Skip navigation






         

Pasted below is the current (as of 2014-10-04) St. Louis County ordinance pertaining to bicyclists on public roads, which was amended in 2001 by the addition of “scooter operators, roller bladers, roller skaters, and skateboarders” to “bicyclists.”

In 2008, a section was added in the Code of Ordinances under Department of Health making it mandatory for those over 1 and under 17 years of age to wear a bicycle safety helmet.

1210.010 Scope of Regulations.
https://library.municode.com/HTML/11512/level2/TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK.html#TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK_1210.050RIHIROAL

—These regulations apply to bicyclists, scooter operators, roller bladers, roller skaters, and skateboarders when such devices are operated upon any highway, roadway or alleyway or upon any path set aside for the exclusive use of such devices subject to those exceptions stated by this code. For purposes of this chapter, a “scooter” shall be defined as a device that typically has one (1) front and one (1) rear wheel with a low footboard between, is steered by a handlebar, and is propelled either by pushing one foot against the ground while resting the other foot on the footboard or by a motor. A scooter may have more than two (2) wheels.
(O. No. 20502, 5-29-01)

1210.020 Traffic Laws to Apply. https://library.municode.com/HTML/11512/level2/TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK.html#TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK_1210.020TRLAAP

—Every person operating a bicycle, scooter, roller blades, roller skates or skateboard upon a highway, roadway or alleyway is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by the laws of this State declaring rules of the road applicable to the driver of a vehicle, except as to special regulations in this chapter, and except as to those provisions of law and ordinance which by their nature can have no application.
(O. No. 20502, 5-29-01)

1210.030 Obedience to Traffic Control Devices.
https://library.municode.com/HTML/11512/level2/TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK.html#TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK_1210.030OBTRCODE

—1. Any person operating a bicycle, scooter, roller blades, roller skates or skateboard shall obey the instructions of official traffic control devices applicable to vehicles, unless otherwise directed by a law enforcement officer.

2.
Whenever authorized signs are erected indicating that no right or left or U turn is permitted, no person operating a bicycle, or scooter, shall disobey the direction of any such sign. Where such person dismounts from such devices to make any such turn, the person shall then obey the regulations applicable to pedestrians.
(O. No. 20502, 5-29-01)

1210.040 Riding on Bicycles, Scooters or Skateboards.
https://library.municode.com/HTML/11512/level2/TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK.html#TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK_1210.040RIBISCSK

—1. A person propelling a bicycle shall not ride on a seat other than a permanent and regularly attached seat.

2.
No bicycle, scooter or skateboard shall be used to carry more persons at one (1) time than the number for which it is designed and equipped.
(O. No. 20502, 5-29-01)

1210.050 Riding on Highways, Roads, Alleyways.
https://library.municode.com/HTML/11512/level2/TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK.html#TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK_1210.050RIHIROAL

—1. Every person operating a bicycle, or scooter, upon a highway, roadway or alleyway shall ride as near to the right side of the highway, roadway or alleyway as practicable and shall exercise due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

2.
Persons riding bicycles, scooters, roller blades, roller skates, or skateboards upon a road shall not ride more than two (2) abreast except when riding on paths or part of roads set aside for the exclusive use of such devices.
(O. No. 20502, 5-29-01)

1210.060 Speed.
https://library.municode.com/HTML/11512/level2/TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK.html#TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK_1210.060SP

—No person shall operate a bicycle, scooter, roller blades, roller skates, or skateboard at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions nor shall such operator exceed the legal speed limit for the roadway while riding upon the roadway.
(O. No. 20502, 5-29-01)

1210.070 Emerging from Alleyway, Private Roadway or Driveway.
https://library.municode.com/HTML/11512/level2/TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK.html#TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK_1210.070EMALPRRODR

—The operator of a bicycle, scooter, roller blades, roller skates or skateboard emerging from an alleyway, private roadway, driveway or building shall, upon approaching a sidewalk or the sidewalk area, yield the right-of-way to all pedestrians approaching on the sidewalk or sidewalk area. Upon entering the highway or roadway, the operator shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on the highway or roadway.
(O. No. 20502, 5-29-01)

1210.080 Carrying Articles.
https://library.municode.com/HTML/11512/level2/TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK.html#TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK_1210.080CAAR

—No person operating a bicycle or scooter shall carry any package, bundle or article which prevents the rider from keeping at least one (1) hand upon the handle bars.
(O. No. 20502, 5-29-01)

1210.090 Parking.
https://library.municode.com/HTML/11512/level2/TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK.html#TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK_1210.090PA

—No person shall park a bicycle or scooter upon a highway, roadway, or sidewalk in such a manner as to obstruct vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
(O. No. 20502, 5-29-01)

1210.100 Lamps and Other Equipment on Bicycles.
https://library.municode.com/HTML/11512/level2/TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK.html#TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK_1210.100LAOTEQBI

—1. Every bicycle or scooter when in use at nighttime shall be equipped with and shall use a lamp on the front which emits a white light visible from a distance of at least five hundred (500) feet to the front and with a red, white or yellow reflector on the rear of a type which is visible from all directions from fifty (50) feet to three hundred (300) feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle. A lamp emitting a red light visible from a distance of five hundred (500) feet to the rear may be used in addition to the red reflector.

2.
Every bicycle or scooter shall be equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make the braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement.
(O. No. 20502, 5-29-01)

1210.107 Roller Skates, Roller Blades, and Skateboards—Use Restricted.
https://library.municode.com/HTML/11512/level2/TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK.html#TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK_1210.107ROSKROBLSKSERE

—No person upon roller skates, roller blades or a skateboard shall go upon any road except while crossing the road. When so crossing, such person shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to all other pedestrians.
(O. No. 20502, 5-29-01)

1210.110 Penalties.
https://library.municode.com/HTML/11512/level2/TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK.html#TITXIITRCO_CH1210REBISCOPROBLROSKSK_1210.110PE

—Every person convicted of a violation of any provision of this chapter shall be punished by a fine of not more than ten dollars ($10.00).
(O. No. 23830, 12-9-08)

In addition to the above is the following section, enacted in 2008, relating to mandatory helmet wearing for those >1 but <17 years old:

602.600 Bicyclists Under the Age of Seventeen to Wear Protective Headgear.
https://library.municode.com/HTML/11512/level2/TITVIPUHEWE_CH602PUHE.html#TITVIPUHEWE_CH602PUHE_602.600BIUNAGSEWEPRHE

—1. The provisions of this section shall apply throughout St. Louis County, except in cities having both a population of seventy-five thousand (75,000) or more and an organized health department.
2.
It shall be unlawful for a parent or guardian to permit a child of at least one year of age and who has not reached the age of seventeen to operate or be a passenger on a bicycle, a scooter, roller skates, roller blades or a skateboard unless the child shall wear protective headgear which properly fits and is fastened securely upon the head of the operator or passenger. The headgear shall meet or exceed the impact standard for protective bicycle helmets set by the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Snell Memorial Foundation or the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM).
3.
Every person reasonably believed by a law enforcement officer to have violated the provisions of this section shall be issued a Notice of Violation on a form approved by the Director of Health. The Notice of Violation shall advise persons to whom it is issued of the dangers to children under the age of seventeen associated with operating bicycles and the items set out in subsection 2 hereof without protective headgear. The Director of Health shall keep and maintain records of all persons issued a Notice of Violation. Any person receiving more than two Notices of Violation within a twelve-month period shall be mailed a summons charging such person with having violated this ordinance.
4.
Every person convicted of a violation of this ordinance shall be punished by a fine of not more than ten dollars ($10.00).
(O. No. 23830, 12-9-08)






         

This story first grabbed the headlines back in April of this year, after cyclist Cherokee Schill was repeatedly ticketed for controlling the outside lane on busy multi-lane roads on her way to and from work.

Cyclist Cherokee Schill on her work commute

Cyclist Cherokee Schill on her work commute

She’s finally had her day in court but justice was evidently not done. The judge stated that she could have used the shoulder instead of controlling the lane, to which she replied: “I’m not going to change how I ride.”

This is the result of the discriminatory Far To the Right (FTR) law common in states throughout the U.S. It requires a cyclist to ride as far right as “safe” or “practicable,” with certain exceptions, including the ill-defined “when the lane is too narrow to share.” Repeal of this law, which may be easiest to accomplish at the local level, should be a major goal of cyclists wanting equal treatment on public roads.

In Missouri, so far only the City of Ferguson, population 21,000 in North St. Louis County, has taken this step by replacing its former FTR language, based on state law, with an ordinance explicitly allowing bicyclist lane control.

The story below mentions Steve Magas as co-defense counsel. Steve Magas, from Cincinnati, OH, frequently represents injured cyclists. He has an active website at www.ohiobikelawyer.com and can also be reached at 513.484.BIKE [2453]

I’m glad that Cherokee Schill plans to appeal, for which she will need financial assistance. If you wish to contribute you can do so by clicking Appeal fund.

Jessamine judge decides Nicholasville Road bicycle commuter violated law
BY GREG KOCHER September 12, 2014

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2014/09/12/3426401/jessamine-judge-decides-nicholasville.html#storylink=cpy

NICHOLASVILLE — In a case watched by bicyclists inside and outside Kentucky, a woman who commutes by bike via U.S. 27 from Nicholasville to Lexington was found Friday to have violated a law on careless driving.

Jessamine District Court Judge Bill Oliver also found that Cherokee Schill had violated a law requiring slow-moving vehicles to move to as far to the right “as practicable.” Oliver imposed fines and court costs of $433, which Schill has a year to pay.

Schill, 41, said she plans to appeal the judge’s decision, which came at the end of a day-long trial.

She argued that the shoulder is hazardous because of debris and rumble strips that could cause her to fall. Her expert witnesses and defense attorneys argued that it is safer for a cyclist to be in the lane of travel so that cars behind her can see her clearly and have time to brake or merge left.

Schill said the judge’s ruling seems to ask her “to operate my bicycle carelessly by weaving in and out of traffic — going off the roadway, going forward, and then going off the roadway again, which is much, much more dangerous than just riding a straight line and operating predictably.”

She added, “I’m not going to change how I ride.”

Schill, the mother of two teenagers, said in an interview this year that she commutes by bike to help keep her household afloat and to reduce expenses. She said she has a car, but it is not dependable.

Schill was ticketed in Jessamine County three times this year, once while she was returning from her job at Webasto on Lexington’s north side and twice while she was en route to off-work activities.

She is no longer employed by Webasto but attends classes in Lexington to be an EKG technician.

Police officers who had ticketed her said she was causing a safety hazard for motorists on U.S. 27. Some 43,000 motor vehicles travel that section of road in northern Jessamine County each day, according to state traffic counts.

In each citation, the judge found that Schill could have used the shoulder rather than operating her bike in the roadway.

Before trial, Schill was cited only with three counts of careless driving. But on Friday immediately before trial, Assistant County Attorney Eric Wright added three more counts that said Schill had violated the following subsection of Kentucky law: “The operator of any vehicle moving slowly upon a highway shall keep his vehicle as closely as practicable to the right-hand boundary of the highway, allowing more swiftly moving vehicles reasonably free passage to the left.”

A rule of criminal procedure allows a prosecutor to add charges to clarify a citation, Wright said. He emphasized repeatedly that bikes are vehicles and, as such, must comply with all laws that apply to vehicles.

Kentucky defines “highway” as the lane of travel and the shoulder; for that reason, moving “as closely as practicable to the right-hand boundary” means moving to the shoulder, Wright said.

On roads where there are no paved shoulders and the cyclist has nowhere else to go, Oliver said the responsibility lies more with the motorist to give leeway to the cyclist.

But where a paved shoulder is available, Oliver said the responsibility lies more with the cyclist to choose a safer option.

Addressing Schill directly, Oliver said, “I will caution you at this point — you want to avoid any further violations of the law. I’m not telling you that you can’t have your bicycle out there. We’ve established that bicycles have some rights out there.

“I would encourage you to be careful,” Oliver said. “Almost every moment there is a different situation where you have to decide whether you have the right to be where you are or if you need to be further to the right. That’s not an easy thing for you to do or for anyone else. But it is, I think under the current law, what you have to do.”

Steve Magas

Steve Magas

Steve Magas was co-defense counsel for Schill along with Chuck Ellinger. Magas, whose practice is in Cincinnati, has represented cyclists in Ohio and elsewhere.

“This is the only case that I’m aware of in the country where a bicyclist who has a right to ride on the road has been ordered off the road,” Magas said. “The question was, how does this impact nationally? I don’t think it does. I think what it does is irritate cyclists and make them want to affect some change in Kentucky.”

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2014/09/12/3426401/jessamine-judge-decides-nicholasville.html#storylink=cpy

This groundbreaking article by Dan Gutierrez and Amanda Eichstaedt was first published in the League of American Bicyclists members’ magazine, the American Bicyclist, in December 2007. It makes a strong case for the need for a 6th E, Equality, to underpin the other five accepted Es.

As stated in the article:

“Cyclists need legislative “Equality” as transportation users. … This would really be the primary E to describe the way cyclists are treated by lawmakers. With all Six Es in place, our lives as advocates would be easier, since we can use the set of Es to tell lawmakers, and everyone else what cyclists expect from the government:

* Equality – state laws that treat cyclists as well as other road users
* Engineering – sound transport agency road and special facility development
* Enforcement – consistent and fair police and court treatment of bicyclists
* Education – widespread traffic skills training such as the Bike Ed program
* Encouragement – public campaigns aimed at promoting cycling
* Evaluation – ways for govt. to measure the effectiveness of the other Es.”

Please click the following to view the article:

Equality for cyclists 6th E Gutierrez & Eichstaedt

The following ordinance has been copied from the language in Missouri State Statutes except for changes to remove the discriminatory Far To the Right (FTR) language, replacing 307.190 with the following, based on Ferguson’s 2012 ordinance (with proposed revisions):

Riding on roadways.
Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway may ride in the center of the right lane of travel or may ride to the right side of the roadway; such person may use the left lane of travel to prepare for making a left turn, or when on a one-way street. Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle on a roadway shall exercise due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, when making turns, and when streets or lanes are too narrow to share with motor vehicles, including lanes nominally 12 feet wide. Bicyclists may ride two abreast in the right lane of travel or when making a left turn when also allowed for a solo cyclist.

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 307
Vehicle Equipment Regulations
August 28, 2013

Bicycle and motorized bicycle, defined.
307.180. As used in sections 307.180 to 307.193:

(1) The word “bicycle” shall mean every vehicle propelled solely by human power upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels, or two parallel wheels and one or two forward or rear wheels, all of which are more than fourteen inches in diameter, except scooters and similar devices;

(2) The term “motorized bicycle” shall mean any two- or three-wheeled device having an automatic transmission and a motor with a cylinder capacity of not more than fifty cubic centimeters, which produces less than three gross brake horsepower, and is capable of propelling the device at a maximum speed of not more than thirty miles per hour on level ground. A motorized bicycle shall be considered a motor vehicle for purposes of any homeowners’ or renters’ insurance policy.

(L. 1977 H.B. 79 § 1, A.L. 1980 H.B. 995 & 1051, A.L. 1988 H.B. 990, A.L. 2005 H.B. 487 merged with S.B. 372)

Brakes required.
307.183. Every bicycle and motorized bicycle shall be equipped with a brake or brakes which will enable its driver to stop the bicycle or motorized bicycle within twenty-five feet from a speed of ten miles per hour on dry, level, clean pavement.

(L. 1977 H.B. 79 § 2, A.L. 1980 H.B. 995 & 1051)
Effective 6-20-80

Lights and reflectors, when required–standards to be met.
307.185. Every bicycle and motorized bicycle when in use on a street or highway during the period from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise shall be equipped with the following:

(1) A front-facing lamp on the front or carried by the rider which shall emit a white light visible at night under normal atmospheric conditions on a straight, level, unlighted roadway at five hundred feet;

(2) A rear-facing red reflector, at least two square inches in reflective surface area, or a rear-facing red lamp, on the rear which shall be visible at night under normal atmospheric conditions on a straight, level, unlighted roadway when viewed by a vehicle driver under the lower beams of vehicle headlights at six hundred feet;

(3) Reflective material and/or lights on any part of the bicyclist’s pedals, crank arms, shoes or lower leg, visible from the front and the rear at night under normal atmospheric conditions on a straight, level, unlighted roadway when viewed by a vehicle driver under the lawful lower beams of vehicle headlights at two hundred feet; and

(4) Reflective material and/or lights visible on each side of the bicycle or bicyclist and visible at night under normal atmospheric conditions on a straight, level, unlighted roadway when viewed by a vehicle driver under the lawful lower beams of vehicle headlights at three hundred feet. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to motorized bicycles which comply with National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration regulations relating to reflectors on motorized bicycles.

(L. 1977 H.B. 79 § 3, A.L. 1980 H.B. 995 & 1051, A.L. 1995 S.B. 471)

Rights and duties of bicycle and motorized bicycle riders.
307.188. Every person riding a bicycle or motorized bicycle upon a street or highway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle as provided by chapter 304, except as to special regulations in sections 307.180 to 307.193 and except as to those provisions of chapter 304 which by their nature can have no application.

(L. 1977 H.B. 79 § 4, A.L. 1980 H.B. 995 & 1051)

Riding to right, required for bicycles and motorized bicycles.
307.190. Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, except when making a left turn, when avoiding hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle, or when on a one-way street. Bicyclists may ride abreast when not impeding other vehicles.

(L. 1977 H.B. 79 § 5, A.L. 1980 H.B. 995 & 1051, A.L. 1995 S.B. 471)

Bicycle to operate on the shoulder adjacent to roadway, when–roadway defined.
307.191. 1. A person operating a bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway may operate as described in section 307.190 or may operate on the shoulder adjacent to the roadway.

2. A bicycle operated on a roadway, or on the shoulder adjacent to a roadway, shall be operated in the same direction as vehicles are required to be driven upon the roadway.

3. For purposes of this section and section 307.190, “roadway” is defined as and means that portion of a street or highway ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder.

(L. 2005 H.B. 487 merged with S.B. 372)

Bicycle required to give hand or mechanical signals.
307.192. The operator of a bicycle shall signal as required in section 304.019, except that a signal by the hand and arm need not be given continuously if the hand is needed in the control or operation of or to control or operate the bicycle. An operator of a bicycle intending to turn the bicycle to the right shall signal as indicated in section 304.019 or by extending such operator’s right arm in a horizontal position so that the same may be seen in front of and in the rear of the bicycle.

(L. 2005 H.B. 487 merged with S.B. 372)

The Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) includes recommended wording in ordinances relating to bicycle transportation on public roads. The latest version of the UVC, which is under review, dates to 2000, and while comprehensive, it still contains discriminatory language pertaining to bicyclist lane control. Consequently, in the version below I’ve amended S 11-1205-Position on roadway, while the rest of the Model Ordinance remains unchanged at present, although S 11-1208-Left turns will almost certainly also need revision.

A section also needs to be added regarding passing a bicyclist on a two-lane road with a double-yellow centerline. The following is an example of suggested wording, downloaded from an extensive on-line article Crossing A Double Yellow Line

Model No-Passing Zone Exception
When passing a pedestrian, bicycle, tractor, or other slow moving vehicle, the operator of a vehicle may drive on the left side of the center of a roadway in a no-passing zone when such movement can be made in safety and without interfering with or endangering other traffic on the roadway.

Note: Proposed deleted language is highlighted in red, to be replaced by blue italicized language.

UVC 2000 Model Ordinance – Bike-related Language

S 11-1201-Effect of regulations
(a) It is a misdemeanor for any person to do any act forbidden or fail to perform any act required in this article.
(b) The parent of any child and the guardian of any ward shall not authorize or knowingly permit any such child or ward to violate any of the provisions of this article.

S 11-1202-Traffic laws apply to persons on bicycles and other human powered vehicles
Every person propelling a vehicle by human power or riding a bicycle shall have all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under chapters 10 and 11, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application.

S 11-1203-Riding on bicycles
No bicycle shall be used to carry more persons at one time than the number for which it is designed or equipped, except that an adult rider may carry a child securely attached to adult rider in a back pack or sling.

S 11-1204–Clinging to vehicles
(a) No person riding upon any bicycle, coaster, roller skates, sled or toy vehicle shall attach the same or himself or herself to any (streetcar or) vehicle upon a roadway.
(b) This section shall not prohibit attaching a bicycle trailer or
bicycle semitrailer to a bicycle if that trailer or semitrailer has been designed for such attachment.

S 11-1205-Position on roadway
(a) Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except may control the lane under any of the following conditions:
1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
2. 3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including but not limited to: fixed or moving objects; parked or moving vehicles; bicycles; pedestrians; animals; surface hazards; or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this section, a “substandard width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane such as a lane nominally 12 feet wide, excluding the curb and gutter.
3. 4. When riding in the right-turn-only lane.

4. When on a two-lane road with lanes nominally 12 feet wide, excluding the curb and gutter, when conditions do not allow safe passing of the bicyclist by a following motor vehicle in the adjoining lane, such as when approaching a blind bend or brow of a hill, or when an oncoming vehicle is too close to permit the following vehicle to complete the pass safely.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle or a moped upon a one-way highway road with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable control the left-hand lane if it is nominally 12 ft wide, excluding the curb and gutter.

S 11-1206-Riding two abreast
Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and, on a laned roadway, shall ride within a single lane.

S 11-1207-Carrying articles
No person operating a bicycle shall carry any package, bundle or article which prevents the use of both hands in the control and operation of the bicycle. A person operating a bicycle shall keep at least one hand on the handlebars at all times.

S 11-1208-Left turns
(a) A person riding a bicycle or a moped intending to turn left shall follow a course described in S 11-601 or in subsection (b).
(b) A person riding a bicycle or a moped intending to turn left shall approach the turn as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway. After proceeding across the intersecting roadway to the far corner of the curb or intersection of the roadway edges, the bicyclist or moped driver shall stop, as much as practicable out of the way of traffic. After stopping the bicyclist or moped driver shall yield to any traffic proceeding in either direction along the roadway the bicyclist had been using. After yielding, and complying with any official traffic control device or police officer regulating traffic on the highway along which he or she intends to proceed, the bicyclist or moped driver may proceed in the new direction.
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the state highway commission and local authorities in their respective jurisdictions may cause official traffic-control devices to be placed and thereby require and direct that a specific course be traveled by turning bicycles or mopeds, and when such devices are so placed, no person shall turn a bicycle or a moped other than as directed and required by such devices.

S 11-1209-Bicycles and human powered vehicles on sidewalks
(a) A person propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, shall yield the right of way to any pedestrian and shall give audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian.
(b) A person shall not ride a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, where such use of bicycles is prohibited by official traffic-control devices.
(c) A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

S 11-1210-Bicycle parking
(a) A person may park a bicycle on a sidewalk unless prohibited or restricted by an official traffic control device.
(b) A bicycle parked on a sidewalk shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of pedestrian or other traffic.
(c) A bicycle may be parked on the roadway at any angle to the curb or edge of the roadway at any location where parking is allowed.
(d) A bicycle may be parked on the roadway abreast of another bicycle or bicycles near the side of the roadway at any location where parking is allowed.
(e) A person shall not park a bicycle on a roadway in such a manner as to obstruct the movement of a legally parked motor vehicle.
(f) In all other respects, bicycles parked anywhere on a highway shall conform with the provisions of article X regulating the parking of vehicles.

S 11-1211-Bicycle racing
– (a) By agreement with the approving authority, participants in an approved bicycle highway racing event may be exempted from compliance with any traffic laws otherwise applicable thereto, provided that traffic control is adequate to assure the safety of all highway users.
(b) Bicycle racing on a highway shall not be unlawful when a racing event has been approved by state or local authorities on any highway under their respective jurisdictions. Approval of bicycle highway racing events shall be granted only under conditions which assure reasonable safety for all race participants, spectators and other highway users, and which prevent unreasonable interference with traffic flow which would seriously inconvenience other highway users.

S 11-1212-Mopeds in bicycle lanes
Upon any roadway where motor vehicles are permitted, a person may drive a moped in any lane designated for the use of bicycles.
———————————————————






         
Recent efforts in Missouri to promote Complete Streets legislation have been somewhat divisive, mainly over the issue of bike lanes, which some view as an asset and others as relegating bicyclists to second-class road user status.

However, an issue which should unite all those wanting to promote on-road bicycling is repeal of the so-called Far To the Right (FTR) law, which is in both Missouri state statutes and in local ordinances.

This confers second class road user status on cyclists by requiring them to “stay as far right as safe,” or “as practicable,” sometimes with either few or no exceptions.

For example, St. Louis City’s bike-related ordinance has this section concerning where a bicycle may be ridden on a public roadway (ref. http://www.municode.com/Library/MO/St._Louis and search on Chapter 17.36 BICYCLES AND SIMILAR DEVICES):

17.36.050 – Where ridden.
A.
Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.
(My emphasis added.)

St. Louis County’s 2001 ordinance has similar language (20502.doc 6/15/2004 from http://ww5.stlouisco.com/ordinance/):

1201.050 Riding on Highways, Roads, Alleyways.-1.  Every person operating a bicycle, or scooter, upon a highway, roadway or alleyway shall ride as near to the right side of the highway, roadway or alleyway as practicable and shall exercise due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction. (My emphasis added.)

(The ordinance was updated in 2008 by adding a requirement for those from 1 to 17 to wear a bike safety helmet: 23830.doc 12/11/2008.)

Both of the above are worse than Missouri state statute which, in 1993, was amended to include the following exceptions to the FTR requirement:

Riding to right, required for bicycles and motorized bicycles.

307.190. Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, except when making a left turn, when avoiding hazardous conditions, when the lane is too narrow to share with another vehicle, or when on a one-way street. Bicyclists may ride abreast when not impeding other vehicles.

(L. 1977 H.B. 79 § 5, A.L. 1980 H.B. 995 & 1051, A.L. 1995 S.B. 471) (My emphasis added.)

As pointed out in an earlier post, the exception above in state law permitting a cyclist to control the lane when “too narrow to share with another vehicle,” and originally duplicated in the City of Ferguson’s ordinance, is open to interpretation. That nearly led to my being ticketed for obstruction by a Ferguson police officer in 2012 for controlling the curb lane on 4-lane Florissant Rd. (See Encouraging city & police cooperation with legal bicyclists on narrow multi-lane roads.)

It was resolved when city manager, John Shaw, determined that the city ordinance needed clarifying. That ultimately led to deleting the FTR requirement and instead treating on-road bicyclists and motorists equitably by specifically allowing a bicyclist to control or share the curb lane at their option. (See new Ferguson Ordinance #2012-3495, approved on June 26, 2012, Sec. 44-364 in on-line library.municode.com, reproduced below.)

Sec. 44-364. Riding on roadways.

Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway may ride in the center of the right lane of travel or may ride to the right side of the roadway; such person may move into the left lane of travel only while in the process of making a left turn. Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle on a roadway shall exercise due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, when making turns, and when streets or lanes are too narrow to share with vehicles. Bicyclists may ride abreast only when not impeding other vehicles.

(Code 1973, § 42.92.3(2), (3); Ord. No. 96-2809, § 1, 1-9-96; Ord. No. 2012-3495, § 1, 6-26-12)
State law reference— Similar provisions, RSMo 307.190.

The above wording can be improved in several ways, as suggested below, with explanatory notes:

Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway may ride in the center of the right lane of travel or may ride to the right side of the roadway; such person may use the left lane of travel to prepare for making a left turn, or when on a one-way street. Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle on a roadway shall exercise due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, when making turns, and when streets or lanes are too narrow to share with motor vehicles, including lanes nominally 12 feet wide. Bicyclists may ride two abreast in the right lane of travel or when making a left turn when also allowed for a solo cyclist.

Explanatory notes:

1. “In the process of” suggests you have to wait until the last second to go to the left lane.

2. “Bicyclists may ride two abreast in the right lane of travel when also allowed for a solo cyclist.” This is consistent with the permitted lane control by a solo cyclist.
An example of when it makes sense to double up and ride as a group controlling the right lane is when I’m training students and we are simply going from one exercise location to another, or to a destination such as The Whistle Stop for lunch. Riding as a compact group makes more sense than being strung out single file, when we are also more likely to get separated by a stop light, for example.






         

Cyclist Cherokee Schill on her work commute

Cyclist Cherokee Schill on her work commute

I fortuitously came across this impressive cyclist story after being notified that my updated BICYCLING made SIMPLE video had been featured on the Share the road it’s the law Facebook page at http://tinyurl.com/ovjfvvb

The story is featured on WKYT-TV in Lexington, Kentucky. The cyclist, Cherokee Schill, rides her bike to work 18 miles each way, taking 90 minutes, on busy roads 5 days a week. She does this as “a single mom with two teenagers who is barely able to financially keep the family afloat.” Driving a car is not an option for her.

Schill has been cited three times in the last month for careless driving on her bike. The sheriff’s office and police say riding a bike on U.S. 27 in a lane of traffic puts Schill and other drivers at risk and they want her banned from this road pending her jury trial in August, but the judge just ruled in Schill’s favor.

The story notes that “Schill doesn’t have a valid driver’s license in Kentucky because of a traffic violation in another state.”

I’ve pasted a map showing part of her route following the story below.

Jessamine Co. bicyclist charged with reckless driving sparks court case

Updated: Wed 4:46 PM, Apr 30, 2014
By: Jordan Vilines e-mail: jordan.vilines@wkyt.com

Cherokee Schill

Cherokee Schill


NICHOLASVILLE, Ky. (WKYT) – A bike commuter in Jessamine County says a judge has ruled in her favor.
         The county wanted her banned from riding her bicycle on U.S. 27 until her trial in August. Schell has been cited three times for careless driving on her bike. Kentucky law allows the use of bicycles on U.S. 27, but police say Schell is causing a safety concern.
         In the judge’s order released Wednesday, the judge said the court is not on the trier of fact, the jury possess that power and responsibility and it would be inappropriate to enter a pre-trial order restraining the defendants ability to legally ride her bicycle on U.S. 27 prior to the ultimate findings by the jury. Schell’s trial is scheduled for August.
         Tuesday night Schill says, her attorney told her, the judge ruled in her favor.
         Schill told us by phone, she’s relieved and plans to continue commuting by bike on 27.
         For the past year, Cherokee Schill has commuted from Nicholasville to Lexington on some of the busiest roads in central Kentucky.
         Police say complaints from drivers have forced them to take action against the bike commuter.
         “This bicycle is not a toy, it is legally defined as a vehicle,” sad Schill who told WKYT’s Sam Dick that she’s riding her bike safely and is within the traffic laws of Kentucky.
         Most of her co-workers at Webasto off Georgetown Road in Lexington leave work in their cars.
         “I’ll be honest, at first, when I first started cycling, I was scared to death. I was hugging the furthest right side, furthest right side I could hug,” said Schill.
         For the past year — even on the coldest, wettest days — Schill commutes from her home in Nicholasville to Lexington by bike on an 18-miles journey that requires 90 minutes of pedaling.
         “I went from last year when I started cycling, I was in a size 22 pants. And just last week I got my size 8s,” Schill said.
         But fitness is not why, she commutes by bike. Schill describes herself as a single mom with two teenagers who is barely able to financially keep the family afloat.
         “Some tough choices had to be made,” Schill said. “And as a mom, I thought making sure the kids had food was first priority and other things could wait. So it sits there. My car sits there, and I ride my bike.”
         Her commute home is on heavily congested roads through downtown Lexington. Her journey takes her along Georgetown Road, Newtown Pike, Maxwell Street, Upper Street and then on Nicholasville Road which is often in bumper-to-bumper traffic.
         To ride safely, she says it’s important to be consistent so drivers know what to expect. She stays in the slow lane, taking a position in the right third of the lane. “What that does is that makes me visible to traffic. They see me, and they, typically will merge into the passing lane and pass me,” Schill said.
         Under Kentucky law, bicycles are defined as vehicles and have the right to use state roadways. State law says slower-moving vehicles, including bicycles, must drive as close as practical to the right hand boundary of the road. It does not mean riding on the shoulder of the road which can often filled with glass, stones, and other debris.
         As her commute put Schill on one of central Kentucky’s busiest roads, WKYT watched as she slowed down lines of cars and trucks by the dozen. Schill says she’s been called every name in the book.
         “You don’t get a thick skin to people wishing you harm,” Schill said.
         Spurred by complaints from drivers, the Jessamine County Sheriff’s Office and Nicholasville Police have cited Schill three times in the last month for careless driving on her bike. They say riding a bike on U.S. 27 in a lane of traffic puts Schill and other drivers at risk.
         Now, the Jessamine County attorney has asked a judge to ban Schill from riding on U.S. 27 until her jury trial in August.
         “It just creates a very dangerous situation when you’ve got somebody on a bike that’s difficult to see to begin with, on a very highly travelled road, with signifigant speeds and a lot of people don’t pay attention to what they should be while driving, so it all compounds itself,” said Jessamine County Attorney Brian Goettl.
         Goettl says a deputy sheriff responding to a robbery almost wrecked because Schill backed up traffic.
         “He was almost in a wreck because of Miss Schill, and so it added to me another element of danger that I hadn’t even thought of before,” Goettl said.
         “I’m not out there to ruin your day,” Schill said. “I’m just trying to get home like everyone else, and I’m going as fast as I can. Some days I can go faster than others. The really big thing is, we all need to share the road.”
         Schill also doesn’t have a valid driver’s license in Kentucky because of a traffic violation in another state.
         The motion to ban Schill from riding on U.S. 27 is scheduled to be heard Tuesday in Jessamine County Court. If the judge blocks her from riding on U.S. 27, a cycling safety expert says it could set a bad precedent for bike riders in the future.

MP: Evidently, this concluding paragraph was written before the judge ruled in Cherokee Schill’s favor.

Map showing partial route taken by Cherokee Schill

Map showing partial route taken by Cherokee Schill,
based on information in above story

         
The Saturday St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in recognition of the founding of St. Louis 250 years ago, featured a humorous Mound City cartoon by Dan Martin, who also draws the daily Weatherbird.

Dan Martin was subsequently kind enough to send me a color version of the cartoon appearing in the newspaper.

What caught my eye was item #5 in the “To Do” list. The modern bicycle didn’t exist at the time but trust the French to be technically very advanced (except, perhaps, on the subject of bike lanes!).

Postcard for the web



           

Karen Karabell shsm

Karen Karabell


And while on the subject of bike lanes, go to an in-depth guest post by Karen Karabell called Taking the lane — a CyclingSavvy instructor explains her objection to bike lanes.

It was just posted on Ted Rogers’ blog BikinginLA






         
Below are prepared comments received from those who testified at the county council meeting on January 21, 2014, as well as transcripts I’ve made from video posted later on-line by TheGatewaytvnetwork.

County council members subsequently approved Substitute Bill #2 for Bill #238 (aka “Complete Streets”) by 6 votes to 0, with Chairwoman Hazel Erby abstaining.

Once again, I spoke against this Complete Streets bill. I’ve been doing so since first reading about it in the Sunday St. Louis Post-Dispatch story on 2013-11-24 titled St. Louis County is poised to approve measure for bike- and pedestrian-friendly roads. But fortunately I’ve not been alone, having been joined by others who also concluded this bill was a bad idea, promoting actions which the highway department already takes, in many cases, or other goals which are undesirable and self-serving.

This is a long blog, reproducing practically everything relevant that was said that evening, but I feel it’s worth recording for future reference. I’ve also inserted my comments into other’s testimony, prefaced by my initials, MP , when I felt it worthwhile.

Written testimony provided by speakers is highlighted in blue. Testimony I have painstakingly transcribed, in part or in full from on-line video, is in white.

All told fourteen speakers testified, 10 against and 4 in favor, in the following order:

Alan Leaderbrand

Alan Leaderbrand

CON: Alan Leaderbrand, Lemay. 04:47 – 06:38 (minutes in the on-line recording)

“Good evening. My name is Alan Leaderbrand and I live in Lemay, and I’m here to ask you to vote down the Complete Streets. I’ve got the new revised bill that you’re putting forth but still I don’t see where the additional costs of doing Complete Streets are put forth. I don’t know what the additional miles of road for the county to maintain. The costs are going to go up, which means the H&T Dept. won’t be able to repair the same amount of miles of roads each year.”
         Referring to the Post-Dispatch: “The City of Clayton, which has already instituted Complete Streets, is now proposing to put forth on the ballot an increase in their property taxes because they don’t have enough funding for their streets. That’s what I’m concerned about, if you do this Complete Street, in a year or two you’re going to come back for a tax increase because we don’t have enough money to take care of our roads anymore because you’ve upped the cost tremendously to institute a program to take care of adding bike lanes for a small, you know, 1% or 2% of the population that rides their bikes. I don’t see a lot of bike people riding their bikes right now, in the wintertime. So I don’t see it as a justification for the additional expense.
         So I ask you to please, vote no, and kill this measure. Thank you.”

Ronald Dubson

Ronald Dubson

PRO: Ronald Dubson, Crestwood. 12:24 – 14:51

“My name is Ronald Dubson. I’m representing Metropolitan Congregations United.
I live at 26 Jo Ann Pl., in Crestwood, MO (63126) in the county, it’s about 2 blocks from Big Bend and Sappington Rd. I’ve lived there for the past 7 years.
         For the past 3 years I have ridden my bicycle to get to work from my home to the Sunnen Metrolink station, and I take the MetroLink train to North Hanley, and from there I catch the No. 34 Express Bus to my place of work on Riverport Dr. at Magellan Health Services. Now, my bike ride takes me down Big Bend from Sappington Rd. to Webster University, and some of that road is two lanes and some of it is 4 lanes.
         I want to speak in favor of Substitute Bill #2 for BILL NO. 238 introduced by Council member Pat Dolan. When I told my primary care provider, Dr. Michael Bavlsik, that I was riding my bike to get to work he told me that riding a bike is a great form of exercise, but it’s extremely dangerous to ride a bicycle in commuter traffic. And then he told me about someone he knew who was killed on a bicycle while making a left turn at an intersection.
         I did not take my doctor’s advice, but I do try to avoid making left turns.

MP: In general, avoiding left turns is neither desirable nor necessary. Moving left is required if you wish to turn left or continue straight and your lane becomes a right-turn-only lane, for example. It can be done safely, but acquiring the relevant knowledge and skills is desirable, just as it is for a motorist. Lane control and left-turns are demonstrated in a video I shot while bicycling with Gerry Nolls, owner of The Ferguson Bicycle Shop, and posted previously at BICYCLING Made SIMPLE. This video also demonstrates that the current road system, despite being dominated by automobiles, CAN work well for cyclists too. Ensuring equality of access, as in Ferguson, and safe cycling knowledge are key.

         In my opinion, adding bicycle lanes to certain parts of the county is neither feasible nor possible. However, whenever it’s possible, I think it should be done, because the developers who created our current system of roads in the county assumed that eventually everyone, to get from point A to point B, would be driving a car. I think that was a very shortsighted decision, and I don’t think it’s fair to the people who want alternatives to automobiles. Thank you.”

John Peters

John Peters

CON: John Peters, Chesterfield. 15:21 – 18:04
38 Meadowbrook Country Club Estates, Chesterfield, MO 63017

“Good evening. I am concerned about the passage of a Complete Streets policy in St. Louis given:
         1) The numerous bridges that are reported to need repair or replacement in a significant fashion;
         That the county police are taking on the task of policing more and more area of the St. Louis County.
         I’m concerned that more land will be needed for the increased acreage for the street infrastructure, primarily by additional cost buying additional land for enhanced streets.
         And if not buying the land from the property owner, that the land could end up being taken under an eminent domain policy.
         And that an enhanced street infrastructure will undoubtedly be used by a sigificantly smaller percent of the population, I feel, of the non-automobile vehicular public.
         This is after the county has spent millions upon millions of dollars to enhance streets, and to widen streets to reduce or eliminate bottlenecks.
         So, in closing, I’m concerned that the dollars spent will be exorbitant and (not justified by) the ultimate use of the enhanced infrastructure, as in Austin, Texas, that went to the Complete Streets policy. I understand that their costs have come to $205,000 per block.
         We see so many things in the paper about needing to increase and enhance our police department. And again, roads and bridges. I don’t think we want to take on the task of guessing to see if we’ll have enough money for Complete Streets also.
         Thank you.”

Nick Kasoff

Nick Kasoff

CON: Nick Kasoff, Ferguson. 18:12 – 21:22

The Complete Streets bill is supposed to make our streets more usable by pedestrians and transit users. After recent storms, pedestrians on Airport Road had to walk in traffic lanes, because even on major arterials, the county does not plow sidewalks. And bus riders stood in the street waiting for the bus, as cars skidded by, because the county plows a wall of snow onto the sidewalk.
         If you really cared about making our streets better for pedestrians and transit users, that would be a good place to start. Instead, this bill sends highway staff to Complete Streets professional development and workshops. How can you justify putting up county staff at the Ritz Carlton while leaving bus riders standing in the street?
         I also reviewed county ordinance 1105, and there’s no statutory training requirement for any other subject. In the 200 years since this county’s founding, no ordinance has demanded that highway department personnel attend particular symposiums and meetings. Yet you would tell us that Complete Streets is of such vital importance to our county that planners and engineers must be required to routinely attend workshops as a matter of legal requirement?
         And, you still have the Peer Advisory Committee. The county will pay them to provide advice to the highway department, and to gather data on road usage. Meanwhile, bus riders will still be waiting out in the street. The disabled will still be driving their scooters in traffic lanes. But Trailnet will be getting paid.
         Finally, a quick word about the character of those pushing this bill. Last week, Rhonda Smythe told two baldfaced lies in her testimony. First, in answer to accusations that Trailnet hoped to secure taxpayer dollars through Complete Streets, she said, “We raise every dime that we bring in the door.” In fact, according to their most recent IRS filing, they received more than $430,000 in government grants, more than 1/3 of their total contributions. Second, she cited MoDOT’s “Missouri on the Move” survey as showing support for bike lanes and buses over smooth roads. She forgot to mention that MoDOT specifically states that this was NOT intended to be a statistically significant survey. She also forgot to mention that they took surveys at Great Rivers Greenway, and at the Earth Day Festival in Forest Park. And amazingly, the Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation has already listed passage of this ordinance as an accomplished fact on their website.
         This is a bad bill, being pushed by people who have repeatedly lied to the council. I urge you to do the right thing, by voting no.

Susan Herzberg addressing county council M138 300

Susan Herzberg addressing St. Louis County Council

CON: Susan Herzberg, St. Louis. 21:35 – 24:00

“Hello. I’ve heard that you’ve all heard many of us a couple of times over the past weeks in the course of discussion of this bill, Complete Streets, and I wanted to come here in person because I feel so strongly about this.
         I am a daily bike commuter — yes, even in winter. And sometimes I call myself a “bike evangelist,” but I’m not here as part of any special interest group. I’m here as a concerned citizen.
         I was hit by a car in the bike lane on Manchester, the newly-painted bike lane, and I could have been killed. Luckily it was winter and I had on a lot of clothing, which means a lot of padding, so I was alright. I knocked off the mirror on the side of the car, which upset the driver. It was a terrible situation but luckily I’m all right. I was only bruised and cut a little.
         A motorist was turning right and ran right into me. I could have been killed.
         I’m here to tell you that I wasn’t really sure but I know now: bike lanes create a dangerous situation. Previously on Manchester Road there were two traffic lanes (in each direction, four altogether) and I rode safely in the second (outside or curb traffic lane) on Manchester for 2-1/2 years without incident whatsoever. And then, once the bike lane was put in it created a dangerous situation.
         So, cars don’t know that you’re there. They don’t know how to deal with a bike lane and the person turned right in front of me and right into me.
         The person turned right in front of me and right into me, and it caused a collision.
         So, I’m here because I believe people’s lives are at stake. I believe these bike lanes are not going to help anyone.
         I know everyone up here is a conscientious person. I know you are all well-intentioned and conscientious people. If not, you certainly would not be in county government.
         So, I’m asking you, please: Just take some time and consider, what is safest for the cyclists? Who will be liable when someone is killed in a bike lane?  Those who design and implement a dangerous condition?  Why do this? The cyclists don’t need this. We don’t want it. It’s just to give an illusion that this is a better and safer place to be. But it’s really not.The safest place for cyclists is in with the flow of traffic. I want to thank all of you for taking the time to listen to me today.”

Stephen Baker

Stephen Baker

CON: Stephen Baker, Wildwood. 24:13 – 25:13
315 Timber Meadow Dr., Wildwood, 63011  

“Once again, I’m here to speak against the Complete Streets proposal. This bill is a ploy for special interest groups to get money to get their voice in front of this council. There’s no reason for special interests to be listed in the bill to say money has to be spent in their direction.
         This bill is no longer a blatant land grab: it’s a more subtle land grab. But it still needs a lot more rework. This bill is not good for the interests of the community and I think you should vote it down.”

Jennifer Bird

Jennifer Bird: “Just because someone says they have facts doesn’t make it so, but I do have the paperwork”

CON: Jennifer Bird, Crestwood, 63126 26:58 – 30:27

“Thank you for taking my comments. I would first like to thank Mrs. Erby for taking your name off the Complete Streets legislation. I would also like to thank the council, mildly, for revisiting and removing some of the things. One of the things I’m very happy to see removed is that privately constructed streets and parking lots shall adhere to this policy. I think that Mrs. Erby is probably the most reasonable person on the council so I wanted to express my appreciation for that.
         I also want to correct the lies that came from Rhonda Smythe last week, who is a representative of Trailnet. She indicated that Trailnet was completely privately funded. That’s false. I have the 990 here. The most recent I have is from 2011. I’ll go over a few numbers briefly.
         I’ll start with Ann Mack’s salary. Executive Director, reportable compensation $93,795, and then for other compensation is $6,216. That’s a lot of money but we’ll ponder that later.
I’m going to go on to government grants (contributions), which are public dollars: $433,203.
         Just because someone says they have facts doesn’t make it so, but I do have the paperwork. I’ll be happy to leave it with you if you wish.
Screen Shot 2014-02-02 at 2.28.41 PM (2)
         An organization that normally receives a substantial part of its funds from a governmental unit or from the general public. So substantial public funds are what they receive. [check ~29:30]
         If you do the math it shows they are 90% publicly funded.
         And lastly, GRG contributed $57,650 to them. They’re the people that got the Prop P tax money last year: that’s $31 million out of the area that’s not being spent by people because it’s a tax.
         With Clayton new taxes. Lindbergh looking for new taxes. Clayton just instituted Complete Streets. Having to put for new taxes on the board, I think yo should vote no on Complete Streets … and I hope you will. Thank you.”

Hon. Teresa Douglas

Hon. Teresa Douglas


CON: The Honorable Teresa Douglas, Committeewoman in the Lemay Township. 30:44 – 34.14
8208 Weimar Dr., St. Louis, MO, 63123.

“Hello. My name’s Teresa Douglas, I’m a Committeewoman in the Lemay Township, Mr. Stenger’s district. I’m asking you to stop this Complete Streets program today. There are so many things that have not been disclosed to the public. For example, you mention in there that you’re going to allow for facilities management: what facilities are going to be built with this Complete Streets program?
         You mention that a study will be done, yet everything that I read in here keeps saying we will comply with Complete Streets and it’s going to happen with or without the study. It says that the only time that we’re going to NOT abide by that is if it’s for routine maintenance or ITS mass transit. So we’re going to do it whether the study says it’s going to be expensive or not, or not feasible.
         It talks about building mass transit stops. How much is just that going to cost? Has there been any cost analysis of this?
         The facilities: I’m wondering is that anything like the Oakville Living Center that has to comply with the St. Louis County strategic plan?
         Has any one spoken with the truckers? Has anyone spoken with the Teamster’s Union because they’re under a mandate to increase the length of their trucks? As it is, they can’t get around all these roundabouts. They have to drive over the curbs. They’re knocking down street signs. I’m hearing from truckers that they can’t even get in to make their deliveries.          You’ve narrowed the street down to put in bike lanes. How are you going to tell people that their grocery store is closing down because they can’t get merchandise?
         I have a report from the Institute of Transportation Studies at UCLA that this is going to create congestion. They’re saying that’s OK because that’s going to be good for the bicyclists. Is congestion good for the community? Is a business going to want to build in St. Louis in a more congested environment?
         Berkeley University out in California is working to defeat this because of the congestion problems this has created.”

Rhonda Smythe, Policy & Advocacy Manager, Trailnet

Rhonda Smythe: “So, even the, (quote) bike people are supportive of Complete Streets”

PRO: Rhonda Smythe.
411 N. 10th St., Ste. 202, Policy and Advocacy Manager, representing Trailnet 0:34:26 – 0:36:41

“Good evening. If non-profits competing for grants makes us for-profits, then I guess all non-profits are actually for-profits. Trailnet competes for grants available to non-profits. Some of the opposition also competes for and receives these same taxpayer dollars that are available through grants.
         Last week I provided information on the USDOT and FHWA policies for the inclusion of walking and biking infrastructure into transportation projects. I also provided information from the AARP and the National Association of Realtors supporting Complete Streets, as well as the most recent MoDOT survey for the St. Louis region that shows strong support for public transit and safe spaces for bikes, and I’ll give you that information after I’m done.
         Throughout the policy process you have heard or received supporter testimony from Paraquad, WashU., SLU, the Municipal League, Great Rivers Greenway, Metro St. Louis Equal Housing Opportunity Council, the American Heart Association, labor officials, local elected officials, statewide elected officials, transportation professionals, and activated residents. You’ve heard testimony from a St. Louis City elected official that Complete Streets did not increase the City’s transportation budget. You heard testimony from an engineer who has implemented Complete Streets. You’ve heard from municipal leaders who want the ability to implement their community’s Master Plans. You’ve heard testimony from numerous residents about the need for safe places to walk and bike.
                  Last week, Missouri statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian advocacy organization ran a survey asking the question:
         “Do you support the adoption of the Complete Streets policy in your community?”
         They got 515 responses statewide. Of those, 94% were supportive of having a Complete Streets policy in their community, with 3% neutral and 3% opposing.
         In the St. Louis metro area there were 256 responses with a 92% rate of support.
         So, even the, (quote) bike people are supportive of Complete Streets policies overall with 5 (percent) neutral and 3 (percent) opposing.
         This policy lays out a vision for Complete Streets in St. Louis County. It sets a path for the region we could become. Implementation is in the hands of county departments. And, once again, I appreciate your time on this issue. I ask that you please vote yes on Complete Streets.”

MP: I don’t find it surprising that Trailnet can demonstrate widespread support for something as seemingly desirable as “Complete Streets.” As I noted in previous testimony I gave, intended to be ironic, who wants “Incomplete Streets”?
It also doesn’t surprise me that this would have the overwhelming support of the “bike people” surveyed by the Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation, of which I was formerly a member. The overwhelming majority of cyclists and non-cyclists have had no soundly-based bike education. Without that knowledge, bike facilities in the form of bike lanes would seem an attractive way to accommodate bicyclists on public roads.

CON: Karen Karabell, St. Louis.
(CyclingSavvy Instructor) 36:52 – 39:57

Karen Karen turning to the media to make a point M300 221 (L 510 376)

Karen Karabell, turning to the media during opening remarks


         
I am opening my three minutes with a challenge to the media.
         I hope that one of you will follow the money on this issue. There is very little money in cycling education. However, a lucrative new industry has developed around advising municipalities on how to create and install on-road facilities for bicyclists.
         I am thrilled when facilities support safe cycling on our public roadways. I want people to choose bicycling! But what we are seeing in St. Louis in the name of “Complete Streets” are facilities that make riding more dangerous.
Vehicles-Victims Splat!

Vehicles-Victims Splat!

         The Bicycle Industrial Complex knows this. They know that “separate” on-road infrastructure is not truly separate, and sooner or later leads to this:
(Holding up “Splat!” graphic.)
         Still, for reasons I don’t have time to go into here, the Bicycle Industrial Complex continues to recommend the painting and installation of fancy stuff on our public roadways that actually makes transportation harder for both cyclists and motorists.
         I wish that one of you would give us the real story.
         Council Members and County Executive Dooley, I want to thank you for your time over these last couple of months. My guess is that you want nothing more than for this issue to go away.
         If you vote no, I promise that you will be vilified on a national level, as David Wrone was last August. I could write the headline for Streetsblog myself:
“What is wrong with those stupid Midwesterners?”
         There is nothing wrong with us. We, who are not blinded by ideological fervor or by our pocketbooks, have no trouble cutting to the chase. Infrastructure that creates conflict on our roads between cyclists and motorists is unethical. It is dangerous. It should be removed, before another person is injured or killed.
Karen Karabell finishing her testimony.

Karen Karabell finishing her testimony.

         This is a conversation that can no longer be entrusted to the paid professionals of the Bicycle Industrial Complex. This remaking of our public roadways to accommodate bicyclists is a very serious matter, and deserves thoughtful public discussion. I am deeply grateful to the Council for allowing this discussion to be held.

Eli Karabell

Eli Karabell

CON: Eli Karabell, St. Louis.
40:06 – 43:09

“Good evening council members. Good evening County Executive Dooley. I want to stand up here as a simple American. In my humble opinion I believe that this Complete Streets bill will lead to people getting hurt. But not only that, it will be a disaster for the region.
         A perfect example of this is, um, I’m a bicyclist and I ride on a street called Jefferson Avenue, a major north-south street. On this street there’s a bike lane, and this bike lane is one of the most dangerous pieces of anything I’ve ever seen in my life. I will not ride in it because if I do ride in it I’m putting my life at risk. And if there was not a bike lane there I would feel much, much safer.
         Now let me also say, quoting Frederick Douglas, that I will unite that anyone that will do right; I will anybody to do wrong. And to keep to Frederick Douglas’s legacy and the great legacy of the civil rights leaders, like the late Dr. King, I believe that we need to defeat this bill.
         I believe if this were to go to a referendum it would fail by 70%
         I beg you to please vote this thing down, not only because I feel like it’s a bad bill but, like what happened to Mrs. Hertzberg, I think it would hurt people.”

Martin Pion

Martin Pion

CON: Martin Pion, Ferguson
43:22 – 46:30/46:50

Madame Chairman, Council members, and County Executive: first, I’m sorry for my weekly appearances. However, I’m convinced it’s been necessary to oppose Complete Streets.
         The Complete Streets Coalition is a wonderfully self-serving organization that has adopted a brilliant name to replace the original term: “reasonable accommodation”, as I pointed out a few weeks ago. But what does it really accomplish?
         You’ll recall its guiding principles are to accommodate everyone, regardless of age or ability, in a multimodal transportation system. Let’s examine that goal.
         It won’t impact the bus system or MetroLink. Those require funding, especially MetroLink, which has been rebuffed by residents of St. Charles County, regrettably.
         It won’t change the situation for Paraquad, which already is served by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act that requires curb cuts and other accommodations for the disabled.
         I’d like to see more planning for pedestrians, such as wider sidewalks, and safer ways to cross major intersections. My experience in England proves that more can be done and I’d welcome County Highways & Traffic be more open to somewhat novel ideas, but funding will again be partly an issue.
         However, there’s tension between the different modes: with a given amount of right-of-way, widening sidewalks comes at the expense of others in the corridor, i.e. motorists and/or cyclists.
         And that brings me to the most contentious issue: what kind of infrastructure best allows motorists and cyclists to coexist safely while preserving efficiency?
         I believe Exhibit A is Manchester Ave.-MO Route 100, recently restriped according to Complete Streets principles. Great Rivers Greenway advocated for bike lanes. Where they couldn’t be accommodated, a single mile long westbound lane with sharrows down its middle has been striped. And to accomplish that required removing one regular travel lane. That has led to the following problems:
         For cyclists: Door zone bike lanes and curbside bike lanes, either of which can lead to cyclist fatalities or serious injuries. The latter nearly did so in the case of cyclist Susan Herzberg last December 16.
Gutter bike lanes are also magnets for debris and often are uneven, with parallel joints near the curb. Those joints can grab a bike wheel and cause a crash, which happened to me several years ago .
         For motorists: Frustration at being delayed, due to fewer travel lanes and to a lone cyclist in a lane with no legal passing permitted – for one mile!
         And all to further the ambitions of Trailnet and Great Rivers Greenway?
Please: kill this bill.

Charles Wilbur

Charles Wilbur

PRO: Charles Wilbur.
47:02 – 49:57

“Good evening all. My name is Charles Wilbur. I live down in Councilmember Stenger’s district, I believe, off of Weber Rd. (sic). I was here in the middle of December listening to testimony and I testified then and there was a whole lot of feelings and anecdotes, and I’ve seen this happen and I’ve seen that happen going around the room. And I left feeling like, as someone with a background in science, I was not really satisfied with that, so I went looking for some data. And the only data I could find I found off of a blog called “Taking the lane” where they linked to a study on the bike lanes that were added on 8th Avenue and 9th Avenue in NYC.

MP: Charles Wilbur makes a really surprising statement about the paucity of good information on-line. For example, John Forester, often credited with being the father of vehicular cycling, has an extensive web presence on the subject at http://www.johnforester.com/articles.htm. John S. Allen is another valuable on-line resource at http://www.bikexprt.com/index.htm. I conclude that Wilbur was just looking for material to back up his own view of the subject. But finding such material doesn’t end the debate.

         And NYC, being NYC, was very thorough in how they documented the safety, the effect on retail, and all the other effects of putting those bike lanes in on those two avenues. So the blog post was rather literate so if you’ll indulge me I’ll quote it a little bit.

MP: Wilbur then quoted from ” Breaking: Bike infrastructure debate officially over,” posted May 7, 2013, by Elly Blue in Commentary, omitting some verbiage for brevity, as indicated by blue italicized text below. The full text is on-line at

http://takingthelane.com/2013/05/07/breaking-bike-infrastructure-debate-officially-over/%5D

         In 2007 NYC added protected bike lanes known as “cycle tracks” to two previously car-centric one way arterials in Manhattan, on 8th and 9th Avenues.
These lanes – basically, regular bike lanes with a physical barrier (often parked cars) and special signals at intersections in order to separate people on bikes from people driving and walking – were controversial before and after construction, with lots of dithering and yammering about how they would hurt business and freight, cause crashes, hold up traffic, and waste time and money.
         The city’s transportation department released a study in October, 2012. The bike infrastructure did more than make cycling safer: The study found a 35% decrease in traffic crash related injuries to all street users on 8th Ave (path), and a whopping 58% decrease on 9th Ave. That’s a 58% decrease in crashes as a whole. Not just pedestrian crashes. Not just bike crashes. All traffic crashes dropped by 58% on 9th Ave.

MP: I believe the 58% figure was for ALL crashes, but if correct, it’s a significant reduction and one must ask how it was achieved.
Intersections are typically high risk locations for bicyclists and motorists because of turning movements. John Allen describes it as a Cadillac example of such a treatment. In addition, John Allen, who rode and videotaped it in 2012, has provided helpful feedback which I’ve now had an opportunity to review.
Basically, this road has had a major makeover for several blocks, with a one-way bike lane alongside a sidewalk separated by bollards and on-street parking from two adjoining one-way travel lanes. Cross traffic at each intersection is also one-way, alternating in direction.
John Allen’s video shows pedestrians standing in the bike lane waiting to cross it, which is a little unnerving for cyclists riding at 15 mph or more. Occasionally John Allen yells at them to ensure they yield to him.
Cyclists have a separate light signal which is a mixed blessing because it lasts only half as long as the one controlling motor vehicles. There is still potential conflict with motorists turning left from the adjoining left-turn-only lane. I would also assume that any vehicular cyclist preferring to ride in the traffic lane would find the presence of the bike lane prejudicial to their doing so.
This is an improvement for pedestrians, who now have an island part-way across the street to assist when crossing it.
I’ll return to this subject in a detailed blog to follow.

         “Meanwhile, retail sales income in locally-based businesses along the 9th Ave lane went up as much as 50%. This was during a recession. In the same period, borough-wide retail sales only increased 3%.
         This was during a recession. In the same period, borough-wide retail sales only increased 3%.”

Charles Wilbur: " "

Charles Wilbur: “.. to the CyclingSavvy people … Missouri has the seventh worst drivers in the country.”

         So protected bike lanes do cost money to install—with every penny furiously contested—but next to nothing compared to routine roadway maintenance and expansion projects. And instead of continuing to cost the community, they boost business, grow the tax base, and save money for the people who use them. And they (even) create smoother traffic flow for people who (must still drive) are still driving. ”
         I was going to throw in to the CyclingSavvy people and the ones who advocate biking in traffic lanes another little stat that I came across while I was doing all my research.
         Missouri has the seventh worst drivers in the country. Those are the people you’re putting your lives in the hands of when you get out in the traffic lanes, so just bear that in mind.
         Thank you for your time.”

MP: Wilbur’s final poke at competent cyclists exposes a glaring lack of knowledge. It is based on the belief that a cyclist controlling the lane on a multi-lane road is at greater risk of being rear-ended by a faster-moving motorist than a cyclist in a bike lane off to the side.
That is not typically the case.
While such car-bike crashes do occur, often involving either drunk or distracted motorists, most are due to intersectional conflicts. They occur when a motorist, wanting to turn at an intersection or driveway, crosses a cyclist’s path and the cyclist is in the motorist’s blind spot or the motorist fails to notice them.
This is what led directly to the car-bike collision involving cyclist Susan Herzberg. As she noted in her testimony, for two-and-a-half years she never had a problem when controlling the curb lane. But only one month after it was replaced by a bike lane stripe, she was right-hooked in the new bike lane.

Linda Friese

Linda Friese


PRO: Linda Friese.
50:11 – 51:11

“I, too, would like to voice my support for the Complete Streets. At a time when we’re facing all these problems because of climate problems, and overweight and not enough physical activity, that we need to put as much effort as possible into getting people out in the street and walking and bicycles and any other form of physical effort is very important. Adding more space for bicycles to encourage them and fewer people to drive. Getting rid of some of the driving and parking issues.
         I really hope that you’ll vote for the Complete Streets. Thank you.”

Council members’ comments prefacing their votes on the bill:

Chairwoman Hazel Erby

Chairwoman Hazel Erby

Councilmember Erby: First of all, I’d like to commend Councilman Dolan and his staff, specifically Eric (Eric Fey, Executive Assistant), for the work that you’ve put into this bill. The meetings with everyone, to hear everyone’s concerns. I know you’ve worked very hard on this bill. I think I’ve changed my mind a couple of times sitting here tonight just listening to the concerns that everyone has. I know, and I believe in, a walkable, bikeable, community.
         However, when I hear some of the safety concerns, it bothers me. The concerns I had, particularly the cost control in terms of the highway department, I think have been addressed.
Councilmember Erby announcing her vote with Councilman Dolan looking on

Councilmember Erby announcing her vote with Councilman Dolan looking on

         But I’m concerned about the safety issues and I’ve wrestled with that as well because, it doesn’t say that you have to ride in that bike lane, am I correct? You have a choice as to where you can ride. So, with that, (sigh) I don’t know. I abstain. I’m just not prepared to vote on it tonight. I’m sorry. I know Pat has worked very, very hard on this, but I abstain.

Councilmember Kathy Burkett

Councilmember Kathy Burkett

Councilmember Burkett: I also would like to thank Councilmember Dolan for the time and effort that he has put into this, and I know that his concerns were legitimate. I know that he wants to be able to take care of as many of his constituency as possible, as all of us do. That’s one of the reasons that we got elected, was to take of the people that live within our districts and live within the county.
         I too, like Chairman Erby, do believe that the future, you might say, dictates that we become more user-friendly, as far as bicycling and walking. And most of you know me know that I’m a huge, huge proponent of mass transit. So I, again, like Councilmember Erby, there are some things that concern me. I understand that Sheryl Hodges, who is head of the highway department, is in favor of this bill, and that gives me much pleasure, because even though we are bicyclists and walkers, streets are made for motor vehicles, and highway department people are made to look at the availability and the use of those roads for motor vehicles.
         So I am going to vote yes on this. I do believe that there are some concerns, and I may add, just as a personal note, that if you see me in my white 2006 Chrysler Seebring, and you’re riding [58:09] a bicycle, you’d probably be smart to pull over and let me go by. (Laughter.)

Councilmember Colleen Wasinger

Councilmember Colleen Wasinger

Councilmember Wasinger: Thank you. I want to thank everybody who’s come here over the last several weeks to give your input, both for and against the bill. I think the bill before us is a product of much work on both sides, and I’m very appreciative to Councilmember Dolan and Sheryl Hodges and Glenn Powers, who I know were very involved in coming up with a better bill.

MP: Sheryl L. Hodges, D.E., is St. Louis County Director of Highways & Traffic; Glenn A. Powers is Director of Planning.
         The Complete Streets ordinance is a transportation policy that will allow different methods of transportation to be considered, not mandated, when highway projects are being thought out on an annual basis. The policy before us tonight states that the ordinance sets forth guiding principles, again not mandates, that shall be considered by the St. Louis County Highway Department.
         With regard to cost, which I agree was a great concern, there is no mandate to spend any money in this particular bill. Projects will follow our standard procedures, which is that the highway department will make a recommendation to the council for projects, and the council will have an opportunity to vote on the proposal. In addition, the public will be allowed input, as is our standard procedure on any items that come before us.
         Because of these checks and balances that are in place I am going to vote yes, in favor of this bill.

Councilmember Mike O'Mara

Councilmember Mike O’Mara

Councilmember O’Mara: Just real brief, er, I’d like to thank Martin Pion. We’ve always had a cordial relationship whether we agree or disagree. I mean, we at least talk. You’re probably the most dynamic – you never know what gear you’re going to show up at this council with.
         And as we discussed on Old Halls Ferry project, I know you had some input in that too. We did put a bike lane in in that particular project. We also added a bus lane before the elementary school to back up onto the main thoroughfare.
         So those are individual projects, the same as this Complete Streets will be individual projects, and we’ll work together with the community to make sure that they are the safest for St. Louis County, and keep the cost down. It is a big thing with the expense for St. Louis County, but I think, Pat, you’ve done an excellent job, working with both sides to move this project along.
         So with that, I go with aye.

Councilmember Pat Dolan

Councilmember Pat Dolan

Councilmember Dolan: Thank you. I don’t know where to begin here, but I’d like to thank the council for their patience throughout this, no matter how the vote goes. We’re here to listen to citizen’s comments and do the best we can. This is not just a District 5 Complete Streets policy, it’s a St. Louis County Complete Streets policy. So thank you all for your consideration and your patience. I also want to make a special thank you to Eric Fey, my assistant, who did a majority of the work on this. I can’t take all the calls and answer all the e-mails, and Eric’s done a tremendous job of representing the 5th District and St. Louis County, so thanks Eric.
          When we started this last April, or whenever it was, we had two different spectrums. No Complete Streets at all, and then Complete Streets that would be beyond any imaginable, I guess. So two different viewpoints were brought together, and it was really a collaboration of both ideas.
         Trailnet, in my opinion, does a great job. We need organizations like them in St. Louis County to speak for people. This wasn’t just a Trailnet and highway department issue, there were a lot of other interested organizations, and municipalities, but more importantly, the residents.
         The basic reason that we’re doing this is that we’ve been shown that the residents desired a Complete Streets policy and a consideration of it. So that’s why I undertook this and I appreciate again everybody for everybody’s input and I had the pleasure of talking to all sides on this issue, and I guess most of all, I enjoy seeing the passion that people have about this in St. Louis County, whatever side you’re on. It’s rewarding to me, so with that I say aye.

Councilmember Steve Stenger

Councilmember Steve Stenger

Councilmember Stenger : Aye.











Councilmember Greg Quinn

Councilmember Greg Quinn

Councilmember Quinn: (t=1:03:36) I too would like to thank everyone who has come out to speak on this bill. Obviously, some very passionately held opinions. Some people have said that bike lanes are safe, and some have said that those lanes are not safe. I have some thoughts about the subject also, but I think we should all be glad that I don’t design streets.
(Subdued chuckles from fellow council members.)
         This bill, fortunately, leaves the decisions about highways and highway expenditures, highway safety, where it always has been: with the county highway department, the highway experts. The highway department has always made the decisions on what is safe and what is not, and they will continue to do so under this bill. This bill doesn’t change any of that. The bill doesn’t compel any money to be spent on existing roads or on future road projects. It doesn’t compel the council or county to spend any more money than the council is comfortable about fitting within the budget.
         For any money to be spent on any existing roads or any future road projects, any specific proposal will have to come before the council for approval, as it always has. So really in that regard the council will have the final say in whether or not to approve any particular project.
         So I don’t foresee runaway expenditures with this bill, so I vote aye. (t=1:05:18)

MP: Possibly without realizing it, Councilmember Quinn has put his finger precisely on the issue. If this bill is leaving decisions to the highway department “on what is safe and what is not,” and also “doesn’t compel any money to be spent on existing roads or on future road projects,” then that implies this bill is serving absolutely no purpose!
So why not simply vote against it?

Note: As a result of an oversight this wasn’t made public until 2014-02-16! Well better late than never, because it allows me to reference the ironic testimony I gave about “Incomplete Streets” during that county council meeting.

This was the last opportunity of the year for the public to comment before St. Louis County Council on the so-called “Complete Streets” bill, being promoted by Trailnet. As in the previous week, opponents greatly outnumbered the supporters who this time were two mothers and a Trailnet employee.

The mothers’ concerns were mainly to do with the safety of children bicycling on the road or walking to school. Those concerns can be dealt with by, for example, providing a crossing guard for the times when young children are going to and from school, and teaching them fundamental rules when crossing a street, as is done in England where I grew up. Not all children are mature enough to be taught how to use a bicycle for transportation. For those who are, I recommend the comprehensive Diana Lewiston’s “Bicycling in Traffic” curriculum for 13-year-old school children, and as demonstrated in the video Safe Cycling 4 Kids — 10-year-old Theresa shows how

Trailnet’s approach was to point to the law’s adoption by an increasing number of communities and to challenge the suggestion that implementation would be costly.

I agree that more communities are jumping on the bandwagon, my own City of Ferguson regrettably being one of them, and I perceive that transportation engineers favor it as another opportunity for road redesign and striping.

Complete Streets appears to go hand-in-hand with another new fad called Road Diets, in which roads are being restriped with fewer lanes. That may be justified sometimes and can open up desirable options for road treatments, but it is also used as yet another excuse for bike lanes. Or pseudo-bike lanes like the ones in the photo below which accompanied the St. Louis Post-Dispatch December 13th editorial: “Drop the kickstand.”

Below are testimonies I’ve received to date, including mine, in the order in which they were presented.


Karen Karabell TN 124 by 150 M 249 by 300

Karen Karabell, wearing her Traffic Cycling INSTRUCTOR t-shirt

Karen Karabell, St. Louis

I teach safe traffic cycling and I’m opposed to the Complete Streets bill.
         The “Complete Streets” phenomenon reminds me of being back in high school. Remember how in high school the “cool kids” dictated fashion and fads for the rest of us? And the rest of us at least considered what the “cool” kids advocated, because we all want to be “cool,” right?
         “Cool” is the main tool used to promote “Complete Streets”: Don’t get left behind. If you don’t have Complete Streets, you won’t be cool! The millennials won’t choose you. (I’m the mother of three millennials, two of whom still don’t have drivers’ licenses. I’ve asked them and their friends: Why did you choose to live where you’re living? Not a one has said, “This city has great bike lanes!”)
         But who can be against the idea of “complete” streets? The term itself sounds like Mom and apple pie. Everyone should be able to use our public right-of-way in freedom and safety. Who doesn’t want this?
         The problem is that the “cool” kids are remaking our roads in a way that makes life harder for everyone. If their roadway redesigns were merely sophomoric, it might be OK. But they are dangerous! Look to the city for Exhibit A: Manchester Road between Kingshighway and McCausland. Before this section of Manchester was turned into a “Complete Street,” it was one of the city’s easiest roads for bicycling.
         Now that the “cool” kids have had their way, people are getting hurt. Here’s what my friend Susan posted last week on Facebook:
         “Just had a collision with a car this morning on Manchester. Was riding my bike in the new bike lane and someone cut right in front of me to get to the gas station @ Kingshighway and I couldn’t stop. Took out her sideview mirror with my arm. ouch. I’m fine, will be bruised tomorrow and bike is fine, rode in the rest of the way to work, but I sure miss having 2 regular traffic lanes both ways on Manchester. I had 2.5 years of safe riding without the bike lane. So…be careful cyclists, bike lanes are really a much more dangerous place to be than in with the flow of traffic.”
         “Complete Streets” as envisioned by the “cool” kids is a fad. It will come to pass, as all fads do. Meanwhile, those of us who have graduated from high school will keep promoting and teaching the ideals of real transportation freedom. People will choose bicycling when they feel expected and respected as a normal part of traffic. I urge the council to recognize this, and to not be sucked in by peer pressure, fashion or fad.

Nick Kasoff testifying before St. Louis County Council 33 by 217 (L 510 by 369)

Nick Kasoff testifying before St. Louis County Council

Nick Kasoff, Ferguson

Like most people, I view this council as a serious legislative body. So I have to ask you: What has gone wrong with the process on this Complete Streets bill? This council is pushing through a bill which was obviously authored by Trailnet. You are pushing a policy change which is opposed by 80% of your constituents. And you are doing so in a complete absence of facts.
         There are a lot of questions an inquisitive legislator would ask about this bill. For example, Scott Ogilvie claimed that Complete Streets cost the city nothing. But just the “performance measures” section of this bill would easily cost the county $50,000 a year. And the “exceptions” procedure will run up huge costs, as it would require obtaining an exception even for activities like mowing and sweeping. Somebody on this council might have asked Ogilvie how such a bill could cost nothing. But you were silent. In fact, the only time a member has spoken has been to attack Martin Pion for supporting bike lanes on a project nearly a decade ago. And as it turns out, Mr. Pion found his correspondence from that time, and he didn’t support bike lanes at all.
         This bill imposes a complex regulatory scheme on our highway department. It will have costs, and will shift the allocation of department resources. Yet this council has not so much as spoken with the director of highways and traffic. Nobody has questioned the highway department about their cost estimates. Nobody has asked the highway department what impact this bill would have on their ability to maintain and improve our roads. I urge the council to refer this bill to committee, and to take public testimony from the director of highways and traffic. Anything less is a dereliction of duty by the council.
         A few days ago, I engaged in a debate about this bill with somebody on stltoday.com. The guy used a lot of lingo that most people aren’t familiar with, which made me suspicious. So I googled him. Turns out he is the press manager for Smart Growth America, a Washington lobbying organization that receives more than $600,000 a year in government funding. Those are the sort of special interests that are feeding propaganda to this council. You should ignore their fake facts and astroturf lobbying, and start listening to real constituents and the professionals in our highway department.

The following testimony I presented was intended as tongue-in-cheek and humorous, but designed to make a serious point. Namely, that while there IS room for improvement in the way St. Louis County Highways and Traffic performs its duties and interacts with the public, it is already reforming itself, and this draconian measure, primarily being promoted by Trailnet, is self-serving and not in the public interest.

Martin Pion, Ferguson

I know and like former Clayton Mayor Linda Goldstein. After reading her recent letter, and then Ald. Scott Ogilvie’s OpEd, both supporting “Complete Streets,” I’ve had an epiphany.
         After all, who can be against a “Complete Street”?
         Does anyone support “Incomplete Streets?” They’re the ones you drive along and suddenly come to a screeching halt at a precipice. And just beyond it is a big pile of cars, and maybe some pedestrians and the odd bike. And you have to back up against that line of cars that have stopped behind you.
         What a nightmare!
So that’s what “Complete Streets” sets out to correct, as listed in the first section of the bill:

[Note: The following was read without taking a breath in order to keep my testimony within the three minute time limit. Try reading it yourself without taking a breath!]

1105.250 Complete Streets Policy. -The County shall develop a safe, reliable, efficient, integrated, accessible and connected multimodal transportation system that shall equally promote access, mobility and health for all users, and shall ensure that the safety, convenience and comfort of all users of the transportation system are genuinely accommodated, including pedestrians, bicyclists, users of mass transit, people of all ages and abilities, motorists, emergency responders, freight providers and adjacent land users.

Let’s start by examing how “Incomplete” the present street is for each mode:

Pedestrians:” Currently, pedestrians aren’t accommodated at all. We don’t have a single sidewalk for them to walk on. And there’s not a pedestrian button or count-down timer in sight. That has to change!

Bicyclists:” If there’s no bike lane how’s a cyclist to get anywhere? We must have bike lanes on every single road, starting right outside your front door.

Users of mass transit:” I must admit I don’t often see buses heading down Florissant Rd. where I live. However, they do seem to manage somehow with what currently exists. And I’ve used MetroLink to hitch a ride on numerous occasions when I’ve biked downtown from my home. I can’t understand how that’s been possible without a Complete Streets bill.

People of all ages and abilities:” I guess the streets need to be modified to handle three-year-olds on big wheels. But I forgot: bike lanes will do that!
Paraquad, which represents handicapped people supports this bill, and I support them. Imagine being in a wheelchair and trying to cross the street when there’s a curb there. I wish there was a solution!

Motorists:” As I noted above, our present “Incomplete Streets” are a disaster waiting to happen for every motorist. Get cracking Alberici!

Emergency Responders:” They’re the ones responding to all those victims of “Incomplete Streets.”

Martin Pion donning helmet to make a point

Martin Pion donning bike helmet to make a point

Freight providers:” I forgot to mention the tangled wreckage of semis. When you’ve gone over the edge on your bike, the last thing you want landing on your bike helmet is one of those big rigs!

The person who adopted the term “Complete Streets” was a genius. According to Wikipedia that was Barbara McCann, who later (surprise!) became the Executive Director of the National Complete Streets Coalition in 2003. It replaced the ineffective term “routine accommodation.”
Who wants that when you can have a Complete Street?!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.