Colorado Bicycle Safety Bill moves ahead, but…

Sun April 19 2009
Posted Apr 19, 2009
5,075

Colorado [what's happening with other state's Bike Safety laws] Late last week the Colorado House of Representatives approved the Bicycle Safety Bill by voice vote. That sounds like an opportunity for lots of hurrahs and hearty congratulations to all who worked so hard on getting this safety measure passed. But wait – there are two problems yet to be resolved. For one thing, the bill must withstand a final vote in the house. But the biggest problem is a weird amendment that was tacked onto the bill before the voice vote in the House. Said amendment would make it illegal for one bicyclist to pass another bicyclist on a state highway when the lane used for passing is less than twelve feet wide. I wish I could give you more information about who proposed this amendment, what breathtaking logic was used to justify it and why the members of the House thought so highly of it that they kept it attached to the bill. Alas, my current attempts to survive in this horrid economy preclude me from attending House sessions, but our good friends at Bicycle Colorado, who use some of our dues to attend such meetings and shepherd measures that are beneficial to cyclists, have reported that this wacky amendment is indeed currently attached to the bill. Does it matter? It matters for sure, but as a practical issue, very few cyclists are going to obey such a law, except when in the presence of a law enforcement professional. If this law does go on the books, it will be a powerful motivator for more cyclists to buy and use a mirror, which not only is the single most effective piece of safety gear out there, but will also enable a biker to spot officers approaching from the rear should a need to overtake a slower rider while in forbidden territory arise. How do theoretically intelligent people, which I have to assume most state legislators are, come up with such nonsensical positions? I got a glimpse of this when my State Representative, Dianne Primavera, D-District 33, responded to my call in support of the bill with a voice mail about her concerns about doing so. I’ve been a supporter of Rep. Primavera since her first campaign, but I was disappointed in my interactions with her on a number of fronts. First, I was not able to talk to anyone directly when I called her office. I was asked to leave a message, which I did. Second, when she called back a few days later, she called from a blocked number, which Caller ID dutifully recorded as such. In the habit of ignoring blocked calls, since they’re almost always from someone trying to circumvent the do-not-call-list regulations, I did not pick up the phone. To her credit, Rep. Primavera did leave me a voice mail explaining that, even though she had supported the bill in committee, she would probably not support it on the floor of the House. Her major objection was to the provision that would enable motorists to cross a single or double solid line in order to provide a bicyclist with a three foot cushion while passing, but only if such a pass could be made safely. Ms. Primavera said she had consulted with the DOT who told her that such a provision was ill advised because the department had set up such markings to protect oncoming motorists from dangerous passers going the other way. We can probably all appreciate that no-passing lines are meant to protect drivers from each other, but the thing that nobody seems to want to understand is this: crossing a single or double line to pass a cyclist, a slow truck, a farm tractor, construction equipment, law officers issuing tickets etc. happens thousands of times every day in the state of Colorado with very few negative consequences. If you pay a modest amount of attention you’ll see it on your drive home today. There are thousands of miles of “no passing” zones in our state where crossing a solid line to pass a cyclist moving at 15-20 mph can be done in extreme safety. I would be happy to show Rep. Primavera and the DOT many examples on some of my favorite training routes. After the disquieting message from Rep. Primavera, I started counting motorists who crossed solid lines when passing me vs. those who didn’t. The portion that crossed solid lines to give me adequate room was close to 90%. So, you might ask, if so many drivers already are courteous enough to give us room, why do we need a 3 foot passing zone? That’s an easy one. Cutting it close is a risk that we should not have to bear. Most drivers are not as good as they think they are. If they’re a bit off, their car hits a rut or the wind forces the cyclist being overtaken to waver just slightly, the “in your face” message being delivered by the 10% who don’t want to give us room could turn to tragedy very quickly. Despite the great antipathy demonstrated by this small segment of sociopathic drivers, most of them will discover that the imagined joy of killing an innocent bicyclist will offer them nothing but misery for the remaining years of their lives. The one other factor in this whole debate that is hard for me to comprehend is how big a problem are we trying to solve here? I know that a pack of riders causes lots of heartburn to motorists who get delayed, but think of the last few years of your motoring life. How many times have you been delayed by a cyclist or group of cyclists? I don’t think I’ll need more than one hand to count the occasions. Secondly, even for those few instances when you were held up, how much time out of your precious life was spent in vain? 15 seconds? I’m not sure I’ve ever been held up by cyclists for as long as one minute. Now try the same exercise with large trucks on two-lane roads. If you’re being honest, you have to admit that motoring delays on two lane roads are much more commonly caused by slow moving motorized vehicles rather than bicycles. A safe passing zone for bicyclists fits neatly in the no-brainer bucket. Unfortunately, those who oppose our right to safety seem to fall into the very same bucket.