The Schwarzenetruber Amish.

[zerodish]

A federal judge has ruled that preventing horses and wagons from using the roads is a violation of the religious freedom clause of the United States Constitution. The Amish are a branch of the Mennonite church. Each church decides what technology it's member use. The Mennonites use bicycles extensively. This is important for several reasons. The court has ruled that the wagons do not have to use lights. Either flashing on the rear or headlights on the front including those that are not electrical. I expect the Mennonites may also be exempt from using lights on bicycles this will have to be fought in the courts. I sent an email to INDOT pointing out that the newly completed interstate 69 was in violation of title 23 section 109m US code. They wrote back that they were aware of the problem and a church in the area was affected. It looks like Indiana is allowing all non motorized traffic on that interstate. Given the extensive violations of road law by all states all interstates may eventually be opened to non motorized traffic. It is not necessary to be a member of a church to claim a religious freedom right. I use lights but the police treat cyclists far more harshly than motorists who also drive around without lights. I have cycled 10000 miles on the interstates in around 20 states. I may simple start my own church and call my self a Schwarzenegger Amish. After all my legs are bigger. The Swartzentruber Amish have went to jail and then sued the state of Kentucky over this issue. We owe them quite a bit.

[RussSeaton]

Seems to me if this federal judge's rules are applied to everyone on everything, then there are no laws at all.  The Mormons or Latter Day Saints had polygamy.  Illegal now in all 50 states.  But this judge would say its legal.  Religious freedom.  Not using lights is not required?  Bull----.  I think we will see an appeal of this nonsense very quickly.  Common safety, your right to swing a bat ends where my nose begins, etc.

The basic premise of allowing people to use any means, horses, wagons, bikes, on interstates when there are no alternatives, YES.  Most states allow that too for bikes.  People talk of riding on interstates in this forum frequently.  Texas I think.  But they all say its not pleasant and they would rather have an alternative.  Its probably legal for me to ride in rush hour traffic downtown.  Legal does not mean I am going to do it.  Its legal for me to climb to the top of Mt. Everest and K2.

[jamawani]

Zero - Thank you for your thoughtful post. Freedom of belief is one of the bedrock values of American political society. Of course, it has been applied selectively over the past 240 years - especially if you happened to be black or female or Jehovah's Witness. But little by little, we seem able to recognize that my freedom of belief and your freedom of belief are one in the same. For some Amish congregations, the bright orange reflectors contradict all of their beliefs about arrogance and pride. Is it a risk for them to travel without the reflector? Yes. Are there compromises that the Amish themselves might offer and the state ought to hear. Absolutely. Does that religious protection allow me to drive my truck without headlights. No. And I see no contradiction there at all.

[walks.in2.trees]

Since I began bicycling as a kid in the 1980s I have only once (the other day), been even reprimanded for any of the illegal things that most cyclists do. I have run traffic lights (if they don't change for bicycles), I ride on sidewalks (mostly at rush hour because sidewalks suck to ride on), ride without helmet, reflectors, lights, bell... Granted it's rare that I ever go without my PPE but I have done so accidentally. I don't have wheel or tail reflectors, though I do have pedal reflectors, I do wear reflective safety vest, and have a helmet mounted Petzel light. I don't take them off on purpose, I just don't replace them as they fall off. With the reflective gear I wear, it hardly matters.

 I do know that here in upstate NY, highways in addition to the "no bicycles or pedestrians" signs, have a posted 45 mph minimum speed....so no, no horses, bicycles, pedestrians allowed. But then there's always alternate routes to take that parallel highways, so it's not like it's a huge inconvenience, and usually you wouldn't gain anything by biking on them anyway, because the reasons it's faster for cars to take them (local traffic) usually don't slow a bike down at all (ever the embassador of the sport, I laugh and point at folks stuck in rush hour traffic, screaming "haha schmucks!" as I fly past down the shoulder (no, not really, but INSIDE I am!)



Sent from my SM-T817V using Tapatalk

[canalligators]

By using the word "highway", do you mean limited access expressways, or just open roads?  In some places, highway=expressway, but in the US northeast, not always.

I travel a bit in upstate New York, and have never seen a minimum speed posted, even on the expressways.  In fact, the only time I remember one is on I-75 in Michigan, in the 1960s.  There is no minimum speed on non-expressways, there may be one on expressways. 

Also, in New York State, any road that is limited access (has exit and entrance ramps), is illegal for bike use - even if it's not posted as such.  I checked it out with DMV and DOT, as there's an expressway here that is not posted "No Bikes" and I was wondering.

[walks.in2.trees]

You're right, there's places where main routes such as Rte 20 could be considered a "highway"... But yes I'm referring to limited access expressways. 787 in Albany used to have one, haven't been that way in a while though... But since you mention it I don't recall seeing one on I-87 or I-90 but they may have decided that the "flow of traffic" rule covers it. I do know you'll get a ticket if you try it in a car. For all of that, my brother got a ticket for trying to change a flat tire (illegal to get out of your vehicle I guess on I-87, supposed to sit and wait for help)

Sent from my SM-T817V using Tapatalk

[indyfabz]

FYI...You wrote "federal judge." That implies District Court. The decision is only binding in the area that court covers. Even if it's upheld by the Circuit Court of Appeals for that district, t will only be binding in the areas under that circuit's jurisdiction.

[indyfabz]

A federal judge has ruled that preventing horses and wagons from using the roads is a violation of the religious freedom clause of the United States Constitution.

BTW...Got a case name and/or citation? I have been unable to find either.