This is the URL

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:SrLOXfDz3SsJ:johnknoxwhite.com/2008/06/17/when-scooters-are-outlawed/+city+of+alameda+ca+ordinances+%2223-1.3%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

This is the full text as of 10/22/08 from the above link

11-4.2 Riding on Sidewalk.
Bicycles may be ridden on the sidewalk, except such sidewalks that pass directly in front of or adjacent to any stores, schools, or other buildings used for business purposes during the hours that such establishment is open for business.
a. Whenever any person is riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk, such person shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian.
b. It shall be unlawful for any person to ride a bicycle in any pedestrian crosswalk at a signal controlled intersection, adjacent to any school, or one which is under the control of the school crossing guard. At all other intersections the bicyclist shall exercise due caution before entering onto the roadway. (Ord. No. 535 N.S. § 7-332; Ord. No. 1665 N.S.; Ord. No. 1713 N.S.)

The ordinace only places bans on parking facilities.

Parks are still legal for riding unless posted.

Thanks

Frank M.atarrese “

Really, how did we go from complaints about skateboarders in the parking garage to banning all human-powered vehicles in parks? Although I think the proposed Municipal Code changes were an overreaction, at least there were documented complaints about skateboarding in the garage. Where is the evidence that bikes, scooters, and other such vehicles are causing problems in our parks? How many complaints have been received? How many accidents have been reported?

If a particular location is an exception to the rule however, it will require a new sign to replace the current sign that says “No bikes allowed” with one that says “Bikes allowed.” But that would be unnecessary since most people already assume that to be the case! Or will we then need two signs, one that states that bikes are not allowed and one that states the exception? That’s adding more visual clutter, no?

I can imagine the number of people who will be confused by all the conflicting signs, and I feel sorry for the poor park workers trying to explain this lack of logic, let alone enforce it. Since I don’t have a license plate on my bike, short of arresting me, how is anyone going to write me a ticket?

The ultimate question is, what is the goal the Mayor (and council) is trying to achieve? Safety, more revenue, less visual clutter? If they can state clearly what they want achieved, someone who is not lost in Wonderland can probably come up with the proper solution.

AMC 23-1.3 Riding of Bicycles and Skateboards in Parks, looks to me to only apply to “bicycle, or skateboard, propelled wholly or in part by muscular power,” and does not mention the catch-all “and ALL muscular powered vehicles from all city parks” as stated in the council proposal.

I wonder if my grandkids will also be arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a grandparent if they knowingly allow me to pull them in their wagon?

23-1.3 Riding of Bicycles and Skateboards in Parks, Etc.
It shall be unlawful when and where posted for any person to operate or ride a bicycle, or skateboard, propelled wholly or in part by muscular power, in or upon any public park, playground or school property in the City.
The use and operation of skateboards, roller skates, and in-line skates shall be authorized at the Skate Park, at Alameda Point. All persons using, operating, or riding a skateboard, roller skates, or in-line skates at the Skate Park, at Alameda Point, shall wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads at all times. (Ord. No. 743 N.S.; Ord. No. 2439 N.S. § 1; Ord. No. 2798 N.S. § 1)

What is the proposed change?

Banning muscle-powered vehicles does seem to include strollers and baby joggers, so I would think that a major uproar from the pram-pushing set might be easily generated. This move produces, shall I say, “shock and awe.” It should be reversed, and may well be, if sound arguments against hasty action cn be presented and the issue referred to the venerable TC and Rec & Parks Commission for further study….

JKW, your instincts may well be correct on the possible violations of the Brown Act, which Our Fair City’s leaders normally honor very carefully.

You are correct, also, on the need for a second reading on any changes in the municipal code.

Thank God it’s not too late to stop this “hasty” action…

“Toys” which wagons and trikes, and possibly even scooters (though they were singled out during the council discussion) are governed by separate rules and would not be affected by this proposal.