Webb v. City of Black Hawk, 2013 CO 9

Black Hawk, a Colorado home‑rule municipality, enacted Ordinance 2010‑3 prohibiting bicycles on most streets; the prohibition lacked an accompanying alternate route within 450 feet as required by state law.
Bicyclists Webb, Hermanson, and Jeronimus were cited for riding on Gregory Street, the sole route connecting Central City to the Peak‑to‑Peak Highway, under Black Hawk’s ordinance.
Black Hawk had previously amended its code to remove a state‑mandated 450‑foot alternative route provision after a 2009 compatibility study.
State statutes give municipalities authority to prohibit bicycles only where a suitable alternative path exists within 450 feet of heavily traveled streets; otherwise, bicycles must be accommodated.
The Supreme Court holds Black Hawk’s ban is preempted because it involves mixed state and local concerns and fails to provide an approved alternate route, violating section 42‑4‑109(11).
The decision reverses the district court and remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Black Hawk’s bicycle ban is purely local or mixed/state.	Bicyclists argue the ban is a local matter subject to home‑rule control.	Black Hawk contends traffic regulation is a local matter and the ban is permissible.	Mixed state/local concern; ban preempted by state law.
Whether 42‑4‑109(11) requires an alternate bike path for prohibitions.	Bicyclists assert no suitable alternate path exists as required by statute.	City claims the ordinance is valid without an explicit alternate path.	State requires an alternate path within 450 feet; prohibition without it is invalid.
Whether the ordinance has extraterritorial impact.	Bicyclists emphasize ripple effects on through‑traffic and tourism.	City argues regulation is local.	Yes, it has extraterritorial impact reducing interjurisdictional bicycle travel.
Role of home‑rule vs state in mixed concerns.	Home‑rule authority should prevail for purely local matters.	State interest in uniform regulation can override local rules.	State interest prevails to the extent of the conflict; mixed‑concern framework applies.
Standard of review for regulation of bicycles by home‑rule cities.			De novo review; assess totality of circumstances and applicable factors.

Commerce City v. State, 40 P.3d 1273 (Colo. 2002) (state interest in uniform traffic regulation; mixed local/state concerns factor into preemption)
Telluride v. Lot Thirty‑Four Venture, L.L.C., 3 P.3d 30 (Colo. 2000) (mixed state/local concerns analysis factors weigh local vs statewide regulation)
City & Cnty. of Denver v. State, 788 P.2d 764 (Colo. 1990) (framework for home‑rule authority vs state regulation; local vs statewide scope)
Ibarra v. City of Northglenn, 62 P.3d 151 (Colo. 2003) (case recognizing nuanced categorization of local/state regulatory matters)
People v. Graham, 110 P.2d 256 (Colo. 1941) (historical context of uniform traffic regulation and local vs state roles)
Qwest Corp. v. City of Denver, 18 P.3d 748 (Colo. 2000) (illustrates interface of state statutes with home‑rule regulations)