Portland Bike Forums (by BikePortland.org)

Go Back   Portland Bike Forums (by BikePortland.org) > General Discussion > General Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 02-06-2012, 02:10 PM
Spiffy's Avatar
Spiffy Spiffy is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SE PDX
Posts: 336
Default

q`Tzal, great mock-up of the tunnel blockage... I think it would be hilarious to put a brown cardboard pole in the auto lane of the bridge and see what happens...

all eye-opening pranks aside, just ride in the roadway... the sidewalk is not a bike lane nor is it a bike path, it's a MUP and is not a mandatory side-path...

take the lane!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-06-2012, 05:13 PM
q`Tzal's Avatar
q`Tzal q`Tzal is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwix logic and emotion, reason and insanity.
Posts: 354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiffy View Post
... just ride in the roadway... the sidewalk is not a bike lane nor is it a bike path, it's a MUP and is not a mandatory side-path...

take the lane!
Can you ride your bike on the automotive bridge deck legally?

This appears to be a officially marked "bike route" and as such might legally be a "mandatory side path". This may be one of those situations where a cyclist could be accurately cited for failing to use a side path.

This side path/MUP is not safe in reality nor does its width conform to any current standards. Regardless, some official that doesn't walk here nor bicycle here has declared that it is safe and therefore ...
In The Word Of Law
... this MUP is a safe, official and mandatory bicycle route.

I wonder if the act of changing any of the original design parameters by say adding a pole in the travel path in a haphazard and unplanned manner would invalidate the prior engineer's declaration that this MUP is safe for both bicycle and pedestrian traffic?
__________________
Knowledge is NOT a crime.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-29-2012, 09:56 PM
Spiffy's Avatar
Spiffy Spiffy is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SE PDX
Posts: 336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by q`Tzal View Post
I wonder if the act of changing any of the original design parameters by say adding a pole in the travel path in a haphazard and unplanned manner would invalidate the prior engineer's declaration that this MUP is safe for both bicycle and pedestrian traffic?
that's a good point... the pole didn't go through the usual approval process that most mandatory side-paths get...

questions to bring up in the free legal clinic, or Ask BikePortland...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:27 PM.




A production of Pedaltown Media Inc. / BikePortland.org
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.