Every one who is not glued to their phones has seen the signs on on ramps to interstates banning non motorized traffic. Actually the law is quite clear if non motorized traffic is banned from a portion of a road that fact must be posted at every entrance to that roads. These laws can not take effect until that has been done. There are always missing signs. You can not be arrested for running a stop sign if there is no stop sign. No lawyer will argue with this. This will not stop a police officer from giving you a ticket. The law has been abused so many time the legislators had to create new laws to stop this. These are generally called speed trap laws though they apply to every law that requires a sign. In California they are using these laws to stop a new wave of illegal tickets and arrests. What is happening is new lanes are being added along side to interstates so it is no longer clear where the interstate end and the service roads or even ordinary roads start. There may have once been a sign but it was removed to make way for the new lanes. Highway departments have not bothered to read the law since the interstates were put in. There are now illegally banning non motorized traffic from ordinary highways. Even if the law has been applied correctly it must be overridden in some cases. If a highway is closed for any reason generally for bridge work and the interstate is the closest road the highways must allow non motorized on the interstate. They are also required to post detours around the highway for non motorized traffic as well as ordinary traffic. An interstate can not be built within the right of way of a preexisting highway. These roads may look like interstates and be marked as interstates but they are not interstates. They are interstate corridors. The interstate laws do apply. The laws of the previous highway govern. Non motorized traffic can not be banned from an ordinary highway unless a detour route exists built within 2 miles of the highway. Again the law can not be enforced until signs are in place informing non motorized traffic of the route. The best example of this would be interstate 5 where it runs over highway 99 on the northern California border. Once you enter Oregon non motorized is allowed on interstate 5. There is no sign on the Oregon side warning non motorized traffic to exit. A state line is an entrance to a road for legal proposes. I have cycled 120000 miles in 30 states and on the interstates in 20 of them. After an estimated 300 illegal traffic stops by police they are starting to understand I know what I'm talking about. Now police departments are warning other police departments not to harass me when I head in their direction. I have never needed to cycle on an interstate. Technically every road I traveled was an interstate corridor.
What.
SM-G900V
If you're writing a manafesto really you ought to consider using paragraph formatting. It's hard to even discern what the hell you trying to get at with all gibberish compressed into one giant blob of words.
This guy claims on MTR that I-69 in Indiana is somehow illegal.
Leaving aside this guy's rantings, anybody who would attempt to ride a bicycle on an interstate is eventually going to be killed. He can argue obscure legal theories all he wants. The motorist will be alive and he will be dead. High speed highways are inappropriate for bicycle and pedestrians.
I didn't even attempt to read the whole post, but the subject line suggests to me he wants to say, essentially, "If there's no sign banning something, it's not banned." Of course that's not necessarily true. To use an obvious example, do you need a sign at every traffic light telling you to stop on red? Perhaps a better example might be parking too close to an intersection–the cop can ticket you if state or local law prohibits parking within a certain distance of the corner, even if there's no sign saying you can't park there (although some cops might cut you a break).
Quote from: SP Cook on November 13, 2017, 07:45:36 AM
Leaving aside this guy's rantings, anybody who would attempt to ride a bicycle on an interstate is eventually going to be killed. He can argue obscure legal theories all he wants. The motorist will be alive and he will be dead. High speed highways are inappropriate for bicycle and pedestrians.
Some extremely rural Interstates like 17 actually allow bike traffic on the shoulders. BUT they generally signed at a particular exit to join the Interstate and another to exit. Either way I'm not really sure what this guy is getting at, ignorance of the law doesn't make stuff legal in regards to pretty much any other criminal activity.
Quote from: SP Cook on November 13, 2017, 07:45:36 AM
Leaving aside this guy's rantings, anybody who would attempt to ride a bicycle on an interstate is eventually going to be killed. He can argue obscure legal theories all he wants. The motorist will be alive and he will be dead. High speed highways are inappropriate for bicycle and pedestrians.
Many interstates west of the Mississippi allow for cyclist travel on shoulders, and there is no apocalypse of dead cyclists due to it. Classic talk of telling cyclists what's best for cyclists.
Kudos to the OP, he's about 20K miles lifetime riding ahead of me.
I don't mind hearing stories from bicyclists. What I do mind is on one of the extremely few forums dedicated to motorists, we have bicyclists that feel that they need to come on here and rant against highways, motorists, cops, etc.
I'm sure he has ranted on every bicyclist forum out there, and is just searching for more forums to rant on.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 13, 2017, 09:30:38 AM
I don't mind hearing stories from bicyclists. What I do mind is on one of the extremely few forums dedicated to motorists, we have bicyclists that feel that they need to come on here and rant against highways, motorists, cops, etc.
I'm sure he has ranted on every bicyclist forum out there, and is just searching for more forums to rant on.
This is a forum about roads, not specifically about motor vehicle travel. He's not saying that these roads shouldn't exist, or that they should be converted, or anything like that. His problem is with how he's being treated.
Quote from: 1 on November 13, 2017, 09:35:07 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 13, 2017, 09:30:38 AM
I don't mind hearing stories from bicyclists. What I do mind is on one of the extremely few forums dedicated to motorists, we have bicyclists that feel that they need to come on here and rant against highways, motorists, cops, etc.
I'm sure he has ranted on every bicyclist forum out there, and is just searching for more forums to rant on.
This is a forum about roads, not specifically about motor vehicle travel. He's not saying that these roads shouldn't exist, or that they should be converted, or anything like that. His problem is with how he's being treated.
It's questionable if being treated wrongly belongs in 'Traffic Control'
And this has nothing to do with how he's being treated: "What is happening is new lanes are being added along side to interstates so it is no longer clear where the interstate end and the service roads or even ordinary roads start. There may have once been a sign but it was removed to make way for the new lanes. Highway departments have not bothered to read the law since the interstates were put in."
Is he saying that ordinary lanes are combined with interstate lanes? If there's a barrier, median, or something else between local lanes and interstates lanes, it's pretty clear what they are.
To me, the OP seems like one of those sovereign-citizen types who feel like they're above the law, just because that's how they feel. :pan:
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 13, 2017, 09:54:12 AM
To me, the OP seems like one of those sovereign-citizen types who feel like they're above the law, just because that's how they feel. :pan:
I'm bewildered how that whole thing caught traction. A couple years back some guy in Belle Isle, FL was pulled over at a Publix I shopped at. He told the cops that he was a "sovereign citizen" and then proceeded to advance on them with the apparent intent to start a fight. The cops shot the guy and he died for some BS when it could have been handled with a ticket.
But I digress, I'm not a cyclist but I'm a distance runner. To add onto what I said earlier, as a distance runner I don't feel exempt from traffic laws even when there is no signage prohibiting me from doing something. I don't make a habit of running on freeways or Interstates given that many states prohibit it but way more so because they are shitty places to run with a way higher chance of getting hit. I don't know why a cyclist would feel the need aside from maybe commuting to use the a freeway in the first place. What's wrong with a nice rural road, back street, or scenic ride? Those are usually designated with bike lanes anyways which makes it way easier to travel on.
He posted this on MTR at message ID <56aa6af9-e53c-4b0b-a9a1-203375a7ceb7@googlegroups.com> (in response to my post announcing my recent western Kentucky meet)...
"An Interstate corridor is not an an interstate. I have an email from INDOT that admits they illegally closed portions of state highway 57 when they built interstate 69. They will not be making the same mistake again. The interstate 69 corridor from Bloomington to Indianapolis is clearly labeled as such. You should know I cycled that route several months ago. The state of KY already knows it is a vary bad idea to try and kick me off a road I know I am allowed to bicycle. "
Quote from: hbelkins on November 13, 2017, 11:24:25 AM
He posted this on MTR at message ID <56aa6af9-e53c-4b0b-a9a1-203375a7ceb7@googlegroups.com> (in response to my post announcing my recent western Kentucky meet)...
"An Interstate corridor is not an an interstate. I have an email from INDOT that admits they illegally closed portions of state highway 57 when they built interstate 69. They will not be making the same mistake again. The interstate 69 corridor from Bloomington to Indianapolis is clearly labeled as such. You should know I cycled that route several months ago. The state of KY already knows it is a vary bad idea to try and kick me off a road I know I am allowed to bicycle. "
It honestly feels like this guy sniffs paint cans for a living...
SM-G900V
There are some interstates that specifically allow bicycling on the shoulder. It's places there's no reasonable alternate, and the shoulders are wide enough. I'm not sure what he's talking about regarding widened interstates etc.
Brevity and paragraphs are your friends.
It was a bit hard to follow the stream-of-consciousness post, but it sounded like bicyclehazard was referring to situations where a surface road is detoured onto a freeway–which might be fine for motorists, but obviously that poses a problem for cyclists and pedestrians. Or where a surface road is upgraded in-place to a freeway, cutting off access to homes or businesses. Or when one state allows cyclists to ride on the shoulder of an Interstate, and another doesn't–but doesn't post a BICYCLES MUST EXIT sign.
Though he/she made some points that are definitely not true ("There is no law without signage" ...Yes, there is), I think there is a germ of a valid grievance at the bottom of it: Many state and municipal DOTs simply don't take bicycles seriously as means of functional transportation.
For example, one day when I lived in Marin County, CA–a progressive area that's supposed to be bike friendly–work was being done on an underground pipe or something beneath a numbered bike path. This route forms a key link between a residential area, other numbered bike routes, and a ferry terminal. As I happened upon the scene, this is what met me: No signs, no advance warning, no detours–just a fence straight across the path and no alternative but to turn around. If I had been trying to catch a ferry to the city, I'd have been forced to backtrack and find my own circuitous detour along some pretty bike-hostile roads.
I could spend all day going through the "hall of shame" bicycle facilities that I've come across: Bike paths that empty out onto sidewalks in a town where it's illegal to bike on a sidewalk. Bike paths that terminate at a one-way street headed the opposite direction. Construction zones that consume a bike lane with no advance warning for either cyclists or motorists. Signs that order cyclists to dismount for no apparent reason (which the cyclists summarily disregard, further eroding respect for traffic signs).
Bottom line: I'm not vouching for any foil-hat manifestos, but–with the exception of freeways where non-motorized traffic is expressly prohibited–you have the right to transport yourself on foot or on a bicycle. And if a road is upgraded in place to a freeway or construction work necessitates a detour on a surface road, all traffic (including cyclists and pedestrians) should be reasonably accommodated.
Quote from: kkt on November 13, 2017, 12:13:19 PM
There are some interstates that specifically allow bicycling on the shoulder.
In Oregon, there are only a handful of Interstate segments that you're
not allowed to bike on. Pretty much every Interstate in Portland is on that list, IIRC.
I'm not sure what California and Nevada's laws on the subject are, but I was always amused at the "Bicycles must exit" (https://goo.gl/maps/yYd4Kd77fXT2) sign at I-80 Exit 2 near Verdi, NV after just coming out of the Sierra Nevadas. Some segments of 80 in California are so narrow I can't fathom how a cyclist would be able to survive the journey.
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:13:20 PM
Actually the law is quite clear if non motorized traffic is banned from a portion of a road that fact must be posted at every entrance to that roads. These laws can not take effect until that has been done.
Since you specifically mentioned California, I will say that this is indeed true. The pertinent portion of the California Vehicle Code is this: "The prohibitory regulation authorized by subdivision (a) shall be effective
when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon any freeway or expressway and the approaches thereto."
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:13:20 PM
There are always missing signs. You can not be arrested for running a stop sign if there is no stop sign. No lawyer will argue with this. This will not stop a police officer from giving you a ticket.
You can, however, be found guilty of failing to yield in cases where stopping is required
even in the absence of a sign, such as when entering a road from a private drive or alley. Not every law requires a sign.
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:13:20 PM
What is happening is new lanes are being added along side to interstates so it is no longer clear where the interstate end and the service roads or even ordinary roads start.
The term "roadway" refers specifically to the maintained portion of the highway used by vehicles. If there is any green space between the roadways, then the regulations pertaining to one roadway should not bleed over onto the other roadway. If, however, it is simply a matter of adding lanes without green space in between, then it would all be considered a single roadway and thus a prohibition applied to a part would apply to the whole.
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:13:20 PM
These roads may look like interstates and be marked as interstates but they are not interstates. They are interstate corridors. The interstate laws do apply. The laws of the previous highway govern.
Please provide the vehicle code you are basing this assertion on.
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:13:20 PM
The best example of this would be interstate 5 where it runs over highway 99 on the northern California border. Once you enter Oregon non motorized is allowed on interstate 5. There is no sign on the Oregon side warning non motorized traffic to exit.
Of course not. Oregon doesn't give a hoot what California law says.
TL;DR
Consider taking the advise of the posters pointing out the lack of formatting.
Quote from: kphoger on November 13, 2017, 03:12:33 PM
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:13:20 PM
The best example of this would be interstate 5 where it runs over highway 99 on the northern California border. Once you enter Oregon non motorized is allowed on interstate 5. There is no sign on the Oregon side warning non motorized traffic to exit.
Of course not. Oregon doesn't give a hoot what California law says.
Exactly. It's up to California to allow non-motorized traffic to exit at Hilt without an issue.
Also, technically I-5 at the Oregon/California border does
not run over the
oldest former routing Highway 99. The road that
was Highway 99 is called "Jefferson Road" and runs east of the freeway between the Hilt interchange in CA and the Siskiyou Summit interchange in OR.
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on November 13, 2017, 07:06:03 PM
Also, technically I-5 at the Oregon/California border does not run over the oldest former routing Highway 99. The road that was Highway 99 is called "Jefferson Road" and runs east of the freeway between the Hilt interchange in CA and the Siskiyou Summit interchange in OR.
Really? It looks private now, do you happen to know if you can drive through?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V_E_Jnyhks
I feel dumber, and out of breath, for having read that gigantic run-on paragraph. So since some bike paths do not have no motorized vehicle signs I can travel down them? That could really cut some time off the commute everyday.
Ignorance of the law is not a license to do as you wish.
I don't know where he gets this "no interstate can be built beyond two miles from a parallel bike-friendly route" and "no existing surface route can be upgraded to an interstate." Is he some hit-and-run poster who drops this Baby Ruth bar in the swimming pool and then leaves? I'd like to see him clarify/justify his claims.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 13, 2017, 09:49:47 PM
I don't know where he gets this "no interstate can be built beyond two miles from a parallel bike-friendly route" and "no existing surface route can be upgraded to an interstate." Is he some hit-and-run poster who drops this Baby Ruth bar in the swimming pool and then leaves? I'd like to see him clarify/justify his claims.
Sure seems like it. All 5 of his posts are in different threads and each one of them relates to his "manifesto".
I mean, there is a body of case law that pretty clearly demonstrates that you can't deny access on limited access highways unless you provide a reasonable detour, because road rights-of-way are for the general public to travel, not just the general public that has a vehicle. This is why in the west, bikes are usually allowed on the freeway - because there are rarely reasonable detours available.
In cases where highway departments have tried to ban non-motorized traffic in situations without a reasonable detour, it's nearly always been modified once some cyclist sues the highway department, so it's not like the OP is totally on crack.
I have no idea where the two mile standard comes from though (only one state I know of actually has a legislative standard, and that is Colorado with a 450 foot standard), or this randomass notion that there is not a law unless there is signage. I would ask the OP what he thinks the law is at a completely uncontrolled intersection if there is no law without signage.
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:13:20 PM
Rant
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it."
Quote from: Brandon on November 14, 2017, 09:40:39 AM
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it."
Actually, I learned something in researching my reply. I thought most states banned non-motorized traffic
in toto from using freeways by statute, and that signage was merely erected in addition to that. But I found that's not really the case. And the OP obviously has some knowledge of California state codes, because he was exactly right when it comes to the requirement for non-motorized prohibitions to require signage in order to be in force. The OP may have had a rambling and ranting post, but I suspect he could actually cite sources for more claims than we have suspected. Furthermore, as
corco brought up, case law matters, not just vehicle code statutes.
Quote from: kkt on November 13, 2017, 07:13:32 PM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on November 13, 2017, 07:06:03 PM
Also, technically I-5 at the Oregon/California border does not run over the oldest former routing Highway 99. The road that was Highway 99 is called "Jefferson Road" and runs east of the freeway between the Hilt interchange in CA and the Siskiyou Summit interchange in OR.
Really? It looks private now, do you happen to know if you can drive through?
I don't, actually. However, I plan on finding out eventually as part of my research.
Besides, my point wasn't that it the old alignment is traversable by bikes now -- just that I-5 wasn't built over that old alignment.
Quote from: kphoger on November 14, 2017, 12:38:32 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 14, 2017, 09:40:39 AM
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it."
Actually, I learned something in researching my reply. I thought most states banned non-motorized traffic in toto from using freeways by statute, and that signage was merely erected in addition to that. But I found that's not really the case. And the OP obviously has some knowledge of California state codes, because he was exactly right when it comes to the requirement for non-motorized prohibitions to require signage in order to be in force. The OP may have had a rambling and ranting post, but I suspect he could actually cite sources for more claims than we have suspected. Furthermore, as corco brought up, case law matters, not just vehicle code statutes.
Yep...he had some good points. He just failed in writing in such a way to deliver them effectively. Starting off with "Every one who is not glued to their phones..." didn't exactly draw a very good first impression either, along with a few remarks that makes him appear to be king of the bicycling roads.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 14, 2017, 03:11:55 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 14, 2017, 12:38:32 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 14, 2017, 09:40:39 AM
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it."
Actually, I learned something in researching my reply. I thought most states banned non-motorized traffic in toto from using freeways by statute, and that signage was merely erected in addition to that. But I found that's not really the case. And the OP obviously has some knowledge of California state codes, because he was exactly right when it comes to the requirement for non-motorized prohibitions to require signage in order to be in force. The OP may have had a rambling and ranting post, but I suspect he could actually cite sources for more claims than we have suspected. Furthermore, as corco brought up, case law matters, not just vehicle code statutes.
Yep...he had some good points. He just failed in writing in such a way to deliver them effectively. Starting off with "Every one who is not glued to their phones..." didn't exactly draw a very good first impression either, along with a few remarks that makes him appear to be king of the bicycling roads.
Paragraph formatting would have helped immensely even if the rant was left in.
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:13:20 PM
Everyone who is not glued to their phones has seen the signs on on-ramps to interstates banning non-motorized traffic. Actually the law is quite clear: if non-motorized traffic is banned from a portion of a road, that fact must be posted at every entrance to that road. These laws cannot take effect until that has been done. There are always missing signs. You cannot be arrested for running a stop sign if there is no stop sign. No lawyer will argue with this. This will not stop a police officer from giving you a ticket.
The law has been abused so many time the legislators had to create new laws to stop this. These are generally called speed trap laws, though they apply to every law that requires a sign. In California, they are using these laws to stop a new wave of illegal tickets and arrests. What is happening is, new lanes are being added alongside interstates, so it is no longer clear where the interstate ends and the service roads or even ordinary roads start. There may have once been a sign, but it was removed to make way for the new lanes.
Highway departments have not bothered to read the law since the interstates were put in. There are now illegally banning non-motorized traffic from ordinary highways. Even if the law has been applied correctly, it must be overridden in some cases. If a highway is closed for any reason–generally for bridge work–and the interstate is the closest road, the highways must allow non-motorized on the interstate. They are also required to post detours around the highway for non-motorized traffic as well as ordinary traffic.
An interstate can not be built within the right-of-way of a preexisting highway. These roads may look like interstates and be marked as interstates but they are not interstates. They are interstate corridors. The interstate laws do [not?] apply. The laws of the previous highway govern. Non-motorized traffic cannot be banned from an ordinary highway unless a detour route exists, built within 2 miles of the highway. Again, the law cannot be enforced until signs are in place informing non-motorized traffic of the route. The best example of this would be interstate 5 where it runs over highway 99 on the northern California border. Once you enter Oregon, non-motorized is allowed on interstate 5. There is no sign on the Oregon side warning non-motorized traffic to exit. A state line is an entrance to a road for legal proposes.
I have cycled 120,000 miles in 30 states, and on the interstates in 20 of them. After an estimated 300 illegal traffic stops by police, they are starting to understand I know what I'm talking about. Now police departments are warning other police departments not to harass me when I head in their direction. I have never needed to cycle on an interstate. Technically every road I traveled was an interstate corridor.
Edited to add punctuation and paragraphing.
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:13:20 PM
I have cycled 120,000 miles in 30 states, and on the interstates in 20 of them. After an estimated 300 illegal traffic stops by police, they are starting to understand I know what I'm talking about. Now police departments are warning other police departments not to harass me when I head in their direction. I have never needed to cycle on an interstate. Technically every road I traveled was an interstate corridor.
So, this is the actual complaint? What? You think vehicles should 'Share the road' on interstates, too? You realize there can (and are) exceptions to laws, right? I am dumbfounded by your logic... :banghead:
Good luck!
Quote from: hbelkins on November 13, 2017, 09:49:47 PM...some hit-and-run poster who drops this Baby Ruth bar in the swimming pool and then leaves?
+10 points for an admittedly elegant use of a Caddyshack reference.
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on November 14, 2017, 09:05:58 PM
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:13:20 PM
I have cycled 120,000 miles in 30 states, and on the interstates in 20 of them. After an estimated 300 illegal traffic stops by police, they are starting to understand I know what I'm talking about. Now police departments are warning other police departments not to harass me when I head in their direction. I have never needed to cycle on an interstate. Technically every road I traveled was an interstate corridor.
So, this is the actual complaint? What? You think vehicles should 'Share the road' on interstates, too? You realize there can (and are) exceptions to laws, right? I am dumbfounded by your logic... :banghead:
Good luck!
I'm still dumbfounded someone who claims to be a cyclist would want to ride on Interstates and freeways, it seems counter intuitive to the whole point. Why not try to find a scenic route that isn't as traveled as much?....then again the OP could just be full of shit with the mileage and number of "illegal" stops. Either way after reading the coherent version there are some interesting questions that I think are worth looking up in regards to California traffic code. Namely; are there any rules prohibiting non-motorized traffic on freeways, expressways, or even Caltrans maintained roads.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 14, 2017, 09:18:24 PM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on November 14, 2017, 09:05:58 PM
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:13:20 PM
I have cycled 120,000 miles in 30 states, and on the interstates in 20 of them. After an estimated 300 illegal traffic stops by police, they are starting to understand I know what I'm talking about. Now police departments are warning other police departments not to harass me when I head in their direction. I have never needed to cycle on an interstate. Technically every road I traveled was an interstate corridor.
So, this is the actual complaint? What? You think vehicles should 'Share the road' on interstates, too? You realize there can (and are) exceptions to laws, right? I am dumbfounded by your logic... :banghead:
Good luck!
I'm still dumbfounded someone who claims to be a cyclist would want to ride on Interstates and freeways, it seems counter intuitive to the whole point. Why not try to find a scenic route that isn't as traveled as much?....then again the OP could just be full of shit with the mileage and number of "illegal" stops. Either way after reading the coherent version there are some interesting questions that I think are worth looking up in regards to California traffic code. Namely; are there any rules prohibiting non-motorized traffic on freeways, expressways, or even Caltrans maintained roads.
In many parts of the west there isn't another option. Even in New Hampshire, there are 2 former roads that got bulldozed over by 89 and 93, leading to detours of well over 25 miles if you want to avoid them.
They put a 'sidewalk' next to 89 and a 'recreational trail' next to 93. Neither are plowed, and the one along 89 hasn't even been maintained since it was put in 50 years ago. The one along 93 is in a state park where you have to compete with soccer moms letting little Johnny learn how to ride his bike on something that has a 500' elevation change in a few miles along with an unfenced 100' drop into a stream bed north of the notch.
(My rant point is I am waiting for someone to just ride on the interstate in the winter and win an argument that the 'other access' that was built is not a substitute.)
Quote from: SectorZ on November 15, 2017, 09:38:00 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 14, 2017, 09:18:24 PM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on November 14, 2017, 09:05:58 PM
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:13:20 PM
I have cycled 120,000 miles in 30 states, and on the interstates in 20 of them. After an estimated 300 illegal traffic stops by police, they are starting to understand I know what I'm talking about. Now police departments are warning other police departments not to harass me when I head in their direction. I have never needed to cycle on an interstate. Technically every road I traveled was an interstate corridor.
So, this is the actual complaint? What? You think vehicles should 'Share the road' on interstates, too? You realize there can (and are) exceptions to laws, right? I am dumbfounded by your logic... :banghead:
Good luck!
I'm still dumbfounded someone who claims to be a cyclist would want to ride on Interstates and freeways, it seems counter intuitive to the whole point. Why not try to find a scenic route that isn't as traveled as much?....then again the OP could just be full of shit with the mileage and number of "illegal" stops. Either way after reading the coherent version there are some interesting questions that I think are worth looking up in regards to California traffic code. Namely; are there any rules prohibiting non-motorized traffic on freeways, expressways, or even Caltrans maintained roads.
In many parts of the west there isn't another option. Even in New Hampshire, there are 2 former roads that got bulldozed over by 89 and 93, leading to detours of well over 25 miles if you want to avoid them.
They put a 'sidewalk' next to 89 and a 'recreational trail' next to 93. Neither are plowed, and the one along 89 hasn't even been maintained since it was put in 50 years ago. The one along 93 is in a state park where you have to compete with soccer moms letting little Johnny learn how to ride his bike on something that has a 500' elevation change in a few miles along with an unfenced 100' drop into a stream bed north of the notch.
(My rant point is I am waiting for someone to just ride on the interstate in the winter and win an argument that the 'other access' that was built is not a substitute.)
That's what I was getting at with I-17 earlier in the thread. The section between Aqua Fria National Monument and Cordes Junction at AZ 69 is signed to direct bikes onto the shoulder. In that particular case there is legitimately no access at all between the two points other than I-17. Aqua Fria National Monument has a bunch of decent hiking trails which I can see as being appealing to a cyclist. So with that in mind I'm not saying there aren't sections of road that legitimately have no access, the OP I believe even cited one. What I'm finding dubious is the 120,000 miles a bike and 300 plus traffic stops in over 20 states. If the OP is the cyclist they claim to be I would find it highly doubtful that they would need to utilize so many miles of Interstate much less not leave any credentials to substantiate their distance claims.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 14, 2017, 09:18:24 PM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on November 14, 2017, 09:05:58 PM
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:13:20 PM
I have cycled 120,000 miles in 30 states, and on the interstates in 20 of them. After an estimated 300 illegal traffic stops by police, they are starting to understand I know what I'm talking about. Now police departments are warning other police departments not to harass me when I head in their direction. I have never needed to cycle on an interstate. Technically every road I traveled was an interstate corridor.
So, this is the actual complaint? What? You think vehicles should 'Share the road' on interstates, too? You realize there can (and are) exceptions to laws, right? I am dumbfounded by your logic... :banghead:
Good luck!
I'm still dumbfounded someone who claims to be a cyclist would want to ride on Interstates and freeways, it seems counter intuitive to the whole point. Why not try to find a scenic route that isn't as traveled as much?....then again the OP could just be full of shit with the mileage and number of "illegal" stops. Either way after reading the coherent version there are some interesting questions that I think are worth looking up in regards to California traffic code. Namely; are there any rules prohibiting non-motorized traffic on freeways, expressways, or even Caltrans maintained roads.
I agree.
I bike to and from school, even at 25-30mph I cruise pretty good, but nothing for interstates! I smell a troll. No one in their right mind (at least no one I know) would ride a bike on the interstate! There are Specific cross-country bike routes for what he wants to do; to get from state to state. Overall, this is a rediculious claim, "I have cycled 120,000 miles in 30 states, and on the interstates in 20 of them." And you lived to tell the tale? I find this to be highly unbelievable, 1. do to some freeways and interstates not having a shoulder or 2. not enough of one to permit safe riding (even though you shouldn't be ridding on them in the first place!) Another example, Little Rock's I-630 (and others) were built in a time with curbs; and with curbs come smaller shoulders. Why would you want to ride in a freeway or interstate's shoulder anyway? They aren't cleaned often, so there's shit that could harm you or blow out your tire(s), or you could get killed... :banghead:
Good luck!
Quote from: kphoger on November 14, 2017, 04:36:08 PM
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:13:20 PM
Everyone who is not glued to their phones has seen the signs on on-ramps to interstates banning non-motorized traffic. Actually the law is quite clear: if non-motorized traffic is banned from a portion of a road, that fact must be posted at every entrance to that road. These laws cannot take effect until that has been done. There are always missing signs. You cannot be arrested for running a stop sign if there is no stop sign. No lawyer will argue with this. This will not stop a police officer from giving you a ticket.
The law has been abused so many time the legislators had to create new laws to stop this. These are generally called speed trap laws, though they apply to every law that requires a sign. In California, they are using these laws to stop a new wave of illegal tickets and arrests. What is happening is, new lanes are being added alongside interstates, so it is no longer clear where the interstate ends and the service roads or even ordinary roads start. There may have once been a sign, but it was removed to make way for the new lanes.
Highway departments have not bothered to read the law since the interstates were put in. There are now illegally banning non-motorized traffic from ordinary highways. Even if the law has been applied correctly, it must be overridden in some cases. If a highway is closed for any reason–generally for bridge work–and the interstate is the closest road, the highways must allow non-motorized on the interstate. They are also required to post detours around the highway for non-motorized traffic as well as ordinary traffic.
An interstate can not be built within the right-of-way of a preexisting highway. These roads may look like interstates and be marked as interstates but they are not interstates. They are interstate corridors. The interstate laws do [not?] apply. The laws of the previous highway govern. Non-motorized traffic cannot be banned from an ordinary highway unless a detour route exists, built within 2 miles of the highway. Again, the law cannot be enforced until signs are in place informing non-motorized traffic of the route. The best example of this would be interstate 5 where it runs over highway 99 on the northern California border. Once you enter Oregon, non-motorized is allowed on interstate 5. There is no sign on the Oregon side warning non-motorized traffic to exit. A state line is an entrance to a road for legal proposes.
I have cycled 120,000 miles in 30 states, and on the interstates in 20 of them. After an estimated 300 illegal traffic stops by police, they are starting to understand I know what I'm talking about. Now police departments are warning other police departments not to harass me when I head in their direction. I have never needed to cycle on an interstate. Technically every road I traveled was an interstate corridor.
Edited to add punctuation and paragraphing.
Now one can actually read what the guy has to say. Without formatting, it's fairly incoherent.
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on November 15, 2017, 10:35:16 AM
.... I smell a troll. No one in their right mind (at least no one I know) would ride a bike on the interstate! There are Specific cross-country bike routes for what he wants to do; to get from state to state. Overall, this is a ridiculous claim, "I have cycled 120,000 miles in 30 states, and on the interstates in 20 of them." And you lived to tell the tale? I find this to be highly unbelievable. ....
I read kphoger's edited version of the original post that has it separated into paragraphs. After doing so, I think MNHighwayMan's comment is probably the most spot-on:
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 13, 2017, 09:54:12 AM
To me, the OP seems like one of those sovereign-citizen types who feel like they're above the law, just because that's how they feel. :pan:
In particular, the OP's final couple of sentences smack of so-called "sovereign citizen" drivel:
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:13:20 PM
.... After an estimated 300 illegal traffic stops by police they are starting to understand I know what I'm talking about. Now police departments are warning other police departments not to harass me when I head in their direction. I have never needed to cycle on an interstate. Technically every road I traveled was an interstate corridor.
Police departments warn each other about this guy? Sure. Sounds about as plausible as my claiming $100 bills fall out of my rear end when I sit on the toilet. I'm sure the police departments are just
trembling in fear at the thought of "bicyclehazard" passing through their bailiwicks. :rolleyes:
"Technically every road I travelled was an interstate corridor" has an echo of the "freedom to travel" nonsense so-called "sovereign citizens" spout when the police stop them for failure to display license plates or the like.
That's not to disagree with the characterization of him as a troll, of course. So-called "sovereign citizens"
are essentially trolls. I suppose I view this sort of like squares and rectangles: Every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square. Every so-called "sovereign citizen" is essentially a troll, but not every troll is a so-called "sovereign citizen."
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on November 15, 2017, 10:35:16 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 14, 2017, 09:18:24 PM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on November 14, 2017, 09:05:58 PM
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:13:20 PM
I have cycled 120,000 miles in 30 states, and on the interstates in 20 of them. After an estimated 300 illegal traffic stops by police, they are starting to understand I know what I'm talking about. Now police departments are warning other police departments not to harass me when I head in their direction. I have never needed to cycle on an interstate. Technically every road I traveled was an interstate corridor.
So, this is the actual complaint? What? You think vehicles should 'Share the road' on interstates, too? You realize there can (and are) exceptions to laws, right? I am dumbfounded by your logic... :banghead:
Good luck!
I'm still dumbfounded someone who claims to be a cyclist would want to ride on Interstates and freeways, it seems counter intuitive to the whole point. Why not try to find a scenic route that isn't as traveled as much?....then again the OP could just be full of shit with the mileage and number of "illegal" stops. Either way after reading the coherent version there are some interesting questions that I think are worth looking up in regards to California traffic code. Namely; are there any rules prohibiting non-motorized traffic on freeways, expressways, or even Caltrans maintained roads.
I agree.
I bike to and from school, even at 25-30mph I cruise pretty good, but nothing for interstates! I smell a troll. No one in their right mind (at least no one I know) would ride a bike on the interstate! There are Specific cross-country bike routes for what he wants to do; to get from state to state. Overall, this is a rediculious claim, "I have cycled 120,000 miles in 30 states, and on the interstates in 20 of them." And you lived to tell the tale? I find this to be highly unbelievable, 1. do to some freeways and interstates not having a shoulder or 2. not enough of one to permit safe riding (even though you shouldn't be ridding on them in the first place!) Another example, Little Rock's I-630 (and others) were built in a time with curbs; and with curbs come smaller shoulders. Why would you want to ride in a freeway or interstate's shoulder anyway? They aren't cleaned often, so there's shit that could harm you or blow out your tire(s), or you could get killed... :banghead:
Good luck!
It's been noted already in this thread that some western states specifically allow bicyclists, and, OMG, those bicyclists have lived! We're not talking about riding an interstate highway in Little Rock, or in any city for that matter, as there are numerous local streets one can ride a bike on. We're talking about rural highways where there's no other similar corridor exists (and if they existed, would be high speed corridors anyway).
120,000 miles? Probably a bit high, but not completely unrealistic. If the person rode his bike an average of 10 miles a day every day, which would include going to and from work and recreational bicycling, along with some summertime bicycling trips, bicycling tour races, etc, and is in his 50's or 60's, he could have accumulated the 120,000 miles he claims.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 15, 2017, 11:01:30 AM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on November 15, 2017, 10:35:16 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 14, 2017, 09:18:24 PM
I'm still dumbfounded someone who claims to be a cyclist would want to ride on Interstates and freeways, it seems counter intuitive to the whole point. Why not try to find a scenic route that isn't as traveled as much?....then again the OP could just be full of shit with the mileage and number of "illegal" stops. Either way after reading the coherent version there are some interesting questions that I think are worth looking up in regards to California traffic code. Namely; are there any rules prohibiting non-motorized traffic on freeways, expressways, or even Caltrans maintained roads.
I agree.
I bike to and from school, even at 25-30mph I cruise pretty good, but nothing for interstates! I smell a troll. No one in their right mind (at least no one I know) would ride a bike on the interstate! There are Specific cross-country bike routes for what he wants to do; to get from state to state. Overall, this is a rediculious claim, "I have cycled 120,000 miles in 30 states, and on the interstates in 20 of them." And you lived to tell the tale? I find this to be highly unbelievable, 1. do to some freeways and interstates not having a shoulder or 2. not enough of one to permit safe riding (even though you shouldn't be ridding on them in the first place!) Another example, Little Rock's I-630 (and others) were built in a time with curbs; and with curbs come smaller shoulders. Why would you want to ride in a freeway or interstate's shoulder anyway? They aren't cleaned often, so there's shit that could harm you or blow out your tire(s), or you could get killed... :banghead:
Good luck!
It's been noted already in this thread that some western states specifically allow bicyclists, and, OMG, those bicyclists have lived! We're not talking about riding an interstate highway in Little Rock, or in any city for that matter, as there are numerous local streets one can ride a bike on. We're talking about rural highways where there's no other similar corridor exists (and if they existed, would be high speed corridors anyway).
Exactly. Think for just a minute about crossing Colorado on your bicycle. Which is more likely to get you rear-ended: using a two-lane highway with head-to-head traffic and a shoulder of varying width, or using a highway with a nearly continuous and full-width shoulder plus an extra lane for drivers to use? My father has cycled across the Rockies a few times, including descending a mountain pass in the rain, and I get the impression it's a dicier proposition than someone might think at first glance.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 15, 2017, 10:52:34 AM
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 12, 2017, 06:13:20 PM
.... After an estimated 300 illegal traffic stops by police they are starting to understand I know what I'm talking about. Now police departments are warning other police departments not to harass me when I head in their direction. I have never needed to cycle on an interstate. Technically every road I traveled was an interstate corridor.
Police departments warn each other about this guy? Sure. Sounds about as plausible as my claiming $100 bills fall out of my rear end when I sit on the toilet. I'm sure the police departments are just trembling in fear at the thought of "bicyclehazard" passing through their bailiwicks. :rolleyes:
This isn't unheard of. If, say, the Utah Highway Patrol has had eight confrontations with a single cyclist, it's reasonable to think the agency might send the cyclist's name and back-story out to all its divisions, essentially telling them it's not worth their time and effort to hassle him, and suggesting they just let him go about his business.
OK I am going to get you started on the law. President Grant ordered every existing federal law to be gathered in one series of books called the United States Code. This was not done. There are still laws in effect that are listed in the acts of congress written before the United States Code. I have been reading those and many libraries have a complete set. They are poorly indexed so in order to truly understand road law you also have to read railroad law and water way law. I have already read the entire Title 23 and have it on my computer. Some of you are aware that bicycles are allowed on interstates in the North West. All of these states were part of the Oregon Territories. Oregon Territorial law declared all roads in common use to be public land. It also specifies that all future roads will be public land. Territorial law was written by the locals as well as members of congress. Since members of congress were involved these laws can not be over turned by a lower legislative body. The laws that were not overturned by congress are still in effect. Generally other territories copied the Oregon Territorial laws word for word when they came into existence. I have read the entire Oregon Territorial laws and will read the others when I find them. I am not going to going to buy several hundred books costing more than $100 each. Eventually though I will have these on my computer. Nor am I going to tell you where a book road law or give you it's title if it exist in only one law library open to the public. I am well aware I have writing problems and there is nothing I can do about that.
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 15, 2017, 06:37:56 PM
OK I am going to get you started on the law. President Grant ordered every existing federal law to be gathered in one series of books called the United States Code. This was not done. There are still laws in effect that are listed in the acts of congress written before the United States Code. I have been reading those and many libraries have a complete set. They are poorly indexed so in order to truly understand road law you also have to read railroad law and water way law. I have already read the entire Title 23 and have it on my computer. Some of you are aware that bicycles are allowed on interstates in the North West. All of these states were part of the Oregon Territories. Oregon Territorial law declared all roads in common use to be public land. It also specifies that all future roads will be public land. Territorial law was written by the locals as well as members of congress. Since members of congress were involved these laws can not be over turned by a lower legislative body. The laws that were not overturned by congress are still in effect. Generally other territories copied the Oregon Territorial laws word for word when they came into existence. I have read the entire Oregon Territorial laws and will read the others when I find them. I am not going to going to buy several hundred books costing more than $100 each. Eventually though I will have these on my computer. Nor am I going to tell you where a book road law or give you it's title if it exist in only one law library open to the public. I am well aware I have writing problems and there is nothing I can do about that.
I was going to write something more substantial here regarding legislative acts. BUT.....then I read the OPs other posts and saw their Flickr page. There is a definitely an obvious "quasi-political" agenda going on with these posts and the train wreck is going to be spectacular the more apparent it becomes.
A few questions about the OP's argument:
-- Do the states formed out of the Oregon Territory (and other territories) have the right to modify or repeal the territorial laws they inherited? That might be addressed in the acts of Congress granting them statehood, for example. It would surprise me if states were required to constantly go back to Congress to modify or repeal territorial laws. AFAIK, they don't do that, which suggests to me that they don't have to.
-- Just because roads are "public land" doesn't necessarily mean restrictions can't be placed on what users or vehicles can use them. Does that mean, for example, that HOV restrictions can't be imposed? Or trucks can't be prohibited from roads on which they can't be safely driven? Or underage users who might be OK on bicycles can't be barred from driving motor vehicles on public roads? ISTM that the OP's argument WRT bicyclists has a fair amount of "slippery slope" potential, something that arouses suspicion for the judges and others charged with interpreting the laws.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 15, 2017, 07:01:46 PM
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 15, 2017, 06:37:56 PM
(this and that)
I was going to write something more substantial here regarding legislative acts. BUT.....then I read the OPs other posts and saw their Flickr page. There is a definitely an obvious "quasi-political" agenda going on with these posts and the train wreck is going to be spectacular the more apparent it becomes.
While there's something a bit admirable that the OP wants to be the lone crusader against the difficulties in riding a bicycle to many places, pointing out the damaged sidewalks here, the drainage hazards there, long-lost or missing signage, and so on...he might be a little more wise to actually post and state the exact laws by Title, Subtitle, Chapter, Subchapter (et al) so as to gain a little more traction with some argumentative substance.
There's also a stubbornness that would be easier to digest if the OP didn't have the attitude of assuming that police officers are going to drop everything at once, and summon a construction battalion to replace weakened gutter at a moment's notice. Sure, it's okay to see that you've followed up on something you might not encounter again, for the sake of others...but prove it to us that you did so.
Also, this is called formatting. One idea, then a paragraph break (hitting enter/return twice works wonders for getting a point across).
Be very afraid of a non-lawyer deciding to do it himself from a law library. It's easy to miss case law or later legislation that changes the interpretation of a law that's still on the books.
Quote from: kkt on November 15, 2017, 07:51:01 PM
Be very afraid of a non-lawyer deciding to do it himself from a law library. It's easy to miss case law or later legislation that changes the interpretation of a law that's still on the books.
Especially if you haven't purchased updated legislative revisions or much less read them online. Laws aren't static, they change and evolve constantly through time. A lot of states based their laws in English Common Law, suffice to say very few statutory books would even resemble anything like it today. That's essentially what I was going to get at in my earlier post but I couldn't think of a way to say it constructively.
Obviously this guy can learn everything there is to know about the law from his computer. Spending eight years studying it in school is for suckers.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 15, 2017, 08:42:56 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 15, 2017, 07:51:01 PM
Be very afraid of a non-lawyer deciding to do it himself from a law library. It's easy to miss case law or later legislation that changes the interpretation of a law that's still on the books.
Especially if you haven't purchased updated legislative revisions or much less read them online. Laws aren't static, they change and evolve constantly through time. A lot of states based their laws in English Common Law, suffice to say very few statutory books would even resemble anything like it today.
It's not that hard to get the updated texts of statutes online. What you don't always get is the court decisions interpreting or gutting them. And you also don't get the common law, which is reflected mainly in court decisions (including sometimes decisions from other states or countries whose legal systems are common-law based).
There are annotated compilations of statutes which include notes on whether statutes have been nullified or pretzeled by court decisions. The people doing the annotations have to eat somehow (one of my cousins makes a living that way), so you might have to pay extra for access to the annotated versions.
Quote from: oscar on November 15, 2017, 09:25:32 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 15, 2017, 08:42:56 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 15, 2017, 07:51:01 PM
Be very afraid of a non-lawyer deciding to do it himself from a law library. It's easy to miss case law or later legislation that changes the interpretation of a law that's still on the books.
Especially if you haven't purchased updated legislative revisions or much less read them online. Laws aren't static, they change and evolve constantly through time. A lot of states based their laws in English Common Law, suffice to say very few statutory books would even resemble anything like it today.
It's not that hard to get the updated texts of statutes online. What you don't always get is the court decisions interpreting or gutting them. And you also don't get the common law, which is reflected mainly in court decisions (including sometimes decisions from other states or countries whose legal systems are common-law based).
There are annotated compilations of statutes which include notes on whether statutes have been nullified or pretzeled by court decisions. The people doing the annotations have to eat somehow (one of my cousins makes a living that way), so you might have to pay extra for access to the annotated versions.
Doing the research yourself is a complete pain in the ass. Back in my college days I used to do case briefs on cases that significance on Procedural Law on the State and Federal Level. Generally I would end up highlighting about 50-66% of a case history and trim that down to something like 6-12 pages of notes that I would read for a week or so. From there I would downsize the notes to 3-6 pages and just read them through the end of finals.
Generally individual statutes were much more easy to work with, but you had to keep up on the changes every year. Arizona was really good at posting Legislative changes to the Revised Statutes and Traffic code on their website and the traffic manual was usually only $15-$20 dollars every year. All I ended up concluding was that I definitely wanted to stay in a Law Enforcement oriented career and never something like working for a law firm.
Point is, really there isn't too many people who can go on a website and armchair quarterback laws with any high degree of accuracy. There is a reason why being "your own lawyer" is largely frowned on, the amount of research that is required is beyond what people generally expect or what the are capable of doing.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 15, 2017, 09:42:27 PM
Generally individual statutes were much more easy to work with, but you had to keep up on the changes every year. Arizona was really good at posting Legislative changes to the Revised Statutes and Traffic code on their website and the traffic manual was usually only $15-$20 dollars every year. All I ended up concluding was that I definitely wanted to stay in a Law Enforcement oriented career and never something like working for a law firm.
Not a slight on you or law enforcement in general–but it seems like law enforcement should be having to do this anyway, to be sure the laws they're enforcing are actually still the law and still enforceable. After all, by the time a misunderstanding gets ironed out in court, someone could have lost their job or house because they were wrongfully arrested.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 15, 2017, 09:45:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 15, 2017, 09:42:27 PM
Generally individual statutes were much more easy to work with, but you had to keep up on the changes every year. Arizona was really good at posting Legislative changes to the Revised Statutes and Traffic code on their website and the traffic manual was usually only $15-$20 dollars every year. All I ended up concluding was that I definitely wanted to stay in a Law Enforcement oriented career and never something like working for a law firm.
Not a slight on you or law enforcement in general—but it seems like law enforcement should be having to do this anyway, to be sure the laws they're enforcing are actually still the law and still enforceable. After all, by the time a misunderstanding gets ironed out in court, someone could have lost their job or house because they were wrongfully arrested.
It does happen too often unfortunately. However, in many cases the person wasn't wrongfully arrested, but the evidence is weak, evidence isn't permitted, procedures weren't followed, people that need to press charges don't, witnesses don't show, etc.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 15, 2017, 09:45:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 15, 2017, 09:42:27 PM
Generally individual statutes were much more easy to work with, but you had to keep up on the changes every year. Arizona was really good at posting Legislative changes to the Revised Statutes and Traffic code on their website and the traffic manual was usually only $15-$20 dollars every year. All I ended up concluding was that I definitely wanted to stay in a Law Enforcement oriented career and never something like working for a law firm.
Not a slight on you or law enforcement in general–but it seems like law enforcement should be having to do this anyway, to be sure the laws they're enforcing are actually still the law and still enforceable.
And keeping up with court decisions (especially from the U.S. and state supreme courts) adds to the challenge. One hopes that law enforcement gets alerts from district attorneys or other lawyers, to spare front-line police officers the burden of keeping up with the latest legal developments.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 15, 2017, 07:01:46 PM
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 15, 2017, 06:37:56 PM
.... They are poorly indexed so in order to truly understand road law you also have to read railroad law and water way law. ....
I was going to write something more substantial here regarding legislative acts. BUT.....then I read the OPs other posts and saw their Flickr page. There is a definitely an obvious "quasi-political" agenda going on with these posts and the train wreck is going to be spectacular the more apparent it becomes.
The reference to "water way [sic] law" just reinforces my suspicion about him having so-called "sovereign citizen" ideas because those people apparently love to refer to admiralty law even though it has nothing to do with the issues they argue. The references to "Oregon Territorial" law remind me of a video clip I saw in which a so-called "sovereign citizen" was citing the Articles of Confederation as though they were binding authority.
Regarding law books, if you go to a library, you'll find that statutory compilations and most treatises have a paper insert stuck in the back. It's called a "pocket part" because the inside of the back cover has a slit in it and the paper insert has a harder page (sort of the consistency of a magazine subscription card) that gets inserted into the slit, or "pocket," so the pocket part stays with the main volume. The purpose is to allow for updating the hardcover book to reflect new case law, statutory amendments, etc., without having to send out entirely new hardcover books every few months. (Some law books instead come in a loose-leaf format where you just swap out the pages in question.) If you don't check the pocket part, you risk botching your research. It's a pain in the butt because you often have to flip back and forth to see the text surrounding whatever the pocket part says.
um... Yes, we need signs. but if we granted your wish, we would have signs EVERYWHERE!! we would have signs on stoplights that said "green means go and red means stop", signs on the freeway saying "no left lane camping" (oh wait...), we would have signs on cars saying "don't hit me"!
These days the pocket parts and looseleafs have mostly been replaced by online services. It's good for people reading the book for the first time, but lawyers who want to stay current on the law no longer can just read the latest pocket part for updates.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 16, 2017, 09:34:31 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 15, 2017, 07:01:46 PM
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 15, 2017, 06:37:56 PM
.... They are poorly indexed so in order to truly understand road law you also have to read railroad law and water way law. ....
I was going to write something more substantial here regarding legislative acts. BUT.....then I read the OPs other posts and saw their Flickr page. There is a definitely an obvious "quasi-political" agenda going on with these posts and the train wreck is going to be spectacular the more apparent it becomes.
The reference to "water way [sic] law" just reinforces my suspicion about him having so-called "sovereign citizen" ideas because those people apparently love to refer to admiralty law even though it has nothing to do with the issues they argue. The references to "Oregon Territorial" law remind me of a video clip I saw in which a so-called "sovereign citizen" was citing the Articles of Confederation as though they were binding authority.
Regarding law books, if you go to a library, you'll find that statutory compilations and most treatises have a paper insert stuck in the back. It's called a "pocket part" because the inside of the back cover has a slit in it and the paper insert has a harder page (sort of the consistency of a magazine subscription card) that gets inserted into the slit, or "pocket," so the pocket part stays with the main volume. The purpose is to allow for updating the hardcover book to reflect new case law, statutory amendments, etc., without having to send out entirely new hardcover books every few months. (Some law books instead come in a loose-leaf format where you just swap out the pages in question.) If you don't check the pocket part, you risk botching your research. It's a pain in the butt because you often have to flip back and forth to see the text surrounding whatever the pocket part says.
Yeah....I'm pretty sure you're onto something there. Most of these guys rant on about stuff like this on their social accounts and this guy seems to think he's bicycle social justice warrior or something. I'm sure with the antagonist tone we've heard so far that the dial is only going to get cranked up more as people don't agree with all his views.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 15, 2017, 09:45:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 15, 2017, 09:42:27 PM
Generally individual statutes were much more easy to work with, but you had to keep up on the changes every year. Arizona was really good at posting Legislative changes to the Revised Statutes and Traffic code on their website and the traffic manual was usually only $15-$20 dollars every year. All I ended up concluding was that I definitely wanted to stay in a Law Enforcement oriented career and never something like working for a law firm.
Not a slight on you or law enforcement in general–but it seems like law enforcement should be having to do this anyway, to be sure the laws they're enforcing are actually still the law and still enforceable. After all, by the time a misunderstanding gets ironed out in court, someone could have lost their job or house because they were wrongfully arrested.
It's not exactly uncommon to see a police officer digging through a statute book even during a traffic stop. The reality of the situation is that it is literally impossible to memorize an entire criminal code much less traffic code. Most district attorneys won't even bother carrying through on charges unless the statute is something somewhat common or carries a severe penalty. Within just the Arizona Revised Statutes you in "theory" could charge someone with several crimes depending on the circumstances behind even something simple like a petty theft case.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 16, 2017, 10:23:10 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 15, 2017, 09:45:30 PM
Not a slight on you or law enforcement in general–but it seems like law enforcement should be having to do this anyway, to be sure the laws they're enforcing are actually still the law and still enforceable. After all, by the time a misunderstanding gets ironed out in court, someone could have lost their job or house because they were wrongfully arrested.
It's not exactly uncommon to see a police officer digging through a statute book even during a traffic stop. The reality of the situation is that it is literally impossible to memorize an entire criminal code much less traffic code. Most district attorneys won't even bother carrying through on charges unless the statute is something somewhat common or carries a severe penalty. Within just the Arizona Revised Statutes you in "theory" could charge someone with several crimes depending on the circumstances behind even something simple like a petty theft case.
I've found that it doesn't help a person's situation to tell a police officer what the law actually says. I've done that twice while hitchhiking, both times I was within my rights, and both times the officer simply argued that I was wrong about what the law said. One of those times, I emailed the chief of police afterwards and received an apology from the deputy chief stating they would follow up with the officer. (Note: I complied with the officer's directive both times.)
Then, on the other hand, there was the time I actually hitched a ride home from work with a secretary of state police officer. He was actually interested to hear the true wording of the law.
Quote from: kkt on November 16, 2017, 10:15:44 AM
These days the pocket parts and looseleafs have mostly been replaced by online services. It's good for people reading the book for the first time, but lawyers who want to stay current on the law no longer can just read the latest pocket part for updates.
That's why I prefaced that comment with a reference to the library–assuming the average guy doesn't have access to computer-assisted legal research services and might go to the courthouse library or a local law school library. Of course, these days it's probably more likely someone will use Google, look at the first three results, and just go with that!
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 16, 2017, 01:50:18 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 16, 2017, 10:15:44 AM
These days the pocket parts and looseleafs have mostly been replaced by online services. It's good for people reading the book for the first time, but lawyers who want to stay current on the law no longer can just read the latest pocket part for updates.
That's why I prefaced that comment with a reference to the library–assuming the average guy doesn't have access to computer-assisted legal research services and might go to the courthouse library or a local law school library. Of course, these days it's probably more likely someone will use Google, look at the first three results, and just go with that!
Especially if they say what that someone wants them to say!
Quote from: kphoger on November 16, 2017, 01:33:50 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 16, 2017, 10:23:10 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 15, 2017, 09:45:30 PM
Not a slight on you or law enforcement in general–but it seems like law enforcement should be having to do this anyway, to be sure the laws they're enforcing are actually still the law and still enforceable. After all, by the time a misunderstanding gets ironed out in court, someone could have lost their job or house because they were wrongfully arrested.
It's not exactly uncommon to see a police officer digging through a statute book even during a traffic stop. The reality of the situation is that it is literally impossible to memorize an entire criminal code much less traffic code. Most district attorneys won't even bother carrying through on charges unless the statute is something somewhat common or carries a severe penalty. Within just the Arizona Revised Statutes you in "theory" could charge someone with several crimes depending on the circumstances behind even something simple like a petty theft case.
I've found that it doesn't help a person's situation to tell a police officer what the law actually says. I've done that twice while hitchhiking, both times I was within my rights, and both times the officer simply argued that I was wrong about what the law said. One of those times, I emailed the chief of police afterwards and received an apology from the deputy chief stating they would follow up with the officer. (Note: I complied with the officer's directive both times.)
Then, on the other hand, there was the time I actually hitched a ride home from work with a secretary of state police officer. He was actually interested to hear the true wording of the law.
At the end of the day it really isn't worth arguing with a police officer given the chance it will likely escalate things. Charges always have to be reviewed by someone above the beat cop level, chances are they will get tossed if something isn't in compliance with how a statute is written.
Quote from: oscar on November 15, 2017, 07:34:25 PM
A few questions about the OP's argument:
-- Do the states formed out of the Oregon Territory (and other territories) have the right to modify or repeal the territorial laws they inherited? That might be addressed in the acts of Congress granting them statehood, for example. It would surprise me if states were required to constantly go back to Congress to modify or repeal territorial laws. AFAIK, they don't do that, which suggests to me that they don't have to.
-- Just because roads are "public land" doesn't necessarily mean restrictions can't be placed on what users or vehicles can use them. Does that mean, for example, that HOV restrictions can't be imposed? Or trucks can't be prohibited from roads on which they can't be safely driven? Or underage users who might be OK on bicycles can't be barred from driving motor vehicles on public roads? ISTM that the OP's argument WRT bicyclists has a fair amount of "slippery slope" potential, something that arouses suspicion for the judges and others charged with interpreting the laws.
This is a valid point. There is a continuity to law. People demanded this. If you owned a piece of property before a county was formed you owned that piece of property after the county was formed. Overturning every law when a county was formed or a county joined a state or a state joined the federal government would have been too disruptive and open to much abuse. Every law carries over except those specified. Laws were and are to complex to be micromanaged by the new government.
No one can be banned from access to a navigable waterway. I don't really care about this but a fisherman clued me in to what is going on. He used to park his automobile along a highway and walk down to the river to fish. The the highway department built a fence along the highway to prevent. This is an 8 foot high cyclone fence. The highway department clearly broke the law and wasted a lot of money. When the law was written no one had any idea there would one day be horseless carriages. So interstates along a river are violating this law. I expect this has been modified. I crossed Wyoming by bicycle on the interstate. Every few miles there were bridges that only serviced the farms on both sides of the interstate. This must have been tremendously expensive. I expect I can force the highway departments to build bridges every few miles on interstates along rivers. I will not do this it is up to the fisherman and boat owners. If the highway departments really want to fight with me I can hand out legal trouble measured in the trillions of dollars.
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 16, 2017, 07:45:37 PM
If the highway departments really want to fight with me I can hand out legal trouble measured in the trillions of dollars.
Highway departments don't have trillions of dollars. $1.5 trillion is the monthly GDP for the
entire United States, or yearly for the state of New York or Texas, and I assume you want even more than that, given the word "trillions", plural.
Edited for accuracy.
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 16, 2017, 07:34:16 PM
There is a continuity to law. People demanded this. If you owned a piece of property before a county was formed you owned that piece of property after the county was formed. Overturning every law when a county was formed or a county joined a state or a state joined the federal government would have been too disruptive and open to much abuse. Every law carries over except those specified.
Real property law tends to be stable, to protect existing land claims. Laws regarding public roads, not so much, especially with major and continuing changes in how they are built and used. After all, there were no automobiles, few if any bicycles, and not a lot of pavement let alone freeways, when most of our states were territories.
QuoteLaws were and are to complex to be micromanaged by the new government.
GMAFB. State legislatures are full of lawyers, who are skilled enough to micromanage our laws without usually messing things up (unless that was their intention).
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 16, 2017, 07:45:37 PM
No one can be banned from access to a navigable waterway.
Huh? In most states, private property owners can block access to at least ocean beaches, and even own those beaches at least down to some boundary where the beach ends and the ocean begins. Even in states like California and Hawaii whose constitutions declare all ocean beaches to be public and guarantee public access, adjacent landowners often try to keep the public off "their" beaches, and sometimes are forced to provide beach access easements.
QuoteI don't really care about this but a fisherman clued me in to what is going on. He used to park his automobile along a highway and walk down to the river to fish. The the highway department built a fence along the highway to prevent. This is an 8 foot high cyclone fence. The highway department clearly broke the law and wasted a lot of money. When the law was written no one had any idea there would one day be horseless carriages. So interstates along a river are violating this law. I expect this has been modified.
I'm sure it has been modified. How else could highway departments try to prevent wildlife (especially larger critters like moose, deer, and bears, or cattle in "open range" areas) from colliding with motor vehicles? It's routine for highway departments to fence off rights of way, especially for limited access highways such as Interstates.
Quote from: oscar on November 16, 2017, 08:09:26 PM
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 16, 2017, 07:45:37 PM
No one can be banned from access to a navigable waterway.
Huh? In most states, private property owners can block access to at least ocean beaches, and even own those beaches at least down to some boundary where the beach ends and the ocean begins. Even in states like California and Hawaii whose constitutions declare all ocean beaches to be public and guarantee public access, adjacent landowners often try to keep the public off "their" beaches, and sometimes are forced to provide beach access easements.
There is indeed a law - inherited from olde English books - granting waterway access. However it doesn't mean anyone is allowed to walk to the river through the property - private or not. It means owner of property on the shore cannot prohibit boats to move along "their" stretch of the river. That was important to allow trade along the river..
Modern day example: http://www.adirondack-park.net/issues/river.rights-salmon.html
Quote from: kalvado on November 16, 2017, 08:45:46 PM
There is indeed a law - inherited from olde English books - granting waterway access. However it doesn't mean anyone is allowed to walk to the river through the property - private or not. It means owner of property on the shore cannot prohibit boats to move along "their" stretch of the river. That was important to allow trade along the river..
Modern day example: http://www.adirondack-park.net/issues/river.rights-salmon.html
Let's not over-generalize, though. Some of our states started off as part of France, Spain, Mexico, Russia, or the Kingdom of Hawaii, and might or might not have inherited or imported that feature from the "olde English books".
Quote from: oscar on November 16, 2017, 09:16:45 PM
Quote from: kalvado on November 16, 2017, 08:45:46 PM
There is indeed a law - inherited from olde English books - granting waterway access. However it doesn't mean anyone is allowed to walk to the river through the property - private or not. It means owner of property on the shore cannot prohibit boats to move along "their" stretch of the river. That was important to allow trade along the river..
Modern day example: http://www.adirondack-park.net/issues/river.rights-salmon.html
Let's not over-generalize, though. Some of our states started off as part of France, Spain, Mexico, Russia, or the Kingdom of Hawaii, and might or might not have inherited or imported that feature from the "olde English books".
As far as I know, public right of navigation is in Federal law, so tracing it to English common law should actually make sense..
But then probably many places had similar rules as trade along the river should be similar all over the place...
Geez, this guy seems to think he's omnipotent. I suspect he's blowing smoke, and if he ever really challenged a state over some of this stuff, he'd get his rear end handed to him in court.
Concerning waterway access, property owners can most certainly prevent people from going across their property to access the stream. I own a piece of property with a short length adjoining the North Fork of the Kentucky River, which was navigable up until the point that the Commonwealth of Kentucky ceased operation of the locks and dams along the upper portion of the river's main stem. While I cannot keep anyone from coming down the river in a boat and fishing against the bank on my side of the river, I can most certainly build a fence to keep people from using my property to access the river.
I'm not suggesting people be allowed to cross your property. The problem is highways and railroads run along rivers without there being any property between them. Some of you may have seen the fishing shacks along the Columbia river in Oregon. The United States has a treaty with the native Americans that allows them to fish for salmon. Ahem, but i'm going to run this into the ground until you start to pay attention. Treaties with native Americans are considered to be part of the United States Constitution. It is necessary to park along the highway to access these. I would say there are thousands of miles of rivers being illegally blocked by highways and railroads in the lower 48. You can check my photo stream to see that I have forced railroads to remove no trespassing signs. Keep in mind when I started this project there was gigabyte limit on the photo sites. so what you see are examples. Nor do I post photos when the governments are reasonable and fix problems quickly.
Quote from: bicyclehazard on November 23, 2017, 11:33:14 AM
The problem is highways and railroads run along rivers without there being any property between them.
What about the highway department's and/or railroad's property? Especially since the latter is private property.
QuoteSome of you may have seen the fishing shacks along the Columbia river in Oregon. The United States has a treaty with the native Americans that allows them to fish for salmon.
Even if those tribes might in some places need to be accommodated, such as with a padlocked gate, that doesn't affect anyone else (who would have no treaty rights of their own), or any other place where there are no tribal access rights.
Don Quixote is that you?
Z981
Ok I found another one. After cycling 20 miles on highway 204 in Georgia I found my self on a portion of the highway I am not allowed on. There was no sign warning me to exit. But that's not all. GDOT has placed a construction zone keep out and pedestrians not allowed on the underpass of that road at King George. Just to be sure I checked with the local fire department there is no alternate route. The place is a swamp. The clearest violation of Title 23 Section 109m I have ever seen. The locals are quite pissed. The children are not able to walk to school. They will be more pissed when the highway causes their homes to flood. https://flic.kr/p/21P5JEu
^^ That law seems to apply only to projects requiring Federal DOT approval. Not every road project does, especially where Federal funds are not involved. Is that project covered?
Also, you say you weren't allowed, but the sign you photo'd seems to prohibit only "pedestrians". What about bicyclists like you? Seems like pedestrians aren't allowed because the sidewalk is closed, but if vehicles are allowed to pass through in the travel lanes, that would seem to cover you, at least.
QuoteJust to be sure I checked with the local fire department there is no alternate route.
The fire department?
Many in central Connecticut are aware of the very busy Berlin Turnpike (US 5/CT 15). It runs from the junction with US Route 5 in Meriden north through Berlin and Newington to Wethersfield. There, US 5/CT 15 veers off to the northeast towards the Charter Oak Bridge.
(https://i.imgur.com/cDX6QEs.jpg)
(Picture is looking roughly south in Berlin, CT on December 21, 2017.)
The merge area on the left is from the on ramp from CT Route 372 to US 5/CT 15 (Berlin Turnpike) North. Most of this road is two lanes in each direction. If you go back to that on-ramp, there is a small sign which reads "Pedestrians Prohibited". However, I've walked on the shoulder of this road off and on for years. Police have driven past and have said nothing. This part of the road has a few motels. Further north has quite a bit more retail. The only other grade-separated intersection I'm aware of on the Turnpike after this one is for CT Route 175 on the Newington/Wethersfield town line.
Quote from: oscar on December 26, 2017, 08:57:29 AM
^^ That law seems to apply only to projects requiring Federal DOT approval. Not every road project does, especially where Federal funds are not involved. Is that project covered?
Also, you say you weren't allowed, but the sign you photo'd seems to prohibit only "pedestrians". What about bicyclists like you? Seems like pedestrians aren't allowed because the sidewalk is closed, but if vehicles are allowed to pass through in the travel lanes, that would seem to cover you, at least.
There are separate signs prohibiting bicyclists. But they are apparently working on it...
http://www.savannahga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/165