There is no law without signage.

[bicyclehazard]

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.

[freebrickproductions]

What.

SM-G900V

[Max Rockatansky]

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. 

[hbelkins]

This guy claims on MTR that I-69 in Indiana is somehow illegal.

[SP Cook]

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. 

[1995hoo]

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).

[Max Rockatansky]

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. 

[SectorZ]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[hotdogPi]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[MNHighwayMan]

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

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.

[hbelkins]

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. "

[freebrickproductions]

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

[kkt]

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.

[briantroutman]

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.

[JasonOfORoads]

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" 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.

[kphoger]

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

TL;DR

Consider taking the advise of the posters pointing out the lack of formatting.

[JasonOfORoads]

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.

[kkt]

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?

[Mr. Matté]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V_E_Jnyhks

[rarnold]

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.

[hbelkins]

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.