Colorado cyclists and drivers try to make canyons safer

6 comments
By Bruce Hildenbrand | Tuesday, Nov 17, 2009 4.00pm

When Colorado enacted a comprehensive "cyclist rights" bill this summer many people thought it would lead to a major improvement in the relationship between bike riders and car drivers. Instead, the new laws have exacerbated the problem.

In response to the increase in tension, Boulder County's transportation department has convened a working group which includes both drivers and cyclists.

While initial meetings were productive with some good ideas put forward, when the group held a public forum, residents made it clear they didn't want their tax dollars spent on "rich folks at play",

The new legislation sets a specific distance – 3ft – that cars must give cyclists when passing. It also gives cyclists the right to ride two or more abreast and use the middle of the road if the shoulder is deemed unsafe. And it allows motorists to cross double yellow lines (no-passing zones in the US) to pass cyclists. 

While these rules seem reasonable, many drivers say they make it almost impossible to pass cyclists on the twisty mountain roads around bike-crazy Boulder.

At the first session of the Boulder County Mountain Canyon Cyclist Motorist Working Group, people said they were worried about driving behind or overtaking cyclists for fear of not being able to stop in time if the riders crashed.

They also asked why cyclists can't ride on the shoulder while descending. Riders explained the dangers of gusty canyon winds and the need to keep a safe distance from cliff edges.

One of the most interesting points of discussion was how to make the roads safer for all concerned. Ideas ranged from adding laybys (pull-outs) on the side of the road where cyclists could congregate to increased signage and more regular road cleaning.

While it was agreed that all these steps could lead to a safer environment, one long-time Left Hand Canyon resident worried that creating a safer place to ride would lead to an increase in the number of cyclists – something bike riders didn't see as a problem. One thing both sides did agree on is that responsible riding and driving is key to a safer environment.

While the three closed meetings of the working group were productive and both sides seemed to respect the other's views, the public hearing to comment on the group’s recommendations was markedly different.

Long-time cyclist and bike industry leader Ray Keener, who is part of the working group, reported that a lot more anti-bike sentiments were expressed at this second meeting by the canyon residents.

Keener said: "They don't want their tax dollars spent to do anything to make things safer for the 'biker fringe element'. It would just encourage us to ride more.

"More than one of them said, 'If we hit a cyclist, they are headed for the ER or worse, but we drivers are just as traumatised as they are.' [The way they see it] they use the canyons to go to work, while cyclists are just rich folks at play who don't really need to be there."

For now the onset of winter has eliminated the problem. Whether some sort of solution can be found in spring remains to be seen, and the working group is still meeting.

One thing that is clear is that cyclists need to behave responsibly when riding in the canyons, whether or not the new law gives them the right to do otherwise. Tensions are high and there is no need to add fuel to the fire.

You can follow BikeRadar on Twitter at twitter.com/bikeradar and on Facebook at facebook.com/BikeRadar.

You might also like...

User Comments

There are 6 comments on this post

Showing 1 - 6 of 6 comments

  • Bravo Boulder. I am so pleased to read that you are talking to one another and trying to find ways to make our roads safer for everyone. This process can be very helpful in the parties discovering their common ground from which can grow a deeper understanding of the needs and challenges faced by all parties. This understanding can give rise to a community that acts more responsibly and courteously toward each other. And in doing so, make living our lives safer and more enjoyable for everyone...motorists, pedestrians and cyclists alike.

    Keep working at it Boulder. And set a fine example for the rest of the country by figuring out how a community can help motorists and cyclists coexist.

    Good luck...the stakes are very high.

    Joe Mizereck

    joe@3feetplease.com

    joe@roadguardian.com

  • I would like to add to Bruce's concise and accurate report, four balancing and clarifying comments (sounds like a hair conditioner, eh?):

    1. Not all the residents at the public hearing were negative toward bikes. Just as many were reasonable if not fully supportive.

    2. A report after the meeting from a Jamestown resident and former bike shop owner indicated that all but one of the "bike haters" were remorseful about their comments.

    3. The reasonable behavior and attitude of the cyclists at the public meeting had a big positive effect. Responsible cyclists are just as adamant about enforcement and cooperation as canyon residents, and I don't think there was that awareness going in.

    4. None of the cyclists at the hearing argued with the haters, we just let them vent. I think if there had been rider push-back, there wouldn't have been the same post-meeting remorse.

  • I am both a rider and a resident in Lefthand. I wonder why there is no mention in this article of how many riders, since the wider popularity of the TdF, are now pissing alongside the road in full view of motorists, and often in people's yards? Or changing in the buff right outside the Greenbriar, where so many riders park? I'm not a prude, but these are not behavioral examples to be setting for children who might be passing by in cars. The Greenbriar is a 4-star restaurant and attracts an upscale crowd with a desire for formality. What is the matter with these people? There seem to be more and more of them.

    As I said, I ride in the canyon as well. I am not a "hater" and I wonder why those who speak against cyclists are labeled as such? The fact is, while the consequences of bad behavior from motorists are more terrible, the proportions of ill-behaved cyclists are higher. Out of all the drivers on the road, not a very high percentage are rude. But of all the cyclists on the road, probably at least 20% are ill-mannered. Where do these people come from? Who brought them up? Why are they so arrogant?

    I do agree that responsible cyclists are just as adamant about enforcement and good behavior. I am one of them. Unfortunately, we are about as common as "responsible" off-roaders and target-shooters. As I feel that the irresponsible 4-wheelers and shooters have ruined it for the others and necessitated closures, I have come to feel that the bad bikers have ruined it for everyone as well, and certain roads should be closed at certain times.

    And I do agree that recreational activities are lower-pri than getting to work. If someone is in a car, they almost always by definition have to get somewhere faster than the person on the bike. So get out of the way. Esp if you are going downhill, where it's not as if you have to get your heart rate up. What can possibly be the reason for having to go downhill fast? That is just self-indulgence/entertainment; it has nothing to do with your workout.

    I think the mtn roads without shoulders should be closed during rush hour. EG Lee Hill. I love riding Lee Hill myself, but it is just too dangerous now, esp with all the riders in groups. I've become afraid to ride OR drive it, seriously. I know the commissioners have said road closures are off the table, but tough. They are the commissioners; we are the residents. It is not their job to say what's on the table or off. It's their job to execute on what we say. Unfortunately, these little chats should have been held 10 years ago. It's a little late for them now.

    Word didn't really get out about this hearing.

  • Urination: This was addressed during the three sessions. Plans for porta-potties and funding for their upkeep was proposed. The residents said, "No way." You can't both complain about a problem and reject its solution.

    A small percentage of drivers, but 20% of cyclists, are ill-mannered: I believe this would be called "bias." Biased cyclists would say the opposite. My friend Lester who runs U Bikes said it best: "10% of car drivers and 10% of cyclists are idiots. The other 90%, there's hope."

    Closing the roads to cyclists: Cyclists are vehicles. They have the same access to public thoroughfares as automobiles. Our purpose in being on the road does not determine whether we have a right to access it. We don't need to "get out of the way."

  • Only 10% are idiots? God you're generous, I would go the other way around!!! 90% idiots... on both sides!

  • American car drivers complaining they cant overtake bicycles! Get a decent car and drive it properly then! If the cyclist is descending they are probably going as fast as a car, in which case there isn't a problem. If they are not then any car should be able to overtake. Get real American drivers and don't complain the rich cyclists shouldn't be there at all. You have the right to drive your gas guzzling polluting behemoths and cyclists have the right to use the road as well.

    You don't hear about French divers complaining about the cyclists getting in the way in the Alps. They are treated as respected road users as well. Glad I don't like the the states.

Post a Comment:

You need to login or register to post comments.