This is part of long-standing tension between mountain biking and other trail users in Marin. Odd that modern mountain biking was invented in Marin, but there are no dedicated trails (and very few single track trails at all) available to bikers.
And for the record, 15 mph is slow. 5 is really, really slow.
15mph might be slow to a racer or hobbyist who does regular long distance riding, but it's about typical for commuters and the very casual end of hobbyists. Maybe it's slow downhill. It's definitely not slow to pedestrians: a collision with a cyclist going 15 mph can be quite injurious.
If self-driving cars become ubiquitous in large cities, it is likely that one of the large side effects will be more regulation for bikes, scooters, longboards (electric or not), etc.
When self driving cars start to become a normal thing, accidents with pedestrians or other cars won't be very likely to happen. But accidents with bored teenagers on small electric motorcycles or longboards... those will be an issue.
Biking is much more legislated in cities like Tokyo than San Francisco, and I expect the latter to follow the former. I don't think the "millenials" of 2040 will be riding their bike much.
I don't see where this argument is coming from. There's no reason why self-driving cars can't be as or more capable at interacting with cyclists than human-driven cars.
Even if issues with self-driving cars did require new regulation, there's no reason that regulation should favor the cars. Cities and their streets are managed by democratically elected governments. If people like cycling -- and many of us do -- then we can construct the regulatory and physical infrastructure to support it.
> If self-driving cars become ubiquitous in large cities, it is likely that one of the large side effects will be more regulation for bikes, scooters, longboards (electric or not), etc.
Irrespective of any s of-driving cars, it's a near certainty that the California mindset of 'regulate everything and we can create a safe utopia' will result in more regulation for non-car personal transportation.
The article title says "bike trails", but it says "shared trails" in the body. I can understand limits on shared paths, but it's hard to see the point on bike only ones?
"having points put on their license" Do you need a bike license in SF?
Where I am, bicycle infractions will land you demerit points on your drivers license.
Which leads to awkward things like being fines for riding a bicycle drunk, losing your car license from it, but still being able to ride your bike because you don't need a car license for that.
There are very few if any bike-only trails in the Marin public open spaces. Generally there are hiking only, hiking/horse and hiking/horse/bike trails. There's no horse-only or bike-only or horse/bike trails.
From my experience you will not receive points marked against you on your license. I received a ticket for going through a red light on my bike in California. The infraction code used for a bike is the same as a car. The officer noted on the ticket that it was a bike offense and as a result I did not receive any marks against me at the CA DMV and the fee was nearly halved. Had the officer not made the distinction between bike and car I may have received points against my license. Unfortunately that clerical error seems likely to happen frequently.
Without also requiring bikes to come with speedometers* I think this is absurd. The whole reason speed limits for motor vehicles is a reasonable concept (regardless of the speed limit itself being reasonable) is that all motor vehicles made since about 1910 have had them a speedometer. Of course you can tell if you're moving 30 MPH versus 15 MPH, but speeds marginally faster than 15 MPH just don't feel significantly faster. Without the ability to see your speed, and more importantly, the expectation that everyone on the trail can know their own speed accurately, this smells of an easy cash grab by law enforcement. I'm not even saying I think speeding on a bike on a mountain trail is safe or a good idea. I just think it's unfair to enforce something like this if your average person isn't going to be able to make sure they're complying like your average driver of a car can. If no one mountain bikes without a speedometer then I suppose my point is moot, but I'm not a mountain biker so I wouldn't know.
*A quick search on Amazon reveals many for less than $20, but I've never seen a bike sold with one attached.
There are weight limits on many bridges yet pickup trucks are sold without a built in scale. Basically, if you think you might be breaking the law, it's up to you to figure it out.
I ride very causally, and use an App to measure my ride. From that, I know I average around 10mph when riding with my spouse. It's not hard to extrapolate and figure out where the limit is.
Smartphones with GPS can also help in ascertaining groundspeed. I would imagine it would make sense to only ticket those coming down bends and turns recklessly where they could easily barrel into a ped.
The whole reason speed limits for motor vehicles is a reasonable concept is that the majority of them weigh more than a ton. Applying similar logic to bicycles is asinine.
Hikers are erratic. It's common when a person is walking to see something interesting and immediately walk towards it. It's Nature, and you are there to see stuff, right? (I catch myself almost doing this on a nearby shared use trail. I only avoid doing this because I'm aware of the challenges bikers face).
Expecting hikers to not behave like humans is foolish. 5mph really is about right for passing someone.
This is nothing new in CA. I mountain bike at Saratoga Gap, which has had a 15mph speed limit for bikes for years. The only place they really enforce it is at the base of a very wide hill, where visibility is fantastic, so everyone goes over 15mph. I got a ticket there on my bike, doing 19mph.
There are a lot of fire roads on Mt. Tam and in the Marin open spaces that are shared and are totally safe to go more than 15 mph on, although honestly it varies a lot on how windy the road is and what the visibility is. There are also a few narrow trails that are shared and 15 mph seems pretty fast to be going on those.
Seems like maybe this should be a 20 or even 25 mph speed limit on the fire roads and then a 10 mph speed limit on the narrow trails? Or they should just make some of the fire roads bike only. There are tons of fire roads out there, it seems like it wouldn't be that hard to find some to dedicate to mountain biking. There are even some that already have parallel hiking-only or hiking/horse trails.
P.S. don't ride your bike on hiking only trails. There are bikers who do this (a small minority, but you end up being judged by the worst members of your community, sorry, that's life). This is a dick move, not only because it's dangerous, but because bikes can really tear the trails up and cause erosion.
Cops travel at the speed of light via radio, and on trails, they ride bikes. It's usually park rangers handing out the tickets and cops only come if you're being difficult.
[+] [-] ryandamm|9 years ago|reply
And for the record, 15 mph is slow. 5 is really, really slow.
[+] [-] sidlls|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mc32|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] r00fus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GuiA|9 years ago|reply
When self driving cars start to become a normal thing, accidents with pedestrians or other cars won't be very likely to happen. But accidents with bored teenagers on small electric motorcycles or longboards... those will be an issue.
Biking is much more legislated in cities like Tokyo than San Francisco, and I expect the latter to follow the former. I don't think the "millenials" of 2040 will be riding their bike much.
[+] [-] davmre|9 years ago|reply
Even if issues with self-driving cars did require new regulation, there's no reason that regulation should favor the cars. Cities and their streets are managed by democratically elected governments. If people like cycling -- and many of us do -- then we can construct the regulatory and physical infrastructure to support it.
[+] [-] maxerickson|9 years ago|reply
It'll be a long time before buildings are reclaiming space taken by streets.
[+] [-] djrogers|9 years ago|reply
Irrespective of any s of-driving cars, it's a near certainty that the California mindset of 'regulate everything and we can create a safe utopia' will result in more regulation for non-car personal transportation.
[+] [-] ChoGGi|9 years ago|reply
"having points put on their license" Do you need a bike license in SF?
[+] [-] ehnto|9 years ago|reply
Which leads to awkward things like being fines for riding a bicycle drunk, losing your car license from it, but still being able to ride your bike because you don't need a car license for that.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] aaronbwebber|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] loeg|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ntumlin|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jakehilborn|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] careersuicide|9 years ago|reply
*A quick search on Amazon reveals many for less than $20, but I've never seen a bike sold with one attached.
[+] [-] cjensen|9 years ago|reply
I ride very causally, and use an App to measure my ride. From that, I know I average around 10mph when riding with my spouse. It's not hard to extrapolate and figure out where the limit is.
[+] [-] mc32|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xADEADBEE|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] explainthisth|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lsllc|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cjensen|9 years ago|reply
Expecting hikers to not behave like humans is foolish. 5mph really is about right for passing someone.
[+] [-] oppositelock|9 years ago|reply
http://www.openspace.org/preserves/saratoga-gap
I received points on my driver's license, but I successfully disputed them. A friend refused to show his license, so he was arrested.
[+] [-] piotrkaminski|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cjensen|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaronbwebber|9 years ago|reply
Seems like maybe this should be a 20 or even 25 mph speed limit on the fire roads and then a 10 mph speed limit on the narrow trails? Or they should just make some of the fire roads bike only. There are tons of fire roads out there, it seems like it wouldn't be that hard to find some to dedicate to mountain biking. There are even some that already have parallel hiking-only or hiking/horse trails.
P.S. don't ride your bike on hiking only trails. There are bikers who do this (a small minority, but you end up being judged by the worst members of your community, sorry, that's life). This is a dick move, not only because it's dangerous, but because bikes can really tear the trails up and cause erosion.
[+] [-] roflchoppa|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oppositelock|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway_tix|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cjensen|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DrScump|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rorykoehler|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omginternets|9 years ago|reply
From the article: with radar guns.
>I go uphill faster than that
I guess they'll fine you going uphill.