You Don't Have to Go Home (But You Can't Stay Here)

Boulder City Manager Jane Brautigam has proposed a new rule closing all city parks and open space properties between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. It wouldn't apply to pedestrians or cyclists passing through without stopping, but any hint of delay would open the lollygaggers to citation.

Communications Manager Patrick von Keyserling says this rule is not a response to the Occupy protesters, but rather is meant to protect their safety and health (a rather Orwellian description).

It is also meant to address illegal nighttime activity in dimly lit, sparsely populated areas. It's easier to stop all parks and open space usage at night than to just enforce existing laws.

However, my biggest issue with the proposal isn't its questionable justification. It's the legitimacy of the process being followed.


[more]

Caution -- Slow Bikes

City staff has proposed several changes to transportation code, some of which affect how crosswalks are regulated. The changes were presented to council on Nov. 15 and the first reading was approved, which means that the changes will be discussed in more detail this Tuesday.

If the changes are approved as presented, drivers will have to stop at a crosswalk if another driver has already stopped to let a pedestrian cross. This is common sense and brings the city's regulations into line with state law.

The changes affecting pedestrians and cyclists are more impactful.

Pedestrians using a crosswalk with an alert system, like the flashing yellow lights found around town, are only allowed to do so after the lights have been activated. Some pedestrians avoid triggering the flashing lights if there is plenty of time to cross and they don't want to inconvenience drivers.

However, I believe this is a reasonable requirement. Making the use of the lights more consistent will help with drivers' expectations. And if there is an accident in which the pedestrian didn't activate the signal, it will help assign responsibility.

The remaining crosswalk changes restrict the speed of bikes in crosswalks.


[more]

Cyclists Lose a Round

Last summer I wrote about Black Hawk's cycling ban. The news since then hasn't been good for cyclists.

In 2009, the Black Hawk Board of Aldermen passed a law giving them the right to ignore state traffic regulations and prohibit bicycles within their city. In 2010, they passed a law banning cycling on most Black Hawk streets.

Several cyclists were ticketed under the ordinance, including three cyclists on a loop from Golden through Idaho Springs, Central City, Black Hawk and back to Golden. They were ticketed for riding on Gregory Street, the only road connecting Central City to Black Hawk.

The cyclists challenged their tickets, arguing the ordinance is a violation of state law. Their arguments are many and convincing.


[more]

Dropped under the Bus

I took RTD to a meeting in south Denver on the same day as our recent snowstorm.

The plan: avoid the stress of driving on snowy roads, gain time for paperwork and reading, pay less than for gas, and take only a few minutes longer than driving.

It turns out that RTD sometimes cancels express buses when the weather is bad, leaving fewer, slower, more crowded buses. Plus, missing a connection by one minute means waiting 15 or 30 minutes for the next (or longer if it's running late).

No matter. I was 30 minutes late, but I could have been just as late if I'd driven. Public transit is often a viable option, with its own set of advantages and disadvantages.

One of those disadvantages is the farebox.


[more]

Actors in the New Security Theater

According to one rumor, former Idaho Senator Larry Craig originally recommended the recent changes in airport screening processes. Perhaps now he won't have to go to the airport men's room to satisfy his alleged needs.

Craig's self-reported "wide stance" may prove useful in the new full-body scanners. However, he might opt out in favor of the enhanced pat-down, maybe even requesting that it be performed in a private room.

I can't fully report in this family publication, but many refer online to the scanners based on their ability to determine the size of parts of the anatomy commonly shielded from view, and to the pat-downs using the name of a location on a baseball diamond.

The resistance to the new procedures is widespread among some travelers. No wonder: you stand with your legs spread wide, and someone runs his or her hand up your leg until "meeting resistance."

Many others are stoically accepting the changes.

But is there a third group, people who actually enjoy the sanctioned public exhibitionism and groping?


[more]

Gut Check

It's not easy being logical in forming opinions. We humans are wired to make decisions with our guts, and to manufacture a rational world around those decisions.

We are easily manipulated. A news story with lots of blood convinces us that a minor issue is the problem of the day. For example, the Camera front page has a story about an accident at a flashing crosswalk, and suddenly flashing crosswalks are death traps. We conveniently ignore the fact that most traffic accidents do not happen at these crosswalks.

Then you throw in peer manipulation. One person says that pedestrians don't look before crossing the street. Pretty soon it is common knowledge that pedestrians in Boulder have a death wish and always walk out directly in front of cars without even a glance, an opinion that, if examined logically, couldn't possibly be true.

[more]

Black Hawk: The Definition of Arrogance

I looked up arrogance in the dictionary, and this is what I found:

1. Banning a legal activity (cycling) inside your city
2. Exempting your own residents from the ban and only applying the ban to people passing through and likely unprepared
3. Not posting adequate signs warning people of the ban
4. Claiming the ban is for your citizens, and then defining those citizens to be the biggest companies in town, not the real residents
5. Making sure the ban covers a nationally-known cycling route
6. With no reasonable alternate route
7. Which is in violation of state standards
8. And federal standards
9. Claiming the ban is for safety, with zero history of bike safety issues
10. Without consulting any cyclists or cycling groups
11. Rebuffing any attempt by cycling groups to even participate in the discussion or offer alternatives
12. Ignoring state statutes that limit the ability of municipalities to modify state vehicle codes
13. Modifying the standard model vehicle code to give yourself the right to ban bikes
14. In the law giving yourself the right to ban bikes, citing non-existent research
15. In the law banning bikes on specific streets, citing non-existent research
16. In the research does exist, using a measurement technique that is designed to increase use of bikes
17. When the measurement technique didn't produce the desired results, fudging the numbers to make it appear the roads are less usable by bikes than in reality
18. Telling cyclists they have to walk their bikes, which causes a larger impediment to traffic
19. And causes the traffic impediment to last longer
20. And less safe, because cyclists walking their bikes are less maneuverable than cyclists riding
21. Writing the law so poorly that it bans bicyles, not cycling, and in effect would even ban walking your bike or carrying it trough the streets.
22. And the latest, banning bikes in your resort town, and then inviting the president of the League of American Cyclists to host events there.

Fine for cycling

One mis-click when registering for Bike to Work Day, and I would have chosen Black Hawk as my commute base. This would have been sadly ironic because Black Hawk recently enacted a ban on cycling on most of its streets.

Like many municipalities, Black Hawk has adopted the Model Traffic Code, which says nothing about banning bikes. In 2009 they passed an ordinance citing "engineering and traffic studies" that demonstrate how cycling is incompatible with safe and normal traffic, and gave themselves that right. This year they passed another ordinance that bans cycling on several specific streets based on additional "investigation."

I asked the city for copies of the studies and investigations cited in the ordinances. Imagine my surprise when I receive just one analysis, dated after the first ordinance was passed.

A grand total of two streets were analyzed, although the ban covers eight. It appears the Black Hawk City Council has violated its own rules by banning cycling on streets without a proper investigation. Either that or they violated the Colorado Open Records Act by withholding information I had requested.

[more]

Enforcement under the Radar

Recent letters to the Camera have questioned the city's photo radar locations, suggesting that vans are placed to maximize ticket revenue. However, the city lost $21,000 on the program last year. Perhaps something else is going on.

Photo radar, as part of Boulder's neighborhood traffic mitigation program, is designed to decrease speeding violations in neighborhoods and school zones, a laudable goal. It has indeed reduced speeds.

In 2008 the city got heat for its radar site on North Broadway; the van was stationed in a no parking zone, spewing noxious smoke into the adjacent bike lane. In response, the city added a sign under the no parking sign excluding police vehicles and replaced the van with a less stinky one.

There is another reason to question the North Broadway location, which is 50 yards short of where two lanes merge into one. Although drivers should be prepared to merge without speeding, local factors can make obeying the speed limit difficult. The lane loss is not marked well in advance, and occurs shortly after a pedestrian crossing and a steep hill with limited sight distance.

[more]

Flashing Makes You Cross

Last summer, many Boulder residents were upset about pedestrian-activated flashing signs. A driver ran into a family of three cycling through a PAFS crosswalk, sending a 7-year-old boy to the hospital. Shortly thereafter, Boulder transportation operations engineer Bill Cowern told the media that the rate of accidents at several of these crosswalks had increased.

Although Cowern also stated that accidents had decreased or stayed the same at some crosswalks, and that the increase couldn't be interpreted without the completion of a study underway at the time, many called for the removal of these devices.

That study was completed and presented to the Transportation Advisory Board late last year and to City Council earlier this month.

The good news from the study is that PAFS crossings are no more dangerous than other signalized crossings in the city. This, when combined with the finding that they significantly increase both usage by pedestrians and yielding to pedestrians by drivers, shows that they are a valuable addition to the city's arsenal.

[more]

Liberal Guilt

My wife and I are pretty darn serious about minimizing our impact on this planet.

We proudly put out one orange bag of whatever trash we can't recycle, reuse or compost about every six weeks. Our water usage is an order of magnitude smaller than our city-assigned budget.

We bike and bus and walk, and Caron rides her hot pink scooter so we don't drive much. Our old cars work fine, thank you; the energy to scrap and replace them with a shiny new hybrid would be more than we'd save in years of use.

[more]

City Council Keeps Busy

Macon Cowles was correct in his recent guest opinion; City Council has been working on myriad issues in addition to pops and scrapes.

Council recently approved a site plan for the former Junior Academy site on Fourth Street: a quarter of the property as low-density residential development similar to the surrounding neighborhood, and the rest as a "flex district."

Of course, there is no telling what that flex district will eventually become. The decision has been deferred either until nobody is paying attention or until it is too late (too much money invested).

[more]

Bikes Everywhere

Things have been quiet here at Insomnia Log for a few weeks, as I have been on vacation in Italy. Part of that trip was a bike tour, but something I noticed throughout the trip was the number of bicycles everywhere. Of course that is with the exception of the city of Venice, in which land vehicles of all kinds are absent.

In the region of our bike tour, there were many sport cyclists, and they were more fanatical than just about any I know here in the states. But in all parts of the country you see a different type of cyclist - people of all ages and body types, riding inexpensive bikes for real transportation. They are far more abundant than I've seen anywhere in this country.

It's certainly not because of better cycling facilities. In fact, the roads there are much less friendly to bikes than the roads here in Boulder. They are narrow, with no rideable shoulders or bike lanes, and lots of cars.

But generally the drivers and cyclists seem to get along. Drivers slow down for bikes and wait until it is safe to pass. They don't honk or yell at them to get off the road. The difference? Bikes are so ubiquitous. Everybody bikes, so you just expect them.

Why does everybody bike? For one thing, it's often just easier. With the narrow roads and traffic, sometimes it is just simpler to get on a bike. Some cities, such as Florence, have restricted cars. Plus, the price of gasoline is almost three times what it is here.

It's not perfect there. I've never been hit by a car while on my bike before, and while riding a country road my arm was struck by the side mirror of a driver who obviously tried to pass when he shouldn't have. But he did stop to make sure I was ok. (I was -- thanks to break-away mirrors.)

One other difference that I think helps cyclists and drivers get along is a cultural difference. It's hard to put my finger on it exactly, but when the government tells people the way things are going to be, Italians seem more likely to accept it than Americans.

Is there a take away for us? Perhaps it's as simple as getting more bikes on the road in order to get drivers more accepting of cars on the road.

So go out and ride!

How did the chicken cross the road (safely)?

A driver recently struck and injured members of a family cycling in a mid-block crosswalk marked with flashing lights, increasing attention to the issue of pedestrian crossings in Boulder.

Some blame the driver for not yielding at the crosswalk. Some blame the city for installing what they consider to be confusing signals. Some blame the victims for biking in the crosswalk.

[more]

Keep on Clunkin'!

The cash for clunkers program may be many things. However, environmentally friendly isn't one of them.

Look at it this way. Suppose you trade in a car that gets 18 MPG for one that gets 28 MPG, and that you driver 12,000 miles per year. Also, assume that you will keep the new car for the typical six years.

For each of those six years, you will be burning 428 gallons of gas instead of 667 gallons. You save 238 gallons per year, or about 35% of the gas you would have burned.

A study by Toyota showed that as much as 28% of the carbon dioxide emissions generated during the life of a car occur during its manufacture and its transport to the dealer. That means that up to 38% more CO2 is generated than the CO2 generated from the burning of fuel during normal operation.

So, you emit 35% less CO2 during operation, but the act of buying a new car results in up to 38% more CO2 just to get you that car.

Ignoring the economic impact, the very best thing you can do is keep driving that car until it doesn't go any more.

The only exception I can think of is if you put lots and lots of miles on your car every year and plan to keep it a long time. Then, it might make more environmental sense to buy a new, more fuel-efficient car, and donate your old car to charity.

But scrapping the old car, as is required by law under this program, is pure waste.

We can't see the underpass for the trees

When I saw the city preparing to use eminent domain to cut down 14 trees in the urban heart of Boulder to build a pedestrian underpass that didn't connect anything, I was dismayed.

Similar projects on Iris and the Diagonal Highway tied up traffic for months. In the end, things were a bit easier for a few pedestrians, but neither path provides a significant addition to the city's alternative mode infrastructure.

The Boulder Slough underpass is part of a package of improvements to 30th Street to be completed next year. It is one of the costliest components of the plan, and will have a huge impact on traffic and local access during six to eight months of construction. It is also by far the most controversial element.

[more]

The Sheriff Stirs Up Trouble

First it was the Larimer County sheriff who tried to raise the level of anger between drivers and cyclists. Now, it's our own Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle who's getting folks all riled up.

It seems like Sheriff Joe met with mountain residents to talk about the new Bicycle Safety Bill, signed recently by Governor Ritter and scheduled to go into effect August 5. Residents are concerned that it allows cyclists to ride anywhere they want and block the roads.

But the sheriff, instead of telling the truth, that the new law doesn't give cyclists the right to ride anywhere or any way they don't already have, said that the new law makes makes blocking traffic by cyclists "basically unenforceable". He said, "Essentially, this law takes away our ability to enforce anything."

This is obviously a lie. The new law does not take away the ability of the sheriff to enforce any laws against cyclists. All it does is require motorists to give cyclists three feet of room when passing. I challenge the sheriff, or anyone else, to show me where in the new law he finds this limit on any of his authority.

Improving bicycle safety in one easy law

Governor Ritter recently signed the Bicycle Safety Bill and it goes into effect August 5. But the road to its passage was not smooth. Although it passed fairly easily in the Senate, in the House it encountered stiff opposition.

I spoke to house sponsor Rep. Michael Merrifield, an avid cyclist. According to Merrifield, "The objections came from people who don't understand the concept of cycling in high-speed traffic."

[more]

The Bicycle Safety Compromise

The Bicycle Safety Bill was finally passed by the Colorado State Legislature, and now it heads to the governor for signature. It was a long and tortured process, including 2 visits to committee to resolve differences between house and senate versions. A day after it passed, Boulder County's sheriff came out against the bill. A day after that, he reversed himself and came out in favor.

What does it all mean? Let me see if I can untangle it.

• When a car passes a bicycle traveling in the same direction, the driver must leave at least three feet between the vehicles (including side mirrors). This is probably the biggest change to state law in this bill. Colorado law finally sets an expectation that cars passing bikes must do so at a safe distance.
• It will be legal for a car to cross the (single or double) solid yellow line to pass a bicycle, as long it can be done safely and without impeding other traffic.
• Carelessly and imprudently driving close to a cyclist will be classified as careless driving. Interestingly, the law does not specifically say anything about deliberately driving too close to a cyclist.
• Cyclists still have to stay to the right, but:
  • It is now clarified that a cyclist gets to determine what is safe.
  • Cyclists will be permitted to ride on the left on a one-way street.
  • If the cyclist is traveling at the normal speed of traffic, or if the roadway is not wide enough for a car to pass a bike, the cyclist can use the full lane.
  • A cyclist can use a lane other than the right lane to prepare for a left turn, to pass another vehicle, or to aid hazards.
  • Cyclists going straight can ride on the left side of a right-turn lane.
• The legislature went back and forth several times on clarifications to the two-abreast law. But in the end they didn't change the law much -- cyclists can ride two-abreast as long as they are not impeding the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
• Throwing things at cyclists is now explicitly a crime. However, it was already a crime to throw things at a vehicle, and the new crime for throwing things at cyclists has a penalty half as much as the penalty for throwing things at any other vehicle. Thanks for telling us what we are worth in this state. [Correction added May 15: The maximum penalty for throwing things at a car is double the minimum for throwing things at a cyclist, but half the maximum.]

Clarification of the two-abreast law was one of the reasons for this bill. Several changes were in the original bill, and several amendments were added by legislators trying to kill the bill, but in the end it looks like the legislature went with keeping it simple.

The original bill has a clause that stated riding two-abreast isn't impeding if there is no conflicting traffic, with the rationale being that if cars can pass the cyclists aren't impeding. This clause was removed, leaving this up to interpretation by law enforcement.

The original bill also stated that the two-abreast limitation does not prevent cyclists from passing one another, which presumably would have allowed a cyclist to pass two cyclists riding side-by-side. Presumably, with this clause removed that action will be allowed or prosecuted based on the whim of local law enforcement.

The original bill stated that riding two abreast isn't impeding if the road is too narrow for a single bicycle to share with a car. The rationale for this, of course, is that the second cyclist isn't holding up traffic any more than a single cyclist. With this clause removed, I assume this one is again left up to interpretation by law enforcement.

In order to get these clarifying clauses removed, it appears that the bill's opponents were able to get a couple of kooky amendments added, and used them as bargaining chips. These amendments were removed in committee in the final negotiations.

These two amendments started with the phrase, "Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary." As I see it, this can only mean one of two things. Either the lawmakers who wrote these amendments were too lazy to figure out what they really meant, or they knew and they just didn't want it to be obvious. In any case, I'm pretty sure it means that had these two paragraphs remained in the bill they would have had to have been figured out by law enforcement and the courts.

The first of these two amendments said that two-abreast riding is not allowed on state highways with lanes less than 12 feet wide. In other words, they went to all the trouble of spelling out exactly what is impeding and what is not, and then they said, "Just kidding!" Were they at least going to put a sign on these state highways, so that cyclists would know which ones they were? And why did the state get to exclude its highways from the law, but no other government entity got to (city or county roads)?

The second of the kooky amendments said that if the center line of a highway is solid yellow (single or double), cyclists had to ride as far to the right as "feasible". What was this supposed to mean? They went to quite a bit of trouble to define what it means to ride as far to the right as is safe. Was this supposed to be different than that? Were cyclists supposed to not ride safely if there's a solid yellow line? Was the fact that they said "highway" rather than "state highway" significant, especially since "highway" is defined in the code as a road in the state highway system, and "state highway" is not defined"?

I guess, given the confusion, it's not too surprising that the Boulder County Sheriff came out against this bill one day and in favor of it the next, since he based his original opposition to the pre-committee version.

In any case, be safe out there!

Bicycle safety -- just too inconvenient?

Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden recently testified against Colorado Senate Bill 148, the Bicycle Safety Bill. Does the law officer really hate bikes so much that he would argue against their safety? Based on his previous comments and actions, I have to say he does, especially if their riders come from Boulder. [more]