BIKE: Permission to use the roadways

[Mike Dahmus]

On 07:18 AM 1/3/2004 -0800, Dan Connelly wrote:
>Mike Dahmus wrote:
> > You need permission to have a parade.
>
>What's a parade?
>
>Clearly traffic jams of motor vehicles are not parades.

True. Neither are traffic jams of cyclists.

>A parade typically involves multiple vehicles, claiming temporary
>exclusive access to the road, otherwise violating vehicle code.
>(failing to keep to the right despite substandard speed, failing
>to stop at stop signs and signals, failing to yield to pedestrians
>at cross-walks, etc).  They therefore require extraordinary privlege,
>and therefore, special permission.

True. Most huge group rides satisfy one or more of these criteria. The 
Jingle Bell ride definitely did, at least the part I saw.

>Yet parade ordinances have been used in the SF Bay area to
>restrict public rides (centuries, etc), despite the fact that
>in these events riders are fully expected to follow vehicle code.

"fully expected" is not a rational way to run the roadways. I've observed a 
few group rides while on my bike and in my car, and in most instances at 
least one traffic law was broken by the group (keeping together across 
stop-signs/traffic-lights; riding more than two abreast; etc.)

>No special exceptions are needed or requested.  What makes these
>"parades", but if a Stanford football game clogs the roads (fully
>anticipated), it is not a parade?   No, the cycling event is not
>a parade any more than rush hour is a parade.  The fact that riders
>pay the organizers is hardly relevent.

The fact that the definition can be misused on occasion does not mean it 
was misused in this instance. If 1000 Corvette owners were going to slowly 
proceed on a route around the city, I would damn well want a cop at the 
front of it directing traffic.


Mike Dahmus
mdahmus