bicycles banned in Colorado?

[papaver]

Even in a bike loving countries like Belgium and The Netherlands you can't ride in every street. Very busy roads are mostly forbidden for cyclists.

[7rider]

Even in a bike loving countries like Belgium and The Netherlands you can't ride in every street. Very busy roads are mostly forbidden for cyclists.

You can't ride bicycles on interstate, limited access highways in the U.S., either.

Banning bicycles vs. denying a special use permit are two completely different issues.
It's this sentence that is the most confusing:
"During their deliberations, commissioners said they're working with the county attorney's office to come up with a plan to lobby state lawmakers to extend the authority to regulate bicycle use to all counties."
If JeffCo already has the authority to deny a permit - which, in effect, banned those bicycles from the road for this particular event, I would imagine other counties already have similar authority.
I don't see the point of this proposed plan and agree with Mr. Grunig.

[Andrea]

I can tell you from personal experience that as long as the law isn't abused by cyclist-hating lawmakers, it shouldn't impact roads you'd normally ride on. We have a major road in Memphis that runs through a large city park and has a section that's closed to bikes. It's busy enough and traffic moves fast enough that you'd really have no business riding a bike on it, but the fact that it goes through a large park and that it's a main artery to get into the east side of the city would be enough to draw some people try if it didn't have a sign saying that you're not allowed to ride a bike there.

Key phrase here being "as long as it's not abused"

[OakLeaf]

You can't ride bicycles on interstate, limited access highways in the U.S., either.

Bicycles are permitted on (parts of?) interstate 70 in Colorado.

There are some areas where the terrain means there's only one road.

The thread title does seem a bit alarmist, but it's a real issue, just as motorcyclists have been experiencing for years now.

I think a better way to resolve it would be by strict enforcement of minimum speed laws rather than banning certain classes of vehicles. A car doing 40 mph on the interstate is more dangerous to everyone than a bicycle on the shoulder of the same interstate - and yet I've never, ever seen or heard of someone being ticketed for going below the minimum speed. (Yes, it probably happens, and I'm sure someone on this board will chime in, but I've never seen it happening, and I've seen a lot of tickets written (and received my share ) for exceeding the posted speed limit by a whole lot less than 30 mph.

If a vehicle can't maintain a constant speed of 70 mph, or 65 or whatever your local limit happens to be, then it needs to stay off the interstate (except where there are designated lanes for slower traffic, such as the bicycle lanes on I-70 or the truck hill-climbing lanes in many mountain regions).

Mixed-use roads need to be open to all vehicle users regardless of speed. (Are they going to ban farm vehicles from the roads in question, too?)

That's a lot more relevant and effective than banning vehicles based on the nature of their propulsion.

I hope that LAB is fighting this on a national level, as the AMA has been doing with the motorcycle bans. Almost all roads receive some share of federal funding.

Edit: already partially in place.

* "The Secretary shall not approve any project or take any regulatory action under this title that will result in the severance of an existing major route or have significant adverse impact on the safety for nonmotorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless such project or regulatory action provides for a reasonable alternate route or such a route exists." (23 U.S.C. 109(m))

[tulip]

Interstate riding depends on the state. I've ridden for 13 miles on I-10 in Arizona, although I don't recommend it. I've seen cyclists on the interstates in New Mexico, too.

I've never been to Colorado, so I can't comment specifically. But around here, the cycling groups are very careful to ride in small, single file groups so as not to antagonize motorists. We want to be safe and welcomed. I just wonder if their are large groups of cyclists in Colorado who actually do block the roads. Anyone?

[kfergos]

I don't know about other states, but here's a map showing where bikes are NOT allowed on interstates in Washington state: Google map. The interesting thing to me is how much of major freeways are, in fact, open to bicyclists if they so desire.

On the closing certain roads to cyclists: It seems like the issue is more the conflict between bikes and cars that needs to be addressed in general, rather than banning bikes from particular roads. Bicyclists need to use common sense to not put themselves in unduly dangerous situations and to be courteous to faster-moving vehicles; but drivers also should realize that bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as a driver -- and that should include the option to use all roads. Whether or not a bicyclists chooses to exercise that right on particular roads is a matter of common sense for the rider.

[beccaB]

Interstate riding depends on the state. I've ridden for 13 miles on I-10 in Arizona, although I don't recommend it. I've seen cyclists on the interstates in New Mexico, too.

I've never been to Colorado, so I can't comment specifically. But around here, the cycling groups are very careful to ride in small, single file groups so as not to antagonize motorists. We want to be safe and welcomed. I just wonder if their are large groups of cyclists in Colorado who actually do block the roads. Anyone?

Yes, I was in Aspen one summer and large groups of cyclists blocked a twisting winding road. It was obviously an elite group training, and I tried to see if there was anyone famous, but they would not get single file or two by two. I had mixed feelings about it at the time.

[Mr. Bloom]

As long as it's well marked with restrictions approved in an open "due process" with well defined guidelines, I agree that this should be OK.

Using Andrea's example in Memphis, there are other convenient and safer routes for a cyclist. In addition, if it's the same one I'm thinking of, it's also confusing enough for cars with lanes that change direction based on the time of day. It would be fool hardy for a cyclist to stubbornly exercise their right there.

[TrekTheKaty]

I just got back from Boulder on vacation. The trip started with a heated discussion with the in-laws while DRIVING about cyclists on the road. I was surprised to see this hostility in Colorado--I thought it would be a bike friendly place--but I sensed tension.

Cycling in Colorado is VERY popular, and for many cyclists, their only mode of transportation. I rode around with my head hanging out the window like a puppy dog, trying to take in all the different bicycle makes, models and jerseys.

A road outside Lyons is being repaved. As a result, a three-lane road is now a two-lane road with no shoulder. There were numerous construction signs, saying "No bicycles" and "bicycle detour" well before this section of road (that was a new one!). However, by BIL encountered a cyclist recently and he had to slow and ride behind him for quite some time, resulting a over a 1/2 mile-long back up. When BIL finally got an opportunity to pass, the cyclists flipped him off (BIL's version). Now if this is a true story, the cyclists was in the wrong, by riding on a busy road with no shoulder that was specifically designated "construction, no bicycles"--with detours clearly posted. However, if you LIVE on this road and this is your sole mode of transportation, I can see the cyclists frustration.

Of course, BIL didn't understand why the cyclist didn't ride on the part of the road under construction, which looked like the equivalent of the rumble strips on the side on highways. We explained that wasn't practical, and the cyclist has a right to the road--BUT can they post, "No Bicycles"? Good question..........

As a tax payer, I have issues with being restricted from public-use roads--however, apparently in Colorado, if you don't own a car, you aren't contributing to maintaining the roads? (I don't know if that's true, but an interesting thing to research)

We took time to explain that we DO ride on the road at home, but not long stretches without shoulders. And that cyclists do have a right to be on the road--reminding them that it could be their FAMILY on that bicycle, which seemed to make them think a little.

Can anyone from this area explain? Solo? Martian?

[Kathi]

Most of the motorists in Colorado are very friendly to cyclists. The problem is, here in Jefferson County and other mountainous areas of Colorado there are no other routes. These roads are narrow, windy, long climbs with no shoulders. Put 2,000 cyclist on them with cars and there are issues. Motorists are in a hurry and drive way to fast, cyclist slow them down and refuse to share the road.

On rides that attract a large number many cyclists think they own the road and will not give the right of way to cars. Motorists believe cyclists have no right on the roads.

I have toured much of this country, mostly in the midwest and east have been appalled at the behavior of cyclists that I have seen here so it's no wonder motorists get frustrated. Throughout the summer many large organized rides go through the same small towns year after year and impede traffic. The motorist get frustrated at the violations they see from the cyclists. The highway patrol tries to warn the cyclists but they pay no attention. I don't know if these cyclists are residents of Colorado or tourists. Plus, this state attracts many tourists who come here for the challenge of riding the kind of terrain we have here and I think they forget they have to obey traffic laws.

If any legislative action takes place it will take a state lawmaker to propose it, nothing will happen until 2010. Bicycle Colorado is promoting education and safety vs. bans. Shoulders on these roads will make them safer for everyone including motorists. Riding single file when there is traffic or 2 abreast when there is none will help the flow of traffic.

In Colorado, as in most states, property taxes maintain county roads, not gasoline taxes, so cyclists have just a much a right to the roads as motorists. In the Denver area when there is construction and it affects a bike route there is a detour for the cyclists. And, yes, we do have areas that are not considered safe and an alternative route is designated for the cyclist. One is near where I live and even though it is a sidewalk it is much safer than trying to climb the hill with limited visibility and a whole line of traffic behind me.

In Colorado cyclists are only permitted on interstates if there is no other route. This is very common in Western states. Generally shoulders are very wide and traffic isn't much of a concern.

Bicycle Colorado is a very strong advocate group for cyclists in Colorado and I'm sure they will get this worked out in a reasonable manner.