Is it illegal to build suburbs that can only be accessed by freeway? If it is not then they can't stop people from biking on the freeway, could they. If your forced to do it they can't complain.

Do these suburbs exist, if so what's the best car-free way to access them?

On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, josephwcarrillo wrote:

> Is it illegal to build suburbs that can only be accessed by freeway? If
> it is not then they can't stop people from biking on the freeway, could
> they. If your forced to do it they can't complain.

Not that I'm aware of. This would be dictated by state and more than
likely local codes. There's no once-size-fits-all answer.

I have learned from cyclists lists that some states allow bicycles and
pedestrians on Interstates if no alternatives exist.

On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, josephwcarrillo wrote:

> Do these suburbs exist, if so what's the best car-free way to access them?

My dad lives in the Atlanta suburbs. I used to live in the city and I
loved it. I could not live there today. Everything is so bicycle
unfriendly. Out in the suburbs they like building narrow, two-lane state
roads with high speed limits and no shoulder. It'd be suicide to bicycle
on them. I don't have a good answer. Move?

John

--
John Mayson <john <at> mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA

On Jun 2, 2009, at 9:41 AM, John Mayson wrote:

> My dad lives in the Atlanta suburbs. I used to live in the city and I
> loved it. I could not live there today. Everything is so bicycle
> unfriendly. Out in the suburbs they like building narrow, two-lane
> state
> roads with high speed limits and no shoulder. It'd be suicide to
> bicycle
> on them. I don't have a good answer. Move?

A few years ago I came to the same conclusion when I visited a suburb
of Atlanta. The only way in or out of the suburb was a four-lane, very
high-speed road with no shoulder, just a narrow rumble strip. I
thought at the time that it would be just about impossible to live
there without a car, as there was no public transit and as you say, it
would be suicidal to bicycle on the main artery. Ironically, this
suburb had paved pathways running behind the houses, making it
possible to get to a few schools and a few stores without going on the
roads. People seemed very proud of this path network, but most of the
travel on these paths was via golf carts, and almost nobody was able
to get to and from work on these paths.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On my 4 wheeled bicycle I have added solar powered lighting including the flashing yellow light as on city maintenance trucks. I use this bike to carry construction tools and waterworks tools and it even carries ladders for roof work. You can look at all other models at www.rhoadescar.com/lobby.htm. I had added a lot of stuff to mine.

--- In CarFree <at> yahoogroups.com, "josephwcarrillo" <josephwcarrillo <at> ...> wrote:
> Is it illegal to build suburbs that can only be accessed by freeway? If it is not then they can't stop people from biking on the freeway, could they. If your forced to do it they can't complain.

My understanding is that there is a legal right to travel; a way to access by different means MUST be provided; this in "Bicycling and the Law" which is a good book to have on hand in general. In Alaska, there is no route between Palmer and Anchorage other than the freeway; a paved path is offered between Anchorage and Peters Creek about halfway between the two, during which bicycles are prohibited. Between Peters Creek and Palmer (or Wasilla, which is in the same situation) bicycles are legally allowed on the shoulder of the freeway.

On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Bart Hawkins Kreps wrote:

> A few years ago I came to the same conclusion when I visited a suburb
> of Atlanta. The only way in or out of the suburb was a four-lane, very
> high-speed road with no shoulder, just a narrow rumble strip. I

When I visit cities I look at them through very different eyes now. I
went to school in Atlanta from 1987-1992 and didn't want to leave. I
moved to Florida unable to find a job in my field in ATL. I ended up in
Austin in 1998 and have little desire to go back to Atlanta. If I were to
move it'd be Seattle or Portland.

John

--
John Mayson <john <at> mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA

I wish the law would be changed dictating a reasonably safe route must be
provided. Back to my suburban Atlanta example. There are no laws against
bicycles on most state roads other than the laws of physics (i.e. SUV at
65 mph versis cyclist, SUV wins).

John

--
John Mayson <john <at> mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA

On May 11, 2009, at 8:25 AM, Bart Hawkins Kreps wrote:

>> "A sophisticated in-car computer could soon make it impossible for
>> motorists to speed.
>>
>> The system detects the speed limit and automatically slows the car if
>> it is being driven too quickly."
>
> Several years ago I wrote an April Fool's joke, describing a similar
> system, for a weekly newspaper:
> http://indynews.ca/archives/news/news2004/March/SSI033104.html
>
> I thought it sounded pretty far-fetched (just too reasonable to be
> true!) but some readers took it very seriously and were either pleased
> or outraged.

I don't drive but, if I did, I'd LOVE this system. Just floor it and
the car automatically goes an appropriate speed. :) This would make it
POSSIBLE for me to drive if I wanted to, actually, as one of the
reasons I DON'T drive is because I'm a bit obsessive compulsive about
speed. On a bike, that's OK; except on rare occasions on 50 km/h
zones, I CAN'T speed on a bike but, in a car, I tend to want to go FAST
even though I know it's not a good idea... :/

John A. Ardelli
http://pedalingprince.blogspot.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/vofv/

First of all, let me say that the title of John Ardelli's post is gramatically
ambiguous -- and I read it the wrong way at first.

I believe that automatic speed control is already used on some trains.
Presumably there is little difference as far as technology is concerned between
applying it on rail and road. The politics is of course different.

A couple of questions:

1. Should it be mandatory for all motorists to install such a system ? As a
compromise, it could be ruled that failure to install such a system could be
used as evidence against one if accused of speeding; also higher insurance rates
might apply.

2. Should there be a manual override ? This might be useful in case of
emergency, but it would also be useful to a getaway criminal who had stolen
one's car.

Simon Norton