Radio Interview re Colorado Bicycling Ban



C

Colorado Bicycler

Guest
http://tinyurl.com/cnbjs

Turm your speakers up and check out this link to Colorado Public Radio.
There is a recorded interview on December 16th with the chief of the
CSP and the head of Bicycle Colorado.
 
F

Fritz M

Guest
Colorado Bicycler wrote:

> Turm your speakers up and check out this link to Colorado Public Radio.
> There is a recorded interview on December 16th with the chief of the
> CSP and the head of Bicycle Colorado.


I can't believe Mark Trostel is holding to his "safety" rationale, even
while explaining in this interview that the events are not unsafe, but
that his concern was that these events are impeding motorist traffic.

Good quote from Trostel: "Putting troopers on bicycles is an
interesting idea and something we can look at."

Trostel says he gets inundated with complaints during bicycling events.
I say cyclists need to inundate the CSP with complaints about the
number of cars on the road.

RFM
http://www.cyclelicio.us/
 
C

Colorado Bicycler

Guest
Trostel has lost a lot of "face." This is generally a very pro
bicycling state. Many legislators bicycle.

I think this whole episode will end up advantageous to bicyclers and
motorists.

There is and has been a need to give more thought and planning on some
of these issues. This may provide the impetus.

I believe he was absolutely unawares of the strength of the bicycling
community, and this will definitely raise his "awareness."
 
M

Mike Kruger

Guest
"Colorado Bicycler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Trostel has lost a lot of "face." This is generally a very pro
> bicycling state. Many legislators bicycle.
>
> I think this whole episode will end up advantageous to bicyclers and
> motorists.
>
> There is and has been a need to give more thought and planning on some
> of these issues. This may provide the impetus.
>
> I believe he was absolutely unawares of the strength of the bicycling
> community, and this will definitely raise his "awareness."
>

As a non-Coloradan hearing Trostel for the first time, he sounded reasonably
sincere for somebody who runs a government agency. I'm sure he DOES get a
lot of complaints about these rides from motorists who don't like being
inconvenienced in the slightest.
 
C

Colorado Bicycler

Guest
>As a non-Coloradan hearing Trostel for the first time, he sounded reasonably
sincere for somebody who runs a government agency. I'm sure he DOES
get a
lot of complaints about these rides from motorists who don't like being

inconvenienced in the slightest.

Well, if I was a motorist on a narrow mountian road tryin to get
somewhere for a meeting or whatever, and in order to do that I needed
to pass over 2,000 bicyclists and a whole horde of support vehicles
(many folks bring their RV's, driven by wifes or relatives, plus
support trucks and whatever) in order to get there, I might be a bit
frustrated.

One of the problems in Colorado is that due to our mountains and
passes, there are few alternative roads available. For example, there
are only 4 roads west from Denverthat would get you to the western side
of the state, and one of these, Trailridge Road, is closed due to snow
all winter and att imes even in summer, and is through a National Park.
The other three - US 6 - and I-40 through Steamboat, I-70 through
Dillon/Frisco and US 285 through Fairplay and South Park are extremely
busy. Similarly, roads between mountain towns are similarly situated,
so often a motorist (or bicyclist has no or limited options.

And, in my experience, some of the bicyclists totally disregard the
"rules of the road" and motorists are rightly irritated. Of course,
motorists do the same thing, irritating (rightly so) the bicyclists.

Remember, Colorado has

* Ride the Rockies
* Bicycle Tour of Colorado
* Pedal the Peaks
* MS 150
* Challenge Classic
* This year the Livestrong ride
* Triple Bypass
* Elephant Rock
* and numerous other large rides/centuries travevling through the
mountains and front range during the summer.
 
M

mark

Guest
"Mike Kruger" wrote

> As a non-Coloradan hearing Trostel for the first time, he sounded
> reasonably sincere for somebody who runs a government agency. I'm sure he
> DOES get a lot of complaints about these rides from motorists who don't
> like being inconvenienced in the slightest.
>
>


Living in a small town on the route of the Triple Bypass I hear a fair bit
of grumbling when that event comes to town. As I said in an earlier post,
having the police hold up traffic so I could fly through every roundabout in
Vail at 20+ mph unobstructed was great fun, but I'm not sure how fair it
really was to local residents trying to go about their business.

I find it interesting that noone mentioned the cyclist who was run over and
seriously injured by a Triple Bypass participant last July. The Triple
Bypass riders involved in that incident weren't just riding two abreast as
the interview said, they were spread across both lanes of a narrow,
shoulderless two lane road. I saw a fair bit of that kind of behavior in
this year's Triple, enough to make me sympathize with the idea of tighter
police control of these events.

Dan Grunig (Bicycle Colorado) said that cyclists on these rides who break
traffic laws should be cited. In order for that to happen, there have to be
enough police officers around to monitor the entire group of riders, or a
certain minimum ratio of police officers to cyclists. Since there is a limit
to how many police officers can be found to work at a given event, it stands
to reason that there should be a limit to how many cyclists can ride in
those events.
--
mark
 
C

Colorado Bicycler

Guest
>Since there is a limit
>to how many police officers can be found to work at a given event, it stands
>to reason that there should be a limit to how many cyclists can ride in
>those events.


There may be a limit on CSP officers (??), but there certainly is not a
limit on privately hired security or other alternatives that can be
explored. I see that as the major purpose of these negotiostions.

>I find it interesting that noone mentioned the cyclist who was run over and
>seriously injured by a Triple Bypass participant last July.


I think the issue was vehicle(car/truck)<>bicycle crashes, not
bicycle<>bicycle crashes.

There also was a lady killed in the Elephant Rock a few years back -
but again it was not a vehicle (car) crash.

I have head that many years ago a bicycler on the RTR rode head on into
a truck near Alamosa and was killed - but this was totally the
bicyclist's fault.

On the Santa Fe Century, 2 yrs ago, a man was getting his bike off his
car while standing at the rear of the vehicle, and a lady in the car
behind him put her car accidentally in forward and crushed his legs.
 
L

lowkey

Guest
"mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "Mike Kruger" wrote
>
>> As a non-Coloradan hearing Trostel for the first time, he sounded
>> reasonably sincere for somebody who runs a government agency.


Faint praise indeed. :) Though I do agree.

> >I'm sure he DOES get a lot of complaints about these rides from motorists
> >who don't like being inconvenienced in the slightest.
>>
>>

>
> Living in a small town on the route of the Triple Bypass I hear a fair bit
> of grumbling when that event comes to town. As I said in an earlier post,
> having the police hold up traffic so I could fly through every roundabout
> in Vail at 20+ mph unobstructed was great fun, but I'm not sure how fair
> it really was to local residents trying to go about their business.


How different, really, is it from other events? Marathons, parades, even
permitted demonstrations? Any thing of that size is an organized event, not
a spontaneous pelaton.

Putting a arbitrary size limit seems like a non-solution. People who are
annoyed by the inconvenience will still be annoyed. The only thing that
would un-annoy them would be to eliminate group rides entirely.

Which brings me back to the first observation: Do they have an arbitrary
size limit on marathons and parades?
 
F

Fritz M

Guest
mark wrote:

> Dan Grunig (Bicycle Colorado) said that cyclists on these rides who break
> traffic laws should be cited. In order for that to happen, there have to be
> enough police officers around to monitor the entire group of riders, or a
> certain minimum ratio of police officers to cyclists. Since there is a limit
> to how many police officers can be found to work at a given event, it stands
> to reason that there should be a limit to how many cyclists can ride in
> those events.


The lack of police has never led to any calls to limit the number of
motorists on a highway, even when a great many of the motorists are
breaking the law. Why should it be different for cyclists?

RFM
http://www.cyclelicio.us/
 
B

Bob

Guest
Fritz M wrote:
> mark wrote:
>
> > Dan Grunig (Bicycle Colorado) said that cyclists on these rides who break
> > traffic laws should be cited. In order for that to happen, there have to be
> > enough police officers around to monitor the entire group of riders, or a
> > certain minimum ratio of police officers to cyclists. Since there is a limit
> > to how many police officers can be found to work at a given event, it stands
> > to reason that there should be a limit to how many cyclists can ride in
> > those events.

>
> The lack of police has never led to any calls to limit the number of
> motorists on a highway, even when a great many of the motorists are
> breaking the law. Why should it be different for cyclists?



The rides in question are special events and demand special
consideration in the form of road closings and being granted the right
of way over other traffic. It isn't about what kind of vehicle the
participants are using. It's about those special considerations.

Regards,
Bob Hunt
 
C

Colorado Bicycler

Guest
>How different, really, is it from other events? Marathons, parades, even
permitted demonstrations? Any thing of that size is an organized event,
not
a spontaneous pelaton.

Putting a arbitrary size limit seems like a non-solution. People who
are
annoyed by the inconvenience will still be annoyed. The only thing that

would un-annoy them would be to eliminate group rides entirely.


Which brings me back to the first observation: Do they have an
arbitrary
size limit on marathons and parades?
===========================
The State Patrol doesn't seem to get much involved with parades and
demonstrations in Colorado, as they seem to occur within city limits,
where the CSP does not have jurisdiction.

I don't know about marathons. Around here, they seem to be mostly run
on our trail systems - perhaps they use roads, but I have never
observed them on state highways.

I agree that arbitrary size-limits ar not a solution. I don't think
that you are ever going to "un-annoy" folks. But, given proper
publicity, perhaps better planning, better education of bicyclists and
motorists and perhaps better policing of both errant bicyclists and
motorists, the situation might be a lot better.
 
T

The Wogster

Guest
Bob wrote:
> Fritz M wrote:
>
>>mark wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dan Grunig (Bicycle Colorado) said that cyclists on these rides who break
>>>traffic laws should be cited. In order for that to happen, there have to be
>>>enough police officers around to monitor the entire group of riders, or a
>>>certain minimum ratio of police officers to cyclists. Since there is a limit
>>>to how many police officers can be found to work at a given event, it stands
>>>to reason that there should be a limit to how many cyclists can ride in
>>>those events.

>>
>>The lack of police has never led to any calls to limit the number of
>>motorists on a highway, even when a great many of the motorists are
>>breaking the law. Why should it be different for cyclists?

>
>
>
> The rides in question are special events and demand special
> consideration in the form of road closings and being granted the right
> of way over other traffic. It isn't about what kind of vehicle the
> participants are using. It's about those special considerations.
>


It's also about the thousands of dollars of extra revenue brought to
local businesses. A 2500 person ride, means over $250,000 brought into
the local economy, possibly $1,000,000 or more..... It means extra
staff at hotels and restaurants, extra security needed, it means anyone
who wants to work, can work, over the life of the event.

W
 
F

Fritz M

Guest
Bob wrote:

> The rides in question are special events and demand special
> consideration in the form of road closings and being granted the right
> of way over other traffic.


ROW, perhaps, although the organized bike events I've been in I'm
expected to obey traffic laws. That includes stopping at stop signs and
red lights, signalling turns and so forth. I and most participants I
ride with more-or-less obey the signs and grant ROW where we're legally
required to. Exceptions are typically near the start and end of the
ride, where police might be on hand to help direct traffic.

Road closings -- since when?? They don't close roads in Illinois for
most organized bike rides, do they? These are charity rides we're
talking about, not closed-course pro races.

Large groups taking up a lane can be a problem, but more common is an
endless stream of cyclists riding along the the right of the road,
giving little opportunity for motorists to overtake.

RFM