Bicycles and sidewalks? As always, New Albany's legal stance is as clear as mud -- and City Hall gazes at the ceiling.

Behold, another Rosenbarger bike lane triumph.

We've all been here before, but the fake factoids never cease, so let's have another look at the question of whether it is legal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk in New Albany. Not unexpectedly in a state with its own contradictory laws, sections of the official code of ordinances in New Albany don't jibe.

§ 73.01 OPERATION OF BICYCLES.
(A) Every person riding a bicycle upon a street shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle. Every person riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to a pedestrian.

(D) No person 14 years of age or older shall operate a bicycle on the sidewalks located within the geographical incorporated boundary limits of the City of New Albany ("city").

73.01 seems to suggest that since no person 14 years or age or older should be on the sidewalk anywhere within the city limits, everyone else should be riding on the street.

Then it gets weird.

§ 73.03 RIDING ON SIDEWALKS.
(A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, it shall be legal to operate a bicycle upon a sidewalk when sidewalks are available and are not congested with pedestrian traffic. If the sidewalk is congested with pedestrian traffic, any bicycle operator using the sidewalk shall walk the bicycle.

(B) No person shall ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk in a business district or upon or along which signs have been erected by authority of the Board of Works prohibiting such bicycle riding.

In 73.03, it's legal to ride on the sidewalk with no reference to age, except in a business district, which isn't defined (here or elsewhere in the code), or wherever signs prohibiting bicycling have been erected.

Which is it? Maybe BOW can spin the wheel during its next meeting. In truth, it doesn't matter much because there is no enforcement of any conceivable interpretation.

As for which direction a bicyclist should travel when riding on a street, it should stand to reason that if the code of ordinance explicitly holds bicyclists riding in the street to the same duties of motorists, and it does, then these duties include riding in the same direction as traffic, seeing as a driver wouldn't decide to drive against traffic -- for the very same safety reasons as a bicyclist shouldn't.

You were taught to ride against traffic? Sorry, but you were taught wrong.

DEBUNKING WRONG-WAY RIDING, by Jamie Wine

Lots of us were taught as kids to ride facing traffic ... this sense of safety is tragically false, but that doesn’t stop it from being widely believed – especially if your last lesson in bike safety was when you were seven.

Even closer to the center of the target:

When you see someone riding the wrong way on a bike, the chances are good that they have chosen this as a crummy alternative to an even crummier series of major roads and horrifying intersections.

Yesterday during a conversation at Facebook, some guy living in Harrison County insisted that bicycle licensing is the answer to all these issues: "I believe that it (licensing) should be on the books and enforced. Especially with bike lanes now prevalent like never before."

Bike lanes prevalent? It's hard to believe bicycle lanes in New Albany amount to more than a few single digit percentage points of the street grid's total acreage. Perhaps it seems like more for folks living in mobile homes by a cornfield.

Bizarrely, until recently, the city of New Albany had bicycling laws on the books, dating from the aftermath of the Great Flood.

Rewind: Bicycles, mopeds and the ordinances not governing them.

§ 73.20 LICENSE REQUIRED BEFORE OPERATING BICYCLE.
No person shall ride or propel a bicycle upon any public highway, street, boulevard or other public place in the city, unless the same shall be licensed as herein provided.
('71 Code, §73.28) (Ord. 4120, passed 3-6-39)

In summary, city government's relationship with the street grid is devoted roughly 95% of the time to assuring drivers that car-centrism is king. There are no stated policies v.v. bicycling (or walking), no goals for improving non-automotive access, and no evident will to improve. If you're interested in this changing, then it's time to begin holding feet to the fire -- and next year, when there's a municipal election, you'll have the opportunity.

Rant over.

On the errant notion of bicycle licenses.

"I'll be working on the assumption that policy-making is a rational tool to create a better society, not a punishment for perceived irritants. This isn't always the case but it's a necessary premise: if you simply have a gut feeling that cyclists should be taught some sort of lesson and you're not interested in the evidence then there's no point even starting."

I used to take great joy in referring to these environs as the Open Air Museum of Ignorance, Superstition and Backwardness, but then I got ticketed for exceeding the syllable limit.

Yesterday during a discussion of sharrow symbols now adorning Vincennes Street -- admittedly a wretched, Rosenbargerian idea, and one revealing the ineptitude of officials unwilling to risk the installation of genuine bicycling infrastructure, either from timidity, stupidity or both -- it was suggested that bicyclists be licensed.

Let's quickly refute this car-centric twaddle. Perhaps the Aussie vantage point is best (just keep blaming the usual victims, drivers), but there'll be two others.

18 reasons why registering bicycles is a bad idea, by Michael O'Reilly (Executive Style)

Right, that's it. Enough already. I'm so tired of hearing the same contention being trotted out every time bicycles are mentioned.

I refer, of course, to the ongoing clamour that cyclists need to be registered.

Show me a news report to do with bicycles, and I'll show you someone on social media or a comments thread carrying on about bicycle registration as if it's the most urgent thing in road safety.

A bike-riding man killed in a "dooring" incident in Melbourne? "Cyclists should be registered." A cycling young woman crushed by a truck in Brisbane's CBD? "They should pay rego."

This week, news about a bill to legislate a safe minimum passing distance when cars overtake bikes drew comments such as "I'll give them space when they pay to be on the roads". Charming.

The problem with such misguided contentions is that they become a form of groupthink. If people hear such things repeatedly, it becomes acceptable to them.

It can also breed animosity - which can spill onto our roads, creating dangerous hostility and intolerance.

In truth, the angry voices are in the minority. Most Australians accept and even support cycling - after all, more bicycles are sold than cars every year. Even among people who don't ride for transport, a survey showed 60 per cent would like to do so – but many say they are too scared.

And Chicago:

Why Bicycle Licensing (Almost) Never Works, by Whet Moser (Chicago)

I’ve said it over and over again: if you really, truly want to improve cyclist compliance with the law, there are countries that do it well—especially the Netherlands—and they do it in part through a comprehensive educational system for cyclists and drivers alike that begins in elementary school. (Their form of driver’s education is also more comprehensive, and traffic fatalities have fallen faster there than in the United States in recent decades.) The Active Transportation Alliance’s Ron Burke gave Biasco some similar suggestions. You get what you put in. Contrary to the beliefs of most newspaper columnists, merely intoning the words “fixie” and “hipster” like a curse is just an exercise in filling copy quotas.

On the other hand, bike licenses have been tried throughout North America, and what you usually get is a bureaucratic facepalm.

Finally the United Kingdom (the lead quote comes from this article):

Why regulating cyclists is unnecessary and harmful, by Peter Walker (The Guardian)

Why don't cyclists have compulsory licencing, training and insurance? Because it would be utterly pointless

Cycling and cyclists are good for society; good for everyone, in fact. You might not like our funny, Lycra-wearing ways, but it's an undeniable truth. If 50% of a hypothetical city's car drivers abandoned their vehicles overnight for bikes it would slash pollution and congestion (for the remaining drivers, too), also bringing less wear to the roads and better health for the new cyclists. It would additionally, at a stroke, dramatically cut the numbers of people killed or badly hurt on the roads, saving millions of pounds and – more importantly – reducing the number of lives lost or devastated through grief or grave injury.

We have lots to discuss in New Albany, and bicycle licensing isn't one of those topics.