. Let's hope such short-sighted thinking doesn't spread, and that roads and parks will remain free and open for all recreational uses.

Meanwhile, please don't run through anyone's picnic, startle a horse and rider, or scare a driver, by suddenly emerging from the woods onto a narrow county road. Our sport already has enough access problems as it is!

There are towns in Texas that ban sidewalks because only the poor and the Mexicans use them, so not putting in the sidewalks keeps that scum out of the good white people's range. There are also municipalities opposed to transit because it brings in transients.

I suggest not paying attention to hicks. After they pass enough laws like that,
no sane person will want to be near their territories and they'll die off after inbreeding.

The MDC here in CT is considering closing the West Hartford Reservoirs (NEOC's Brainard Map - site of Billygoats #3 & #5) because a mountain biker crashed into a closed yellow gate - which had been there for 36 years. The biker was travelling the wrong way, but was awarded 2.9 million anyway.

There's a public hearing next week, and the outdoor recreation community is expected to come out to support keeping these lands open for recreation and changing the laws to protect against such frivolous lawsuits.

Hartford Courant


NBC30

Yet another argument for no-fault injury compensation schemes. We in Australia could learn from the kiwis. I suspect the US isn't capable of learning in this area.

@Invis: But you didn't tell me that eating several 2000 calorie burgers on a daily basis would make me fat!

It's not actually a county-wide ban they're proposing, but if the thing passes then a county-wide ban might be the next 'logical' step.

MoDOT has said the county has no legal authority to impose the ban on state maintained roads (the roads in question). I hope that opinion holds.

The young girl involved in the accident was ejected from the car. I wonder if she was wearing a seatbelt?

And going 55mph into a blind curve? That's just bad judgement on her part especially on a road frequented by cyclists.

I think you just demonstrated my second point.

hmm, if the motorists are being put into danger by the presence of cyclists then perhaps they are the ones who should be banned for their own safety

...motorists are...the ones who should be banned for their own safety.

Not such a revolutionary or strange idea. Here in Chicago, named "Best Large City for Biking" by Bicycling Magazine, we're lobbying to create a network of Bike Boulevards similar to those already in place out west in Berkeley and Portland.

...The bicycle boulevard streets are...mostly residential streets, however some sections pass through commercial areas. Generally there are few cars on these streets, in large part because of the...traffic calming devices that slow and/or divert traffic...

My only concern, frankly, is that by designating certain streets as Bike Boulevards...will we open the door for having (many) other streets designated as "Car-only Boulevards?"

Tundra wrote: "There are also municipalities opposed to transit because it brings in transients."

St. Charles County which is proposing the bicycle ban on certain roads years ago did vote against mass transit STL Metro Link being extended to their county due to fears that STL thugs would take the train, break in their homes, and return to STL by train (with a bag of flat-creen TV's?).

Hmm, I wonder why there are so many cars on St Charles' roads?

My only concern, frankly, is that by designating certain streets as Bike Boulevards...will we open the door for having (many) other streets designated as "Car-only Boulevards?"

Aren't they called "Freeways".

Not necessarily. Some of my favorite high-speed biking streets in Chicago are the 4-lane thoroughfares that cut through the grid at half-mile intervals (Chicago was laid out very methodically by German immigrants). Cars travel at 45-50 mph, but are more predictable than a riding beside a bunch of other cyclists, the pavement is usually much better, with fewer car doors thoughtlessly thrown open from the side, no stop signs and fewer traffic lights. I'd hate to lose access to those thoroughfares "out of concern for drivers' safety."

I hope the powers that be (= judicial+legistlative branches) can find a workable compromise that preserves access to the trails. "Immune to liability lawsuits" makes it sound to me as if MDC could be grossly negligent with immunity. I don't consider leaving a bright yellow gate closed to be negligent, but I wouldn't want to be a rate payer having to absorb legal awards as part of my water fees.

I don't know the details of the lawsuit in this case. Often the 20-words-or-less version hides layers of subtlety, as in the McDonald's coffee scalding accidents. Would it be so unfortunate an outcome if the award to the cyclist were thrown out on appeal?

subtlety, as in the McDonald's coffee scalding accidents

I didn't realize there were multiple incidents, and I didn't know there was any subtlety involved.

Would it be so unfortunate an outcome if the award to the cyclist were thrown out on appeal

2.9 million for a bike crash??? Into a gate that had been closed for 36 years???

How many bike crashes do you think there daily? (Just look at the Tour de France). Should everybody going to get a few million every time they crash?

Or maybe they should take responsibility and not look for someone to blame and employ a lawyer to get it for them?

The city of Black Hawk in Colorado banned bikes starting this year. And they say it may be a trend that other cities in Colorado may follow. One of the funny arguments by the proponents to the ban is that bicyclists don't pay taxes or registration fees...

>> I didn't realize there were multiple incidents, and I didn't know there was any subtlety involved.

Yes, there actually might have been some 'subtlety' involved. It's called the sworn testimony both in depositions and of trial witnesses. Heard by a jury of citizens. Its easy to mock or deride a jury's verdict, but they heard the testimony, and we did not. But then, not hearing all of it, maybe even none of it, we have the audacity to ridicule the jury and say we know better based on the '20-word summaries' of the for-sale-at-any price media, whose sole purpose is to sell advertising, certainly not to get the facts complete or correct. Of course these prettified newsreaders are going to laugh at verdicts like the one in the McDonald's case. Recreational outrage is why we watch the news after all.

What we hear everyday is a cacophony of propaganda about 'lawsuit abuse' and 'frivolous lawsuits' from certain politicians who are little more than lapdogs of the AMA, big corporations, and other monied interests. And don't forget the 'talk radio' stooges in the big business camp. Follow the money.

The mountain biker/barrier case? I could come up with a dozen ways the city could have been merely negligent to grossly negligent with respect to the barrier. Or how the the biker could have been negligent. But, I didn't hear the facts of the case, so any opinion I'd give would just be a mishmash of the sum total of all my prejudices. And thats why we allow lawsuits by citizens -- to seek redress, and why we have trial by jury and not trial by public opinion.

Stay tuned, tomorrow I might write how I really feel.

APOLOGY: In my comments above I meant no offence to any lawyer or to the legal profession in general and did not mean to impune their moral or ethical conduct in any way whatsoever, nor should any such inference be taken from my comments. If any distress or offence is taken by any person or persons I apologise unreservedly and withdraw all and any of my comments to the maximum extent possible.

Anyone changed their mind about no-fault accident compensation schemes?

I've certainly changed my mind about ever living in Black Hawk.

The problem is not the jury, its the law it is required to follow. As soon as a case against common sense is won using a loophole or technicality, causing a precedent, the floodgates are open for everyone to take advantage. And those ruling on the cases, such as the jury, are hamstrung because common sense gets pushed to the back.

If someone orders a coffee, common sense says that it will be made from hot water. No cup labelling required. No shock jock propaganda required. Just paying people for their own stupidity....and someone else is always to blame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%2...

I don't understand how people can drink 180 degF coffee. To quote Robin Williams: were they born on the sun?

I can't understand how people drink coffee.

I believe it's similar to other substances—placement in mouth followed by esophageal muscle contractions and further absoprtion in the stomach and small intestine.

I notice you made no mention of the taste buds. That might explain it.

If you're drinking with your taste buds, you're doing it wrong.

There is no point in "tasting" caffeine. Do heroin junkies taste/savor their stuff? or when was the last time you had some real yummy crack? same here.

There is a limit on the temperature at which coffee should be allowed to be served. Anyone serving coffee at a temperature higher than that is clearly putting consumers and employees at risk, and should be held responsible. That critical temperature is probably a bit over 100 C.

Back to the original thread, while I certainly oppose the ban, I think there are some very relevant facts that have been left out of this discussion.

First and foremost, these are incredibly dangerous roads for bicycles. Riding in the left lane of an interstate would be safer. I have over 300,000 miles of riding under my belt and I don't go near the three highways in question. Actually, that's not true, I go very near Highway 94 - I ride the Katy which covers the exact same ground a few meters off to the side.

Second, cyclists as a group have only themselves to blame for this because they tend to ride two abreast - making a very bad situation that much worse. The law is very clear on this. When there's no shoulder, cyclists are supposed to ride single file. If that law was strictly followed, no further legislation would be necessary.

Finally, and this isn't any fault of the cyclists, but it is a reality. These highways are the highways that connect all the wineries. Some of the folks driving on these roads aren't doing as good a job as they otherwise would.

Again, I oppose the ban, but if it passes it will have no impact on me because I'd never ride these roads, anyway. The sponsor of the bill made it very clear that he is NOT in favor of a blanket ban. He just wants to reduce the problems on these specific roads.

There are already numerous roads in the USA where bicycles are banned -- interstate highways where an alternative route (such as a frontage road) exists, and that's entirely reasonable. I can't tell if there are alternative routes in this case or not, based on what I can see on Google Maps. My understanding, based on what I can see in the links without spending too much time reading, is that the ban would pertain to "Highway DD, D, F, Z & 94 from Hwy. 40 to County line". It looks like that would make it pretty difficult to get around on a bicycle in that area. (I bicycled through there in 1983 on a coast-to-coast trip, but I think we stayed south of the river going from Babler State Park to Hermann, so I don't have any experience with the roads in question.)

In the 1990s, DeSoto, KS (home of PTOCer Jane & Lou Betros) banned cyclists on the downhill stretch on the east side of town. Johnson County cyclists then were especially arrogant (refusing to pull over and constantly ignoring stop signs) and ticked off the city officials and got the ban. The road has been improved and the City brought up the idea to lift the ban. But the vote was 3-2 to keep the ban. last report

At today's (7/18) Lizard Under the Skillet Ride, the sheriff's department of Douglas County (next to Johnson Co) posted officers at key intersections with the blessing of the bike club to ticket people running the stop signs; the arrogance hasn't disappeared. Bans can rightfully be reactionary.

It's quite easy to get around St. Charles County without using those roads. I do it all the time.

That said, my concern is one of precedent. Yes, there are already interstates and other controlled-access roads where bikes are banned but, to my knowledge, every 2-lane highway in Missouri is currently open to cyclists. I'd like to see it stay that way.

...posted officers at key intersections with the blessing of the bike club to ticket [cyclists] running the stop signs...

Stupid. We have laws forbidding use of cell phones while driving...they're certainly not enforced with such zeal; everyone talks and texts while driving. Distracted driving seems much more dangerous than an errant cyclist. Where are their priorities?

One stupidity doth not another justify.

Well I'm with the growing minority that are trying to make Stop signs = Yield signs for cyclists all across the US. To require cyclists to stop with their foot on the ground, is equivalent to asking drivers to turn off their engine at each stop sign.

This is the so-called Idaho law. The specific wording in Idaho is:

...A person operating a bicycle...approaching a stop sign shall slow down and...yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching...[After] slowing...[the person] may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping.

Yes it's stupid to expect cyclists to stop. But once you accept that the rules of the road are the same for everyone, you get the moral high ground.

After each attempted murder of a cyclist deliberately run over by a hater/drunk (we get several of those per year in Northern California), someone—seems like a lot of different somebodies—will invariably log on the discussion forums and note, "But these people run stop signs!" It seems that to reeducate these people would be a lot harder than to accept the loss of a few seconds at each stop sign. To not insist on the Idaho law would be a small sacrifice for the sake of lesser tensions in the society.

I think it is one small concession to the meat-brained posteriors glued to their car seats that is well worth making. I wouldn't go any farther.

Cyclists should definitely stop at stop signs. Not stopping creates dangerous situations not just vs. cars, but also vs. pedestrians and other cyclists. I figured though that, along the lines of Tundra's previous posts, cyclists who ignore stop signs will thin out naturally as they get sideswiped by an SUV or two.

Actually, I think there are two categories here. In San Francisco I frequently see cyclists biking through stop signs without slowing down. At night. Wearing dark clothes. And without lights.

I agree that in practice, the biker's 'stop' is more like a 'yield'. I slow down significantly and make sure it's not someone else's turn to go through the intersection.

You don't have to put down a foot if you can do a momentary track stand. What's the definition of stopping? If you travel no more than a meter in 5 seconds, it seems unreasonable to not call that stopping. Works for me.

As JJ says, how do you define STOP? I commuted to work by bike for 14 years, and still regularly shop and exercise by bike. I have never had an accident.
There are many definitions of Stop. Mine is slowing down, being prepared to stop and maybe having to put my foot down. I hope that most drivers recognize I am being as close to stopping as many car drivers are.
When someone says bicyclists don't stop I picture those who are have barely broken stride, they have not braked, they may be gliding, but at 10-15 mph, and they barely look around.

You have to wonder about those whom Mindsweeper describes, are they that clueless?

mindsweeper wrote: biking through stop signs without slowing down. At night. Wearing dark clothes. And without lights.

Yes, they sound clueless to me.

As do the many people walking or running along busy roads (rural, maybe, but 40-55 mph speed limits) with their backs to traffic. A sad situation.

Just today I noticed, at the last minute, a woman pushing her child in a stroller in my lane. Another woman was running with her back to me, wearing headphones. They're just asking for disaster.

...They're just asking for disaster....

I agree. Pedestrians just don't know how to get tough. They don't realize that they don't have to be pushed aside and threatened by drivers too lazy to move over.

Since I'm usually a pedestrian myself, walking from a bus stop to an O meet or a country golf course, I've found you don't need to feel inferior to cars, and stumble along in the weeds or snowbanks beside high-speed country roads.

When I begin my walk, I rummage around in the woods to find the largest diameter log I can carry. Then I walk facing traffic, casually swinging this immense log in my right hand. Drivers approaching me are always taken aback, slow, and even stop in confusion, as I claim my 18" of prime lane space. I even wander out into the middle of the lane with my log sometimes, reveling in my power over cars. Try it next time, with and without a log...you'll notice a big difference in drivers' behavior.

But remember that there's occasionally one or two drivers who'll challenge you. So be sure you're always ready to drop your log, and hop back into the weeds or snowbanks if necessary.

As JJ says, how do you define STOP?

When I did my driving lessons it was drilled into me that by law 'Stop' meant complete stop (ie. all wheels stationary, brakes on) for 3 seconds. During which time, of course, you were supposed to be checking for oncoming traffic. Anything less than 3s left you open to being failed on the spot if you got a strict examiner.

I consider the bike equivalent to be stopped with foot down.....but I'm not saying I do that.

You can apply the brakes on a bike, stop both whels dead for three seconds, look for traffic for those three seconds, and then continue, without putting a foot down. Or at least, some of us can. And others can put a hand on the stop sign, depending on where it is..

I'm sure your mum is very proud. I can hold a car still for 3 seconds on an incline without using the brakes, but I'll still fail the driving test.

When you stop at the stop sign with your car, be sure to open a door and put one foot (the one that isn't on the brake) on the ground.

Anything less than 3s left you open to being failed

And I guess anything more than 3s is valid reason for a parking ticket.

...posted officers at key intersections with the blessing of the bike club to ticket [cyclists] running the stop signs...

The deputies from the Sheriff's dept (Lizard Ride) were very supportive of the ride. They simply said stop at the sign, and you watched for cross traffic - no touch your foot BS. In the past, our neighboring county cyclists had darted out in front of oncoming cars in an unsafe manner (attitude = hey, they have brakes). One of the county commissioners is an avid cyclist and club officer, so a safe bike event was the ultimate goal (and the jalapeno ice cream).

OK Pink Chex - congrats on relays champs title!