Bikes Banned for 2 Years! Need Advocacy Help!

I am posting this to the general forum rather than PNW, because I am hoping to get support from cyclists everywhere. The Olympic National Park is proposing a ban on cyclists for a 2 year duration road repair project. All other traffic, including motorcycles, will be allowed.

Information (provided by Snohomish Bikes Club - thank you) is below with contact information for the Park Superintendent at the end. There is also a list of key points to raise. Please, if you feel so inclined, help us keep this key stretch of cycling road open for 2 years. If it happens in our park, it could happen in yours. Thanks!!

--------------------------------------------------------

Tell Olympic National Park to remove the proposed ban on bicyclists.

Action Alert from the Bicycle Alliance of Washington Hurricane Ridge Road inside Olympic National Park is a popular summer destination for bicyclists who like the challenge of a 17-mile road rising from virtually sea level to 5420-feet. Park managers have been planning to repave the road for several years and Congress has provided $12.7 Million to repave and repair 12 miles. The road recently sustained storm damage.

Citing “safety,” the park is planning to ban bicyclists for the entire two year duration of the road repairs. The road will remain open to all other vehicle traffic, including motorcycles.

We believe that this is an unnecessary exclusion of bicyclists on what is a federally funded road open to all other forms of traffic. Write to your members of Congress and interim park superintendent Sue McGill and let them know that the proposed ban is totally unacceptable. Request that McGill meet directly with the Bicycle Alliance and other bicycle groups to reach an improved solution.

Enter your zip code to obtain the name of your member of Congress: http://www.house.gov/htbin/zipfind

Washington’s two senators can be reached by email or by calling a local office:

Senator Patty Murray: http://murray.senate.gov/contact/
Senator Maria Cantwell: http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/office_locations.cfm
Olympic National Park
Sue McGill, Superintendent
Olympic National Park
600 E. Park Avenue
Port Angeles, WA 98362
sue_mcgill@nps.gov

Key points to raise:
Hurricane Ridge Road is a popular destination for bicyclists

Bicyclists who ride this road tend to be very experienced, fit riders

The road will remain open to all other vehicle traffic

State, county and city governments in Washington manage to accommodate bicyclists during reconstruction projects without any problems

No construction work will take place at weekends, but the ban is to remain in place then too

Olympic National Park did not contact a single bicycle group in its out-reach efforts, even though bicyclists are the most affected users

Contractors routinely deal with bicyclists on other road projects – this project is no more a safety issue than other road works.

Background on the issue is available at: http://peninsuladailynews.com/apps/p...plate=printart

Information on recent storm damage to Hurricane Ridge Road:
http://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisi...t-closures.htm

Another argument which could possibly be raised:

If Hurricane Ridge Road is a popular destination for cyclists, what will the economic impact be from banning cycling for two years? There would be some loss of revenue for the park.

Also, I don't know what the legal obligations are to allow cyclist access to the road given that it's Federally Funded, but that might pull some weight as well - ?

Deb

Thanks for the idea.

Wow, I gotta say, I'm a little surprised at the lack of response to this. I guess I was hoping lots of folks would be willing to shoot this Park official an email of protest.

A federal road built with tax dollars that bans bikes, not any other kind of traffic, for 2 full years?

:confused: :(

I'm not much of an activist, so that's why I didn't respond before now.

However, one of the things I thought of while I was reading this is that I don't know what the reasons for the ban are. There must be some good reason. Part of our regular group ride route is all gravel right now because of road widening, so we went somewhere else. Is this road expected to be gravel for a good part of the time? Will it be down to one lane with signals for reversing traffic? I just want to know why they singled out bicycles. It's hard to object if you don't know their reasons.

Karen

There doesn't have to be a good reason.

If one person said "we should ban bicyclists - if we don't, one of them might sue us if they're hurt," then it could happen. It doesn't have to be logical (let's face it, the same thing holds true for other modes of transport). The car-centered folks figure that it will just be better if there aren't cyclists there. It's "bad enough" we're on roads, anyway; with construction it "makes no sense" to add to the danger. Look at what happened to those poor riders in California. We don't want that to happen here; if the cyclists are banned, it won't.

*Please note - this isn't the way I feel about it -- but I can hear these arguments being voiced sincerely.

I dont' know how effective an outsider's objections would be, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geonz

I dont' know how effective an outsider's objections would be, though.

---

Maybe if they realize a national spotlight could get thrown on them, they will reconsider?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starfish

Thanks for the idea.

Wow, I gotta say, I'm a little surprised at the lack of response to this. I guess I was hoping lots of folks would be willing to shoot this Park official an email of protest.

A federal road built with tax dollars that bans bikes, not any other kind of traffic, for 2 full years?

:confused: :(

---

I just sighed when I read it, and thought "There they go...down that slippery slope."

i just saw this and wrote to Patty Murray. I will write to Cantwell too!

Being a National Park, I think it makes sense that cyclists (and others) across the country voice their opinion on this, perhaps to their local representatives as well as to the ones directly involved.

There were major repairs last summer on the road from Nanaimo to Tofino on Vancouver Island (British Columbia, Canada, for those unfamiliar). If you check Google maps you'll see that there aren't really other ways to get from one place to the other than to take Highway 4. It's a very windy, hilly, and somewhat dangereous road, with lots of heavy trucking going on, too. We took that road at the end of August. Lots of parts were on gravel, and there was one-way traffic for significant bits of it, with road workers at both ends stopping traffic for long periods at a time (more than 10 minutes). Nonetheless, I did see cyclists there. Not people on fancy road bikes with skinny tires, but a small number of well-equipped touring cyclists. It would have been silly to go there for a training ride though.

I don't know much about the park and the type of riding that's done there, but I think it it indeed a dangerous precedent to set. People should always have the option of going somewhere without an engine and a few pounds of steel under them.

I read about this on bikeportland.org last week. http://bikeportland.org/2008/03/20/w...ban/#more-6966
Great article, and lots of comments by upset bikey people.

I also find it infuriating. I haven't ever ridden there, but now that I've read about it, I definitely want to. It's BS that they allow cars and RVs to use the roads during construction, even though it's these vehicle that cause the damage in the first place (not to mention pollution).

This is in one of the links you provided:

"There will be portions of the road with no pavement or gravel, and there will be heavy machinery which obviously have limited visibility."

It doesn't seem all that unreasonable during those times, but it seems drastic to close it off for the whole two years.

The heavy machinery is not being used 24/7 so if this is there fear why not have certain times around it rather than banning it all together.

Sounds like they are fearful of a lawsuit by a cyclist.

I thought that cyclist had a right to the road same as a car, am I wrong?
We have to follow the traffic laws like a car, so if they won't allow cyclist on the road, then certainly cars should follow. In fact, bicycles are easier to manuver than a car around construction. If they can't see a bike with a rider then how can they see a motorcycle with a rider?

Anyway, I will certainly voice my opinion, (I'm very good at the). LOL

Another point to add is the fact that, although it's few, some people use a bicycle only for transportion, so what are they to do if they need to travel this road?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geonz

There doesn't have to be a good reason.

If one person said "we should ban bicyclists - if we don't, one of them might sue us if they're hurt," then it could happen. It doesn't have to be logical (let's face it, the same thing holds true for other modes of transport). The car-centered folks figure that it will just be better if there aren't cyclists there. It's "bad enough" we're on roads, anyway; with construction it "makes no sense" to add to the danger. Look at what happened to those poor riders in California. We don't want that to happen here; if the cyclists are banned, it won't.

*Please note - this isn't the way I feel about it -- but I can hear these arguments being voiced sincerely.

I dont' know how effective an outsider's objections would be, though.

---

I can "hear" all those objections, too, but what ARE their objections? If you're trying to sell someone on price and their objection is to quality, or service, you're just spinning your wheels.

Karen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDH

Sounds like they are fearful of a lawsuit by a cyclist.

---

Bingo.

The family of a cyclist that crashed on RAGBRAI sued the county on account of unsafe road conditions. See this old TE thread for the details.

Perhaps the park people figure it would be logistically easier and less clostly - not to mention leaving them less vunerable to a potential lawsuit - to close the road to cyclists outright, rather than try to get every single cyclist who passes thru to sign a release saying that (a) he/she is aware that the road may be unsafe for cycling during the construction period, and that (b) he/she will not sue the county/state/park service if he/she crashes on account of the condition of the road surface during that period.

Chalk another one up for our litigous society. :rolleyes:

That was exactly what I thought as well: lawsuit avoidance.

what's to stop motorists from suing if THEY have an accident on the unsafe road?

Nothing, but it probably seems much more likely that a bike would be taken down and the rider suffer serious injury from bad road conditions that for this to happen to a car.

Well, let's face facts - it IS more likely.

Probably true. (Says the crasher.)

Thanks, everyone, for the discussion. I believe it is, for sure, lawsuit avoidance. The Park also wants to close a huge section of Highway 101 to cyclists...the portion that goes around Lake Crescent. And, their policies about road closure to the ski area have drastically changed over the years.

I understand that unpaved roads are a different ball game for cyclists than for cars. But I have had a Park employee admit to me, off the record, that the Park has pretty much taken an attitude of wanting to limit access rather than promote it, in general. Also, the entire 20 mile stretch of road will not be without pavement for a full two years. I really believe if they are accomodating motorcycles, they can accomodate bicycles. Some people hike right up the road. Those people are not being banned.

I appreciate everyone's comments, and I will take all this discussion to heart.

Please, if you are inclined, consider writing not only to Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell (both D-Washington), but also to the Park director, listed in my original post. Her email is listed. Thank you.

I wrote to the parks director too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuckervill

I'm not much of an activist, so that's why I didn't respond before now.


Karen

---

what does this mean exactly? If it's something you care about, how much effort does it take to write a quick email expressing your opinion? I can really see not being interested because it doesn't apply to you; or you live far away, something like that; but to just say "I don't normally DO this because I'm not" you're not what? you're not someone who cares? you're not someone who wants others to know what they care about?

what's next? Banning bikes on other roads because the street washer is coming?

Good grief, leave it to the government to arbitratily decide for us what we can and cannot do safely. How unfair to only ban cyclists! And for 2 years?!?! I hope this does not end up happening. I'm going to check out the links to the senators and voice my opinion as well. This is a ridiculous idea. If cars and motorcycles will still be allowed to pass, there is no reason to ban cyclists. You know they won't be working on it 24/7 anyway. And even if they had delays and are holding traffic here and there, a cyclist could just wait along with all the cars!

I'd like to know more about exactly what they are referring to when they say no pavement.

I"ve certainly driven this road (used to live in Seattle) and I don't know how safe it would be coming DOWN in conditions of one way traffic etc.

I'm with the lawyers here.

Re 101- what's the story there?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mimitabby

what does this mean exactly? If it's something you care about, how much effort does it take to write a quick email expressing your opinion? I can really see not being interested because it doesn't apply to you; or you live far away, something like that; but to just say "I don't normally DO this because I'm not" you're not what? you're not someone who cares? you're not someone who wants others to know what they care about?

what's next? Banning bikes on other roads because the street washer is coming?

---

Frankly, mimi, there are natural limits on my time just like yours, and I have to pick and choose what I spend it on. It was a call to action that I didn't particularly feel called to act upon, when viewed in the context of the rest of my priorities. Not until the OP said she thought it would get more response here did I feel so moved.

I don't see how not writing to senators in a far away state makes me "less" of "whatever" than others. I have my own issues that I care about, of which you are probably not even aware. That doesn't make you "less than" me.

[eta: This sounds snarkier on second reading than I intended. Please do not take offense.]
Karen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sara

Good grief, leave it to the government to arbitratily decide for us what we can and cannot do safely. How unfair to only ban cyclists! And for 2 years?!?! I hope this does not end up happening. I'm going to check out the links to the senators and voice my opinion as well. This is a ridiculous idea. If cars and motorcycles will still be allowed to pass, there is no reason to ban cyclists. You know they won't be working on it 24/7 anyway. And even if they had delays and are holding traffic here and there, a cyclist could just wait along with all the cars!

---

Alright, following up again with respect to this and mimi's post....I do not know enough about this issue to make a judgment. No one has been able to pin down precisely why the ban is being proposed. Since I'm not sure they don't have reasons we might all feel are valid once we discover them--because no one's discovered them, I'm not quite sure I'm ready to jump on the bandwagon.

Karen

So, here's a thought. Why impose a 2 year ban? Why not play it by ear, and if there is some series of weeks where a section is particularly torn up, perhaps post a ban for those weeks?

I seriously doubt that the whole 20 miles will be all torn up all at once.

Why not have it "as conditions allow?" Why not leave the door open for them to accomodate use? As opposed to battening down all hatches in advance for a full 2 years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bike Goddess

I'd like to know more about exactly what they are referring to when they say no pavement.

I"ve certainly driven this road (used to live in Seattle) and I don't know how safe it would be coming DOWN in conditions of one way traffic etc.

I'm with the lawyers here.

Re 101- what's the story there?????

---

101, the story is lawyers and the feds protecting themselves and deciding they know best for individuals, IMO.

On the ridge road, when paved, I am often going the same speed, if not faster, than the cars. (The speed limit.) Presumably, if the road is torn up, and they have flaggers and cars are going very slowly through one-lane traffic, I don't think it is necessarily a conclusion that a mountain bike, for instance, couldn't handle creeping through a construction zone at 15mph downhill, for instance. Especially if it was hardpack enough for car and motorcycle travel.

I agree we don't need to jump to conclusions about what conditions will be like. But, a two year ban on the road is, IMO, a pre-emptive, fearful, typical move, consistent with this park's evolving attitudes about "protecting" the public (I would themselves) over serving and facilitating access.

I am probably done with this thread, as it raises my blood pressure. Again, I just ask that anyone so inclined write the government and park, if they feel the urge.

I'd really recommend that anyone interested in this read the bikeportland.org article that LainiePants provided the link to... It has more information about the park's reasoning and what's currently happening.

http://bikeportland.org/2008/03/20/w...-park-bike-ban

I do think it's respectful and generally most constructive to make an active attempt to understand the reasoning behind decisions that you disagree with. You'll be a more effective advocate if you understand the other side's mind set. There are a couple of names in the article of people that you can write to, including someone from the executive director of the Bicycle Alliance of Washington. I'm sure it would strengthen his case if he could say I've heard from cyclists in x states...

Here is a relevant quote:

Quote:

---

As for why they decided to ban bikes during the project, Maynes told me, “A number of things crossed the line for us in terms of safety.” She said crews will be removing culverts and pavement, stretches of the road will become gravel and one-lane only, heavy equipment will be operating, and there will be no guard rails. According to Maynes, with all those things going on bicycles add, “another layer of complexity” for both work crews and motor vehicle drivers to deal with.

Maynes acknowledges that Hurricane Ridge is a “great ride for bicyclists” but she encourages riders to explore other rides in the area during the two-years of construction. She also says, if bicyclists can just be patient, they’ll appreciate the new and improved road. “The new road will be wider, have better pull-outs, and a better road surface. We’re taking the long-term approach and hoping that if bicyclists can just use the other options for two years, what they’ll get is a much better experience in the future.”

---

Quote:

---

"There will be portions of the road with no pavement or gravel, and there will be heavy machinery which obviously have limited visibility."

---

Mountain bikes can handle gravel, and heavy machinery operators with limited visibility need to have flaggers to avoid visibility issues with cars and motorcycles, not just bicycles. IMO, these two stated reasons from the newspaper report are not enough.

Hi Starfish,

I wasn't meaning to imply that I thought those were sufficient reasons to justify the closure, just that it's helpful to understand the park peoples' view when working for change. Had also just wanted to reinforce that the bikeportland article had more detailed information, for those who wanted it. Might not have been very clear in my post, as I've been out canvassing for Obama all day in the rain/slush/hail and I'm a little beyond tired.

I'm sending encouraging energy your way.

Oh, here is one thought... I'm on several email lists for human rights related causes (Amnesty International, Save Darfur, etc.), and they often send a letter for you to just send along. The people who read the letters, especially elected officials, really mainly just count the number of letters as a gauge of voter interest... so, maybe you could post a sample letter here, which people could cut & paste along to the appropriate folks. The easier you make it for busy people (all of us!), the more likely we are to take action.

Best,
Blueskies