Latest Posts

Seeking bike regulation in Colorado

jeffcobikeban

News out of Jefferson County, Colorado is that the Jefferson County Commisioners are hoping to propose state legislation to allow individual counties in that state to ban bikes from roads they deem unsafe for cycling.

As the term “ban” is rather incendiary, they are choosing instead to refer to it as “regulating” and going on to state “We need to look at (laws) that make certain roads in the county (unusable) by bike traffic.” In short, banning bikes from said roads.

An article in the Columbine Courier gives some context for this action:

Griffin said conflicts between cyclists and motorists are a statewide problem and need to be addressed. She added that the scenery along some Jeffco roads, coupled with the technical challenges cyclists love, means the county needs more authority for the sake of safety.

“I can understand that they’d love to have a bike tour in the mountains because of the beauty,” Griffin said. “But they have to understand — we have stacks and stacks of e-mails from citizens that live there (opposing cyclists).”

Griffin’s right — numerous Deer Creek Canyon residents wrote to the commissioners opposing the proposed cycling event. But a lot of supporters also live in the area and wrote to the commissioners, according to a sample of e-mails submitted.

Griffin acknowledges that many county residents are also cyclists who pay to maintain the roads, and that barring them from some roads might not go over well. But safety concerns are paramount for her.

“We want to have people enjoy our mountains and our roads, but we don’t want to have someone killed doing this.”

Of note is the fact that Commisioner Faye Griffin never mentioned what might cause these fatalities and whether or not regulating the cyclists is truly the answer.

Denver’s ABC affiliate has video online regarding this story. Bicycle Colorado is urging some level of restraint on the part of its membership while they and Bike Jeffco work with the commissioners on this issue.

Boulder County saw a “clash” just over a month ago in which a cyclist reportedly spewed obscenities at a driver and his seven year old daughter, then proceeded to punch the driver’s truck. A witness stated otherwise, but greater detail was not available in the Daily Camera article of the event. What was mentioned, however, is that Colorado is set to enact its 3 feet passing law in August.

3-2-1-Courtesy-CodeBeginning Aug. 5, a new state law will require drivers to give cyclists three feet of space when passing, while at the same time giving riders more leeway to cruise in the middle of roadways and ride two-abreast in most situations.

Sheriff Joe Pelle has warned for weeks that tensions between drivers and cyclists have been on the rise, especially in the mountain communities, where the law will almost certainly force drivers to give cyclists more room on the road.

Pelle said that while the weekend incident “doesn’t amount to a crime wave,” it is a sign of the kinds of tensions that he worries about.

“It is indeed troubling, but I don’t know that it is the result of anything new and different,” Pelle said.

 

New Cycle Trap Found

College_univ_ramp_1

This cycle trap is on the ramp from westbound College Ave. to University Drive. Watch out for it, especially at night!

College_univ_ramp_2

Danish Bike Helmet Law Defeated

Bike helmets represent perhaps the highest volume of religious cycling discussion, enough so that parody sites have been erected in their honor. Helmet debate spans the globe as is evidenced by the fact that the Danish Socialist People’s Party introduced compulsory helmet legislation which was then defeated in parliament.

The Copenhagenize blog provided commentary on this measure along with what they contend is the flawed logic behind the helmet crusade.

It still boggles the mind how The Socialist People’s Party didn’t bother to do their research. It’s rare to see laws proposed on such a fantastically thin background. The backbone of their proposal was rhetoric and fearmongering. And this from a party that claims to work for increased cycling in Denmark.

Copenhagenize also calls into contention the idea that helmet use promotes cycling, instead showing evidence that the opposite is true.

The Danish Minister of Transport, together with the Ministers of Transport for all the EU countries [The European Council of Ministers of Transport], published a report in 2004 [National Policies to Encourage Cycling] wherein it says, among other things, that:

“…from the point of view of restrictiveness, even the official promotion of helmets may have negative consequences for bicycle use, and that to prevent helmets having a negative effect on the use of bicycles, the best approach is to leave the promotion of helmet wear to manufacturers and shopkeepers.

The report entitled ‘Head Injuries and Helmet Law for Cyclists’ by Dorothy L. Robinson, Bicycle Research report No. 81 (March 1997) shows that the main effect of the introduction of the general helmet law for cyclists in Australia was a drop in bicycle use.”

The balance presented here is one of perceived or actual safety versus the number of active cyclists. If forcing helmet use decreases the number of cyclists, is that requirement actually beneficial? Just a short while ago, we posted a press release stating that helmet use by children could prevent 90,000 head, face, and scalp injuries, but fails to detail the severity of the injuries that typically occur. Would it be worth it to reduce ridership while also reducing injuries or is it better to increase the number of riders while letting people determine their own level of risk aversion?

PHP Code Snippets Powered By : XYZScripts.com