This is one of those decisions where you would swear that judges are paid by the word... here's the short version: Black Hawk had a law which prohibited people from riding bikes through their city. The ordinance only applied to people who entered the city on bicycles. People whose trip originated within the city could ride wherever they wanted, but people who rode in from somewhere else weren't allowed to pass through Black Hawk. Pretty stupid, right? It's even stupider considering that it conflicts with state traffic regulations (you can't prohibit bikes on a street unless you provide an alternate path, which Black Hawk did not. Black Hawk's solution was to simply un-enact that portion of the state law within their boundaries).
Anyway, some cyclists did ride through Black Hawk as part of a long distance ride that began in Golden. They were stopped and ticketed. They fought the charges, and the muni court found them guilty (although it did strike down the exception for local cyclists, meaning that now the law would have to apply to everyone). They appealed all the way to the state Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held (using every conceivable rationale, and a lot of extraneous information) that bicycle regulation is a matter of both local and statewide concern, that the Black Hawk bike ban was in conflict with state law, and that since this is not a purely local matter the state law trumps the local law. Therefore the bike ban is unconstitutional.
...but the Supreme Court said it in 7,681 words!
No comments:
Post a Comment