Bikes Banned for 2 Years! Need Advocacy Help!

[Starfish]

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

[Deborajen]

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

[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?

[Tuckervill]

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

[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.

[Starfish]

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?

[7rider]

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?

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

[mimitabby]

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

[Grog]

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.

[LainiePants]

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).

[Pedal Wench]

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.

[DDH]

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?

[Tuckervill]

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

[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.