a path to freedom
Some motorized vehicles belong on the bike path

- - - - - - - - - - - -
by Wayne Laugesen (letters@boulderweekly.com)

At the Farmers Market downtown, a woman approached with a yellow flyer and a petition. She told me something I didn't know: "The city," she said, "wants to allow motorized vehicles on the bike paths." She continued: "The paths are already crowded and dangerous. If you think adding motorized vehicles is a bad idea, sign here."

I didn't sign, but dozens of others did within minutes. The petition will do well, because on the surface this proposal for motorized vehicles-made by the city's Transportation Advisory Board-sounds absurd. It appears as if the city wants to kill all pedestrians.

The opposition's flyer criticizes the Transportation Department for hypocrisy, because the agency has pledged to make conditions safer for pedestrians. Walking around town, however, it's apparent the city has taken great strides to make Boulder more pedestrian friendly. Just look at all the new pedestrian/bicycle underpasses. Seven years ago, one had to cross four streets to ride from the Park East neighborhood to King Soopers at Broadway and Table Mesa. Today, thanks to underpasses, one can walk or ride that route by crossing only one street.

Remember when the walk signs turned red without warning, leaving people helpless in the middle busy streets? Today, at a growing number of intersections, the walk signs display large numbers that tell pedestrians exactly how many seconds they have to cross before getting run over. The city has bent over backwards making pedestrian safety a priority. Don't buy the premise of the petition propaganda, which argues that city officials don't care about pedestrians.

Boulder consists of more than 46 miles of bicycle/pedestrian paths, not including the bicycle lanes along the sides of streets. The paths are possibly Boulder's greatest asset. People who can get to and from work on paths understand one of life's greatest pleasures. There's simply nothing like riding through groves of trees, along mountain streams, getting from place to place without spending money or generating smog. Few simple pleasures compare to the feeling of pulling up at the front door of an office, store or restaurant, chaining a bike to a parking meter (not having to feed it), and going about business without the hassle of finding a place to store 3,000 pounds of steel.

Unfortunately, relatively few experience this joy. Those who do are relatively young and in good physical condition. Fat people, with thyroid problems and/or severe diabetes, can't just climb on a bike to get to and from work. People with heart conditions, young and old, can't pedal all over town. Old people, even old athletes who've weakened with age, can't depend on bikes. What about people with muscular dystrophy? The list could go on.

More and more, bicycle manufactures are acknowledging the market of would-be cyclists who don 't have the strength to ride. They've come up with electric-assist hybrid cycles. The bikes can be pedaled and ridden just like normal bikes. But when a cyclist reaches a hill or becomes too tired to go on, a small electric motor can be engaged.

The bikes are just another sign of the compassion intrinsic to free-market capitalism. Primarily to make money, bike manufacturers would like to accommodate people who haven't traditionally bought bikes. By doing so, they open a transportation option of joy and efficiency to a huge segment of society that otherwise might never experience a ride along Boulder Creek on paths they helped pay for.

"I wanted to design a clean, energy-efficient transportation alternative to the car," says Jim Turner, owner of Optibike in Boulder.

His bikes, which will hit the market this year, are high-end models costing about $5,000. On level pavement, while pedaling and using the motor, Optibikes will go 25 to 30 miles an hour. Delivering 400 watts of power, the motor makes it possible for even the most feeble cyclists to navigate steep hills.

Petitioners who oppose electric bikes on trails use the high-performance abilities of Optibike as a reason to oppose the committee's recommendation. Their flyer contains a review of the bike from Velo News in order to make it sound like a race car. Selected words from the review are bolded, such as "it really rips." Yes, in the context of low-powered, electric-assist bicycles, this one rips. One could say the same about a high-end electric wheelchair. Furthermore, 25 to 30 miles an hour isn't fast for a bike. Physically fit riders often exceed 40 miles an hour on level pavement. The bike path speed limit is 15 miles an hour. Simply enforce it.

The petitioners presented this excerpt from the review, bolding the alarming part: "The bike goes as fast as someone sprinting around town on a road bike, except that you can keep it up for over an hour with only moderate effort."

Alarming at first, and enough to get a signature for sure. But what's the problem with this bolded statement? All it really says is that someone with limited physical ability can now whiz around town like a 25-year-old on a 21-speed Schwinn.

The petitioners probably have only the best of intentions. But they're failing to view the world from the eyes of those less fortunate than themselves-the elderly and disabled who would be ever-so-slightly empowered by small, quiet electric motors. Deregulate the bike paths, and make this a more equal opportunity town.