Advocacy & Safety - CO bicycle law question - Got pulled over by the law.

I did some searching here and the net on CO bicycle law. I didn't find what I was looking for or I wasn't interested in paying to read the statute as one site offered.

Here's the story...

I was riding with my GF and another friend through Silt, CO a month ago. Silt is a small town in between Glenwood Springs to the east and Rifle to the west. It's one of those towns where their sign that marks their town entrance is on both sides of the sign :lol:

http://www.townofsilt.org/images/TownSign.jpg

We approach the only stop sign in town ...come to a full stop ...proceed for another 50 feet only to be hailed over by Virgil the "town cop".

Virgil whips out the CO book of statutes and proceeds to inform us that we broke the law because we failed to utilize a 400 yard bike path that was parallel to the road. None of us saw the path when we went by it on the road. If we had, we probably wouldn't have used it anyway. Regardless, my friend is starting to steam ...not good; my girlfriend is already smirking and trying to supress a laugh. I see Virgil leaning in ...he's ready to get hard with us. I decide to try a "we're sorry" tact to difuse the situation. I apologizing for being a dumbarse and assure Virgil that we now know we were remiss and would take more care to avoid the same error. Virgil seems placated and soon we're on our way again ..laughing our arses off the entire remainder of the ride.

Was Virgil right?

Do you have to use a bike path in CO if available, thus making the use of the road illegal? Seems bogus if cyclist are required to follow the same rules of the road as autos.

I don't know about the law in Colorado. In Michigan, if there is a local ordinance that riders must use the bike path when available, it is legal to issue a ticket. However, if it is not posted, you can fight the ticket in court and win.

In Michigan, if there is a local ordinance that riders must use the bike path when available, it is legal to issue a ticket. Yoiks, I'll have to alert our advocacy groups to keep an eye out; some legislative "do-gooder" might try something like that here.

Suggestion to anyone living in a jurisdiction that has such an ordinance: Contact your local officials, and tell them that you won't start a massive campaign to repeal said ordinance, if they'll start a campaign to pass an ordinance requiring users of motor vehicles to use Interstate highways when available. Same with using main arteries instead of side-streets. Next: ticket disabled people for parking in the spaces designated for the rest of us.

Hey, come to think of it, outashape, can you point us to the language of any such ordinance? It occurred to me, if it uses the word "available", I would fight it saying that I was using what is defined by state law as a vehicle, therefore I was acting as "traffic". Any bike path containing pedestrians, dogs, rollerbladers, kids playing jacks, etc., is not "available" for my stated need.

Well, officially Virgil was correct assuming Silt has an ordinance on the books to that effect. Here's what the Colorado statue says:

Every person riding a bicycle shall have all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under this article, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application. Said riders shall comply with the rules set forth in this section and section 42-4-221, and when using streets and highways within incorporated cities and towns, shall be subject to local ordinances regulating the operation of bicycles as provided in section 42-4-111.

Sounds to me like he was just bored and decided to "bust some chops." As a Colorado resident, I'm very sorry and annoyed to hear you had that negative experience! :mad: For future reference, here's a great site for all things legal in relation to cycling in Colorado: http://bicyclecolo.org.

MMPC, thanks for the url. Interestingly, I didn't see the specific state statute he had showed us in that url. Yes, he had the handbook out and it was highlighted. I read it briefly and it seemed to say what he was claiming ...that we were in the wrong.

Oh well, Silt happens! ;)

NP, telenick. "Silt happens." :D Hey, BTW, is that Pearl Izumi outlet up there in Silverthorne worth checking out? I've been tempted to make the drive up the hill and see, but then the high gas prices keep rearing their ugly head...

Thanks ...it was our mantra for the rest of the ride. Pearl Izumi in Sillythorne is kinda a rip off. Only the ugly duckling stuff is discounted. They have all the regular gear, but also regular prices. I've asked the question when shopping there. They claim it will piss off the local retailers if they discount the good stuff ...prolly right. But then what's the point of the "outlet" store? I wouldn't waste the gas just for that. Although, the riding here is most excellent and certainly worth the trip.

Hmm, good to know about the Pearl Izumi outlet - glad I didn't drive up there and waste the gas. That is strange (but understandable) about the discounted merchandise (or lack thereof). Why bother?

I'd love to ride up there this summer! :) Lake Dillon is beautiful (well, when there's water in it ;)) and I love Silverthorne, Frisco and Breckenridge. I'll have to make a point of doing that. I'd also like to ride around the Winter Park area...

As far as I know, California state law prevents municipalities from imposing mandatory sidepath laws for bicyclists. Particularly in enlightened coastal cities, when a highway runs parallel to a Class I multiuse trail, the former commonly has either wide shoulders or marked Class II bike lanes. California law tends to be bicycle-friendly because numerous cycling advocates have spent long hours fighting for safe, efficient, equitable accommodations on our public road system. Get involved; advocacy works!

Was Virgil right?


Virgil might have been, "right," but you were "smart." Too bad some cops prefer being "right" to being "smart."

Virgil might have been, "right," but you were "smart." Too bad some cops prefer being "right" to being "smart."

It may not be a question of preference, but rather a question of what options are available to them... :D

--J

Madpogue, If i remember correctly, you used to live in Michigan. Here is a section of the code from the lmb.org website. #3 addresses the issue of bicycle paths. This has been brought up in our bicycle club because local officers have warned cyclists that they will issue tickets if we are on the left side of the fog line on Hines Drive. There is seldom a reason why a cyclist should have to be on the left side when there is a 8 foot shoulder AND a cycle/multi-use path for the slower or recreational cyclists. The Hines Drive parkway traverses through about 6 cities but is actually patrolled by the Wayne County sheriff's department. It only has 3 traffic lights for a 15 mile stretch is is the favorite road for all the local cycling clubs. Runners and bladders and pedestrians also like to use the shoulder. The bicycle path is actually a dog walk.

257.660 BICYCLES, MOTORCYCLES, OR MOPEDS; OPERATION ON ROADWAY; USE OF BICYCLE PATH; PASSING; OPERATION OF BICYCLE OR MOPED ON SIDEWALK; EXCEPTION.

Sec. 660. (1) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction. A motorcycle is entitled to full use of a lane and a motor vehicle shall not be driven in such a manner as to deprive a motorcycle of the full use of the lane. This subsection shall not apply to motorcycles operated 2 abreast in a single lane.

(2) A person riding a bicycle, motorcycle, or moped upon a roadway shall not ride more than 2 abreast except on a path or part of a roadway set aside for the exclusive use of those vehicles.

(3) Where a usable and designated path for bicycles is provided adjacent to a roadway, a bicycle rider may, by local ordinance, be required to use that path. Where a usable and designated path for bicycles is provided adjacent to a roadway, a bicycle rider who is less than 16 years of age shall use that path unless accompanied by an adult.

That little run in with Virgil was better than having Silt in your bike shorts! He only rubbed you raw for a few minutes ;).

Madpogue, If i remember correctly, you used to live in Michigan. Here is a section of the code from the lmb.org website. #3 addresses the issue of bicycle paths. This has been brought up in our bicycle club because local officers have warned cyclists that they will issue tickets if we are on the left side of the fog line on Hines Drive. There is seldom a reason why a cyclist should have to be on the left side when there is a 8 foot shoulder AND a cycle/multi-use path for the slower or recreational cyclists. The Hines Drive parkway traverses through about 6 cities but is actually patrolled by the Wayne County sheriff's department. It only has 3 traffic lights for a 15 mile stretch is is the favorite road for all the local cycling clubs. Runners and bladders and pedestrians also like to use the shoulder. The bicycle path is actually a dog walk. You remember correctly indeed. For a few years I lived quite close to Hines Drive (in Wasteland), but that was long before there was an 8-foot shoulder. And back then, there were frequent reasons to move to the left of the fog line (gravel, bits of car, etc.).



Sec. 660. (1) A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction. That phrase "near to the right...as practicable" is what appears in most states' vehicle codes, and is the phrase road cyclists hold most dear. It's also the one least remembered by law enforcement, who too often try to tell you that you must "hug the curb". "...(A)s practicable" does not mean the same as "...as possible", and that's exactly why the word "practicable" is used (as a result of fierce bicycle advocacy lobbying). For example, there's a thread in the Commuting section about a guy who is just starting a commute; road has two lanes in each direction, but the storm grates jut out well into the right edge of the right lane. So it's not practicable for him to use the right-most part of the lane, allowing motorists to pass in the same lane.



(3) Where a usable and designated path for bicycles is provided adjacent to a roadway, a bicycle rider may, by local ordinance, be required to use that path. Once again, "usable and designated" are the operative terms. What if a path is "designated" for bicycles AND pedestrians, dog-walkers, people fishing (yes, people FISH from some of our "bike" paths), etc? Would that count as "designated for bicycles"? 'Course, the word on which I'd argue in court is "usable". If I'm either doing something useful (commuting, shopping, etc.) or on a fast rec ride, a path littered with people using it as a playpen for their kids is not "usable". It wouldn't surprise me if bike advocates pushed for the inclusion of "usable" in the language, for just this reason.

Thanks, outa, for digging up the relevant sections and posting 'em here.

It is possible there is a city ordinance on using the bike path if it runs parrallel to the road. Here in Sioux City there is a ordinance then only thing is it is not enforced & people who ride bike violate it anyway because of other trail traffic. I'll admit that I do, all the time. One reason I do is part of the trail & the road goes by our local river boat casino. If you are on the trail, motor vehicle traffic exiting the casino parking lot can not see you very well because of certain obstacles, like trees, signs, etc. On the road you have a better chance of being seen by traffic exiting the casino parking lot. Just recently there were stop signs put up at the exit's to the casino parking lot, where for several years there were not any.

It is possible there is a city ordinance on using the bike path if it runs parrallel to the road. Here in Sioux City there is a ordinance then only thing is it is not enforced & people who ride bike violate it anyway because of other trail traffic. I'll admit that I do, all the time. One reason I do is part of the trail & the road goes by our local river boat casino. If you are on the trail, motor vehicle traffic exiting the casino parking lot can not see you very well because of certain obstacles, like trees, signs, etc. On the road you have a better chance of being seen by traffic exiting the casino parking lot. Just recently there were stop signs put up at the exit's to the casino parking lot, where for several years there were not any.

Yeah, like you can count on some guy to pay attention to a stop sign after scarfing down free cocktails while gambling his paycheck away.

It is possible there is a city ordinance on using the bike path if it runs parrallel to the road. Here in Sioux City there is a ordinance then only thing is it is not enforced & people who ride bike violate it anyway because of other trail traffic. I'll admit that I do, all the time. One reason I do is part of the trail & the road goes by our local river boat casino. If you are on the trail, motor vehicle traffic exiting the casino parking lot can not see you very well because of certain obstacles, like trees, signs, etc. On the road you have a better chance of being seen by traffic exiting the casino parking lot. ...

Why are you ADMITTING anything, as though you are a hardened criminal? You are simply rationally selecting a safer path over an obviously unsafe one, and you should be able to challenge a citation on that basis, if necessary. We have a similar problem in Encinitas, along the west side of "surf route 101," where cyclists have occasionally been (incorrectly) hassled by the county Sheriff for riding in the road instead of the bermed multiuse trail. I would rather take my chances in traffic than with pedestrians carrying longboards.

It is possible there is a city ordinance on using the bike path if it runs parrallel to the road.

CHeck the wording of the law specifically. I think you'll find that the words "if practical to do so" or something similar will be in place. That basically changes everything. The points raised in your post and in that of John E indicate exactly why it would not be practical to use such a bike path. That being the case, you're well within your legal rights to ignore it.

I've never yet heard of any law that requires anyone to use a path unconditionally.