Electric personal assistive mobility devices; operation of bicycles on Interstate Highway System. (HB2008)

This bill unnecessarily expands the number of highways where bicycles, mopeds, electrically-assisted bicycles, and Segways are banned for no valid reason, while failing to establish a fair and open process for evaluating future and existing bans. The Code of Virginia already bans these devices on all controlled-access highways "where the Commonwealth Transportation Board has prohibited their operation in the interest of safety". I will meet with Del. Brink on January 19 to ask that he withdraw this legislation.

This is a step backwards for public health, the environment, and energy independence in favor of further promoting the car culture of the last century. Delegate Brink needs to pay attention to reality.

Concerns for the obesity epidemic, global warming, and dependency on foreign oil all beg for this bill to be withdrawn. There is no evidence that there is a safety issue with bicycles, mopeds, segways or electrically-assisted bicycles using controlled access highways. All of these vehicles are legitimate modes of transportation and are better for health and the environment than cars and trucks. Steps should be taken to encourage their use not block their use.

The Virginia State Police, which instigated this bill, is planning to amend the language to only state a prohibition on any "Interstate Highway Sytem Component". The latter term is not defined in the Code of Virginia but is reportedly defined under federal law. I am still seeking the federal definition to ensure that bicycling on physically separated shared-use paths within VDOT's right-of-way along Interstate highways would not be prohibited.

Thank you Mr. Muchnick. I hope the definition is clarified. While riding along 395/95 is clearly unsafe, the broad language is disconcerting for a number of other roads in Virginia that are used by many cyclists. Clarification would be appreciated.

Banning bicycles and other non car/motorcycle/truck vehicles on major interstates such as I-81, I-95, etc... is not an issue. But blocking access to the secondary highways -- the Rte 50s and 17s and 522s and so forth only takes us a huge step back in encouraging environmentally responsible transport options. The problem is not bicyclists on the road...it's arrogant and irresponsible drivers. Let's work to change the culture of the Commonwealth, not trap us into a bygone era of gas-guzzling, McDonalds-swilling travel.

"The problem is not bicyclists on the road...it's arrogant and irresponsible drivers"

NO. The problem is in fact the arrogant bicyclists on the road who interfere with motor vehicular traffic.

But blocking access to the secondary highways -- the Rte 50s and 17s and 522s and so forth only takes us a huge step back in encouraging environmentally responsible transport options.

Thankfully, this bill doesn't do that. It prohibits bicycles on "limited access highways," which are interstates and bypasses—roads that don't have intersections or driveways, and only a minimum of on- and off-ramps, designed to move hulking chunks of steel from Point A to Point B at 55 MPH. Not good places for bicycles.

I'd like to see our development model change so that there's neither the need nor the demand to construct these sorts of things, but they do exist and, as such, I suspect we can all agree that it's not safe to bicycle on them.