Waves aren't the only thing surfers ride

 

With Portland snowed in for a white Christmas, it seems almost remarkable that a few short weeks ago, I was in Santa Cruz, California, watching the surfers at Pleasure Point.

The last time I had been in Santa Cruz, I saw a guy on a bike riding down the street with a surfboard tucked under his arm. “Only in Santa Cruz,” I thought. I saw him riding once more before I left; both times, I was wishing I had a camera with me.

Well, I flew to the Bay Area for Thanksgiving with friends in Santa Cruz (Capitola, actually), and this time I brought my camera. Before I left, I told Bob “If I see the surfer riding with his board tucked under his arm again, I’ll get a photo.”

[ Keep Reading... ]

Comments
Like the new site! I wish it was warm enough for surfing in Portland right now.
# Posted By erikv | 12/24/08 10:37 AM
Nice site. I am a native Californian and I can tell you it is not only a Santa Cruz thing.
Since parking near California beaches can be difficult, there are a lot of surfers who
ride.
# Posted By Paul | 12/31/08 11:49 AM
Surfers on bikes is not only a Santa Cruz thing. Since parking
near a beach in California can be difficult at times, you will see
a lot of surfers with boards on bike, or on trailers or using a bunch
of bungie cords.
# Posted By Paul | 12/31/08 11:51 AM
Didn't somebody make a surfboard powered by a bicycle driven propeller? Ah, the best of all worlds
# Posted By Hugh | 12/31/08 3:25 PM
Not quite a bike-powered surfboard, but check out the Italian Shuttle Bike!

www.shuttlebike.com
# Posted By The King | 12/31/08 7:19 PM
Not only is it also a So. Cal. "thing," but there is a nice bike accessory that allows one to strap the board on the bike, without having to hold it. (see the picture of the red board on the bike ridden by the person with a white jacket/hoody).
# Posted By Ken Salzberg | 12/31/08 8:51 PM
Sick.....
# Posted By rich | 3/22/10 1:36 PM
According to Colorado Statutes, bicycles may be prohibited on roadways if there is an alternate route within ΒΌ mile of the roadway. For safety purposes, CDOT has chosen to apply this statute to much of I-70 and I-25. The alternate routes can be other roadways or non-motorized paths. Here is the statute language:

CRS 42-4-109 (11), it states: Where suitable bike paths, horseback trails, or other trails have been established on the right-of-way or parallel to and within one-fourth mile of the right-of-way of heavily traveled streets and highways, the department of transportation may, subject to the provisions of section 43-2-135, CRS, by resolution or order entered in its minutes, and local authorities may, where suitable bike paths, horseback trails, or other trails have been established on the right-of-way or parallel to it within four hundred fifty feet of the right-of-way of heavily traveled streets, by ordinance, determine and designate, upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, those heavily traveled streets and highways upon which shall be prohibited any bicycle, animal rider, animal-drawn conveyance, or other class or kind of non-motorized traffic which is found to be incompatible with the normal and safe movement of traffic, and, upon such a determination, the department of transportation or local authority shall erect appropriate official signs giving notice thereof; except that with respect to controlled access highways the provisions of section 42-4-101(3) shall apply.

Recently, I was riding my bicycle on the extreme right side of the freeway shoulder between Frisco and Copper Mountain. During at least six months of the year, the recreation path along Ten Mile Creek is closed due to deep snow cover and avalanche danger in Officers Gulch. The alternative state highway, without shoulder, is Highway 91 to Leadville, 25 miles over Freemont Pass, then Highway 24 to Fairplay, south on Highway 9 to Breckenridge, over Hoosier Pass, then 10 miles down the Blue River to Breckenridge. Therefore, the I-70 is the only reasonable means for me to commute from Copper Mountain to Frisco.

During that evening, I was returning from work. A snowplow driver on his way to Vail Pass stopped on the shoulder at the 195 mile marker to block my progress and attempted to stop me. When I ignored his command to pull over, he yelled to me that I should not be on the freeway. Then, he blasted his air horn and shouted, #### you!

I called his supervisor to discuss the issue. I told him that I have no alternative to commute for work other than traveling on the shoulder of the freeway. The supervisor informed me that a snowplow driver has authority from Colorado State Patrol to detain traffic. I provided him with my identity, telephone number, and location of work in case an officer wanted to write me a ticket.
My question is whether there is any existing case law interpreting the Colorado Statute or other state statutes concerning bicycle or other slow-moving traffic on the shoulder of interstate freeways in the United States.

The only reference that I have been able to find is United States v. Guest, Supreme Court of the United States (1966):

The constitutional right to travel from one State to another, and necessarily to use the highways and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce in doing so, occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.

-   Kim Fenske, JD
# Posted By Kim Fenske | 5/10/10 1:54 PM