Fifty Plus (50+) - Colorado trying to ban bicycles

Here is an interesting article sent to me by a bicycle friend.

Please pass it on.

http://bicyclecolo.org/page.cfm?PageID=1042

My initial reaction is that no governmental agency has the legal authority to do this, because it violates an absolutely fundamental freedom of mobility. We have a long tradition in this still quasi-free country that the only roads on which bicycles can be banned are limited-access freeways, toll roads, and turnpikes.

As a visitor I really have no standing to do more than ask a question. The question comes from the last few seconds of the video piece. The reporter said that Denver already has the authority and the other entities just want the same as Denver. If that is accurate why not let the other governments have the same authority?

I thought CO was supposed to be a big time, "bicycle friendly state". No?

Except for some vague talk about "safety" and "clashes" there is no clear statement of what Jefferson County wants to do exactly, and what is their justification, exactly.

However, there are many precedents for not allowing all MOTOR vehicles on all the roads, not to mention pedalcycles. Small motorcycles below a certain cc engine displacement are commonly not allowed on limited access highways, and in some cities commercial vehicles are not permitted on certain roads (example, Lake Shore Drive and the "boulevards" in Chicago).

There's not even a statement from Bicycle Colorado about what the cycling community would consider a minimum level of access, if it's not "everything." But if it's "everything," should that include interstates and interstate-grade roads? What if we were granted that access, then forced to use that by subsequent legislation? Plus, how many of us would consider sharing a road with three lanes of 70+ mph traffic safe or practicable? Who even has experience feeling the air blast as a truck passes them at 60 mph, while up on two wheels? I think cyclists should be able to agree, we don't need access to every public road.

Aren't there some more in-depth text stories about this? I clicked the links, but just got sent back to the video news story.

It sounds like what they are tryng to do is this: The law in every state allow bicycles to ride on the public roads. Those state laws preempt local laws that would limit bike access; thus, a city or county cannot pass a law that would keep bikes off specific public roads within their jurisdiction (the exception would be private roads owned by a homeowners association, or something like that). This county is trying to get the state legislature to pass a law that would allow a county to restrict bike access to roads in their jurisdiction. Without knowing anything about the politics involved, it sounds like a rather radical proposition.

Ok.

Plus, how many of us would consider sharing a road with three lanes of 70+ mph traffic safe or practicable? Who even has experience feeling the air blast as a truck passes them at 60 mph, while up on two wheels?

Did it for the first time last weekend, during the Triple Bypass; several miles of the course is along the I-70 shoulder, where the speed limit is at least 65. As long as you stay to the right on the shoulder, it's not as bad as one might think.

A 6-lane highway wouldn't be my first choice for riding a bike from point A to B, but given a decent shoulder, it can be done safely.

Except for some vague talk about "safety" and "clashes" there is no clear statement of what Jefferson County wants to do exactly, and what is their justification, exactly....
Aren't there some more in-depth text stories about this? I clicked the links, but just got sent back to the video news story.

There have been a number of posts about this past couple of days.

In one of them, a local newspaper story noted that there are a few very scenic roads in Jefferson County that get lots of bicycle traffic and according to the County Commissioners sponsoring the bicycle ban they are getting "stacks and stacks" of emails and letters from motorists complaining about bicyclists clogging up the roads.

Apparently there is a group ride coming up on one of these routes and they were asked to avoid one of these roads; the organizers wanted to press ahead with the route they wanted given that there was no law preventing it so one of the commissioners says, "fine, we'll pass a law."

At least that's what I got out of a 30-second scan of the website - I'm sure one of our Colorado members will chime in with a more accurate version.

It is one thing to control large group rides, perhaps by requiring them to break up into manageable sub-peletons, but something quite different and completely incompatible with a free society to ban solo bicyclists from public roads. If I lived off of one of the affected roads, the county would evidently want the power to make it illegal for me to ride a bicycle to and from my own home. Amazing!

As for the Interstate highway question, California law generally permits bicyclists to use the shoulders of these roads when there is no reasonable alternate route. I have ridden the shoulder of I-5 between Roselle St. and Genesee Av. many times, and the 8-foot-wide shoulder is smoother and safer than many Class II bike lanes.

As for the Interstate highway question, California law generally permits bicyclists to use the shoulders of these roads when there is no reasonable alternate route.

Generally true throughout the Western U.S.

There's a pass near Seattle (I90 over Snoqualmie Pass) where the only practical way over is the Interstate.

I've ridden the Interstate in Northern California, too. Wasn't fun, wasn't terrible.

Biggest risk is all the wire bits that come out of tires...leads to lots of flats.

It is why any laws that gives special treatment to bicycles (such as the 3-foot pass law that died in committee in California) are generally not wanted by bicycling advocacy groups in California. It is important that bicycles have the same laws as cars so local cities/counties cannot have special laws for bicycles. There already have been examples of cities attempting to limit what roads bicycles can use only to rescind it when their city attorney interprets the law properly. (sometimes they need coaching).

The title of this thread is somewhat misleading.

As I understand it, a special interest group in Colorado, in this case, a county government, is asking the legislature to pass a law that would allow a county to ban bikes from designated roads.

That special interest group needs to get one state representative or a state senator to draft and sponsor that legislation.

That legislator then needs to begin convincing the members of his/her body to support the legislation.

Then, they need to request a committee hearing in their respective house. The committee chair may or may not grant the request.

If a committee hearing is held it will be open to the public.

After the hearing, the sponsor then needs to convince the chair of the appropriate committee to have the committee take action on the proposal allowing amendments and a vote passing it out of committee.

If it passes out of committee, the sponsor then needs to convince the leader of that house, to allow debate on the floor of that particular house. The proposal is subject to amendment and must pass that house.

Now, the other house has the same process. Both houses must pass, or agree on the same exact bill language before sending the bill on to the governor.

The governor can sign it into law, or veto it.

I would be very surprised if this proposal became law in any state.

The title of this thread is somewhat misleading.

As I understand it, a special interest group in Colorado, in this case, a county government, is asking the legislature to pass a law that would allow a county to ban bikes from designated roads.

That special interest group needs to get one state representative or a state senator to draft and sponsor that legislation.

That legislator then needs to begin convincing the members of his/her body to support the legislation.

Then, they need to request a committee hearing in their respective house. The committee chair may or may not grant the request.

If a committee hearing is held it will be open to the public.

After the hearing, the sponsor then needs to convince the chair of the appropriate committee to have the committee take action on the proposal allowing amendments and a vote passing it out of committee.

If it passes out of committee, the sponsor then needs to convince the leader of that house, to allow debate on the floor of that particular house. The proposal is subject to amendment and must pass that house.

Now, the other house has the same process. Both houses must pass, or agree on the same exact bill language before sending the bill on to the governor.

The governor can sign it into law, or veto it.

I would be very surprised if this proposal became law in any state.

This makes sense, thanks!

It is why any laws that gives special treatment to bicycles (such as the 3-foot pass law that died in committee in California) are generally not wanted by bicycling advocacy groups in California.

Could you provide links to discussions by California bicycle advocacy groups stating this position? I would be very interested in knowing their reasoning.

A brief update from my perspective in Colorado.

Deer Creek Canyon Road (the road being discussed in Jefferson County) is a narrow, winding, extremely busy two-lane "country road", with few shoulders.

On a weekend, in particular, there will be scores of bicycle-toting vehicles parked at the base of the road at Wadsworth Blvd. It is considered a great training ride.

I rode it once, many years ago. Even then, with reduced traffic years ago, I did not feel safe as a bicyclist. I was "bombed" by two motorcycles going about 60 niles per hour on a pretty tight turn. I would not ride it again.

A number of residents are complaining that the scores (perhaps 100's) of bicyclists using the road as a training ride are interfering with their normal course of driving. There are very few roads into the mountains - it is not like farm roads in the midwest - roads can generally only go in the canyons.

They also complain of urination on lawns, etc.

In Colorado, cities have the options of controlling traffic, including banning bicycles. Counties do not. That is where the emphasis is - getting counties the laws that cities have.

There was a great uproar from bicyclists a few years back when they placed raised divider buttons down the middle of the road as a safety measure. However, it seems to have worked out or settled down or whatever.

What is REALLY needed is for the county to rebuild the road with shoulders.

There is a big discussion about this on the Mountain-plains sub forum.

Incidentally, it IS legal to ride on freeways (interstates) when there is no other available route, which happens quite often in the wide-open west. For example, from Pueblo to Walsenburg on I-25, and on some parts of I-70 through the mountains. Interstates generally have very wide shoulders, and it is generally safe, if noisy.

Interesting that there are valid points of view from both sides of the argument.

Here is an interesting article sent to me by a bicycle friend.

Please pass it on.

http://bicyclecolo.org/page.cfm?PageID=1042

Check out this study and pass it along for use to argue against the proposal.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/205

Interesting that there are valid points of view from both sides of the argument.

And that is exactly the purpose of the long, drawn out legislative process I described above. The process is designed to bring out the issue, develop compromise if possible and resolve the issue, at least in part.

A brief update from my perspective in Colorado.

Deer Creek Canyon Road (the road being discussed in Jefferson County) is a narrow, winding, extremely busy two-lane "country road", with few shoulders.

On a weekend, in particular, there will be scores of bicycle-toting vehicles parked at the base of the road at Wadsworth Blvd. It is considered a great training ride.

I rode it once, many years ago. Even then, with reduced traffic years ago, I did not feel safe as a bicyclist. I was "bombed" by two motorcycles going about 60 niles per hour on a pretty tight turn. I would not ride it again.

A number of residents are complaining that the scores (perhaps 100's) of bicyclists using the road as a training ride are interfering with their normal course of driving. There are very few roads into the mountains - it is not like farm roads in the midwest - roads can generally only go in the canyons.

They also complain of urination on lawns, etc.

In Colorado, cities have the options of controlling traffic, including banning bicycles. Counties do not. That is where the emphasis is - getting counties the laws that cities have.

There was a great uproar from bicyclists a few years back when they placed raised divider buttons down the middle of the road as a safety measure. However, it seems to have worked out or settled down or whatever.

What is REALLY needed is for the county to rebuild the road with shoulders.

There is a big discussion about this on the Mountain-plains sub forum.

Incidentally, it IS legal to ride on freeways (interstates) when there is no other available route, which happens quite often in the wide-open west. For example, from Pueblo to Walsenburg on I-25, and on some parts of I-70 through the mountains. Interstates generally have very wide shoulders, and it is generally safe, if noisy.

Thanks for putting the various elements of the situation in perpective. But the question remains: "Why not give the counties the same regulatory powers?"

Someone need tell cyclists in Boulder. The city just might succeed from the state.

...The city just might succeed from the state.

Secede. (Pardon my pedantry.) ;)

Thanks for putting the various elements of the situation in perpective. But the question remains: "Why not give the counties the same regulatory powers?"

A city tends to be much more compact than an unincorporated portion of a county, with a much better interconnected street grid. It sounds as though some of the roads under consideration for closure to bicyclists lack alternate routes. I think that alone is a strong enough distinction.

Proofreaders welcome. Coppola.

It sounds as though some of the roads under consideration for closure to bicyclists lack alternate routes. I think that alone is a strong enough distinction.
I'd expect all of them to lack adequate alternate routes since essentially all rural roads would have some locations (residences, parks, businesses, etc.) that would be potential destinations for cyclists. The same concern would apply to most city streets as well, but certain urban expressways would be exceptions.

Does anyone know what the authority is of Colorado cities to restrict cycling on public roadways? In California, 'local authorities' whether city or county, do not have the right to do that. But they can restrict cycling on sidewalks.

... according to the County Commissioners sponsoring the bicycle ban they are getting "stacks and stacks" of emails and letters from motorists complaining about bicyclists clogging up the roads.

It sounds like local cyclists should organize a letter-writing campaign and complain to the County Commissioners about all the CARS clogging up their roads. Something should really be done about them; maybe banning all cars from county roads.

We're going through our own trials here in Wake Co., North Carolina. The town of Apex passed a law forbidding cyclists to ride more than two bikes wide in the city limits. The backlash from cyclists was substantial. Then a tragic accident where a prominent cycling safety advocate was killed while riding in Apex only added fuel to the smoldering fire.
As the number of cyclist grows due to energy costs, politicians are going to have to deal with the problem of bikes and cars using the same roads. Right now they're choosing the route all politicains choose, what they think is the easy way out. But as cycing continues to grow, they're going to have to bite hard and face the fact there is no easy solution. It sounds like Colorado politicians intend to sink their heads in the sand and hope when they pull their heads out again it goes away.
It won't.

We're going through our own trials here in Wake Co., North Carolina. The town of Apex passed a law forbidding cyclists to ride more than two bikes wide in the city limits. The backlash from cyclists was substantial. Then a tragic accident where a prominent cycling safety advocate was killed while riding in Apex only added fuel to the smoldering fire.
As the number of cyclist grows due to energy costs, politicians are going to have to deal with the problem of bikes and cars using the same roads. Right now they're choosing the route all politicains choose, what they think is the easy way out. But as cycing continues to grow, they're going to have to bite hard and face the fact there is no easy solution. It sounds like Colorado politicians intend to sink their heads in the sand and hope when they pull their heads out again it goes away.
It won't.

The 2 wide bike rule is not uncommon. I believe it is derived from the concept of ride as far right as practable while still allowing one bike to pass another. There was an article last year in the legally speaking column of Velo News about the concept of riding 2 wide. More than 2 wide may be pushing it though.

I need some better understanding of this issue please.
The roads are paid for generally by gasoline taxes? Is that statement right or wrong?
If that is a correct statement, I would expect that car drivers will feel that they have priority and we Cyclist are freeloaders barely tolerated. In that case there is no wonder there are so few bike lanes.
OTOH if roads were paid for from general revenue then a case could be made that cyclist as well as pedestrians must be accommodated since not everyone has a car or can drive a car.
----------------
This issue is better settled in Europa where indeed many people do not drive a car but must get around. Therefore more sidewalks and bike lanes and public transportation.
I suspect we will get there eventually if the gas prices keep going up.

It sounds like local cyclists should organize a letter-writing campaign and complain to the County Commissioners about all the CARS clogging up their roads. Something should really be done about them; maybe banning all cars from county roads.

one of the jeff co commish's has a blog
interesting read

http://jeffcocommish.blogspot.com/2009/07/bicycle-and-motorist-conflicts.html

I need some better understanding of this issue please.
The roads are paid for generally by gasoline taxes? Is that statement right or wrong?
If that is a correct statement, I would expect that car drivers will feel that they have priority and we Cyclist are freeloaders barely tolerated. In that case there is no wonder there are so few bike lanes.
OTOH if roads were paid for from general revenue then a case could be made that cyclist as well as pedestrians must be accommodated since not everyone has a car or can drive a car.
----------------
This issue is better settled in Europa where indeed many people do not drive a car but must get around. Therefore more sidewalks and bike lanes and public transportation.
I suspect we will get there eventually if the gas prices keep going up.

Roads and their upkeep are funded by many sourses. Even if you pay no dircet "gasoline taxes" every thing you buy is transported by truck at some time, and the cost is passed indirectly to the consumer. You may pay less for roads, but you also cause much less wear.

Plus, how many of us would consider sharing a road with three lanes of 70+ mph traffic safe or practicable?
There are many places where riding on the interstate is safe, legal, and quite pleasant. I rode 142 miles of interstate between Springer and Santa Fe NM. Some of it was on the access road but most was on the actual interstate. It was very pleasant and I think quite safe. I also rode some of I-80 near Rawlins WY while on the Trans America. It too was plenty safe but a bit less pleasant.

Plus, how many of us would consider sharing a road with three lanes of 70+ mph traffic safe or practicable? Who even has experience feeling the air blast as a truck passes them at 60 mph, while up on two wheels? I think cyclists should be able to agree, we don't need access to every public road.


Ever done it?

Go to this page, and download "State Map", and "Legend": http://www.dot.state.co.us/BikePed/maps.htm

Note that many sections of I-70 are open to cyclists due to there being no good alternative.
I have ridden between exits 252 and 254, and having your own paved berm as wide as a traffic lane is a H*LL of a lot safer than a road like 93 just South of Boulder where there are just two lanes with no berm, and a guard rail *ON* the white line at the edge of the road.

Also note that Road 6 just North of I-70 near Golden is prohibited for cyclists, (to my aggravation).
The story I have heard is that this is due to a couple tunnels that have no provision for a bike lane.

Also note that Road 6 just North of I-70 near Golden is prohibited for cyclists, (to my aggravation).
The story I have heard is that this is due to a couple tunnels that have no provision for a bike lane.


That would make sense.

Also, US 6 is subject to a remarkable number of rock falls, rocks on the road, etc. There have been rocks falling on cars, injuring and killing the occupants. Narrow shoulders.

Given the number of tunnels (it is either 5 or 6) - none with any bicycle lanes, the tremendous number of truckers using this narrow road, the fact that drunken gamblers use this route after gambling all day and night in Central City and Black Hawk, the number of buses going on this road with gamblers - and the record of several horrendous accidents with these buses, personally, I am thankful that bicycles are not allowed.

I wouldn't ride on that road for $1,000,000.00.

I really think the thread title WAY overstates the case:

Colorado trying to ban bicycles

No, Colorado is NOT trying to ban bicycles.

A few disgruntled residents of Deer Creek Canyon are trying to get the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners to request a change in state law, which has little or no chance of passing.

I really think the thread title WAY overstates the case:

Colorado trying to ban bicycles

No, Colorado is NOT trying to ban bicycles.

A few disgruntled residents of Deer Creek Canyon are trying to get the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners to request a change in state law, which has little or no chance of passing.

Let's hope you are correct, Denver.

Let's hope you are correct, Denver.

what, other than the thread title, have you seen that would indicate otherwise?

There are real people (not cyclists but real enough) who are or think they are being inconvenienced by cyclists. Why do they think that. Are cyclists really peeing on the lawn? Is traffic control becoming a nightmare. Is it all imaginary? Special interest groups (thats us) must not loose sight of the fact that there are a lot of people out there that have certain perceptions of us......whether correct or incorrect does not matter. What matters is that some form of peace and compromise must be worked out to the satisfaction of the majority of parties concerned.

In years past, I flew RC airplanes and that hobby ran into people who lodged noise complaints with the authorities. They kept it up and kept it up, and no amount of logic about the higher noise levels of lawnmowers and passing cars would solve the problem. One weekend morning, the ranger showed up and stood next to me while I was flying. He inquired if I was the only one flying that morning and after I said yes, he smiled, said that's what I thought. Then he informed me that he had been called out on an early morning noise complaint about my plane. We both chuckled, he left. You see I flew sailplanes......engineless sailplanes.

You would think that this story had a happy ending but alas it didn't. A succession of town meetings followed and eventually we were restricted to certain flying days and hours and the situation went downhill from there.

The moral of the story..............there's a lot of JQ Public out there and we....the minority...need to get them on our side. Remember that the next time you see a cyclist peeing on someone's front lawn or throwing that power bar wrapper away. Perception is all that matters.

There are many places where riding on the interstate is safe, legal, and quite pleasant.

I can see how it could be safe, with enough separation between the cars and bicycles. And I can see how they might be the most practical alternative in some unfortunate circumstances. But I can't imagine how it could be pleasant. These interstates must be very different than any I have seen.

To me "pleasant" is a winding back road with smooth asphalt, little traffic and lanes wide enough for most cars to pass while giving 3 feet or more space to cyclists. I prefer this even to the best separate bike paths I have seen. Riding along beside a busy highway would be near the bottom of my list of pleasant things, even if safe.

We don't need no stinking laws to get the same result here in Pennsylvania! Gov. Ed Taxdell of PA is leaving as his legacy, almost every road in PA will be unridable by bicycle. Chipseal, roads closed for years with bridge construction, motorized only on many non limited access roads, drunk saver rumble strips on the shoulders of the rest of the roads.

That would make sense.

Also, US 6 is subject to a remarkable number of rock falls, rocks on the road, etc. There have been rocks falling on cars, injuring and killing the occupants. Narrow shoulders.

Given the number of tunnels (it is either 5 or 6) - none with any bicycle lanes, the tremendous number of truckers using this narrow road, the fact that drunken gamblers use this route after gambling all day and night in Central City and Black Hawk, the number of buses going on this road with gamblers - and the record of several horrendous accidents with these buses, personally, I am thankful that bicycles are not allowed.

I wouldn't ride on that road for $1,000,000.00.

i agree the tunnels are not safe

the long range Jeff co plans are to extend Clear creek trail to county line
this would include " hanging" the bike trail out over the creek at the tunnels

There are real people (not cyclists but real enough) who are or think they are being inconvenienced by cyclists. Why do they think that. Are cyclists really peeing on the lawn? Is traffic control becoming a nightmare. Is it all imaginary? Special interest groups (thats us) must not loose sight of the fact that there are a lot of people out there that have certain perceptions of us......whether correct or incorrect does not matter. What matters is that some form of peace and compromise must be worked out to the satisfaction of the majority of parties concerned.

In years past, I flew RC airplanes and that hobby ran into people who lodged noise complaints with the authorities. They kept it up and kept it up, and no amount of logic about the higher noise levels of lawnmowers and passing cars would solve the problem. One weekend morning, the ranger showed up and stood next to me while I was flying. He inquired if I was the only one flying that morning and after I said yes, he smiled, said that's what I thought. Then he informed me that he had been called out on an early morning noise complaint about my plane. We both chuckled, he left. You see I flew sailplanes......engineless sailplanes.

You would think that this story had a happy ending but alas it didn't. A succession of town meetings followed and eventually we were restricted to certain flying days and hours and the situation went downhill from there.

The moral of the story..............there's a lot of JQ Public out there and we....the minority...need to get them on our side. Remember that the next time you see a cyclist peeing on someone's front lawn or throwing that power bar wrapper away. Perception is all that matters.

Our state lobby group Bicycle Colorado has launched an outreach awareness and education activity to encourage bicyclists and motorists to share the road. We are calling it the “3-2-1 Courtesy Code: 3 feet to pass, 2 abreast when clear, 1 single file to allow passing.” See the article , www.BicycleColorado.org .


I really like what BC does to promote bicycling and reasonable bicycle/motorist interaction in Colorado!

At risk of being criticised, I like to make a suggestion.
Many cyclist can not follow rules of the road.
Examples:
Today, a cyclist with full cycling gear goes through a red light crossing a very busy and fast moving HYW IL173. I have seen it and could not believe it. The man was at least 40.
--------------
I seen cyclist on the left side of a busy road going against traffic. Two abreast.
------------------
I see cyclist at dawn. No lights. Dark clothes. Weaving in and out of traffic.
-----------------
I humbly suggest we should band together and promote bike safety.
VC biking would be a starting point.
The USA has no formal bike safety training that I know of for kids or anyone.

. Weaving in and out of traffic.
-----------------
I humbly suggest we should band together and promote bike safety.
VC biking would be a starting point.
The USA has no formal bike safety training that I know of for kids or anyone.

The League of American Bicyclists has well run courses for both adults and children.
http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/courses.php

I really think the thread title WAY overstates the case:

Thank you for putting this in perspective, DnvrFox. I know that where cycling is a significant source of revenue, like Boulder and Summit counties, cycling on public roads is not only allowed but even encouraged.

I agree that at this point the only place that bicycles are not allowed are on limited access highways, bridges or interstates, and should be allowed on every other type of roadway, but...

The bicycle clubs of 30 years ago were much more car-friendly (or car-cooperative) than the agressive clubs of today, who do purposely block lanes with a peleton, forcing traffic to either wait behind them or to use any existing lanes...

Years ago, we'd try to ride single file on busy roadways as much as possible (at that time, for our club that often meant suburban or rural roadways), to at least give drivers the option of passing us without our blocking the lane entirely, but no more, since today's club cyclists are not willing to share the road as we were back then...

I know that it is safer to block the entire lane rather than have a driver try to squeeze through our lane without hitting anyone (!), but, to me that was not the complaint - the drivers complaint today is that cyclists often block the lane entirely, without any cooperation on the cyclists's part when it comes to streamlining the peleton to make vehicle passing easier...

I know that's a point of view that will not sit well with some (especially on the other boards), but the it does seem to be so, since other touring and racing cyclists my age have made similar comments...

Glades2

Seems like quite the contradiction to all of the new bikes lanes they have added throughout the state. I can’t imagine CO banning bikes, especially in cities like boulder.


Here is an interesting article sent to me by a bicycle friend.

Please pass it on.

http://bicyclecolo.org/page.cfm?PageID=1042

Seems like quite the contradiction to all of the new bikes lanes they have added throughout the state. I can’t imagine CO banning bikes, especially in cities like boulder.

The issue is whether they are trying to ban bikes on some of the many roads which lack bike lanes. This is one of many unintended consequences of installing bike lanes -- they make some motorists think that bicyclists belong only in bike lanes and not on streets which lack them.

The issue is whether they are trying to ban bikes on some of the many roads which lack bike lanes. This is one of many unintended consequences of installing bike lanes -- they make some motorists think that bicyclists belong only in bike lanes and not on streets which lack them.

I think the problem with any legislation like this would be a lack of objective standards upon which to base closures. Rather, it would more likely be a political decision reflecting the volume of the detractors. The road under the microscope, Deer Creek Canyon (and associated High Grade Road which is even more hotly debated) receives special attention because of the large resident population in the area. Similar riding conditions (tight, narrow, twisty, lack of shoulders) exists throughout the mountains, but those other roads usually don't have the unified voice of local residents living along them, nor the larger cycling traffic that Deer Creek gets. So, it's a slippery slope. Closing roads like Deer Creek, which aren't any more a safety issue than other similar roads in the state, opens a Pandora's box to close many more similar, prime riding routes.

If anything, the counties need to take a larger voice and initiative in the debate to help resolve the tensions. They have the ability (read responsibility) to help the most whether it's thru signage, striping, road widening, repairing damaged road edges, working with residents, enforcing existing laws for both drivers and riders. In my opinion, they are way too passive when they have the power to be very effective. It's almost like they watch the debate without engaging in it, hoping it will go away, but it won't. Those roads are amazing to ride on and so close and accessible to S. metro Denver. And, the added stress it causes drivers (on already stressful roads) to avoid cyclists also won't go away!