Comments on: Black Hawk’s bike-less quarter mile example for other cities

By: JesusIsJustAlright

JesusIsJustAlright — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 22:55:30 +0000

Most cyclists have cars and have already paid for the road. Nice use of a lame argument.

By: Gavin

Gavin — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 19:55:31 +0000

“However, cyclists do not contribute to highway funds as motor vehicle owners do through licensing and registration fees.” Not quite my friend. In fact, nearly all cyclists are motorists, so they do pay for that road. What’s more, take a look at what pays for roads: licensing and registration and even fuel taxes don’t pay for the roads by themselves. There’s plenty of general fund money going to pay for those roads, too. Given that bicycles contribute a trivial amount of wear compared to cars or trucks, most cyclists wind up on the wrong side of the funding equation, paying more for using the roads than non-cycling motorists. That’s the anti-cycling fanatics talking and I expect a journalist to be more critical and to question the assumptions of that group, not just parrot their unfounded claims.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 18:47:51 +0000

“However, cyclists do not contribute to highway funds as motor vehicle owners do through licensing and registration fees. ”

That logic is seriously FLAWED!

I drive a car TOO! If I pay my registration fees and taxes and then decide to ride my bike instead of drive, am I not subsidizing motorists? My money contributes to the upkeep of the road just like all the other people using it. I ride a bike AND drive a car. Does that mean I have less right to use the road?

By: Cas Ino

Cas Ino — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 18:25:30 +0000

The article's claim that no negative comments have been received about the cycling ban is a ludicrous projection. It's also interesting that the article never mentions the Colorado Uniform Vehicle Code. Shall every municipality make up its own traffic lights, pedestrian crossing signage, etc?

At least the article is shamelessly honest in admitting that the casinos are the only "citizens" whose votes count.

By: LurkerDan

LurkerDan — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 18:01:44 +0000

The safety argument is bunk. What I can say is that I do enjoy gambling AND cycling, and though I never felt the need to bicycle in or through Blackhawk, I have gambled there in the past. But I will never again spend my hard-earned dollars in Blackhawk unless they rescind this short-sighted ban.

By: KAS

KAS — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:08:52 +0000

I live in Gilpin County and have ridden quite a bit in and through Black Hawk. I felt safer on Gregory St or Dory Hill Rd than on Hwy 119. The mayor’s safety concerns are bogus on their face. What he has managed to do is create a hostile environment. Prior to this ban the few drivers I would meet (and Gregory was only heavily traveled for the first block of its length) were routinely and uniformly friendly and courteous. The safety study was in fact performed AFTER the ban. And even at that the results were skewed to match what the council had already decreed. There is a hidden agenda here and his NOTHING to do with safety. In fact by forcing cyclists on to 119 they increase the danger.