Home » Bicycling »Politics/Policy »Sunday Poll » Currently Reading:

Poll: St Charles County is considering banning bikes from some state highways

July 18, 2010 Bicycling, Politics/Policy, Sunday Poll 8 Comments
ABOVE: Bike lane on Jefferson Ave
ABOVE: Urban areas often welcome cyclists

The poll this week is about bicycling:

Q: St Charles County is considering banning bikes from some state highways

More info:

A bill that would ban bicyclists from using state highways in southwestern St. Charles County will be introduced during the St. Charles County Council’s meeting Monday night.

Councilman Joe Brazil, R-District 2, requested the bill.

“We spend millions of dollars a year on parks and trails,” Brazil said in a news release issued by the county. “The bicyclists need to stay on the trails that were made for bikes and off the roads in southwest St. Charles County.”

The proposed ordinance would prohibit bicycles on highways DD, D, F and Z and Highway 94 from its intersection with Highway 40 west to the county line. The ordinance would apply to highways that lack shoulders or bicycle lanes.  (Full story)

The poll is in the upper right hand corner.  Please vote and add any comments you have below.

– Steve Patterson

 

Currently there are "8 comments" on this Article:

  1. Been there done that says:

    It is about time this law was enacted. I drive DD 4 to 5 times a week. The lanes are way too narrow to allow for most of the traffic that uses DD, let alone bicycles. There are plenty of other roads that bikers can use that have less traffic than DD.

     
  2. Chris says:

    The Katy Trail runs right through that area, if I'm correct. Do many bicyclists not like using the Trail because it's too crowded?

     
  3. Anne says:

    I've never spent any time on these roads, but from what I understand, they're claiming that at 55mph the winding country roads are too dangerous for bicycles. I think they should lower the speed limit if these roads are so treacherous (I can't image the motorists are in favor of that of course). Some people use bikes for recreation and would prefer to be on trails. However, some people use bikes to GO places to commute or run errands…. the Katy trail isn't really going to help in that way. By banning bikes from using the roads, how are people supposed to use trails without driving to them in the first place?

     
  4. I guess I will have to go check out these roads. As a cyclist, I do tend to avoid roads that do not have shoulders, because I don't like to be an inconvenience to motorists. I also don't feel comfortable with the level of danger presented by drivers who a) choose to be offended by bikes on the road and b) use their vehicles as a means to take out their aggression against riders.

    That being said, the roads were built for (and paid for) by bicyclists as much as automobile owners. Passing a bicycle is not that difficult, and slowing down to wait for an opportunity to pass is not that much of an inconvenience. Even when a bicycle is used solely as a form of recreation to be used on dedicated trails, one must get there, and it is usually silly to drive to a place one can ride. I doubt people are driving to these roads to ride on them, but rather they are being ridden by the people who live on them.

    If these roads are so dangerous and unsuitable for bicycles, a far better proposal would be to improve the roads.

     
    • Chris says:

      These roads are incredibly dangerous; I would exercise extreme caution while biking on them.

       
  5. JZ71 says:

    One, cyclists have a legal right to be on these roads: http://mobikefed.org/statutes.html#statutes Two, we need to get past the concept of “my” street or road. Unless you live in a gated community or on a private street, these are PUBLIC roads, meant to be shared, much like that parking space in front of your house. Three, every serious cyclist needs to weigh risk versus reward – these roads are inherently dangerous, since they're narrow, hilly and have blind corners, combined with drivers exhibiting varying degrees of hospitality/consideration. I guess I'm getting old – I value my life, and I'm less willing to make a point by riding someplace when there are better options. Four, this is only an issue because it's a symbol of the old urban-rural tension. Other things that slow drivers down, like RFD mail carriers, farm implements and deer, “aren't in play” because “they belong” and haven't “gotten worse” over the past decade. And five, try substituting “guns” for “bicycles” and see how the message (and the reactions) change – anyone who would advocate gun control would be run out of the county, even though there are (just as many?) stupid, arrogant, law-ignoring gun owners who wear funny clothes, just like there are stupid, arrogant, law-ignoring, spandex-wearing cyclists! So if the issue really is “safety”, let's just lower the speed limits to 15 mph and be done with it . . .

     
    • Chris says:

      I agree, just because something is legal or that you have the right to do it, doesn't mean that it's safe.

       
  6. UrbanReason says:

    While I have little hope that St. Charles County would ever embrace anything remotely urban and non-auto-centric and thus feel somewhat indifferent about issues like this – this would non-the-less set a really stupid precedent. I agree that if this is really about safety, lower the speed limit. Anything over 25mph is proven to increase fatalities exponentially. Which is why I doubt it has much to do with safety and more to do with people who are irritated about the odd chance they might need to slow down and be careful. Let cyclists ride at their own risk, they have (and should have) as much right to the road as anyone in a car. I doubt anyone rides on these roads without recognizing the risk.

     

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe