Colorado: new bicycle bill passes

http://durangoherald.com/asp-bin/art...ws050226_4.htm
By George Lurie
Herald Denver Bureau Chief

DENVER - Lawmakers in the state House on Friday passed HB 1218 - the
so-called "Bicycle Bill" - by a vote of 41 to 21.

The bill was introduced by state Rep. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, and now moves on
to the Senate. If passed, the law would allow bicyclists to ride two abreast
in certain situations, signal a right turn with a horizontal motion of their
right arm, and to ride through pedestrian crosswalks.

State Rep. Matt Knoedler, R-Lakewood, who supports the legislation, said:
"This is a common-sense bill and establishes common-sense liability issues."

But state Rep. Mark Larson, R-Cortez, who voted against the bill, believes
the legislation would put bicyclists at risk.

"This is going to expose many bicycle riders to unnecessary danger," said
Larson. "The intentions behind this bill are good, and we tried to amend it
in committee. But if passed this bill begins to encroach on motor-vehicle
laws and will have the unintended consequence of giving false confidence to
cyclists."

Forget about new laws for cyclist. How about harsher punishment for all the
drivers of motor vehicles who endanger / hurt / kill bike riders! Like
mandatory prison time for any accident involving a cyclist!

Ken

--
More of my mind dribblings: http://mind-dribble.blogspot.com/

Ken Marcet writes:

http://tinyurl.com/6a4dz

So? How about some details. What does the "Bicycle Bill" provide?
That article contains no more than what you cited and gives no idea
what the bill contains.

Jobst Brandt

"Ken Marcet" wrote in message
...

"This is going to expose many bicycle riders to unnecessary danger," said
Larson. "The intentions behind this bill are good, and we tried to amend
it
in committee. But if passed this bill begins to encroach on motor-vehicle
laws and will have the unintended consequence of giving false confidence
to
cyclists."


Makes me wonder how we cyclists who live in places where it is entirely
legal to be on the road & cycle two-abreast manage to survive ;-)

Cheers, helen s



Forget about new laws for cyclist. How about harsher punishment for all
the
drivers of motor vehicles who endanger / hurt / kill bike riders! Like
mandatory prison time for any accident involving a cyclist!

Ken

--
More of my mind dribblings: http://mind-dribble.blogspot.com/

Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:10:40 -0500, ,
"Ken Marcet" wrote:

Forget about new laws for cyclist. How about harsher punishment for all the
drivers of motor vehicles who endanger / hurt / kill bike riders! Like
mandatory prison time for any accident involving a cyclist!

Absolutely, in cases where they're proved at fault.

And permanent loss of their driving privileges.

And wearing a bracelet so the terms of their punishment can be
monitored and enforced after/ if they survive mandatory prison time.
HURT THEM WHERE IT HURTS!

There is no public will for the proper enforcement as most cops,
jurors and judges are cagers who don't want to be similarly punished
for their own transgressions.

I'd rather witness public crucifixions and impalements of those killer
scud scum than ever see another roadside shine for a dead pedestrian.
--
zk

"Ken Marcet" wrote
DENVER - Lawmakers in the state House on Friday passed HB 1218 - the
so-called "Bicycle Bill" - by a vote of 41 to 21.

The bill was introduced by state Rep. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, and now moves
on
to the Senate. If passed, the law would allow bicyclists to ride two
abreast
in certain situations, signal a right turn with a horizontal motion of
their
right arm, and to ride through pedestrian crosswalks.

State Rep. Matt Knoedler, R-Lakewood, who supports the legislation, said:
"This is a common-sense bill and establishes common-sense liability
issues."

But state Rep. Mark Larson, R-Cortez, who voted against the bill, believes
the legislation would put bicyclists at risk.

"This is going to expose many bicycle riders to unnecessary danger," said
Larson. "The intentions behind this bill are good, and we tried to amend
it
in committee. But if passed this bill begins to encroach on motor-vehicle
laws and will have the unintended consequence of giving false confidence
to
cyclists."

Forget about new laws for cyclist. How about harsher punishment for all
the
drivers of motor vehicles who endanger / hurt / kill bike riders! Like
mandatory prison time for any accident involving a cyclist!

Ken

I thought Colorado already allowed cyclists to ride two abreast when no
motor vehicle traffic was present. What's changed here and how does the new
law make things better?

I've never in my life signalled a right turn with either arm while cycling
(except for two brief trips to the UK and Ireland). I've always felt that I
was better off letting other vehicle operators think I was going straight
through an intersection. How is this new law going to make my life any
better?

AIUI, Colorado law allows cyclists to cycle on the sidewalk provided they
walk the bicycle through crosswalks. Cyclists who walk their bicycles
through crosswalks have the same priority over motor vehicle traffic as
pedestrians. Cyclists who don't want to walk their bikes through crosswalks
can ride in the street, in which case they are treated as vehicles and have
the same rights and responsiblities as motor vehicle operators. IMO,
allowing sidewalk cyclists to cycle through crosswalks would make life
dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists would be more likely to enter
crosswalks too fast for motorists to see them and stop in time. Allowing
sidewalk cyclists to ride through pedestrian crosswalks strikes me as a good
way to get people hurt.

It's real nice of my state legislature to think about bicycles for a change,
but I'm a little dubious about what this new law is supposed to accomplish.
Cycling laws in Colorado are already pretty well written, and I'd like to
see more cyclists obeying the laws we already have.
--
mark

Jobst asks:

So? How about some details. What does the "Bicycle Bill" provide?

Current law in Colorado requires bicyclists to ride single file when an
automobile is within 300 feet of the cyclists, even if the car is in
the approaching lane and even if you're riding in a 10 foot shoulder.
The proposed law requires only that bicyclists ride single file if they
would otherwise impede motor vehicle traffic.

Current law requires using only the left arm to signal. New law will
allow use of right arm.

Current law gives sidewalk cyclists all the rights and duties of
pedestrians, with the additional proviso that cyclists must dismount at
all crosswalks. Currently, it's an automatic ticket for the
pedestrian-on-bike, no matter how careless the motorist is. I'm a road
cyclist, but it's still a rotten situation. New law will remove the
dismount requirement, requiring only the sidewalk cyclists not dart in
front of traffic -- same as pedestrians.

More details at http://www.bicyclecolorado.org/

The people who voted against the bill did so because it would require
motorists to -- get this -- actually look where they're going when they
turn across an intersection. Strange concept, I know.

RFM

mark wrote:

I've always felt that I
was better off letting other vehicle operators think I was going straight
through an intersection.

That's rude. Why hold the vehicle operator's up when it's unnecessary?
It will only make them dislike bicyclists, which can hardly be helpful
for us.

Rich

mark wrote:

I've never in my life signalled a right turn with either arm while
cycling
(except for two brief trips to the UK and Ireland). I've always felt
that I
was better off letting other vehicle operators think I was going
straight
through an intersection. How is this new law going to make my life
any
better?

I frequently signal right turns. I figure it just lubricates the
traffic machinery, so to speak. In particular, I'll _always_ signal my
right turn if there's a motorist sitting at the right stop sign, who
could get out sooner if he knew I was turning. Why not help him out?

And I like the right arm signal, especially in that situation. The
"left arm crooked upward" signal for a right turn is much less clear -
and is even worse when viewed from the front. (Although I'll use the
old style signal if communicating with a car who's more likely to see
my left arm.)

28 Feb 2005 20:03:40 -0800,
.com,
wrote:

I frequently signal right turns. I figure it just lubricates the
traffic machinery, so to speak. In particular, I'll _always_ signal my
right turn if there's a motorist sitting at the right stop sign, who
could get out sooner if he knew I was turning. Why not help him out?

And I like the right arm signal, especially in that situation.
\snip

Yep, and a head signal encourages them and helps get the message
across. It does expedite matters and drivers seem to appreciate it.
--
zk

"Zoot Katz" wrote ,
,
wrote:

I frequently signal right turns. I figure it just lubricates the
traffic machinery, so to speak. In particular, I'll _always_ signal my
right turn if there's a motorist sitting at the right stop sign, who
could get out sooner if he knew I was turning. Why not help him out?

And I like the right arm signal, especially in that situation.
\snip

Yep, and a head signal encourages them and helps get the message
across. It does expedite matters and drivers seem to appreciate it.
--
zk

Sounds like I need to reconsider my position on right turn signals.
--
mark