> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Paul O'Leary writes: > > I can think of one exception, but it doesn't apply here in WI. In > > some states, because > > there are NO connecting surface roads between certain places, it's > > legal for bicyclists > > to use the shoulder of the Interstate highway. Of course, it's not a > > "bike lane" per se, > Really? I thought Interstate Highways were forbidden to vehicular traffic > that aren't capable of the speeds, which is why lots of them have signs > that say "no bicycles, equestrians, motor driven scooters". Is that just a > state thing?
Yup, in many western / Rocky Mountain states, there is only one pass by which to get from one city/town to the next. The Interstates, when they went in, _replaced_ the existing surface roads through those passes, and were thus still the only route between some cities. I became aware of all this during a "cultural exchange" on a bike message board a month or so back. There was this "moment of mutual astonishment" between the westerners who couldn't believe that we would be so wasteful as to build Interstates AND leave the Federal/State/County roads in place, and the mid-westerners who could believe that they would be so arrogant as to tear out surface roads just because an Interstate was being built. Shows to go you, this isn't as "homogenous" a country as it often seems. The whole exchange unfolded at http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=54811 . --------------- Paul T. O'Leary Desktop Insurgent Madison, WI USA NOTE: My Email has been haywire lately; if you have a reply, please send it to BOTH of the following: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
