This article from 2013 comments on a Colorado town’s prohibiting bicycling, gathering statewide and national attention, and a lawsuit in which that prohibition was overturned on appeal. i am traffic was unique in taking a close look and pointing to troubling legal implications of the outcome. — John Allen, August 3, 2024.
Now that I’ve read the details of the Blackhawk, Colorado court decision, what the Supreme Court did was determine the resolution to a conflict between two state laws, 42-4-111(1)(h) [local regulation] and 42-4-109(11) [allowed highway ban if proximal sidepath exists], based on whether the area of concern was purely local versus statewide or mixed (statewide and local).
Here is the law granting local authorities the power to regulate bicycles (which includes prohibition):
42-4-111. Powers of local authorities. 42-4-109. Low-power scooters, animals, skis, skates, and toy vehicles on highways.
(1) This article shall not be deemed to prevent local authorities, with respect to streets and highways under their jurisdiction and within the reasonable exercise of the police power, except those streets and highways that are parts of the state highway system that are subject to section 43-2-135, C.R.S., from:
…(h) Regulating the operation of bicycles or electrical assisted bicycles and requiring the registration and licensing of same, including the requirement of a registration fee, consistent with the provisions of this article;
The key aspect of the application of the above law is that it applies to purely local concerns. And both the initial trial court, and the appellate court in Colorado considered the prohibition in Black Hawk to be a purely local concern, thus 42-4-111 and the local ordinances, like the Black Hawk ban (Ordinance 2009-20) that it allows, take precedence over the state law 42-4-109(11), which applies to any concerns that are state level only or mixed local and state.
The Colorado Supreme Court however determined that the prohibition in Black Hawk was a mixed, state and local concern:
42-4-109. Low-power scooters, animals, skis, skates, and toy vehicles on highways.
…(11) Where suitable bike paths, horseback trails, or other trails have been established on the right-of-way or parallel to and within one-fourth mile of the right-of-way of heavily traveled streets and highways, the department of transportation may, subject to the provisions of section 43-2-135, C.R.S., by resolution or order entered in its minutes, and local authorities may, where suitable bike paths, horseback trails, or other trails have been established on the right-of-way or parallel to it within four hundred fifty feet of the right-of-way of heavily traveled streets, by ordinance, determine and designate, upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, those heavily traveled streets and highways upon which shall be prohibited any bicycle, electrical assisted bicycle, animal rider, animal-drawn conveyance, or other class or kind of nonmotorized traffic that is found to be incompatible with the normal and safe movement of traffic, and, upon such a determination, the department of transportation or local authority shall erect appropriate official signs giving notice thereof; except that, with respect to controlled access highways, section 42-4-1010 (3) shall apply. When such official signs are erected, no person shall violate any of the instructions contained thereon.
Therefore this law takes precedence over Black Hawk Ordinance 2009-20 allowed by 42-4-111. So the reason I did not believe the ban was illegal was that I saw the ban as a purely local issue, as did the trial and appellate courts.
Here’s the catch:
Now let’s add a wrinkle to this horrible situation to show the utter evil of local regulation. The selective mandatory sidepath law, 42-4-109 is a discriminatory law, that we in i am traffic would like to see repealed, but if it were repealed, then there would be no protection against local road bans in Colorado, thanks to local regulation. Even with 42-4-109 on the books, any city that can demonstrate that a road ban is NOT a statewide or mixed state and local concern, or if there is a nearby path within 450 feet, can ban cycling from the road anyway.
In other words local regulation is so bad that it makes a selective mandatory sidepath law look like protection against even more brutal local regulations. How disgusting is that?
