Bicycles banned in a town. . . ? Hope this doesn't spread :P
 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...8_bikes24.html

Thought this would be an interesting link to discuss. . .

Comments aren't exactly bike friendly (and this is just the first of 16 pages of such):

How can we get such an ordenance like this in Seattle?

I LOVE IT!! RUN THIS RED LIGHT, SUCKAH!!

Good for them!

you don't actually expect spandex types to actually follow the laws, do you?

ha ha. i detest cyclists on the roads. closest i ever get to road rage is seeing a cyclist going 10mph down the street where there is a perfectly good side walk 10 feet away. and don't bother with the racist, throwback or neaderthal comments. i really don't give a crap what you think about what i said.

Good for them! I wish we could do that here, bicycles on the road cause nothing but problems! I know I'll get the thumbs down from all you self-righteous, I'm-better-than-you-because-I-ride-a-cycle people, but oh well! You're all a pain and all you do is cause more problems on our roads!

What a great first step. if we could do that here along with enforcing illegal immagration laws. we would be moving in the right direction.

*yawn* old news

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...-Hawk-Colorado

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...n-Blackhawk-CO

Bicycle Colorado is working through the courts to get the law overturned as it may be unconstitutional in Colorado.

A few more...

I enjoy passing bicyclists as closely as possible. I have a right to the road just like them. Especially when instead of using the bike lane they are inside the white line on the road, my side mirror will be a couple inches from their left hand.


I'm really tired of the bicyclists here; they ride right down the middle of a one-lane road through the middle of town. They ride up the Fall City Road - speed limit 45, and on the pavement from Snoqualmie to North Bend - speed limit 50. Get them off the road. It's too dangerous for them. And, I don't want the after effects of running them over - which I may have to if it's my life or theirs (e.g., oncoming hay semi loaded, cyclist veers into my lane - normal reaction is to save one's own bootie).

I may have not read this correctly but I don't think Colorado state law allows this.

42-4-106 seems to indicate that local authorities can only limit access to highways if they are doing so temporarily and restricting vehicles based on weight restrictions because the road is in disrepair.

http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext...42-4-106%27%5D

If the towns on each side of Blackhawk would ban tour buses........

We do need to fight this aggressively. My own argument is that we have an unalienable constitutional right to move about freely under our own power. In fact, I would argue that the right to walk or to ride a bicycle safely, efficiently, and conveniently from any given point A to any given point B is more fundamental than the privilege of driving a motor vehicle on the same route. Once again, our society has its priorities screwed up and backward.

I feel like I'm watching Footloose.

We just need Kevin bacon to throw a bicycle party there and all will be fine.

Here is a good comment from the page: Drivers routinely drive 5mph or more over the speed limit, talk on cell phones, fail to signal, fail to yield, fail to come to a complete stop, block crosswalks and intersections, and generally violate traffic laws DAILY, ALL THE TIME, EVERYWHERE IN THIS COUNTRY. These are considered "small" infractions, hardly worthy of notice. They "don't really hurt anyone." The list of justifications for this kind of behavior is endless. And we simply tolerate it.

When cyclists do the same kind of things - violate the law in "small" ways that don't hurt anybody and cause very little disruption - we hear a hew and cry from the driving community about how awful cyclists are, and how often they break the law.

For every cyclists running a red (when no cars are coming, inconveniencing no one), there are 100 drivers gliding through a free right turn without stopping, forcing pedestrians to wait until they clear the crosswalk. There are 100 more talking on phones, not signaling, and driving 5 or 10 or more mph over the speed limit. There are 100 more doing something else illegal - probably something "small" that inconveniences no one and causes only momentary disruption, kind of like the bikers who run reds.

Both sets of behavior are equally unjustifiable and dangerous. But one is tolerated while the other is seen as an afront to the rules of the road. Glaring double-standard.

Bicycling advocates make bicycle rule that makes bicycling impossible. Ha HA
 

It looks like the 3ft law has some problems.

"The Legislature, at the prodding of cycling groups, passed a law in 2009 requiring that motorists give bikes 3 feet of space if passing. That would force traffic in parts of Black Hawk to veer into the wrong side of the road, Copp said."

ROFLMAO That would be so cool if the buses got a 45 mile dirt road detour.

It's going to be interesting to see this one play out.......

Yes, that's a good comment, but it's certain to be ignored completely by the bike haters.

Making a safe pass in the oncoming lane just like they would pass a horse and buggy or slow car is not impossible.

Speaking of, the people who moved in to the apartment above me have a dog, that howls from about 7 am until about midnight, every day. They're not bike people, but that's not the point. The point is, I need more than just good luck in getting this ordinance, which is already on the books, enforced. Animal Control is interested in a possibly neglected dog, but the actual police don't care about a noise law being broken every day for months on end.

But yeah, those bike people and their law braking... Yawn.

First court hearing involving the ban starting: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...gin&p=11359614

didn't read the article. but i'm sick of cars telling me to get off the road.


in a similar situation. the police are frustrated with my frequent calls. they have said "it's a dog, dogs bark" to me a few times. almost everyone has a dog around here, but only one that barks all day and night.

If that started to happen to me I'd go see a Dr.

Why do they list the mileage (46 miles) for the "paved detour" but not the gravel road???

I think the only road where the ban is is Gregory Street (about 1 mile). It looks like, maybe, the "gravel road" is Chase Street to the north (about 2 miles).

Are people actually complaining about a 2 mile detour (on a gravel road)?

That law is talking about imposing weight restrictions.

This allows for restriction by weight but it does not limit it to just by weight.

Since one would not reasonably be able to restrict bicycles by weight, this law is not relevant.

=========================

It would seem it's somewhere in the following that allows the restriction of bicycles.

http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext...e1#JD_42-4-111

If the road in-question was a "controlled-access roadway", this would allow it:

The following allows for bicycle-specific "regulation" (that might include precluding them from using a particular road). Note the "Prohibiting or regulating" wording above implies that "regulating" does not include "prohibiting".

Then, there's this, which seems to allow anything!

LOL, you should hear the things trees say. they think i can't hear 'em....

Call Animal Control. They're slow, but more specialized, and they're actually interested in this stuff as a result. They should help you somewhat.

I don't want to pull this thread too off topic ( even for A&S ), but I did want to make the point that cyclists are far from the only scofflaws in America.

1) There is a much bigger principle involved. 2) The ban applies to most streets in BH. 3) Riding 19mm or even 23mm tyres on gravel can be quite dangerous, and the gravel road may be a real mud mess during and after inclement weather. Also, I am sure it is not plowed following a snow event.

We need to prevent a bunch of local yokels from violating the U.S. Constitution and from setting harmful precedents for others to follow.

Everyone interested in this issue should read the brief filed by the lawyers looking to have the law held unconstitutional. It is very good, and explains the statutes well.

I'm not saying I agree with this law (I certainly do not), and it certainly sets a bad precedent. However, it may be difficult to fight the ban based on current statutes. If municipalities have the right to ban trucks, buses or single-driver automobiles from roads (i.e. a specific class of road user), why do they not have the right to do the same for bicycles?