Skip to Content

New bill could change way cyclists laws in Colorado roads

DENVER, Colo. (KRDO) -- A new Colorado law could change the way bicyclists behave on the roads.

The bill, sponsored by State Representative Matt Gray (D), would allow cyclists to treat stop signs like yield signs, and red lights like stop signs. However, this would only apply as long as cyclists abide by right-of-way rules.

Senate Bill 18-144 is under a current provision, allowing local governments to opt into this rule. If the bill passes, it would implement the rule statewide.

Similar laws are already in place in Idaho and Oklahoma.

Gray told 9News the measure is a solution to prevent confusion by making biking rules the same across Colorado.

KRDO News

Comments

21 Comments

  1. This is what they do already and this is stupid. But I don’t care if they end up on my hood

    1. An abundant amount of drivers don’t follow traffic laws. REAL patriots follow the laws of the land without personal interpretation. Your comment is indicative of the inherent idiocy of your ilk. Roll me up on your hood and see what happens.

      1. I’m your huckleberry. Tell you what why don’t you tell me where you ride your bike and I’ll come find you.

  2. Bicycles are still a vehicle on public roadways therefore they need to follow the same laws as an automobile.

    1. Bicycles are still a vehicle on public roadways therefore automobiles need to follow the law and treat them as such.

      1. Just yesterday, I pedaled to the grocery store. I had three people cut me off – clearly visible, with a bike trailer. One of those cut off persons, was on the cell phone and ran the red left turn arrow!

        1. I’m not saying that cars don’t need to follow the 3′ rule and other similar laws. However, bicyclist’s no obeying the same traffic laws as cars, they are at risk of more accidents. If it’s a stop sign, stop.

  3. So in essence, p@ss a law that makes bicyclists illegal traffic actions legal? Why? The entire point of the MTC was to ensure public safety. Additionally, the cyclists already do this and is more often than not the cause of the traffic accidents in the first place. Why provide a law that lessens public safety and grants the violator the ability to violate the rules of the roadway, especially when their bicycle can’t sustain an impact with a motor vehicle. Get them off the roads, they don’t pay for the road tax, they don’t follow the MTC, put them on trails only. This bill goes the opposite direction of the way public safety would provide.

    1. “Similar laws are already in place in Idaho and Oklahoma.”
      There are 48 other states that still enforce traffic laws, even for bicyclists.

    2. These actions would only be legal and”…only apply as long as cyclists abide by right-of-way rules.” If they end up as a hood ornament, it’s because they failed to YIELD the right of way to a vehicle having said right of way on the cross street. Dash cams are a wonderful way for a motorist to prove his/her case when it comes to the inevitable collision and its aftermath.

      1. You are absolutely correct, don’t trust the traffic accident investigator to be more truthful than the Go-Pro that recorded the entire encounter. Don’t trust that your insurance company, or the cyclists insurance will be more factual, all they go by is the TAI’s report(s). The only way to fight this in court is by video evidence. Too bad our insurance requirements didn’t include 360 degree video capture as a requirement to prove fault.
        RMC SS, my point regarding the “abide by right-of-way rules” was this is currently what is in place now as it is a traditional “he said, she said” which yields no additional support to the LE. It doesn’t make it better only exacerbates the problem now.

    3. Bicyclist do pay road tax. Most of the city General Fund comes from sales tax. They pay to use roads anytime they buy something plus most probably own a car and pay gas tax. Article says this will make the rules the same across the entire state. We already have that, cyclist have to follow the same rules as autos. I ride but I avoid roads for bike trails whenever possible.

      1. See you’re smart you’re not one of the militant bicyclists that have something to prove. What they don’t seem to understand is if there’s a choice between hitting another car and hitting a bicyclist I’m going to hit the bicyclists 10 out of 10 times.

      2. CJGuy, thank you for your reply and being a cautious cyclist that avoids roadways for trails.
        If a bicycle owner, whom also owns a motor vehicle and is buying gas, are they buying the gas with the road tax for the motor vehicle’s use of the roadway, or are they buying the gas for the bicycle’s use of the roadway? The road tax is not split up like purchasing an extra rod license for a fishing license. Attempting to believe otherwise is double-dipping and attempting to utilize the luxury of this road tax twice, but only paid for once.

        Tax Rate
        The gasoline tax is @ssessed at a rate of 22¢ per gallon. Gasoline is defined as “any flammable liquid used primarily as a fuel for the propulsion of motor vehicles, motor boats, or aircraft.”3 This includes conventional gasoline and several derivate blends, such as Gasohol or E10, which is a blend of gasoline and ethanol composed of 10 percent or less ethanol.

        The special fuels tax is @ssessed at a rate of 20.5¢ per gallon.4 Special fuels include diesel fuel, kerosene, and ethanol blends of more than 10 percent ethanol, when used for the generation of power to propel a motor vehicle on highways. Beginning in 2014, compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), and liquefied petroleum gas (LPF) became subject to tax at rates that phased in over time. Beginning in 2019, these rates were fully phased in at 18.3¢ for CNG, 12¢ for LNG, and 13.5¢ for LPF.

        Beginning July 1, 2022, gasoline and special fuels are subject to additional road usage fees, and special fuels are subject to additional bridge and tunnel impact fees. Fee schedules phase in over time. Road usage fees are subject to TABOR, while bridge and tunnel impact fees are credited to a TABOR-exempt state enterprise. Because these charges are fees, not taxes, they are omitted from the visualization in this tax handbook.
        https://leg.colorado.gov/agencies/legislative-council-staff/motor-fuel-tax%C2%A0

  4. This bill makes about as much sense as KRDO’s headline:
    “New bill could change way cyclists laws in Colorado roads”

  5. “treat red lights like stop signs” is a horrible idea. Have they thought about powers, academy, circle, or austin bluffs? Major streets!? Or are they thinking all bicycles are travelling on tiny neighborhood streets? Bad idea. Lots of squished bicyclists in the near future I sees.

  6. As a bike commuter this is a terrible idea. Bikes are vehicles and the more we all agree on that fact the better it will be for bikes and motor vehicles. Exceptions don’t help anyone.

  7. Look at the root of the issue.
    Many people are turning to bicycles as the cost of buying, maintaining, insuring, repairing a car can be excessively prohibitive these days.

Comments are closed.

Skip to content