I strongly disagree with the statement in your recent article (6/3/04) about biking trails:
"The county does not recommend that road cyclists use the trail because of the speed they can attain and the plethora of different uses allowed."
As a frequent biker on the Cherry Creek trail from Cottonwood to Scott Road, I offer the following thoughts regarding the statement by Douglas County:
1. I ride both road bikes and mountain bikes. My mountain bike goes just as fast, or just as slow on this trail as my road bike. On occasion, while riding my road bike, I am passed by folks on mountain bikes and/or hybrid/cross bikes.
2. The dangers on the trail are not related to the type of bike, but to the care and safety habits of the rider. Recently, my wife was riding her hybrid, and kept interacting with a lady mountain biker with earphones on (meaning she could not hear what was going on around her, including my wife's comments) who was riding with her dog on a leash. The dog was all over the trail, with leash attached, intermittently completely blocking the trail. The lady was immune to my wife's comments. Later, the dog was unleashed, and continued to run all over the trail.
3. The dangers are related to pedestrians, bikers, skaters, joggers and other users who do not pay attention to what is happening and do not follow proper trail etiquette. They are not related to whether or not you are riding a road bike.
4. Would the county forbid sports cars on Crowfoot Valley Road? They can also go fast and obtain high speeds. Perhaps this road (and others) should be limited to cars that can only go 30 miles per hour? This is the same line of reasoning the county is using in trying to forbid road bikes on the Cherry Creek Trail.
5. If I ride the trail during a weekday, there is very little traffic of any kind. Sometimes I do 20 miles and see just 2-3 pedestrians and bikes. No safety concerns at all!
I think the "county" owes an apology to those of us who ride road bikes. We are likely safer than others, as most of us have a great amount of experience in riding safely in different conditions. For example, I ride about 3,500 miles per year, and have never had an accident or close call.
Denver Fox
17454 E. Dewberry Drive
Parker, CO 80134
John C. Ratliff
06-06-04, 11:09 AM
Denver,
Great letter. Let us know if we can help.
John
John C. Ratliff
06-06-04, 11:19 AM
Denver,
I just sent the following letter to the addresses you showed:
To the editor
I recently read Denver Fox's letter to you about having road bikes on the Cherry Creek Trail. While I am not in your area, I would hartily agree with him. I ride a recumbant bicycle, which gives me a better view of all areas around me. Would you also ban recumbants from this trail, as they are primarily for roads?
Instead of banning, perhaps better education would enhance the use of the trail. It appears that everyone needs to use trail etiquette, and some don't. Courtesy would also help. If you could try ending the types of selfishness we see on roads, perhaps the trails would also be better. On second thought, perhaps you could also go on a similar campaign for cars on roads too.
John
I would encourage others to do the same.
John
DnvrFox
06-06-04, 11:54 AM
Thanks.
I have sent emails to all the local bicycling clubs/advocacy groups.
Hopefully, they will also follow through!
BeTheChange
06-06-04, 06:05 PM
Good job man. Keep fighting it.
SchreiberBike
06-07-04, 10:07 AM
It also might be worth pointing out that the trail was likely built with federal funding for TRANSPORTATION. Restricting the trail to recreational users would probably violate either the spirit or the letter of the original funding.
DnvrFox
06-07-04, 10:28 AM
It also might be worth pointing out that the trail was likely built with federal funding for TRANSPORTATION. Restricting the trail to recreational users would probably violate either the spirit or the letter of the original funding.
EXCELLENT POINT. If things progress negatively further, I will bring that to their attention.
SamDaBikinMan
06-07-04, 10:54 AM
I also love it when walkers and joggers protest against mountain bikers that were responsible for the construction and upkeep of the trails in our area to begin with.
"Oh, you can build all the trails you want but we will soon be trying to kick you off of them so we can walk in peace and our pooches will have a place to $hit."
MORONS.
Raedeke
06-07-04, 11:13 AM
It's interesting that in so many cases, these concrete paths are called "bike paths" and yet the bikes are the first to be singled out as the problem. I have seen too many altercations with pedestrians, roller bladders and dogs to even list them. But the come factor in all of them is someone wasn't paying attention to what was going on around them. Too busy talking and walking down the middle of the path, headphones going and oblivious to what was happening around them.
This is no different than our current litigious society. We sue each other because we failed to take accountability for our own lives... and expect someone else to do it for us.
Let's ban these guys, because those guys can't be bothered to ensure their own safety. Not to say that as a roadie I ride people down, but my expectation is that when I ride I do so in a manor that is safe for me and for those around me. What gets people in trouble is when they expect you to look after them as well...
I think it's worth looking into the federal funding and how that was written as SchreiderBike suggested. Could be that legally they can't ban - instead they should look into other ways of "helping" people stay safe... Perhaps there should be some rules of the road - and consequences if those rules are broken... seems to work for the highway.
Let me know if I can assist.
Richard
DnvrFox
06-07-04, 11:18 AM
It's interesting that in so many cases, these concrete paths are called "bike paths" and yet the bikes are the first to be singled out as the problem. I have seen too many altercations with pedestrians, roller bladders and dogs to even list them. But the come factor in all of them is someone wasn't paying attention to what was going on around them. Too busy talking and walking down the middle of the path, headphones going and oblivious to what was happening around them.
This is no different than our current litigious society. We sue each other because we failed to take accountability for our own lives... and expect someone else to do it for us.
Let's ban these guys, because those guys can't be bothered to ensure their own safety. Not to say that as a roadie I ride people down, but my expectation is that when I ride I do so in a manor that is safe for me and for those around me. What gets people in trouble is when they expect you to look after them as well...
I think it's worth looking into the federal funding and how that was written as SchreiderBike suggested. Could be that legally they can't ban - instead they should look into other ways of "helping" people stay safe... Perhaps there should be some rules of the road - and consequences if those rules are broken... seems to work for the highway.
Let me know if I can assist.
Richard
How about forwarding the very email you just wrote to the Parker Chronicle and to Douglas County?
The more the merrier!
AndrewP
06-07-04, 12:06 PM
I would suggest getting the people responsible for these trails to post visible notices on required trail etiquette. The trails could then be enjoyed safely by users with varying levels of experience. If you experience problems, you can tell offenders to read the signs.
DnvrFox
06-07-04, 12:34 PM
I would suggest getting the people responsible for these trails to post visible notices on required trail etiquette. The trails could then be enjoyed safely by users with varying levels of experience. If you experience problems, you can tell offenders to read the signs.
This is generally a very respectable trail with about 99.9% of the folks following the basic rules of trail sharing. They know me, wave when they hear my bell, and we almost always always share a "Good morning" or a "Good afternoon," and a smile. Offenders are quite rare.
And, there are trail etiquette signs posted. But there is no way they can cover every single situation for that .1% of riders/walkers, such as "Do not ride your bike while walking your dog on a leash and it is walking on the other side of the trail while you are wearing headphones when you can't hear other's comments" or whatever else might come up next time. And the only problems the roadies exhibit is a sometimes failure to warn when overtaking others.
There are a thousand possible permutations. It really comes down to each individual on the trail respecting the other, which they generally do.
The county is making a big deal out of nothing!
madpogue
06-07-04, 01:31 PM
How is this gonna work, practically? I would think any governing authority would have trouble classifying types of bicycles. Put slicks on a "mountain" bike. Put knobbies on a hybrid or comfort bike. Put upright bars on a "road" bike. What kind of bike do you have, in any of the above cases? I've seen so many hand-builts, half-breeds, franken-bikes, et al that render utterly fuzzy any distinction between a "road" bike and an "off-road" bike that codifying that distinction in ordinance language will be like nailing jell-o to the wall.
DnvrFox
06-07-04, 01:51 PM
Response from Douglas County
Denver Fox,
I just received your message and looked for a copy of the paper that
you referred to. I was not aware that Douglas County would discourage
road bikes from using the Cherry Creek Trail. It is a multi-use
regional trail, and bicyclists are one of the intended user groups, as
described on our signs, maps, and website.
Ron Benson, to whom they attributed the quote, is out of the office
this week, but please feel free to contact him after the 14th.
303-660-7495
I noticed that there were several inaccuracies that were attributed to
what I said, too, in that article concerning the Sharptail Trail and its
connections. I wish we could have the chance to read articles before
they go to press! The article was not "ours," but the newspaper's.
I look forward to as many safe opportunities as possible to separate
bicycles from regular automobile traffic.
Jackie Sanderson
My response:
Thanks for your response.
I appreciate that newspapers can get things pretty well screwed up.
Hopefully, bikes can co-exist safely with cars ON THE ROADS as well as coexisting safely with other users on MUP's.
Joat
06-07-04, 01:56 PM
I am not being a jerk, honest. I work for the State of New York, and I can tell you that spelling and grammar DO matter. It sounds silly, but your letter is much more likely to be taken seriously if you spend some time with a word processor and check your spelling and grammar.
I saw several errors in the above posts, and I'm guilty of many of them myself on forums, chat and other venues. When you are trying to get a point across to an organization, take the time to make it look professional. We get letters here all the time, and I can promise you, these things are noticed.
DnvrFox
06-07-04, 02:02 PM
I am not being a jerk, honest. I work for the State of New York, and I can tell you that spelling and grammar DO matter. It sounds silly, but your letter is much more likely to be taken seriously if you spend some time with a word processor and check your spelling and grammar.
I saw several errors in the above posts, and I'm guilty of many of them myself on forums, chat and other venues. When you are trying to get a point across to an organization, take the time to make it look professional. We get letters here all the time, and I can promise you, these things are noticed.
This was my original letter.
Kindly point out the evidently glaring spelling and grammar errors. I must have missed them. Thanks.
I strongly disagree with the statement in your recent article (6/3/04) about biking trails:
"The county does not recommend that road cyclists use the trail because of the speed they can attain and the plethora of different uses allowed."
As a frequent biker on the Cherry Creek trail from Cottonwood to Scott Road, I offer the following thoughts regarding the statement by Douglas County:
1. I ride both road bikes and mountain bikes. My mountain bike goes just as fast, or just as slow on this trail as my road bike. On occasion, while riding my road bike, I am passed by folks on mountain bikes and/or hybrid/cross bikes.
2. The dangers on the trail are not related to the type of bike, but to the care and safety habits of the rider. Recently, my wife was riding her hybrid, and kept interacting with a lady mountain biker with earphones on (meaning she could not hear what was going on around her, including my wife's comments) who was riding with her dog on a leash. The dog was all over the trail, with leash attached, intermittently completely blocking the trail. The lady was immune to my wife's comments. Later, the dog was unleashed, and continued to run all over the trail.
3. The dangers are related to pedestrians, bikers, skaters, joggers and other users who do not pay attention to what is happening and do not follow proper trail etiquette. They are not related to whether or not you are riding a road bike.
4. Would the county forbid sports cars on Crowfoot Valley Road? They can also go fast and obtain high speeds. Perhaps this road (and others) should be limited to cars that can only go 30 miles per hour? This is the same line of reasoning the county is using in trying to forbid road bikes on the Cherry Creek Trail.
5. If I ride the trail during a weekday, there is very little traffic of any kind. Sometimes I do 20 miles and see just 2-3 pedestrians and bikes. No safety concerns at all!
I think the "county" owes an apology to those of us who ride road bikes. We are likely safer than others, as most of us have a great amount of experience in riding safely in different conditions. For example, I ride about 3,500 miles per year, and have never had an accident or close call.
Denver Fox
17454 E. Dewberry Drive
Parker, CO 80134
Joat
06-07-04, 02:18 PM
eep, glaring?
quote that :)
Also, the original letter seems fine. Some of the above posts are where I saw the errors. I apologize if I have offended you, or anyone else. I was and am, sincerely trying to be helpful.
John E
06-07-04, 04:16 PM
Great thread, Denver. Thanks for sharing and being active.
Raedeke
06-07-04, 09:33 PM
I'm sure it was my post that Joat was speaking of. I have a tendency to write from the hip and don't always go back and check for spelling. I poor habit I can attribute to my mother - who fully claims it's origins. I frequently copy and paste my posts to my word program to check and then re-paste back into the forum... would love to see a spell checker function on this baby....
Sorry if I offended any of you english majors out there...
R
Chris L
06-07-04, 10:09 PM
How is this gonna work, practically? I would think any governing authority would have trouble classifying types of bicycles. Put slicks on a "mountain" bike. Put knobbies on a hybrid or comfort bike. Put upright bars on a "road" bike. What kind of bike do you have, in any of the above cases?
Fact of the matter is that the people enforcing this won't know one bike from another, nor are they under any obligation to care. If you don't believe me, feel free to start an argument with a law enforcement officer in such a situation and see what they say.
Chris L
06-07-04, 10:17 PM
I also love it when walkers and joggers protest against mountain bikers that were responsible for the construction and upkeep of the trails in our area to begin with.
"Oh, you can build all the trails you want but we will soon be trying to kick you off of them so we can walk in peace and our pooches will have a place to $hit."
Of course they are, and this is the sort of thing that happens all the time with the so-called "shared paths" (or whatever PC name they've come up with this week). One only has to look at the situation with the so-called "Goodwill" bridge in Brisbane. Ever since the thing was built in 2001, they have been steadily trying to make the thing worse for cyclists. I actually relented in April 2003 and rode across the thing. That's firmly in the "never again" category. I understand the speed limit for cyclists on that bridge is now 10km/h. I walk faster than that!
To be honest I really think a lot of people try to manipulate cycling advocates in this manner. Let's get a few extra numbers to lobby the council, and then get rid of them when the thing's in place. This is one of the reasons why I have never supported the construction of off-road paths. However, I'm digressing more than a little. Is this an actual attempt to ban cyclists from using the trail? Or is it one buffoon mouthing off in the press? It sounds like the latter to me, in which case, I'd look for a council proposal before getting too excited about it.
Joat
06-08-04, 05:36 AM
Sorry if I offended any of you english majors out there...
No Names! ;)
And for the record, I'm an Ultra Geek Programmer, about as far from an English major as you can get. If I need to write a proper document, I ask my wife for help. I do speak fluent SQL though...
DnvrFox
06-08-04, 06:31 AM
Of course they are, and this is the sort of thing that happens all the time with the so-called "shared paths" (or whatever PC name they've come up with this week). One only has to look at the situation with the so-called "Goodwill" bridge in Brisbane. Ever since the thing was built in 2001, they have been steadily trying to make the thing worse for cyclists. I actually relented in April 2003 and rode across the thing. That's firmly in the "never again" category. I understand the speed limit for cyclists on that bridge is now 10km/h. I walk faster than that!
To be honest I really think a lot of people try to manipulate cycling advocates in this manner. Let's get a few extra numbers to lobby the council, and then get rid of them when the thing's in place. This is one of the reasons why I have never supported the construction of off-road paths. However, I'm digressing more than a little. Is this an actual attempt to ban cyclists from using the trail? Or is it one buffoon mouthing off in the press? It sounds like the latter to me, in which case, I'd look for a council proposal before getting too excited about it.
I think the matter has been put to rest, Chris.
This was likely a trial balloon. I can't imagine the newspaper actually making up a statement lilke that, despite what the rec people say - I think the rec dept was simply trying it out to see what would happen.
It would be against federal law to ban bicyclists from the trail, as federal money was most likely utilized in the process, and the trail, under federal alw, is for transportation.
They now know that we are out there and interested, and will directly call their errors to their attention.
Thanks, everyone, for the input.
orbilius
06-08-04, 08:57 AM
Great thread.
This morning on the Cherry Creek Trail a woman was "walking" her two big dogs. One they saw me coming the ran right towards me and cut me off. I almost fell over. I stopped and gave that woman a piece of my mind. While venting, her dogs stopped three riders coming the other way.
It is people with poor trail manners that are a danger. It doesnt matter if you are riding, running, blading, or walking.
Stubacca
06-08-04, 10:54 AM
Good thread, Denver.
As a long time walker/jogger and cyclist on many shared trails, I've always had far more run-ins with poorly controlled animals than anything else. When I have had run-ins with cyclists, it's mostly been what appear to be less experienced cyclists on low-end bikes.
You made some great points in the letter you sent to them. I don't believe their response for a minute... ;)