DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Cirrus]

Actually Denver has done better at getting private investments than us. We haven't really tried. Our system has so far been funded by the cities involved.

[glowrock]

Any chance the B-Cycle locations could have a space for pamphlets letting their patrons know what the bicyclists' rules of the road are? I guess it could be really simple, just one line actually. "You notice those bicycle messengers? Do NOTHING that they do, PERIOD."

Aaron (Glowrock)

[bunt_q]

Or do do what they do, and likely die in the attempt. Those fools have crazy skills.

EDIT: Aaron, are you here? Are we going to cobble together a forum meet or something? I vote Amato's, to remind you of what it's like to live in a place with good beer, and lots of options. Sorry, Yuengling's not on the menu. No Shiner products, either.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Any chance the B-Cycle locations could have a space for pamphlets letting their patrons know what the bicyclists' rules of the road are?

Sure, sounds fair to me.

As long as we start pestering drivers with pamphlets about driving laws at entrances to parking lots as well.

Deal?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Sure, sounds fair to me.

As long as we start pestering drivers with pamphlets about driving laws at entrances to parking lots as well.

Deal?

Yes, because that little plastic card in your wallet that says "Drivers License" is just like that other card you have that says "Cyclists License". Both of which mean that you passed both a written and practical test to show your knowledge of the laws, procedures, and operation of differing forms of vehicular transportation.

Oh wait....

[bunt_q]

Sweet, did Cirrus just concede bicycle licensing as a good idea?

The practical should be fun. What're those little two-seater bikes called? Back-seat bicycle test examiner - worst job EVER.

[Cirrus]

Actually I don't object to pamphlets with laws on them. Most city bike maps, including Denver's, have such information.

What I do object to is the silly double-standard myth of the scofflaw cyclist. Cyclists do not break laws with any more frequency than drivers or pedestrians. Hey! Maybe we could start requiring licenses for pedestrians to be allowed to cross the street, too! They're in the right-of-way, after all. Or maybe we should just recognize that lumbering around in a two-ton car at 40 miles an hour is inherently more dangerous than walking or biking, and act with a modicum of common sense.

Anyway, this is the back side of every City of Denver bike map:

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Or maybe we should just recognize that lumbering around in a two-ton car at 40 miles an hour is inherently more dangerous than walking or biking, and act with a modicum of common sense.

2-ton... yeah, that's about right for me. But my lumbering box is bigger than average.

I don't think anybody is denying that cars are inherently more dangerous. Where we differ is on the characterization of bicyclists as not being inherently more dangerous than pedestrians. Bicycling has the unique distinction, I think, of being inherently dangerous to both vehicles and pedestrians.

As such, it wouldn't hurt to post the rules more widely, I don't think. We've seen it here on this forum - bicyclists do have genuinely differing opinions of how to behave properly. There's just no excuse for that. We shouldn't have to debate whether the sidewalk, the right curb, or the right lane is the correct place to be. Yet we do debate that, almost weekly... So maybe scofflaw is the wrong word. How about uninformed?

Your link says this - Cyclists in general know the law better than drivers (although Mike Debonis over at Washington City Paper is unsure about lane-splitting and sidewalk riding. Both are legal Mike). And better than the police even. But the link they use to justify that is a dead link, unfortunately. I remain skeptical. There's too much obvious confusion, even here among cycling advocates, for me to accept that knowledge of the law is greater in cyclists. However, if you believe that, why oppose testing and licensing? True, drivers may not know the law, there are a lot of morons out there. But a drivers license indicates that, at some point, at least, drivers did know enough to pass.

But in times of stretched government, maybe licensing goes too far. So I'd settle for posting information at b-cycle stations. Their entire goal, after all, is to pull uninitiated riders onto their bikes - they want new cyclists, and new cyclists are the most likely to be ignorant of proper cycling etiquette. Seems like a no-brainer.

[Cirrus]

Yes, cyclists have differing opinions about how to behave properly. Just like drivers ("speeding is OK because everybody does it") and pedestrians ("jaywalking is no big deal").

As I said, I don't actually object to the idea of posting rules more widely via pamphlets, classes, or things like that. I only object to certain implications that often (not always) come with such suggestions. Bicyclists may be as bad as drivers when it comes to breaking the law, and that may mean we should try to improve communication of the law to them, but they are not worse, and I will not let people here get away with the mental bias of attacking bikers for something they do themselves every time they get behind the wheel.

[bunt_q]

But drivers know they're breaking the law, they just do it anyways. A calculated risk. Bicyclists really do not know.

Let's do a poll on here. For example...

Is it legal to ride a bicycle on a sidewalk in the City & County of Denver?

(It is illegal to operate a motor vehicle on a sidewalk, I'm pretty sure of that much. )

[Cirrus]

What's your point? For the third time in three posts, I do not object to posting rules more widely. I only object to the notion that bikers are scofflaws.

[bunt_q]

Oh, I know. I am just curious. This was Aaron's fight, after all. (The bike messengers don't help the scofflaw impression any.)

I googled (I thought maybe yes, based on your link... I guess sidewalks are legal in Washington?) But no. It is basically auto rules. The last time we discussed this, I think the discussion got confused into what is and what should be (the discussion re: the Idaho red light law, etc.)



I think the Sunday rule on 16th in interesting, btw. I wonder if that's just because of less frequency on the Mall buses. I am not sure pedestrian traffic is any lower on a Sunday than, say, a Saturday.

[Cirrus]

Sidewalk riding varies state to state and city to city. It is legal in most of Washington.

[bunt_q]

Last question, then I have to get back to being productive. I ask, because I really don't know, and don't feel like googling a Colorado traffic manual.

What is the proper procedure for autos passing bicycles? A full change-lane pass, as you would an auto? Or a same lane pass? I generally assume the former, but on 15th in particular, you see all sorts of things. I'd be scared shitless if I was a bicyclist getting squeeze-passed by an RTD bus, and you see that every single day.

EDIT: I googled. This site - http://www.safe-route.org/laws/passing.php - says this:

Colorado
No law directly on point. Overtaking law, “42-4-1003. Overtaking a vehicle on the left.”, (here) states “The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.” (italics added)

Whoa, seriously vague. Safe distance?

Note to advocates for an Idaho-type bicycle law in Colorado. Forget focusing on the arguments about red lights, that picks too many fights. You should address the overtaking part, and use that as justification for bike lanes, red light-running, etc. etc.

EDIT 2:

Pulled up traffic code, not something I look at every day... There is also this, but it's not as helpful as I would want. Seems to imply the crowding would have to be intentional, or provocative in some way. Doesn't address close passing, I don't think.

42-4-1008.5. Crowding or threatening bicyclist.

(1) The driver of a motor vehicle shall not, in a careless and imprudent manner, drive the vehicle unnecessarily close to, toward, or near a bicyclist.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Last question, then I have to get back to being productive. I ask, because I really don't know, and don't feel like googling a Colorado traffic manual.

What is the proper procedure for autos passing bicycles? A full change-lane pass, as you would an auto? Or a same lane pass? I generally assume the former, but on 15th in particular, you see all sorts of things. I'd be scared shitless if I was a bicyclist getting squeeze-passed by an RTD bus, and you see that every single day.

EDIT: I googled. This site - http://www.safe-route.org/laws/passing.php - says this:

Colorado
No law directly on point. Overtaking law, “42-4-1003. Overtaking a vehicle on the left.”, (here) states “The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.” (italics added)

Whoa, seriously vague. Safe distance?

Note to advocates for an Idaho-type bicycle law in Colorado. Forget focusing on the arguments about red lights, that picks too many fights. You should address the overtaking part, and use that as justification for bike lanes, red light-running, etc. etc.

3 foot law

[bunt_q]

Found it. (2009 bill - I wasn't here, that's why I missed it. That seems to be happening to me a lot lately.)

42-4-1003(1)(b).

Excellent, now I know.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Where is that in the traffic code? Hmm. What a distraction. (see my EDIT 2 above).

Here?

Edit: Not seeing it.

[bunt_q]

I edited before you posted. It's there. In the newest driver's handbook too, I checked.

[Cirrus]

Colorado Revised Statutes 42-4-1003. Overtaking a vehicle on the left.

Most states that don't have three foot passing laws have seen fairly major grassroots pushes to adopt them in recent years. Some states have two-foot laws.

[Elrod]

Originally Posted by 1Post2

Blanket coverage inside a given service area is ideal, even at the expense of the size of the service area, I agree.

For example, I like taking light rail during the day along the central corridor because I know I can walk to any station and the train will arrive within 5 minutes or so. I don't have to care about the schedule. Same with the 15 bus line and the 0 broadway line.

Now, apply that to bike sharing. I'm not going to sit at a computer and plan which station I'm going to bike to each time I'm going to take a trip out of fear that I won't find a destination station. If I have to do that, I'm much less likely to use the system. It's much better to know that I can take a bike on a whim and spot a station just about anywhere if I'm in (very) central denver than to be able to bike over a larger area and have to plan ahead to find a station.

Sorry if I'm just repeating what's already been discussed, but i'ts all about frequency of bike stations, just like it's all about frequency of transit service.

Get the phone app....