There is no law without signage.

[freebrickproductions]

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".

[corco]

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. 

[Brandon]

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."

[kphoger]

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.

[JasonOfORoads]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

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...

Good luck!

[formulanone]

...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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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...

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. 

[SectorZ]

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...

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.)

[Max Rockatansky]

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...

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.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

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...

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...

Good luck!

[Brandon]

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.

[1995hoo]

.... 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:

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.

In particular, the OP's final couple of sentences smack of so-called "sovereign citizen" drivel:

.... 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. 

"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."

[jeffandnicole]

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...

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...

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.

[kphoger]

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...

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.

.... 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. 

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.

[bicyclehazard]

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.   

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[oscar]

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.

[formulanone]

(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).

[kkt]

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.