Remind e-bike riders about rights of way on trails
Re: “Addressing e-bike safety starts by cracking down on e-motorcycles,” July 22, editorial.
I often ride the Cherry Creek and other bike paths at a 10-12 mph pace, frequently passed by both more energetic cyclists and e-bikes. Most are courteous and warn me as they approach, and although I am occasionally startled, no accidents yet.
In the e-bike debate, I have yet to hear anyone talk about rights of way. In Cherry Creek State Park, there are signs showing that bikes yield to pedestrians and both bikes and pedestrians yield to horses; in skiing, the overtaken skier has the right of way. I would recommend similar signs and/or regulations indicating that in shared spaces it is clear that e-bikes yield to bicycles, and both yield to pedestrians. It is clearly the considerate thing to do, but it needs to be explicitly stated
Peter Sanford, Englewood
Denver’s shared scooters and bicycles have come at the expense of public safety.
These vehicles are often abandoned on sidewalks, curb ramps, driveways, lawns, and in the street, creating hazards for pedestrians every day.
For people who use wheelchairs, walkers, canes, or mobility scooters, a blocked sidewalk can be impassable and force them into traffic. Older adults, people with visual impairments, parents with strollers, and other pedestrians also risk tripping over them.
The companies profiting from these fleets bear too little responsibility for the disorder they create. Why should Denver residents have to step around — or move — someone else’s abandoned scooter?
The city should treat this as the serious accessibility and safety issue it is. Shared scooters and bikes should be parked only in designated areas, with fines for blocking sidewalks and stronger penalties for repeat violations.
Innovation should not come at the expense of people with disabilities, seniors, or public safety. Our sidewalks are for people, not abandoned rental vehicles. Itap time to put pedestrians first.
Sam Marcove, Denver
Protect food from all contaminants, not just cyclospora
Re: “FDA still focused on lettuce supplier as source of parasite despite test,” July 21 news story.
The recent article on the cyclospora outbreak is an important reminder that food safety extends beyond bacteria and parasites. We also need to address the chemicals that come in contact with our food every day. Forever chemicals (PFAS) are commonly used in food packaging and can migrate into the food we eat.
While outbreaks like cyclospora demand immediate action, long-term chemical contamination deserves the same urgency. Consumers shouldn’t have to worry about hidden health risks from the packaging. Stronger regulations and safer alternatives are essential to protect public health. Safe food means more than preventing bacteria and parasite contamination; it also means ensuring the packaging itself doesn’t expose people to harmful chemicals that can persist in our bodies and the environment for decades.
Caroline Garland, Centennial
Why are we still subsidizing oil and gas industry?
Re: “Study: Last winter’s snow drought sign of the future,” July 22 news story.
I am grateful – I guess – to Colorado School of Mines scientist Adrienne Marshall for the analysis that found we can expect winters with dismal snowpack like last year’s to become the norm by the end of the century.
As depressing as this analysis is, it is worth remembering that we American taxpayers are paying for this, to the tune of to the oil and gas industry. When the estimated costs of environmental and public health damages are included, the total is closer to $760 billion annually. Those costs feel very real in Colorado as we watch hundreds of homes destroyed by wildfires. Our winter recreation industry is being decimated and our summer outdoor recreation curbed by dangerous air quality index reports.
Call me cuckoo, but I think the 150-year-old oil business is ready to stand on its own two feet without taxpayer subsidies. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the fossil fuel industry and similar polluters be charged a carbon fee for the thousands of tons of pollution they pour into our air. That revenue could go to the American households who now bear these externalized costs without ever giving consent. I’m just saying.
Luke Clarke, Golden
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
