Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51
  1. #1
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,111

    Congress Moves to Push Bikes Off National Park Roads

    Bikeleague.org Blog » Blog Archive » Proposed law would force cyclists off roads on federal land and onto paths

    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.




    ALL ACTIONS:
    11/7/2011:
    Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
    11/9/2011:
    Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
    Sponsor: Barbara Boxer
    All info

    Co-sponsors
    Sen Baucus, Max [MT] - 11/7/2011
    Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] - 11/7/2011
    Sen Vitter, David [LA] - 11/7/2011


    I don't normally support LAB efforts, but this one is worthy of comment.

    Petition is here:
    League of American Bicyclists * Petition

  2. #2
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,871
    figures that pig boxer would sponsor this crap

    she is a great argument for term limits

    some roadiesszzz must have gotten in the way of her scumvee in yosemite

  3. #3
    Now older but less slow!
    Reputation: TheNormsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,640
    Sounds like a stupid law and a waste of money, HOWEVER, having dedicated bike paths along any road that has a 30+mph limit sounds like a win to me.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    154
    "and an adjacent paved path for use by bicycles within 100 yards of the road."


    I'm for that. Why should bikes be on the road if there is a dedicated bike path for them?

  5. #5
    Now older but less slow!
    Reputation: TheNormsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,640
    Okay, I just reread it. I thought it was proposing to build paths along all roads that were 30+. Now I see. It is only for roads that already have a path adjacent to a 30+mph road.

    I reverse my stand. It is a stupid law after all.

    Depending on the quality of the path I would choose it or the road depending on the flow of the path. Now my preference would be the path obviously, but some paths just suck and the road is sometimes the better choice (for a road bike).

  6. #6
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,871
    MUP = FAIL

    bicycles were on the roads in this country long before motor vehicles were

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    154
    I wish they'd make the law apply to 30th street... got these stupid roadies on a narrow road with a perfect bike path feet away...

  8. #8
    Rigid in Evergreen
    Reputation: topmounter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,539
    Bike paths are crazy dangerous on a road bike... especially when the bike paths are full of touristards.

  9. #9
    zrm
    zrm is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,548
    They'd be better getting rid of cars and motorhomes on park roads and putting everyone on bicycles.

  10. #10
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,871
    Quote Originally Posted by topmounter View Post
    Bike paths are crazy dangerous on a road bike... especially when the bike paths are full of touristards.
    yabbut, you're blocking the road for some extreemo mountain bikersszzz on their shuttle drive in the road

    As far as National Parks go, people need to slow the hell down anyways. Are they really there to speed through it in their vehicle, or to actually see it? If they are in a hurry, they need to find some other destination, like gizneyland.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    They'd be better getting rid of cars and motorhomes on park roads and putting everyone on bicycles.

    Now that is the bell ringer!

    There was actually proposed legislation (that died unfortunately) that would require all visitors to national parks to hike or bike in. No motor vehicles.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,124
    And that will happen? dream on.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    946
    Bike lanes, bike paths, and multi-use paths serve to marginalize the legal rights of cyclists to use the roadway. Their narrow scope, short extent, and lack of education and training of users causes them to be no less dangerous than riding on the road.

    As KC said, bikes were using the roads before motorized vehicles were. In fact, one reason the LAB was established was to lobby for the paving of roads for cyclists.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,124
    If we banned all wheeled traffic we wouldn't need roads at all. After all, hikers were using the trails long before the bikes were.

  15. #15
    zrm
    zrm is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,548
    Excerpt from Abbeys Desert Solitaire, Chapter POLEMIC: INDUSTRIAL TOURISM & THE NATIONAL PARKS. Written in the 60s but still worthy of consideration.

    (1) No more cars in national parks. Let the people walk. Or ride horses, bicycles, mules, wild pigs — anything — but keep the automobiles and the motorcycles and all their motorized relatives out. We have agreed not to drive our automobiles into cathedrals, concert halls, art museums, legislative assemblies, private bedrooms and the other sanctums of our culture; we should treat our national parks with the same deference, for they, too, are holy places. An increasingly pagan and hedonistic people (thank God!), we are learning finally that the forests and mountains and desert canyons are holier than our churches. Therefore let us behave accordingly.

    Consider a concrete example and what could be done with it: Yosemite Valley in Yosemite National Park. At present a dusty milling confusion of motor vehicles and ponderous camping machinery, it could be returned to relative beauty and order by the simple expedient of requiring all visitors, at the park entrance, to lock up their automobiles and continue their tour on the seats of good workable bicycles supplied free of charge by the United States Government.

    Let our people travel light and free on their bicycles — nothing on the back but a shirt, nothing tied to the bike but a slicker, in case of rain. Their bedrolls, their backpacks, their tents, their food and cooking kits will be trucked in for them, free of charge, to the campground their choice in the Valley, by the Park Service. (Why not? The roads will still be there.) Once in the Valley they will find the concessioners waiting, ready to supply whatever needs might have been overlooked, or to furnish rooms and meals for those who don’t want to camp out.

    The same thing could be done at Grand Canyon or at Yellowstone or at any of our other shrines to the out-of-doors. There is no compelling reason, for example, why tourists need to drive their automobiles to the very brink of the Grand Canyon’s south rim. They could walk that last mile. Better yet, the Park Service should build an enormous parking lot about ten miles south of Grand Canyon Village and another east of Desert View. At those points, as at Yosemite, our people could emerge from their steaming shells of steel and glass and climb upon horses or bicycles for the final leg of the journey. On the rim, as at present, the hotels and restaurants will remain to serve the physical needs of the park visitors. Trips along the rim would also be made on foot, on horseback, or — utilizing the paved road which already exists — on bicycles. For those willing to go all the way from one parking lot to the other, a distance of some sixty or seventy miles, we might provide bus service back to their cars, a service which would at the same time effect a convenient exchange of bicycles and/or horses between the two terminals.

    What about children? What about the aged and infirm? Frankly, we need waste little sympathy on these two pressure groups. Children too small to ride bicycles and too heavy to be borne on their parents’ backs need only wait a few years — if they are not run over by automobiles they will grow into a lifetime of joyous adventure, if we save the parks and leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. The aged merit even less sympathy: after all they had the opportunity to see the country when it was still relatively unspoiled. However, we’ll stretch a point for those too old or too sickly to mount a bicycle and let them ride the shuttle buses.

    I can foresee complaints. The motorized tourists, reluctant to give up the old ways, will complain that they can’t see enough without their automobiles to bear them swiftly (traffic permitting) through the parks. But this is nonsense. A man on foot, on horseback or on a bicycle will see more, feel more, enjoy more in one mile than the motorized tourists can in a hundred miles. Better to idle through one park in two weeks than try to race through a dozen in the same amount of time. Those who are familiar with both modes of travel know from ex perience that this is true; the rest have only to make the experiment to discover the same truth for themselves.

    They will complain of physical hardship, these sons of the pioneers. Not for long; once they rediscover the pleasures of actually operating their own limbs and senses in a varied, spontaneous, voluntary style, they will complain instead of crawling back into a car; they may even object to retuming to desk and office and that dry-wall box on Mossy Brook Circle. The fires of revolt may be kindled — which means hope for us all.

    (2) No more new roads in national parks. After banning private automobiles the second step should be easy. Where paved roads are already in existence they will be reserved for the bicycles and essential in-park services, such as shuttle buses, the trucking of camping gear and concessioners’ supplies. Where dirt roads already exist they too will be reserved for nonmotorized traffic. Plans for new roads can be discarded and in their place a program of trail-building begun, badly needed in some of the parks and in many of the national monuments. In mountainous areas it may be desirable to build emergency shelters along the trails and bike roads; in desert regions a water supply might have to be provided at certain points — wells drilled and handpumps installed if feasible.

    Once people are liberated from the confines of automobiles there will be a greatly increased interest in hiking, exploring, and back-country packtrips. Fortunately the parks, by the mere elimination of motor traffic, will come to seem far bigger than they are now — there will be more room for more persons, an astonishing expansion of space. This follows from the interesting fact that a motorized vehicle, when not at rest, requires a volume of space far out of proportion to its size. To illustrate: imagine a lake approximately ten miles long and on the average one mile wide. A single motorboat could easily circumnavigate the lake in an hour; ten motorboats would begin to crowd it; twenty or thirty, all in operation, would dominate the lake to the exclusion of any other form of activity; and fifty would create the hazards, confusion, and turmoil that makes pleasure impossible. Suppose we banned motorboats and allowed only canoes and rowboats; we would see at once that the lake seemed ten or perhaps a hundred times bigger. The same thing holds true, to an even greater degree, for the automobile. Distance and space are functions of speed and time. Without expending a single dollar from the United States Treasury we could, if we wanted to, multiply the area of our national parks tenfold or a hundredfold — simply by banning the private automobile. The next generation, all 250 million of them, would be grateful to us.

  16. #16
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,111
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Excerpt from Abbeys Desert Solitaire, Chapter POLEMIC: INDUSTRIAL TOURISM & THE NATIONAL PARKS. Written in the 60s but still worthy of consideration.
    Edward Abbey. A bit out there indeed.

    An environmentalist, atheist, and anarchist.... and yet still a constitutionalist,
    anti-illegal immigration supporting patriot who was maligned after the Earth
    First! Rendezvous at the North Rim of the Grand Canyon in 1987 by
    Eco-Socialist/Communist nutjob Murray Bookchin for his stance on
    illegal immigration.


    "Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the
    common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed
    citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense
    against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.
    Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our
    rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among
    the outlaws."
    -- Edward Abbey, "Abbey's Road", 1979

    TheTownCrier: Edward Abbey: "Immigration and Liberal Taboos"

    From Abbey’s 1988 book One Life at a Time

    "To everything there is a season, to every wave a limit, to every range an
    optimum capacity. The United States has been fully settled, and more than
    full, for at least a century. We have nothing to gain, and everything to
    lose, by allowing the old boat to be swamped. How many of us, truthfully,
    would prefer to be submerged in the Caribbean-Latin version of civilization?"

    "We've got an army somewhere on this planet, let's bring our soldiers home
    and station them where they can be of some actual and immediate benefit
    to the taxpayers who support them. That done, we can begin to
    concentrate attention on badly neglected internal affairs. Our internal
    affairs."

    "Stop every campesino at our southern border, give him a handgun, a good
    rifle, and a case of ammunition, and send him home. He will know what to
    do with our gifts and good wishes. The people know who their enemies are. "


  17. #17
    zrm
    zrm is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,548
    HA, no doubt Abbey was pretty hard to pigeon hole into any neat category. He also said many times that a lot of what he wrote was deliberately out there just to get a rise. How deeply he felt what he was writing at one time or another, only he knew.

    PS: I always thought the quote about giving illegals at the boarder guns and ammo and sending them back to finish their revolution was amusing. Unfortunately we have been sending guns south across the border in exchange for drugs for a while and the effect hasn't been what Abbey hoped for.

  18. #18
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,111
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    HA, no doubt Abbey was pretty hard to pigeon hole into any neat category. He also said many times that a lot of what he wrote was deliberately out there just to get a rise. How deeply he felt what he was writing at one time or another, only he knew.

    PS: I always thought the quote about giving illegals at the boarder guns and ammo and sending them back to finish their revolution was amusing. Unfortunately we have been sending guns south across the border in exchange for drugs for a while and the effect hasn't been what Abbey hoped for.
    Unfortunately Holderbama gave the guns to the bad guys instead of the good guys. Drugs, prisons, and social work is big business.

  19. #19
    zrm
    zrm is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,548
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    Unfortunately Holderbama gave the guns to the bad guys instead of the good guys. Drugs, prisons, and social work is big business.
    Oh, I don't think anybody is giving guns to anyone. Gun thieves, those who abuse the loopholes in gun purchasing as well as international arms merchants and so on work with smugglers to sell arms to the drug cartels. It's all about profit; politics only enters when any legislation is proposed that has the intention of slowing the flow of arms south across the border that is perceived by gun advocates as a threat to gun rights.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2wheelsnotfour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,695
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Oh, I don't think anybody is giving guns to anyone.
    Fast and Furious.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by 2wheelsnotfour View Post
    Fast and Furious.

    Wasn't that a program run by the DEA.... ? You know people who have their jobs for more then 4 or 8 years at a time.

    And most likely a program that had more then 2 years in the making...



    Dude is just a figure head. Direct your issues to those who are responsible. Not the scape goat so ingeniously touted by the media as being all powerful.


    Do you people REALLY think the guy who has 4 years, or at best, 8 years in a given office is really let in on the important choices that effect things 10-20-30 years down the road?

    Come on!!!

    *you* can have a higher secruity clearance then the President. You know why? Because your job secruity is based on skill, NOT term limits.

    Think about how many people, positions and industries that encompasses...

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2wheelsnotfour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,695
    Quote Originally Posted by DrJosiah View Post
    Wasn't that a program run by the DEA.... ? You know people who have their jobs for more then 4 or 8 years at a time.

    And most likely a program that had more then 2 years in the making...



    Dude is just a figure head. Direct your issues to those who are responsible. Not the scape goat so ingeniously touted by the media as being all powerful.


    Do you people REALLY think the guy who has 4 years, or at best, 8 years in a given office is really let in on the important choices that effect things 10-20-30 years down the road?

    Come on!!!

    *you* can have a higher secruity clearance then the President. You know why? Because your job secruity is based on skill, NOT term limits.

    Think about how many people, positions and industries that encompasses...
    Not sure why you are defending an incompetent president so vehemently. But have at it. I hold the attorney general responsible for this and, yes, possibly higher. It was a strategy for discrediting the gun industry.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by 2wheelsnotfour View Post
    Not sure why you are defending an incompetent president so vehemently. But have at it. I hold the attorney general responsible for this and, yes, possibly higher. It was a strategy for discrediting the gun industry.
    Because people like you can't read, so it requires strong arguments to convince you to pull the wool off... I'm not defending the president. He doesn't need to be defended, because he doesn't do anything. None of them do, or ever will.

    "Dude is a figure head"

    The reality is the president, no matter who he is, has little to no power and certainly not any power to make real changes.

    So your efforts are pointed in the wrong direction. Turn them to the people who do make the policies and choices - major companies, military personal, etc



    I don't think the DEA gun issue was contrived to discredit the arms industry, it's not that diabolical - it's just flat out incompetence. Simple as that.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    258
    I think that building MORE paved paths in national parks is just a joke. Then, those bike paths will become cluttered with walkers and joggers and then it becomes impossible to ride a bike on it.

    The same thing can be accomplished by slowing down.

  25. #25
    zrm
    zrm is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,548
    Quote Originally Posted by bballr4567 View Post
    I think that building MORE paved paths in national parks is just a joke. Then, those bike paths will become cluttered with walkers and joggers and then it becomes impossible to ride a bike on it.

    The same thing can be accomplished by slowing down.
    I don't think this is necessarily true. Paved paths near parking lots, attractions and infrastructure just like in urban areas can indeed have a lot of use as you describe, but pathways in between those areas would most likely not.

    Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Bike paths (call them multi use paths or rec paths if you like) can and do have their places as ways to get bikes safely off busy roads. They can and do provide a great experience for cyclists as transportation and recreation corridors.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. WHAT! No bikes on National Parks roads.
    By Logover in forum North & South Carolina
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-28-2011, 01:59 PM
  2. Hybrid bikes on Forest Service Roads
    By mm9 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-07-2009, 11:19 AM
  3. Outta Stater asking about Pisgah National National Park
    By bonzi13 in forum North & South Carolina
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-11-2008, 08:41 AM
  4. Lost trails- Tell Congress to keep bikes
    By Howley in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-30-2006, 09:22 AM
  5. What is the difference between a National Rec. Area & National Park?
    By BelaySlave in forum Idaho, Montana, Wyoming
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-02-2005, 01:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •