Posted by coopersunc on June 14, 2008 at 11:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, so Sheriff Jim Alderden doesn't understand traffic laws? Guess he should just stick to defending Christmas.

Posted by blacksho89 on June 15, 2008 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"But the law states any time traffic is impeded -- including when one cyclist is already doing that -- riding two abreast is illegal."

That's pretty clear.
And if you have been following this story, you will note that the total number of bicyclists ticketed in Larimer County this year is not a number.
Zero.
If these stories can be used to educate road users in courtesy and responsibility, they are a success.
Drivers: Give at least 6 feet (1/2 lane) between you and the cyclist when passing.
Cyclists: Step out of the clips and STOP at the red light. You lose when the dump truck can't stop on the green that he has.

On a side note:
I was out by Cherry Creek Reservoir the last 2 days. Cyclists out there are absolute anarchists and clueless besides. I saw groups of 12 or more cruising red lights WHILE TRAFFIC WAS TURNING IN FRONT OF THEM! And these people had their young kids with them. Sheriff Jim: Want to talk to Arapaho County while you're at it?

Posted by aremac on June 15, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Tupa said he and other legislators backed the change because the original law was archaic after a cycling boom put more bicycles on Colorado's roads"
That's it, have politicians tell you it's ok to risk your life on the roadway. So this means common sense and safety should be ignored? Ride single file and as far right as possible and maybe you will live to tell your grandchildren about how you lived so long and rode a bicycle all your life. Let's avoid a horrible headline like "Eight bicyclists killed when dump truck hits pack of riders after cresting hill on Highway 36 north of Boulder". I have seen a situation where this was a possiblity as a pack of riders were riding on Highway 36. Come on!

Posted by pjs on June 15, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Prohibiting the practice of riding two or more abreast AT ALL TIMES would prevent any misinterpretation. And Mr. Tupa - if you actually said "I respectfully disagree with the sheriff's interpretation, and I think he is misreading the plain language" -- doesn't that statement in and of itself speak to the law needing a "tweak"? It seems obvious that the language is open to ANY interpretation in order to be enforced ~~ never a good policy for laws.

Posted by FrictionSoul on June 15, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There's nothing archaic about common sense. Riding even single file on some Boulder roads is risky, so riding two abreast just because some law says you can lacks common sense, and gives riders a false sense of security that motorists know about the law and respect it, that motorists are paying attention at all times (do I have to elaborate on all the ways that they are not???), and that the law protects them, which clearly it does not.

Motor vehicle vs. bike; motor vehicle "wins" all the time. So why would a cyclist put them in harm's way? Because Tupa says they can.

Posted by grossman on June 15, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

license 'em. license 'em. license 'em. license 'em.

license 'em. license 'em. license 'em. license 'em.

just like the cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, scooters that also share the road.

that way basic principles of the current laws can be communicated and bicycle/tricycle riders will commit themselves to those laws (or be ticketed...just like cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, scooters).

No license, no ride. just like cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, scooters.

What a "Duh" moment in Boulder history. It's the numbers, stupid.

Having some insurance would be a good idea too...

just like cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, scooters

tell me there is a difference when it comes to road use. Who pays for those lanes being widened (and why do bikers inevitably ride close to the car lanes instead of close to the edge of the road but they do!)? The people who have to obtain licenses for cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, scooters, that's who.

From an Old Biker for 62 years: all over, except India where I had a motorcycle...bicycle? death warrant on those roads.

Posted by shoenfeld13 on June 15, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Show me a place where more than 20% of bikers ride legally as pairs on 4 mile canyon and i'll give you $100. The law on 4 mile is single file and it just doesn't happen. About 70% of the time I give a gentle tap on the horn and they quickly move over as they should, for their own safety and mine. We exchange waves and everyone is happy. But 30% choose not to move over putting everyone at risk. They should be ticketed for impeding traffic. I am a frequent biker and I am embarressed at the poor manners of many in the biking community. They leave no alternative to law enforcement.

Posted by jadam12 on June 15, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So, how are you going to license 4 year olds on training wheels? Any kid under 16? Kids will pay licensing fees and insurance how? No one has still answered this question.

"just like the cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, scooters that also share the road."

What is the one huge differing factor between these forms of transport and a bicycle? Can anyone guess? Certainly not the license fantatics as they probably never peddled a bike before.

"tell me there is a difference when it comes to road use. Who pays for those lanes being widened The people who have to obtain licenses for cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, scooters, that's who."

Let see, thousands of miles of roads, constant maintaince and traffic mitigation equipment soley for motor vehicles and their use in just Boulder county alone, plus tens of thousands of much wider and heavier motor vehicles giving off exhaust, radiator fluid and oil.

Compared to, a couple thousand bikes total in Boulder County (far fewer in most of the rest of the counties in the nation), a couple hundred on the road in the city of Boulder any given day. with Maybe a few hundred miles of dedicated bike trails or shared lanes only in Boulder County. Far fewer miles if at all in the rest on the nation. Most bicyclists like myself drive cars so we already pay gas taxes and car licensing fees for the scant few miles of bike lanes relative to our nation's immense motor vehicle infrastructure. For example, there would be no traffic lights if there weren't cars. No painting and pothole crews etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

I was waiting at the intersection of Canyon and Folsom on my bike for a red light yesterday around 1pm and not one other bicyclist. During that time over 100 cars passed by, I didn't count past one hundred.

"From an Old Biker for 62 years:"

I'll believe when I see it

Posted by jadam12 on June 15, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Licenses have never stopped car drivers from speeding, drinking alcohol and disobeying traffic signals and general road laws on a daily basis either.

Posted by jadam12 on June 15, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You certainly have a point. But I guess that means we should all stop breathing.

Posted by motiff on June 15, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jadam12 writes: "Licenses have never stopped car drivers from speeding, drinking alcohol and disobeying traffic signals and general road laws on a daily basis either"

Answer: But they at least pay for the upkeep of the roads. And they get reported by other drivers by their plate numbers.

and...

"So, how are you going to license 4 year olds on training wheels? Any kid under 16? Kids will pay licensing fees and insurance how? No one has still answered this question."

Answer: Parents. (Didn't you have any?)

License plates for ANYONE who uses the road. Insurance as well. Its obvious its needed at this point.

As for Mr. Tupa, what a nitwit. His lack of common sense is going to lead to more attitudes and tragic accidents of which I fear the worst is yet to come. I've seen riders at night and in the rain on 36 north of Boulder without ANY lights AT ALL. Guys, you've got to clean-up your act.

PLATES for BIKES so we can be identified. (Yes, I ride on the road only when I have to)

Posted by pluppa on June 15, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"One cyclist would already be impeding traffic, so another cyclist wouldn't make a difference."

WHAT?? It might make a difference to the second cyclist who gets picked off because he's out in traffic. This is some of the most assinine reasoning I have ever heard in my life. It's equivalent to saying, "As a pedestrian, I have the right of way, so I'm just going to walk out in front of cars and they have to stop." If cyclists think arguments like that are helping them they are dumber than I thought.

Posted by grossman on June 15, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jadam: I started riding when I was 6. I'm now 68. Go figure, ok? And I remember having to get a license. When I did, lordy me, I got lessons on how to ride a bike in traffic. What a concept! I do not see much evidence of that presently. Just a bunch of guys/gals in spandex showing off.

I biked thru elementary, jr. high, sr. high, college, post-doc, and now retired. Try it sometime. I still salivate over that 1948 Raliegh with the chain cover. I used to go to the bike store just to look at it (Norman Rockwell moment in my life).

After a serious accident at the corner of Cherryvale and Dimmit/Baseline (beware of that intersection), when a guy ran the stop sign (I had waited for my turn), I rarely ride streets anymore. Took 1.5 years for me to walk properly again. At least I had the chance....

So, kiddo, believe it.

Posted by Doc_Brinkley on June 15, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tupa, you're a moron for encouraging the arrogance of the cyclists. Look at the scoreboard:

Vehicles 1
Bicycles 0

And the Vehicles are guaranteed to pitch a shutout.

Posted by kbbpll on June 15, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have bicycled across three continents and for the past 21 years Larimer County has been the most dangerous place I've ridden. I almost always ride alone, and being courteous and safe go hand in hand. And yet I can't count the number of times I've been yelled at, flipped off, had beer bottles and other garbage thrown at me, and had drivers go out of their way to cross the white line into the shoulder and try to hit me. And now Alderden declares open season on cyclists. As if there aren't enough meth labs in Larimer County. As if I don't regularly observe sheriff's deputies turning without signaling, crossing the double yellow on curves, and exceeding the speed limit while on normal patrol. It would be welcome relief if this county elected a few officials who aren't lunatics, but I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by nofreebeer on June 15, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is no reason to ride side by side. Darwin will sort this lot out.

Posted by RoadTrippin on June 15, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wholeheartedly agree with pjs:

"Prohibiting the practice of riding two or more abreast AT ALL TIMES would prevent any misinterpretation."

It would be a simple straightforward change to the law -- easily understood, and easily enforceable.

Posted by Flatirony on June 15, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Less gov't, after bicyclist licensing and enforcement. Now.

Posted by KR on June 15, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kbbpll -- I've had similar experiences in Larimer and won't ride there any longer. The most recent was being grazed by a pickup truck's mirror -- while I was well into the shoulder, and he had no oncoming traffic. It was pure intimidation.

Such things reflect really well on the county. If that's the way they want it up there, so be it. It's not like there much of anything of any interest up there.

Posted by KR on June 15, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

posted by driveby_moron: "Is peddling into the path of a dump truck considered impeding and should it be on the list?"

Nice. May a similar tragedy befall your family. Happy father's day.

Posted by windskull on June 15, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wrote the Douglas County News Press 25 years ago about a similar situation where-in bicyclists insisted on their right to ride on 2 lane shoulderless highway 105 where blind curves abound and 9 out of 10 oncoming vehicles encountered were "cowboy cadillacs" ie big dual wheel pick up trucks pulling horse trailers & I said then in a head on collision situation sorry mr/ms bicyclist YOU LOSE, there is plenty of challenge on the myriad of Colorado Trails built with lottery funds specifically for bike riders that prohibit motor vehicles... Now there`s a thought to ponder,how about when bicycle traffic on those miles of paths is not impeded,(sub)compact & mid-sized autos can access these venues just as bicyclists do the streets and thoroughfares without tags or insurance?

Posted by vegbiker on June 15, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How to tell a complete idiot quickly: he wants to tax and license everything to solve all problems.

Posted by kbbpll on June 15, 2008 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

KR - If it was a gray pickup on Hwy 1 to Wellington about 10 years ago, then it was the same guy who also tried to kill me.

surfrider2 - if you want to do it, you can do it. But I bet you don't.

Posted by MikeEllis on June 15, 2008 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All you people wanting to regulate cyclists more, it's clearly only about a moment of convenience for YOU. As a cyclist, I have the right to ride on just about all roads around here, and if that road takes me where I want to go I will take it. It's my choice and my risk. If I want to ride with a friend, I'll do so. How would you like it if people started limiting cars to only driving on freeways, or telling you you can't have someone else sitting in the car next to you?

Many of the folks who call for more regulation of cyclists are the same ones calling for less government everywhere else. Go figure. It's not about less government, it's about less government for YOU.

Share the roads. You're not the only ones who need to use them.

Posted by suz on June 15, 2008 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The whole issue is about safety. 25% of bicyclists I see are courteous smart bicylists, 75% are the opposite. Choosing to ride other than single file in the bike lane is crazy. I am amazed at the stupidity and arrogance I have witnessed of many bicylists. 4+ cyclists wide on the road without concern for anyone else, and lots of attitude, its all about them.

Round a curve & slam on the brakes to avoid cyclers in the road. I have oncoming traffic swerve wide into my lane to avoid hitting bikes daily. Those bicylists create a risk to everyone.

Bikes zoom by me at unsafe speeds, realistically unable to stop if they had to. Draft right up against the rear of my car or car ahead in the middle of the road. One bad rock in the road later and there could be serious accidents at the speed they are going.

Its an easy solution, share the road safely & realize chances of being hurt outside of the bike lane. Stop making it a risk. I support Sheriff Alderden's enforcement of the single lane bicycling for your sake as well as mine.

The 'bike race' events have created bad pr. Locals told they can't leave their own homes, miss appointments or unable to enjoy the day as planned, businesses forced to shut down for the day because of bike events is wrong. Sitting at an intersection stopped for long periods by a civilian with a sign, crabby kids in the car needing to get home. No one asked the locals or the businesses if its okay.

Bicylists get a bad name because of those who show no respect for others, giving the perception they are more important. Share the road safely have bike events off the public roads.

Go to Iowa in August and participate in a great event RAGBRAI (DM Registers Great Bike Ride Across Iowa) you will come back with a new appreciation for how good you have it & probably a new respect for safe roads. Here we have Bike lanes and many courteous drivers.

Posted by breezzee1 on June 15, 2008 at 9:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"It's my choice and my risk" that is a pretty selfish attitude given the risk it presents to others if you or your biking friend make a mistake with a vehicle. precisely the reason motorists have had it with you.

Posted by jennyf0x on June 15, 2008 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The one point I'd like to make is not in response to any specific post but rather to the all too common notion that riding a bicycle in traffic is an inherently dangerous and foolhardy enterprise. While there is a dearth of really good data on bicycle accidents, what studies that have been done on the subject typically show that vehicle miles traveled per fatal accident are roughly the same for bicyclists as they are for motorists.

Even more interesting is that those accident rates plunge dramatically when bicycles are operated on the road as part of normal vehicular traffic as opposed to the "pedestrian on wheels" mode; riding on sidewalks, crossing intersections in pedestrian crosswalks, riding against traffic, etc.

One last statistical tidbit is that motorist-caused overtaking type collisions account for only 2% of all car/bike collisions, yet is consistently the type of accident most feared by cyclists and most often cited by motorists as the main reason cyclists should stay off the roadway.

Make what you will of the above, but I submit that most of the "evidence" for why bicyclists and motorists cannot peaceably and safely share existing roadways are red herrings meant to deflect attention from the real issue: that bikes on the roadway briefly slow down overtaking traffic, not that bikes on the roadway create unusually dangerous conditions.

For a really interesting and thorough discussion of vehicular style bicycling--and if you want to know where I got the numbers above--see http://www.humantransport.org/bicycle...

Posted by berg on June 15, 2008 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jennyf0x wrote:

"For a really interesting and thorough discussion of vehicular style bicycling--and if you want to know where I got the numbers above--see http://www.humantransport.org/bicycle...

Thanks for the link. This site provides a very some very interesting statistics that tend to refute a lot of what has been written here. I have also found in riding many thousands of miles that riding as part of the flow of traffic is almost always the safest way to ride. This often involves taking the right lane when a bike lane ends or obstacles such as parked cars block the shoulder and/or bike lane. In my experience making oneself very visible (i.e. wearing those bright jerseys that many people love to make fun of and taking the lane when necessary) as well as riding in a predictable manner can greatly reduce the chances of an accident.

Posted by MikeEllis on June 16, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks, Jenny.

I ride on the roads because they go where I want/need to go, they are faster and more convenient, and they are safer than riding on bike trails. As the person on the bike, I get to decide where I ride, just like you all, in your cars, get to decide what roads you drive on. It's only selfish for me to say that if it is also selfish for you to say you can drive where you want to.

There are many times and places when riding two abreast is safe and legal. As Jenny points out, there are many times when taking up the whole lane is safe and legal (and proper).

As a cyclist, I make my decisions about where and how to ride based on my knowledge of the law (which I've read, unlike many who comment here), based on years of experience, and based on common courtesy and defensive riding. I don't not consider, for an instant, the uninformed opinions of folks on a forum like this or in letters to the editor.

Larimer County has some beautiful rides, and I can guarantee that Sheriff Alderden's comments have only encouraged more cyclists to to ride there, mostly in spite. That's not how it should be.