Kentucky cyclist repeatedly arrested and jailed – for commuting on the road

I would just take the scenic route
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Nicholasville,+KY,+USA/Lexington,+KY,+Un...@37.9608243,-84.5831442,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x88425fbe83ad941f:0xd6b63642fb34bcaf!2m2!1d-84.5729961!2d37.8806341!1m5!1m1!1s0x88424429cc9ceb25:0x84f08341908c4fdd!2m2!1d-84.5037164!2d38.0405837!3e1

What I find rather concerning about this story is the concept of being required to stay as far to the right as possible. This is the kind of thing that effectivly makes the use of cycle lanes mandatory, even if they are unsuitable (and we all know that they often are). I only hope the UK never decides to adopt such a policy.

Stubbornness on both sides, I think.

Unless I'm missing something here, a quick glance at Google maps and Garmin Connect reveals a recommended cycle route (Union Mill Rd) veering off to the right, before joining a second minor road. It extends the journey from 11.5 miles to about 16, but the roads looks way more suitable for cycling (see Google Street View).
Seems a bit daft sticking to the main road just to make a point, and personally, I would think twice about extending the distance if it eliminated the stress and reduced the likelihood of an accident.
I'm guessing, this alternative must have been presented at court? It took all of five minutes to work out.

There are several points here. Firstly, a lady appears to have been jailed for cycling legally on a road where cycling is permitted. The policeman is quoted as saying, 'some cars had needed to brake or change lane to avoid colliding with the rider,' which is precisely what cars are supposed to do. If there was any danger, it was caused by motor vehicles failing to drive in such a way as to avoid danger to other classes of vehicle permitted to use the road.
On the face of it, that would be the equivalent of a country guaranteeing free speech in its constitution and then jailing people for saying something you disagree with. It is un-American.
Secondly, the road is clearly unsuited to cycling because of the great difference in speed between the motor traffic and the cyclist. But there is (according to her) no safe alternative route. This is a failure of highway design to either take account of all the classes of vehicle permitted to use the road, i.e. put in safe cycling infrastructure, or provide an alternative. Cyclists should be segregated from high-speed motor vehicles.
Thirdly, the hard shoulder is reportedly potholed and strewn with debris; this is a failure of the relevant authority to maintain the road in a safe condition. It is also provided with rumble strips etc in places, which is also a design flaw if cycles are to use it.
So between the drivers, highway designers and local road maintenance, it is hard not to conclude (on the face of it) that the wrong person has been sent to jail.
However, let us consider whether she should use the hard shoulder. Is it fair for her to endanger other traffic by riding on the carriageway? Her judgement was that it was less safe (for her) than using the carriageway, but is the prosecutor correct in his judgement that 'According to Kentucky state law, vehicles moving slowly have to stay as far to the right as possible on the highway. Prosecutor Eric Wright says the key word there is "highway." That includes the shoulder'? The photo on the WKYT site seems to show a full width shoulder like motorways have, where there are rules saying it should only be used in emergencies. And we all know that motorway hard shoulders can be dangerous places.
The nearest equivalent in my daily experience is the short section of the A34 past Wilmslow, which I take because I feel the alternative, going through Wilmslow, is more hazardous than a straight dual carriageway with excellent sight lines. The left edge of the carriageway is marked by a solid white line but the tarmac continues beyond that, presumably to give drivers an error margin and reduce wear and tear on the edge. It forms something similar to a sub-standard cycle path, but according to Shackel & Parkin (Influence of road markings, lane widths and driver behaviour on proximity and speed of vehicles overtaking cyclists), you should not cross that line under UK law. Therefore I would be acting illegally to cycle to the left of that line, though it would be more considerate of other traffic if I were to do so.
So what do I choose to do? You will have doubtless formed an opinion of me by now as a thoughtful, rational and logical person, so my decision may interest you. I pretend that the line is a tightrope suspended over a canyon and I have to cycle along it without falling off. So far the least times I have 'fallen off' (not counting times when debris forced a deviation) is three.
Well, the game helps pass the time.

Having driven down that way, it appears to me that she is deliberately causing a problem to make her point. Interstates cut through swathes of countryside to get you from major town to major town. There WILL be a direct route for her to commute on to get to her destination, and (from my experience of drivers down at that neck of the woods) the drivers won't be out to kill her.

The interstates are dangerous to cycle on (think the M4 and M25) even if technically allowed. She obviously has a death wish.

As long as people are fat and lazy, cylists will always be hated for being in the way of those fat slobs on their way to eateries or something.

As compromise why doesn't the Mayor of Nicholasville arrange for several road sweepers to clean the hard shoulder if this woman says it's covered in so much debris? Surely if she were killed riding on the carriageway by an 18 wheeler her lawyer would argue that the hard shoulder was neglected and represented a hazard to cyclists, although a lesser hazard than mixing it with the traffic a few feet to the left ………….

One thing to consider here is that many states have a ride over on the right law. I don't know about Kentucky but the California Vehicle Code s21202 says:

21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:"
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21202.htm

Its possible she was convicted under a Kentucky equivalent of this law rather than for riding on the road and it would perhaps explain some of the remarks.

EDIT: Found it for Kentucky and it applies to all vehicles:

“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.”

In the US the highway is the road and hard shoulder so this would have required her to ride on the right of the hard shoulder.

Not saying its right but that is what the law says in Kentucky (and it would also apply to tractors and horse drawn vehicles)

Anyone that thinks she is doing the right thing is a nutter.

Yes, I watched the videos, massive wide, clean and smooth hard shoulder.

In the words of the great Patrick Huntrods....'sense of entitlement 3- common sense nil'

It's acting like an arse that will end up getting us legislated against worldwide.

What's with the sensationalist headline? Surely road.cc has a bit more class than a red top tabloid. It sounds like ridiculous behaviour from the police when you see the headline, but then completely reasonable when you read the actual article.

She caused some drivers to brake or change lane? It must have been awful for them. Throw the book at her

Just paint the hard shoulder blue. SOLVED.

I haven't watched the videos (at work) but from what I gather, her choices are:

Not much of a choice, is it?

some cars had needed to brake or change lane to avoid colliding with the rider

Oh nooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reading the news items, and the comments thereon, just illustrates how "rural" US differs from the "urban" areas. You read so much about how various US cities are becoming so much better for cycling, and then you read stories like this.

One of the news items (I think its a click-through from the original story in the kentucky news) has an editorial, bemoaning the fact that the *only* way of getting between these two towns is by car, bicycle, or by walking (and distances in the US are a lot greater than here in the UK).

It seems that the hard shoulder there is (like in many places here) where all the rubbish off the road ends up (bottles, tyre shreds, etc), and they demonstrate how large areas are loose gravel and "rumble strips" to warn sleepy motorists that they are off the main carriageway. I certainly wouldn't want to ride on it.

It looks to me, as if the local constabulary have rather decided that she's a problem, and that "something must be done".

Reminds me of that news item earlier this year (?) about the local councillor in some New York dormitory suburb whose response to a consituent complaining about dangerous drivers was to say that nobody of any worth cycled, and that if they choose to cycle in that area well then they deserve whats coming to them... (disclaimer: that is taken from memory, and may not be his exact words).

Let's replace the word bicycle for a car for a minute and I think that drivers of slow moving cars on motorways have been taken off by police in this country and probably most other places.

Slow driving is a potentially hazard on fast roads because vehicles approaching at high speed do not anticipate having to scub off speed on unidirectional traffic (even travelling at speed on a bike on a road it can be difficult to adapt to rapid speed changes). So regardless of whether she is on a bike it is understandable that the police move to minimise the potential for a problem.

Moving on to the legal aspect, she is within her rights to use the road, but does that make it right from a moral position? Philosophically you can channel this in two directions which are polar opposites. So the law/philosophy behind this doesn't help. What seems to be the issue is that the roads are poorly designed. Hopefully they either create a system which encourages cycling and minimises this morass.

I hope that something positive comes of this. It is great that Cherokee is such a great advocate of cycling, but I wish her safer roads by which she can channel that energy.

I am more worried that she will die at the hands of the police rather than being struck by a car. It's clearly become a battle between her and the police, she will probably end up getting beaten or tazered for her troubles. They are not particularly nice people the US paramilitary police forces and they do not like to lose.

The hard shoulder looks like a dream to ride, couldn't see a single pot hole. It's as smooth as a baby's bum. There is no way I would ride in the lane to the left on the main carriageway with traffic - cars and trucks coming up behind at a speed FAR greater than I could ride. This woman clearly has issues. Had she not had a couple of kids then she would be eligible for a Darwin Award. She's nutz.

IF the hard shoulder is safe it is where I would ride, but if the surface is covered in broken glass, potholes etc. then I would stick to the carriageway. The solution would be to make the road fit for purpose!

After seeing a few video's i get it why she is arrested, even if she is technically right she is still a danger on a road like this.

If she values her safety she should just use the shoulder. But to the point she's trying to make i applaud her in her persistence, the state should provide with a good cycling lane and as an intermediate solution promote the shoulder to cyclingpath.
(i have seen it done is Australia that the shoulder of a piece of highway was fitted with cycle path markings.)

I've ridden on American roads when visiting my partner's family in Tennessee. In my experience the hard shoulders are really wide and look like they'd be great for cyclists but they are actually strewn with debris: glass, gravel, bits of tyres, trash, etc. I even saw a dead rattlesnake! So I think she's totally in the right to argue that it would be unsafe for her to cycle there. American roads are also generally much wider than UK roads so there's more room for overtaking (I don't know about this particular route though).

She also garnered editorial support

http://www.kentucky.com/2014/09/18/3436462/us-27-bicyclist-not-only-one-...

"We disagree with Oliver's ruling, which bows to public opinion rather than the cyclist's legal right to be on the road. Nor do we understand the Nicholasville police department's insistence on targeting her."

To be honest if she really has to ride on such a busy road, the hard shoulder is the best place.

I quite often see a few n̶u̶t̶t̶e̶r̶s̶ cyclists going down the A3 in Surrey (a busy 2 and 3 lane carriageway with hard shoulder), and even these guys use the hard shoulder.

I dont see the reason to use such a busy road when there are nice alternatives available with better views, and without 3 lanes of traffic roaring past you at in excess of 70mph.

This woman should have taken the police advise, and used the hard shoulder rather than be pig headed thinking that it is her right to use the main carriageway. Cyclists and other vehicles have to co-operate and work together where they share the same carriageway.