Advocacy & Safety - Bicycles banned in a town. . . ? Hope this doesn't spread :P

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2012704828_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.php?656430-Bicycling-Banned-in-Black-Hawk-Colorado

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?652485-Bicycles-banned-in-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.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=query&iid=3e560e4d.76343909.0.0&q=%5BGroup%20%2742-4-106%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.

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."

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

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.......

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.

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

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

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

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

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.php?675200-Bike-Ban-Court-Proceedings-Begin&p=11359614

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



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..

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.

i'm sick of cars telling me to get off the road.
If that started to happen to me I'd go see a Dr.

The only alternative route in Black Hawk is to either ride a gravel road or a 46-mile paved detour over the Continental Divide.

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)?

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.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=query&iid=3e560e4d.76343909.0.0&q=%5BGroup%20%2742-4-106%27%5D

That law is talking about imposing weight restrictions.


(1) Local authorities with respect to highways under their jurisdiction may by ordinance or resolution prohibit the operation of vehicles upon any such highway or impose restrictions as to the weight of vehicles to be operated upon any such highway, for a total period of not to exceed ninety days in any one calendar year, whenever any said highway by reason of deterioration, rain, snow, or other climatic conditions will be seriously damaged or destroyed unless the use of vehicles thereon is prohibited or the permissible weights thereof reduced.

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.dll/cocode/2/6b33c/6c5a6/6c5a8/6c6d3/6c7e1#JD_42-4-111

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


(n) Prohibiting or regulating the use of controlled-access roadways by nonmotorized traffic or other kinds of traffic, consistent with the provisions of this article;

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".


(h) Regulating the operation of bicycles or electrical assisted bicycles and requiring the registration and licensing of same, including the requirement of a registration fee, consistent with the provisions of this article;

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


(y) Regulating the local movement of traffic or the use of local streets where such is not provided for in this article

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

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

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.

Call Animal Control (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=animal+control+chicago+il&aq=1&aqi=g5g-m1&aql=&oq=Animal+Control+chica&gs_rfai=C8bPRgOJ2TPy0KJL4pATGwsADAAAAqgQFT9AgOXM&pbx=1&fp=93c3c78db929eee0). 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.

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)? 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 (http://bicyclecolo.org/merchant/117/files/2010-08-18MotiontoDismissWeb.pdf) 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?

2) The ban applies to most streets in BH.

My understanding is all but one road is closed to cyclists and that road is closed to cyclists before and after the town.

1) There is a much bigger principle involved.
Regardless, that doesn't mean they can't provide all of the information. It's odd that the mileage for one is absent.


2) The ban applies to most streets in BH.
More information missing from the article!


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.
And it can be OK to do. We have no idea what the condition of the gravel road is! (People ride the 150 mile gravel GAP trail all the time with road bikes and normal road tires!)


We need to prevent a bunch of local yokels from violating the U.S. Constitution and from setting harmful precedents for others to follow.
Regardless, there isn't no excuse not to have all of the information!

After reading the brief, it is nice to know that the city has identified numerous hazards in the roadway.

Should anyone encounter these problems, one would certainly think the city would be negligent and therefore liable, for any mishap caused by same.......

My understanding is all but one road is closed to cyclists and that road is closed to cyclists before and after the town.
http://www.cityofblackhawk.org/media/images/bike_map.jpg

Bikes are banned from all but the state highway, Chase St and Horn St. Horn St goes no where but casinos and Chase St, the only open route from Blackhawk to Central City and is entirely gravel and a fairly poor condition at that.

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

sure, callously disregard cyclists right to the travelled way in this country, granted in all 50 states, just because it is a measly two miles out of the way.

Really? I mean, Really, njkayker?

Yes, wouldn't you be upset if you came to the edge of a town, wanting to ride thru to the next town, and despite the road having all the appearances of a paved, slow speed road, have to travel TWO MILES out of the way on a steep, mountainous gravel detour only for bicyclists?

Additionally, it's the principle. I'm shocked to see this type of cavalier surrendering of cyclists rights. I'm more convinced day after day there are people posting at Bike Forums that have NO INTEREST in preserving and perpetuating cyclists' road rights.

have to travel TWO MILES out of the way on a steep, mountainous gravel detour only for bicyclists?
Do you know what the "gravel detour" actually looks like? Or are you just making things up?

I think the ban is silly. But I'd also like to know about the actual facts of the situation instead of being mislead by a poorly-written article.


Additionally, it's the principle.
Honesty is another important principle.

the ban is a bit more than silly, its a restriction on the only practical paved road in the middle of a very popular front range ride out of Denver -

Effectively blocking this route to bicyclists by blocking the only paved road. i could ride it, but i don't suspect the crabon fribre & spandex crowd should, would or could ride a two mile gravel detour - the majority of the riders on this road.



Yes, I've been to Black Hawk and Central City. making the main road between these two off limits to bicyclists is a huge affront to cyclists rights in colorado.

this is a de facto ban on bicycling, despite a 'detour' for bikes. I wish Colorado bike advocacy all the best in sucessfully fighting this ban.

I had a difficult time parking my car on some of the side roads there. I suspect the detour goes up Chase Gulch or Apex Canyon.

Do you know what the "gravel detour" actually looks like? Or are you just making things up?

I think the ban is silly. But I'd also like to know about the actual facts of the situation instead of being mislead by a poorly-written article.


Honesty is another important principle.

In his defense, just about all the roads in that area are steep and mountainous being in the middle of the front range and all.

I think we should ask for our own law, and let them have their stupid law.

I say they get their ban as long as everywhere else in the US, its legal for me to stick my size 11 up your colon when you start jawing off at me at an intersection for cutting you off on my bike when I have been in front of you the whole time you just didnt see me because your fat ass dropped your triple bacon whopper and your monstrous gut prohibited you from reaching down in time to pick it up off the floor, thus disqualifying you from the 5 second rule, to which I noticed you didnt care for as you continued to eat it, all this while talking to your redheaded step son while trying to read a map although you have a Tom Tom on your dash, which, costs more than your 1987 Country Squire, that has a spare tire you have probably been riding on for months, oh and btw Im sure you have noticed that your exhaust fell off a year ago, because I appreciate breathing in your hasty black cloud when you fly past me and give me the finger. WHO THE F STILL USES BIG PAPER MAPS


but thats a very specific law :D

In his defense, just about all the roads in that area are steep and mountainous being in the middle of the front range and all.
No, he's making crap up. The facts should not be so unavailable.

If the road was, in fact, "steep and mountainous", one would have expected they would have mentioned it because it makes the "inconvenience" much more apparent. (They do mention that the paved road is a rather "inconvenient" extra 46 miles.)

What seems to be the gravel road appears to be a block or two a way from the main road (but I'm not sure).

Actually, we don't know what "gravel road" they are talking about.

the ban is a bit more than silly, its a restriction on the only practical paved road in the middle of a very popular front range ride out of Denver -

Effectively blocking this route to bicyclists by blocking the only paved road. i could ride it, but i don't suspect the crabon fribre & spandex crowd should, would or could ride a two mile gravel detour - the majority of the riders on this road.



Yes, I've been to Black Hawk and Central City. making the main road between these two off limits to bicyclists is a huge affront to cyclists rights in colorado.

this is a de facto ban on bicycling, despite a 'detour' for bikes. I wish Colorado bike advocacy all the best in sucessfully fighting this ban.

I had a difficult time parking my car on some of the side roads there. I suspect the detour goes up Chase Gulch or Apex Canyon.

You are so fond of overheated, hyperbolic rhetoric that people can't take what you say seriously.

you're either ON the bus, or you're off the bus, so to speak.

I will stand with Bike Colorado and the LAB on this.

others seem to think a bicycling ban on the only paved road thru a classic front range ride outside of Denver is acceptable.

fair enough.

from Adventure cyclings' blog


"[b]... There are no paved alternatives for cyclists south of Black Hawk on SR 119"


This ban is effectively kicking cyclists off the road to rocky mountain national park by routing the paved alternative over berthoud pass.

its a bit onerous in case some haven't noticed.

you're either ON the bus, or you're off the bus, so to speak.
You often express things in way that indicates the bus you are on is a particularly short one (so to speak).



from Adventure cyclings' blog

"[b]... There are no paved alternatives for cyclists south of Black Hawk on SR 119"

So? We already know that there's a gravel road. And it's pretty obvious that a 46 mile detour isn't reasonable.

We still don't know what road they are talking about and how long the detour is!

You often express things in way that indicates the bus you are on is a particularly short one (so to speak).



So? We already know that there's a gravel road. And it's pretty obvious that a 46 mile detour isn't reasonable.

We still don't know what road they are talking about and how long the detour is!


Havent been on here long, but its easy to spot a ***** disturber when I see one.

Havent been on here long, but its easy to spot a ***** disturber when I see one.

You can say "ass" (umd says so). But you can't say "*****"! (I don't get this anyway.)

You can say "ass" (umd says so). But you can't say "*****"! (I don't get this anyway.)

I even used a ! in place of the " i " :D

This is terrible, it's painful for me to read the comments as they show the complete arrogance of your ordinary gas-guzzling driver. Sure these are the most outspoken people who choose to get their voice out in the open, but it still paints an ugly picture of what we can expect on the road.

My particularly favorite comment, "Too many tree huggers and bike luggers in Seattle! I wish they would move to Europe where they belong!" wow. just...wow