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.

Between New Bedford and Providence.

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.

It has the best justice one can buy!

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?

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.

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.

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

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".

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/i...display&pid=41

?? They did not have bicycles in The Prophet's time.

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.