
In Marin, if you speed on your bicycle you're now going to get a ticket - bifrost
http://www.mbr.co.uk/news/radar-guns-used-limit-speeds-mountain-bike-trails-339947
======
ryandamm
This is part of long-standing tension between mountain biking and other trail
users in Marin. Odd that modern mountain biking was invented in Marin, but
there are no dedicated trails (and very few single track trails at all)
available to bikers.

And for the record, 15 mph is slow. 5 is really, really slow.

~~~
sidlls
15mph might be slow to a racer or hobbyist who does regular long distance
riding, but it's about typical for commuters and the very casual end of
hobbyists. Maybe it's slow downhill. It's definitely not slow to pedestrians:
a collision with a cyclist going 15 mph can be quite injurious.

~~~
maxerickson
This doesn't have anything to do with commuters, it's hikers vs mountain
bikers in a recreational area.

I wonder if enforcement tends to be more strict when a hiker happens to be
present.

~~~
cjensen
In previous reports I've seen, they generally speed gun at a blind downhill
corner. It's a good choice: the biker is speeding in a location which _might_
have a hiker, so the guys getting the tickets are in fact the ones endangering
others.

------
GuiA
If self-driving cars become ubiquitous in large cities, it is likely that one
of the large side effects will be more regulation for bikes, scooters,
longboards (electric or not), etc.

When self driving cars start to become a normal thing, accidents with
pedestrians or other cars won't be very likely to happen. But accidents with
bored teenagers on small electric motorcycles or longboards... those will be
an issue.

Biking is much more legislated in cities like Tokyo than San Francisco, and I
expect the latter to follow the former. I don't think the "millenials" of 2040
will be riding their bike much.

~~~
davmre
I don't see where this argument is coming from. There's no reason why self-
driving cars can't be as or more capable at interacting with cyclists than
human-driven cars.

Even if issues with self-driving cars did require new regulation, there's no
reason that regulation should favor the cars. Cities and their streets are
managed by democratically elected governments. If people like cycling -- and
many of us do -- then we can construct the regulatory and physical
infrastructure to support it.

~~~
mc32
It's not that it favor cars, but that it favor predictability and thus order
and as a result fewer collisions meaning more healthy people!

note: I'd be glad to register and pay for a bike license if that means more
dedicated lanes for cycling --so long as scofflaws get ticketed.

------
ChoGGi
The article title says "bike trails", but it says "shared trails" in the body.
I can understand limits on shared paths, but it's hard to see the point on
bike only ones?

" _having points put on their license_ " Do you need a bike license in SF?

~~~
ehnto
Where I am, bicycle infractions will land you demerit points on your drivers
license.

Which leads to awkward things like being fines for riding a bicycle drunk,
losing your car license from it, but still being able to ride your bike
because you don't need a car license for that.

------
ntumlin
It mentions that getting a ticket can result in points on your license, what
if you don't (or claim to not) have a drivers license?

~~~
jakehilborn
From my experience you will not receive points marked against you on your
license. I received a ticket for going through a red light on my bike in
California. The infraction code used for a bike is the same as a car. The
officer noted on the ticket that it was a bike offense and as a result I did
not receive any marks against me at the CA DMV and the fee was nearly halved.
Had the officer not made the distinction between bike and car I may have
received points against my license. Unfortunately that clerical error seems
likely to happen frequently.

~~~
analog31
I wonder if that clerical error could result in dismissal of the ticket
altogether. Just take it to court and ask for the license plate number of the
car, registration, insurance, etc.

------
careersuicide
Without also requiring bikes to come with speedometers* I think this is
absurd. The whole reason speed limits for motor vehicles is a reasonable
concept (regardless of the speed limit itself being reasonable) is that all
motor vehicles made since about 1910 have had them a speedometer. Of course
you can tell if you're moving 30 MPH versus 15 MPH, but speeds marginally
faster than 15 MPH just don't feel significantly faster. Without the ability
to see your speed, and more importantly, the expectation that everyone on the
trail can know their own speed accurately, this smells of an easy cash grab by
law enforcement. I'm not even saying I think speeding on a bike on a mountain
trail is safe or a good idea. I just think it's unfair to enforce something
like this if your average person isn't going to be able to make sure they're
complying like your average driver of a car can. If no one mountain bikes
without a speedometer then I suppose my point is moot, but I'm not a mountain
biker so I wouldn't know.

*A quick search on Amazon reveals many for less than $20, but I've never seen a bike sold with one attached.

~~~
0xADEADBEE
The whole reason speed limits for motor vehicles is a reasonable concept is
that the majority of them weigh more than a ton. Applying similar logic to
bicycles is asinine.

~~~
cjensen
People routinely break their own bones when mountain bike riding. There is
plenty of momentum available to do serious damage.

It's a shared trail. Would it be safe for hikers if someone rode a bike at
100mph? Of course not. To paraphrase Churchill, we've established the need for
a speed limit, so the only thing left to discuss is which speed to set the
limit at.

------
explainthisth
5mph when passing? I hope they ticket runners too.

~~~
lsllc
For a runner a 7 min/mile pace is 8.5 mph.

~~~
loeg
Or a 5 mph speed is a 12:00 min/mile pace, a speed most casual runners are
capable of on flats and downhill.

------
oppositelock
This is nothing new in CA. I mountain bike at Saratoga Gap, which has had a
15mph speed limit for bikes for years. The only place they really enforce it
is at the base of a very wide hill, where visibility is fantastic, so everyone
goes over 15mph. I got a ticket there on my bike, doing 19mph.

[http://www.openspace.org/preserves/saratoga-
gap](http://www.openspace.org/preserves/saratoga-gap)

I received points on my driver's license, but I successfully disputed them. A
friend refused to show his license, so he was arrested.

~~~
piotrkaminski
I'm curious: since AFAIK one doesn't need a driver's license to ride a bike,
what's the legal justification for the police demanding to see it?

~~~
oppositelock
You technically don't have to carry ID, but you are required by law to
identify yourself. Some police misconstrue that as being required to show the
license. You generally get the charges dropped in court, providing you were
honest about your name, but it's a pain. I know because that's what my friend
did - identified himself but refused to show papers. He was arrested on a Sat
and had to spend the weekend in jail until the court opened on Monday.

~~~
username223
Interesting. I've often wondered what would happen if you poached National
Forest Wilderness trails. Mountain bikes are barred, but equestrians and pack
companies are allowed to trash them as much as they want. It sounds like it's
probably not worth it.

~~~
waterphone
It's a fairly common misconception that bicycles are banned in Wilderness
Areas due to their surface impact/damage to trails, but that is not the
primary reason—all mechanized and motorized transportation is banned, because
the spirit of the Wilderness Act is to preserve areas that restrict travel to
low speed and more traditional forms of transportation—foot, horse, boat—and
provide a place for people to travel more ponderously.

So while horses do certainly cause damage to trails in high use areas, that's
not so much the motivation for allowing them but not bicycles.

I love mountain biking and think there absolutely should be places for it to
be done, but I also love designated Wilderness Areas and their restrictions
and protections.

~~~
username223
Thanks -- I hadn't thought of it in terms of speed before. That said, I still
think allowing horses in popular wilderness is a bigger mistake than allowing
bikes. They turn a trail into either a trench full of shit-powder, a well-
churned bog, or a set of awkwardly high and long steps meant for horses rather
than humans.

~~~
waterphone
It can definitely be an issue and a point of conflict in popular areas. It may
be an issue that needs to be resolved with permits—limiting to a certain
number of horse users per day per trailhead, for example. I hate permits, but
if visitors are beginning to significantly impact the Wilderness (which the
Wilderness Act is established to protect against) then permits to reduce
impact are necessary.

Where I live, most Wilderness Areas are relatively little used and suffering
from post-fire erosion, and so the trails often suffer from overgrowth and
fading tread. As a result, horse use is actually quite welcome as it's
currently below the threshold where it goes from helping keep the trail beaten
in to actively damaging it.

~~~
username223
You're lucky to live near relatively untrodden wilderness. In my experience as
a hiker, many trails in the Sierra Nevada have been beaten into dusty trenches
by horses, mostly thanks to pack companies. Quite a few in the southern
Rockies have clay-rich soil, which horses will destroy when it is wet (so will
bikes, but mud-riding is awful, so most riders will stay away). I have also
been in some areas where horse traffic is the only reason that unmaintained
Forest Service trails have not grown over.

I think banning commercial packers from the Wilderness would go a long way to
fixing the problems with horses. Perhaps with some sort of licensing system,
mountain bikers could be allowed as well.

------
cjensen
Speed guns have been used on Mt Tam for at least 25 years. Not sure why these
reporters think this is new.

------
aaronbwebber
There are a lot of fire roads on Mt. Tam and in the Marin open spaces that are
shared and are totally safe to go more than 15 mph on, although honestly it
varies a lot on how windy the road is and what the visibility is. There are
also a few narrow trails that are shared and 15 mph seems pretty fast to be
going on those.

Seems like maybe this should be a 20 or even 25 mph speed limit on the fire
roads and then a 10 mph speed limit on the narrow trails? Or they should just
make some of the fire roads bike only. There are tons of fire roads out there,
it seems like it wouldn't be that hard to find some to dedicate to mountain
biking. There are even some that already have parallel hiking-only or
hiking/horse trails.

P.S. don't ride your bike on hiking only trails. There are bikers who do this
(a small minority, but you end up being judged by the worst members of your
community, sorry, that's life). This is a dick move, not only because it's
dangerous, but because bikes can really tear the trails up and cause erosion.

------
roflchoppa
At least the nice thing about running from cops on trails, is that bikes can
outmaneuver cars

~~~
oppositelock
Cops travel at the speed of light via radio, and on trails, they ride bikes.
It's usually park rangers handing out the tickets and cops only come if you're
being difficult.

------
throwaway_tix
don't carry ID. when ticketed, give a false name and address. problem solved.

~~~
cjensen
Then the officer calls the home planet to verify that an ID exists for that
name and address. Problem worsened.

------
rorykoehler
How are they going to enforce that? I go uphill faster than that.

~~~
omginternets
>How are they going to enforce that?

From the article: with radar guns.

>I go uphill faster than that

I guess they'll fine you going uphill.

~~~
rorykoehler
I read the article... bikes don't have plates so how will they id individuals?

~~~
omginternets
_Sigh_... the pedantry on HN is really tough to bear sometimes.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that they pull you over... You know:
the classic approach.

