The front-page article of the Daily Sentinel from April 10 opened with the heartbreaking story of an 81-year-old cyclist who was killed on 12th Street. From there, it shifts into a broader discussion of Grand Junction’s multimodal efforts, highlighting, in particular, the city’s recent changes to Fourth and Fifth streets.

While the topic is certainly newsworthy, the article reads more like a promotion of the city’s transportation agenda than a balanced look at a controversial issue.

Let’s start with the facts.

I’ve seen surveillance video that captured the actual crash, and I’ve spoken with people who were there. One of them is a friend of mine, and she performed CPR on the victim. This crash occurred when the cyclist veered off the sidewalk into traffic. This isn’t something a bike lane would have prevented. The Sentinel’s framing suggests otherwise, but that doesn’t reflect what actually happened.

This isn’t about rejecting data. It’s about how we use it.

If we’re serious about making streets safer, we should start with the facts and question our conclusions, not the other way around. That means approaching these questions the way we would a scientific problem: Begin with a hypothesis; examine the data objectively; and adjust based on what we find.

If speed is being cited as the primary issue, then we should see it listed as a contributing factor in each crash being used to justify a redesign. If it’s not, that incident shouldn’t be part of the dataset driving the decision. Otherwise, we risk lumping together unrelated fender benders and minor scrapes to support a predetermined agenda.

Was the original goal to improve safety or to reshape downtown to be more bike-friendly? Those are different starting points, and they lead to different kinds of decisions.

I’m not saying we don’t need safety improvements. We do. I’ve written about this before in previous blog posts where I’ve raised questions about the Fourth Street and Fifth Street redesign and the broader decision-making behind it. I’ve consistently said we need to evaluate what’s working and what’s not — not blindly revert, and not blindly push forward.

What I’ve called for and will continue to call for is a balanced approach:

• Adjust signal timing to reduce speeds without disrupting traffic flow.
• Lower speed limits where appropriate and increase speed enforcement.
• Use raised crosswalks to slow traffic while improving pedestrian visibility.
• Consider using “sharrows” (markings that indicate bikes and cars share the lane) rather than carving out entire lanes that disrupt business access, emergency response and freight movement.
• Add bike lanes where they make sense for cyclist safety, not simply as a tool to slow down traffic.

These are practical solutions. They improve safety without requiring the kind of sweeping changes we’ve seen in the pilot project.

The Sentinel’s April 10 editorial, which focused on campaign messaging and voter sentiment, briefly referenced the Fourth and Fifth street pilot project and quoted me as saying, “My feeling is that we need to be collaborative. I really do want to make sure we are meeting the public’s needs and safety.”

That remains my focus.

When I talk about collaboration, I don’t mean a slightly tweaked version of what’s already been decided. I’m not interested in preserving a single-lane solution just for appearances, and I’m not asking to go backward either. What I’m calling for is a genuine process. One that starts with an honest look at the data, not a predetermined goal to change the character of downtown.

These changes were proposed under the premise of safety. If that’s the goal, then let’s work together toward a safer downtown by identifying what’s truly causing crashes and addressing it directly.

But if the real aim is to reduce car use and remake the core of the city around bikes and pedestrians, then we owe it to the public to say that out loud. Collaboration only works if everyone is honest about the goals we’re trying to achieve.

We’re not Denver. We’re not Boulder. We’re Grand Junction. And we need to find what works here.

That means approaching this with an open mind and being honest about two key priorities: First, making decisions based on objectively reviewed crash data to understand downtown safety; and second, considering multimodal safety in the context of national standards like the Federal Highway Administration’s Safe System Approach.

Last week’s election was not a mandate to shut it all down. But it was a call for accountability. Voters said loud and clear: Listen to us. Engage with us. Don’t keep telling us what’s best for us while ignoring what we’re experiencing every day.

This isn’t about being “anti-bike.” It’s about being pro-honesty. Pro-reality. Pro-community.

Let’s approach these conversations with care and perspective.