Fifty Plus (50+) - A the Risk of . . . . . A Blackhawk, CO update

At the risk of another thread with forays into presidential competence, I am posting - - -

From a Bicycle Colorado email to members:

Black Hawk Update

The campaign to overturn Black Hawk's bike ban will reach a critical junction at a hearing on October 20. The judge is expected to rule on the Motion to Dismiss charges against three bicyclists ticketed for riding their bicycles in Black Hawk. Bicycle Colorado will be at the hearing and will send an update summarizing the outcome and what it means for Colorado cyclists.

Previous closed thread:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?675197-Blackhawk-Bicycle-Ban-in-CO-being-Fought-in-Court&highlight=blackhawk

Thanks for the update DF, hope it goes to the "bicycle" side. For myself, I'd NEVER ride that piece of road on a bicycle!!! Used to do it on a motorcycle and man, that part by Blackhawk and Central City can get "way over crowded" and the brain dead cagers can get ugly, jmho, ymmv!!

You got to admit, the off-topic veer in the previous thread was a bit of an anomaly. Be sure to let us know how this all works out.

I 'm cool with it as long as you don't blame Fox News or George Bush.

I 'm cool with it as long as you don't blame Fox News or George Bush.

Personally I blame Clinton and Gore:rolleyes:

Personally I blame Clinton and Gore:rolleyes:

Ah come on. You all know it was Jimmy Carter.

HERE WE GO AGAIN!!

:popcorn

Just couldn't resist, could you? :)

I 'm cool with it as long as you don't blame Fox News or George Bush.

Because?

C'mon!

We all know it was the Federal Reserve.

Why would anybody want to go to Blackhawk in the first place?

You've all got it wrong. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxPRHXgYVlk

TWL is in the house!

Why would anybody want to go to Blackhawk in the first place?

I think it is a matter of wanting to go THROUGH Blackhawk, not to it. It used to be a fun little town, but now it is one horrible gambling town, IMHO.

There are some nice rides in the area - to do them, one needs to go through the town.

Huh?

How does a bike ban relate to the president? Does understanding this thread require a trip to the scotch bottle or will tequila suffice?

How does a bike ban relate to the president?

That's kind of the point. The Blackhawk thread spun off the tracks (I think) when someone related the ban to the constitutional right to travel, I cited the ninth amendment basis for the right, and some took exception to the long-established practice of interpreting the Constitution in light of modern realities, rather than remaining mired in the 18th century, which is fashionable among some political types these days. It went downhill from there. An entertaining and informative twist, it was.

We lived in Boulder for a year back in the middle 70's. The town was definately a nice little town done up in a historical fashion. My wife in particular like to go there and shop. Now it is indeed a hell hole of gambling and huge probably crooked money. Woe betide anyone that would interfere with gamblers.

Biking around all the fanatics in town probably isnt really smart, but as some posted cyclist are primarly interested in just riding thru.

I think we all know it was the AAA.

From Bicycle Colorado

Wednesday, October 20- Attorneys presented arguments concerning the motion to dismiss the tickets given to bicyclists. The Judge heard from both sides and requested additional briefs to be submitted in ten days. You may read previously submitted briefs on our website (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=kldmnpbab&et=1103812320607&s=1108&e=001T5M9ZNvfEHLqQzOvSrR76vM71qdSfosafVtD2kYwnKMF8zxDcys66LEv5WgrZmML6lKzPu0qs-0jIoiebQaaVmWhoVr2_0hblzD1GxFnputtJ_kbTrK921BLlcISU6oEeHeBBvKWitj3IgzbBIevmuFRHjhlcPQu7g0Q5zPiJb0=).

I think it is a matter of wanting to go THROUGH Blackhawk, not to it. It used to be a fun little town, but now it is one horrible gambling town, IMHO.

There are some nice rides in the area - to do them, one needs to go through the town.

Same could be said of Central City, before the town was bought and rebuilt for casinos 20 or so years ago! But, the road through both towns leads back to Boulder or therabouts, right?

Same could be said of Central City, before the town was bought and rebuilt for casinos 20 or so years ago! But, the road through both towns leads back to Boulder or therabouts, right?

Yes, although Central City never succeeded much with its casinos. BH and CC are extreme rivals.

The road through BH goes along the Peak-toPeak Highway, with numerous options for side roads leading to various destinations, including Nederland and a major road to Boulder. It ends in Estes Park.

If you are ever in the area ride or drive the O My Gawd road from Idaho Springs to Blackhawk.
Drove a friend over it and he said he would never go near it again.

This is an important freedom-of-mobility case. If the ban is permitted to stand, it sets a deleterious precedent and hastens the erosion of our fundamental right to travel freely under our own power. To paraphrase Lance, "It's not about Black Hawk."

Black Hawk Judge Affirms Bike Ban
http://ih.constantcontact.com/fs035/1101102714218/img/489.jpgBlack Hawk's Municipal Judge denied bicyclists' motion to dismiss tickets received for riding their bicycles through the town this summer. The eight-page order is available on the Bicycle Colorado website (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=kldmnpbab&et=1104004910994&s=1108&e=001dtnDZAyJbYVK1CowFfOp1egjUW0cOqiQY9xlhABLfd2VxIJIT-KvruDQv5ozDmRGlwDNkTnO8TXN1CzaNZklHQ1k1imyrbNILv8uIzYax-FANOvLCuBiEfejzupwScPPMt63_x_RqDPZBdt8RblBxA==).

http://bicyclecolo.org/merchant/117/files/BlackHawkJudgesOpinion2010-11.pdf


Bicycle Colorado has taken the situation with Black Hawk seriously from the beginning, and we are considering a variety of strategic options based on this most recent ruling.


Bicycle Colorado thanks Andrew Shoemaker and Paul Schwartz at Shoemaker Ghiselli + Schwartz LLC for their pro-bono representation of the defendants in this case. In addition, Brad Tucker at ColoBikeLaw.com, Rudy Verner at Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP, and Duke law student Gael Hagen also have contributed volunteer resources and expertise.


We also thank the three participating bicyclists, Jamie Webb, Jeff Hermanson, and Mickey Jeronimus, who decided to pursue this matter rather than simply pay the fine. They are currently considering whether to appeal the decision to a higher court to determine whether Black Hawk's (and its municipal court's) reading of the law is consistent with Colorado state law.

Things to do:
1.Please sign up for our eNews (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=kldmnpbab&et=1104004910994&s=1108&e=001dtnDZAyJbYW4Vk5bf8bIP5_mfqyvL1u6HqeRcCRShGgG5F0tj7tn5V9oxlw6Jxz0R46PXbAiu041FMTnCJuWNNDjr_bXTe0 VjzB-zpQ7sKWVotuxSV8z36Ujz6EqhFGZNvhzKI9WxLk=) for our eNews to stay informed on the issues and be ready to act!



2. Register for the Colorado Bicycle Summit on February 7-8, 2011, as we unite Colorado bicyclists and meet with our state legislators. Sign up today (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=kldmnpbab&et=1104004910994&s=1108&e=001dtnDZAyJbYU5bzxnsA3QfSKKj0PckFH4YdLZlBb2rx7pd-7tQFiyPEsNe1GSbk97_Rnxq-s9ZSZCLYpwf43TUKXRkqQ2RjVxbPKKFZBNkOhvugpWeu9Uy-8mMDS3Qxh5n26wztusKow=).



3. Here is one basic reason why Bicycle Colorado exists: countering the threat of bike bans. If you want to see this ban overturned and prevent bans from spreading to other Colorado roads, please add your name (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=kldmnpbab&et=1104004910994&s=1108&e=001dtnDZAyJbYVW1JEeAS8_H8PrdUBD5BbP1sNLpW6sKS0Y7BrC-A51FwTcAZtiLNMb2BKBJMGmbHrTMEJmLcnQL-tI3ng_KT1sW2gquaCmfm9l7QHQ9CvASBOKeiXdKzDRNbBqmBiV2V4=) to the list of people working to protect bicyclists' rights.

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

NOTE FROM DENVER

Please be aware that Blackhawk has 118 residents (2000 census) and is seemingly run by and for the casino owners.

Wow. The Black Hawk ordinance does not violate the constitutional right to travel because cyclists can walk their bikes through town? A strained interpretation at best. The decision clearly is written by a judge whose not been on a bike in a long, long time.

Wow. The Black Hawk ordinance does not violate the constitutional right to travel because cyclists can walk their bikes through town? A strained interpretation at best. The decision clearly is written by a judge whose not been on a bike in a long, long time.

Hmmm. Maybe we need to get about 9,000 cyclist to all walk their bikes through town at once.

I know it's childish, but if I lived in the area, I'd organize a "ride" every weekend in the spring where as many cyclists as possible would walk as slowly as possible back and forth on the sidewalks of the fair city.

Bikes on your road are a problem? Hundreds of bikes obstructing your sidewalks and the entrances to the casinos would be a problem!

I know it's childish, but if I lived in the area, I'd organize a "ride" every weekend in the spring where as many cyclists as possible would walk as slowly as possible back and forth on the sidewalks of the fair city.

Bikes on your road are a problem? Hundreds of bikes obstructing your sidewalks and the entrances to the casinos would be a problem!

I don't think its childish at all. Many social changes have come about via people drawing attention to an injustice in just such a manner. As one example, we've had whole segments of our society (in the US) who couldn't eat at the same lunch counters as others until they said, "enough", and started showing up at those lunch counters in numbers.

Where is Critical Mass when you need them.

First they came for the cyclists, but I was silent because....I don't give a rip about Blackhawk. It sounds like Downerville, USA.

And then they came for the Segway owners, but I was silent because they're all weird anyway.

Then they came for the electric and hybrid car owners, but I was silent because I was actually pretty cool with it.

Then they came for the VW Passat owners, but there was no one left to speak for me, as they were all drunk or buzzed out on hydrocodone, and I said to myself: it's all good.

With apologies to Martin Niemuller.

Where is Critical Mass when you need them?

Between New Bedford and Providence.

Hmmm. Maybe we need to get about 9,000 cyclist to all walk their bikes through town at once.And each cyclist should stop and use the restroom at the casinos (without buying anything in town). And stop in the surrounding towns for lunch and snacks, with a thank you to those towns for NOT banning cyclist.

Well, I assume they are going to appeal ... this sets a bad precedent and may now be picked up by other towns so it is better to get it over-turned if you can. Ultimately bicyclists may have to fight this at the state legislature by getting a law passed forbidding towns from prohibiting bicycle traffic. Trying to fight it in Black Hawk seems like a losing cause to me since those politicians have already made it clear they could care less how many bicyclists they offend.

BTW, I don't necessarily think the judge's decision is wrong legally ... his interpretation of the law may be correct even if we don't like the result and we don't agree with the arguments. I have found it absolutely amazing the number of people over on A&S that will tell you what the law means even if they have no case law to back their interpretation up or even when the case law contradicts their interpretation ("that judge didn't know what he was talking about", etc.). Some of the people that do this are even attorneys who should know better. What is worse is that these same people will attack you for saying the law says something, just because they don't like what the law says. Shoot the messenger. The reality is the law means what the courts say it means and not what you think it means, or wish it said, or what some clown on the A&S forum says it means.

Wow. The Black Hawk ordinance does not violate the constitutional right to travel because cyclists can walk their bikes through town? A strained interpretation at best. The decision clearly is written by a judge whose not been on a bike in a long, long time.

It has the best justice one can buy!

C'mon!

We all know it was the Federal Reserve.

Nah, had to be Skull and Bones. :roflmao2:

Seriously, to residents of the great state of Colorado: It doesn't happen often, but once in a great while, Massachusetts gets something right. State law here says that cyclists may ride on any public way, except for divided express highways that have been posted by the department of public works. In other words, local cities and towns may not ban bicyclists, end of discussion.

Get with your officials at the state level. Let them know that you are a bicyclist, and you vote.

Isn't former Olympic cyclist Alexi Grewal a Colorado resident?

BTW, I don't necessarily think the judge's decision is wrong legally ... his interpretation of the law may be correct even if we don't like the result and we don't agree with the arguments. I have found it absolutely amazing the number of people over on A&S that will tell you what the law means even if they have no case law to back their interpretation up or even when the case law contradicts their interpretation ("that judge didn't know what he was talking about", etc.). Some of the people that do this are even attorneys who should know better. What is worse is that these same people will attack you for saying the law says something, just because they don't like what the law says. Shoot the messenger. The reality is the law means what the courts say it means and not what you think it means, or wish it said, or what some clown on the A&S forum says it means.

There has been a lot of that sort of thinking and pontificating here in AZ concerning the immigration bill passed by the state legislature. When the guts of the bill were overturned by a federal judge, for rather obvious reasons, there were a lot of people saying things like "How can one person (the judge) overturn a law passed by the state?" I laughed, thinking... "What, you'd rather have a few state legislators, with no background in the law, decide on the meaning of the U.S. Constitution?" Gimme a break.

Colorado is a big cycling state, known for its outdoor sports, as well as for its support of individual rights. You'd think it would be possible to deal with this at the state level, as has been suggested.

Just a quick question, as if there is such a thing on the internet, about the law. It is a pretty well established practice for communities to ban cars, buses, etc from certain areas in towns and cities. Sometimes this is for congestion reasons and sometimes because they want the environment to change. If communities have the right to ban those types of vehicles why don't they have the right to ban another type of vehicle, the bicycle?

From what has been posted that seems to be the legal crux of the matter; does Blackhawk have the legal right to do what they did?

Whether that makes people who can't vote for the city council happy or not seems to be an ancilliary issue.

Any motive other than gathering information is the reader's inference, not the posters implication.

"What, you'd rather have a few state legislators, with no background in the law, decide on the meaning of the U.S. Constitution?" Gimme a break.


The US Constitution is a living and breathing document which means no more or no less than the meaning we choose to give it at any one day or time. The meaning of meaning, the meaning of power and politics is fluid and plastic and is not bound by Old Testament "word is law" bias. If Blackhawk wants to ban cyclists, I say good for them. Their interpretation of constitutional rights and privileges is as living and breathing as anyone else. And anyone who tries to make the argument that "living and breathing" is just another meaning for "judicial usurpation" is itching for a fight and will be banned from watching Fox News for all Eternity.

The trouble with your view, TWL, is that judges don't and can't just make up their interpretation of the law as they go along. Every day I'd like to do something different than the law requires in a case, but I can't and I don't because the law does not allow it. Now, it's true that I'm at the low end of the judicial food chain and reversing me isn't real hard if I'm wrong, but I know that the overwhelming majority of judges try hard to follow the law in every decision they make. Judges make plenty of mistakes, and that's why there are appellate courts. I don't profess to know anything more about Colorado law than I've read in the briefs filed in this case, but I am not impressed with the judge's opinion in this case. He ruled that the part of the ordinance allowing the city to exempt local cyclists was illegal, even though that issue was not before him. The idea that cycling can be prohibited because they can walk their bikes is, in legal terms, whacked.

And I've been banned from watching Fox News for all eternity because it raises my blood pressure into stroke territory.

If Blackhawk wants to ban cyclists, I say good for them. Their interpretation of constitutional rights and privileges is as living and breathing as anyone else.

Unless and until a judge with the proper jurisdiction says it isn't.


And anyone who tries to make the argument that "living and breathing" is just another meaning for "judicial usurpation" is itching for a fight and will be banned from watching Fox News for all Eternity.

Throw me into that briar patch, would you please? Oh wait, I'm already there... no need for a ban.

It's interesting to see the decisions being made by our current supreme court, under what is described as literal interpretation of the constitution. You can be an "activist judge" by going to extremes in either direction: "living and breathing", or "literal interpretation".

The US Constitution is a living and breathing document which means no more or no less than the meaning we choose to give it at any one day or time. The meaning of meaning, the meaning of power and politics is fluid and plastic and is not bound by Old Testament "word is law" bias.

If we change our understanding/interpretation of our constitution day in and day out, or especially from state-to-state, or even town-to-town, what does it mean to be America?

According to shari'a, bicycles are Satan's tools used by infidels to lure the faithful. For that reason alone, bikes should be banned.

Unless you're from Oklahoma. :innocent:

interesting this yr bike of tour of colorado is starting at central city and riding to estes park
http://www.bicycletourcolorado.com/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=41

According to shari'a, bicycles are Satan's tools used by infidels to lure the faithful. ...
?? They did not have bicycles in The Prophet's time.

Just a quick question, as if there is such a thing on the internet, about the law. It is a pretty well established practice for communities to ban cars, buses, etc from certain areas in towns and cities. Sometimes this is for congestion reasons and sometimes because they want the environment to change. If communities have the right to ban those types of vehicles why don't they have the right to ban another type of vehicle, the bicycle?

From what has been posted that seems to be the legal crux of the matter; does Blackhawk have the legal right to do what they did?

Whether that makes people who can't vote for the city council happy or not seems to be an ancilliary issue.

Any motive other than gathering information is the reader's inference, not the posters implication.

I presented this same question in an earlier forum debating this same issue. We do know of towns that have banned motor vehicles from parts of their town for any number of reasons. As a nation we have accepted this banning even if 98 or 99 percent of the people here drive. I know in my state Bicycles are banned from most freeways even if there are some exceptions when there are no other connecting roads between towns. You can’t even walk along side of most freeways unless you can prove it is an emergency or break down.
Is the issue that this is unusual or that it sets a bad precedent? It doesn’t mean I approve I am saying is it different from banning other kinds of vehicles from a town or village?

We have a lot of bicyclists in CO who use hand-powered bicycles - trikes - who can't walk through Blackhawk. It would be an interesting Americans with Disability Act case - cities and towns are required to provide appropriate accommodations.

Yes it would. But, the simple thing for the City Council, assuming they have the legal right to restrict bicycles in the first place, is to essentially put up a Handicapped Only sign at the city limits. That is well established and we see it every day as we encounter restricted parking.

I don't know the answer to my question. Presumably the judge does and held in favor of the city. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.