Posted by cgjj1 on June 6, 2008 at 12:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just give them tickets for blowing the stop signs. They all do it.

Posted by paul on June 6, 2008 at 1:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Not so fast cgjj1, all of the motorists don't run stop signs. I see some vehicles come to full stop once in a while.

Posted by FrictionSoul on June 6, 2008 at 5:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Single file, period. That law is very useful to me as a cyclist and it makes the drivers more friendly when they see you're following the rules, just as drivers have to.

Posted by simon on June 6, 2008 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I've had my worst motorist-cycling conflicts, including a near-death hit and run, while riding alone. Gosh, that means I was riding single file! In our culture of "might means right" and "out of my way", it is only to be expected that we try to drive cyclists into the ditches. This is not about cyclists. This is about people worried about their right of way, or their schedule, almost as if looking for a fight. I see it just as often while driving - drive the speed limit sometime and you'll see what I mean.

I chose years ago to avoid Larimer County. I was brushed by a vehicle doing 50-60 mph. The giant pickup's giant mirror hit my jacket without knocking me off the bike. I was alone, no oncoming traffic, speed limit 35.

Out there in the countryside, living is supposed to be peacefully slower and friendlier. Not so.

How many motorists get hurt in auto-bike collisions? What's wrong with being concerned of the "other", whether cyclist, pedestrian or motorist?

Important to note: Plenty of motorists are considerate, even going out of their way to be so. Thanks to them for the pleasant surprise of courtesy.

Posted by mintakaX on June 6, 2008 at 6:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I was amazed when the two abreast law was passed---pure insanity-- I frequently drive between Boulder and Lyons and many times it seems just plain unsafe-- I have encountered the situation where there is a car approaching in the opposite lane and there are two abreast bikers on each side of the road-- How can the bikers be so oblivious to their own safety ???

Posted by sidd on June 6, 2008 at 7:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I ride a bike everyday to work and I have to agree the double riding is just dangerous..

So many times I am driving or riding in a car and there is some bike on the white line with their body in the road and some big truck is coming down the opposite lane and the car mirror misses the bike by inches. And times when drives can hardly see due to sun glare and the bikes are in the road.

Do you guy realize how close to injury and death you are when your body is hanging out in the road?

I’m sure you will blame it on the cars.

Posted by jpgreen3 on June 6, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Single file and on the far right! Safety isn't served unless motorized vehicles can pass cyclist's without crossing the road's center line. Too many cyclists seem to think that if they can't see a vehicle in the opposing lane, they don't need to move over - even when limited sight distance (such as hills or curves), or the possibility of vehicles entering the roadway ahead (from driveways, or at road intersections)makes a motorist's use of the oncoming lane dicey at best.

Posted by Stephen on June 6, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just wait...
$7.00 a Gallon Gas is coming.
This will eliminate a lot of Super Sized Vehicles.

Posted by respectsnothing on June 6, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As I said before why do they need to ride side-by-side? Single file is so much safer. Just remember if a car and cycle collide, the car will always win, regardless if it's a gas guzzler or a simple Cooper.

Posted by linzine on June 6, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't mind cyclists on the road and in the bike lane. But today I witnessed two bikers on 30th and Valmont heading in the direction of Foothills riding side-by-side in the bike lane with one of the bikers weaving in and out of the car lane I was in by about 10 inches. On the other side of me was a car, which did not leave much room for me to comfortably pass the bikers (I have passed two bikers riding next to each other in the bike lane before who were within the bike lane boundries). So I tapped on my horn at the outside biker hoping that it would get him to move over, only to be greeted with a middle finger and a strong look of resistance. Needles to say, he did not move his bike over at all. This is what angers me- reckless biking that puts me in danger and me at liability. And the attitude that carried was even worse. It would be different if someone was unaware of the rules but clearly this guy didn't care. Some people ruin it for others, and that is the problem. Biking on the road is a priveledge (just as driving a car) and I wish it could be taken away from those that are reckless and careless.

Posted by tcrjunk on June 6, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Doesn't anyone remember the "bowling for bicyclists" kids from Windsor who stuck a bat out the side of the truck window to assault and nearly murder a cyclist riding alone in Larimer county a couple of years ago? The Larimer county DA swept that case under the rug.

The Larimer sheriff's comments are wholly irresponsible given that incident and the commonplace practice of "buzzing" cyclists by passing too closely and other forms of intimidation (e.g. objects thrown from their vehicles) that motorists express toward cyclists. Few motorists realize just how life threatening these actions can be.

Given such a history, is there any wonder why cyclists ride together in Larimer county?

To me the sheriff seems to be fostering an attitude of hatred and hostility toward bicyclists that will only lead to another bicyclist being assaulted.

Posted by cestlaguerre on June 6, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought you could ride 2 or 3 abreast if you were going the speed limit. Obviously, this would only occur in slow (city) speed areas. If you are riding on a county road with a speed limit of 40 mph and you aren't going that fast, causing vehicles to have to slow down and swerve around you, then in my book you are "impeding" traffic. I hope Boulder County takes up this issue as well and better defines it for all concerned.

Posted by cubfan on June 6, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree that riding 2 abreast is a bad idea. I'm not averse to a change of the law here. But I hardly ever see this. Most dangerous bike-car situations arise because bikes (and pedestrians for that matter) are treated by many drivers as nothing more than obstacles, rather than human beings with rights to a bit of space and safety.

While a driver is playing "let's see how close I can come to this bike without touching it" just so he doesn't have to slow down for even 1 second, a cyclist is in a situation where a pothole, a gust of wind or a piece of dirt in a driver's eye could lead to injury or death. In my old Boulder-Longmont commute, cycling along 63rd st., this situation would arise several times daily. Meanwhile drivers are outraged because once every couple of weeks they have to slow for a few seconds to pass two cyclists side-by-side.

Sure, some cyclists could be more considerate (no matter where they come from) but next time you have to pass one ask yourself whether the 10 seconds you're trying to shave off your commute is really that important.

Posted by willis0000 on June 6, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I always give cyclists a wide berth when driving, but the people who take up space on the road as if a 3 ton piece of machinery going 50 mph won't hurt them are the ones at issue here. They are idiots and if they're too stubborn or proud or whatever to recognize simple physics, then they deserve to be hit.

Posted by mintakaX on June 6, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How did the two abreast law get passed in the first place ? Does anyone know the history behind it ? At the time I remember thinking it was unbelievable.

Posted by SickNTired on June 6, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by mintakaX on June 6, 2008 at 6:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How can the bikers be so oblivious to their own safety ???

mintakaX. I drive this route twice a day and I completely agree with you. I have started leaving early from work on Tuesdays and Thursdays because of the stupid Bus Stop riders. They are rude, dangerous, and not the brightest bulbs in the knife drawer.

Posted by positraction on June 6, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought perhaps Ron Tupa had something to do with changing the law, but I am NOT certain about that. I wish it hadn't been done and that single file was still the rule. In the semirural and rural areas, cyclists frequently ride in packs that much more than two abreast. Getting around them is difficult. One of them yelled at me once when I was backing into my own driveway--sorry, buster, it's my home, go ride in your own neighborhood.

Posted by ogghead on June 6, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem is that Sheriff Alderden doesn't actually understand the Colorado laws that are relevant here. His interpretation won't hold up in court. He'll have to get the legislature to change things, or all Larimer's law enforcement money is going to spent very quickly defending this in court.

And sadly, he's still not about law enforcement. His continued "Boulder attitude" comments show he'd rather fight on the front lines in the culture war. If I lived in Fort Collins, I'd much rather see him focus on gang activity and the growing number of meth labs, not The War on Christmas and Drivers.

Posted by wewantfun on June 6, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A few days ago I was descending St. Vrain Canyon (between Raymond and Lyons) with 2 fellow cyclists. We were all single file and traveling on the shoulder. I am not exactly sure what the speed limit is but I think it is around 35 to 45. We were doing about 40mph according to my computer. Two males in an SUV sped past us in their lane. The passenger leaned way out of the passenger window and dumped a jug of water all over us.

I try and always ride courteously and single file when there isn't room for double file. All the cyclists I know do the same. While there are some cyclists out there being rude to motorists I have witnessed far more incidents of motorists INTENTIONALLY causing dangerous situations.
I have also witnessed careless motorists. I too have almost been hit several times by a car trying to turn right 'real quick' before I catch them -not realizing that we travel at close to the same speed that they do.

The problem is that motorists (which I am also one of) think the road is meant only for cars and anything else in the lane is a challenge to their ego.

Posted by simon on June 6, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"It's my this, it's my that..." "Out of my way! I'm bigger and faster! It's your own damn fault."

No doubt, some cyclists are rude, much like some of you. We really are a bunch of warmongers.

Listen to yourselves. Cyclists are a big problem for you? Cry me a river.

Posted by johnredcorn on June 6, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This sheriff doesn't have bigger fish to fry than wasting time on cyclists in Larimer County?

Posted by ogghead on June 6, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wewantfun, sure, and I've had a rifle fired at me from a truck in Moffatt County for riding solo too. (Some larger cars seem to come with a brain-dampening field.)

But I think most of this is missing the point--people are being drawn in by Alderden's irrelevant prejudices, when the salient issue is that the law absolutely allows cyclists to ride two abreast when doing so does not impede the flow of traffic, and the law requires cyclists to ride as far to the right as "practicable," not "possible," meaning if the cyclist sees that it's safe.

That's the law. Maybe it should be changed. But one loose cannon redneck does not get to decide that. He's not Bill O'Reilly except in his mind--he's got an actual job to do.

Posted by cre0223 on June 6, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

KEEP THE ROGUE CYCLISTS IN LINE SHERIFF!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by motiff on June 6, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"An amendment of the law that took effect in 2005 says cyclists can ride two abreast when it "will not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.""

Implementing this change was probably the start of the problem. It's asking for trouble -- which we now have. Bikers want to "chat" and ride at the same time. That's the problem. You want to ride, or do you want to chat? Pick one and ride or stay home and chat. You want to do both? Then start requiring plates (and insurance) for bikes and use the money to widen the bike lanes. Bikers pay nothing but want full use. As a biker, I'd be glad to pay my share.

Posted by wewantfun on June 6, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ogghead - totally agree and it seems like we read the same velonews article.

motiff - what is wrong with chatting on bikes. You chat in cars right? Also, most cyclists are also motorists as well. By your logic we pay for the roads as much as you do (although we might want to check these statements because I think highway funding comes from other sources). Not only that, I would much rather have wider bike lanes to travel on - it would solve the problem, right?

Posted by t.pull on June 6, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I personally do not think anything will solve the motorists "problem". Yes, there is bad behavior by cyclists. But, even if there were NO bad behavior,
they still would not want us on "their" roads, they will still dislike us, hassle us. Cycling as transportation and recreation is not respected inn this country. Nice, big automobiles ARE. Status, ego. A cyclist with a disregard for that is in trouble. The freedom is a threat.

Posted by jonutah on June 6, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Know the laws. Ticket people if they are breaking them. You can catch a lot of bikers running signs, riding over the line, etc. I'm an avid cyclist and I see it all the time. Beyond that, people need to chill out a little - people are arguing about cyclists and cars; you'd think we could come to some sort of agreement and be fine with each other on such a minor issue in the big picture. If a cyclist crossing over the line or two abreast ruins your day or makes you go haywire, you've got bigger issues.

- Jon

Posted by allmtn on June 6, 2008 at 12:43 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by Dick_Tater on June 6, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good thing you have nothing better to do in Larimer County there Sheriff. You are making yourself and your department look like a joke.

P.S. Quit writing your stupid little paper. You barely qualify as a cop.

Posted by GrumpyOldMan on June 6, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In defense of riding two abreast, it actually forces motorists to slow down and pass carefully. Cyclists can only be impeding the normal flow of traffic if and only if there is traffic, it is flowing normally (not speeding), and there is a double yellow line.
Do some cyclists ride double file when they shouldn't? Yes.
Should all cyclists be forced to ride single file? No.

Posted by longmont_rules on June 6, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please ride single file.

I enjoy recreational biking and I have relied on a bike as my only personal transportation for years in major city.

It would ruin my life if I were ever to be involved in an accident with a cyclist. You need to leave room for error - there could be sand on the shoulder, a rock in the road - if you are riding side by side you have no where to go but out in traffic.

I know there are drivers out there that do not respect the cyclists no matter what they are doing, but there are plenty more that do. You should be courteuos and respect their rights so they do not have to accidentally injure or kill someone.

Posted by chucklehead on June 6, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lets be equal and treat the roadies like the bmxer's. You can only ride between 6a-10a, after that you get ticketed by the cops.

Posted by jackstraw on June 6, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Damn, I hate pants!!

Posted by jadam12 on June 6, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, motorists on this this list have some very insane ego driven notions that indicate they are not willing to help solve the problem.

To them, the only solution is to rid the world of bicycles.

First, "Most" bike lanes are more than wide enough to allow riders to ride two abreast. If there is a bike lane, expect that riders can and will ride that way. If there is no bike lane then bikers have to ride single file and should be expected to. However it is mportant to note that the road way for cars is usually always clear of obstructions, but the shoulder is often filled with debris mostly from cars, car related trash and material from winter driving conditions. Bikers often have to swerve to get around your garbage.

Second, bikers and car drivers talk to eachother while going from one place to another. Live with it. Realize that a car driver distracted by his or her passengers is a greater danger since a car weighs 1000's of pounds and is moving very fast. Along with cell phones, changing CD's, eating breakfast, and the ever increasing use of LCD screen gadgets in cars is making driving even more hazardous.

Third, proposing that cyclists pay for training, lisences and insurance is ridiculous. Not one proponent of such nonsense has ever answered serious questions regarding this particular issue. Therefore I will put the questions out again only to be completely ignored or blown off.

"Who will pay for the lisencing, insurance, regulatory agencies, and staff involved to implement this? How could you justify the costs when a bike weighs a few pounds and does no wear to the road and releases no pollution during operation to the environment unlike cars. How would you propose regulating 2-16 year olds that ride bikes?"

Did you ever see a pothole filling or painting crew on a bike path? How many miles of bike paths are there in the US? How many miles of roads are there in the US? How many people ride bikes to and from work daily in the US? How many drive cars?

Posted by Tyler_Durden on June 6, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by same on June 6, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Don't you have to question people who intentionally take up a sport where the main outfit is spandex?"

This comment says far more about the poster than I ever could.

Posted by jadam12 on June 6, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I forgot to add the cost of trying to enforce bike lisencing as the police are already under staffed and under budget enough as it is.

Posted by longmont_rules on June 6, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jadam12 -

There are crews out in boulder maintaing bikepaths all the time. They are sometimes plowed before our roads.

And I have NEVER picked up power gel wrapers on the side of the road!

And just remember, just because a lane is wide enought to fit to bikes, does not mean it should be done. Lanes are wider than the vehilces that travel in them for safety in error reasons.

Posted by jadam12 on June 6, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"There are crews out in boulder maintaing bikepaths all the time. They are sometimes plowed before our roads."

Compare the miles of roads for cars vs bike paths. There are multitudes of crews out fixing Boulder streets right now and every summer. I bike the paths all the time and I rarely see maintaince (much less required maintainence) on the bike paths. Yes, bike paths are plowed and hopefully some of my gas taxes and car lisecing fees are paying for that service.

"And I have NEVER picked up power gel wrapers on the side of the road!"

Again compare the number of bikers to car drivers and the amount of trash produced.

"And just remember, just because a lane is wide enought to fit to bikes, does not mean it should be done. Lanes are wider than the vehilces that travel in them for safety in error reasons."

Bikes are not nearly as wide as cars, especially when compared to the size of their respected lanes. Since many roads have 2 lanes for cars in both directions, by your argument just because there are 2 lanes cars should not be able to use the second lane either. You are expecting that everything should be the same for bikes and cars, right?

Lastly, if car lanes are significantly wider than cars for safety, then there should not even be an issue with two abreast bikers as long as they are in their designated lane, right? Should be plenty of extra space in the safely designed car lane to pull to the left a little when passing by bikers.

Posted by marlboroman on June 6, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I love riding my bike around in and out of town. When I ride, I avoid being in the path of motor vehicles. I figured this out all by myself.

Posted by t.pull on June 6, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

nrwinga needs to learn a bit about history. Bicycles, and horses, were on the roads BEFORE auto mobiles were around. The automobile will prove to be one of the most destructive things to our lives that we have invented. The bicycle still one of the BEST. Check it!

Posted by lindseyjoe on June 6, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@ nwaringa:
Public roads were created for ALL legal road users, including cyclists. Your rail analogy is false because rail lines are privately owned by individual railways. As well, the upkeep for the roads is paid by use taxes (like gasoline taxes and vehicle registration) and from the general fund (income, property taxes). I pay all of those, as do most cyclists. Please think of it this way: when a cyclist is commuting to work, that's one less car in front of you; one less car in the parking lot at your office; one less car's worth of damage to those roads that needs to be repaired. When a cyclist is out riding recreationally, he's engaging in a sport that doesn't require special facilities that are exclusive to everyone else's use. I think that's a pretty beautiful thing, actually.

On a broader level, this conflict has been simmering for a week and the comments on these forums have largely not shifted at all in that time. Neither side - cyclist or motorist - is really making an attempt to understand the other. Instead all we get are jokes about tight pants and pigs in SUVs.

Look, it's simple: when I'm on my bike, alone or with friends, I'll make every effort to both follow the law (the real law, not a wishful interpretation of it that I MUST ride single file at all times, or that I CAN ride double WHENEVER I want) and to not impede motorists in their travels. In return, please respect my right to the road, whether it has a shoulder or not. Slowing for five seconds to make a safe pass is not an unreasonable impediment to your trip.

Posted by brucet on June 6, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Many bicyclists and motorists alike have a false sense of entitlement on the road. I am both a bicyclist and a motorist. Personally, when I am riding my bike with one or more others and I am in the back of the cycling group, especially on a narrow, two lane road with little or no shoulder, I shout "car back" to alert my fellow bicyclists ahead to ride Indian file. I have found this to be a good habit to get into.

Posted by t.pull on June 6, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

i would agree that the large part of the cycling demographic, the weekend warriors-types, can be very annoying, they annoy ME. Still, you are right, this is really about good manners and tolerance for both parties involved here. And if you read current events, people like me who use a bike for daily transport are going to achieve validation in a country relying way too heavily on the automobile.

Posted by soxfan on June 6, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, Boulder is a bike town, ride on! My only complaint is all the noise you people make clacking around Amante in your crazy shoes while I am trying to ingest my morning java...

Posted by positraction on June 6, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"And I have NEVER picked up power gel wrapers (sic) on the side of the road!"

I have, many times, along with water bottles, though still less often than beer cans/bottles, cigarette butts, fast food debris, and porno magazines and tapes. And the occasional luckless squirrel, raccoon, bird, rabbit. And once, some years ago, one of my cats (now the felines stay inside).

Something bad for everyone.

Posted by positraction on June 6, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"My only complaint is all the noise you people make clacking around"

Actually, many cyclists shout their conversations back and forth to each other while riding, having no concern that that is yet another form of pollution in the areas they traverse. That sound really carries. Lack of consideration is part of the problem, not only between cyclists and motorists, but between cyclists and the neighborhoods in which they prefer to ride.

Posted by jbird on June 6, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Listen to yourselves. Cyclists are a big problem for you? Cry me a river"

I am one of those who stops and lets cyclists go first, gives them a wide berth, slows down and takes all the precautions to ensure the safety of the cyclist. It is annoying to me that I extend that courtesy to cyclists but they don't extend the courtesy to me of riding single file, causing me to swerve towards oncoming traffic.

Why can't people ride single file ? Is it that much of an imposition ?

Nobody wants to cry you a river Simon but eventually someone is going to get killed if the ridiculous attitude of hell no to single file prevails, which is what I'm picking up from you.

Posted by allmtn on June 6, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People ALREADY have been killed . Just slow your car down and you won't need to swerve .Oh and I refuse to stop talking while I ride my bike in neighborhoods, that's just so stupid I can't even really understand it...since when is talking a crime ???

Posted by positraction on June 6, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nobody said that "talking" was a "crime;" it's merely inconsiderate to SHOUT YOUR CONVERSATION AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS. Do that in your own neighborhood and see how well you'll get along with the neighbors.

Posted by MountainHaven on June 6, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Someone above posted to call it in when you see either motorists or cyclists breaking the law. Case in point: Memorial Day weekend, Lyons. A pack of cyclists coming up 66 just before U-Pump-It, blocking the right lane completely. You have weekend warriors in 90-foot motor homes and drive them once a year (or horror, rent one!), JoeBob breaking in his new Harley, Granny taking her friends up for brunch in Estes (the original blueman group), etc., changing lanes, slamming on their brakes and being forced into oncoming traffic because of the pack. And what was sitting in the the La Mariposa parking lot, a BC Sheriff! He pulled out, lights flashing and stopped the whole group (I just had to stop to see what would happen - I drive 36 Estes to Boulder each day and the pack mentality absolutely drives me nuts).

Let's see, what do I post first? The absolute rudeness of the riders to the sheriff or the fact that when they told him point blank "we do what we want," he ticketed the lot of them and pointed them back the way they came.

My point is...I've called in aggressive drivers being absolute idiots on this road and I'm glad to see another culture of road users being held accountable.

And whoever said big deal cars, slow down, what's 10-15 seconds while we're in the road, have never had to slam on their brakes because a cyclist decides to pass their fellow pack members, forcing cars into ONCOMING traffic.

And yes, I drive a big freakin' truck with big shiny, HARD mirrors. I'm also educated with multiple degrees, own my own business and volunteer in all my communities (Lyons, Estes and Pinewood)..I hope I have no typos.. Not all truck driving individuals are backassward rednecks, just as not all bikers break/bend the law.

Have one helluva weekend and if you come into my little piece of heaven in Larimer County, just remember...everyone, regardless of what mode of transport they're on, should follow the rules of the road.

Posted by bufffan8 on June 6, 2008 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The people who can afford a nice house in Boulder won't flinch at $7/gallon gas. Boulder will always have idiots in Suburbans, Hummers, Tahoes, Excursions, Expeditions etc.

Posted by jadam12 on June 6, 2008 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Surfrider continues to evade important questions about the cost and issues related to licensing bicyclists. Who is going to fund the new bureacracy? How will you be able to justify the cost of the licensing, the test and insurance given the size and impact of bicycles relative to cars. How would you legally justify doing this to riders as young a 2 years of age? By enacting these new regulations will we have to dictate an age limit to riding a bicycle, because of the fact that young children use bicycles? Who is going to pay for the added enforcement?

Bikes are a strictly human powered mode of transport. Taxing human powered modes of transportation would open the door to taxing the ability to walk and hike. You'd also have to include taxes on horse riding too.

So, are you going to answer the questions or are you going to continue ignore these real issues?

Posted by jadam12 on June 6, 2008 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You are still not answering the questions.

Posted by Kev on June 6, 2008 at 8:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is very simple... 1) If you ride 2 or 3 abrest, you should get a ticket 2) If an officer pulls you over for riding 2-3 abrest and you get aggressive...you get arrested.. Dont ride 2-3 abrest and everything will be fine. Case closed.

Posted by markf on June 6, 2008 at 10:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't wait for gas to reach $8 a gallon.

Posted by MissJenna on June 9, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I just wish bikers didn't think that they are God's gift to the world because they are so good for riding bikes...I think it should be a law that they have to carry insurance, I think that would keep a lot of them off the road. Use the side walk I say, or get a mountain bike and get off car traveled roads and everyone is happy.