Blog
Proposed law would force cyclists off roads on federal land and onto paths
The draft of the Senate’s transportation authorization (S. 1813 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act) has been a bit of a disappointment for cyclists. It reduces funding for dedicated bicycling programs and allows state departments of transportation an opt-out for spending it. However, even aside from funding, there is an egregious clause that has rightly upset cyclists.
Section § 203 (d) (p. 226), the part dealing with the “Federal lands transportation program”, states:
(d) BICYCLE SAFETY.—The Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency shall prohibit the use of bicycles on each federally owned road that has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour or greater and an adjacent paved path for use by bicycles within 100 yards of the road.
Sign the petition to tell the Senate to remove this clause.
No, your eyes are not deceiving you. This paragraph would introduce a mandatory sidepath law on roads in our National Parks and other Federal lands.
For those unfamiliar with this term, it’s a provision that used to be found in a lot of state vehicle codes that says that when a sidepath (bike path, trail) is provided for cyclists, they have to use it and can’t ride on the parallel roadway. Over the past 20 years, the number of states with this law still on their books has dwindled to just a handful. The problem with the provision is that the restriction applies regardless of the quality, safety, and utility of the path provided; it disregards the needs of cyclists to be on the roadway to access shops, services etc.; and ignores our fundamental right to the road.
The law is rooted in a couple of mistaken philosophies. One such idea is that it’s just not safe for cyclists to sharing the road with cars going more than 30 mph and thus, for our own safety, we should have to use a path that is provided. This paternalistic (at best) approach is guilty of not only blaming the victim but simply doesn’t make sense unless every higher-speed roadway has a path alongside it.
The second principle at play is the idea that “we provided this path for you, you’d darned well better use it”. To which our response should be…if the path is any good, you shouldn’t have to force anyone to use it; they will use it voluntarily because it works. Our communities are replete with examples of poorly designed, built and maintained paths that are little more than glorified sidewalks. Many of these are throwbacks to the 1970s and 1980s; we are generally getting better about this. Anyway, cyclists routinely ignore these shoddy paths because they are dangerous, slow, and out of the way – but anyone that rides any amount knows that’s kind of hard to explain succinctly as you respond to the inevitable “get off the road” epithets yelled by passing motorists.
The inclusion of this provision in the Senate bill is really troubling on many levels.
- Given the Park Service’s general track record on accommodating bicyclists of late – i.e. we really don’t want you in our Parks – it’s hard to assume any positive motives behind this proposal. Is there data or any factual basis for this move?
- What precedent does this set? Two pretty awful ones come quickly to mind: why stop at Federal land highways; and if roads with higher than 30mph speed limits are so unsafe for bicyclists to share with motorists, bicyclists shouldn’t be using them, period.
- This throwback to a paternalistic 1950s approach to cyclists safety is bad news; flies in the face of a 30-year trend of removing these bad laws from state vehicle codes; and threatens our long-cherished and very basic right to the road. We will do all we can to stop it from becoming law – but that won’t happen overnight.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee just voted the bill out of Committee with minimal changes (the authors had such hard-fought and finely-negotiated language that they really didn’t want to change anything at this stage). There are quite a few things that have to fall into place before the bill comes to the Senate floor for a vote (like the entire transit section, finances to pay for the bill, and floor time on the Senate schedule).
Because there isn’t a specific opportunity to strip the language from the bill right now, you won’t likely see an action alert or all-out campaign – but that doesn’t mean we aren’t working to get the job done. All our colleagues in the America Bikes coalition are on the same page, and can’t believe this language has reared its ugly head again after so many years.
We are ready with proposed changes – in this case, simply striking the provision altogether – and we’ll need to have support lined up to make it happen. For the meantime, you can write your Senators an e-mail or letter saying that you REALLY don’t like this provision. Tell them that it’s the wrong thing to do today and sets an awful precedent for tomorrow. This will help get the issue on their radar and will help with a specific push later.
Sign the petition to tell the Senate to remove this clause.
Andy Clarke
League President
Clarke was appointed to the position of Executive Director in April of 2004 after successfully leading efforts to create, interpret and implement the various transportation programs that are available to improve conditions for bicycling and walking as the League’s State and Local Advocacy Director.
Subscribe
November 9th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Thank you.
November 9th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
I’ve seen this on WashCycle, and I was and still am appalled. Could you provide an email template for a message to send to our senators, as a starting point? Even if we customize it, it’s likely to get a lot bigger response if we don’t have to create it from scratch (especially the official name of the bill and the identification for the section that should be struck?
I also remember that Jeff Arnim, who blogged his trip across the US last summer on CrazyGuyOnABike.com, was stopped by park police for riding west out of Glacier National Park during a period when the road was closed to cyclists. Based on Jeff’s observations, the park police closed the road during a time when it was actually fairly good for cycling, then reopened it at the time that most motor vehicles were leaving the park. Is there any plan to contest that closure?
Brian (LAB member)
November 9th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
A lot of those ‘paths’ are not safe for road bikes plain and simple… forcing us onto them will be dangerous.
November 9th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
[...] League of American Bicyclists says the Federal road bike ban is now on their radar and they’re tracking progress of S.1813 is it winds its way through the hands of our elected [...]
November 9th, 2011 at 6:38 pm
I hit 30mph a couple of times on my bike commute this morning…
The “Safety” argument is completely backwards and is, in my view, merely a smokescreen to cover for the real reasoning used to invoke “Safety”: ultimate motorist convenience. Not only do motorists not want to be impeded by slow-moving cyclists (we’ll ignore the apparent fact they don’t mind being impeded by other motorists), they don’t want to have to pay enough attention to even recognize they need to maneuver around a cyclist. I live in one of the “handful” of states that still has a Mandatory Sidepath law, and I routinely ignore it. I just hope I never get hit while not in the bike lane, or it will be 100% my fault, legally speaking. I fear a law such as the one proposed would have this more sinister effect: any cyclist injured while on a Federal road (regardless of whether there is a sidepath available), will be more likely to be deemed at-fault for the recklessness of others.
November 9th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
So, who inserted the item into the bill and who was the committee chair that endorsed it by moving things forward?
November 10th, 2011 at 8:38 am
Here’s an example of one of the paths bicyclists would be required to ride on — in the Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts. These photos are a few years old. As of last summer, it had been repaved, the very steep section near the Race point Beach parking lot has been closed, and Share the Road signs had been placed on roads serving the same destinations. I’ll be posting those. Ohter problems described in my essay/photo album remain.
http://bikexprt.com/massfacil/capecod/pland.htm
November 10th, 2011 at 10:21 am
Interessant, ich freu mich schon auf den nächsten Post.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:34 am
[...] Proposed law would force cyclists off roads on federal land and onto paths [...]
November 10th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
[...] Proposed Law would Force Cyclists off Roads on Federal Land and onto Paths (11.09.2011) [...]
November 10th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Thanks, Andy, for you and the League jumping on this with both feet. My letter was sent to Tom Udall this morning and copied to the LCI list.
November 10th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Thanks for staying on top of this Andy. Let us know how we can help when the time is right.
November 10th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
[...] Barbara Boxer (D – CA) and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is trying to make it more difficult to ride your bike, GOOD pointed me to this study that was published by the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. [...]
November 10th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
[...] in the 21st Century Act, includes a mandatory sidepath law for roads on Federal land that would force cyclists off certain roads and onto trails and paths, regardless of their condition or [...]
November 10th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
I really don’t think this is about safety, that’s just the excuse.
I am furious over this.
We/I have posted this over at Cascade.org , and every cycling site in Washington State.
Andy- set up a link with a letter filled out and make it easier- we need to flood the Senate with our feelings about ths.
I want them to know that they serve at our pleasure and we can vote them out.
November 11th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
A key problem with “no bikes on the road when there’s a trail” is that it reinforces a sense among drivers that bikes shouldn’t be on the roads at all, in all locations. We had an incident in the DC area where a road rager or vigilante decided to deliberately run a group of high-speed cyclists off the road on an NPS parkway that had exactly this rule. (Of course, the sidepath is unsuitable for riding at even medium speed, let along high speeds).
So the NPS rule — justified to supposedly protect cyclists — actually ended up almost getting one killed. Until the attempted murder by this vigilante enforcer, the situation was safer: high speed cyclists belonged on the road, not on the sidepath with strollers, untethered children etc. Better to reinforce the notion that we all share what road and trails we have in a civil manner, and not create new entitlements for classes of transportation that lead to more hostility.
November 11th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
[...] nanny-state ninnies in DeeCee are at it again, slipping a mandatory sidepath provision into the draft of the Senate’s transportation authorization, a.k.a. S. 1813, Moving Ahead for [...]
November 11th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
[...] roads on federal lands if there is a parallel side path anywhere near the road. The law would force cyclists off certain roads and onto trails and paths, even if the paths were not [...]
November 11th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
[...] For more information, read Andy Clarke’s blog post. [...]
November 11th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
I signed the petition in order to have one more name on the list. But I would have felt better in signing if the petition had mentioned cyclists’ rights to the road and attacked the unproven and unfounded “safety benefits” that the ban purports to create. Instead, unrelated issues such as helping the environment and improving health were put in the forefront. Sadly, this has become the norm for LAB.
November 11th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Andy: found it on page 226, not 266 (p. 266 deals with MPO planning funding). Signed & commented.
November 11th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
[...] Proposed law would force cyclists off roads on federal land and onto paths. [...]
November 12th, 2011 at 10:07 am
We in the Ohio Bicycle Federation support the League’s efforts to remove the mandatory sidepath provision from the U.S. Senate Bill 1813 Transportation Authorization. We will contact our Ohio Congressional Delegation regarding our concern. Please keep us informed of developments.
November 12th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
I’ve seen and tried to travel on some of these so-called bicycle paths. Ill-maintianed, dangerous, with meandering curves and tree branches dangling over just at face height. Cyclists have just as much right to a “regular” road as cars, motorcycles and horses.
November 13th, 2011 at 12:23 am
[...] Proposed law would force cyclists off roads on federal land and onto paths. [...]
November 13th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Absurd! Not would this requirement increase development costs on federal lands to provide parallel bikeways, it would also cause environmental degradation as result of having to install bikeways where they may not be appropriate. Much cheaper, and environmentally, to widen the roads to accommodate cyclists, and/or add speed control and share the road signs.
November 13th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Please don’t force cyclists off road.
November 14th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Would you be comfortable riding in a paceline on one of these proposed paths!?I don’t think so!This is ridiculous!!! Every Saturday my group blasts down Cleaveland Heights in Lakeland Florida, its mostly downhill. The speed limit is 35 mph. Our paceline travels at 35 mph. Still, we get honked at!How are we holding up traffic when we are going the speed limit!!This bill would force us onto the sidewalk!!!Why?!!!!
November 15th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Bill,
Please refer to:
1. the name of the petition
2. the headline on the petition
3. the headline of the petition blog post (http://blog.bikeleague.org/blog/2011/11/sign-the-right-to-the-road-petition/)
You will find that the issue of bicyclists’ right to the road is front and center. Time to give credit where credit is due.
November 17th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
From an environmental point of view this is ridiculous. There should be more encouragement for people to ride bikes. The senate should be encouraged to ride bikes.
November 17th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
This bill apparently also applies to all US military bases, where a lot of service members, DoD civilians, contractors, and military families ride. So this bill would deny this group a legitimate form of fitness and stress relief.
November 17th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Thank you for calling this to our attention. As one who rode and fully enjoyed both the Natchez Trace and Blue Ridge Parkways I fully realize the impact of this bill.
November 18th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
[...] had to fight hard in the Senate to maintain even diminished dedicated funding. Not to mention the mandatory sidepath law inserted into the bill that threatened bicyclists’ right to roads on public [...]
November 22nd, 2011 at 10:55 am
I am not trying to be inflammatory, but as someone who only rides in parks and on city streets with speed limits below 30MPH, I am truly interested (and I already signed the petition). Is the issue that the bike paths aren’t maintained and/or don’t exist? Or is it that cyclists want freedom? And, by making sidepath usage mandatory are they then changing whose budget pays to keep cyclists safe? Seems to me every issue is usually rooted in finances. I am thinking that the sidepaths are the responsibility of a different agency than the roads. I am all for anything that keeps people safe and encourages bicycling for so many reasons.
November 22nd, 2011 at 4:18 pm
In Ohio, at least, forcing cyclists off the roads and onto paths would make it virtually impossible for injured cyclists to recover damages from negligent claims. Ohio courts have been holding that crashes occurring on bike trails are governed by a different set of rules than crashes occurring on roads. Courts have held that by engaging in a “recreational pursuit” – i.e, riding a bike on a bike trail – there is an “assumption of risk” of injury that isn’t present when you ride a bike on the road. Bottom line is that you have to prove MORE THAN negligence – you have to prove reckless or willful/wanton behavior. Also, the recreational user law insulates land owners from liability for negligence, whereas there can be municipal liability on roads if roads are not maintained.
Also in Ohio we pushed a law through in 2006 that bans bike bans. All Ohio roads are open to bicycling with limited exceptions for freeways and designated limited access roadways.
Steve Magas