Manfred wrote the following letter to the Boulder City Council on August 25^th, 1999 regarding construction on 28th St. He received replies as reproduced below.

As you are no doubt aware, there is construction work going on at 28^th Street. As I was cycling east on Valmont yesterday noon and stopped for the traffic light at the 28th St. intersection, I found the two east-bound lanes reduced to one, and no access to the bike lane or the sidewalk on the right. Despite my being at the very front of the traffic line at the light, the driver next to me, predictably, saw to it that he beat the bike rider--me--through that short section of one-lane east-bound Valmont; there was no space for two vehicles abreast. I was next through that section, and the driver behind was courteous enough to stay back.

This aggressive driver's behavior, typical in Boulder, particularly near the traffic circles, is not the reason for my writing this note. My reason for writing this is that again the City has left cyclists and pedestrians to fend for themselves at a city construction site: motorists, as always, have at least one traffic lane and are not instructed in any manner to share that lane with pedestrians and cyclists whose legitimate space has once again been disrupted without thought. This example is not isolated: the recent break at a water main at 28th St. presented a similar situation, though there was enough space for a cyclist to wind his/her way through the various traffic cones, but again no provision had been made to inform them that this was possible. Wherever construction makes the bike lane and/or the sidewalk unusable, as happened several times on southbound 55^th near Arapahoe/55th, motor traffic does not suffer similar obstruction, and I need only allude to the annual flooding of Boulder's paths.

Such neglect of the legitimate needs of those using non-motor transportation in Boulder cannot be reconciled with the City's proclaimed aim of supporting "alternate transportation" (= unequal non-motorized transportation). It also cannot be reconciled with the message being sent to the public every year during "Bike Week", during which citizens are encouraged to start using bicycles for transportation, not to mention the fact that these potential new cyclists receive no training which would prepare them for the reality on Boulder's streets. It is time that this reality be adjusted to match the rhetoric.

B. Spense Havlick's reply on 8/25/99, with CC to all Council members:

I agree with several of your concerns.....We have seen a slippage in the overall attention to bike and pedestrian safety. I plan to raise this vigorously at our upcoming transportation study session in a few weeks. I have also seen 10-12 no light bike violations at night near the campus each of the last few nights ........in clear view of police officers where nothing was done. I hope we can get the word out about improved compliance or enforcement.

C. Response from David Rhodes on 8/26/99:

Thank you for the thoughtful e-mail. The 28th street project is Public Service Company and we will pass on your concern. I will share your observations with the transportation staff and we will continue to look for ways to get better.

D. Manfred's Letter to Spense Havlick and David Rhodes on 8/31/99:

I appreciate your reply and concern. I also agree with you that it is not acceptable that cyclists are not cited for failure to use lights at night, and particularly in the vicinity of police officers. I have made the same observation in Boulder many times over the years. Indeed, police failure to cite cyclists for legitimate offenses feeds right into motorist complaints that "...yes, motorists do bad things, but cyclists out there do so many other bad things..."--ignoring, of course, that the severity of the respective offenses is not comparable since no motorist in his/her car has ever been killed by a cyclist on his/her bicycle, at least not in this area, or perhaps anywhere. But such police inaction helps undermine the efforts of law-abiding cyclists, as well as of others, to bring legitimate safety and efficiency concerns to the attention of the authorities and motorists. Cyclists do not have the authority, or even the ability, to police their own ranks. In this train of thought, I would like to take the opportunity to bring to your attention several other safety concerns I have regarding cyclists and pedestrians.

1. There is an ongoing need to check for impediments to bicycle travel-- on streets, paths--such as debris, bushes, construction sites, narrowing of travel corridor (Pearl/30th,westbound), etc.

2. There is an ongoing need to reduce motorist speeds and aggressiveness not just in neighborhoods, but throughout the city; to that end I welcome all efforts at traffic mitigation, including traffic circles, which I find not to be a problem so long as I can "force" the motorist to heed the sign which instructs motorists not to cut cyclists off at the circles. The problem of aggressiveness is so pervasive that I feel any and all means must be used to curb it.

3. To address the problem of motorist aggressiveness toward cyclists and pedestrians, as well as other vulnerable traffic participants such as wheelchair operators, it might be worth considering issuing fines at levels which would make it clear to all that the City takes this problem seriously.

4. There is an ongoing need to train new--and not so new--cyclists in traveling on Boulder's streets and paths safely (as safely as motorists will allow) and efficiently. This should be an ongoing "Effective Cycling" course open to any citizen on demand. Motorists should welcome such training since it will make all cyclists more competent and predictable. At the same time, it will emphasize the fact that the streets exist not just for motorists, but for all traffic participants.

5. There is an ongoing need for traffic law ENFORCEMENT and EDUCATION, neither of which have been very evident in Boulder for many years. Whereas Boulder's emphasis has from the beginning been on PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION primarily on paths (all built to very low standards), I contend that those elements which will have the greatest impact on safety (ENFORCEMENT, EDUCATION, TRAINING of both cyclists and motorists), are precisely those the City has always neglected, likely because these efforts require changes in policy and a good deal of political will. While Photo Radar alone will not solve all problems of motorist aggressiveness, it will help a great deal, and should be vastly expanded throughout the city as much as is fiscally possible. The other important elements, EDUCATION and TRAINING, are perhaps difficult to implement but at the same time not necessarily very expensive. My contention has been that POLICY CHANGES, with the aid of some physical changes, can overcome almost all obstacles to safety if taken seriously.

6. There is a need for TRACKING CYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS to find out objectively what problems they encounter, what problems they cause, instead of relying on hearsay and opinion polls. I have proposed this many times before.

7. There is a need to expand the HOTLINE, with at least some follow-up by the City to obtain detailed data. Currently, it seems useless. A couple of years ago, I had recorded details of a motorist's overt aggression against my wife, at Valmont/47th, before two witnesses, without any reaction from the Hotline administrators. Boulder police did very little to try to find the perpetrator who got away with his aggressive behavior.

8. There is a need to update TRAFFIC LAW. Non-motorized citizens must have better legal resources to defend themselves--see HOTLINE above. One problem for cyclists particularly is the current requirement that a cyclist who has been endangered or threatened by a motorist must supply not just the vehicle license number, but also a description of the driver: anyone who has been cycling for any amount of time knows how DIFFICULT the first task is, since most such encounters between cyclist and motorist take place within a couple of seconds, and how NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE the second task is: getting a description of the driver of a motor vehicle coming from behind is in reality not possible. Thus, the most a cyclist can realistically HOPE to be able to supply after an encounter with a motorist is a description and the license number of the vehicle.

9. With regard to TAB, there is, I think, a need to include one member representing the safety and welfare of pedestrians specifically, and one representing those same interests of cyclists.

Return to January 2000 Newsletter