Help stop st. charles county bike ban

[Crankin]

I agree with the above post.
That said, I have been to this area once. The "twisty narrow roads" are precisely the reason cyclists want to go on them. There is a lot of climbing and when I was there, the Tour of Missouri had just come through the day before. It was beautiful country, so why wouldn't cyclists want to ride there? It's the same reason that area bike clubs and people who live in the city come to the area where I live to ride on the same type of narrow twisty roads. There's been some tension between riders and drivers, but mostly, I have to say it has been because of poor rider behavior (riding 2-3 abreast where signs clearly prohibit it). Not to say there aren't idiot drivers here, because there are, but there are also so many cyclists that the level of awareness has been raised.

[Dannielle]

I agree that's a beautiful area. I rode my bike on those roads all the time when I was a teenager. I was less concerned for my own safety then lol.

I think where I'm most conflicted is with wondering why that entire section of the county is covered in the ban. If they were to ban cycling on Hwy 94...which is really the only main road and probably the most dangerous (I don't even like driving it) I'd be less conflicted, I think. There are many little back roads that don't get the traffic that Hwy 94 gets and they'd be wonderful for cyclists if people didn't drive like fools.

For what it's worth, I hate driving Hwy 94 in that direction, especially on the weekend, because there are so many people driving those roads after visiting the wineries. I don't trust other drivers to use their brain when it comes to drinking and not driving.

That's where my biggest concern is with cyclists in that area. There's just a really good chance of running across drivers who are impaired. Obviously being a safe driver is the driver's responsibility. But then if something bad does happen, the cyclist is going to get hurt a lot worse than the car.

I really am conflicted. The cyclist in me feels like cyclist should be able to ride anywhere and drivers need to be alert. The mom in me cringes when I see people riding on busy twisty roads with 55mph speed limits, no shoulder, and no passing zones, and limited visibility. I can't help but feel concerned for their safety.

[Thorn]

The issue here isn't whether you feel safe, the issue is whether a local government has the right to restrict one type of vehicular traffic on a public roadway where there are no minimum speeds.

If the roads are unsafe because the 55 mph speed limit doesn't give you time to stop when you come around a curve or crest a hill, then the speed limit is too high. There could be a slow moving tractor, a slow moving car, a deer, a dog, a person walking, a child. . . many things besides a bicycle. Prohibiting a bicycle does not solve the problem. If the road is unsafe. It is unsafe for everyone.

There are many roads in my area that I, as a cyclist, do not like to ride and avoid. However, I also know people who ride them because they live there. It is the road they need to use to get from point A to point B. They have to use the road. I am concerned for them. I feel for them. But, because that is, in effect, their road, I will support their right to use it.

[Dannielle]

The issue here isn't whether you feel safe, the issue is whether a local government has the right to restrict one type of vehicular traffic on a public roadway where there are no minimum speeds.

If the roads are unsafe because the 55 mph speed limit doesn't give you time to stop when you come around a curve or crest a hill, then the speed limit is too high. There could be a slow moving tractor, a slow moving car, a deer, a dog, a person walking, a child. . . many things besides a bicycle. Prohibiting a bicycle does not solve the problem. If the road is unsafe. It is unsafe for everyone.

There are many roads in my area that I, as a cyclist, do not like to ride and avoid. However, I also know people who ride them because they live there. It is the road they need to use to get from point A to point B. They have to use the road. I am concerned for them. I feel for them. But, because that is, in effect, their road, I will support their right to use it.

You know what, I absolutely agree with you. You hit the nail on the head. The real issue IS that the speed limit is much too high for a road like that.

[sarahspins]

If the roads are unsafe because the 55 mph speed limit doesn't give you time to stop when you come around a curve or crest a hill, then the speed limit is too high. There could be a slow moving tractor, a slow moving car, a deer, a dog, a person walking, a child. . . many things besides a bicycle. Prohibiting a bicycle does not solve the problem. If the road is unsafe. It is unsafe for everyone.

I agree with this, I think they're focusing on a minor issue while ignoring the reality of the road itself.. it's not cyclists who make the road unsafe... that is only a symptom of a bigger problem.

[Melalvai]

Dannielle, have you considered writing a letter to the county and newspapers? I've been hearing about this too, and it drives me wild that no one is talking about lowering the speed limit. They're only arguing about whether or not to ban bikes.

In addition to not solving the problem (which is the speed limit), banning bikes sets a horrible precedent for the rest of the nation. It's probably because of Black Hawk, Colorado that it's gotten as far as it has in St. Charles, Missouri.

One good thing has come out of this: a clear statement from the state bike/ped/ADA coordinator, Melissa Anderson, who has been ambiguous in the past about her and MoDOT's* support for cyclists. The roads in question aren't county roads. In Missouri, the state owns most of the roads (the type that are owned by counties in other states). So the state determines the speed limit and what vehicles are allowed. Anderson issued a statement that only MoDOT can ban bikes on those roads and that MoDOT has no intention of doing so.

*MoDOT has NOT been ambiguous, but until recently clearly in the anti-bike camp. This has all changed since MoDOT director Pete Rahn left, which is perhaps why Anderson is being more direct.

[Eden]

The issue here isn't whether you feel safe, the issue is whether a local government has the right to restrict one type of vehicular traffic on a public roadway where there are no minimum speeds.

If the roads are unsafe because the 55 mph speed limit doesn't give you time to stop when you come around a curve or crest a hill, then the speed limit is too high. There could be a slow moving tractor, a slow moving car, a deer, a dog, a person walking, a child. . . many things besides a bicycle. Prohibiting a bicycle does not solve the problem. If the road is unsafe. It is unsafe for everyone.

++++++++1 !!

If the road is unsafe then the speed limit should be lowered and that lowered speed limit should be enforced. Unless it is a limited access highway it is wrong to ban certain types of traffic from a road (and here in WA, even the highways are only no bike zones in urban areas - there are places that the highway is the only road around....) Public roads are just that - public, not the sole province of automobile drivers.

[Bike Chick]

It is my understanding from co-workers that these roads are very narrow, curvy, has high speed limits and aren't safe for cyclists. I appreciate the fact that they are trying to save lives but banning cyclists and not tractors, walkers, etc. is not the answer. It's a step backwards for us. Lower the speed limit and enforce it. Most of us wouldn't ride that road anyway.

[TrekTheKaty]

I also live in the area. Although I haven't ridden my bike on these sections of road, I worry that we are on the edge in Missouri. St. Charles has tried to be more bike friendly (putting but bike friendly signs) but not taking actual steps (adding bike lanes). This law could be a dangerous precedent. This stretch has long been popular with cyclists, thus the proposed ban by frustrated motorists. The simple solution is to add a shoulder.

I pay taxes and that means I also have a right to the road.