Eugene council moves to prohibit motorized scooters on bike paths

[Wayne Pein]

Zoot Katz wrote:
> Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:43:31 GMT,
> <7g14d.13197$n%[email protected]>,
> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>We bicyclists want to be able to use roads with motor traffic, but we
>>don't want low-powered motor traffic on "our" "roads" (bike paths).
>
>
> I don't consider bike paths as "our" roads. They're inevitably
> multi-use paths which I take to mean pedestrians have the
> right-of-way.
>
> I detest and denounce the whole notion of bicycles requiring separate
> facilities as long as bicycles are still legally "vehicles".

I agree. I should have been more clear in noting that many bicycle
advocates are pressing governments for separate facilities such as bike
paths.

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

Tom Keats wrote:

> In article <7g14d.13197$n%[email protected]>,
> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>This ban creates an interesting conundrum.
>>
>>We bicyclists want to be able to use roads with motor traffic, but we
>>don't want low-powered motor traffic on "our" "roads" (bike paths).
>>
>>I believe this ban is a mistake.
>
>
> As I've said before, I think bike paths and multi-user paths
> are parks, rather than thoroughfares. And we don't need no
> noisy buzz-bomb thingamajigs (or speeding bicycles for that
> matter) sending park-enjoyers scurrying for cover.
>
> As parks, they are not "ours", as in being they exclusive
> domain of cyclists. They are ours, as in being commonly,
> fairly and publicly available to /all/ comers -- who respect
> their fellow comers, and who respect the path/park itself
> as a refuge area away from the nearby hustle-&-bustle,
> like what parks are meant for.
>
> I think this ban intelligently cuts through conundra.
>
>
> cheers, & peace,
> Tom
>

However, these "parks" are often paid for with transportation dollars.

Wayne

 

[Pat]

>
> However, these "parks" are often paid for with transportation dollars.
>
> Wayne

Where's your proof on that? In our town, parks are paid out of the city
budget or by selling bonds. In other words: plain ol' tax money. I don't
know of any gas tax money being used--or promised to be used--for bike paths
in parks.

Pat in TX
>

 

[Wayne Pein]

Pat wrote:

>>However, these "parks" are often paid for with transportation dollars.
>>
>>Wayne
>
>
> Where's your proof on that? In our town, parks are paid out of the city
> budget or by selling bonds. In other words: plain ol' tax money. I don't
> know of any gas tax money being used--or promised to be used--for bike paths
> in parks.
>
> Pat in TX
>
>
>

The Transportation Enhancements category of Federal funding for one is a
source of funding for many paths. Paths are funded in many ways.

Wayne

 

[Bob Anderson]

On 21 Sep 2004 13:18:54 -0700, [email protected] (Steven Goodridge) wrote:

> If a safety hazard exists, it is due to
>lack of enforcement of safe operating practices such as speed limits.

I ride on paths that go from the edge of the city into downtown, never have seen any
police riding around. Maybe in the center of the city parks.


---
"BitwiseBob" - Bob Anderson
Eugene Oregon

 

[Pete]

"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:21:08 GMT,
> <[email protected]>, "Pete"
> <ptr@ThievingBastardsWorkAt_usaf.com> wrote:
>
> >> I'd say that as long as it has pedals and no fuel tank it's a bicycle.
> >
> >Where's the dividing line between a Giant LaFree and an electric moped?
> >(The LaFree requires you to pedal, but not all similar style elec bikes
do)
>
> Having no pedals disqualifies as a moped or a bicycle. Having a seat
> disqualifies as a scooter. Toss them in with Segways and wheelchairs
> as mobility devices for handicapped persons.

35mph mopeds have vestigal pedals. They don't do much except start the
motor, but they are there. Those have fuel tanks, tho

Any definition written to exclude a particular style product will be worked
around and on the market within a couple of months.

"It must have pedals? OK, here ya go. They don't do much, but they fit the
letter of the law."

Maybe a max speed rule.
"A vehicle powered by other than soley human means must not be able to
exceed 15mph"
i.e. if it has *any* type of motor (gas/elec/rubber band), its max speed
must be < 15
(hard to enforce, though)

Pete

 

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 22 Sep 2004 04:17:16 GMT,
<[email protected]>, "Pete"
<ptr@ThievingBastardsWorkAt_usaf.com> wrote:

>Maybe a max speed rule.
>"A vehicle powered by other than soley human means must not be able to
>exceed 15mph"
>i.e. if it has *any* type of motor (gas/elec/rubber band), its max speed
>must be < 15
>(hard to enforce, though)

A governor of some sort might be possible but I don't think
enforcement would be a problem as nobody would buy a bike that only
went 15mph.
--
zk

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:39:32 GMT, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>The Transportation Enhancements category of Federal funding for one is a
>source of funding for many paths. Paths are funded in many ways.

More than that, I would bet my own money that the vast majority of new
MUPs by mileage are being funded in part by TEA money. Anyone that
thinks there isn't a lot of transportation dollars going that
direction hasn't been paying much attention the last decade or so.

The inverse is probably also true. The majority of large project MUPs
IMO probably wouldn't be in the works if it weren't for TEA money.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...