Cyclist rights bill among 7 signed by Ritter
Denver Post staff and wire reports
Posted: 05/11/2009 06:55:41 PM MDT
COLORADO SPRINGS — Gov. Bill Ritter signed a bill today aimed at protecting the rights of cyclists.
The measure, Senate Bill 148, requires that drivers give cyclists at least 3 feet of space when passing or risk a $110 ticket.
Anyone who throws an object at a cyclist could be charged with a class 2 misdemeanor. That carries a fine of between $250 and $1,000 and a possible sentence of three to 12 months in jail.
The bill was sponsored by a bipartisan pair of avid cyclists — Republican Sen. Greg Brophy and Democratic Rep. Mike Merrifield. It will take effect Aug. 5.
What the bill would do
Passing
The bill gives motorists freedom to pass a bicyclist by crossing the centerline when safe to do so. The bill would mandate a three-foot passing distance around cyclists.
Lane position
Cyclists would be able to ride as far to the right as safe. Before, cyclists were required to ride as far right as possible. On one-way roads with more than one lane, bicyclists may also ride as far left as is safe.
Two-abreast
The bill clarifies that bicyclists may pass one another or ride side-by-side if they are not impeding the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
Language in the bill makes throwing an object toward a bicyclist a class-two misdemeanor and driving toward a bicyclist in a dangerous manner a careless-driving offense.
Source: Bicycle Colorado and SB 148
Boulder sheriff decries ‘bicycle safety’ bill approval
Colorado Daily
By Heath Urie
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 BOULDER, Colo. — A bill that clarifies cyclists’ rights and seeks to better protect them from aggressive drivers has been approved by the Colorado Legislature and is headed to Gov. Bill Ritter’s desk for a final decision.
But Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle says the bill “goes too far” and warns that there could be trouble if Ritter gives the bill the go-ahead.
Senate Bill 148, also known as the Bicycle Safety Bill, would make major changes to how drivers and cyclists share the road. It passed both the state House and Senate on Monday, tallying final votes of 57-7 and 29-6, respectively.
Provisions of the bill would require drivers to give cyclists at least three feet of space when passing, allow vehicles to cross double-yellow lines to pass riders safely and allow cyclists to ride two abreast as long as they don’t impede the normal flow of traffic.
But while bicycle advocates are celebrating the victory and anticipating a final approval by the governor, the Boulder County sheriff said Tuesday that the law would make cyclists virtually immune to prosecution.
“It will be very difficult or impossible to enforce anything against the cyclists,” Pelle said.
He said language that allows cyclists to ride in the middle of mountain roads or two-abreast, for example, could lead to increased conflict between riders and drivers.
“There’s really nothing now that requires them (cyclists) to yield or move over,” Pelle said. “This bill gives them full access to the road.”
On the county’s open highways, he said, cyclists would not be required to use the special shoulders added specifically to separate riders from traffic.
“Under the old statutes, if a bicycle lane or bicycle path was provided, cyclists were required to use it — and now they’re not” if the bill passes, Pelle said. “Boulder County spent million to build bike lanes.”
He said he hopes that most riders will continue to use the designated lanes as a matter of safety.
“There has to be accountability and common sense on both the drivers’ and the cyclists’ part,” he said.
While cyclists should be given a three-foot-wide berth while passing, as the bill would require, the rest of the proposed law gives cyclists “carte blanche,” he said.
The bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, said Pelle’s concerns are unfounded.
“You can ride two-abreast as long as you’re not impeding the normal flow of traffic,” Brophy said. “It goes to show we need to educate law-enforcement officers along the lines of what the cycling statues say and don’t say.”
Donald Cicchillo, president of the Boulder Cycling Club, said he thinks most riders will use common sense and not take advantage of the law.
“The reality is that it’s safer to be over on the right in the bike lane,” Cicchillo said. “I don’t think it’s going to cause people to be less courteous.”
Dan Grunig, executive director of Bicycle Colorado, called the statehouse approval “a victory for everyone who wants safer roads in Colorado.”
“It’s been a long time coming,” Grunig said. “It gives real clear guidance” about how drivers are to treat cyclists on the roads.
It’s about damn time! My husband and I have cycled almost fifteen thousand miles across fourteen states and you know who had the worst drivers? California, Colorado and Missouri, in that order. I’ve heard Florida is pretty bad too.
I actually had an emotional breakdown on Highway 9 between Frisco and Kremmling because the drivers were being such a-holes and I really thought I wasn’t going to survive to see my granddaughter grow up.
I don’t understand the animosity some drivers have for cyclists or their impatience and stupidity. I’m pedaling my buns off doing something good for my body and the planet and they can’t wait five seconds for the traffic in the opposing lane to clear before they pass, so they try to squeeze between me and the yellow line. I’ve had to ditch off the road numerous times in that situation to avoid being hit. In fact, if it weren’t for the fact that my husband and I use rear view mirrors so we know when to bail out, we’d be dead now.
The new law may not prevent drivers from endangering my life, yelling obscenities or throwing full beer cans at me, but now I can get them ticketed and possibly jailed for it. I can’t even express how satisfying that is.
I have been hit twice by cars while riding bikes. My experiences are similar. Drivers that also ride such as my self and probably those that ride motorcycles are MUCH more likely to pass you safely than those who don’t. Since it is unlikely that a cyclist can cause an appreciable threat to car driver safety relative to car drivers being an appreciable threat to the safety of a bicyclist, there seems to be very little interest by car drivers to be careful around those riding bicycles. Besides legal nuisances to car drivers, cyclists are seen as traffic obstructions, not as threats to safety.
I was NEVER able to legally go after the people who hit me. Getting a license plate number while bouncing on the pavement is extremely difficult.
Wow! I guess I’m fortunate to have not been hit. That’s where my mirror comes in handy. Cyclists must be ever vigilant for negligent, ignorant and belligerent drivers approaching from behind. My husband and I ride together, so we have two witnesses to report infractions, and if one of us gets hit, the other can take down the license plate number.
You know what else is scary? When a driver going the opposite direction as you passes a car in the oncoming lane. Nothing like having two tons of steel hurtling straight at you at 75mph.
My husband and I have had so many bad experiences while touring that we were constantly complaining to each other how bad the drivers were. In order to relax and enjoy the trip we finally came up with the phrase; “You can’t complain unless they hit you!”
Last summer I was driving my truck behind a car who was buzzing by cyclists with barely a foot of distance on CR 100 in Carbondale. I honked at the driver and gestured for him to pull over so I could talk to him about bicycle safety. Of course he wouldn’t pull over. So I followed him home. When the old man stepped out of his car I approached him and told him he had to give cyclists more room when passing. He told me he didn’t have to give them anything, they shouldn’t even be on the road. I told him under the law cyclists are vehicles and have to obey the traffic laws, as well as being treated like a slow moving vehicle by drivers. Well, he got pretty irate and came just short of striking me. I told him since he wouldn’t listen to me I’d send a police officer over to educate him, which I did. That probably just pissed him off more and made it worse on cyclists the next time he encountered them.
See, with the new law I would’ve been able to get the cop to give him a ticket. Bet that would’ve changed his driving habits in the future.
The only hurdle we have now is educating the cops about the law. Many of them are completely ignorant of bicycle laws. Boy could I tell you some stories there! I plan to keep a copy of the new Colorado law on me when I ride, so there will be no dispute who is in the wrong when a situation arises.
Proving a legal point has to increase the possibility of becoming crow pecked road kill. Cops on bikes are much more responsive, than the doughnut tire and doughnut eating cops, at least back East. The people here are generally more reasonable, if there is a safety issue, cycling or not. Back East, the attitude is get that carcass outta my way! You got what you deserved. Not one person stopped. I use bike paths whenever I can, car drivers of the sort you describe are able to get away with 1st degree murder. If that jackass had killed someone one would have to consider that he CHOSE to create a situation where someones life could have been extinguished, when he could at no cost to his personal convenience virtually eliminated that possibility. I have been exposed to those types too. If they faced exceptionally severe consequences, even if they still didn’t care about you or your safety they would care about their own well being/inconvenience.
I understand how hard it is pushing yourself up a hill in the heat of a day. I understand how tough it is to get going again if you have stop. I understand that if your on a road bike then you can’t ride on the shoulder or on the side on the road. I understand how frustrating it is when people drive too close to you. But a the same time we don’t care. All of this you are choosing for yourself. Why should all drivers suffer with cyclist? Roads are engineered for cars to travel as efficient as possible, but now they are becoming giant bike paths. Congratulations! Why can’t you just ride your bikes on bike paths/ trails or on roads that you can keep up with the speed limit or off to the side of roads? And don’t even for a second tell me your helping the planet by riding for recreational purposes. If your talking about using your bike as transportation then you are helping the planet. I bike around town and on trails all the time and never have problem. If you bike around the world why not do it off to the side of the road on a mountain bike. It would take you longer, but since you don’t mind delaying everyone else and talk about their lack of patient, I’m sure you wouldn’t mind being delayed and showing patients. Slow down, have patients, that what cyclist wine about, but at the same time refuse to do.
I ride both recreationally and for transportation, but also for vacation adventures. My worst experiences have not been around here on recreational or commuting rides, but while bicycle touring around the country for up to three months at a time.
You can’t tell me that being on a bike instead of a car for three months isn’t helping the planet. Our carbon footprint drops nearly to zero when we’re bike touring. Those who drive the behemoth RVs on vacation are the antithesis of us cycle tourists, and not surprisingly, some of the worst offenders when it comes to passing cyclists. Those side mirrors alone are real hazards!
Sure it would be great to be able to ride only bike paths and dirt trails 4200 miles across America, but that isn’t currently an option. So, we are forced to share the road.
But part of bike touring for us is meeting the people of our country (and soon, other countries). So we don’t really want to bypass all of the little towns along the way. We’ve had many wonderful encounters with people on the backroads of America in Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, the Dakotas, etc. Multiple month bicycle touring allows us to slow down and really experience the land and the people.
Ed is right, some people care more about the few seconds they will lose than the life that could be lost by their impatience and carelessness. I’m always amazed at the audacity of drivers putting my life at risk, just so they don’t have to lift their foot off the gas pedal. For Christ’s sake!
Frankly Nathan I’m shocked that someone such as yourself, who seems to have so much compassion for the people of this earth, would display such a callous attitude toward your bicycle commuting neighbors.
Please everyone, try to have a little compassion for those of us who choose alternative transportation. With the way things are going, we may ALL be forced into self-propelled travel in the not so distant future.
Yes, I can tell you that riding your bike around the country doesn’t do anything for the planet. You’re comparing cycling as a recreational activity to driving a car, but I’m saying the trip isn’t a necessity. Through your logic, you’re helping the environment by not harming it. That doesn’t make sense. Helping is doing something that’s positive, not just being environmentally neutral. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not doubting your environmental conciseness or against cyclist. I just think it unreasonable to expect roads, that are designed for cars, to be used by bikes despite the clear conflicts it causes. There are laws against having a vehicle under 50cc and goes less than 30mph on highways and interstates. If laws have to be enforced, I want this law to be enforced on cyclists. Cars have their purpose and so do bikes. I wish more people, including myself, used bike as transportation when we can. That however, doesn’t mean they should be able to use roads when they can’t obey traffic laws. It is unsafe and unnecessary. Like I said, if you want to ride around the country then do it on the shoulder or where you can keep up with traffic. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask you not to ride off to the side of the road even if it’s slower on a mountain bike. Traffic should obey traffic laws. The whole three feet thing should either be a traffic law for all traffic or not a law at all.
You’re right, the trip isn’t a necessity. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t actively helping the environment. I look at it sort of like fasting. You’re not actively doing something FOR the planet, you’re actively NOT doing something to harm it.
My husband and I own a car, which sits idle for the entire time we’re out on our bikes. That’s two people creating zero emissions for one quarter of the year. And we’re mostly camping and cooking our own meals with very little clean burning fuel. No TV, no radio, no daily computer use, no gasoline, no oil, almost no electricity. Just water, a little food and a lot of muscle and stamina. That’s living close to the earth.
The unfortunate thing is that we have to share the road – the only real road any of us have actually – with the gas guzzling, fume belching, lane hogging ignorant masses.
You’re argument is:
1. That roads were built for cars
2. That bicycles can’t comply with the minimum speed limit laws.
So my argument is, that needs to change.
1. Roads need to be built to accommodate bikes
2. Laws need to change to accommodate bikes
Nathan, we DO ride on the shoulder wherever possible, use bike lanes and bike paths, ride backroads instead of main routes, and we DO obey all traffic laws as they pertain to vehicles, EXCEPT of course, the minimum speed limit. However, there are other vehicles besides bikes that violate the min. speed, like Amish carts and farm tractors. Would you pass either of these with oncoming traffic or within less than three feet?
I agree the three feet passing law should pertain to ANY vehicle, not just bicycles.
And finally, the roads were not built for cars. After all, there were roads long before Ford came along with his horseless carriage. Roads are built for transportation. In America, which mode of transportation I choose is supported by the pursuit of happiness clause in the Declaration of Independence, and thankfully, increasingly protected by legislation such as Colorado’s Bicycle Safety Law.
And yes, drivers have a choice too: whether to have compassion for the cyclist and share the road willingly, simply obey the law for the law’s sake, or ignore both empathy and justice and risk taking the life of a fellow human (or at the very least: pay a $110 fine).
Remember though, every cyclist out there – IN YOUR WAY – is someone’s son, daughter, sister, brother, father, mother, grandparent; who could be affected by your choice to risk their life just to avoid adding ten seconds to your commute.
The new law is meant to lessen that risk for the very vulnerable cyclist. But, regardless of any law…as the driver of the two ton goliath, it’s still your choice.
In both case when I was hit I was an urban core bicycling commuter, working for an environmental 501C-3 and autonomously linked 501C-4. The bicycle is the most mechanically efficient mode of land based transportation for moving people, period. The carbon footprint from riding is even lower than simple walking.
There are a lot of unecessary motorists on the roads, sometimes I am one of them. I have used my bikes for commuting and recreation. If the destination is within a range of comfort the expense, insurance, health, environmental factor, near severance from Big Greedy Oil, the freedom of the wind you generate in your face, the intimacy with the weather and physical environment, surpass anything a car can provide.
For personal safety reasons, I never choose to share a road with motor vehicles, if there is a reasonable alternative, and by the way that never includes a sidewalk. I would never think of pedaling down an interstate, even if the law allowed it, unless there was absolutely no other alternative. Are there cyclists who choose to risk personal safety in an extreme manner to “prove a point?” Of course, and I don’t like what they do either (like riding in the left part of the lane or 2 abreast) and they should be castigated, fined or otherwise penalised, but not killed through vehicular vigilantism.
A $110 fine is dirt compared to a life, especially when one realises that not all witnesses care. So Nathan, I ask; what should a commuting cyclist do (a teen who is going to his/her first job for example), when there is nothing but a shoulderless county highway? Not trying to be mean, but if you have a solution, I would love to have it, and spread it around for cyclist safety and to reduce the annoyance/perceived inconvenience of some motorists.
I want all to know, I reserve venom towards those who refuse information, solutions or are just downright phoney. Somehow Nathan, I don’t see you that way.
I blog for three reasons entertainment, knowledge, and teaching. These blogs were based one the first reason, entertainment. The truth is that this whole bike on roads thing isn’t even close to an issue to me. I respect cyclist and even bike myself. I can see that this is a passionate issue for you two and probably many more. Despite my passion towards this issue, I did take the time to come up with some solutions. Unfortunately my solutions are apart of the same solutions I have to solve the rest of the worlds problems. Humility, love, and forgiveness are the solutions. But those are the only real and logical solution for every problem.
Changing motorist minds:
When you bike or even talk about biking, do it with humility. Don’t brag about the great your own environmental conciseness or strength and endurance. Try having a conversation with mentioning something that you are doing or did unless some ask you about it. People your greatness on their own and then it will have even a greater mimicking effect on them. When you boast, people take it as either an attack on them or just see your pride instead the subject of boasting. When your on the road have the humility to know that you and everyone else makes mistakes. And yes sometimes mistakes end in death, but there are worse things then death. Make every conscious effort to make avoid causing any problems for drivers. Forgive everyone that does anything to you weather it was on purpose or not. If your having trouble, just take the time to think of the most embarrassing or assy thing that you’ve ever done to someone. The only time you should comfort someone is when you think they are not unaware of their fault but also think they’re likely to do it again out of ignorance. For example an elderly person who almost hit you and had no clue. Then you should confront them in concern, not anger. This is important. What purpose do you think you are serving when you go and confront someone. The either almost hit you on purpose or made a honest mistake. Ever driver knows what a reasonable distance is to keep away from cyclist even without laws. Whatever the case, confronting them you will either embarrass them and/ or anger them; both will lead to a lesser opinion of cyclist. No one will ever go “Oh my bad, sorry.” and not hold grudge against you/ cyclist for going out of your way to confront them. It may make you feel better, but it doesn’t help. So forgive everyone. If you do all this you will do as much as you can to help motorist respect cyclist.
The Environment and Roads:
As I said before, car have their place/ purpose and so do bikes. Cars are not evil. Motorist are not evil. It is ignorant to believe that we would be able to continue our lifestyle or anything close to it without cars. Roads are engineered for cars. If we want to help the environment by ridding it of cars then great, lets work towards that. We can and should ride our bikes when we can for transportation, but overall bikes can not replace cars. Personal I don’t care about what any laws reads, I try to live my life by common sense and morals. But if you think laws will change anything then go for it, try and change the laws. But the laws are not the problems or solutions. The fact is when you have a road, engineered for a motor vehicle going 65mph, yet allow bikes going 20mph onto that same road, there are going to be safety issues. If you think the solution is paving an extra portion for bike then try and convince enough people to make it happen. But again bike are not a across the board replacement for cars. So that plan may work in town/ cities, but in rural areas it isn’t practical. The fact is that cars need to find a real replacement to help the environment. I know you would like it to be easier and safer to ride a bike across American or the world, but it’s not practical. But isn’t that why you do it in the first place. It’s not practical, it’s a challenge, it’s not always safe, but neither is climbing a mountain. Should we put stairs and hand rails up ever mountain just because some people want to climb it, but don’t think it’s safe? If we had bike path across America it would lose it luster with motivated people like you two. When someone tells me they biked across America I think to myself about the challenges they must have faced while doing such a task. It not just about a long bike ride but also the danger of everything, including drivers.
P.S. Sue,
I still can’t give you this point when you say you’re helping by not hurting. Am I saving lives by not killing?
Well Nathan, your rational arguments make a lot of sense. You’ve given good advice and tried to offer solutions, even if some aren’t practical for our purposes.
I can’t deny that we bike for the adventure, and we have to accept the inherent danger when we undertake the trip. Therefore “we can’t complain unless they hit us.” Close doesn’t count. It does scare the hell out of us and make us angry, but if I couldn’t accept and forgive the rude and ignorant drivers, I wouldn’t even consider touring by bicycle.
But you’re mistaken about people not taking our advice or criticism. I have caught up to drivers who’ve come too close and explained that it scared and endangered us. They admitted they didn’t realize how close they’d come to killing us and sincerely apologized. I believe some drivers are just inattentive or ignorant of the laws of physics. Some are willing to be educated and change their driving behavior. Some are not.
Riding a bike on the roads is a gamble, but it’s one we’re willing to take for the adventure and unparalleled experience. And truth be told, 99% of drivers are courteous and patient. The new bicycle law isn’t for them, it’s for the other 1% whose only motivation to give us three feet might be to avoid getting in trouble with the police. That just might be enough to save a few lives…maybe even ours.
PS Nathan, are you helping the planet when you DON’T buy excessively packaged items? Are you helping when you DON’T throw recyclable material in the land fill? Are you helping when you DON’T turn your thermostat up past 68 or when you DON’T leave the lights on when you’re not in the room? Most of helping the environment isn’t about what you DO, but about what you DON’T do.
I think most people would agree that taking alternative transportation, whether it be the bus to work or using a bike instead of a car to tour the country, is a way of helping the planet. The current Ride Your Bike To Work Week is a good example of an educational campaign to get people to reduce their use of the car. So I don’t see how you can argue that our non-polluting mode of transportation doesn’t help the environment. Like I said before, it reduces our carbon footprint immensely. And isn’t that the goal of every environmentally conscious citizen?
I say put another 20 bucks of fossil fuel into your land yacht and drive to work. Your ownership of environmental consciousness notwithstanding, if there is some ecological crisis that stems from transportation, do you really think we’ll solve the challenges of productivity by replacing cars with rickshaws?
Cheers
Human transportation/productivity hasn’t always relied on fossil fuels, nor will it ever be so. To believe otherwise is folly.
Rickshaw ride anyone? $1.00 a mile.
Written like a true NASCAR fan…
Cheers!