RAGBRAI and banning bikes

Discussion in 'Recumbent bicycles' started by John Riley, Feb 2, 2004.

  1. John Riley

    John Riley Guest

    Excuse me if you have seen this elsewhere, but it really irritates me. It looks to me like this
    year's RAGBRAI route will go through the Iowa State Senate district of the State Senator who has
    sponsored a bill that would ban bicycles from four lane roads outside of town boundaries if there is
    a bicycle facility adjacent. I think this is the kind of ban that displays a level of cluelessness
    about cycling such that it could easily be extended.

    My view is that cyclist themselves are best able to judge which facility best meets their needs,
    including safety.

    http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=524

    john riley
     
    Tags:


  2. Freewheeling

    Freewheeling Guest

    Cluelessness and politics? Now that's an atypical combination if ever I saw one. RAGBRAI is an
    institution that seems to bridge the gap between the cycling community, and the larger society. I
    hate the ride, myself, but there's no other ride even remotely like it for filling that gap. Good
    opportunity for some public education, provided people aren't 30 deep in the port-a-potty line. I'll
    never forget the time the super cell came through, and I found my tent was staked out in the middle
    of a small lake. What a vacational experience!

    --
    --Scott
    "john riley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Excuse me if you have seen this elsewhere, but it really irritates me.
    > It looks to me like this year's RAGBRAI route will go through the Iowa
    > State Senate district of the State Senator who has sponsored a bill
    > that would ban bicycles from four lane roads outside of town
    > boundaries if there is a bicycle facility adjacent. I think this is
    > the kind of ban that displays a level of cluelessness about cycling
    > such that it could easily be extended.
    >
    > My view is that cyclist themselves are best able to judge which
    > facility best meets their needs, including safety.
    >
    > http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=524
    >
    > john riley
     
  3. Harv

    Harv Guest

    I remember some of your old posts about RAGBRAI Scott. Saddle sores and now
    this...waitng for Noah's ark. If someone could detail the economic value of
    the ride to the politicos, they's probably do a quick 180. They might not be
    able to tell shit from shinola, but when large amounts of cashish are
    involved they're all ears.
    "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Cluelessness and politics? Now that's an atypical combination if ever I
    saw
    > one. RAGBRAI is an institution that seems to bridge the gap between the cycling community, and the
    > larger society. I hate the ride, myself, but there's no other ride even remotely like it for
    > filling that gap. Good opportunity for some public education, provided people aren't 30 deep in
    the
    > port-a-potty line. I'll never forget the time the super cell came
    through,
    > and I found my tent was staked out in the middle of a small lake. What a vacational experience!
    >
    > --
    > --Scott "john riley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Excuse me if you have seen this elsewhere, but it really irritates me. It looks to me like this
    > > year's RAGBRAI route will go through the Iowa State Senate district of the State Senator who has
    > > sponsored a bill that would ban bicycles from four lane roads outside of town boundaries if
    > > there is a bicycle facility adjacent. I think this is the kind of ban that displays a level of
    > > cluelessness about cycling such that it could easily be extended.
    > >
    > > My view is that cyclist themselves are best able to judge which facility best meets their needs,
    > > including safety.
    > >
    > > http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=524
    > >
    > > john riley
     
  4. John Riley

    John Riley Guest

    "harv" <harv*no_spam*@spininternet.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > I remember some of your old posts about RAGBRAI Scott. Saddle sores and now this...waitng for
    > Noah's ark. If someone could detail the economic value of the ride to the politicos, they's
    > probably do a quick 180. They might not be able to tell shit from shinola, but when large amounts
    > of cashish are involved they're all ears.

    The more I look into this, the worse the smells. They seem to be clueless about cycling, but they
    are not unaware of RAGBRAI. The law doesn't mention RAGBRAI by name, but there is an exception
    spelled out that would certainly include it.

    The law also includes a provision for the construction of more trails. This amendment may have been
    inserted by people trying to make the bill _less_ likely to pass, but they may be shooting
    themselves in the foot. I'm thinking the way this plays out is, any time you want cyclists off a
    particular stretch of road, you slap down a sidewalk next to it and ban them. All the hardcore
    transportational cyclists who hate trails say this is what will happen.

    This is not a great place to have to make a stand. Over on the Ragbrai board, there are some alleged
    cyclists who support the ban. IIRC some of these roads have interchanges at _some_ intersections, so
    sometimes they look like freeways. But you look at the guy's reasoning and it is plain that he just
    doesn't like bicycles. Here are some comments from the website cited above:

    "Sen. Puntney explained that he travels on hwy 330, a 4 lane divided highway between Melbourne and
    Marshalltown, and he rarely sees cyclists using the trail. One day he happened upon a group of
    cyclists using the road versus the trail. Between the safety issues of the cyclists on the road and
    a multi-million dollar trail built with taxpayers money and not being used, this bill was developed
    an introduced. Sen Putney continued by stating it was a "Common Sense" issue and who would have the
    mentality to ride on the roads instead of a trail anyway."

    In other words, there was no real problem. It is not like there had been accidents or something. He
    just resented their presence.

    My recollection about the stretch in question is that it is hilly and open (obvioulsy most of Iowa
    is open, but there are some nice flat, sheltered rail trails which are much more popular) IIRC The
    trail is not on the same grade as the road, so it is much hillier than the road. That might
    discourage typical recreational trail users. I.e. that might be why the great senator doesn't see
    many people on the trail.

    John Riley
     
  5. John Riley

    John Riley Guest

    Here is another account from Yahoo bikeIowa. I believe the speaker is
    another legislator:

    "I have talked directly to Senator Putney. He had an experience on Hwy 330 when he came up on a
    group of bikers that were riding in a group. He stopped and asked them why they were not riding on
    the trail. (He thinks they should ride on the trail). They told Senator Putney that they had the
    right to ride on the road. And that there was nothing he could do about it. Senator Putney did not
    like this reply or attitude.

    Senator Putney also thinks that if government(we) is spending money on bike trails that people
    should ride on them. Especially if the they are along existing highways. Senator Putney's district
    is very rural."

    Wow, he gets pissed off at some cyclists so he decides to get even by banning them! If RAGBRAI is
    going thourgh his district (looks to me like it will), the Register should re-route it around his
    district, if they have any nerve.

    John Riley
     
  6. Edward Dolan

    Edward Dolan Guest

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

    > Cluelessness and politics? Now that's an atypical combination if ever I saw one. RAGBRAI is an
    > institution that seems to bridge the gap between the cycling community, and the larger society. I
    > hate the ride, myself, but there's no other ride even remotely like it for filling that gap. Good
    > opportunity for some public education, provided people aren't 30 deep in the port-a-potty line.
    > I'll never forget the time the super cell came through, and I found my tent was staked out in the
    > middle of a small lake. What a vacational experience!

    OK, so I have finally figured out that Freewheeling is Scott. For the longest period of time I
    had you confused with that other Scott in Arizona who I am constantly at loggerheads with (the
    best of enemies).

    RAGBRAI is a phenomenon in a class by itself. I have never done it but I have witnessed it many
    times. I do not think it is my kind of ride at all but I truly do enjoy the spectacle of it. I have
    watched it repeatedly come into the small towns here in NW Iowa. It is big business pure and simple.
    These Ragbraiers have money in their pockets and they are willing to spend it.

    Nonetheless, some of these small towns are getting fed up with the havoc that Ragbrai inflicts on
    them. It would actually be a good thing if Ragbrai weren't so large and I think it has peaked and
    will be getting smaller in the future.

    I will never do Ragbrai because I do prefer smaller rides. I have often thought that about 600 to
    1000 is about right. God help me, but I can't wait in line for anything. I would not wait in line to
    get into Heaven itself!

    Ed Dolan - Minnesota
     
  7. Edward Dolan

    Edward Dolan Guest

    [email protected] (john riley) wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>... [...]

    > The more I look into this, the worse the smells. They seem to be clueless about cycling, but they
    > are not unaware of RAGBRAI. The law doesn't mention RAGBRAI by name, but there is an exception
    > spelled out that would certainly include it.
    >
    > The law also includes a provision for the construction of more trails. This amendment may have
    > been inserted by people trying to make the bill _less_ likely to pass, but they may be shooting
    > themselves in the foot. I'm thinking the way this plays out is, any time you want cyclists off a
    > particular stretch of road, you slap down a sidewalk next to it and ban them. All the hardcore
    > transportational cyclists who hate trails say this is what will happen.
    >
    > This is not a great place to have to make a stand. Over on the Ragbrai board, there are some
    > alleged cyclists who support the ban. IIRC some of these roads have interchanges at _some_
    > intersections, so sometimes they look like freeways. But you look at the guy's reasoning and it is
    > plain that he just doesn't like bicycles. Here are some comments from the website cited above:
    >
    > "Sen. Puntney explained that he travels on hwy 330, a 4 lane divided highway between Melbourne and
    > Marshalltown, and he rarely sees cyclists using the trail. One day he happened upon a group of
    > cyclists using the road versus the trail. Between the safety issues of the cyclists on the road
    > and a multi-million dollar trail built with taxpayers money and not being used, this bill was
    > developed an introduced. Sen Putney continued by stating it was a "Common Sense" issue and who
    > would have the mentality to ride on the roads instead of a trail anyway."
    >
    > In other words, there was no real problem. It is not like there had been accidents or something.
    > He just resented their presence.
    >
    > My recollection about the stretch in question is that it is hilly and open (obvioulsy most of Iowa
    > is open, but there are some nice flat, sheltered rail trails which are much more popular) IIRC The
    > trail is not on the same grade as the road, so it is much hillier than the road. That might
    > discourage typical recreational trail users. I.e. that might be why the great senator doesn't see
    > many people on the trail.
    >
    > John Riley

    John, I come down on the side of trails. I am not a fast rider and I am not a commuter. I am a slow
    recreational rider and I will always want a bike trail as opposed to the road. Any variances between
    the road and the trail are insignificant to me. It would not bother me at all if I were required to
    ride the trails given a choice. It is altogether safer and we are not ever going to be too fast on
    our bicycles anyway.

    I know Iowa better than I know Minnesota and I know what the thinking is in these parts. If a bike
    trail has a hard surface there is just no reason not to be on it. The only type of cyclists who
    will not want to be on it are the racer types. They are a special breed and not typical of cyclists
    in general.

    I have ridden the roads like forever, but whenever I can find a bike trail I am on it immediately.
    There I am totally relaxed and at peace with the world. There is just no comparison between being on
    a bike trail and being on the road.

    Ed Dolan - Minnesota

    PS. RAGBRAI by the way totally takes over the road wherever it goes. That is how big it is.
     
  8. Freewheeling

    Freewheeling Guest

    John:

    When cycling on the local military base I'm frequently accosted by lower grade officer types who
    urge me to "ride in the bike lane," even though if they took a look at it they could see that it's
    potholed and full of glass shards, etc. The fact that the damn thing is there makes riding on the
    road illegitimate. And you can bet that as soon as the law passes the funding for maintenance will
    dry up, because who really gives a damn about bicycles anyway?

    So I usually scoot over for about 30 seconds until the jerk passes, and then move out into the lane
    again. I'm not sure how state law impacts the military bases, but in most situtaions cyclists are
    the equivalent of cars, so he really has no right at all to tell me to get into the bike line, and I
    have every right to take the care lane. Not just a little part of it either, but the whole thing.

    But I suspect that if they really wanted to make it an issue they could just ban me from the base,
    so it's not worth putting that much energy into it. And then there are all the obviously military
    cyclists who pass me riding in the car lane, so it's clearly a matter of the ignorance of these
    officers, rather than any iron-clad rules or procedures that I might be violating. And it's really
    a nice place to ride, once you get off the primary roads. There's zero traffic, and lots of woods
    and scenery.

    --
    --Scott
    "john riley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "harv" <harv*no_spam*@spininternet.com> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > I remember some of your old posts about RAGBRAI Scott. Saddle sores and
    now
    > > this...waitng for Noah's ark. If someone could detail the economic value
    of
    > > the ride to the politicos, they's probably do a quick 180. They might
    not be
    > > able to tell shit from shinola, but when large amounts of cashish are
    > > involved they're all ears.
    >
    > The more I look into this, the worse the smells. They seem to be
    > clueless about cycling, but they are not unaware of RAGBRAI. The law
    > doesn't mention RAGBRAI by name, but there is an exception spelled out
    > that would certainly include it.
    >
    > The law also includes a provision for the construction of more trails.
    > This amendment may have been inserted by people trying to make the
    > bill _less_ likely to pass, but they may be shooting themselves in the
    > foot. I'm thinking the way this plays out is, any time you want
    > cyclists off a particular stretch of road, you slap down a sidewalk
    > next to it and ban them. All the hardcore transportational cyclists
    > who hate trails say this is what will happen.
    >
    > This is not a great place to have to make a stand. Over on the Ragbrai
    > board, there are some alleged cyclists who support the ban. IIRC some
    > of these roads have interchanges at _some_ intersections, so sometimes
    > they look like freeways. But you look at the guy's reasoning and it
    > is plain that he just doesn't like bicycles. Here are some comments
    > from the website cited above:
    >
    > "Sen. Puntney explained that he travels on hwy 330, a 4 lane divided
    > highway between Melbourne and Marshalltown, and he rarely sees
    > cyclists using the trail. One day he happened upon a group of cyclists
    > using the road versus the trail. Between the safety issues of the
    > cyclists on the road and a multi-million dollar trail built with
    > taxpayers money and not being used, this bill was developed an
    > introduced.
    > Sen Putney continued by stating it was a "Common Sense" issue and who
    > would have the mentality to ride on the roads instead of a trail
    > anyway."
    >
    > In other words, there was no real problem. It is not like there had
    > been accidents or something. He just resented their presence.
    >
    > My recollection about the stretch in question is that it is hilly and
    > open (obvioulsy most of Iowa is open, but there are some nice flat,
    > sheltered rail trails which are much more popular) IIRC The trail is
    > not on the same grade as the road, so it is much hillier than the
    > road. That might discourage typical recreational trail users. I.e.
    > that might be why the great senator doesn't see many people on the
    > trail.
    >
    > John Riley
     
  9. John Riley

    John Riley Guest

    [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > John, I come down on the side of trails. I am not a fast rider and I am not a commuter. I am a
    > slow recreational rider and I will always want a bike trail as opposed to the road. Any variances
    > between the road and the trail are insignificant to me. It would not bother me at all if I were
    > required to ride the trails given a choice. It is altogether safer and we are not ever going to be
    > too fast on our bicycles anyway. [...]

    I prefer trails myself, but I don't want to see racers and hard-core transportational cyclists
    banned from the roads. This law is meant to be a slap in the face, so I think it should be opposed.

    John Riley
     
  10. On 6 Feb 2004 02:35:06 -0800, [email protected] (john riley)
    wrote:

    >I prefer trails myself, but I don't want to see racers and hard-core transportational cyclists
    >banned from the roads. This law is meant to be a slap in the face, so I think it should be opposed.

    It doesn't require soeone to be hard-core. It only requires that you like using the shortest path
    possible when you have ten things to do on a bike and one morning to do it. Trails often veer off
    from intersections to avoid conflict - and intersections are what you need to access multiple paths
    to different locations.

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

    Bob Guest

    [email protected] (john riley) wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>... <snip>
    > Wow, he gets pissed off at some cyclists so he decides to get even by banning them! John Riley

    Hi folks. Would you tolerate a stray thought from my mental process? If so; This sounds to me like
    the type of official that banned recumbents from UCI sanctioned events in 1934. I wonder where
    'bents would be if that had not happened. Just my $.02 worth. Bob, from a region of the country with
    very few bike trails.
     
  12. Edward Dolan

    Edward Dolan Guest

    Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > On 6 Feb 2004 02:35:06 -0800, [email protected] (john riley) wrote:
    >
    > >I prefer trails myself, but I don't want to see racers and hard-core transportational cyclists
    > >banned from the roads. This law is meant to be a slap in the face, so I think it should be
    > >opposed.
    >
    > It doesn't require soeone to be hard-core. It only requires that you like using the shortest path
    > possible when you have ten things to do on a bike and one morning to do it. Trails often veer off
    > from intersections to avoid conflict - and intersections are what you need to access multiple
    > paths to different locations.

    I think you are describing a typical suburban setting. I once spent some time trying to navigate my
    way around the Northern Virginia area next to Wash. D.C. There were trails and there were roads. I
    tried to stay on the trails as much as possible but sooner or later I had to use the roads. In my
    hometown the roads are almost the equivalent of trails. There is never a problem using them. That is
    not the case in suburban areas as many of the roads are unusable by bikes because the traffic is so
    heavy. In Fairfax I often had to take to the sidewalks for safety's sake. I do not think suburban
    areas for the most part are very bike friendly unless there are lots of trails. Of course the trails
    should go somewhere and not dead end you in the middle of nowhere.

    Ed Dolan - Minnesota
     
  13. Anyone that has ridden through Franconia Notch in New Hampshire can see the effects of banning
    bicycles on roads. It is illegal to ride on the shoulder of the Interstate there, so they created a
    bike path.

    However, there are several sections that are VERY steep (where the road is graded), the trail has
    many blind spots, and in some places there are signs instructing cyclists to walk their bicycles due
    to heavy foot traffic.

    See a complete report of this clusterf*ck here:
    http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/franconia/franconia.htm

    Sometimes those making the rules have no idea whatsoever what we cyclists do...

    Chris
     
  14. Edward Dolan

    Edward Dolan Guest

    [email protected] (Chris Champion) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > Anyone that has ridden through Franconia Notch in New Hampshire can see the effects of banning
    > bicycles on roads. It is illegal to ride on the shoulder of the Interstate there, so they created
    > a bike path.
    >
    > However, there are several sections that are VERY steep (where the road is graded), the trail has
    > many blind spots, and in some places there are signs instructing cyclists to walk their bicycles
    > due to heavy foot traffic.
    >
    > See a complete report of this clusterf*ck here:
    > http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/franconia/franconia.htm
    >
    >
    > Sometimes those making the rules have no idea whatsoever what we cyclists do...

    I believe I could easily live with a few trail rules for the safety of all for the advantages of a
    trail over a road for cycling. Most of the rules I have ever seen on bike trails just require you to
    slow down and use some common sense. I think the only type of cyclists who will not like trails are
    possibly commuters and sport racer types (club types especially). For the rest of us, trails make a
    lot of sense.

    We have literally thousands of miles of roads here in southern Minnesota where the sport club type
    of cyclists could go and have the road mostly all to themselves. Unfortunately, we do not have
    those type of cyclists in this region. Too bad, but if you are living in suburban areas then you
    have to accommodate yourself to your roads and the traffic conditions prevailing there. Maybe some
    of you should think about moving to areas of the country (otherwise known as the boondocks) that
    are not so crowded.

    I will always prefer a trail to a road however no matter where I am cycling.

    Ed Dolan - Minnesota
     
  15. Peter

    Peter Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (Chris Champion) wrote:

    <snip>
    > Sometimes those making the rules have no idea whatsoever what we cyclists do...

    I'd say that's true only about 99.9999999999% of the time.
     
  16. Freewheeling

    Freewheeling Guest

    I'm from Northern Virginia, and have ridden roads and trails here for a decade. It has one of the
    best trail systems in the country, but I always got nervous negotiating all the places that crossed
    roads, especially around Reagan Airport. They may have improved that though. I'm also used to riding
    the streets, and I'd prefer being on a bike than in a car in downtown congestion (although a
    recumbent isn't the best bike for this application). The best way to get around is a combination of
    roads and trails. But you have to know the trails because sometimes they "disappear" for long
    stretches, and it's not clear what you need to do to pick up the trail again. But in general the
    trail system in Northern Virginia is a huge blessing.

    That said, the Baltimore/Annapolis trail system near where Curtis lives (Odenton?) is one of the
    worst I've used. You really have to mind your Ps and Qs to use that stretch of trail with all the
    road crossings, etc.. The main reason I used it is that it allowed me to go for longish rides from
    Savage Mill (where I lived at the time) without getting lost. I was about 6 miles from the trailhead
    (as I recall, though I could be wrong about the distance). My biggest problem was unleashed dogs,
    though. Not on the trail itself, but on the roads to and from the trail.

    --
    --Scott
    "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    > > On 6 Feb 2004 02:35:06 -0800, [email protected] (john riley)
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > > >I prefer trails myself, but I don't want to see racers and hard-core
    > > >transportational cyclists banned from the roads. This law is meant to
    > > >be a slap in the face, so I think it should be opposed.
    > >
    > > It doesn't require soeone to be hard-core. It only requires that you
    > > like using the shortest path possible when you have ten things to do
    > > on a bike and one morning to do it. Trails often veer off from
    > > intersections to avoid conflict - and intersections are what you need
    > > to access multiple paths to different locations.
    >
    > I think you are describing a typical suburban setting. I once spent
    > some time trying to navigate my way around the Northern Virginia area
    > next to Wash. D.C. There were trails and there were roads. I tried to
    > stay on the trails as much as possible but sooner or later I had to
    > use the roads. In my hometown the roads are almost the equivalent of
    > trails. There is never a problem using them. That is not the case in
    > suburban areas as many of the roads are unusable by bikes because the
    > traffic is so heavy. In Fairfax I often had to take to the sidewalks
    > for safety's sake. I do not think suburban areas for the most part are
    > very bike friendly unless there are lots of trails. Of course the
    > trails should go somewhere and not dead end you in the middle of
    > nowhere.
    >
    > Ed Dolan - Minnesota
     
  17. Edward Dolan

    Edward Dolan Guest

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

    > I'm from Northern Virginia, and have ridden roads and trails here for a decade. It has one of the
    > best trail systems in the country, but I always got nervous negotiating all the places that
    > crossed roads, especially around Reagan Airport. They may have improved that though. I'm also used
    > to riding the streets, and I'd prefer being on a bike than in a car in downtown congestion
    > (although a recumbent isn't the best bike for this application). The best way to get around is a
    > combination of roads and trails. But you have to know the trails because sometimes they
    > "disappear" for long stretches, and it's not clear what you need to do to pick up the trail again.
    > But in general the trail system in Northern Virginia is a huge blessing.
    >
    > That said, the Baltimore/Annapolis trail system near where Curtis lives (Odenton?) is one of the
    > worst I've used. You really have to mind your Ps and Qs to use that stretch of trail with all the
    > road crossings, etc.. The main reason I used it is that it allowed me to go for longish rides from
    > Savage Mill (where I lived at the time) without getting lost. I was about 6 miles from the
    > trailhead (as I recall, though I could be wrong about the distance). My biggest problem was
    > unleashed dogs, though. Not on the trail itself, but on the roads to and from the trail.

    Scott, the experience I had cycling around Northern Virginia was surreal. The bike trails I tried to
    follow would just peter out and then I would have to hunt for their continuance further on down the
    road. Arlington especially was a mess. However, 90% of the time I was on the bike trails and I do
    agree with you that it is a great trail system. Eventually I worked my way over to the Washington
    and Old Dominion Trail and followed that on out to the end. However, it is no pleasure to cycle on
    the roads in Northern Virginia. The traffic is unbelievably heavy. Wash. D.C. must be the Los
    Angeles of the East Coast. But thank God for those bike trails.

    Local cyclists always have a tremendous advantage over any visitors. They know all the ins and
    outs of the trails from experience. I had very detailed maps but it still was not always easy to
    navigate my way to where I wanted to go. But mostly I was just exploring the trails. That stretch
    that follows along the river with its view of the city is as good as urban cycling ever gets in
    my opinion.

    I have often thought too that I might very well want to have an upright bike in preference to a
    recuumbent for the kind of congestion and traffic conditions that prevail in the inner city and
    downtown. I remember some guy from Seattle said pretty much the same thing too. I once spent a
    month in Seattle and was downtown almost every day. I did see a few cyclists but never any
    recumbents downtown.

    Ed Dolan - Minnesota
     
  18. Stubbe

    Stubbe New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    [I am from this area in question and enjoy this trail except for the intersections of a few gravel roads where you must transit the gravel to get to the next section of the trail.

    For me, I would not ride on that chunk of Hwy 330 ever. It is a 65 mph area and very busy. No matter how right I am or what my rights are concerning riding on that road, dead is dead.

    This trail also has another negitive. There is no trailhead at the northern end, it just stops at the end of a paved road so, to get to it from Marshalltown means riding a highway but, it is much less traveled and not 4 lane. As a cyclist who enjoys trails, I feel we should pick our battles carefully and this is one we should let pass.

    Ken
     
  19. John Riley

    John Riley New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2003
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are missing the point entirely. I don't think anyone is arguing that it is a good idea to ride on the roads in quesiton. That doesn't mean there has to be a law against it. The law is not a safety measure. It is meant to be a slap in the face of cyclists by an anti-bike State Senator. If this passes, why would the anti-bike people stop there?

    You can pick your battles and I can choose where I spend my bike $. I was planning on RAGBRAI, but not anymore. I thought RAGBRAI had raised bicycle issue awareness in Iowa, but I have seen too many cyclists defending this law. I mostly ride trails myself, but I still think the principle at stake here is important.

    FWIW Looks like it might be up for debate next week:

    http://www.BIKEIOWA.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=555

    John Riley
     
Loading...
Loading...