New legislation outlines bike intersection behavior
Leaves decision to implement to local communities
Piep van Heuven is well aware of the concerns many drivers have over sharing the road with bicyclists. Perhaps one of the biggest is the “rolling stop” — a common practice in which riders crawl toward a stop sign without actually coming to a halt.
Colorado recently ushered in a law that gives interested communities a framework to legalize the maneuver, along with a similar tactic at red lights. And van Heuven, the Denver director of Bicycle Colorado, is getting an earful from drivers.
“One of the most common things I hear is that it makes it possible for bicycles to run a red,” she said. “You can never run a red. The right-of-way laws have not changed.”
What the law actually does is prescribe boundaries for Colorado counties, cities and towns that want to legalize certain longstanding tendencies of bicyclists — rolling through a stop sign at “a reasonable speed” and stopping briefly at red light before proceeding through “when safe to do so.”
Previously, Colorado municipalities could implement laws that codify what riders call the “safety stop” or the “Idaho stop,” in reference to the 1982 Idaho law which legalized more flexible bicycle intersection behavior across the state. However, the language and specifics often varied from city to city.
The new state law — which allows communities to set maximum rolling-stop speeds between 10 to 20 mph with the appropriate
intersection signage — was written with the intent of providing consistency and involved input from the only local governments in Colorado that already have the bike-specific laws: Aspen, Summit County, Dillon and Breckenridge.
Law modeled after tougher 2017 bill that failed
The law is a different take on a bill that failed during the 2017 General Assembly. That measure would have gone so far as to impose many of the same provisions statewide, rather than allowing local governments to opt in to them.
“The goal is to have statewide legislation,” said state Sen. Andy Kerr, D-Lakewood, the main sponsor of both bills. “But after the votes from last year, it was clear that Colo- rado wasn’t ready.”
But even the new law is stirring unease.
State Rep. Adrienne Benavidez, D-Adams County, one the state House’s 10 “no” votes on this year’s measure, expressed concern that the law does not specify a single reasonable speed.
“It doesn’t standardize it if it doesn’t mandate it,” Benavidez said. “It isn’t consistent. I would much rather have had a mandate saying, ‘This is the law.’ ”
Measure spotlights driver-rider tension
Another part of the law that is drawing attention is the discretion it gives to bicyclists and the uncertainty that could create.
“After an initial reading of the law it makes us a little nervous from a safety standpoint,” said Maile Gray, executive director of Drive Smart Colorado, a Colorado Springs-based traffic safety nonprofit. “We have a lot of Olympic bicyclists here in Colorado Springs, and I worry about the lack of knowledge of the law and the lack of public education. It makes me nervous that entire platoons might just ride through (intersections) without looking.”
But that tension goes both ways.
“Drivers don’t treat bicyclists with a lot of respect,” said Mike Decker, the general manager of Bikes Together, a Denver-based nonprofit that refurbishes, sells and donates bicycles. “They view them more as a nuisance than as a part of city landscape. If I can bike to work with a little more confidence and with the law behind my back I’m going to do it more.”
By giving bicyclists the option to pull out ahead of motorized vehicles, cycling advocates say, the state’s new law makes riders more visible and allows them to get out of drivers’ way quickly and safely.
“Traffic laws are meant to help traffic flow safely and efficiently — and this new law helps make that possible,” van Heuven said. “It’s legislation that makes sense for street safety overall.”
Several communities considering a rolling stop measure
With the state framework now on the books, a few questions involve which municipalities will implement their own laws and how they will educate everyone on the road.
Communities such as Golden, Jefferson County, Lakewood and Colorado Springs are considering joining the other four Colorado local governments in implementing their own laws.
Jill Gaebler, president pro-tem of the Colorado Springs City Council, had misgivings about the bill in April, before its final vote.
However, she had a change of heart after speaking with drivers and bicyclists in her community. She says that the adoption of the Idaho Stop law could complement the bike infrastructure that Colorado Springs is building and mitigate road rage among drivers.
One factor in her new mind-set, she said, is the idea that drivers and cyclists can face very different consequences when running afoul of the same law.
“I’m sensitive to those drivers who have concerns. The difference is, when a car breaks a law, they (can) kill someone. When a biker breaks the law, the only person that person is going to hurt is themselves,” Gaebler said.
While the prospects are good for a law in Colorado Springs, the state’s secondlargest city, the chances for one in Denver are unclear.
The city has a combined 172 miles of bike-only and multivehicle lanes, and its 2016 master plan calls for another 270 miles of sidewalks, bike lanes, and shared lanes over the next few years as funding becomes available. But the idea of a rolling stop law hasn’t gone beyond brief conversations, according to Denver city councilman Jolon Clark.
Adoption of such a law in Denver could start a domino effect and bring the idea of a statewide mandate back before the legislature, said Kerr, the sponsor of the state law.
And in the meantime, bicycle activists such as van Heuven will continue to campaign in Denver.
“If we don’t make some of these changes,” she said, “nothing will change.”