osm at inbox.org
Thu Dec 17 21:21:46 GMT 2009
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > (It does make me think that *signed* bicycle prohibitions should be
> > tagged differently from *statutory* bicycle prohibitions, though. As
> > the OP said, you really don't want to ignore a sign like that.)
> Unless your local jurisdiction is violating international law, there is
> no difference between the two. And if your local jurisdiction is
> violating international law, you should be encouraging them to fix the
Well, if the treaty says what you say it says, then Florida is "violating
international law" (actually, since they've never signed the treaty, I'd say
they're not violating anything).
"No person shall operate a bicycle on the roadway or along the shoulder of
an interstate highway."
"Except as provided herein, no person shall operate upon a limited access
facility any bicycle, motor-driven cycle, animal-drawn vehicle, or any other
vehicle which by its design or condition is incompatible with the safe and
expedient movement of traffic."
Florida Statutes 316.091 (
And I've just checked four locations, and found no signs.
Now, I've provided quotes and link. Would you be so kind as to do so as
well? If the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic really says what you're
saying it says (and doesn't make an exception for motorways and/or limited
access roadways and/or something like that), then I'll try to find the US
law implementing it (which presumably would override Florida law since these
roadways are crucial to interstate commerce). And then, problem solved -
unless there is no such implementing legislation, in which case problem
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging