RAGBRAI and banning bikes

Cluelessness and politics? Now that's an atypical combination if ever I saw one. RAGBRAI is an
institution that seems to bridge the gap between the cycling community, and the larger society. I
hate the ride, myself, but there's no other ride even remotely like it for filling that gap. Good
opportunity for some public education, provided people aren't 30 deep in the port-a-potty line. I'll
never forget the time the super cell came through, and I found my tent was staked out in the middle
of a small lake. What a vacational experience!

--
--Scott
"john riley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Excuse me if you have seen this elsewhere, but it really irritates me.
It looks to me like this year's RAGBRAI route will go through the Iowa
State Senate district of the State Senator who has sponsored a bill
that would ban bicycles from four lane roads outside of town
boundaries if there is a bicycle facility adjacent. I think this is
the kind of ban that displays a level of cluelessness about cycling
such that it could easily be extended.

My view is that cyclist themselves are best able to judge which
facility best meets their needs, including safety.

bikeiowa.comnewsdisplay.aspOpen ↗

john riley

I remember some of your old posts about RAGBRAI Scott. Saddle sores and now
this...waitng for Noah's ark. If someone could detail the economic value of
the ride to the politicos, they's probably do a quick 180. They might not be
able to tell [censored] from shinola, but when large amounts of cashish are
involved they're all ears.
"Freewheeling" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Cluelessness and politics? Now that's an atypical combination if ever I

saw

Quoted message said:

one. RAGBRAI is an institution that seems to bridge the gap between the cycling community, and the
larger society. I hate the ride, myself, but there's no other ride even remotely like it for
filling that gap. Good opportunity for some public education, provided people aren't 30 deep in

the

Quoted message said:

port-a-potty line. I'll never forget the time the super cell came

through,

Quoted message said:

and I found my tent was staked out in the middle of a small lake. What a vacational experience!

--
--Scott "john riley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Excuse me if you have seen this elsewhere, but it really irritates me. It looks to me like this
year's RAGBRAI route will go through the Iowa State Senate district of the State Senator who has
sponsored a bill that would ban bicycles from four lane roads outside of town boundaries if
there is a bicycle facility adjacent. I think this is the kind of ban that displays a level of
cluelessness about cycling such that it could easily be extended.

My view is that cyclist themselves are best able to judge which facility best meets their needs,
including safety.

bikeiowa.comnewsdisplay.aspOpen ↗

john riley

"harv" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I remember some of your old posts about RAGBRAI Scott. Saddle sores and now this...waitng for
Noah's ark. If someone could detail the economic value of the ride to the politicos, they's
probably do a quick 180. They might not be able to tell [censored] from shinola, but when large amounts
of cashish are involved they're all ears.

The more I look into this, the worse the smells. They seem to be clueless about cycling, but they
are not unaware of RAGBRAI. The law doesn't mention RAGBRAI by name, but there is an exception
spelled out that would certainly include it.

The law also includes a provision for the construction of more trails. This amendment may have been
inserted by people trying to make the bill _less_ likely to pass, but they may be shooting
themselves in the foot. I'm thinking the way this plays out is, any time you want cyclists off a
particular stretch of road, you slap down a sidewalk next to it and ban them. All the hardcore
transportational cyclists who hate trails say this is what will happen.

This is not a great place to have to make a stand. Over on the Ragbrai board, there are some alleged
cyclists who support the ban. IIRC some of these roads have interchanges at _some_ intersections, so
sometimes they look like freeways. But you look at the guy's reasoning and it is plain that he just
doesn't like bicycles. Here are some comments from the website cited above:

"Sen. Puntney explained that he travels on hwy 330, a 4 lane divided highway between Melbourne and
Marshalltown, and he rarely sees cyclists using the trail. One day he happened upon a group of
cyclists using the road versus the trail. Between the safety issues of the cyclists on the road and
a multi-million dollar trail built with taxpayers money and not being used, this bill was developed
an introduced. Sen Putney continued by stating it was a "Common Sense" issue and who would have the
mentality to ride on the roads instead of a trail anyway."

In other words, there was no real problem. It is not like there had been accidents or something. He
just resented their presence.

My recollection about the stretch in question is that it is hilly and open (obvioulsy most of Iowa
is open, but there are some nice flat, sheltered rail trails which are much more popular) IIRC The
trail is not on the same grade as the road, so it is much hillier than the road. That might
discourage typical recreational trail users. I.e. that might be why the great senator doesn't see
many people on the trail.

John Riley

Here is another account from Yahoo bikeIowa. I believe the speaker is
another legislator:

"I have talked directly to Senator Putney. He had an experience on Hwy 330 when he came up on a
group of bikers that were riding in a group. He stopped and asked them why they were not riding on
the trail. (He thinks they should ride on the trail). They told Senator Putney that they had the
right to ride on the road. And that there was nothing he could do about it. Senator Putney did not
like this reply or attitude.

Senator Putney also thinks that if government(we) is spending money on bike trails that people
should ride on them. Especially if the they are along existing highways. Senator Putney's district
is very rural."

Wow, he gets [censored] at some cyclists so he decides to get even by banning them! If RAGBRAI is
going thourgh his district (looks to me like it will), the Register should re-route it around his
district, if they have any nerve.

John Riley

"Freewheeling" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Cluelessness and politics? Now that's an atypical combination if ever I saw one. RAGBRAI is an
institution that seems to bridge the gap between the cycling community, and the larger society. I
hate the ride, myself, but there's no other ride even remotely like it for filling that gap. Good
opportunity for some public education, provided people aren't 30 deep in the port-a-potty line.
I'll never forget the time the super cell came through, and I found my tent was staked out in the
middle of a small lake. What a vacational experience!

OK, so I have finally figured out that Freewheeling is Scott. For the longest period of time I
had you confused with that other Scott in Arizona who I am constantly at loggerheads with (the
best of enemies).

RAGBRAI is a phenomenon in a class by itself. I have never done it but I have witnessed it many
times. I do not think it is my kind of ride at all but I truly do enjoy the spectacle of it. I have
watched it repeatedly come into the small towns here in NW Iowa. It is big business pure and simple.
These Ragbraiers have money in their pockets and they are willing to spend it.

Nonetheless, some of these small towns are getting fed up with the havoc that Ragbrai inflicts on
them. It would actually be a good thing if Ragbrai weren't so large and I think it has peaked and
will be getting smaller in the future.

I will never do Ragbrai because I do prefer smaller rides. I have often thought that about 600 to
1000 is about right. God help me, but I can't wait in line for anything. I would not wait in line to
get into Heaven itself!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

[email hidden] (john riley) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>... [...]

Quoted message said:

The more I look into this, the worse the smells. They seem to be clueless about cycling, but they
are not unaware of RAGBRAI. The law doesn't mention RAGBRAI by name, but there is an exception
spelled out that would certainly include it.

The law also includes a provision for the construction of more trails. This amendment may have
been inserted by people trying to make the bill _less_ likely to pass, but they may be shooting
themselves in the foot. I'm thinking the way this plays out is, any time you want cyclists off a
particular stretch of road, you slap down a sidewalk next to it and ban them. All the hardcore
transportational cyclists who hate trails say this is what will happen.

This is not a great place to have to make a stand. Over on the Ragbrai board, there are some
alleged cyclists who support the ban. IIRC some of these roads have interchanges at _some_
intersections, so sometimes they look like freeways. But you look at the guy's reasoning and it is
plain that he just doesn't like bicycles. Here are some comments from the website cited above:

"Sen. Puntney explained that he travels on hwy 330, a 4 lane divided highway between Melbourne and
Marshalltown, and he rarely sees cyclists using the trail. One day he happened upon a group of
cyclists using the road versus the trail. Between the safety issues of the cyclists on the road
and a multi-million dollar trail built with taxpayers money and not being used, this bill was
developed an introduced. Sen Putney continued by stating it was a "Common Sense" issue and who
would have the mentality to ride on the roads instead of a trail anyway."

In other words, there was no real problem. It is not like there had been accidents or something.
He just resented their presence.

My recollection about the stretch in question is that it is hilly and open (obvioulsy most of Iowa
is open, but there are some nice flat, sheltered rail trails which are much more popular) IIRC The
trail is not on the same grade as the road, so it is much hillier than the road. That might
discourage typical recreational trail users. I.e. that might be why the great senator doesn't see
many people on the trail.

John Riley

John, I come down on the side of trails. I am not a fast rider and I am not a commuter. I am a slow
recreational rider and I will always want a bike trail as opposed to the road. Any variances between
the road and the trail are insignificant to me. It would not bother me at all if I were required to
ride the trails given a choice. It is altogether safer and we are not ever going to be too fast on
our bicycles anyway.

I know Iowa better than I know Minnesota and I know what the thinking is in these parts. If a bike
trail has a hard surface there is just no reason not to be on it. The only type of cyclists who
will not want to be on it are the racer types. They are a special breed and not typical of cyclists
in general.

I have ridden the roads like forever, but whenever I can find a bike trail I am on it immediately.
There I am totally relaxed and at peace with the world. There is just no comparison between being on
a bike trail and being on the road.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

PS. RAGBRAI by the way totally takes over the road wherever it goes. That is how big it is.

John:

When cycling on the local military base I'm frequently accosted by lower grade officer types who
urge me to "ride in the bike lane," even though if they took a look at it they could see that it's
potholed and full of glass shards, etc. The fact that the damn thing is there makes riding on the
road illegitimate. And you can bet that as soon as the law passes the funding for maintenance will
dry up, because who really gives a damn about bicycles anyway?

So I usually scoot over for about 30 seconds until the jerk passes, and then move out into the lane
again. I'm not sure how state law impacts the military bases, but in most situtaions cyclists are
the equivalent of cars, so he really has no right at all to tell me to get into the bike line, and I
have every right to take the care lane. Not just a little part of it either, but the whole thing.

But I suspect that if they really wanted to make it an issue they could just ban me from the base,
so it's not worth putting that much energy into it. And then there are all the obviously military
cyclists who pass me riding in the car lane, so it's clearly a matter of the ignorance of these
officers, rather than any iron-clad rules or procedures that I might be violating. And it's really
a nice place to ride, once you get off the primary roads. There's zero traffic, and lots of woods
and scenery.

--
--Scott
"john riley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"harv" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I remember some of your old posts about RAGBRAI Scott. Saddle sores and

now

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

this...waitng for Noah's ark. If someone could detail the economic value

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the ride to the politicos, they's probably do a quick 180. They might

not be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

able to tell [censored] from shinola, but when large amounts of cashish are
involved they're all ears.

The more I look into this, the worse the smells. They seem to be
clueless about cycling, but they are not unaware of RAGBRAI. The law
doesn't mention RAGBRAI by name, but there is an exception spelled out
that would certainly include it.

The law also includes a provision for the construction of more trails.
This amendment may have been inserted by people trying to make the
bill _less_ likely to pass, but they may be shooting themselves in the
foot. I'm thinking the way this plays out is, any time you want
cyclists off a particular stretch of road, you slap down a sidewalk
next to it and ban them. All the hardcore transportational cyclists
who hate trails say this is what will happen.

This is not a great place to have to make a stand. Over on the Ragbrai
board, there are some alleged cyclists who support the ban. IIRC some
of these roads have interchanges at _some_ intersections, so sometimes
they look like freeways. But you look at the guy's reasoning and it
is plain that he just doesn't like bicycles. Here are some comments
from the website cited above:

"Sen. Puntney explained that he travels on hwy 330, a 4 lane divided
highway between Melbourne and Marshalltown, and he rarely sees
cyclists using the trail. One day he happened upon a group of cyclists
using the road versus the trail. Between the safety issues of the
cyclists on the road and a multi-million dollar trail built with
taxpayers money and not being used, this bill was developed an
introduced.
Sen Putney continued by stating it was a "Common Sense" issue and who
would have the mentality to ride on the roads instead of a trail
anyway."

In other words, there was no real problem. It is not like there had
been accidents or something. He just resented their presence.

My recollection about the stretch in question is that it is hilly and
open (obvioulsy most of Iowa is open, but there are some nice flat,
sheltered rail trails which are much more popular) IIRC The trail is
not on the same grade as the road, so it is much hillier than the
road. That might discourage typical recreational trail users. I.e.
that might be why the great senator doesn't see many people on the
trail.

John Riley

[email hidden] (Edward Dolan) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

John, I come down on the side of trails. I am not a fast rider and I am not a commuter. I am a
slow recreational rider and I will always want a bike trail as opposed to the road. Any variances
between the road and the trail are insignificant to me. It would not bother me at all if I were
required to ride the trails given a choice. It is altogether safer and we are not ever going to be
too fast on our bicycles anyway. [...]

I prefer trails myself, but I don't want to see racers and hard-core transportational cyclists
banned from the roads. This law is meant to be a slap in the face, so I think it should be opposed.

John Riley

On 6 Feb 2004 02:35:06 -0800, [email hidden] (john riley)

Quoted message said:

I prefer trails myself, but I don't want to see racers and hard-core transportational cyclists
banned from the roads. This law is meant to be a slap in the face, so I think it should be opposed.

It doesn't require soeone to be hard-core. It only requires that you like using the shortest path
possible when you have ten things to do on a bike and one morning to do it. Trails often veer off
from intersections to avoid conflict - and intersections are what you need to access multiple paths
to different locations.

Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...

[email hidden] (john riley) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>... <snip>

Quoted message said:

Wow, he gets [censored] at some cyclists so he decides to get even by banning them! John Riley

Hi folks. Would you tolerate a stray thought from my mental process? If so; This sounds to me like
the type of official that banned recumbents from UCI sanctioned events in 1934. I wonder where
'bents would be if that had not happened. Just my $.02 worth. Bob, from a region of the country with
very few bike trails.

The word is to:

Ride to go somewhere, don't go somewhere to ride.

The roads go where I want to be.

Put a trailer on on your low racer. ha ha 🙂
--
Outlaw power steering

See some Bikes At:

home.earthlink.netindex.htmlOpen ↗

Class and Helicopter

calpoly.edu~wpattersOpen ↗

Reply to [email hidden]

Curtis L. Russell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(john riley) said:

I prefer trails myself, but I don't want to see racers and hard-core transportational cyclists
banned from the roads. This law is meant to be a slap in the face, so I think it should be
opposed.

It doesn't require soeone to be hard-core. It only requires that you like using the shortest path
possible when you have ten things to do on a bike and one morning to do it. Trails often veer off
from intersections to avoid conflict - and intersections are what you need to access multiple
paths to different locations.

I think you are describing a typical suburban setting. I once spent some time trying to navigate my
way around the Northern Virginia area next to Wash. D.C. There were trails and there were roads. I
tried to stay on the trails as much as possible but sooner or later I had to use the roads. In my
hometown the roads are almost the equivalent of trails. There is never a problem using them. That is
not the case in suburban areas as many of the roads are unusable by bikes because the traffic is so
heavy. In Fairfax I often had to take to the sidewalks for safety's sake. I do not think suburban
areas for the most part are very bike friendly unless there are lots of trails. Of course the trails
should go somewhere and not dead end you in the middle of nowhere.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Anyone that has ridden through Franconia Notch in New Hampshire can see the effects of banning
bicycles on roads. It is illegal to ride on the shoulder of the Interstate there, so they created a
bike path.

However, there are several sections that are VERY steep (where the road is graded), the trail has
many blind spots, and in some places there are signs instructing cyclists to walk their bicycles due
to heavy foot traffic.

See a complete report of this clusterf*ck here:
bikexprt.comfranconia.htmOpen ↗

Sometimes those making the rules have no idea whatsoever what we cyclists do...

Chris

[email hidden] (Chris Champion) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Anyone that has ridden through Franconia Notch in New Hampshire can see the effects of banning
bicycles on roads. It is illegal to ride on the shoulder of the Interstate there, so they created
a bike path.

However, there are several sections that are VERY steep (where the road is graded), the trail has
many blind spots, and in some places there are signs instructing cyclists to walk their bicycles
due to heavy foot traffic.

See a complete report of this clusterf*ck here:
bikexprt.comfranconia.htmOpen ↗

Sometimes those making the rules have no idea whatsoever what we cyclists do...

I believe I could easily live with a few trail rules for the safety of all for the advantages of a
trail over a road for cycling. Most of the rules I have ever seen on bike trails just require you to
slow down and use some common sense. I think the only type of cyclists who will not like trails are
possibly commuters and sport racer types (club types especially). For the rest of us, trails make a
lot of sense.

We have literally thousands of miles of roads here in southern Minnesota where the sport club type
of cyclists could go and have the road mostly all to themselves. Unfortunately, we do not have
those type of cyclists in this region. Too bad, but if you are living in suburban areas then you
have to accommodate yourself to your roads and the traffic conditions prevailing there. Maybe some
of you should think about moving to areas of the country (otherwise known as the boondocks) that
are not so crowded.

I will always prefer a trail to a road however no matter where I am cycling.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Chris Champion) wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Sometimes those making the rules have no idea whatsoever what we cyclists do...

I'd say that's true only about 99.9999999999% of the time.

I'm from Northern Virginia, and have ridden roads and trails here for a decade. It has one of the
best trail systems in the country, but I always got nervous negotiating all the places that crossed
roads, especially around Reagan Airport. They may have improved that though. I'm also used to riding
the streets, and I'd prefer being on a bike than in a car in downtown congestion (although a
recumbent isn't the best bike for this application). The best way to get around is a combination of
roads and trails. But you have to know the trails because sometimes they "disappear" for long
stretches, and it's not clear what you need to do to pick up the trail again. But in general the
trail system in Northern Virginia is a huge blessing.

That said, the Baltimore/Annapolis trail system near where Curtis lives (Odenton?) is one of the
worst I've used. You really have to mind your Ps and Qs to use that stretch of trail with all the
road crossings, etc.. The main reason I used it is that it allowed me to go for longish rides from
Savage Mill (where I lived at the time) without getting lost. I was about 6 miles from the trailhead
(as I recall, though I could be wrong about the distance). My biggest problem was unleashed dogs,
though. Not on the trail itself, but on the roads to and from the trail.

--
--Scott
"Edward Dolan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Curtis L. Russell <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On 6 Feb 2004 02:35:06 -0800, [email hidden] (john riley)

Quoted message said:

I prefer trails myself, but I don't want to see racers and hard-core
transportational cyclists banned from the roads. This law is meant to
be a slap in the face, so I think it should be opposed.

It doesn't require soeone to be hard-core. It only requires that you
like using the shortest path possible when you have ten things to do
on a bike and one morning to do it. Trails often veer off from
intersections to avoid conflict - and intersections are what you need
to access multiple paths to different locations.

I think you are describing a typical suburban setting. I once spent
some time trying to navigate my way around the Northern Virginia area
next to Wash. D.C. There were trails and there were roads. I tried to
stay on the trails as much as possible but sooner or later I had to
use the roads. In my hometown the roads are almost the equivalent of
trails. There is never a problem using them. That is not the case in
suburban areas as many of the roads are unusable by bikes because the
traffic is so heavy. In Fairfax I often had to take to the sidewalks
for safety's sake. I do not think suburban areas for the most part are
very bike friendly unless there are lots of trails. Of course the
trails should go somewhere and not dead end you in the middle of
nowhere.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Freewheeling" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I'm from Northern Virginia, and have ridden roads and trails here for a decade. It has one of the
best trail systems in the country, but I always got nervous negotiating all the places that
crossed roads, especially around Reagan Airport. They may have improved that though. I'm also used
to riding the streets, and I'd prefer being on a bike than in a car in downtown congestion
(although a recumbent isn't the best bike for this application). The best way to get around is a
combination of roads and trails. But you have to know the trails because sometimes they
"disappear" for long stretches, and it's not clear what you need to do to pick up the trail again.
But in general the trail system in Northern Virginia is a huge blessing.

That said, the Baltimore/Annapolis trail system near where Curtis lives (Odenton?) is one of the
worst I've used. You really have to mind your Ps and Qs to use that stretch of trail with all the
road crossings, etc.. The main reason I used it is that it allowed me to go for longish rides from
Savage Mill (where I lived at the time) without getting lost. I was about 6 miles from the
trailhead (as I recall, though I could be wrong about the distance). My biggest problem was
unleashed dogs, though. Not on the trail itself, but on the roads to and from the trail.

Scott, the experience I had cycling around Northern Virginia was surreal. The bike trails I tried to
follow would just peter out and then I would have to hunt for their continuance further on down the
road. Arlington especially was a mess. However, 90% of the time I was on the bike trails and I do
agree with you that it is a great trail system. Eventually I worked my way over to the Washington
and Old Dominion Trail and followed that on out to the end. However, it is no pleasure to cycle on
the roads in Northern Virginia. The traffic is unbelievably heavy. Wash. D.C. must be the Los
Angeles of the East Coast. But thank God for those bike trails.

Local cyclists always have a tremendous advantage over any visitors. They know all the ins and
outs of the trails from experience. I had very detailed maps but it still was not always easy to
navigate my way to where I wanted to go. But mostly I was just exploring the trails. That stretch
that follows along the river with its view of the city is as good as urban cycling ever gets in
my opinion.

I have often thought too that I might very well want to have an upright bike in preference to a
recuumbent for the kind of congestion and traffic conditions that prevail in the inner city and
downtown. I remember some guy from Seattle said pretty much the same thing too. I once spent a
month in Seattle and was downtown almost every day. I did see a few cyclists but never any
recumbents downtown.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

[I am from this area in question and enjoy this trail except for the intersections of a few gravel roads where you must transit the gravel to get to the next section of the trail.

For me, I would not ride on that chunk of Hwy 330 ever. It is a 65 mph area and very busy. No matter how right I am or what my rights are concerning riding on that road, dead is dead.

This trail also has another negitive. There is no trailhead at the northern end, it just stops at the end of a paved road so, to get to it from Marshalltown means riding a highway but, it is much less traveled and not 4 lane. As a cyclist who enjoys trails, I feel we should pick our battles carefully and this is one we should let pass.

Ken

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Stubbe
[I am from this area in question and enjoy this trail except for the intersections of a few gravel roads where you must transit the gravel to get to the next section of the trail.

For me, I would not ride on that chunk of Hwy 330 ever. It is a 65 mph area and very busy. No matter how right I am or what my rights are concerning riding on that road, dead is dead.

You are missing the point entirely. I don't think anyone is arguing that it is a good idea to ride on the roads in quesiton. That doesn't mean there has to be a law against it. The law is not a safety measure. It is meant to be a slap in the face of cyclists by an anti-bike State Senator. If this passes, why would the anti-bike people stop there?

You can pick your battles and I can choose where I spend my bike $. I was planning on RAGBRAI, but not anymore. I thought RAGBRAI had raised bicycle issue awareness in Iowa, but I have seen too many cyclists defending this law. I mostly ride trails myself, but I still think the principle at stake here is important.

FWIW Looks like it might be up for debate next week:

http://www.BIKEIOWA.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=555

John Riley