New anti-bike law in colorado?

It's not a law, but a policy instituted by the Colorado State Patrol. There's some question as to wether the bounds of authority have been overstepped.

Given the potential political and economic ramifications of this decision, I don't see it standing up to what's sure to be an outcry.

I think the outcry will be loud enough!  I've gotten 3 emails about this today! 

I hope it doesn't hold up....lots of the big bike events here would be in trouble.

Hmmm ... sound like some mid-level person in Co. State patrol had an idea that went astray.   Take it from someone who deals with municipalities and state departments on a daily basis -  the only way to change something like this is through public outcry and input from your local elected official.  State House and State Senate members are usually heeded the most as they control their budget.

Signing the petition is a good start. The more names that are collected, the better to show both the State Patrol and the legislators that there is genuine public outcry generated by this decision.

Calling your legislator, educating them about why this is a bad decision (emphasize the typical demographics of the participants + economic impact of each participant) and then asking them to call both Colonel Mark Trostel (Chief of Co. State Patrol) and Terry Campbell (Co. State Patrol Legislative Liaison) @ 303-239-4500 is what will cause the Patrol to change the policy.

To find your legislator, check here: http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics2006a/csl.nsf/Directory?openFrameset. If you do not know who your legislator is, then call the office of the Speaker of the House @ 303-866-2346 to ask. (Thinking here is that the office will be staffed even though they are not currently in session.)

What is the thinking behind this new policy? See Co. State Patrol letter here: http://bicyclecolorado.org/dir/117/files/LetterFromStatePatrol.pdf

There are some statements made above that I can't tell if were made in jest, or poorly worded, or uneducated.  Remember the State Patrol are our friends, and if we want any help with this decision, comments like  "poor mid level decision making..." are not going to get it done.  I come at this from a cylists point of view, who's team sponsors the State Criteriums Championships.  There are some large races ie...Elephant Rock, MS 150, and a whole slew of others that reach the 6000+ mark.  If we hope to enact change,  maybe try something like the letter that was just forwarded to me:

This letter was sent from our tri club.  your organizations may want to consider doing the same...

Dear Chief Mark Trostel,

My name is Dr. Clyde Waggoner.  I am the president of the Rocky Mountain Triathlon Club of Denver, Colorado.  I reside in Aurora and have my office in Denver.  I applaud your concerns for the safety of Colorado bicyclists.

The recent restriction on the limitation of citizens allowed in any one bicycling event concerns me.  First, I feel that putting a limititation on the number of participants does not ensure the safety of the participants.  Perhaps putting a specific number of safety patrol per participants would be more appropriate.  Does it make sense to limit the number of runners in a open road race?  Then take the Bolder Boulder with close to 50,000 runners and say for saftey we will limit the race to 2500.  It just does not make sense to pick a specific number in a specific sport and say that the specific limit will improve the safety for that event.  The Bolder Boulder is a safe event because of proper planning, safe roads by proper security and effective policing during the event; not because there is a limitation of participants.

I agree that we all want safety to be our number one criteria for every race and event.  But there is not a specific number that can be put on a race to make it safe.  I believe we should concentrate on what we can do to make events safer rather than setting limits.  Living in Colorado is unique in that we have so much to enjoy out-of-doors.  Our state enjoys one of the most respected "fit and in shape" state status in the nation and world.  We have thousands of cyclists in this state.  In addition we enjoy the status as one of the top training locations in the world for cyclist, triathletes and olympic athletes.  Our state host athletes from around the world every year who train, live and spend their money in our state.  Our state is recognized as a athlete friendly state and as such we do draw the above type athletes.  Our state has several large bicycling tours and triathlons (Ride the Rockies, Triple-By-Pass, Danskin, Boulder Peak, Elephant Rock Ride and several regional and national championships) which draws athletes from around the nation.  This benefits our state's tourism industry, supports jobs and adds to our state's tax base.    I certainly hope that this never changes by putting arbitrary limits on event participants.

It is my hope that you reconsider the limitations for bicycling events.  Invite the United States of American Triathlon Association (home office in Colorado Springs, CO), the United States Olympic officials associated with cycling [USA Cycling] (home office in Colorado Springs, CO), local clubs associated with bicycling and triathlons ,event organizers and local and state law enforcement to have to a discussion forum.  Then decide on the appropriate form of action or if any is needed at all.

I will be more than happy to help organize an open forum / hearing should you decide that one is appropriate.  I can only overstate that we all want what is best for the citizens and athletes of the State of Colorado.  I feel strongly that the limitation on the size of an event does not achieve that goal.

I hope you will reconsider.

Sincerely,

Dr. Clyde E. Waggoner
Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeon
President, Rocky Mountain Triathlon Club
3955 East Exposition Avenue
Suite 520
Denver, Colorado  80209
303-777-1603
[email protected]

cc:  Governor Bill Owens, Mayor John W. Hickenlooper, Skip Gilbert, Exective Director of USA Triathlon

WOW - Already got 2 emails on this subject this morning and it was in my thursday Roadbike Rider email. Could you imagine if they limited the MS-150 rides here in Texas? The Lone Star Chapter would take a HUGE financial hit. Capital MS-150 this year in April had over 10,000 riders and was extremely safe I thought.

This is not a a good precedent to set in any state.  Let your voice be heard!

http://bicyclecolo.org/site/page.cfm?PageID=651

There are some statements made above that I can't tell if were made in jest, or poorly worded, or uneducated. Thanks for your opinion ... insulting an otherwise sympathetic forum is not exactly out of the Dale Carnagie school ... Remember the State Patrol are our friends Who said otherwise?, and if we want any help with this decision, comments like  "poor mid level decision making..." are not going to get it done. Hmmm ... so this is a valid decision that has been thoroughly thoughtout?  I come at this from a cylists point of view, who's team sponsors the State Criteriums Championships.  There are some large races ie...Elephant Rock, MS 150, and a whole slew of others that reach the 6000+ mark.  If we hope to enact change,  maybe try something like the letter that was just forwarded to me: Good luck with that ... not sure that a letter with a cc: to the Governor is going to provide the necessary incentive for the State Patrol to reverse course.

Now bear in mind, a letter is not a bad idea ... but probably not enough. In my experience, affecting change happens when you gather together a coalition of effected people (especially triathlon + other organized groups as exemplified below) sufficient in size to garner attention + create momentum (through letters, news stories, input from decision makers) to get an established rule off center + change considered.  Once the discussion is started, then can you have a cognitive discussion to recognize the needs + intent of both parties.

Now, we're not talking about student protests, marching in the streets and burning bicycle tires ... but that what effort put into this be aimed towards providing the maximum impact.

Important members of this coalition would, of course, be decision makers such as state legislators.  The opinion of these people, like it or not, carries more weight than those of the individual general public.

I wish y'all luck in preserving the larger events in the state.

Ahh Hueng

"Remember the State Patrol are our friends Who said otherwise?"

Living in the great state that hosts one of the largest bike races on the calendar for the US(Tour de Georgia), you haven't seen/heard some of the rants that are going on about this topic, including the general bashing of the State Patrol.  So the who, some of the emotionally charged cyclists of this wonderful state...  Not that it's bad to have feeling, but it should be aimed more effectively.

"poor mid level decision making..." are not going to get it done. Hmmm ... so this is a valid decision that has been thoroughly thoughtout?

Not what I said, nor was it how the quote was intended.  Specifically the idea of "POOR MID LEVEL"  Here's why, the Cheif of the CSP is not exactly "mid level."  The decision comes from him.  Sure, he possibly made the decision from advice given to him from the others below.  If it works for the President of this great nation, it most likely works for the Cheif of this great state.

Believe me, I and every other cyclist, triathlete, runner, etc... hope that their will be some middle ground eventually met, but at the present, things do not look good.  We have had media (9news.com),  now the hope is for the letters, petitions, etc.. to maybe raise attention.

Thanks (sincerely) for the good will in preserving the larger races.  It was only a year ago, that their were grumblings to bring back the Red Zinger Classic (very much like the modern day Tour de Georgia)  Red Zinger, in it's hayday, brought the best of the best, and it was hoped to bring it back.  Now the road blocks continue to grow.  Take a look at www.velonews.com to see the current info on the ruling, as well as insight to the old Red Zinger, and why it went on the wayside.

So, let's agree to disagree, and agree all at the same time.

Good news - we agree that this is something that needs to be changed ... as does a Republican legislator and a Democrat legistor who are already working together - with additional leverage applied by the Armstrong Foundation - to persuade the State Patrol to change their mind.  They have already made motions to schedule a hearing on December 14th should the issue not be resolved.

Turns out that while both may not agree on all of their politics, they are both avid cyclist. See story below:

December 02, 2005

Armstrong group may call off ride due to cap
By KYLE HENLEY THE GAZETTE

DENVER - The Lance Armstrong Foundation said Thursday that it will cancel a planned event in Colorado next year unless the Colorado State Patrol backs away from a plan to cap the number of cyclists in organized group rides.

The foundation — the force behind the Live Strong yellow bracelets — was started by the seven-time Tour de France winner and cancer survivor to raise money for cancer research.

Its premier event, Ride for the Roses in Austin, Texas, draws upward of 6,500 cyclists annually. The group had hoped to start a similar ride in Denver and four other U.S. cities in 2006.

But the new state patrol rule, which has set off a firestorm in the Colorado cycling community, would limit organized cycling events to 2,500 riders.

“Our goal was to have 3,500 riders per city, at least,” said Stephanie Elsea, spokeswoman for the Texas-based foundation. “Our mission is to empower and inspire cancer survivors and obviously we need funding to do that. To take 1,000 riders out of the game . . . we would have to consider moving to another state that wouldn’t put a cap on that.”

State patrol officials say the new cap is an effort to increase safety and conserve limited resources. It was created this fall by a group of law enforcement and transportation officials with no input from the cycling community.

In addition to driving off new rides like the one being planned by the Lance Armstrong Foundation, the cap would restrict some of the state’s most prestigious cycling events, including the Elephant Rock and Triple Bypass rides.

Elephant Rock, which offers several rides for different skill and fitness levels, attracts about 6,500 riders each year to Douglas County.

The grueling Triple Bypass is an ascent over three mountain passes in one day that usually has about 3,500 participants.

Two other large cycling events in the state, the Courage Classic and Ride the Rockies, would not be affected by the cap. Both limit participation to 2,000 riders.

Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, met with state patrol officials Thursday and asked them to suspend the new rule.

Brophy, a cycling enthusiast, wants the state patrol to sit down with cycling groups to figure out a way to address safety concerns without putting an arbitrary cap on events.

“Nobody likes bureaucrats who make rules from behind their desks without consulting the people who are impacted,” Brophy said.

He’s hoping to have an answer from law enforcement officials by Monday.

If they refuse to suspend the rule, Brophy said he will have a legislative hearing on it at the state Capitol on Dec. 14.

Rep. Michael Merrifield, D-Manitou Springs, an avid cyclist and author of a mountain biking guide, said the new rule would change the way Colorado is viewed in the cycling community and result in similar decisions to the one being considered by Armstrong’s foundation.

“It would be an extreme disappointment,” Merrifield said. “Colorado has an established reputation as a bicycle-friendly state, at least up until a few weeks ago. This is a good example of what is going to happen if we don’t make some changes.”

Elsea said the foundation would move ahead with the ride if the cap is lifted. But the group’s timetable is short. It’s scheduled to announce final plans in early January.

“We feel like history has proven you can have larger rides and have them be safe,” she said. “We are really disappointed. We are hoping something might change.”

http://gazette.com/display.php?id=1312536&secid=1

Why don't they just give tickets to people that are driving with one hand and the other with a cellphone stuck to their ear.

What the heck is so important.  10 years ago nobody had this problem but now....are calls that important?

Looks like the combination of public outcry, legislative involvement and the threat of the cancellation of a high profile event was enough to forestall this decision for at least 12 months. Stating the obvious here, but that doesn't mean that it is over.

Hopefully the parties affected by this impending ruling will band together to hammer out a compromise.  As my friend above cites, Georgia is home to a major bike race ... and one of the key reasons we have it is due to community/municipal support.

Recently over 20 municipalities 'bid' on having segments of the race to come through their town.  Hopefully, Colorado will be able to find the same success with their different levels of government.

PS: Couldn't agree more about handing out tickets to those driving with a cell phone crammed against their ear with a Big Mac in other their hand while they drive with their knees.  "10 & 2" my friends!