Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: mtbxplorer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,402

    Bill Could Ban You from your Bikecommute Route

    License plates are only the beginning...

    "Georgia's bill also would allow the state to prohibit bicycles from state routes during certain times and allow local governments to do the same for city and county roadways."

    Georgia bill would require bicycles to be licensed

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Texan-n-Fla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    616

    Bill Could Ban You from your Bikecommute Route

    They keep this mess up and soon you'll have to register your shoes down at the DMV.

  3. #3
    weirdo
    Reputation: rodar y rodar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,699
    That has to be the most disturbing proposal I`ve read in a year.
    Recalculating....

  4. #4
    Unpredictable
    Reputation: Ridnparadise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,697
    There's nothing like common sense - I mean look all the damage bikes do to roads! We have councils and governments here looking at taxing for water that falls from the sky on your land or ends up in rainwater tanks. I swear these characters sit around all day looking for ways to tax you.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: junior1210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,094
    The ridiculousness of cycling clothes increase exponentially in relation to the distance from your bicycle.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Straz85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,185
    I'm biting my tongue (fingers?) to avoid starting a political debate here. Add this to the list of reasons I'd never live in the south.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Texan-n-Fla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    616

    Bill Could Ban You from your Bikecommute Route

    This isn't a southern problem, this is a stupid problem. We can throw remarks around about red lines or blue ones, but at the end of the day, they all stink. No need for it to be political.

  8. #8
    Rep Power: Infinity
    Reputation: NateHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,537
    Georgia anti-bike bill (HB 689)

    The bill is rightfully dead.

    As I said in there, this is a control problem. I agree that this has nothing to do with political lines. I live in Indianapolis and the mayor, who is a republican, has been a HUGE cycling advocate during his administration. He has grown the city's bike lane network by over 60mi during his time in office (with a goal of surpassing 200 miles in the next few years). He signed a Complete Streets bill and promoted it through the legislature. He has also supported mountain biking, and got the parks dept to allow mtbr's to do a huge expansion of a trail system in a city park. We are hoping he advocates for us to get access to another large city park that has a section that would be suitable for a hike/bike trail system (that park has been politically difficult for many, many years, and progress is slow).

    He got a very nice protected bike lane installed (just opened this spring) downtown that connects the city's major cultural districts to each other. It is well marked, has bike traffic lights, and is lit at night. It even gets plowed in the winter.

    Bills like this are about nothing more than control. Someone doesn't like encountering bikes on their commute and wants to unreasonably control them. Sounds like a lawmaker was inconvenienced by a roadie group ride (based on the provisions regarding paceline riding), in fact.

  9. #9
    weirdo
    Reputation: rodar y rodar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,699
    It`s because Dwayne flipped off a trucker.
    Recalculating....

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    83
    I used to live in ATL, commuting could be sketchy at times. The roads were crappy and the drivers did not pay attention. One thing that always annoyed me was that there was a nice bike path that went from downtown ATL to Stone Mountain. And the roadies would ride on the road next to the bike path because the path was not fast enough. If am sure that made drivers really mad. I there is a bike lane use it.

    One time a large group ride went out to and around Stone Mountain, (I was not with them that week) and a Cop/Park Security did not like the group of ~30 riders hauling around the loop, So he stepped in out in front of the group (going ~25mph +) and held his arms up. Crashed out almost everyone, small injuries, no hospital thank goodness.

    My point is that even in a big city, the people are uneducated about cyclists and sometimes it is the cyclists fault. But the proposed law will never work, how could the even begin to enforce it.

  11. #11
    Rep Power: Infinity
    Reputation: NateHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,537
    Quote Originally Posted by mmm...bicycles View Post
    If there is a bike lane use it.
    The problem with your argument is exactly why YOU said that roadies don't use it. It's too slow. Where I live, there's a particular paved path that is nice for getting you out of vehicular traffic, but it's HUGELY popular with everybody else. Afternoon stroll-types, dog walkers, runners, roller bladers, parents with strollers, kids, roadies trying to get a training ride. It's a worse madhouse than riding with traffic. I have used it at times when it served my needs, but it's faster for me if I ride on the roads. Not to mention the speed limits. On my city bike, it's quite a workout for me to exceed the speed limit of 20mph. If I was on a high-zoot carbon fiber road bike without all the commuting bits hanging off of it, 20mph wouldn't be nearly as much work and it'd be awful easy to exceed it. A better training ride is to be had on the roads.

    In your argument, your statement seems to take the step that if there's a lane or an off-street path that cyclists are REQUIRED to use it and that they are not permitted on the nearby roads. That couldn't be farther from the truth. If the path does not serve your needs, you do not have to use it. Not to mention, some folks will use the nearby roads in order to access said path, or will use said path to access nearby businesses via the nearby roads so they will exit the path. Do you think that should be illegal for people to do?

    By that logic, people should not be permitted to drive on surface streets when there is a freeway nearby. That's a ludicrous idea. A freeway essentially operates the same way as a bike path. If it serves people's needs, they will use the freeway to get where they need to go, connecting surface streets in the process. If the freeway does not serve their needs, they drive elsewhere. If the freeway is too slow (congested during rush hour, construction, etc), then surface streets are probably a better choice, anyway.

    Most people in this forum are advocates of vehicular cycling. That means we ride with automotive traffic. Many of us use off-street paths, bike lanes, and singletrack when it's available and it serves our purposes at the time. But we don't always do so.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    83
    Easy there. You took it the wrong way.

    What I intended was to show how riding on the road beside a bike path would make a cycling ignorant motorist annoyed. And perhaps support such ridiculous legislation.

    In my particular example, cyclists that should have been on the path used the road because all the cool roadies did. The MTB trail I would ride to was at the end of the path and every time I took the path and I passed a few riders that were on the road. So, it wasn't the same as your example. I should have clarified. Cyclists should be aware and make the transition according to their needs and abilities.

    I do think that if there is a bike path beside a road we should take the bike path. That being said if it is littered with dogs and walkers etc, it is not really a "bike path" anymore. From a city planner perspective (I am not one) I cant help but think that it would be hard to advocate for more bike lanes and paths if the cyclists don't use what they have. Obviously if it doesn't suit your need you find an alternate route.

    The beauty of a bike is that it is in between a car and walking. Unfortunately, for the most part we are trapped using infrastructure meant for either end of the spectrum.

    Back to the original discussion, here is a link to a speech that some guy made on "our" behalf at the town hall meeting addressing the bill. It is good.

    Highly Requested: My HB 689 Speech | MyCycleCoach.com Blog

Similar Threads

  1. Bikecommute Triggered by Stolen Truck
    By mtbxplorer in forum Commuting
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-15-2013, 04:04 AM
  2. Why More Women Don't Bikecommute
    By mtbxplorer in forum Women's Lounge
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-01-2013, 07:14 PM
  3. Who should pay the bill?
    By AZ in forum The ReCycle Bin
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-05-2013, 11:19 AM
  4. In case you needed another reason to bikecommute
    By mtbxplorer in forum Commuting
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-15-2012, 04:52 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
  •