Still trying to ban bicycles in Missouri county

After one of three town hall meetings, they've come up with some new proposals. Amazing. I heard on the morning radio news: "St. Charles trying to ban bicycles. In other news, St. Louis city opened their new bicycle commuter facility with lockers, showers and more bike racks for our commuters." Wow. They're going to start calling us the rednecks that live across the river again :mad:

http://mobikefed.org/content/st-char...dated-versions

Excerpt:
This draft of the ordinance still has these serious problems:

The bicycle ban still restricts the freedom of movement of bicyclists in a way far greater than that found in any other county in the U.S., contradicts the Missouri Constitution's assignment of authority over access to state roads to the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, and will almost certainly be challenged strongly by MoDOT and overturned by the courts.

The requirement for bicyclists to ride no more than 20 inches from the white line contradicts state law in this area and, in addition, is an unsafe requirement for bicyclists, forcing them to travel closer to the edge of the road than is safe in many situations. This requirement is different than the current legal requirements in Missouri and in every adjoining county and city. How will bicyclists entering the county be informed about this unusual requirement--by road signs?

The requirement for single file bicycling contradicts state law, which specifically allows bicyclists to ride abreast except when impeding other traffic.

The requirement for bicyclists to use mirrors is problematic for several reasons. For some types of bicycles, mirrors are not particularly helpful; for others, mounting mirrors is problematic. Mirrors are not required equipment in any other jurisdiction in the U.S.--so, for instance, cross country bicyclists who enter St Charles County often will not have a mirror when entering the county, and will have no realistic opportunity to purchase a mirror once they enter the county and learn of the requirement (and how will they be informed about this new and unique requirement--via road signs?)

Requiring permits for bicycle groups as small as 20 is still an unrealistically small number. Having the requirement set this low means that many informally organized groups will simply ignore the requirement. If the number were set more realistically--50 or 100--it would apply to rides organized by and run by organizations or businesses, where compliance can realistically be achieved.
The good news is that county commissioners are really listening to input from the public and working to improve this bill. The bad news is, there is still plenty more that needs to be improved.

I hope they don't counter idiocy with too many specious arguments.

I can't imagine a bike where a mirror wouldn't be "particularly helpful" or a rider who couldn't find a single place to mount a mirror on helmet, sunglasses or bike. And as far as mirrors not being required elsewhere, riders of two-wheeled vehicles travel all the time between jurisdictions that require helmets and ones that don't, and people who choose not to wear helmets when they don't have to just keep one handy - strapped to their back seat or luggage rack on a moto, in a backpack or basket for a bici. A bici mirror is a whole lot easier to carry ... not that I would ever consider having a piece of safety equipment on my person and not using it. :rolleyes:

MoBikeFed has done a great job of explaining & summarizing the issues. For example the main problem with the mirror requirement is it just isn't feasible. St. Charles County is on one of the major bicycle routes across the country. Are these cross-country riders going to stop and buy a mirror just to get across St. Charles County when no other county or state they've passed through has required it? They won't even know it's required for those few miles. How's it going to be enforced? It's a pointless law.

I'm thrilled that we have a situation where MODoT is on our side. For years MODoT has been "the enemy", blocking every attempt to get Complete Streets on the floor, and opposing any attempts to incorporate cycling & pedestrian use into roads & bridges. Over the past year they've appeared to turn around completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melalvai

Are these cross-country riders going to stop and buy a mirror just to get across St. Charles County when no other county or state they've passed through has required it?

---

There was a jurisdiction that was the first one to enact a helmet law, too. I don't know what city or state it might have been, but someone had to be the first. Some people obviously will buy a piece of equipment just to get across a particular state or city, and so they buy something flimsy and cheap that doesn't really do its job well. Most sensible people already own that piece of equipment. I'd be very surprised if a large percentage of cross-country riders DON'T use mirrors (or helmets) already.

I have a lot of problems with the proposal, don't get me wrong. But I think any time riders make specious arguments against using safety equipment, it diminishes our credibility. Honestly, I believe that some groups' vocal opposition to helmet laws is one of the main reasons that motorcyclists don't have more credibility. I hope bicyclists don't go the same way.

It is getting a little silly. I have a red flashing light that I used to use while riding the road. I honestly felt people slowed down and gave me more room (because they could see me farther away?). I don't remember when I quit using it. I don't currently have a mirror. My previous one fell off while riding on the bike rack. I don't know that I want to see the cars bearing down on me. I'd probably spend most of my time in the ditch :( But I would buy another one if it made the city council happy.

However, last weekend we took the kayaks out. After paddling away from the dock, I saw my DH had carefully tucked his life jacket into the rear straps of the kayak. I looked around and told him I hope he got ticketed by the coast guard.

Now ask me why one and not the other? I don't know. I have taken up someone's philosophy of not talking to people that don't wear helmet. Don't know that it helps.......

This is a tremendous step down from the outright ban. I think we're getting somewhere. I'm going to tonight's meeting.

Please give us a report when you return from the meeting. This is absolutely ridiculous! I've never ridden the road and probably never will but DH and I have signed every petition in the bike shops in St Louis, the one on the website and added it to my FB page. The whole idea just chaps my a$$:mad:

I don't have a bike mirror and have no plans to get one..... I tried one years ago, found it less effective and user friendly than simply turning my head, thus never replaced it when it broke or was lost. Not being from MO, if I was ever passing through said area, I'd be one of those people who have no idea of that particular law and wouldn't have the piece of equipment..

IMHO rear view mirrors make sense in cars where the can be sufficiently large, there are multiple blind spots and speeds are generally much faster. They don't necessarily work so well for cyclists. Glasses mounted ones tend to not work at all once a person needs readers..

While waiting for the meeting to start, a couple sat down next to me and caught me up on the last meeting. Apparently, one gentleman stood up and said he taught his teenage daughters to treat cyclists like deer--don't swerve just hit em straight on!

However, I'd say the meeting went to the cyclists. It started with a sweet grandpa type who said he had been cycling for his health for 70 years, lived in the county and last he checked, it was a free country. He didn't believe in banning anything.

Several excellent presentations included: driving away potential businesses that are looking to improve the health of their employees, loss of tourism (including the loss of tourists for the Tour of Missouri), the reasons why staying within 20 inches of the white line is unsafe, how much it will cost the tax payers to defend the suit MoDot promises will follow, where the county can get federal funding to educate motorists and cyclists how to coexist safely, and questioning why the county isn't concentrating on the bigger issues facing our country at this point in the economy.

The one anti-cycling person's rant was, "when I honk because I want to pass the cyclists use an obscene gesture" and finished with "bicycles aren't vehicles and they don't have a right be on the road."

The next person said, "I'm so glad I followed him, because, as the council knows, Missouri state law says a bicycle is a vehicle with a right to be on the road."

One farmer said, "I'm not against bicycles, but I need to see you. I frequently cross the road in my truck or on my tractor. A flag, lights, mirrors, signs whatever it takes because I really don't want to hurt anyone."

A few residents showed up to say they live in the stated area, and haven't had any trouble with bicycles holding up traffic.

And this wasn't the big topic of the night. Apparently, there is a heated fight amongst taxidermists and the city council involving permits. (Cyclists came in as pro-taxidermy). I should go to those meetings more often!

/partial hijack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eden

Glasses mounted ones tend to not work at all once a person needs readers..

---

That's just not the case.

I just upped my reading glasses to +2.00, and I have zero trouble with my glasses mounted mirror.

You're not focusing on the surface of the mirror, you're focusing on the thing that's reflected.

As I posted several weeks ago, try it at home in the mirror. Get so close to your bathroom mirror that you can't focus on your own face ... then look through the mirror at the wall behind you. It's perfectly clear.


/hijack


Trek, thanks for going to the meeting. We all need more advocates for cycling!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OakLeaf

/partial hijack
As I posted several weeks ago, try it at home in the mirror. Get so close to your bathroom mirror that you can't focus on your own face ... then look through the mirror at the wall behind you. It's perfectly clear.
!

---

OK, just that description makes me dizzy. My brother-in-law has a mirror. His designated role is in the back of the line and to yell "car back!"

Perhaps I should amend that to I've heard lots of people who need readers say glasses mounted mirrors don't work for them (as I don't use a mirror and don't yet need readers, I can't tell you my personal experience). It's been years, but I seem to recall it was just too small and too jumpy for me to like it. I can turn my head without moving my bike and find it better for me than trying to focus on an itty bitty mirror. Plus having something hanging around out there in my peripheral vision is annoying and distracting to me.

And indeed - thanks for the report. It's nice to know that there are people out defending against counties/cities/municipalities that try to ban bikes, or make it so difficult to use one that its impossible or unsafe to do it legally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eden

IMHO rear view mirrors make sense in cars where the can be sufficiently large, there are multiple blind spots and speeds are generally much faster. They don't necessarily work so well for cyclists. Glasses mounted ones tend to not work at all once a person needs readers..

---

I use the glasses-mounted ones and have no problems (I'm at about 2.00 readers). There are times when I turn my head to look; IMO you should be able to do both. Mirrors definitely help, though they aren't the first thing I would legislate if I were making the rules.

Latest update on St. Charles Bike Ban. Perhaps the voice of reason has prevailed. I see this as a victory.

http://mobikefed.org/content/st-char...still-consider

Makes me so glad I live in the U.K, things are far from perfect in many areas for cyclists here but in general we get treated pretty well and the government both national and local is funding (or has been at least) initiatives to get more people cycling.

Stories from the U.S such as this one are often discussed on our cycling forums here to, we find some of the attitudes displayed by the individuals and organizations trying to enact these laws to be utterly bizarre.
I think cyclists here aren't suprised though that you have to overcome obstacles like this in a nation where the car and the oil industry is king and have been for a long time.

I wonder if the Missouri Bicycle & Pedestrian Federation, or the St. Louis Regional Bicycle Federation, have seen an increase in membership as a result of the attempted St. Charles County bike ban and the publicity that went along with it!

Trekkaty, we have to have a pfd, a whistle, a rope and a bailer or pump to kayak legally. Sorry for the off topic. Back to regular programming.