A few weeks ago, 30 customers gathered at the Angry Catfish Bicycle Shop on East 42nd Street to head out on their usual Minneapolis rounds. Like a lot of bike shops, Angry Catfish hosts a weekly “shop ride” where customers, workers or anyone in the neighborhood rides around for fun and community. The typical Angry Catfish ride is about 20 miles at a decent pace, and is a great way to reward regulars for frequenting their LBS (local bike shop).
That night, though, the shop ride took a turn for the weird. The group headed south down the Mississippi River Boulevard as it runs through Minnehaha Park, the most popular park in the city. They came to the roundabout where the Minnehaha Drive meets Minnehaha Parkway, one of the choke points in the system.
According to one south Minneapolis man, astride a Salsa gravel bike at the time, here’s what happened next.
“We try to stick into that bike lane as much as we can,” Reed Osell told me. “You get to the roundabout, and the parkway narrows. There’s not really a shoulder, and historically on group rides, a dozen or more riders stick to the road. Anytime you’re around Sea Salt [café] and Minnehaha Falls, it’s very busy. There are a lot of people walking.”
Minneapolis’ off-street bike trails are not wide by international standards, and a two-way trail like the one running through the park doesn’t allow much leeway. It only takes a jogger, a dog on a leash, or (worst of all) a rented four-passenger pedal cart to make trails practically useless for groups of cyclists.
“Folks who don’t live around the area might not know [the rules], but we are a bit more risk averse,” Osell explained. “[So] we bike onto the road, about 15 mph, when we hear someone yelling though a PA speaker. I glanced back a couple times, quickly saw a park patrol car and realize the sounds were coming from him. I was trying to to figure it out: he was saying “Everyone get in single file!’”
[image_credit]Bill Lindeke[/image_credit][image_caption]]The spot in question where Minneapolis Park Patrol has been enforcing the single-file rule.[/image_caption]
“I don’t see any lights, and there was no other cars behind him,” Osell continued. “We got in single-file for a majority of that section, but he never passed us. No other vehicle passed us. Eventually we got back by the dog park [about half a mile], and he stopped following us.”
This experience has happened more than once this summer Minneapolis parkways: police yelling at cyclists on parkways to get in line. One of the cyclists working at the rear of the group ride, “marshaling” to alleviate conflicts with motorists, talked to the officer, who rudimentarily cited a city ordinance. Everyone left confused.
Ordinance dissonance
I looked into it, and it turns out that the fault didn’t lie with the officer that day (though surely they could have found better uses for their time). The problem is a 50-year-old Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) rule that’s still on the books that though long out-of-date. According to Robin Smothers, who does communication for the MPRB, the policy states:
“Every person operating a bicycle upon a parkway or designated bicycle path shall ride as near the right side of the parkway or designated bicycle path as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or bicycle or one proceeding in the same direction. Persons riding bicycles upon a parkway or designated bicycle path shall not ride two (2) abreast except for parkways when set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.”
Smothers also cited the state law as a reference, but in that case, the rules are a bit different. State statue 169.222 dictates: “persons riding bicycles upon a roadway or shoulder shall not ride more than two abreast, shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.”
Even Dorian Grilley, executive director of advocacy group BikeMN, admits that the law is “a bit fuzzy” and could certainly be clarified. (See also the recent change to state law on bicycle positioning within lanes.) But he added a caveat pertaining to another other state law that requires three feet of space for drivers to safely overtake a cyclist.
“On a local street, it doesn’t matter if bicyclists are riding single file or two abreast,” Grilley explained. “A 7- or 8-foot-wide car in a 10- or 12-foot driving lane must enter the other lane to pass a 3-foot-wide bicyclist riding 3 feet from the edge by 3 feet, either way.”
What are parkways for?
Minneapolis’ parkway system is a tremendous legacy asset to the entire city, but they still occupy a vague place in the transportation network. Should they be designed for slow-paced recreation, or rush hour commuting? Is it possible to design a street that serves both needs, or should the MPRB choose one of these groups to better serve?
A lot depends on how you answer the question, and issues like speed limits, right-of-way fights, and partial “closure” of streets like Minnehaha Parkway to cars have long been a political fight at Park Board meetings.
My take is that if any Minneapolis streets should allow cyclists to “take the lane” and calm traffic, 20-mph recreational parkways running through the nation’s leading park system are the place. Minnehaha Drive, the West River Road, Victory Memorial Drive and a half dozen other parkways full of joggers, kids and dogs are the last places where drivers should be passing cyclists at excessive speed.
That said, I readily admit that this isn’t that big a deal. Even Osell admits that they were not put out by the encounter, and mostly confused by the experience. Only a fool would blow this situation out of proportion.
By the way, I recently learned a fun fact: when the German army occupied the Netherlands during World War II, they also implemented a single-file cycling rule. Transportation historian Carlton Reid describes what happened in 1940s Holland (emphasis mine):
“Dutch cyclists were used to ruling the road, and they continued to ride in front of motor vehicles, even though the motor vehicles now contained Nazi soldiers. This came to a head in the year after the invasion, with cyclists ordered to keep their hands on their handlebars at all times, not to ride two-abreast, and to cede priority to motorists at junctions.”
(These new rules, along with German confiscations of people’s bikes, did not sit well with the Dutch, though they had little choice in the matter.)
In other words, maybe it’s time for the MPRB to choose a different path, allocate their resources more carefully, and change their backward-looking rule. Enforcing a policy that clashes with both state law and common sense seems fruitless; I can think of fewer less effective policing tasks, other than that of the Sisyphean traffic cops waving flashlights at drivers in the MSP Airport pickup lanes.
“It was a beautiful evening,” Reed Osell said, describing the Angry Catfish ride. “Minnehaha Falls was busy, but the parkway itself wasn’t. There weren’t many cars along that whole stretch, we saw maybe 2-3 oncoming vehicles. What difference does it make if we’re single file or not?”
The last thing we need in Minneapolis is cops chasing packs of cyclists with megaphones, yelling into the void.
It’s hard to imagine anything I’d like to do less on a bicycle than ride the roads of south minneapolis in a huge group but clearly it appeals to many around here. That said, i’d like to thank the bizarre cyclists of Minneapolis for taking the heat off of us skateboarders. The cops are your problem now
It is certainly ridiculous that 1) the cop felt inclined to enforce the ordinance, and 2) that it exists in the first place.
Perhaps the park board would consider eliminating it to match the 2-abreast state law.
Having said that, as an avid cyclist, the parkways are terrible for cycling. They have no shoulder, and few cyclists can maintain a 20mph pace. Cars then conduct dangerous passes.
But really, the laws as they are don’t fit current cycling trends. Many bike pathas are painted to indicate a 10mph speed limit; which, if enforced would force all but the most leisurely cyclists onto roads which, again, are unsafe because of limited room for passing.
It’s an age-old tension that goes all the way back to the early 1900s, when the first roads for cars were created. The same path-versus-road debate has been recurring, ever since.
Well if it’s an ordinance, then yeah, they probably are going to enforce it. Also you would be surprised at the complaints people make to law enforcement on these matters.
My overall reaction to this article on a Friday evening after a long week: ‘I can’t.’ But it did provide some comic relief.
Nothing about a pack of unskilled cyclists wandering multi-abreast would “calm traffic” . That’s a level of arrogance that’s hard to measure. I failed to see why restricting cyclists to a single file line is a serious hardship, especially when in mixed traffic. Bicyclists consistently demonstrate horrific skills, core manners, and a lot of entitled arrogance. The lack of grasp on reality this author demonstrates proves that point
Calming the traffic this way, I suspect, will only aggravate those drivers prone to road rage. With a much larger vehicle, there is little doubt that they could win any confrontation they decide to enter. This is aside from the fact that many now are armed and just itching for an excuse to exercise their second amendment rights.
During my time as a bicyclist, in the days before all these bike lanes, I rode with the attitude that every car was my potential killer and I was the one who needed to keep tabs on where they were and where they were going, so that I could stay out of their way while going to where I wanted to go. Even in situations where I legally had the right of way, I decided that this was not a hill on which I was willing to die. Step aside and live to ride another day. Riding to stay safe doesn’t slow one down much at all.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the existing law. The parkways aren’t just for bikes. They are also for cars. Bike riders should be riding on the bike paths or the side of the street so that cars can pass.
If you and your vehicle passenger get to sit side-by-side while driving down a Minneapolis parkway, enjoying the views and your conversation, why shouldn’t bicyclists enjoy the same privilege? I can’t talk to someone who’s bicycling behind me without taking my eyes off the road in front of me, which is unsafe.
The key word you used is “passenger” your example is not relevant. Would you like 2 cars driving side by side on the parkway? I think not.
There are two lanes on the parkway, one in each direction. Two bicycles can easily fit side by side in a lane. Two cars cannot. Further, state law allows for cyclists to ride side by side. Having different rules on a small subset of roads is confusing and a little ridiculous.
Except for thise pesky little rules pertaining to bicycles….. Subd. 4.Riding rules.
(a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations: (c) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway or shoulder shall not ride more than two abreast and shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.
Two abreast in a single lane, there you have it exactly. Considering the bicyclists are themselves vehicular “traffic,” then they are by definition not impeding the reasonable flow of traffic on a roadway signed for a limit of 20 mph.
And here YOU have it! “and shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic”
Brian, no law grants anyone the right to be a hazard to anyone else. Much the same way going the speed limit can be reckless under some circumstances, riding side by side can create hazards for cyclists and others in some scenarios. The law may allow for side by side riding but doesn’t indemnify you from any hazards you create by doing so… in the real world you are actually required to use some judgement, and that judgement has to be reasonable.
In a time when I94 between MPLS & St. Paul is being reimagined as a smaller boulevard in place of an interstate freeway, I dream that the park board will convert the MPLS Parkway system from shared use to a pedestrian / bike only boulevard. A guy can dream, right?
Well, I have to echo Lindeke’s statement that this doesn’t sound like a big deal, but the cyclists confusion here can be described as an effect of the ongoing sense of entitlement and privilege that so many cyclists seem to carry around. What’s confusing about being told to ride in a single file? What’s confusing about an ordinance that tells you to ride in single file? This can only be “confusing” if you ride around assuming you’re entitled to ride wherever you want and take up an entire traffic lane. It’s only confusing if you assume that anyone else using the same parkway can be expected to joyfully ride behind you going at least 5mph slower than they’re entitled to drive at.
So yes, a bunch of people should be able to enjoy a group ride on the parkway, but that doesn’t mean they get to take it over.
As for single file riding, I’ve seen at least three little crashes over the years caused by cyclists riding side by side on the bike trails. As Lindeke points out our trails aren’t that wide and two people riding abreast create crunch points and eliminate maneuvering space that may be needed unexpectedly. Oddly enough all three crashes involved children on bikes who ran out of space to maneuver (no serious injuries). We all ride side by side on occasion, but you have to be aware of congestion and single up is someone comes up behind you or approaches from the opposite direction.
As for traffic calming on streets… let’s be clear: It is NOT your job as a cyclist to “calm” traffic and using cyclists to calm traffic is obtuse and dangerous. Putting yourself on a 50lb bike in front of a 2k+ pound vehicle that’s propelled by a 200 horsepower engine being driven by human beings that routinely crash into everything from light posts to other vehicles is NOT the way to “calm” traffic… even if you do it in a group.
The not so subtle suggestion that single file ordinances in MPLS are akin to Nazism is way 0ver the top; not funny in an era when actual Fascists tried to overthrow our government and overturn an election. And the idea that being asked to ride bicycles single file is in any way comparable to the holocaust or Nazi occupation is actually obscene. This gives us a window into the cyclists mentality that soooo many people despise.
I’m not suggesting that single file rules need to be enforced religiously all the time, but they are not actually antiquated and they do serve a useful safety purpose. We all want to enjoy our bike rides but our parkways are a shared resource.
What is the correct way to calm traffic, given that it seemingly refuses to do so on its own?
Dare we not speak of the privilege inherent in the line of thinking that, because one is driving a motor vehicle, that they should not at any point in their journey be forced to encounter other road users who cause them to apply their brakes and critical thinking skills to safely navigate a traffic conflict? By this logic, speeders/road ragers on I-35 heading Up North for the weekend are entitled to force slower, local drivers off of the Interstate entirely, “I was obstructed and couldn’t wait until it was safe to pass! They just gotta go.”
Or the privilege inherent in the line of thinking that, it’s “a 2k+ pound vehicle that’s propelled by a 200 horsepower engine,” with the apparent implication that the vehicle is therefore impossible to control and thus collisions are inevitable, so who in their right mind would get in front of one? See again: brakes.
If this law not antiquated, and if there is a safety component to it, then why is the logic limited to cyclists? Many road collisions occur between vehicles during overtaking maneuvers, and it’s so awkward to come across another pedestrian while walking and do that silly little dance when you don’t know whether to pass on the right or left. I propose that the same logic apply to all road users: Narrow all multi-lane roads to two lanes, one for each direction, and eliminate bike lanes (the law says all bicycles and motor vehicles are basically the same anyway). Pedestrians must now also navigate all sidewalks, crosswalks, and MPRB pathways as if they were quails.
Sam, I’m afraid your comment is riddled with absurdities. Everyone who drives a motorized vehicles routinely uses their brakes so your assumption in that regard is clearly ridiculous. Nor is anyone demanding an end to braking in any fashion, even race cars are equipped with brakes and racers use them. Besides, my experience is that many cyclists are far more averse to using their brakes than are many drivers; those jokers using aero bars can’t even reach their brakes if they have to in a pinch.
The fact that bicycles weight around 50 lbs while cars weigh 2k+ is a physical reality… if you don’t understand the implications of being run over by a 2klb vehicle I’m afraid I can’t help you. Accidents and collisions aren’t expressions of privilege, they’re inherent features of all transportation systems, even pedestrians accidently bump into each other once and while. Your “logic” only applies in some alternate reality wherein no collisions ever occur and/or all collisions are equal. No one ever jumps out of a car after crushing a cyclists and declares they were “entitled” to do that because they shouldn’t ever have to use their brakes.
We are all subject to traffic laws and ordinances, even pedestrians are not supposed to walk against “don’t walk” signals at intersections and they’re not supposed to jaywalk. The idea that a single file requirement for cyclists violates some kind of legal or even rational logic is simply absurd. Laws and regulations are routinely tailored for specific and unique circumstances and scenarios. I know it’s a subtle difference but if you look really really really hard it is possible to note the difference between someone on a two wheel bicycle that weighs 50 lbs and someone sitting behind a 200 horse power engine inside a 2,000 vehicle with 4 wheels. The idea that everyone should be subject to the exact same laws and expectation regardless of transit mode is the illogical idea here. The whole point of human legislation is that it recognizes obvious differences between scenarios and circumstances in the real world. You would have us ignore those differences and pretend there’s no difference between a bicycle and a cement truck? OK then.
In summation, the idea that any law or ordinance specifically designed for bicycles must be antiquated simply because it’s specifically designed for bicycles is simply absurd. By YOUR logic all bicycles should be required to have functioning brake lights, turn signals, and license plates, and ALL riders should carry a license right?
“This can only be “confusing” if you ride around assuming you’re entitled to ride wherever you want and take up an entire traffic lane.”
This is exactly correct. Cyclists are entitled to take the lane in state law. That the park board has different rules on a handful of roads is a clear source of confusion.
In point of fact Brian there is absolutely no language in the statute granting a cyclist the right to “take” lanes or roadways, much less take them away from any other user for their own exclusive use. Here’s a link to the relevant statute: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/169.222
The whole “you know who else made people ride single file?” argument made me laugh out loud. OK, maybe it was just a snort, but still trying to link Minneapolis park police to Nazis? Seems a bit much.
By the way, I’m not that competent of a legal researcher, but I think the cycling statute has been changed in the last 3-4 years. I think the part that says cyclists can’t ride more than two abreast used to require single file and riding as far to the right as practicable. I may be wrong but I could swear the language has changed that could cause some confusion. I think the city ordinance used to be the same as the State Statute.
I disagree with the apparent premise that it should be OK for cyclists to ride abreast. Unless I’m mistaken, there’s state law prohibiting it on regular roadways, for good reason. A similar provision applies to motorcycles.
I cite the state law in the article, David. You are indeed mistaken.
I stand corrected, although I must point out that a motorist approaching or perhaps passing bicyclists riding abreast must deal with a configuration more enigmatic than one in single file.
Also, if speed limits are raised on bikeways, it makes sense to keep the single file rule so that faster cyclists can pass slow ones without difficulty.
It’s important to note that MPLS cops have acknowledged the fact that they do not and cannot enforce the 10mph speed limit on the bike paths. This fact was revealed a few years ago when an increase to 15mph was proposed. Anyone who rides on those bikeways well knows that a majority of cyclist not to mention the plethora of other e-motor scooters and what-not’s routinely “speed” on the bikeways.
Point being… in fact and practice your “passing” scenario is a actually routine occurrence, so yes, that’s another perfectly legitimate reason to retain the single-file rule. This is perfectly consistent with traffic rules elsewhere requiring slower traffic to keep to the right.
What’s the matter riding in single file until the path widens, or you get a dedicated bike lane on the road? Many bicyclists are ignorant asses who think they own everything to ride on. Many don’t even like riding in designated bike lanes or paths made just for them! They’d rather make trouble for motorists by weaving out in front of them. They just don’t respect the road. Sometimes I think some just want to get hit so they can sue the crap out people.
Seriously? I am an avid biker, and I occasionally for various reasons leave a bike path for a parkway street. When I do, I consider myself a guest to the cars, and I ride extremely cautiously and respectfully to assure them I am their guest. The idea of a group of bikers taking the whole street, particularly in a high-volume area, strikes me as two-wheel arrogance. C’mon bikers, there is plenty of room for everyone, and we can all share the trails and streets respectfully.
We weren’t riding in any manner that would impede or block traffic. We took up no more space on the road as any full size car would.
I don’t believe that bikes are “guests” on a road. They are equally as entitled to use the road as cars are. When I ride on the road I recognize that I have just as much right to be there as anyone in a car. That’s not being entitled, that’s being equal.
The problem is a bike is not the size of a full size car and when riding 3-4 bikes wide take up more room than you think you’re entitled to. Cars are driving one car wide and not inhibiting others. Why do cyclists think they can ride 3-4 bikes wide and dictate the use of the road by others.
Share the road , be considerate of others ….. it’s not that hard.
Just a note – I like enforcing this antiquated rule. I live near Lyndale and Minnehaha parkway. We have bike lanes on the parkway that go under the Lyndale avenue bridge. They get two way bike lanes. The walkers get one lane – no room for two people walking side by side or a dog. Nonetheless, bikers take the middle of the parkway. Screw drivers. Screw people walking dogs. They take the sidewalk too. I spend a long time in a car trying to pass them safely. Then, come to a stop light, they pass me on the right and go through the stop light. They ignore every kind of traffic rule. We spend tons for bike lanes, lose the ability to have more than one lane of car traffic, and it is NEVER enough. We are not Denmark. We are not seattle. We have fearsome, snow and ice winters in which no bike lanes are used. This is not a situation of “we build it and they will come”. There are other people than bikers in the universe.
So basically a group of bike riders who find the bike paths to pedestrian are whining because they are hogging the road and are asked not to ?
The fact that cyclists aren’t allowed to have conversations while motorists can is preferential treatment that goes against our city’s climate goals. Besides, it’s an antisocial policy. Motorists on the parkway should, in the rare case they are stuck behind such a group, just accept they got unlucky and wait a bit.
People in this comments section can strawman all they want about the personal character of cyclists – but that doesn’t change the fact that cars make our city a worse place and bicycles make it a better one. We need our laws, even minor ones, to reflect this.
Um, no… your right to use public streets isn’t a matter of luck. A cyclist doesn’t have to get lucky to ride on a street therefore no motorist should have to rely on “luck” to drive on a parkway. Cyclists simply have no “right” to take over an entire street or parkway without some kind of parade or event permit.
“Cyclists simply have no “right” to take over an entire street or parkway”
Yet cyclists do have a right to use a street or parkway, including taking the lane, like any other vehicle. The statute that says cyclists should stay as far right as practicable leaves it up to the judgement of the cyclist just how far right that is. A driver behind them might disagree about that position, but it is up to the cyclist, not the driver.
Joanne Roberts comment made the most sense of all that I read so far. I am in agreement that when I’m on my bike on the road, I have a rear view mirror and while “share the road” is supposed to be the rule, there does come a responsibility with that. I make sure that I’m aware of what’s going on ahead of me and behind me. If a car is coming, I move over. I live in the Arrowhead of Notheastern MN and the same type of behavior by cyclists happens on Hwy 61 along Lake Superior, as well as the back roads. My encounters are me, in a dump truck, and cyclists on narrow shoulders, or tooling along the gravel roads, without the aforementioned rear view mirror. It’s not a competition, but I know who would win. I just got back into cycling after a 40+ year hiatus. I inquire of my friends that have been cycling in that period, as bike paths, singletracks, etc. have sprung up, as to what are the rules of etiquette. I want to be in the group following them. Like my hero, Red Green says, “We’re all in this together”
Riding single file is a courtesy for sharing crowded paths. As one who uses the very crowded paths in Saint Paul, I wish everyone would show courtesy – runners, cyclists, walkers, skaters, etc. and form a single file whenever someone is approaching from opposite direction. It is not an antiquated ordinance at all.
Just a couple more observations: First, it’s clear from the photo that the cyclists are actually taking over the entire street/parkway; there’s absolutely no reason for them to assume they’re entitled to do that and it disregards other traffic, this would interfere with traffic in both directions.
Regarding the police response: This actually looks a lot like the old “critical mass” demonstrations back in the 90’s that ended up being controversial, so who knows how the cops interpreted the scenario? Also… it’s likely your dealing with cops who’ve responded to their fair share of fatal and serious accidents along the parkways, so their perspective regarding traffic conflicts, “calming” etc. and safety may be little different than happy-go-lucky cyclists out for a evening ride.
Finally, if you ride the parkways like I do during the weekday, around mid-morning or so… you will come across large groups of seniors and children on organized bike rides around the lakes and parkways. They ride in single file more or less without difficulty… if they THEY can do it so can these cyclists.
The law is a good one and I’m glad the officer enforced it. Typical of bikers and this writer that they think all rules are meant to be broken or bent. If you don’t think it’s a big deal why write an article about it knowing that the press position you have makes it a big deal.
I recently moved to my county seat town of Albert Lea. Within the past few years, the City created quite a few dedicated bicycle lanes, mostly along the most heavily traveled streets. This was a great idea, and it fit well with Albert Lea’s designation as a Blue Zones community; promoting wellness and healthful choices, for a longer and better life. In fact, Albert Lea was one of the first five cities in America to be so honored.
Unfortunately, city leaders didn’t seem to take all that into consideration when they created the bike lanes. The majority of them end abruptly, aren’t clearly or properly marked, or they tend to lead bicyclists into potentially hazardous situations. Albert Lea is a pretty, if not scenic, town and an increasing number of people live, work, and visit here for that very reason. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that these facts will inevitably come into conflict, and lead to tragedy. It’s just a matter of time before a distracted (or confused, or lost) motorist does something perfectly legal, and winds up killing someone. So much for the Blue Zone.
Up to now, I had been somewhat aware of all this – but I didn’t think much about it, and I didn’t much care. Unfortunately, that seems to perfectly describe Albert Lea’s attitude about this issue: I see it, I know it, and I don’t really care. Let it be someone else’s problem! However, I live here now; I’m a homeowner (and a bicyclist) and I’m not going to adopt that attitude. I intend to take on this issue, to own it, and make it my problem. If Albert Lea is really serious about being a Blue Zones community, it needs to really BE one, and not just claim the fame.
What’s more, this is not a difficult matter to fix. It just needs to matter more. Sometimes, that’s what’s difficult.
Another solution might be to offer/require some kind of permit for large groups of cyclists who want to ride in the parkways. They could file a route plan, the city could put up barricades on either end of the route, and then cyclists could take up as much space as they want and ride an whatever speed they choose. Motorists wouldn’t get stuck behind the group because they could detour around the route. This is what we’d do if a large group of cyclists or runners wanted to use the parkway for a race of some kind. I doubt this would be a popular solution among cyclists but it may be that THIS group is just too large to be accommodated under “normal” circumstances.
Regardless of the specific bike laws, police do have the authority to direct a group of cyclists to ride single file, or stop, or get off the road. I’m not really sure what the point of this article was, other than to drum up comment engagement.
The main problem is the bike ride that Lindenke describes is an un-organized, informal, probably leaderless activity.
The Metro area has two non-profit bike clubs with dues-paying members who lead organized, scheduled bike rides with designated leaders. We ride less-traveled city and county roads often two or even three abreast. However, the rule is that as soon as a bicyclist sees a motorized vehicle gaining from behind, the bicyclist yells “car back” which is repeated up the line as we all arrange ourselves into a single file. The car passes and we regroup. When vehicle traffic is constant, we ride single file automatically.
If we are on a bike path riding even one abreast and see either a pedestrian or biker approaching, the call is “hiker (or biker) up” and we all move to the right for mutual safe passing.
I stopped when I read this: ( . . . the speed limit on South Minnehaha Drive is 20 miles per hour, as it is on every Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board parkway.)
Really? Where are those posted 20 mph speed limit signs? How about a photo of one of those signs! I suspect a surprise to many drivers.
The parkway speed limit changed from 25mph to 20mph on January 1, 2022. You can see the 20mph signs on Google Maps if the images have been updated after early 2022. For instance, you can see one where W. Bde Make Ska Parkway and W 36th intersect, near the Bakken Museum.
You do make another point though, the parkways do not have many speed limit signs. I am not sure if the Lake Harriet parkway has any.
Peggy, default speed limits aren’t posted. The default speed limit in MPLS and St. Paul has been 20 for a couple years now, part of the 20 is plenty movement. I don’t know how many drivers this surprises but you’ll only see speed limit where there are exceptions to the rule.
I live by Minnehaha Parkway and drive on the River Road all the time. The 20mph speed limit is clearly marked, with signs all up and down both roadways. I’m appalled that this is news to you. Don’t you look at the street signs? Good heavens. This is basic stuff.
I’m making a large financial contribution to MinnPost on the day they part ways with the ridiculous Bill Lindeke.
Just a final note about this: “taking of lanes” language you see in these discussions. It’s important to note that this language originates with a defunct style of cycling that was promoted in the cycling community back in the 80’s and 90’s. A style of cycling called “vehicular riding” or “bike driving” emerged from bogus research of the era that concluded that riding in traffic was actually safer than separate or dedicated bike lanes. Despite the fact that this assumption defies common sense, it was heavily promoted and adopted within the “serious” cycling community at the time, and that mentality is still with us among some cyclists today. Vehicular riding remains in practice for some just out of habit, and for others who haven’t heard that the “science” has been discredited. It is now well known that separate bike lanes are much safer than riding in traffic as-if you are motorized vehicle.
There are few observations about vehicular riding (VR) that need be kept in mind. First, the principles of VR were not and are not codified in law. Of course cyclists are entitled to ride on public streets, but there is no: “taking” language in the statutes that permits or endorses the exclusive capture of entire lanes regardless of other traffic. Streets and roads are shared traffic spaces, they don’t belong to whoever get’s there first; cyclists and motorized traffic can use the same streets, but the physical differences between a bicycle and a motor vehicle have to be recognized.
The law does allow cyclists who need to make left hand turns cross traffic and use turns lanes, and you will see signs here and there granting cyclists the right to use entire lanes, but as a general rule cyclists are supposed to ride as far to the right as practicable. That doesn’t mean the cyclists gets ride wherever they choose; yes it’s a matter of judgement but the law actually assumes and requires that in matters of judgement, good judgement is to be exercised. The term: “practicable” doesn’t mean you get ride stupidly or dangerously.
Speaking of physical differences it’s important to note that the VR assumptions and practices of the 80’s and 90’s probably lead to a significant number of injuries and fatalities among cyclists. US cyclists have comparably higher numbers of cycling accidents and fatalities than comparable countries like those in Europe and while there are several contributing factors, the practice of riding among motor vehicles rather than in a separate bike lane undoubtedly contributed to crashes and fatalities. One’s “right” to ride on the street doesn’t create a protective forcefield capable of withstanding a 2k lb vehicles propelled by 200 horse power engines. When privilege and entitlement meet the laws of physics it can be a rude awakening. This doesn’t mean cyclists must ride in fear and veneration of motorized traffic, but common sense dictates that you respect the inherent dangers of putting different types of traffic in the same space. Ask a pedestrian how they feel about cyclists on sidewalks for instance.
Finally just a note about the idea of cyclists “calming” traffic. I think it’s obvious that putting people in harms way in a dangerous attempt to slow down traffic is a recipe for death and injury right? Again, this idea basically emerges from academic discussions and “design” aficionados who have a tendency to substitute theory for physical reality. In theory a bicycle in the street can force car to drive at a slower speed. It’s also a a vestige of the old VR mentality that prompted the “critical mass” demonstrations in the 90’s. The problem is cars are driven (still for the most part) by human beings who are definitely NOT “calmed” by slow traffic and anything that causes it. Cyclists in the street slowing down traffic tend to have the opposite of a “calming” effect on drivers even if they manage to slow the speeds. At any rate, if the speed limit is 20, who put you in charge of slowing it down to 10 or 15?