Bikes Banned for 2 Years! Need Advocacy Help!

[jobob]

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.

[maillotpois]

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

[lauraelmore1033]

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

[maillotpois]

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.

[jobob]

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

[maillotpois]

Probably true. (Says the crasher.)

[Starfish]

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.

[blueskies]

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:

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.”

[Starfish]

"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.

[blueskies]

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