Posted on 06/15/2010 6:49:48 AM PDT by MissTed
Jamie Webb thought maybe she was speeding when a police cruiser pulled her and three friends over as they rode their bikes into Black Hawk from Central City.
Actually, the crime was pedaling. She was violating Black Hawk's ban on bicycling through town — the only such ban in Colorado.
"They said we had to walk through town. I think this sets a pretty bad precedent," Webb said. "There's really no reason for it."
Webb was the first cyclist ticketed under Black Hawk's new rule, which prohibits bike riding on nearly every street in town, including the only paved thoroughfare in Black Hawk.
City Manager Mike Copp said the reason for the rule, enacted in January, is safety.
The roads in Black Hawk are narrow and do not have shoulders. They teem with tour buses and delivery trucks that feed the bustling casinos. Demanding that those trucks provide 3 feet of space when passing cyclists — as required by a 2009 Colorado law — means trucks and buses must move into oncoming traffic, Copp said.
"We saw the conflicts going on with buses and with trucks, and we decided to be proactive on this," Copp said, noting that no accidents prodded the ban. "We don't want to be the city that knows we need a traffic light but waited until someone gets killed. This is what our city believes is best for its citizens, its businesses and its guests."
But Webb said she has often ridden on shoulderless canyon roads and has had no trouble with trucks.
"To say we all can't fit on the road together is ridiculous," she said. "We are all moving so slow through Black Hawk anyway, it's not like anyone is passing anyone."
After a period of issuing warnings, police this month began citing cyclists. To date, the town has issued eight $68 tickets.
Cyclists using the road to connect to the popular ride along the Peak to Peak Scenic Byway from Black Hawk to Estes Park are decrying the ban, which forces them to walk their bikes a half-mile through town. Another option is to ride over Berthoud Pass — but that excludes most of the Peak to Peak Scenic Byway.
"This is unbelievable. We are going to do as much as we can to fight this," said Rick Melick, spokesman for the 380-member Rocky Mountain Cycling Club. "Now that cyclists have almost the same rules as motorists, the idea a small town can ban bikes is ludicrous."
Since news of ticketing began trickling into the cycling community, opposition is forming. A Facebook page called "Bicyclists and Tourists Boycott Black Hawk Colorado" launched last week. The website dismountblackhawk.com is peddling shirts protesting the ban. Bicycle Colorado, a nonprofit dedicated to all things cycling in Colorado, is fomenting a grassroots push to get Black Hawk to overturn the ban.
"They are singling out one classification of vehicle," said Charlie Henderson, president of the Rocky Mountain Cycling Club. "I wonder if motorcycles will be next."
Black Hawk officials expected the uproar. And they are not going to revisit the rules, Copp said.
"Our council looks at what they think is best for its citizens, for its businesses, which in this case are casinos, and its visitors, which are patrons that come to visit the casinos," Copp said. "We have had positive feedback from citizens, casinos and our guests."
It is hardly kids that ride bicycles all over the front range. There are rich lawyers and professional liberals that are out to take advantage of others and raise a commotion. I never saw a kid out on the highway on his multi thousand dollar bicycle. The governor raised automotive fees double and gives the bicycle a free ride.
The state has a preemption rule on road access and uniformity of laws.
This local variation is prohibited.
until then, you just have your spandex panties.
Which brings us to the real heart of the issue for you. Those "spandex panties" bring up that deeply repressed, but undeniable, sexual identity crisis you wrestle with. If they would just get off the road and out of your sight, everything would be fine. You do like girls, damn it, you do.
I knew that would get to one of you...LOL
Can you get the bicyclists to pony up for it? And what would become of their scenic trip? The article already mentions an alternate route that they reject.
At least this isn't Saudi Arabia where there are even more stringent laws imposed on motorists:
Some would blame the government for doubling 'fees'.
Others would blame the bicycles for not paying their share.
I get it. You stand with the bully. Nice.
>> I knew that would get to one of you...LOL
I never understood the obsession with spandex among people like yourself who hate cyclists.
I wear it when I ride — not for looks, that’s for damn sure, but because it’s functionally the best material to make cycling shorts or pants out of. That’s just how it is. I don’t wear spandex when I build fence or drive my tractor, because it ISN’T the best material for those applications.
When you see a guy in Spandex on his bicycle, it doesn’t mean he’s gay or effeminate.
Now, if you see a guy riding a bicycle in Spandex shorts with a hole in the bottom, and no seat — just a seatpost — THAT one is probably gay.
So when you see an 8 year old kid on a bike, or a poor guy getting to work the only way he can afford, your first thought is "tax cheat"?
What you should be thinking when you see on of those guys on a $4,000 bike wearing "spandex panties" is "guy that probably pays way more taxes than me and , given my tendency to sit on my lard butt and carp about stupid things on internet forums, is happier and more productive than me".
I believe in equal rights. Why should I have to pay $70 dollars to drive my car when some guy has a bicycle that costs more than my car and he gets a free ride and demands that I pay for it. Bicyclists are the bullies that demand special rights and get out on the highway and cause accidents and kill traffic flow. Why are you against equal rights? You are sounding like an elitist communist.
Being that bicycles and cars are remarkably different vehicles, it should be no surprise to anyone that different practical rules/laws would apply. For example, many of my clients would let me bring my bicycle into the office while denying others the right to park their personal cars alongside their desks. Different rules? Of course.
...and they don't pay one damn cent for road taxes, gasoline taxes, inspections, license plates, operators' licenses, or insurance
Yes, this is a popular myth among many who feel that a person who conducts a personal errand in their car is more noble and should have greater privilege than a lowly cyclist doing the same.
First of all, unless the cyclist in question is a minor or completely without access to any motor vehicle, they pay gasoline taxes, inspections and license plates - its for their vehicles that are parked at home. The last time I checked, inspections, license plate and operator's fees are not contingent on mileage driven. In most cases the bracketing of insurance mileage makes the insurance paid for that parked car the same as that which is on the road. One can also argue that any commerce that involves a motor vehicle at some point, those taxes are passed along to the consumer in the costs of the goods or service. Bicyclists don't live in caves, they are engaged in all kinds of economic activity - in fact, the cost of road taxes are calculated in the retail price of the bicycle.
As for "road taxes", they come in two varieties - the taxes colllected from gasoline, and from license fees. If I have a plate on my parked car, I paid the same road tax as the guy who drives for a living. If anything, amortizing the cost of these fees, and provided that a cyclist rides as a replacement for driving (rather than purely recreational) my costs are higher per mile driven. IOW, I'm paying more per mile of road than you whenever I takes the bicycle out rather than drive.
In terms of the "road tax" from gasoline, at least in Texas, half of that gets squandered within the government school system, the other half allegedly goes towards all budget items related to the roads. (ie. pensions of retired DOT employees). The money that remains goes towards paying for the building and maintenance of limited access State freeways and rest stops, which are by law off-limits to bicycle traffic anyway. Those local roads that you see the vast majority of cyclists on, are paid for in sales and property taxes. I lay odds that bicyclists have homes and they buy things, so they are paying taxes that directly support the roads.
If anything, motor-vehicle traffic is costing ME since my bicycle comes nowhere near the level of damage to the roads that your car does. My "carbon-footprint" is carbon-dioxide and occasionally methane. Your mode of transportation is allegedly so bad that according to the enviro-wackos, you will destroy the entire planet just by idling your car. At the very least, some Mullah in the M.E. thanks you for your transportation choice.
I also see another issue that comes up - apparently it isn't some horrible thing if a person commutes to work on their bicycle, but once the spandex comes on, that same cyclist is transformed into a "yuppie" or a "homosexual" that (by some who I have read here) only deserve to "be shot" or "run off the road".
Lets say that I want to ride 50 miles for recreation. At my weight class, thats a lot of calories shed which is supposed to make me healthier. In this new political environment, where my personal health is now of government interest, I would think that the occupant in the car shoving a Big Mac down their throat as they are whizzing past me would be a larger burden on society than me, who is reducing my chances of requiring medical services (unless that driver shoots me or tries to run me off the road).
Furthermore, why is my recreation "evil" and "selfish" when that Big Mac eater was heading off to watch a movie? We are both using the road, ultimately to satisfy our own recreation. Why is the movie-goer consuming road-space noble, and the cyclist using a tiny fraction of the same road the epitome of all that is wrong with the world?
Most of us learned as kids to not ride bikes on the sidewalks, but these adult "children" are pitching their little spandex hissy fits to have their way
So we pay more per mile in "road taxes", do less harm to the environment, work to reduce the taxpayer's costs in long term healthcare, consume far less road-space, far less likely to kill someone with our transportation choice but once we wear appropriate sports related gear we are transformed from "adults" into "children". No bigotry here. (sigh)
Sorry you don’t like our silly little spandex outfits. I personally wear spandex because it works. It’s skin tight to wick moisture away from the skin where it is evaporated by the breeze produced by riding which keeps me cool. Sure I could wear loose clothing and let the sweat pool beneath it and bake, but why the hell would I?
Yeah right, now I’m a bully. This thread just keeps getting sillier and sillier.
(pssst — please don’t tell the bike haters about the nearly continuous orgasm that results from the constant rubbing of the crotch pad on the groin area — or next thing you know, they’ll all be buying bike shorts to wear under their coveralls and drive up the price of spandex. — thx)
I suspect that you pay more in road use taxes each year than I do while driving fewer miles. Believe me, I'm down with that. It's your choice. If you don't want to pay those taxes/fees, buy a bike and use it, get some manual transmission vehicles, whatever. Complaining about bicycles not being taxed without complaining about pedestrians doing same is lame.
I've always wanted to park my car/truck next to my desk. At least one building that I worked in had elevators specifically designed to be able to lift vehicles to any floor. Unfortunately, the desks/cubes were too closely spaced.
lol, now that’s just funny.
It’s the shape of the seat. Kinda like riding a horse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.