Jump to content
Cow/elk/dogs/porcupines---seen them all on 129--have always been able to stop in time to not hit them. I am a slow driver which is why impatient drivers pass me on 129--or honk. However killing a cow means I might have to pay for the cow--hitting a bike unintentionally means I may go to jail and lose my lifes savings/work--even if I was following the letter of the law on the roadway. Your comment is comparing apples to oranges!!
And once again Pat and Matt--
Attacking drivers is your answer instead of coming up with safe alternatives to problem roads.
I stand by my assertion that 129 does not handle drivers and bikers safely.
Maybe a "usage/licensing tax" should be assessed all bikers and put into a savings account like dave mentioned above to create a safe shoulder/bike path to 129. Was 129 designed/built to handle bikes, cars, motorhomes pulling boats, agricultural vehicles safely? Many roads in this county have been redesigned/widened to handle bikes and vehicles safely but 129 is not one of them. I find it astounding the attitude of some bikers that their rights exceed all others. My comments are specifically related to being proactive about safety before there are deaths on 129. Maybe not a biker, but a motorist swerving to avoid one around a blind curve and rolling their car. Speed is not the issue on 129 as much as the narrowness of the road.
Sorry, Pat, totally disagree with your assessment on 129 in particular. Cyclists have many options where to do their "pleasure ride." If you are a 5th generation rancher/farmer who has hay/cattle to get to market their use of this road takes priority--what road options do they have to make their livelihood? I am just willing to voice what so many feel but think it is "politically incorrect" to say out loud!! Perhaps prohibiting cyclists certain times of the year or days of the week on this road is the answer until shoulders can be built---which I doubt will happen in a lifetime.
Sorry for your losses. . . The law is being violated on both sides of the ledger. 25 pound bikes have to use extra care when sharing the road with 3,000 to 5,000 pound vehicles. In this county the road that scares me the most is 129 where blind curves and no shoulders almost make it impossible for a biker. . . . yet there are many of them every day. If a hay truck comes around a corner doing the speed limit in his lane runs across bikers two abreast that have ear phones on and God forbid the worst happens, is the hay hauler to blame???? I really feel that some roads should have exclusions against bikers for fear of this exact scenario.
Trying to defend cyclist "bad behavior" by citing drivers "at fault" is not a good strategy. Did you read this summer about the cyclist in Boulder flying down Flagstaff Road (steep and windy) in Boulder who veered in to the other lane around a blind corner and was hit and killed by an uphill driver who was obeying the law? The driver was not cited . . . . just sayin'. Why would some cyclists continue to disobey stopping where signs are clearly posted unless they have a "death wish"? Who in their right mind flies thru stop signs and red lights (happened to me this a.m. unless they plan on eventually being taken out of the gene pool.
The community has been grieving with you for 15 months and I think many feel you are an incredible class act as you have been going through this process. I do not feel that the community will have any reservations about your and the district attorneys decision with this sentence. Only with closure can one move forward. God speed with the rest of your life . . .
This unnecessary expense is sure to be a catalyst for the sun setting of this tax in five years!! It really goes against the spirit of the additional 1/4% sales tax sold to the voters. While the Pilot promotes affordable housing, pocket parks, etc. etc. the local population is hurt by higher sales taxes as the "wish list" gets bigger and bigger. We can only hope the city is out-bid for this property by private interests who plan on developing it into another sales tax generating commercial use? . . . . I'm with Martha on this and give kudos to the Council Members who just said no!!
We are on the same page, Scott. Less govt interference in our lives vis a vis home childcare regulations. However, membership in the Chamber is a choice, paying taxes is not (if you want to maintain your home, business, lifestyle, etc). If the members of the Chamber vote to allocate part of the yearly budget to affordable housing more power to them. BUT the tax paying public wants safe water, sewer pipes that don't leak, roads without pot holes and sidewalks so one can walk on Oak Street from 10th to 3rd without fear of being hit by cars or bikes, etc. We are all better served by having to pay less sales tax than the Council figuring out how to spend all the money they receive.
Agree with all the above comments and would further add it is NOT the responsibility of City Council to even address this issue at all!! If businesses are having a hard time finding the work force they need to conduct business it is THEIR responsibility to deal directly with the employees they have, ie: providing child care or transportation allowances if the employee is valuable to the operation. I find it odd that no specific examples of businesses affected are even cited in this editorial.
Last login: Monday, August 18, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.