BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

This woman (Cherokee Schill) has been in the news quite a bit. I thought the case had been resolved in her favor (she got representation from a good lawyer, I'd heard) but I guess she lost out. There was a post about this a few months ago from my favorite bike-hatred site, http://sparetheroadblog.blogspot.com.au/. I think she's legally allowed to ride where she's riding. But I also think she's being kind of an ass about it. The road has a decent shoulder most of the way and I would take it -- with good tires, and being careful at the few places where a driveway or exit crosses it. It's not really necessary to take the lane.

I've friended her on Fb and have been following her case closely. I am doing here a lot of what she's doing there. No, the shoulder really isn't usable, and there is no real alternative. She does have full use of the lane, and ass or not, she's asserting her right to it.

I just had a look at that Route 27 which is her commute. There seems to be plenty of room on that shoulder and would be a much safer way to ride on a crazy 4 lane highway between to largely populated areas. She has a another route she could take, but it would add about 5 miles. I am not sure I can side with her on this one. It might be her right, but it is the police that can step in if they feel it is unsafe. I hope she survives if she continues this quest.

I question her judgment commuting on a busy highway for an hour long ride. I honestly would consider that reckless behavior on a personal level. On a legal level, I think she is well within her rights. I also think it's absurd that they are raising a stink that she doesn't ride in the shoulder (which clearly would be more dangerous) when it is a four lane highway and passing is easy enough for motorists. So, for me it becomes a matter of intent. If the only reason she takes that route is because it's the shortest distance between two places she needs to be, and she chooses to cover this distance on a bike, then I reluctantly support her. If on the other hand, the ride itself is some sort of protest or self-righteous behavior, then I would agree that it is in fact endangerment as a legal issue; of course, intent is hard to prove one way or the other.

Her doing what she's doing there is almost the same as me riding McKnight Road. Only I do have alternatives (Babcock, Perry); she doesn't. And even on Babcock and Perry, I have to take the lane sometimes. Maybe a better comparison is if you lived up Rt 8 in Gibsonia. There really is no alternative, and no bus service, only a couple of non-PAT trips. (PAT cannot run on Rt 8. Because history.)

@Stu, there's a big difference between taking the lane "sometimes" and taking it all the time. I think she's doing the latter. I know she's within her rights to do that. I'd take a different approach, more like yours.

She could take another route, but as I stated it is 5 miles further. I am not sure if it is better. I am not sure I understand why people think it would be safer to ride on the road instead of that shoulder. I followed the road quite a ways on Google Maps and it looked pretty good. There are even those rumble strips or whatever they are on the side of the road, so that is a plus. If you ride with a mirror, you can ride on that shoulder pretty safely IMHO. Sure there might be spots that aren't that great, but then you take the lane at those areas and let traffic ride by when you can ride on the side. I would never do what she is doing, but would make that commute on the shoulder. Guess different styles for different riders. Wonder if she has a mirror? Man, riding on that crazy highway trusting those behind you would take years off my life. Stu, I still want you to be president someday, so I hope you don't mind my slight disagreement here.

If she were in a car and driving at 15MPH would she have been arrested? And I dont think riding on a shoulder with rumble strips is my idea of a good place to be. She has plenty of hi-viz and blinkies going on so surly she is trying to be safe and I assume predictable. It seems like she has been doing this daily for quite a while so if this is so unsafe, how many times has she been hit? The only thing she is doing is forcing cars to either slow down to her speed or change lanes and go around her. I myself would try to find another route rather than do this, or buy a scooter/motorcycle to commute on. But it's not her fault that the local government has totally ignored anyone choosing not to travel by motor vehicle.

The rumble strips are between the road and where you would ride on the shoulder. It's comparable to say riding on Rt 51 west of Neville Island. I've ridden there, taking the lane, as part of a group ride. But if I was by myself I would take the shoulder (and have). Of course this depends on the actual condition of the shoulder. In one of the threads discussing this there were some local people who commented that the shoulder was where they would ride. Also, of course it's quite possible, even likely, that her story about how she's been riding differs from the news reports. It's quite possible she's been riding on the shoulder mostly, pulling out to take the lane only where the shoulder is impassable, etc. Which is how I would ride. We have to remember the unreliability of news reports.

Yes, Jon is correct. The rumble strip is actually a benefit to the cyclist because it adds sound to someone coming off the road and if someone is coming off the road, it would alert them. Here is a link to Route 27. I would ride on that shoulder. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8991428,-84.5850235,3a,75y,229.06h,70.9t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sVdoX3_EEAhmH6XyrLl9kKQ!2e0 Also Jon has a very good point. We can't go by the news reports at all. They are for entertainment purposes and not to be taken as fact. I wonder what the real story is? Hmm, here are videos she has taken. Seems she prefers to take the lane and not use that shoulder. http://www.youtube.com/user/Cherokeelee172 I don't know how I feel about this at this time. Maybe look at more videos to get a better feel for it all.

Reasons for taking the lane apply for reasons against taking the shoulder as well: http://cyclingsavvy.org/hows-my-driving/ As someone who regularly rides on four lane roads (885/887), I fully support this woman. What's the big fucking deal with changing a lane and passing a slow operating vehicle? People forget that driving is a CONVENIENCE and a highly destructive one at that. I don't expect a woman to cycle 5 miles out of her way to save me fifteen seconds of lane changing. gg, regardless of whether or not you're on the shoulder, you're trusting people with your life. The difference, people have to actively move around you and you command more attention if you're in the middle of the lane. Not so much if you're on the side

^ the shoulder does look ok in that area (assuming its not covered in glass), so maybe she is doing this to prove a point. I've ridden rt 51 that Jon describes above both in-the-lane and on the shoulder - neither is very fun. If I had to ride that stretch every day I'm not sure how I would do it.

Pierce, I am not really arguing either way on this. The link your provided isn't really relevant in her case. Here is a picture in your link. Her situation is very different than that squeeze. Personally I would ride the shoulder due to the size of it and that nice rumble strip, but I am not going to tell her she is wrong for taking that lane. It doesn't look very enjoyable, but if I had to make that commute daily, I would ride it or check into the 5 mile further route. Again, I am not against her right on this matter.

I love how they have a video talking to her from the prison booth window thing. I wish there were some kind of mass bike ride to show support for her work.

gg, yes, it is relevant. Watch the entire animation and see how the same scenarios could occur from the shoulder. Being squeezed is only one and one that's still relevant since people are so piss poor at being able to hold a lane

My general first instinct is to trust that the cyclist is generally doing what they think best (or at least least awful) for them. People can get principled and pig-headed, it could be that, but it's foolish to assume that must be what's going on here since we haven't ridden the route and even street view can't capture traffic considerations (might be high limit, but if it's jam prone, not as fast as that suggests). I'm not sure what I'd do if I had to rider here personally. I'd probably ask her the ins and outs! The video didn't look as bad as I assumed given the drama given to the coverage (which is probably unsurprising). I think some of the hostility she's facing is for being the first one out there. I wish her luck fighting the charge.

Having said that, I know if you asked me this four years ago, when I was living in Raleigh and entirely motor vehicle dependent, driving on faster city roads than we have in Pittsburgh generally, and not a cyclist in sight, I would have thought the woman certifiable. It's really hard being the first.

Her gofundme page: http://www.gofundme.com/8uvfkw If you look at the updates, it's kind of the same crap we deal with on a regular basis. No message board for her to find solace out there I don't think :/

I can't judge her situation but if I am riding on that road I am riding on the shoulder.

Pierce, I probably ride a little differently and use a mirror, which would create the ability for me to time a merger onto the lane if I needed to. In other words, I would wait for a nice opening before merging out on the roadway. Many cyclists wouldn't want to have to slow down or even stop, but I would actually stop and wait as long as it takes to get out on the road safely. I just don't trust drivers and am getting older. Probably losing my nerve, but I hope not too much. No matter Pierce. We are in agreement for the most part. We feel she has a right regardless of how each of us would handle that commute. I would probably have to get down there myself as someone suggested to have a really good opinion. Good luck to her. Hope she gets some changes in place to promote more cycling.

Side rumble strips would actually be more a hazard than a help for a cyclist. And yes, there is a plan to form a protest ride in her behalf. As I'm connected on Fb, I will cross-post here when there is anything to report.

Stu, you lost me with your comment that side rumble strips would be more of a hazard. To me, someone that has about no trust in others, it is a gleeful situation. Not only can I see ALL the drivers behind me with my mirror, if I feel like everyone is holding a good path with their cars behind me, I have another wonderful situation. That rumble strip that I would not only hear, but so would the motorist and it would hopefully alert them. I know when I am driving and run over one, it certainly alerts me. If you feel that it is hard for a cyclist to get by a rumble strip, I suppose I understand your point a little bit, but I have ridden over them with my 23's countless times with no issue. I don't like it, but I am SUPER happy they are in place, so I know the line not only by site, but by sound. Ugh, I am disagreeing with my future president twice in one day. NO!

I'm with Stu, those rumble strips suck. They are annoying to cross on a bike and on roads with less of a shoulder they take away what would be perfectly usable riding area. 51 is a good example of this, there are plenty of places with an almost nonexistent shoulder, where I might ride right up the line but cannot. The ones on the double yellow may be worse because drivers seem reluctant to cross them leading to really close passes. How stupid to screw up a perfectly good road surface to accommodate irresponsible idiots who can't accomplish a driving task as basic as staying in their lane.

From one person's post on her status: Cheroke Schill is not violating any Kentucky law. The police only insist that Cherokee use the shoulder of the highway when she is on US 27, not all roads in Jessamine county. They also insist she ride on the shoulder only in the portion of US 27 which is in their county. Police in the portion of US 27 in Fayette county do not require that she ride on the shoulder. In addition, the county authorities insist that Cherokee use the shoulder regardless of the condition of the the pavement or presence of debris. Finally, and most important, there are no posted signs stating that bicycles must ride on the shoulder of the road in this county. If you, or I were to ride on the road we would not be expected to know that we loose the right to use the lane, on US 27, when we cross the Jessamine County line. Cherokee Schill is the only person who is expected to know that her bicycle cannot use the lane on this particular highway, in this particular county, like she can in the rest of the state of Kentucky. A person from Jefferson County (Louisville, KY) commented that she saw 8 people today on four lane highways riding in the lane. It is not against the law in Kentucky nor is it against the law in Jessamine County nor in Nicholasville. It is only against the law if you are on US 27 in Jessamine County and the person riding the bike is Cherokee Schill . She needs money to fight this. Please help with her defense fund. http://www.gofundme.com/8uvfkw

Kentucky law (189.300) says "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." The term "highway" is defined to include the shoulder (189.010). So to prevail in court, she needs to show that riding on the shoulder on that highway is impracticable. The tiny bit of shoulder I looked at on Street View seemed wide, clear of obstructions, and a reasonable place to ride, but other parts could be bad. I think to win she needs to prove that the particular shoulder she was avoiding was deficient in some way.

From her own Fb wall, reposted from someone else supporting her: "I'm going to heavily paraphrase what Gary Cziko said about this. As a white, professional man, I don't usually experience discrimination as a member of a minority. That changes, however, when I get on my bike. Riding a bike is my choice and if I didn't want to put up with the occasional impatient motorist or biased cop telling me to get off the road, I could choose another way to get around. But not all cyclists have that option, like Cherokee Schill. This is why I Support Cyclist Cherokee Schill. Linked below is a very thoughtful piece comparing the plight of cyclists to the fight for civil rights. And I'll add this. While blacks cannot choose the color of their skin, they could have chosen to remain in the back of the bus, just like Cherokee could have chosen to remain on the debris-strewn conflict zone known as the shoulder. No analogy is perfect, but the similarities are there." ~ Serge Issakov The linked article.

I don't think she is going to win. That shoulder is pretty darn big and with that awesome rumble strip between the road and that wide nice area to ride a bike. Steven brings up a great point. It is pretty clear, she is slow moving and probably should be on the semi protected shoulder. For those that don't like a rumble strip between the road and a large shoulder like that, I am at a loss. The positives are, they alert me if someone is in my area by sound. They alert the driver if they are too far right, which is where I am. The negatives? None, with a shoulder that big. You could easily ride two abreast on that shoulder with the protective rumble strip.

How many times does the shoulder narrow and turn into a turn lane on her 18 mile commute? There were three in the first mile from where you linked alone. And there aren't rumble strips on the turn lanes either, not that they'd do shit if somebody was speeding and falling asleep at the wheel anyways. Where's she more likely to get hit? From behind, where she can be clearly scene, or from the side from somebody trying to turn into a turn lane, maybe coming across two lanes, maybe checking their mirrors to make sure nobody is behind them, etc. Furthermore, how the fuck is she supposed to ride in a turn lane if she's not turning? Is she supposed to salmon in and out of the turn lane every third of a mile? It's stupid and it's not safe and that's why she's not riding on the shoulder. Unless you expect her to fly over intersections, she's going to be on US 27 one way or the other. The question is, is it better for her to just be stuck in her lane of travel where she's visible and predictable or to be jumping in and out of the lane at intersections where it's most dangerous?

Being required to ride on the shoulder because it's supposedly safer is like telling blacks they have to sit in the back of the bus because that's where the A/C vents are. Bullshit. She deserves every ounce of support. Or should I say, dollar. Lawyers aren't cheap.

@stu -- and others -- one thing I was hoping to find out from this discussion is why the shoulder isn't acceptable. It looks OK to me. But you've been following her. What's wrong with the shoulder? Is she not taking it because she's not required to? Or is it worse than it looks?

Worse than it looks. Sure, some parts are passable. But she's on the road for several miles. What's dangerous is that if she's on the shoulder and encounters an unsafe condition, it's not easy or safe to get in the lane. Best to just get in the traffic lane and stay there. Back to what I keep saying about Buicks and backhoes. If a Buick was in front of you, going 20 or so (with its blinkers on), you'd see it, change lanes, and pass. If a backhoe was in front of you, going the speed backhoes go (20 or so), you'd see it, change lanes, and pass. Same exact thing with bicycles. Be visible (she is), be predictable (she is), and be responsible (she is). She's pissing off a lot of people, but too bad for them. Change lanes and pass.

Aside from any other tendencies I may have to choose sides here, at the very least, I would say that, if the state of Tennessee is going to declare by law that the shoulder is part of the roadway, then they sure as marrying-your-cousin better maintain the shoulder to a level equivalent to the remainder of the roadway, patched, paved, striped, swept clean. Want to go there, Tenny?

With some paint and maintenance, the shoulder could become an official bikeway. Seems like a better use of resources than fighting for the use of the highway.

A perfect shoulder that ends every third of a mile isn't very useful. That means she'd have to cut across traffic that would have no idea what she's doing every third of a mile. Cars in the travel lane would be expecting her to continue turning and cars in the turn lane wouldn't know what she's doing either and that's assuming either traffic sees her there, which is far from guaranteed. I encounter this same issue everyday I come to work. I make a left on to 885, which takes me to a downhill section that ends in a turn lane. (the shoulder turns into a turn lane) I don't take the shoulder because I know it ends in a turn lane and that's not where I want to be. I also don't want people turning into me. After that point, going uphill, I stick to the right lane and not the shoulder for a similar reason. At the next downhill section, the actual right lane turns into a turn lane. Not the shoulder, but the actual lane. Therefore, I have to be in the left lane to go straight through the intersection and immediately afterwards I need to make a left turn into work. To do the same thing from the shoulder I'd need to cross seven+? lanes of traffic. Notice I have rumble strips too and that they don't have anything to do with my concerns

We have situations in Pgh where bike lanes die into right turn lanes, sometimes it's going to be unavoidable. So have the state make the shoulder a bike lane, and sharrow every right turn lane. Not saying that is THE solution, but it's a solution. I can think of much worse outcomes from this than pushing the State of Tenny to make the shoulders of every state road official bike lanes. Having said that, I am totally in favor of what she is doing, literally putting her ass on the line. She is forcing the issue. Some famous person has said, if a law is unjust, you should break it, and stuff. I'm paraphrasing.

During her trial, this happened: Assertion: "You were impeding traffic" Reality: Traffic was flowing by perfectly with nary a brake touched until officer friendly started following behind the cyclist, then suddenly there was a line of cars behind him and cars creeping sheepishly past in the left lane.

Stu's convinced me. I kicked her some money.

The lady has several videos posted. Watch how early most of the drivers change lanes behind her because they SEE her in the lane. It actually seems quite tame. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlWlGe-si4U In this video TWO cop cars pass her at the very beginning of the clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlWlGe-si4U Here she shows how crappy the shoulder is. Again she is passed by a cop, and the vast majority of traffic simply flows around her. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdAD8932i1A

I would still be reluctant to take this road as a daily commuting route. I would gladly double the distance I would need to travel just not to have to put up with the stress of traffic and now worrying about getting arrested to boot. But her videos clearly show that it is in fact safe to take that right lane. At least as safe as you can expect while sharing the road with drivers texting and whatnot.

I imagine there are at least a few Amish in Kentucky. And a whole boatloads of farms that occasionally move tractors or other slow vehicles on the highway. How do they deal with it?

Oh, I don't know what to make of all this. People are convincing me she is right, but I never said she was wrong, just thought it was a little crazy to not ride on the shoulder. The Amish are as far right as possible. I am in their areas often. They have a different situation though, they can run over more debris than a bicycle and they are more visible than a bike since they are larger. Sometimes they get hit and killed though. I feel for their situation. Good luck to her. Interesting story. I am totally on the fence and guess have no opinion on it anymore. Stu for president!

Watched the video on her website (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDvc-q88QL4&feature=player_embedded). My issue wasn't whether what she's doing is right or not, it's whether I would ride the way she does. I think we all agree she's legally in the right. I think she's riding the way I would. She does take the shoulder, where it's in good enough condition to use. And the rest of the time she sounds like someone trying to ride like a VC. And having a hell of a time trying to do it, because of hostile drivers. Lady's got balls, and deserves our support.

@ jonawebb Lady’s got balls, and deserves our support. That sentence leaves me pondering...

From Cherokee Schill's funding site, I thought this was amusing:

While in the holding cell with women who were in on drug charges, stolen property, shoplifting, and etc. They all recognized me and said "Are you that lady that rides a bicycle?" I said yes. They asked what I had done to be in there that night and I said "I rode my bicycle."

I watched her 22-minute explanation of her situation. She pedaled 18 miles each way to work, all winter, to hold a job , feed her kids, pay her bills. She lost her job, though, when she had to miss work because of court appearances. I hope the stupid haters are happy for pushing her onto the public dole because they wouldn't let her commute to work. She herself has made the Rosa Parks analogy.

@jonawebb; "And I, I walked over to the, to the bench there, and there is, Group W's where they put you if you may not be moral enough to join the army after committing your special crime, and there was all kinds of mean nasty ugly looking people on the bench there. Mother rapers. Father stabbers. Father Rapers! Father rapers sitting right there on the bench next to me! And they was mean and nasty and ugly and horrible crime-type guys sitting on the bench next to me. And the meanest, ugliest, nastiest one, the meanest father raper of them all, was coming over to me and he was mean 'n' ugly 'n' nasty 'n' horrible and all kind of things and he sat down next to me and said, "Kid, whad'ya get?" I said, "I didn't get nothing, I had to pay $50 and pick up the garbage." He said, "What were you arrested for, kid?" And I said, "Littering." And they all moved away from me on the bench".

Now I want to eat cranberry sauce and turkey.

She's almost raised her $10k now. She's within $300.

Ride-a-Thon in Nicholasville KY this weekend in support of her cause. Facebook post Sunday 5 days from now · 69°F / 44°F Clear Show Map Jessamine County Courthouse Nicholasville, Kentucky 40356 The date is October 26 and will take place once in the morning and again returning to Jessamine County in the evening. The morning commute will take place at 7:15 AM and the evening commute will start at 4:30 PM To register for their legal ride you are asked to be at the Jessamine County Courthouse at 7 AM. Extra parking is available in a lot behind the courthouse if you are coming from out of town. Both of these proposed times are during heavier traffic times so everyone should be careful, wear proper gear and obey all traffic laws. - http://www.examiner.com/article/update-bike-a-thon-for-cherokee-schill-scheduled

That is on a Sunday. Might be a fun trip. I of course have to work as I do every day. Hope someone can make it.

I love her retort to the driver at the end of the video in Stu's link. A pickup driver rides behind her harassing her with his horn. She follows him into a parking lot where she remains calm while he is using foul language... at the end she says "I think that you are the one that's slow"

One of Ms. Schill's greatest supporters is an engineer, name of Dan Gutierrez. He wrote this Facebook blog post in 2010 about a similar case in Texas. Then yesterday, posted this as an update to Ms. Schill's case: Let me make something crystal clear. We bicycle drivers are routinely attacked by bikeways/participation activists as being divisive for wanting full and equal driver rights. How is wanting equal rights, that we don't presently have, which means the ability to control travel lanes, and not be forced to the edge, or forced into special facilities, divisive? That position is totally inclusive, since bicyclists can choose the behavior they feel is best for them, be it driver, edge or ped. . What is divisive is ignoring the fact that most US states place a burden of justification on cyclists who control lanes, cite them when police or motorists don't like what they see (and call 911), and blame those bicycle drivers when motorists collide with them. What is also divisive are FTR/MBL/MSU/MSP laws that force bicyclists to abandon driver behavior, and ride at the edge or use bikeways. . So if you think the League, whose President has just thrown Cherokee, and other bicycle drivers under the bus, is inclusive, you are quite mistaken. The League is divisive, and pointing it out is not divisive, it is survival for those who support the inclusivity that comes with having full and equal driver movement rights. I take a lot of heat from those who think they support full and equal driver rights, but then attack those who exercise those rights. It's not fun, but someone has to stand up for OUR driver rights, otherwise WE will lose the diminished rights we presently have, and for what? The privilege of staying at the edge, on the shoulder, in bike lanes, or on side-paths? . If you think it is unreasonable for others to act as a drivers on public streets open to bicycling, because the speeds are too high, or there is too much traffic, or because the shoulder is available, or because other, typically less direct routes are available, because YOU wouldn't drive your bike there, then please leave this group. You are part of the problem, not the solution. I will remind everyone again that if you are questioning the route choices of other bicycle drivers, like Reed, or Cherokee, or Eli, then this note applies to you. Frankly, I think he's right.

I read the note from the LAB and I don't think he was exactly saying that Ms. Schill shouldn't be taking that road. He was saying that it is a really shitty road and even if Ms. Schill wins her case it will still be a shitty road. He was arguing that it is better for LAB to invest resources in trying to make roads better than for them to spend a lot of resources to defend the right of Ms. Schill to ride on a shitty road. He also says that even if they were to help her, the local cops could find a different way to get her off that road, given that they seem to have no trouble with selective enforcement. I support Ms. Schill and have donated money to her cause. But advocacy organizations have to pick and choose what causes they want to support. I can understand their not choosing to devote a lot of resources to helping Ms. Schill.

Personally, I stand with the League. It ultimately comes down to picking your battles wisely. That aside, I really don't think that I support her cause. I'm not about to take a strong position on that, without investing the time to ride that stretch of highway and gain a better understanding of the situation.

Let's take an example closer to to home, then. Getting into town from the South Hills, and not climbing 400+ vertical feet to get from Saw Mill Run valley to the Mon-Ohio Rivers' valley, would greatly enable cyclists living south to commute to work. Biking Saw Mill Run Blvd when it isn't jam-packed and barely moving, would be comparable to US27. So would Banksville Road, exclusive of the Fort Pitt Tunnel. PA51 from the Liberty Tubes to the West End Circle is probably the closest comparison I can think of to her situation, in this area. I've been saying for a while that I'd like to try biking 51 from Glenbury at least to Woodruff, but maybe I should extend that proposal all the way to West Carson.

Stu, I rode 51 the mile or so from Crane Ave. to Woodruff St. back in September. It was parking day and I needed to get from Broadway Brew in Beechview back into Downtown. I took the whole right lane and had hi-viz and blinkies going - and while I had no issues to speak of , I was nervous as hell as cars passed me doing 50/60 MPH. It's definitely something I would not want to do every day as part of a commute.

Look, here in PA and Ohio we have an equivalent situation called Amish buggies. Pretty much everybody manages to get along. There are real risks to biggie riders because they are so much slower than cars, and they do get hit and killed. Pretty much nobody that I know of yells "get the f@$k off the road" and pretty much everybody, certainly the cops, recognize their right to be there. How is she different?

"How is she different?" The buggies near me ride in the shoulder and take side roads. I've never seen an Amish buggy take the lane on a four lane road. They tend to be irregular and avoid the roads during the busiest times of day, in my experience. Whether this is by choice, or the result of intimidation, I don't know. From what I gather, Cherokee Schill takes the lane on a four way highway and impedes traffic on a daily basis during rush hour? She's also a one-woman-army on a road that no other cyclist seems to have any interest in using. But, as I stated above, I haven't had my bike on the road she takes so I may not be grasping the situation appropriately. @Stu, I don't think you can use a local example, it seems case-by-case. I'd really need to ride her exact route and time in order to see if I'd have a change of heart.

The buggies in happy valley definitely take the lane more than any bicycle I have ever seen. the whole point is that a 4-lane has a whole other travel lane. the guy in the black pickup went out of his way NOT to pass her.

@Drewbacca As previously discussed in this thread, taking alternate routes would double the distance of her travels and she's already biking what, 20 miles each way. Also, as I pointed out, on her route, the shoulder turns into turn lanes every third of a mile. "They tend to be irregular and avoid the roads during the busiest times of day, in my experience." Perhaps the cyclist in question should get a job that starts at 11am or something, because people are too stupid/lazy/entitled to change lanes Not that it matters, because it's not the same situation, but do you suppose buggies would be more or less safe just sticking in a lane of travel, or weaving in and out of one from the shoulder as they'd have to do every time the shoulder turns into a turn lane? What's the big fucking deal with just putting on a goddamn turn signal and changing a lane? As also previously noted, I have to deal with this shit and the same situation every day I go to work and I've had to deal with it for six years and don't usually go a week without some asswipe harassing me or yelling out a window. "From what I gather, Cherokee Schill takes the lane on a four way highway and impedes traffic on a daily basis during rush hour? She’s also a one-woman-army on a road that no other cyclist seems to have any interest in using." If her videos are any indication, what's impeding traffic is rush hour and the cars that go along with it, not her bicycle. Similarly, I'm the only person who is regularly cycling the route I take too. What difference does it make? Should I be confined to riding around Friendship Park or something? She might be the only cyclist who lives where she lives and goes to the destination she goes to, which again, is the same situation I'm in. Cyclists riding in places where most won't/don't does make a difference and I think that work should be supported. I myself got a bike rack installed at Ross Park Mall a few years ago. Where I work is currently building another entrance road, which will include a bike lane. I'd like to think my own daily commute contributed to that. Here's the LAB article in question, which makes me have little respect for them or their work: http://bikeleague.org/content/schill-case-what-now "But I would never do that every day -- it's not normal behavior, it doesn't feel safe, [...]" That's a nice privileged choice for somebody who has a choice. Schill doesn't really have one. Clarke's response to Schill is essentially "you're kind of crazy; just wait another 20 years for us to install a bike lane" (which still probably won't connect to where you actually need to go) When organizations prioritize what accomplishments sound good in a newsletter instead of principled positions and look for gradual, achievable baby steps instead of bold ones, they really start to become meaningless organizations in my mind.

Thanks for the link Pierce. Man that LAB article & logic sucks! In the original article they state that she is doing EVERYTHING they teach about safety; they state "she had been given the official label of “offender” some motorists felt justified in their display of hostility"; they state that they ended up having to ride in the lane themselves after trying to ride on the shoulder. So they don’t think her case is worthy enough? I think this is a perfect case. I don’t care how many miles of bike lane they put in Lexington, or whether they are labeled bronze, silver or gold bike-friendly. There will always be roads that are unsafe to ride a bike on because some drivers think we don’t belong on the road. What happens when this woman (I hope not) gets hit by an aggressive driver? The news media is going to call her an "offender" who was "not normal", didn’t belong on the road, etc. The LAB will install a ghost bike and make a statement about how bad the roads are.... This is total bull shit from the LAB! They should go to bat for this woman NOW so that the news media reports that she (and we) have the right to do exactly what she is doing even if most of would not have the courage to do so. It will tell the drivers that they need to pass with care; that it's not ok to harass cyclists; that the police need to protect cyclist not arrest them. And it will tell the general public that our roads suck! And if they don’t want to be inconvenienced by a cyclist taking the lane (because it is the only safe place to be) they need to build safer alternatives – bike lanes, bike paths, cycletracks.

The more I think about it the more I disagree with the LAB. They could have simply made the argument that they don't have the resources to pursue every case, but they didn't. Throwing in "it's not normal behavior" is just too close to intimating that there's something wrong with Ms. Schill. Which fits in pretty neatly with the narrative in our society the outspoken women have some underlying defect. And the argument that the police will find a way to force her off the road is really weak. It's not their place to guess what happens next. Maybe the police would give up. Maybe other riders would start riding with her, and there would be safety in numbers.

@Pierce, we disagree. That's all there is to it. My thoughts/feelings in a nut shell... bike paths, infrastructure, bike lanes, dedicated routes, assertive cycling advocacy, etc. make sense in a condensed urban environment with lots of riders. It doesn't make sense for a single rider that lives out of the way. Shill gets no more sympathy from me than the suburban driver that complains about having a long commute to work. Move closer to your job. The you-aren't-stuck-in-rush-hour, you-are-rush-hour argument doesn't apply here. Traffic already gets backed up, losing a lane because of a stubborn cyclist that is out to make a point (and that's how it seems to me) does impede traffic. It may very well be her RIGHT to do so, but as a PR move for cyclists on the whole, this is already a lost battle. She's just creating more anti-cyclist sentiment and I can't support that. It doesn't make sense to me for the League to get tied up in this. At best, it's a no-win situation and at worst, it's just a lose-lose. Her situation isn't parallel to yours. Maybe Jon's commute to some extent. Maybe Stu's and a few others to a lesser extent. To me, the most parallel example would be taking the lane on 19 or 22. I'll support someone riding those routes (or 30, in Jon's case) but not if they are being unnecessarily assertive and confrontational. Right or wrong, that is how I perceive Cherokee Schill, and nothing short of riding the route with her is going to change my perception of that. For all the criticism of the LAB here, the LAB has taken a ride with her along that route... something that none of us have done. I guess I'm just more willing to put faith in their decision and their cost/benefit analysis on this matter. Granted, I have no idea how they arrived at their decision or how much their logic follows my own. Actually, after rereading all applicable articles, I'm not even sure that 19/22/30 are good examples of her commute. I've ridden on highways with on/off ramps and 55mph traffic because I've had no choice during a long touring route... I would never willingly go back and re-ride some of those stretches. If her commute is like any of the roads that I've been on, then I'm in 100% agreement with the LAB link that Pierce posted. If the State/County/whatever has the ability to declare her route off-limits to bicyclists, I imagine that they will do so. In the mean time, the police are out of line to harass her. Motorists need to treat her with respect, respect for a human life. But if legally that is where this is all headed, then there is no reason for the LAB to take up this case. She needs to prepare for the inevitable end to this issue and that seems to be the stance LAB's lawyers are taking. We can be sympathetic, and I think that the LAB IS sympathetic while still considering a bigger picture. The lack of alternative routes and the lack of alternative transportation methods, are a completely different argument to be had. Not interested in a debate, just putting my thoughts out there.

Difficult issue. I admire that the LAB folks actually took that ride. They don't ahve unlimited resources , they need to pick their fights, etc. But then, Jon and Pierce are spot on about the uncalled for "not normal behavior." WTF? Doesn't that contradict everything they say about her having the right, etc? Doesn't that reflect on all of us transportation cyclists badly?

Yeah, I'll grant yinz that... the "not normal behavior" thing might be OK informally, but it should have never made it onto their website's official statement. Even if that's how the author feels having taken the route, it could have been stated in a much better (and less confrontational) way. @Mick, thanks for highlighting that.

I found some audio of one of the expert witnesses being interviewed here: http://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-cherokee-schill-case I am really uncomfortable with the civil-rights analogies, but he (and the site) does fill in some of the gaps as to why the judge decided the way he did, and how the cops have now escalated the situation. All the more reason (in my mind) why the LAB should be helping her.

@Drewbacca She's not complaining about the distance of her commute, she's complaining about being harassed and threatened on her commute to work. "Move closer to your job." Again, a privileged comment for somebody who can do that. Now me for example, one day I work in West Mifflin. One day I work in Monroeville. Sometimes I work in McCandless and the North Shore. Sometimes I even have gone to two locations in one day. Should I buy four houses and magically get to them every night? Why is the impetus on people who are using less resources, causing less pollution, and as in Schill's case, have less means, on them to change their entire life around because people can't be bothered to changes lanes? And here's something else I hadn't even thought of until now, but what do you think are the chances the people who are complaining about Schill are the same asswipes aggressively driving through traffic changing lanes every 50 yards to try and get around people? If my scenario is not like Schill, the only difference is that there are more asswipes where she lives and that I don't get harassed to the extent that she does because I'm a man. Well, there's also more hills and my four lane road time is less than hers, but the road construction is nearly identical. A cop in McCandless tried to give me crap a year or so ago and argued with me about riding on Old Perry Highway and taking the lane, something I had to do to get to work. "losing a lane because of a stubborn cyclist that is out to make a point" I don't know where you're getting that notion from. She's doing what she's doing because that's what is available to her. Not everybody can just switch jobs like it's nothing and move to Bakery Square or whatever. I myself started riding long distances because my choice was to either spend an hour cycling or spend three hours each way on a bus. I have no problem with "creating" anti-cycling sentiment by just riding on the road and going to work. The people who are going to give me shit for going to work and causing them to change a lane weren't about to become BikePGH members.

Ms. Schill is perfectly entitled to have used her own vehicle to get to her (former) job. The point of public thoroughfares is to allow all members of the public to get from place to place. That's why they're "public" and why everyone's taxes go towards maintaining them. (Limited-access roads are a reasonable exception, maybe). If the authorities feel that she is in fact interfering with motor traffic they should figure a way to accommodate all concerned; they are all legitimate users. It doesn't have to be some capital-intensive LAB solution. It could be as simple as having a sweeper monthly go down the shoulder and clear the debris. And pave a 1ft lane over the rumble strips so you don't get all shook out of your mind. It will still be not fun to ride but at least you'd not be forced to mix with the cars and trucks. And I don't understand why all the transportation infrastructure work going on around our area doesn't at least use designs that enable easy addition of bike lanes at some point in the future. You know, how they'll set pylons for a 4-lane bridge over the highway but only build a 2-lane bridge to start? Why can't we get bikelane-able shoulders on all the current road "improvements"? What is the problem ? [I haven't brought this up in a while, but don't forget to vote in the election! And while you're at it, reflect on which party is more likely to be a friend of the cyclist...]

Has anyone heard anything about a support ride that was rumored to happen last Sunday?

@Ahlir The shoulder maintenance and rumble strips are the least of the issues that come with riding on a shoulder. They've already been discussed on this thread ad nauseum and in greater detail in Marko's last link. As far as I can tell, there isn't any easy way to get around all the problems associated with the turnoff lanes every 3rd of a mile Also, I initially overlooked Mick's slow moving vehicle comment, but yeah. Shall we tell buses and dump trucks to just move closer to wherever they're working when they're slowly moving up hills?

Treat a bicycle like you'd treat a backhoe. Really, I would love to rig together a pipe-cleaner-and-paper-maché backhoe to sit on a bike frame, and toodle around town.

A sharpie on a 4' fiberglass tentpole has crossed my mind more than once. People can pass me closer if they want racing stripes.

I haven't been able to find this on the interwebs, but I remember from back in college an accessory consisting of a flexible rod affixed to the rack on your bike, sticking out perpendicularly into traffic, with a red flag at the end. It was also equipped with sharp blades at the flag end. If a car got too close, it's finish would be scratched. It was meant to be an incentive to stay away. Does this ring any bells for anyone? I'd like to know what happened, and why it never became standard equipment.

Could be because it's dangerous and stupid. You can't go riding around with something designed to scratch cars. You'd get arrested. Thinking about it is one thing.

Two words: Bumper. Bike.

In case you missed it: she's running for lieutenant governor. http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/Controversial-bicyclist-to-run-as-lieutenant-governor-282839901.html

All charges have been dropped: http://www.gofundme.com/8uvfkw But it sounds like she gave in.

My take is that she made a strategic decision to avoid a bad precedent being set. Re-reading the LAB's post on the case, they kind of say the same thing, albeit with a pricky tone. http://bikeleague.org/content/schill-case-what-now

Her Facebook post, if you can see it, is here. Some of the 62 comments (at this writing) are well worth your time.

Digging up this six-month-old thread since this is a lot closer to home and sounds like the same thing. http://triblive.com/news/westmoreland/8672518-74/smith-charged-traffic#axzz3eeviA2qS I have no back story. Have we talked about this guy before?

http://localhost/mb/topic/bicyclist-facing-charges-after-pepper-spraying-motorist/page/2/#post-178035 Yup. This story kind of sends me in both directions. As for the cyclists It sounds like the guy is just a tad mentally unstable. No big deal there, but if you are prone to aggression and easy excited road cycling should not be for you. Take up fishing, calm down. It sounds like the guy has been pushed to the limits and taking his aggression out on every driver who dares to even violate his space, and almost trying to look for it. He is pepper spraying people, harassing, packing knives, bringing rocks to court rooms. He is like the Michael Douglas character in the 1993 movie "Falling Down". He hates our fat American driving society and god damn he is at war with it. Now on the cyclist's side; He has every damn right to be on the roads these people making comments on the story are bitching about him being on. Obstructing traffic on Route 130 in Penn Township? It looks like the same 130 from Google Earth I sometimes do on lunch rides down Turtle Creek to Pitcairn. It's 35 MPH with a smaller shoulder. Ride the white line, let people pass up hills, take the lane and hold your speed down hills, and on flat surfaces take the lane if need and release when you have to. Why would that be illegal? I want to know exactly how he was "obstructing traffic" regardless of his hostile and mentally unstable past.

Added three cents this time. There are two unrelated issues here. First, the cyclist apparently has a history of harassment with pepper spray and rocks. That's not cool, and I offer no defense there. But second, he is entirely within the law by riding on the road and taking the lane, and forcing motorists to stack up behind him. Most motorists are not aware that they can legally cross the yellow line to pass a cyclist if it is safe to do so (75-3301a6, passed in 2012), similar to dealing with a downed tree branch in the road. The cyclist, not the driver behind, gets to determine when it is safe to allow motorists to pass, and if that's inconvenient, tough. If you cannot see to safely pass, you slow to match the vehicle in front of you, whether it's a slower car, a bike, or an Amish buggy, until such time as you can safely pass. Sorry, but it is not illegal to travel 15 mph on a 35 mph road, and I don't care if you're late for the soccer game. (We will leave your traveling 44 mph in a 35 zone for a separate discussion.) I myself regularly ride on roads (more typically north of Pittsburgh), and use a method called control-and-release. I control the lane to avoid holes, debris, wheel-eating drain grates, etc., on the road edge (if there is any at all). I release it to following motorists when I deem it safe to. Obstructing traffic, concerning bikes, is 75-3364b2, and contains a subjective term, "shall use reasonable efforts so as not to impede" traffic. When there is a paved shoulder, I use it, but I am not obligated to. When I can pull to the right, I do, once I am past whatever hazard, but not before. This is accepted practice. I don't know exactly how Mr. Smith rides, but this method works for me, and it is legal. On a four-lane road, even a 55 mph road, I place myself squarely in the right lane, and stay there. If you want to go faster, there's a lane to my left for that purpose. That is exactly what Sec. 75-3301c1 means. So unless I am missing something here, he is not obstructing traffic by riding on Rt 30, nor is he illegally obstructing traffic by taking the lane on a two-lane road, so should never have been arrested for that in the first place, ever.

The responses to my and @jonawebb's comments, and the original article, are typical. People do not accept that cyclists are allowed to use the lane, or the road at all. Until and unless that changes, we are battling uphill.

I haven't read all 84 posts in this thread but a question occurs to me. Does the organization (Bike Pittsburgh) send anyone to monitor a trial such as this one, concerning the Hempfield Cyclist, which is scheduled to occur in September? From a read of comments in this forum and a re-read of the article, it seems as though the charges of obstructing traffic can be successfully challenged. While I personally wouldn't ride on US 30 for any great distance, it isn't illegal to do so. Once one ventures onto the road, it becomes like many others where there is nowhere else to go except to control the lane and keep yourself safe. The defendant-cyclist is no doubt enduring all sorts of hostility from drivers who feel inconvenienced by his actions. It would seem to me to be a good learning experience if someone could attend this trial and report back to the group with the facts in the case and perhaps the legal opinion regarding the final decisions in the case.

i woodnt put to much. Thought into comments. on those articles. Most people who comment on. them barely even no there own lanquige for instance and how to form 4th grade sentences. American car culture is not going to change until autonomous cars fully take over.

Present company excluded

American car culture is not going to change until autonomous cars fully take over. If then. "These autonomous cars are a menace! I nearly rear-ended one the other day! The light turned yellow, and it slowed and stopped, while there was plenty of time to beat the red (by which I mean get into the intersection before the cross traffic)! And they go so slow! I was on this 25 mph street, stuck behind one of them, and I had to wait almost a minute, crawling at, like, 25 mph, before I could get past. They wait until the merge point to merge, don't do Pittsburgh lefts, and maintain speed through tunnels just because a sign says to. And those cars don't pay taxes either! Autonomous vehicles should stay on monorail tracks where they belong!"

I guess I'll just have to keep saying it. Autonomous cars aren't going to change anything. They can be programmed to drive as aggressively as any human driver, and will be if the culture and laws permit it. Don't expect a technological fix to this problem. What would change things is infrastructure changes so people didn't have to drive to live and work. Then driving could be treated as the privilege it is, instead of as a right.

@jonawebb -- it would be different. Unlike human driver where we can attribute to "a bad person" all errors, in case of driveless car case the manufacturer is going to be responsible. A couple of cases and "total recall" is going to happen.

I don't think any autonomous car manufacturer is expecting to be held responsible for accidents. Everybody knows accidents happen.

When an accident is due to a design flaw, you can go after the manufacturer. Translate "I didn't see that" or "I meant to do something different" into automation terms, and they become design flaws. I think it's hard to predict what effect a major change like this will have. For instance, if you can do other stuff while in transit in a private vehicle, perhaps cars will get bigger so people can watch their big TV on the way to work. Maybe your bed's in your car so you can sleep on the way to work. Maybe there's a kitchen. Or maybe you send your car out to do chores while you're at work, so eventually mail and packages aren't delivered to homes; your car picks them up at a depot.

Millennials have far less concern over their cars than their boomer parents. They care less about cars as a status symbol and own less of them. Autonomous cars will eventually get rid of that "vroom vroom" obsession that humans have with trucks and cars. The whole hillbilly Viagra of a super sized truck running on diesel will one day hopefully be a thing of our past evolution. They will be a source to get from point A to point B efficiently. Most important change that has to occur is getting back to living in functional towns and cities. The Post WW2 suburban living is a cancer on this planet. Autonomous cars will make traffic move smoother. Computers systematically working together in sync will be far more efficient than emotional humans chaotically driving individually acting out their aggression.

I, for one, would truly welcome robot cars as our new overlords. Things can't possibly get much worse than they are right now. Consider the following report findings I easily found on the interwebs: -- Drivers conversing on cell phones had slower braking reactions and were involved in more traffic accidents than when they were not conversing on the cell phone. -- Subjects who were legally intoxicated drove more aggressively, following closer to the vehicle immediately in front of them and braking with more force. -- When controlling for driving conditions and other factors, cell-phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers. -- Hands-free cell-phone systems had no benefit compared to hand-held phones. -- Cell phone conversations have a more profound effect on driver performance than other forms of in-car distraction, including talking to passengers. [http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/transportation/cell-phones-and-driver-performance#sthash.s5W3MxNb.dpuf] To calibrate these observations, I invite you to stand at any (reasonably busy) intersection in town and count the number of people making turns while talking on their phone. It's a lot. Extra points for those also holding [sic] a cigarette. It might be a bit harder to spot the drunks, but I invite you to repeat the above survey at the corner of 18th and Carson on a Saturday night (well, most any night I suppose). Be careful, though; maybe stand behind a light pole?

The Post WW2 suburban living is a cancer on this planet.

Don't rush to conclusions just yet. Big cities has a lot of problems. I can enumerated just a few that we don't have a real scalable solutions for: 1. Toll buildings and fire; 2. Logistics -- this is not just food or goods; this is water, electricity, gas, heat, cooling; 3. Garbage -- where to put it, how to process it? 4. Sewer system; I don't know about american cities but when we tried to automate sewer system (real time monitor and management) in Leningrad, Russia, after looking at enormous pipes, pumps, pools -- the city is flat so everything is has to be pumped -- we have been told that if something happened to pumps city has 45 minutes before everything will go out of manholes to streets; 5. Epidemics -- it happens much faster in city; 6. Any big event has a tendency to be converted to a chain effect with big consequences; 7. Policy work is much harder... 8. Due to density of population any emergency handling center has to have much more spare of everything than rural ones... ...

They've arrested the guy in Hempfield. From the Westmoreland Newswire (ugh): A Hempfield bicyclist lost his final chance to stay out of jail when he was arrested at his home Tuesday morning by county sheriff's deputies, just days after Judge Rita Hathaway warned him to stay out of trouble or be sent to jail. David Smith, 56, is currently being held at Westmoreland County Prison until his bond revocation hearing, scheduled for July 28. Smith, who's been in trouble with the law numerous times over the years for obstruction of highways, disorderly conduct, and threatening workers at a local magistrate's office, violated the conditions of his bond when he obstructed traffic on Donohoe Road and on Route 30 in Unity Township, leading to a warrant for his arrest, according to state police. Locals who have been fed up are speaking out about Smith's jail sentence, saying that he should face stiff penalties the law will allow. "As part of his punishment, he should be never permitted to ride a bicycle again," said Sue Hutton, who believes Smith should be in jail until his trial in September. "I hope the judge will see the sense to do this," said Hutton. Tammy Bailey feels that Smith should seek help at a mental institution. According to Bailey, "I would want them to find this man the help he needs before releasing him to the public again." Others are saying that the time has come, such as Suzanne Hebrank, who says, "I think it took a decent judge to finally pay attention to this whole situation and do something about it." Others are calling for equal treatment under the law. AJ Davis explains, "if anyone in a car did what he did, they'd lose their license immediately." Even other local bicyclists are concerned about Smith, such as Scott Raynor, who says that his actions puts other cyclists at risk. "I ride a bit, but I yield, let drivers pass me. etc," said Raynor. Most can agree though that Smith's actions are not to be taken lightly. Shawn Mosley concurred with the judge's decision. "Glad he went to jail for his actions. He was given chance after chance and now he is in jail. I'm glad the law did what they did," according to Mosley. In the end, one can be hopeful that better days are ahead and Smith seeks the help he needs, or as Michael Cortese puts it, "Put a plow on that bike and send him out in January."

This story is not "bicyclist arrested for obeying riding laws" but "violent unstable guy arrested for being violent and unstable when he happened to be on a bicycle." He's had a string of arrests assaulted people, and brought a knife into a courtroom. It's only a matter of time before this guy kills someone (and I don't mean via his riding.) In other words, while I'm all for vigorously defending the right of bicyclists to safely and legally ride on the road, including taking the lane, this guy's case is totally the wrong hill to die on.