Do other cities have this enlightened regulation?

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Ray Heindl, Mar 28, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ray Heindl

    Ray Heindl Guest

    I was perusing the local ordinances the other day, to see what they had to say about bikes, and came
    across this gem:

    "No person shall ride a bicycle across or through any intersection involving a through street. Such
    intersections are to be crossed by walking the bicycle across or through the intersection."

    Is this idiocy unique to my fair city, or is it inflicted on others as well? It apparently never
    occurred to whoever wrote the city's bicycle ordinances that some cyclists are more than six
    years old.

    Another fun one is this: "In addition to the penalties provided in Sections 307.01 and
    307.02, a court may prohibit any person who violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions
    of this chapter relating to bicycles from riding a bicycle for a period not to exceed three
    months. In addition, any person violating or failing to comply with any of the provisions of
    this chapter relating to bicycles may be punished by having his or her bicycle impounded for a
    period not exceeding thirty days."

    Imagine a similar rule for cars: somebody runs a stop sign, so the judge suspends his license and
    impounds his car for a month.

    --
    Ray Heindl (remove the X to reply)
     
    Tags:


  2. On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:16:32 -0000 in rec.bicycles.misc, Ray Heindl <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I was perusing the local ordinances the other day, to see what they had to say about bikes, and
    > came across this gem:
    >
    > "No person shall ride a bicycle across or through any intersection involving a through street.
    > Such intersections are to be crossed by walking the bicycle across or through the intersection."
    >
    > Is this idiocy unique to my fair city, or is it inflicted on others as well? It apparently never
    > occurred to whoever wrote the city's bicycle ordinances that some cyclists are more than six
    > years old.
    >
    sounds like it's time for you and some other cyclists to research and draft a *new* cycling
    ordinance, preferably one that parallels the bicycle provisions of the national uniform traffic
    code, which most states have adopted. then you find council members willing to sponsor it,
    preferably enough of them to provide the majority to pass it.
     
  3. On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:16:32 -0000, Ray Heindl <[email protected]> said:

    >Another fun one is this: "In addition to the penalties provided in Sections 307.01 and
    >307.02, a court may prohibit any person who violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions
    > of this chapter relating to bicycles from riding a bicycle for a period not to exceed three
    > months. In addition, any person violating or failing to comply with any of the provisions of
    > this chapter relating to bicycles may be punished by having his or her bicycle impounded for a
    > period not exceeding thirty days."

    That is just crazy. Let me guess: this is one of these nouveau riche suburbs of Dallas or Denver or
    Atlanta or maybe even Cincinnati that's supposedly growing really fast despite all its nutty laws?

    --

    I think. Therefore, I am not a conservative! ------ http://www.todayslastword.org -------
     
  4. Ray Heindl <[email protected]> wrote:
    : I was perusing the local ordinances the other day, to see what they had to say about bikes, and
    : came across this gem:
    :
    : "No person shall ride a bicycle across or through any intersection involving a through street.
    : Such intersections are to be crossed by walking the bicycle across or through the intersection."

    these might interest you (they're about these laws) ..

    http://www.crankmail.com/warning.html http://www.ohiobike.org/ORC_Proposals.htm
    --
    david reuteler [email protected]
     
  5. > I was perusing the local ordinances the other day, to see what they had to say about bikes, and
    > came across this gem:
    >
    > "No person shall ride a bicycle across or through any intersection involving a through
    > street. .....

    How does this "ordinance" compare to your state vehicle code? In the unlikely event that it agrees,
    then it's pointless having it. If it contradicts state law, would it even be legal?

    Jeremy Parker
     
  6. Pete Hickey

    Pete Hickey Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Ray Heindl <[email protected]> wrote:
    >I was perusing the local ordinances the other day, to see what they had to say about bikes, and
    >came across this gem:
    >
    >"No person shall ride a bicycle across or through any intersection involving a through street. Such
    >intersections are to be crossed by walking the bicycle across or through the intersection."

    .....

    Hmm does a city have the right to pass laws like that? Around here, the city (Hull, Qu├ębec) was
    trying to pass a law to outlaw cycling in the winter. They could not. Laws like that were provincial
    responsibility. A city could only legislate within the framework of provincial laws.

    Could it be similar there?

    --
    --
    LITTLE KNOWN FACT: Did you know that 90% of North Americans cannot taste the difference between
    fried dog and fried cat?
     
  7. Ray Heindl

    Ray Heindl Guest

    [email protected] (Pete Rose Was Cool) wrote:

    > On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:16:32 -0000, Ray Heindl <[email protected]> said:
    >
    >>Another fun one is this: "In addition to the penalties provided in Sections 307.01 and
    >>307.02, a court may prohibit any person who violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions
    >> of this chapter relating to bicycles from riding a bicycle for a period not to exceed three
    >> months. In addition, any person violating or failing to comply with any of the provisions of
    >> this chapter relating to bicycles may be punished by having his or her bicycle impounded for a
    >> period not exceeding thirty days."
    >
    > That is just crazy. Let me guess: this is one of these nouveau riche suburbs of Dallas or
    > Denver or Atlanta or maybe even Cincinnati that's supposedly growing really fast despite all
    > its nutty laws?

    Actually, it's an old, inner-ring suburb of Cleveland -- about as far from "nouveau riche" as you
    can get, and shrinking rather than growing. The ordinance doesn't say when it was passed, but my
    guess is that it's old.

    --
    Ray Heindl (remove the X to reply)
     
  8. Ray Heindl

    Ray Heindl Guest

    David Reuteler <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Ray Heindl <[email protected]> wrote:
    >: I was perusing the local ordinances the other day, to see what they had to say about bikes, and
    >: came across this gem:
    >:
    >: "No person shall ride a bicycle across or through any intersection involving a through street.
    >: Such intersections are to be crossed by walking the bicycle across or through the intersection."
    >
    > these might interest you (they're about these laws) ..
    >
    > http://www.crankmail.com/warning.html http://www.ohiobike.org/ORC_Proposals.htm

    These were the sites that got me reading the ordinances in the first place; the city in question got
    a D- on the bicycle laws report card (at <http://www.crankmail.com/sidewalk-laws.html>), in part
    because of the through-street law. Looking at some of the other cities on the list, I see several
    that have the same restriction. But it could be worse; one city I ride through fairly regularly also
    requires that bikes use the sidewalk, if any, instead of the road.

    --
    Ray Heindl (remove the X to reply)
     
  9. Hunrobe

    Hunrobe Guest

    >Ray Heindl [email protected]

    wrote:
    >I was perusing the local ordinances the other day, to see what they had to say about bikes, and
    >came across this gem:
    >
    >"No person shall ride a bicycle across or through any intersection involving a through street. Such
    >intersections are to be crossed by walking the bicycle across or through the intersection."
    >
    >Is this idiocy unique to my fair city, or is it inflicted on others as well? It apparently never
    >occurred to whoever wrote the city's bicycle ordinances that some cyclists are more than six
    >years old.
    >
    >Another fun one is this: "In addition to the penalties provided in Sections 307.01 and
    >307.02, a court may prohibit any person who violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions
    > of this chapter relating to bicycles from riding a bicycle for a period not to exceed three
    > months. In addition, any person violating or failing to comply with any of the provisions of
    > this chapter relating to bicycles may be punished by having his or her bicycle impounded for a
    > period not exceeding thirty days."
    >
    >Imagine a similar rule for cars: somebody runs a stop sign, so the judge suspends his license and
    >impounds his car for a month.

    The former is stupid, the latter may not be so dumb depending on its application. I for one wouldn't
    object if it's applied only in cases of those that repeatedly cycle while they are drunk. Those
    morons endanger everyone on the road.

    Regards, Bob Hunt
     
  10. Jeremy Parker wrote:
    >
    > > I was perusing the local ordinances the other day, to see what they had to say about bikes, and
    > > came across this gem:
    > >
    > > "No person shall ride a bicycle across or through any intersection involving a through
    > > street. .....
    >
    > How does this "ordinance" compare to your state vehicle code? In the unlikely event that it
    > agrees, then it's pointless having it. If it contradicts state law, would it even be legal?

    Yes. Sadly, in Ohio, a provision in the constitution somehow allows each little burg to make its own
    bicycle laws. There are _many_ little burgs with stupid and/or dangerous ones.

    There are those who are working to remedy this situation. Fred Oswald is doing terrific work on a
    town-by-town basis, and on a consciousness-raising basis. Others are trying to help on the problem
    in general, through the state legislature.

    --
    Frank Krygowski [email protected]
     
  11. Matt O'Toole

    Matt O'Toole Guest

    "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

    > Yes. Sadly, in Ohio, a provision in the constitution
    somehow allows
    > each little burg to make its own bicycle laws. There are
    _many_ little
    > burgs with stupid and/or dangerous ones.

    Might this have something to do with a system that allows each little burg to make up its own
    traffic laws in general? Ohio has a long standing reputation as a minefield of speed traps, and
    other questionable practices. I suspect many of the local warlord/sheriffs would like to keep
    it that way.

    Never been there, but that's what folks have been sayin'...

    Matt O.
     
  12. Brent Hugh

    Brent Hugh Guest

    Ray Heindl <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > I was perusing the local ordinances the other day, to see what they had to say about bikes, and
    > came across this gem:

    If it makes you feel any better (misery loves company, right?), here's a gem I came across
    yesterday. It's from the DesPeres, Missouri, municipal code
    (http://mo-desperes.civicplus.com/index.asp?ID=25):

    --------------
    Sec. 14-434. Left turns.

    (a) A person riding a bicycle or motorized bicycle intending to turn left shall follow a course
    described in section 14-248 [see below].

    (b) A person riding a bicycle or motorized bicycle intending to turn left shall approach the
    turn as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, or the right edge of
    the left turn bay, if provided, or the right edge of the left turn lane. After proceeding
    across the intersecting roadway, the turn shall be completed as close as practicable to the
    curb or edge of the roadway on the far side of the intersection.

    Sec. 14-248. Left turn from left lane or left-turn bay into left lane. The driver of any vehicle
    intending to turn left at any intersection or into an alley or driveway or onto open land shall,
    before turning, approach the turn as close as practicable to the left edge of the extreme left lane
    or portion of the roadway lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of such
    vehicle. In turning left at an intersection, the driver shall turn from a left-turn bay, if
    provided, or from such left lane, if no left-turn bay is provided, and shall turn so as to leave the
    intersection in the lane as close as practicable to the extreme left lane or portion of the roadway
    lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of such vehicle.
    -----------------

    Among other things, 14-434 (a) and (b) seem to me to directly contradict each other . . .

    --Brent

    +++++++++++++++++ Brent Hugh / bhugh @ mwsc.edu +++++++++++++++
    + Missouri Western St College Dept of Music, St. Joseph, MO +
    + Missouri Bicycle Federation: http://www.MoBikeFed.org +
    + Piano Home Page: http://staff.mwsc.edu/~bhugh +
    + Earthquake Fugue: http://mp3.com/stations/MathMusic + +++ Music of the Human Genome:
    http://mp3.com/brent_d_hugh +++
     
  13. On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:07:39 -0000, Ray Heindl <[email protected]> said:

    >Actually, it's an old, inner-ring suburb of Cleveland -- about as far from "nouveau riche" as you
    >can get, and shrinking rather than growing. The ordinance doesn't say when it was passed, but my
    >guess is that it's old.

    I'd be surprised if they even enforced it then.

    That would be kind of like enforcing the law about cutting the tags off sofas.

    --

    I think. Therefore, I am not a conservative! ------ http://www.todayslastword.org -------
     
  14. [email protected] (Pete Rose Was Cool) wrote:
    >That is just crazy. Let me guess: this is one of these nouveau riche suburbs of Dallas or Denver or
    >Atlanta or maybe even Cincinnati that's supposedly growing really fast despite all its nutty laws?

    The Eastern and Northern suburbs of Cin. city are wealthy and growing huge as Cincinnati dies,
    killed by an inefficient city government (the city manager type) and soaring crime rate, but those
    suburbs are generally very bicycle-friendly. Heck, the Little Miami bike Trail section of the
    Ohio-to-Erie bike trail runs through half of them!

    p.s. I saw Pete Rose in person today (he was a surprise entry in a "Pete Rose Lookalike"
    contest downtown!
     
  15. Ray Heindl

    Ray Heindl Guest

    [email protected] (Pete Rose Was Cool) wrote:

    > On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:07:39 -0000, Ray Heindl <[email protected]> said:
    >
    >>Actually, it's an old, inner-ring suburb of Cleveland -- about as far from "nouveau riche" as you
    >>can get, and shrinking rather than growing. The ordinance doesn't say when it was passed, but my
    >>guess is that it's old.
    >
    > I'd be surprised if they even enforced it then.

    I've never heard of it being enforced, but it may be used for kids. It sure doesn't sound like it's
    intended for adults.

    > That would be kind of like enforcing the law about cutting the tags off sofas.

    You mean they don't enforce that? And I've been waiting for the tag police to show up all
    these years.

    --
    Ray Heindl (remove the X to reply)
     
  16. Steve McDonald wrote:
    > It was also charged that women would become immoral and slip out from under the control of men,
    > if they had the freedom that a bike offered.

    Hmmm. Looks like they were right! ;-)

    --
    Frank Krygowski [email protected]
     
  17. (Reposting article deleted by rogue canceler...)

    On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:16:32 -0000, Ray Heindl <[email protected]> said:

    >Another fun one is this: "In addition to the penalties provided in Sections 307.01 and
    >307.02, a court may prohibit any person who violates or fails to comply with any of the provisions
    > of this chapter relating to bicycles from riding a bicycle for a period not to exceed three
    > months. In addition, any person violating or failing to comply with any of the provisions of
    > this chapter relating to bicycles may be punished by having his or her bicycle impounded for a
    > period not exceeding thirty days."

    That is just crazy. Let me guess: this is one of these nouveau riche suburbs of Dallas or Denver or
    Atlanta or maybe even Cincinnati that's supposedly growing really fast despite all its nutty laws?

    --

    *** Cancel my posts, and I repost 'em! *** *** It's called free speech - live with it ***

    I think. Therefore, I am not a conservative! ------ http://www.todayslastword.org -------
     
  18. (Reposting article deleted by rogue canceler...)

    On 29 Mar 2003 20:51:58 -0800, "Garrison Hilliard" <[email protected]> said:

    >The Eastern and Northern suburbs of Cin. city are wealthy and growing huge as Cincinnati dies,
    >killed by an inefficient city government (the city manager type) and soaring crime rate, but those
    >suburbs are generally very bicycle-friendly.

    I don't know about the northern suburbs, but the southern suburbs are horrendous. Last year when I
    had work assignments in Kenton County, I encountered some of the most anti-bicycling policies that
    one could possibly imagine. Many roads are too crowded to ride a bike in the roadway, and some of
    the intersections lack a crosswalk, instead featuring a NO CROSSWALK (stick figure with a red circle
    and slash) sign.

    Turkeyfoot Road, Taylor Mill Road, and the eastern part of Dudley Road are basically unbikeable -
    with heavy traffic and no real shoulder or sidewalk. Other roads, such as Orphanage Road, feature
    grooves in the shoulders to keep bikes from using them.

    The only road anywhere in the Cincinnati area that I know of that has a bike lane is the 8th Street
    Viaduct in the city itself. There may be others, but not many.

    --

    *** Cancel my posts, and I repost 'em! *** *** It's called free speech - live with it ***

    I think. Therefore, I am not a conservative! ------ http://www.todayslastword.org -------
     
  19. (Reposting article deleted by rogue canceler...)

    On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 21:07:39 -0000, Ray Heindl <[email protected]> said:

    >Actually, it's an old, inner-ring suburb of Cleveland -- about as far from "nouveau riche" as you
    >can get, and shrinking rather than growing. The ordinance doesn't say when it was passed, but my
    >guess is that it's old.

    I'd be surprised if they even enforced it then.

    That would be kind of like enforcing the law about cutting the tags off sofas.

    --

    *** Cancel my posts, and I repost 'em! *** *** It's called free speech - live with it ***

    I think. Therefore, I am not a conservative! ------ http://www.todayslastword.org -------
     
  20. (Reposting article deleted by rogue canceler...)

    On 29 Mar 2003 20:51:58 -0800, "Garrison Hilliard" <[email protected]> said:

    >The Eastern and Northern suburbs of Cin. city are wealthy and growing huge as Cincinnati dies,
    >killed by an inefficient city government (the city manager type) and soaring crime rate, but those
    >suburbs are generally very bicycle-friendly.

    I don't know about the northern suburbs, but the southern suburbs are horrendous. Last year when I
    had work assignments in Kenton County, I encountered some of the most anti-bicycling policies that
    one could possibly imagine. Many roads are too crowded to ride a bike in the roadway, and some of
    the intersections lack a crosswalk, instead featuring a NO CROSSWALK (stick figure with a red circle
    and slash) sign.

    Turkeyfoot Road, Taylor Mill Road, and the eastern part of Dudley Road are basically unbikeable -
    with heavy traffic and no real shoulder or sidewalk. Other roads, such as Orphanage Road, feature
    grooves in the shoulders to keep bikes from using them.

    The only road anywhere in the Cincinnati area that I know of that has a bike lane is the 8th Street
    Viaduct in the city itself. There may be others, but not many.

    --

    *** Cancel my posts, and I repost 'em! *** *** It's called free speech - live with it ***

    I think. Therefore, I am not a conservative! ------ http://www.todayslastword.org -------
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...