Jump to content
Michael, in response to your concern, If you do not know how it can be done safely it may not be possible to enlighten you, but I will try.
The cyclist keeps to the edge of the walk away from buildings.
The cyclist keeps the speed low enough to react to the sudden appearance of a pedestrian.
On a narrow walk, approaching from behind pedestrians, the cyclist calls out or rings a bell, and waits for the pedestrian to allow passing.
The small minority I referred to are not those who violate the ban, but those who do so recklessly.
You ask why I think so many cities have banned it. I believe it is because it is so much easier to institute a ban than a reasonable standard for behavior. A wise law would ban reckless behavior.
An interesting comparison is the use of the Segway motorized two wheeled vehicle. I recently took a tour of historic downtown Richmond with a group riding these amazing devises. The sidewalks there are very narrow (as are the streets) but there was never an issue of endangering the pedestrians, although if handled recklessly the damage or injury could be severe. Such vehicles are not permitted in traffic, only on sidewalks and crossings.
This forum will certainly be useful, but what about a formal procedure for registering citizens concerns with a link for the record of actions taken and results accomplished, available for viewing by all who wish to know what degree of responsiveness exists in our local government.
At present there is no way to track the actions (or lack thereof) when a citizen presents an issue to the government. In one example I took a concern to three departments (Public works, public safety and planning), each of whom had a degree of authority regarding the matter, and have received no report from any of them about what can be done to address the situation.
We must institute procedures to hold government accountable for the proper execution of the duties with which it is entrusted.
I maintain it is not the activity per se but the irresponsible manner of a small minority of individuals that is problematic. Those who can and do ride carefully and respectfully on the sidewalks should not be prohibited from doing so. If the prohibition stands, (as does the no crossing policy), then the selective non enforcement becomes the reasonable alternative.
The most under utilized property on Yampa Street is the big parking lot across from YVEA. Can they perhaps be given sufficient incentive to allow its use for public parking? It is also an Ideal site for a parking garage as the grade allows multi level access without internal ramps. Sending a portion of the public funds that direction could advance the project considerably.
In the river?
One size fits all, anyone?
I have seen plenty of considerate bike and board riders on the sidewalks downtown, only a few rude ones. I have seen quite a few cyclists in the roadway on Lincoln jeopardizing themselves and the passing motorists. One outstanding example was a badly out of shape person going very slowly upgrade in the middle of the right lane, causing quite a delay for all others.
What should be illegal is specific behaviors that cause harm or distress, impede traffic or endanger others, not a blanket ban. If we must continue to pass simplistic laws, children must be specifically excepted, required to use the sidewalks, not the streets. (Of course the reckless or discourteous adolescent should still be ticketed).
I noticed the "No Crossing Between Lights" signs disappeared. And my young teen boys report being seen often by policemen while riding slowly along the sidewalks of Old Town. Maybe there is hope for reason to prevail.
I'm with Jim on this one. Our Routt County Building department is truly dedicated to serving this community well. i have not always agreed with some interpretations, and find the mission creep troublesome, but those are political or administrative issues and must be addressed through comissions or elections. But the unfailing commitment to serve the people of the county, the builders and homeowners and businesses, is unquestionable. If the service is to be privatized, it must be with local residents as the personnel, and preferably by locally owned firms. They could not do better than to hire Skip and John and Ted, and Danna and Sue. And if it must be taken out of governments purview, then it must be turned out to real market forces competition, with at least two options to choose from. The last thing we need is to grant a monoply to a private, for profit contractor.
I have said this many times before, we have by far the best, most honest, hardworking and ethical building department I have seen in over forty years of construction in at least two dozen different juristictions. Some have been indifferent, some incompentent, some criminally negligent and corrupt. We have a good thing going on here and it is all because these people really care.
Thank you RCBD, and thank you Carl for your many years of service. Here's wishing you every happieness in your retirement.
Maybe it is just that because of the obstacles to development of the 6th street lot they figure there is no hurry. But because the 7th street lot is so well suited for a business, it probable should be left in the private sector and become another venue for the visitors to patronize and generate revenues to support parks at the other locations.
Why is the 7th street lot preferable to the 6th street lot, which has 4 times the river frontage? The 6th lot also is not developable without significant variances so an appraisal would reflect that fact. If the owner will not agree to sell for the appraisal, the City could legitimately claim eminent domain, but the owner would not likely refuse and so alienate the City that variances would be even less likely, and any subsequent buyer would know that.
Could be short of capital because of payments on other overpriced but nearly worthless properties, the Iron Horse and vacant land at the end of Elk River Road for affordable housing come to mind.
The lot at 7th would be a nice park but should we buy highly desirable development property at the rates justified by that demand to provide for park space? It seems to me that the next parcel upriver that has had development proposals denied because of several issues and is unlikely to be a commercial success due to those existing watercourse setback regulations could be a better buy. The lot at 7th is deep enough to avoid those development problems. and the one at 6th has much more river frontage.
Last login: Sunday, May 4, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.