R
Riley Geary
Guest
Carl Barrentine wrote on the touring list (http://www.phred.org/mailman/listinfo/touring):
==>
Five of our North Dakota legislators are hoping to pass a Senate Bill, as early as 6 February 2003,
to register touring and racing bicycles used on roadways/highways outside the city limits.
Of particular interest to touring cyclists is proposal to add SECTION 4 as part of Senate Bill No.
2391. This section reads as follows:
1. "An individual may not ride a bicycle upon any highway outside of the geographical boundaries of
a city without displaying evidence of registration required by this section. This section does
not apply to a bicycle with under three gears or a bike being ridden by an individual fourteen
years of age or under. In addition, this section is limited to a bicycle intended to be ridden
for long distances, including a cross-country racer, cruiser, touring bike, or racing bike."
2. "The operator of a bicycle shall register the bicycle with the department and the department
shall issue upon payment of fifty dollars a decal for placement on the bicycle as evidence of
registration. A registration is effective for two calendar years." (The proposed penalty for
violation "may be assessed a fee not to exceed thirty-five dollars," according to the SECTION 1
AMENDMENT, Section 39-210.1-01 of the North Dakota Century Code.)
This legislation seems rather cumbersome, as well as potentially unfriendly to touring cyclists. If
this Bill passes (on 6 February), it seems very likely that unregistered (resident and non-resident)
cyclists found pedaling the rural roads and highways of North Dakota will be in violation of the
law, and subject to a $35 fine. Weird!
Phreds, is this legislation enforced in other States? If so, I sure would like to know. Thanks!
--carl (the Trek 520 guy from North Dakota)
<==
RG replies:
The complete text of this legislative travisty can be found at
http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/58-2003/bill_text/DBNC0100.pdf
It was introduced by Senators Syverson, Flakoll, Thane, and by Representatives Boehning, & Maragos;
and is scheduled to be voted on by the Senate Transportation Committee on Feb 6. The fact that it
has more than one sponsor in both houses of the legislature suggests this is no joke (Syverson is
Vice Chairman of the Political Subdivisions Committee, and Flakoll is Chairman of the Agriculture
Committee, so they're clearly not political lightweights either), but an effort by the militant
motorist lobby to discourage cyclists from riding on the rural roads of North Dakota.
As I read the bill, it would apply to ALL cyclists (at least those 15 and older riding a bike with 3
or more gears), regardless of whether they are from ND or not, and regardless of whether their bike
is registered in their home state or not. On the face of it, this attempt at highway robbery (in
more ways than one) would almost certainly have to be ruled as an unconstitutional infringement of
our common law right to travel upon the public roads and highways, but it would clearly be much
better to make sure it is defeated in committee without have to rely on a court challenge to it at
some future date.
And this attempt at legalized extortion is not the only problem with SB 2391. ND already has some of
the worst bike laws in the country on its books (essentially no exceptions to the "ride as far to
the right as practicable" rule, and a mandatory sidepath law as well), but SB 2391 would also add a
requirement for cyclists to ride single file at all times as well--no more two-abreast riding as is
specifically allowed now in ND and 36 other states, as well as the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC)
maintained by NCUTLO.
7 other states at least don't prohibit the practice of two-abreast riding either; and of the 6
states that do require single-file riding, CO allows an exception when no overtaking or approaching
motor traffic is within 300 feet, MT allows an exception for roads and highways with at least two
lanes in each direction, and MA at least allows an exception when passing another cyclist. Only HI,
NE, and VA currently have a single-file rule as draconian as that proposed for ND; and we here in
Virginia have a bill that among other things would bring VA up to the UVC standard with respect to
two-abreast riding that has already passed our Senate (but which may get shot down in the House).
Writing to the sponsors and suggesting that this bill might not be in the best interests of ND
tourism is probably a waste of time, since these particular guys clearly don't want any cyclists
riding through their state, regardless of how much money they might spend en route--but those so
inclined can try the following addresses / phone numbers:
State Sen John Syverson [email protected] 701-232-2897 State Sen Tim Flakoll
[email protected] 701-367-5954 State Sen Russell Thane [email protected] 701-642-8134 State Rep
Randy Boehning [email protected] 701-281-0956 State Rep Andrew Maragos [email protected]
701-852-8747
A better strategy would be to lobby the members of the Senate Transportation Committee before they
vote on SB 2391 Feb 6:
State Sen Thomas L Trenbeath (Chair) [email protected] 701-265-3184 State Sen Duaine C Espegard
(Vice Chair) [email protected] 701-777-6549 State Sen Dennis Bercier [email protected]
701-477-7810 State Sen Duane Mutch [email protected] 701-343-2302 State Sen Dave Nething no email,
try 701-252-7385 State Sen Ryan M Taylor [email protected] 701-662-4077
Likewise, any cyclists who can arrange to be in Bismark Thursday morning (~10 am), Feb 6, should be
sure to attend the Senate Transportation Committee meeting (in the Lewis and Clark Room) and let
them know SB 2391 is completely unacceptable in its current form, and will certainly be challenged
in the courts if it is passed into law.
Riley R Geary Arlington, VA LAB Rep on NCUTLO 1998-2001
==>
Five of our North Dakota legislators are hoping to pass a Senate Bill, as early as 6 February 2003,
to register touring and racing bicycles used on roadways/highways outside the city limits.
Of particular interest to touring cyclists is proposal to add SECTION 4 as part of Senate Bill No.
2391. This section reads as follows:
1. "An individual may not ride a bicycle upon any highway outside of the geographical boundaries of
a city without displaying evidence of registration required by this section. This section does
not apply to a bicycle with under three gears or a bike being ridden by an individual fourteen
years of age or under. In addition, this section is limited to a bicycle intended to be ridden
for long distances, including a cross-country racer, cruiser, touring bike, or racing bike."
2. "The operator of a bicycle shall register the bicycle with the department and the department
shall issue upon payment of fifty dollars a decal for placement on the bicycle as evidence of
registration. A registration is effective for two calendar years." (The proposed penalty for
violation "may be assessed a fee not to exceed thirty-five dollars," according to the SECTION 1
AMENDMENT, Section 39-210.1-01 of the North Dakota Century Code.)
This legislation seems rather cumbersome, as well as potentially unfriendly to touring cyclists. If
this Bill passes (on 6 February), it seems very likely that unregistered (resident and non-resident)
cyclists found pedaling the rural roads and highways of North Dakota will be in violation of the
law, and subject to a $35 fine. Weird!
Phreds, is this legislation enforced in other States? If so, I sure would like to know. Thanks!
--carl (the Trek 520 guy from North Dakota)
<==
RG replies:
The complete text of this legislative travisty can be found at
http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/58-2003/bill_text/DBNC0100.pdf
It was introduced by Senators Syverson, Flakoll, Thane, and by Representatives Boehning, & Maragos;
and is scheduled to be voted on by the Senate Transportation Committee on Feb 6. The fact that it
has more than one sponsor in both houses of the legislature suggests this is no joke (Syverson is
Vice Chairman of the Political Subdivisions Committee, and Flakoll is Chairman of the Agriculture
Committee, so they're clearly not political lightweights either), but an effort by the militant
motorist lobby to discourage cyclists from riding on the rural roads of North Dakota.
As I read the bill, it would apply to ALL cyclists (at least those 15 and older riding a bike with 3
or more gears), regardless of whether they are from ND or not, and regardless of whether their bike
is registered in their home state or not. On the face of it, this attempt at highway robbery (in
more ways than one) would almost certainly have to be ruled as an unconstitutional infringement of
our common law right to travel upon the public roads and highways, but it would clearly be much
better to make sure it is defeated in committee without have to rely on a court challenge to it at
some future date.
And this attempt at legalized extortion is not the only problem with SB 2391. ND already has some of
the worst bike laws in the country on its books (essentially no exceptions to the "ride as far to
the right as practicable" rule, and a mandatory sidepath law as well), but SB 2391 would also add a
requirement for cyclists to ride single file at all times as well--no more two-abreast riding as is
specifically allowed now in ND and 36 other states, as well as the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC)
maintained by NCUTLO.
7 other states at least don't prohibit the practice of two-abreast riding either; and of the 6
states that do require single-file riding, CO allows an exception when no overtaking or approaching
motor traffic is within 300 feet, MT allows an exception for roads and highways with at least two
lanes in each direction, and MA at least allows an exception when passing another cyclist. Only HI,
NE, and VA currently have a single-file rule as draconian as that proposed for ND; and we here in
Virginia have a bill that among other things would bring VA up to the UVC standard with respect to
two-abreast riding that has already passed our Senate (but which may get shot down in the House).
Writing to the sponsors and suggesting that this bill might not be in the best interests of ND
tourism is probably a waste of time, since these particular guys clearly don't want any cyclists
riding through their state, regardless of how much money they might spend en route--but those so
inclined can try the following addresses / phone numbers:
State Sen John Syverson [email protected] 701-232-2897 State Sen Tim Flakoll
[email protected] 701-367-5954 State Sen Russell Thane [email protected] 701-642-8134 State Rep
Randy Boehning [email protected] 701-281-0956 State Rep Andrew Maragos [email protected]
701-852-8747
A better strategy would be to lobby the members of the Senate Transportation Committee before they
vote on SB 2391 Feb 6:
State Sen Thomas L Trenbeath (Chair) [email protected] 701-265-3184 State Sen Duaine C Espegard
(Vice Chair) [email protected] 701-777-6549 State Sen Dennis Bercier [email protected]
701-477-7810 State Sen Duane Mutch [email protected] 701-343-2302 State Sen Dave Nething no email,
try 701-252-7385 State Sen Ryan M Taylor [email protected] 701-662-4077
Likewise, any cyclists who can arrange to be in Bismark Thursday morning (~10 am), Feb 6, should be
sure to attend the Senate Transportation Committee meeting (in the Lewis and Clark Room) and let
them know SB 2391 is completely unacceptable in its current form, and will certainly be challenged
in the courts if it is passed into law.
Riley R Geary Arlington, VA LAB Rep on NCUTLO 1998-2001