Colorado City Bans Bicycle Riding

[DetroitDad]

http://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=142054

In January, Black Hawk's Board of Aldermen voted to prohibit bicycling as a safety precaution.

[Meddle]

What's next? Ban walking?

[jcole]

Black Hawk is a mountain town that survives on its gambling industry. Almost every structure is a small casino and there are tons of senior citizens walking around. I imagine crossing the street could be hazardous to some of them if they don't look or are slow to get out of the way. There is also a main drag that is a 4 lane highway with tour busses whizzing up and down all day and all night which could be hazardous to the riders.
I've been there and it's not exactly conducive to a relaxing pedal.

[Mikeg]

From Coloradodaily.com

The city of Black Hawk banned cyclists from most of its streets in January, but the deed went largely unnoticed until earlier this month, when the first cyclists were ticketed for riding their bikes through town.
Black Hawk's city manager, Mike Copp, told the Denver Post that the ban was enacted for safety reasons -- the town's narrow streets didn't leave enough room for buses and trucks to give bikes the mandatory 3 feet while passing without sending vehicles into the lane of oncoming traffic.

Read more here.

I see the words "most streets" - not "all streets" - and also "safety reasons". But the biking activists don't want to discuss that, they want to hold protests and whip up some fury and outrage!

I don't think they "have a crank to stand on", but that's just my two cents worth.

[douglasm]

"The closure of Gregory Street in downtown Blackhawk...."

Council closed 1 street? I can understand the concern if there's not an alternative route, but I wonder if Black Hawk's suffering a bit from the "we don't give a damn" attitude some bicyclists have? We're seeing some of that out here, especially on the highways, where 15 mph cyclists tend to spread out into 60 mph traffic lanes, then get upset when the car doesn't yeild.

[wolverine]

I've seen even the most progressive bike friendly cities ban bicycling in certain areas. Basically in order to do it though there must be some alternative route. When cyclists get to that bike free zone they must dismount and walk to their destination. Even as an avid cyclists I'm respectful of these zones. One particular area I know of has a lot of dangerous traffic and hardly any space to bike. They put most of the senior citizen housing in this area as well, so they prohibit riding on the sidewalks as well.

Don't know if any of you have ever seen Black Hawk, but the streets offer almost no clearance. If a tour bus tries to pass you in their downtown you'll probably die. In fact it's so tight they've had to build railings to protect pedestrians on the sidewalks.

[Meddle]

Sounds like they should be banning tour busses and other wide vehicles from that road until they can take some of the income from the casinos and do some infrastructure improvements like widening streets.

[Jimaz]

The article said Gregory Street was closed to bikes. Here's a street view of Gregory Street. It doesn't look too dangerous to me.

[jcole]

Sounds like they should be banning tour busses and other wide vehicles from that road until they can take some of the income from the casinos and do some infrastructure improvements like widening streets.

It's on a mountain. The buildings have been there for over a hundred years. There is no room for 'improvements'. You can't widen the streets.
If the bikers are physically fit enough to bike up a mountain, I'm assuming they can haul their asses off the bike and walk it up a block or two.

[ghettopalmetto]

I was under the impression that in most states, bicycles are considered vehicles just the same as cars. If a bicycle is in front of your car on a street like that, you have no business even attempting to pass it, just as you wouldn't pass a slow-moving car or motorcycle on a street that wide. And doesn't a double-solid-yellow line indicate "no passing", anyway??? Sounds like the "safety" issue has more to do with shitty, inconsiderate drivers ignorant of the law than with bicyclists.

Just another step toward fusing automobiles to our spines....

[DetroitDad]

It's on a mountain. The buildings have been there for over a hundred years. There is no room for 'improvements'. You can't widen the streets.
If the bikers are physically fit enough to bike up a mountain, I'm assuming they can haul their asses off the bike and walk it up a block or two.

But a auto driver is probably not physically fit enough to walk much more than from a parking space into the Walmart.

Roads really weren't made for cars... and I'm not sure why everyone is okay with subsidizing the overly expensive transit op.... oh nevermind...

Why even bother? This whole thing seems to be working itself out more and more everyday.

MGHMOOS

[Roq]

Roads really weren't made for cars...

Huh? They weren't?

[jcole]

But a auto driver is probably not physically fit enough to walk much more than from a parking space into the Walmart.

Roads really weren't made for cars... and I'm not sure why everyone is okay with subsidizing the overly expensive transit op.... oh nevermind...

Why even bother? This whole thing seems to be working itself out more and more everyday.

MGHMOOS

Did you look at the picture someone posted above? Please explain to me how they are supposed to widen the streets without tearing down the historic buildings, which is one of your pet peeves here in Detroit.There are alleys behind those old saloons, opera houses and restaurants, so the bikers should be able to maneuver around them for the mile that the town takes up.
Oh, and there is no Walmart within 50 miles of Black Hawk/Central City. There is also a beautiful river called Clear Creek that meanders through both towns.
Attachment 6668



This is an alley

[Detroitnerd]

Did you look at the picture someone posted above? Please explain to me how they are supposed to widen the streets without tearing down the historic buildings, which is one of your pet peeves here in Detroit.

Just tear all that funky old schitt down. Who wants all those old buildings? Then, once you've torn down one side of the street, you can expand the road to handle more traffic, and then they're sure to build updated, new buildings with all the new traffic the road can handle.

Oh, wait. That's just what we keep trying here.

[jcole]

Just tear all that funky old schitt down. Who wants all those old buildings? Then, once you've torn down one side of the street, you can expand the road to handle more traffic, and then they're sure to build updated, new buildings with all the new traffic the road can handle.

Oh, wait. That's just what we keep trying here.

Well, I don't think a lot of Detroityesers would cotton too well to using the Corktown Victorians for the purpose that these are used for. Almost every one is a casino, even if they only have 25 slot machines.

[Jimaz]

I was under the impression that in most states, bicycles are considered vehicles just the same as cars. If a bicycle is in front of your car on a street like that, you have no business even attempting to pass it, just as you wouldn't pass a slow-moving car or motorcycle on a street that wide....

Also, it looks like the narrowest part of Gregory Street has a speed limit of only 20 MPH and that only goes for a short stretch anyway.

It doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Maybe there are some previous local political grudges driving this issue.

[jcole]

Jimaz, the issue goes back a long time ago when the anti-gambling faction lost the fight and they turned these two towns and Cripple Creek into low-stakes casino towns. Many people see it as the ruin of the wilderness and outdoor activities in those areas. Since that time, more gambling has been approved on a very minimal basis around Colorado, and it's no longer as low-stake as it used to be. I think max bet used to be fifty cents a pop and now it's either $2 or $5, last I heard anyway.

[douglasm]

Sure ruined Cripple Creek. A great example of how to both save and ruin a town at the same time.

[Meddle]

Huh? They weren't?

No. Most of them were built for horses or horse & buggy. Motorized contraptions came along well after the roads were laid out and buildings in place.


I still say, ban the tour busses.

[wolverine]

But banning tour buses and large trucks would be incredibly easy. They need to be more difficult than that!

[1KielsonDrive]

From Coloradodaily.com

Read more here.

I see the words "most streets" - not "all streets" - and also "safety reasons". But the biking activists don't want to discuss that, they want to hold protests and whip up some fury and outrage!

I don't think they "have a crank to stand on", but that's just my two cents worth.

And yours isn't worth two cents, Cranky. Talk about trying to whip up some fury and outrage, you certainly aren't attempting a fair and open discussion.

[Mikeg]

And yours isn't worth two cents, Cranky. Talk about trying to whip up some fury and outrage, you certainly aren't attempting a fair and open discussion.

My comments about the bicycle activists were based on the reporting about the protest that was organized by "Bicycle Colorado". From the original article:

More than 100 bicyclists from across Colorado gathered at the State Capitol Tuesday evening to protest the city of Black Hawk's bike ban.....
Bicycle Colorado sponsored Tuesday evening's protest. State Senators Greg Brophy [[R-Wray) and Chris Romer [[D-Denver) spoke out at the protest and threatened to file a lawsuit against Black Hawk if the ban was not overturned.
"You can not ban us! And if you do, we will sue you!" Brophy shouted to the crowd.

Sounds to me like the biking activists [[Bicycle Colorado) made angry and threatening comments during their staged protest. If they made any comments acknowledging safety concerns [[narrow and congested streets), it went unreported in the article.

My "two cents worth" simply expressed my opinion that if they sued, I didn't think they would get very far.

And for noting this I am accused of not attempting a fair and open discussion? I realize that this is the "Non-Detroit" side of the forum, but still, instead of the childish name calling, how about giving us a smidgen of original thought from that apparently superior intellect of yours?

[1KielsonDrive]

My comments about the bicycle activists were based on the reporting about the protest that was organized by "Bicycle Colorado". From the original article:

Sounds to me like the biking activists [[Bicycle Colorado) made angry and threatening comments during their staged protest. If they made any comments acknowledging safety concerns [[narrow and congested streets), it went unreported in the article.

My "two cents worth" simply expressed my opinion that if they sued, I didn't think they would get very far.

And for noting this I am accused of not attempting a fair and open discussion? I realize that this is the "Non-Detroit" side of the forum, but still, instead of the childish name calling, how about giving us a smidgen of original thought from that apparently superior intellect of yours?

If your intent was merely to report the story, I mistook your intentions for commentary. In that case, I apologize. As far as my 'superior intellect', I've never been accused of that. Thanks for mentioning it.

[ghettopalmetto]

If they made any comments acknowledging safety concerns [[narrow and congested streets), it went unreported in the article.

Empirical evidence has shown time and again that narrow and congested streets are actually safer than "wider and wide-open" streets, and lead to both lower speeds and less instance of collisions.

"Narrow and congested" as you've used it is just code for "OH MY GOD WE CAN'T DRIVE 55!!! GET THESE FUCKING BICYCLES OUT OF OUR DAMNED WAY, ALREADY!"

[GOAT]

GP, just curious if you have any evidence to show that. I'm not saying you are wrong but I could use that evidence for where I live. Thanks in advance.