Bikes Banned for 2 Years! Need Advocacy Help!

[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.

[mimitabby]

I wrote to the parks director too.

[mimitabby]

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?

[RolliePollie]

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!

[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?????

[Tuckervill]

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

[Tuckervill]

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

[Starfish]

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?

[Starfish]

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.

[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.