Two Spoke Forums banner

1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Eocyclist
Joined
·
742 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
From The League of American Bicyclists - 2/23/2012

The draft of the Senate's transportation authorization bill, S. 1813 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, includes language that would introduce a mandatory sidepath law on roads in our National Parks and other Federal lands. It requires cyclists on Federal lands to use a path or trail, instead of roads, if the speed limit is over 30 MPH and a trail exists within 100 yards, regardless of its condition or utility of the path. The provision sets a terrible precedent. Passing it would send the wrong message to transportation agencies that these policies are acceptable. Laws like this have been taken off the books in states over the past 30 years.


In November, we asked you to sign our Right to the Road petition against the “mandatory sidepath” provision in the Senate transportation bill. The restrictive clause would limit cyclists from riding on roads on federal lands under certain conditions. Read more here and here. Now, we are asking you to contact your Senator directly.

We have carried over 14,000 signatures to Capitol Hill, but it’s not enough.

We are happy to report that Senators Jeffrey Merkley of Oregon and Al Franken of Minnesota are leading an effort to have this provision removed. However, some other Senate offices still aren’t convinced that their constituents care about the issue.

We now need to ask you to contact your Senator directly on the matter. You can use our action center to send an email to your Senators, or call the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to speak to your Senate office.

If you call, simply tell the staffer you speak with that you’re opposed to restricting bicycle use on federal lands – the law unfairly and unreasonably restricts cycling at a time when we should be encouraging bicycling for transportation, health, recreation, air quality and a host of other reasons.
 

·
Two skinny J's
Joined
·
21,196 Posts
LarryM before I say this I love riding and enjoy the roads where I ride. I vote and do the email thing to support my rights to ride on the roads I pay taxes on so I can continue to enjoy my rights. I would hate to see any of that actually become reality.

Having said that I don't and won't argue or debate this but I often wonder how much of this is created from perception.

Does the general public see a group ride, side by side, that impedes traffic Sunday morning on their way to church and then brunch make up what they know and see about cycling? I used that example because I have seen it first hand and been part of it. One of the most experienced riders in the group I rode with had the the mentality of he had the right to the road and was not about to move. I was honestly kinda shocked. Even if you do have that right, why would you not give a little to make it a better situation. In this case a impatient old man tried to pass the group in an area around a college campus , William and Mary, and it resulted in him hitting a curb and getting a flat. He was pissed. What do you think he impresion of cyclist are now or were before given his impatience. I will admit where this driver choose to make that move was unsafe for him as well as us, typically impatient. To be honest where it happened even if we had been completely single file it would still have been a dangerous spot for him to try and move around us.

I'm just saying I wonder if this is why those types of bills/language keep coming up and or is it those types of scenario that perpetuate it?
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top