I hope this Cyclist looking for trouble isn't a CHL

[Selina Kyle]

Will get flamed for this but IMHO bicycles do not belong on most roadways. There should be a minimum speed requirement for all roadways. The vehicle you are operating should be able to consistently maintain that speed. If it can't it doesn't belong on the road.
It amazes me that we don't let dirt bikes, ATVs, and gas powered golf carts use roadways but we let 12 year olds on bicycles on the roads. Simply doesn't make any sense.

Oh my gosh I cannot agree more!!!!! I get really aggravated where we live here in Grapevine, because the city has spent countless dollars on making safe bike trails (paved and off road). Yet so many idiots try and ride on roads where vehicles are doing 40-55 mph, and they often hold up rush hour traffic. The worst is when you get trapped behind them on the dam!

[Selina Kyle]

YOU are the most important person in the country and the rest of us should never forget that.

Actually it has nothing whatsoever to do with me.

However, it does sound like the attitude of someone who mounts a 3 foot horizontal pole on his vehicle.

Now that's a thought. I could mount a 3 ft pole to the side of my truck to help me gauge the distance. I'm sure I'd only hit a few before I got it right. (of course my response is tongue in check).

Here's my ride. I think cyclists will give me 3 ft clearance.

[ Image ]

That's just pure awesome.

[Rusty Wrenches]

I would like to follow him around and see how many traffic laws he violates on his bike. I can understand him wanting to keep cars away but I frequently see bicyclists disobeying traffic laws. It seems many riders only want the laws enforced when it is others breaking the laws.

This applies to most people.

[MaxBerlin]

A cyclist on a roadway is exercising his Constitutional rights just as we CHL holders are.

It would be nice if narrow aim didn't so often coincide with 'narrow minded'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of ... States_law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jmra]

A cyclist on a roadway is exercising his Constitutional rights just as we CHL holders are.

It would be nice if narrow aim didn't so often coincide with 'narrow minded'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of ... States_law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I just read thru the constitution and I didn't see any mention of bicycles. I do not believe a bicyclist has a constitutional right to ride on a roadway designed for the horseless carriage. I think people often confuse a legal activity with a constitutional right.
Using Freedom of Travel as a constitutional right to ride a bicycle on a highway is a huge stretch.

[WildBill]

A cyclist on a roadway is exercising his Constitutional rights just as we CHL holders are.

It would be nice if narrow aim didn't so often coincide with 'narrow minded'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of ... States_law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I just read thru the constitution and I didn't see any mention of bicycles. I do not believe a bicyclist has a constitutional right to ride on a roadway designed for the horseless carriage. I think people often confuse a legal activity with a constitutional right.

Actually, I believe it is a constitutional right to travel [on a public road], but the darn courts have overruled me.

[jmra]

A cyclist on a roadway is exercising his Constitutional rights just as we CHL holders are.

It would be nice if narrow aim didn't so often coincide with 'narrow minded'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of ... States_law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I just read thru the constitution and I didn't see any mention of bicycles. I do not believe a bicyclist has a constitutional right to ride on a roadway designed for the horseless carriage. I think people often confuse a legal activity with a constitutional right.

Actually, I believe it is a constitutional right to travel [on a public road], but the darn courts have overruled me.

I do believe in the right to travel on a public road and I do not have anything against bicycles, but I don't think anyone wants to see a bicycle in a lane of the interstate.

[sugar land dave]

Riding a motorcycle has risks when done on busy roadways. Parachuting has risks associated with jumping out of an airplane. Mountain climbers sometimes perish when attempting climbs. Boaters, water-skiers, hot air ballon participants, anything done in life has risk of some sort, and some things are riskier than others. Free choice plays into these things and among the considerations should be an acceptance of the risks. That doesn't mean that others should go out of their way to increase the risks, but at what point and to what extent should the majority be expected to alter their daily activities to accomodate anothers risky choices?

[srothstein]

Actually, I believe it is a constitutional right to travel [on a public road], but the darn courts have overruled me.

Lats time I did any research on this (and it has been a long while), the courts did find that the right to travel was inherent in the Constitution. This also meant that riding a bicycle was a protected activity since the means of travel must be protected if the right to travel is. They recognized equal access to most roads, except those that had limited access, such as toll roads.

I have to admit that some of those decisions dated back to arguments over whether a driver's license could be required (adopted in Texas in 1936) or whether cars could be banned because they scared horses (much further back than the 30's). I am concerned that some of the courts may have changed their minds since 9-11, given the TSA actions and cases arising from it. I am also concerned that the public in general has accepted that driving is a privilege and not a right, but that is also a separate argument.

I do know that Texas law recognizes the legal authority to ride a bicycle on any public road that is not a limited access highway. It also forbids riding on sidewalks, which pretty much guarantees that they will be in the streets. The law does require them to obey the traffic laws though, and recently Austin has been stopping bicyclists (and pedestrians) and enforcing those laws too. That has not been popular, of course but when is law enforcement ever popular.

[WildBill]

Actually, I believe it is a constitutional right to travel [on a public road], but the darn courts have overruled me.

Lats time I did any research on this (and it has been a long while), the courts did find that the right to travel was inherent in the Constitution. This also meant that riding a bicycle was a protected activity since the means of travel must be protected if the right to travel is. They recognized equal access to most roads, except those that had limited access, such as toll roads.

I have to admit that some of those decisions dated back to arguments over whether a driver's license could be required (adopted in Texas in 1936) or whether cars could be banned because they scared horses (much further back than the 30's). I am concerned that some of the courts may have changed their minds since 9-11, given the TSA actions and cases arising from it. I am also concerned that the public in general has accepted that driving is a privilege and not a right, but that is also a separate argument.

I do know that Texas law recognizes the legal authority to ride a bicycle on any public road that is not a limited access highway. It also forbids riding on sidewalks, which pretty much guarantees that they will be in the streets. The law does require them to obey the traffic laws though, and recently Austin has been stopping bicyclists (and pedestrians) and enforcing those laws too. That has not been popular, of course but when is law enforcement ever popular.

This is drilled into the heads of students when they take driver education and also by the various departments of motor vehicles. I believe that it is a question in the written test for a driving license.

Driving is a Privilege, Not a Right

Driving is not a constitutional right. You get your drivers license based on the skills you have and the rules you agree to follow. After you get your driving license you must continue to demonstrate your ability to drive safely on the road. If you fail to demonstrate this ability, you will be issued traffic tickets, or even have your license suspended or revoked. No one has more right to the road than anyone else. If you're going to drive, you owe it to the other drivers and yourself to operate the vehicle in a safe manner.

https://driversed.com/driving-informati ... right.aspx

[jmra]

Actually, I believe it is a constitutional right to travel [on a public road], but the darn courts have overruled me.

Lats time I did any research on this (and it has been a long while), the courts did find that the right to travel was inherent in the Constitution. This also meant that riding a bicycle was a protected activity since the means of travel must be protected if the right to travel is.

So, riding my atv, go cart, golf cart, or dirt bike down Main St. is a constitutionally protected right? I believe each of those is a means of travel.

[srothstein]

If you follow the logic of many of the 2A rights cases, they use the same path. If I have a right to self-defense, as decided under Heller, do I not have the right to the method of my choice? If I have the recognized right to travel, I must have the right to choose how.

I explained part of it in a pm, but this was research I did for an academy lesson back in 87, so it is real fuzzy now. Back when cars were coming out and scaring horses, some people tried to ban cars. The cases were decided on an equal access/equal protection basis. If it is legal for me to ride a horse drawn wagon, how can it not be legal to ride a car there?

[WildBill]

If you follow the logic of many of the 2A rights cases, they use the same path. If I have a right to self-defense, as decided under Heller, do I not have the right to the method of my choice? If I have the recognized right to travel, I must have the right to choose how.

I explained part of it in a pm, but this was research I did for an academy lesson back in 87, so it is real fuzzy now. Back when cars were coming out and scaring horses, some people tried to ban cars. The cases were decided on an equal access/equal protection basis. If it is legal for me to ride a horse drawn wagon, how can it not be legal to ride a car there?

I remember that there was a law on the books [in California I think] that stated that a person driving a car at night needed someone to carry a lantern warning that a car was coming down the road. As I recall the law stayed on the books until it was finally repealed in the 1960s.

[pops1982]

Will get flamed for this but IMHO bicycles do not belong on most roadways. There should be a minimum speed requirement for all roadways. The vehicle you are operating should be able to consistently maintain that speed. If it can't it doesn't belong on the road.
It amazes me that we don't let dirt bikes, ATVs, and gas powered golf carts use roadways but we let 12 year olds on bicycles on the roads. Simply doesn't make any sense.

[Transplant]

You've got to be suicidal to ride a bike on the roads around here. There aren't even bike lanes on most roads. Every time I see a cyclist in the right lane on curvy streets with cars having to slam on the brakes not to hit them I wonder why they don't pick a safer hobby, or ride somewhere else. Safer hobbies of course would be things like combat photographer, recreational astronaut, helium balloon chair riding, gator wrestling, home based explosives R&D. Etc.

Regarding the cyclist that is in the OP; these activist types that set out to change the world need to wake up and see that the world is the way it is. Trying to force conversations like that with the wrong person is either going to result in this guy getting discovered dead on the side of the road somewhere, or he'll spend all this time yelling about this and no one will listen and he will have wasted his energy instead of doing something good his life. There are worse things in Houston than people giving cyclists 32" instead of 36".