http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/05/in-a-city-built.html
quote:
(excerpt)
... About 30 cyclists rode onto the Santa Monica Freeway (I-10) at the height of Friday's rush-hour commute and went east to the San Diego Freeway (I-405), where they rode north to the Santa Monica Boulevard exit, moving easily through traffic. In all, they rode more than two miles....
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/05/in-a-city-built.html
quote:
(excerpt)
... About 30 cyclists rode onto the Santa Monica Freeway (I-10) at the height of Friday's rush-hour commute and went east to the San Diego Freeway (I-405), where they rode north to the Santa Monica Boulevard exit, moving easily through traffic. In all, they rode more than two miles....
Wow! That's a lot of ASBD (attention seeking behavior disorder).
idiot....in my opinion.
makes a lot of sense and proves a point
One Santa on the streets is a hazard and a death wish. "Critical Mass" is an effective way to prove that cyclists exist...and they deserve space on the road. For far too long, our highways and roads have been designed by traffic engineers with one purpose in mind: enabling the most cars possible to move from place to place.
While I don't advocate cycling on the highway, I do believe that highways--and all roads--need to be designed with cyclists and pedestrians in mind. Expressways should have bike paths running parallel. They also should have pedestrian/bike overpasses (or underpasses) to reconnect bisected neighborhoods and make cycling and walking viable alternatives to driving. (When you're on foot or bike, an expressway becomes the Berlin Wall...or the Great Wall of China. How weird that our need to facilitate "transportation" became an excuse to erect a series of impassible blocades throughout our cities!)
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
...and they deserve space on the road. For far too long, our highways and roads have been designed by traffic engineers with one purpose in mind: enabling the most cars possible to move from place to place.
While I don't advocate cycling on the highway, I do believe that highways--and all roads--need to be designed with cyclists and pedestrians in mind.
Most people simply don't believe it when I say that cycling around Tulsa is fairly easy, particularly when you ride on arterial streets where passing is easy. Motorists are accommodating toward cyclists, except for the rude few who will be a PITA regardless of how many wheels are under you.
The only roads that legally bar cyclists are the turnpikes. Still, I've ridden along a few limited access roads and it's not a pleasant experience. The shoulder is strewn with tire-puncturing debris and it's very noisy and stressful.
We should do a Tulsa Now ride sometime. We could do one in the evening and ride out for ice cream somewhere. Or do one on a Saturday morning for breakfast. You probably won't be surprised to discover that my bike seems to run very well on coffee, beer, and Italian food.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
One Santa on the streets is a hazard and a death wish. "Critical Mass" is an effective way to prove that cyclists exist...and they deserve space on the road. For far too long, our highways and roads have been designed by traffic engineers with one purpose in mind: enabling the most cars possible to move from place to place.
While I don't advocate cycling on the highway, I do believe that highways--and all roads--need to be designed with cyclists and pedestrians in mind. Expressways should have bike paths running parallel. They also should have pedestrian/bike overpasses (or underpasses) to reconnect bisected neighborhoods and make cycling and walking viable alternatives to driving. (When you're on foot or bike, an expressway becomes the Berlin Wall...or the Great Wall of China. How weird that our need to facilitate "transportation" became an excuse to erect a series of impassible blocades throughout our cities!)
GET REAL. I bet nobody, from the Mayor on down, wants to talk bikes in this town, because they might be linked to the silly Santa.
Fuel prices are putting more people onto scooters and bicycles. But there are other forces at work too. The Tulsa Tough is a good illustration of what can happen when government, business, and committed individuals come together to bring change. Granted, they're mostly pursuing their own self-interests, but in this case, those interests have common goals. Saint Francis Hospital has an obvious interest in promoting more healthful lifestyles, and uses the Tough and similar events to attract staff to the Tulsa area. The hotel and restaurant association want to attract visitors and their money. (Last year - the very first year of the Tough - I'm told it brought in between 4 and 5 million dollars for the weekend). The League cycling instructors use the kids events to make a major impact with bicycling education for both children and parents.
The city government wants Bicycle Friendly City status from the League, primarily because it speaks to liveability issues and attracts new residents and all that tax money.
He's the man.
Total trendsetter.
I understand bikes have a right to be on the roads, but if you can not go 40 MPH and hold up traffic... then why ride on those roads? Instead of taking Harvard, why not ride up Pittsburgh? Again, I understand you have the right to hold up traffic, create a hazard, and put yourself at risk - but what is the advantage?
Also, if there is a bike trail parallel to the road (riverside), RIDE ON THE TRAIL not in the road.
If you are biking on a freeway on the shoulder, don't be surprised when cars don't get over. The shoulder is not for transportation, it is for emergencies. At 10-15 MPH while traffic is moving 5 feet away at 60-65 mph I'd say the safety aspect is lacking.
I'm happy to support bike friendly initiatives, but drivers rule the road - making bikes a pain in their donkey certainly won't help your cause. If the city was serious about it, they would have included bike lanes in the downtown rebuild and future street projects (like Minneapolis).
Sorry, but that's my 2 cents.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Also, if there is a bike trail parallel to the road (riverside), RIDE ON THE TRAIL not in the road.
Sometimes a busy road may be the most direct route to one's destination. In the particular case you mention, there are many times in which it is dangerous to ride upon the trail at a speed approaching my (slow, I'm new to this whole biking thing) maximum speed. It gets very busy and walkers tend not to pay much attention. Add slow bikers not paying attention and it becomes a recipe for injury.
A person on a road bike that can easily do 20mph is a hazard when the trail is congested. Or more correctly, the pedestrians and slower bikers are a hazard to him or her. Riverside has multiple lanes in each direction.
Bike lanes are arguably hazardous to bikers and auto drivers (whose insurance has to pay for the biker's medical bills when the driver inadvertently strikes a biker as they turn right across the bike lane). As are trails alongside busy roads when there are many cross streets and driveways, where the same issues apply, only with even poorer visibility.
And on downtown streets where speeds are generally low and a bike lane would put the biker right in the way of opening doors from parallel parked cars, there's really no need at all.
Surely the 5 seconds it takes you to move left, pass the biker, and move back to the right isn't going to ruin your day.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I understand bikes have a right to be on the roads, but if you can not go 40 MPH and hold up traffic... then why ride on those roads? Instead of taking Harvard, why not ride up Pittsburgh? Again, I understand you have the right to hold up traffic, create a hazard, and put yourself at risk - but what is the advantage?
Bikes don't hold up traffic. Bikes ARE traffic.
Penalizing a bicycle properly operating in traffic because of speed is tantamount to banning bicycles. Trotwood v. Selz, 139 Ohio App. 3d 947 (2nd. Dist.-2000) (//%22http://www.cincinnaticycleclub.org/education/Bikelaw7.htm%22).
Traffic DEFINED--O.S. § 47 1-177:
Pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles, and other conveyances either singly or together, while using any highway for purposes of travel.
quote:
Also, if there is a bike trail parallel to the road (riverside), RIDE ON THE TRAIL not in the road.
Bicyclists are DRIVERS of VEHICLES, that operate in TRAFFIC.
O.S. § 47 11-1202:
Every person riding a bicycle or motorized scooter upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the
driver of a
vehicle by this title, except as to special regulations in this article and except to those provisions of this title which by their nature can have no application.
quote:
If you are biking on a freeway on the shoulder, don't be surprised when cars don't get over. The shoulder is not for transportation, it is for emergencies. At 10-15 MPH while traffic is moving 5 feet away at 60-65 mph I'd say the safety aspect is lacking.
Duty to exercise due care, O.S. § 47 11-504:
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this chapter, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway.
Basic speed rule, O.S. § 47 11-801
A. Any person driving a vehicle on a highway shall drive the same at a careful and prudent speed not greater than nor less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface and width of the highway and any other conditions then existing. No person shall drive any vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than will permit the driver to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.
quote:
I'm happy to support bike friendly initiatives, but drivers rule the road - making bikes a pain in their donkey certainly won't help your cause. If the city was serious about it, they would have included bike lanes in the downtown rebuild and future street projects (like Minneapolis).
Sorry, but that's my 2 cents.
Your 2 cents ain't worth much. But, your ignorance is not your fault. Bicyclists are the only drivers of vehicles in Oklahoma not properly trained or licensed.
Oklahoma should incorporate bicycle driver training into the regular driver ed curriculum.
Another random thought: 43,000 Americans die EVERY year because of motor vehicle collisions. Year-in, year-out, 2 die EVERY day in Oklahoma because of motor vehicles. Law enforcement actions have been ineffective in lowering the numbers consistently.
If the silly Santa really had a DEATH wish, he should be driving a motor vehicle, NOT a bicycle.
How many screen names do you have, Paul?
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p315/TYProle/pimperortaycopy.jpg)
Here's another local *trendsetter*
http://www.bikerfox.com/foxphotos3/
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Danger
Here's another local *trendsetter*
http://www.bikerfox.com/foxphotos3/
If you talk to him, he'll give you a photo to keep in your wallet.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
QuoteIf you talk to him, he'll give you a photo to keep in your wallet.
Just what I always wanted...
I guess he thinks he's pretty hot stuff.
The town where I grew up required all bicycles and riders to be licensed. There was a modest fee for the annual driver test and metal tag for the bicycle. It was primarily aimed at keeping the young kids safe but adults were not exempted.
I am surprised Tulsa/Oklahoma has missed this opportunity for revenue. The money could be dedicated for bicycle lanes and trails, just like our car tag fees are dedicated to roads. [:)]
quote:
Originally posted by 1099paralegal
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I understand bikes have a right to be on the roads, but if you can not go 40 MPH and hold up traffic... then why ride on those roads? Instead of taking Harvard, why not ride up Pittsburgh? Again, I understand you have the right to hold up traffic, create a hazard, and put yourself at risk - but what is the advantage?
Bikes don't hold up traffic. Bikes ARE traffic.
Penalizing a bicycle properly operating in traffic because of speed is tantamount to banning bicycles. Trotwood v. Selz, 139 Ohio App. 3d 947 (2nd. Dist.-2000) (//%22http://www.cincinnaticycleclub.org/education/Bikelaw7.htm%22).
Traffic DEFINED--O.S. § 47 1-177:
Pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles, and other conveyances either singly or together, while using any highway for purposes of travel.
quote:
Also, if there is a bike trail parallel to the road (riverside), RIDE ON THE TRAIL not in the road.
Bicyclists are DRIVERS of VEHICLES, that operate in TRAFFIC.
O.S. § 47 11-1202:
Every person riding a bicycle or motorized scooter upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this title, except as to special regulations in this article and except to those provisions of this title which by their nature can have no application.
quote:
If you are biking on a freeway on the shoulder, don't be surprised when cars don't get over. The shoulder is not for transportation, it is for emergencies. At 10-15 MPH while traffic is moving 5 feet away at 60-65 mph I'd say the safety aspect is lacking.
Duty to exercise due care, O.S. § 47 11-504:
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this chapter, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway.
Basic speed rule, O.S. § 47 11-801
A. Any person driving a vehicle on a highway shall drive the same at a careful and prudent speed not greater than nor less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface and width of the highway and any other conditions then existing. No person shall drive any vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than will permit the driver to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.
quote:
I'm happy to support bike friendly initiatives, but drivers rule the road - making bikes a pain in their donkey certainly won't help your cause. If the city was serious about it, they would have included bike lanes in the downtown rebuild and future street projects (like Minneapolis).
Sorry, but that's my 2 cents.
Your 2 cents ain't worth much. But, your ignorance is not your fault. Bicyclists are the only drivers of vehicles in Oklahoma not properly trained or licensed.
Oklahoma should incorporate bicycle driver training into the regular driver ed curriculum.
Another random thought: 43,000 Americans die EVERY year because of motor vehicle collisions. Year-in, year-out, 2 die EVERY day in Oklahoma because of motor vehicles. Law enforcement actions have been ineffective in lowering the numbers consistently.
If the silly Santa really had a DEATH wish, he should be driving a motor vehicle, NOT a bicycle.
I don't give a damn what the laws say, CF is right. Please don't come on these boards popping off laws that are the books, but like alot of our laws, arent enforced.
You are the idiot if you think that bicyclists don't hold up traffic. I can rest assured that you would agree that when a bicyclist is riding parallel with the traffic on a busy 2 lane road, for instance, 101st, 91st, or 81st that is slows down traffic. Also, for the idiot cyclists who are too confused that the sidewalks on streets are there for a reason, please use them. Especially on 71st between lewis and riverside. Why ride down the middle of the slow lane? When cars are zooming by at 40mph + and the cyclist is going around 20, or so, they are impeding traffic. Throw out all the laws you want, thats fine, but it is what it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
The town where I grew up required all bicycles and riders to be licensed. There was a modest fee for the annual driver test and metal tag for the bicycle. It was primarily aimed at keeping the young kids safe but adults were not exempted.
I am surprised Tulsa/Oklahoma has missed this opportunity for revenue. The money could be dedicated for bicycle lanes and trails, just like our car tag fees are dedicated to roads. [:)]
There are some municipalities that still require bicycle tags, but most of them are college towns who use them as another means of depriving students of unnecessary cash. Get caught without a $5 tag and you get to pay a $25 fine.
But most towns don't bother with them because they cost more to administer than they bring in.
I've never heard of requiring a license for riders, though. Where was this?
Suburban Philadelphia, PA. There wasn't actually a certificate issued to the rider. The rider had to pass a short course set up with cones and painted lines each year to get the tag for the bicycle. The police dept. went to the local schools on a few weekends each spring to make it easier to get the tag. Otherwise you had to go to the police station. I doubt the township actually made any money. The metal tags were numbered sequentially starting with "1". It was a big deal for the kids to get low numbers. I think one year I got a single digit tag number. I know I got several in the teens and twenties.
quote:
Originally posted by TUalum0982
I don't give a damn what the laws say, CF is right. Please don't come on these boards popping off laws that are the books, but like alot of our laws, arent enforced.
Don't preach to the choir. Tell it to the next cop flashing the lights in your rear view mirror.
Also, if you truly believe you, as the motorist, have the right-of-way over the bicyclist moving slower than you in front, you have TWO choices. You can either slow down, signal the lane change, and pass. OR, simply RUN over the bicycle driver. PROBLEM solved.
In court, where the judge and jury are all motorists, IGNORANT of bicyclists rights, you will most likely be found INNOCENT.
In a roomful of sympathetic motorists, you would have a myriad of plausible defenses. 1) Bicyclist shouldn't have been in the road; 2) Bicyclist was too far away from the curb in violation of 37 TRO 1003; 3) Bicyclist impeding traffic.
Or simply testify, you didn't see the bicyclist. The most common defense.
Next time bicyclist(s) get YOUR way, BRING it.
quote:
You are the idiot if you think that bicyclists don't hold up traffic. I can rest assured that you would agree that when a bicyclist is riding parallel with the traffic on a busy 2 lane road, for instance, 101st, 91st, or 81st that is slows down traffic. Also, for the idiot cyclists who are too confused that the sidewalks on streets are there for a reason, please use them. Especially on 71st between lewis and riverside. Why ride down the middle of the slow lane? When cars are zooming by at 40mph + and the cyclist is going around 20, or so, they are impeding traffic. Throw out all the laws you want, thats fine, but it is what it is.
Driving vehicle on the sidewalk prohibited, 37 TRO 638 (//%22http://cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/ordinances/Title37.asp#Chapter6%22): No vehicle shall be driven within or upon any sidewalk area except at a driveway or alley.
Biking on sidewalk in business district prohibited, 37 TRO 1009 (//%22http://cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/ordinances/Title37.asp#Chapter10%22): No person shall ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk within a business district.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
The town where I grew up required all bicycles and riders to be licensed. There was a modest fee for the annual driver test and metal tag for the bicycle. It was primarily aimed at keeping the young kids safe but adults were not exempted.
I am surprised Tulsa/Oklahoma has missed this opportunity for revenue. The money could be dedicated for bicycle lanes and trails, just like our car tag fees are dedicated to roads. [:)]
Under O.S. 47 2-101 (//%22http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=81984%22), vehicle licensing and driver education are under the jurisdiction of the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety.
quote:
Originally posted by 1099paralegal
quote:
Originally posted by TUalum0982
I don't give a damn what the laws say, CF is right. Please don't come on these boards popping off laws that are the books, but like alot of our laws, arent enforced.
Don't preach to the choir. Tell it to the next cop flashing the lights in your rear view mirror.
quote:
You are the idiot if you think that bicyclists don't hold up traffic. I can rest assured that you would agree that when a bicyclist is riding parallel with the traffic on a busy 2 lane road, for instance, 101st, 91st, or 81st that is slows down traffic. Also, for the idiot cyclists who are too confused that the sidewalks on streets are there for a reason, please use them. Especially on 71st between lewis and riverside. Why ride down the middle of the slow lane? When cars are zooming by at 40mph + and the cyclist is going around 20, or so, they are impeding traffic. Throw out all the laws you want, thats fine, but it is what it is.
Driving vehicle on the sidewalk prohibited, 37 TRO 638 (//%22http://cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/ordinances/Title37.asp#Chapter6%22): No vehicle shall be driven within or upon any sidewalk area except at a driveway or alley.
Biking on sidewalk in business district prohibited, 37 TRO 1009 (//%22http://cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/ordinances/Title37.asp#Chapter10%22): No person shall ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk within a business district.
ahh once again the laws that aren't enforced. The last time I checked, 71st between lewis and riverside is not a business district. Neither is 101st, 91st or 81st, it is mostly residential.
The day I get pulled over for something as childish and absurd that has to do with a cyclist, I will gladly hang up my keys and bike everywhere for a year. If cyclists want to be afforded the same "courtesy" maybe they should follow the basic rules that everyone else has to follow. IE stopping at red lights, not crossing the street when they aren't supposed to, and last but not least, like biker fox tends to do, ride down the middle of the road.
The majority of cyclists I come in contact with all too often don't follow the rules of the road. When they do, I will extend the same courtesy to them. When there is a sidewalk, use it. If not, then I understand. It drives a person insane to see someone causing a minor traffic jam because they think the world should bow down to them using the entire slow lane of traffic for their personal agenda. Have you ever witnessed a cyclist being cited for the ordinances you mentioned above? I know I haven't.
The last time I checked, most motorists know not to drive on the sidewalk and vise versa. Most people know not to walk down the middle of the road. I know I was taught that at a very early age as well as look both ways before crossing, etc.
Now lets look back over title 37, section 1099. It goes on to mention (which you ever so cleverly left out) several places where bikes are prohibited.
"The stairs and sidewalks adjacent to the Maxwell Convention Center,
including the podium on the second level, and all structures immediately adjacent to the
stairs, sidewalks and podium;
2. The fountains or sides thereof in the Civic Center Plaza; or
3. The pedestrian skybridge which spans West Sixth and West Seventh Streets
between the Maxwell Convention Center and the parking structure to the south of the
Convention Center.
C. No person shall travel, coast, or skate upon the sidewalks or rampways in
the Civic Center Parkade by means of any skateboard, roller skate, bicycle, tricycle or gocart. "
Those areas are nothing like 71st between Lewis and Riverside. In fact, when they mention business districts, I would go out on a limb and say they probably intended that to interpret downtown areas which are mostly business districts/plazas.
quote:
Originally posted by TUalum0982
ahh once again the laws that aren't enforced. The last time I checked, 71st between lewis and riverside is not a business district. Neither is 101st, 91st or 81st, it is mostly residential.
Check the zoning map again for 71st, between Lewis and Riverside. Various segments are zoned CS, CG, CH.
You do not seem to be comprehending the statutory definition of bicycles. The BLACK letter of the LAW, in plain ENGLISH, 37 TRO 1000 defines bicyclists as DRIVERS of VEHICLES.
37 TRO 638 prohibits vehicles from operating on sidewalks, business district or not.
quote:
The day I get pulled over for something as childish and absurd that has to do with a cyclist, I will gladly hang up my keys and bike everywhere for a year. If cyclists want to be afforded the same "courtesy" maybe they should follow the basic rules that everyone else has to follow. IE stopping at red lights, not crossing the street when they aren't supposed to, and last but not least, like biker fox tends to do, ride down the middle of the road.
The majority of cyclists I come in contact with all too often don't follow the rules of the road. When they do, I will extend the same courtesy to them. When there is a sidewalk, use it. If not, then I understand. It drives a person insane to see someone causing a minor traffic jam because they think the world should bow down to them using the entire slow lane of traffic for their personal agenda. Have you ever witnessed a cyclist being cited for the ordinances you mentioned above? I know I haven't.
You are correct. Bicyclists are the only DRIVERS of VEHICLES legally allowed to operate, in TRAFFIC, on Oklahoma roadways, WITHOUT proper training and licensing.
It's not your fault you are IGNORANT. The Oklahoma Department of Public Safety FAILED you. Also, you do not have the benefit of Oklahoma case law that judicially interprets the statutes.
And, you are also correct about motorist too. ALL motorists OBEY the law. NO motorist run red lights. NO motorists EVER go over the speed limit. And, NO motorists are EVER guilty of MURDERING 5 innocent people in the middle of Memorial, while intoxicated.
quote:
Originally posted by TUalum0982
Have you ever witnessed a cyclist being cited for the ordinances you mentioned above? I know I haven't.
Tony Cellino, Tulsa Municipal Court Clerk, Tulsa Municipal Court Judges Crawford, Bishop, Hofmeister, and Powers(ret.) will be more than happy to testify on that issue.
I got mooned by Bike Fox on 31st a couple weeks ago. Made me chuckle.
If we want to talk about THE LAW, there are minimum speed limits on expressways. In general driving, you are required by law to keep a safe and proper speed (8 mph in a 40 would probably NOT be safe). All vehicles on public roads are required to use signals (including brake), most bikers don't even know the simple signals let alone use them. Bikes would not be able to cut through parking lots, run red lights, usurp traffic jams by riding on the shoulder/up the middle and so on. You are not allowed to drive in a turning lane (as you are fond of doing on Harvard from time to time, which I think is hilarious even though it slows me down you goofy bastage).
You are arguing that bicycles should get all the advantages of a car at the expense of cars, but not have to follow ALL the same rules.
None of the bike supporters have really explained to me why it is necessary to ride down the main streets. I biked to law school, to my jobs downtown, to the bar building and all over midtown and 99% of the time I was able to ride through neighborhoods. It made a nicer and safer ride for me, and didn't mess with anyone else. I guess the crux of my argument is that the only reason to insist on riding down Harvard at 5:30pm at 8pmh is because you can, and every one else be damned.
If my boy and I can use bikes as basic transportation without necessarily hindering the rest of the world, so can you.
Also, Paul, you really aren't supposed to have more than 1 users name...
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
If we want to talk about THE LAW, there are minimum speed limits on expressways.
The minimum speed rule as it relates to bicycles has already been litigated in Tulsa Municipal. Judge Burk Bishop presiding.
Holding: Because bicycles can not move at the minimum speed, 35 mph, on the Broken Arrow Expressway, the rule is not applicable.
37 TRO 1000: Every person operating a bicycle in the City of Tulsa shall be subject to the provisions of this title applicable to the driver of a vehicle,
except as to those provisions which by their very nature can have no application. quote:
You are arguing that bicycles should get all the advantages of a car at the expense of cars, but not have to follow ALL the same rules.
Again, bicyclists are the only DRIVERS of VEHICLES legally allowed to operate in TRAFFIC on Oklahoma roadways, WITHOUT proper training or licensing. Why don't you go preach it to the lepers in the State Sausage Factory and the Commissioner of Department of Public Safety?
I am sure OHSO would also love to hear from you.
quote:
None of the bike supporters have really explained to me why it is necessary to ride down the main streets. I biked to law school, to my jobs downtown, to the bar building and all over midtown and 99% of the time I was able to ride through neighborhoods. It made a nicer and safer ride for me, and didn't mess with anyone else. I guess the crux of my argument is that the only reason to insist on riding down Harvard at 5:30pm at 8pmh is because you can, and every one else be damned.
If my boy and I can use bikes as basic transportation without necessarily hindering the rest of the world, so can you.
Those who do not exercise their rights DESERVE to lose them.-----Confucious.
quote:
Originally posted by 1099paralegal
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
If we want to talk about THE LAW, there are minimum speed limits on expressways.
The minimum speed rule as it relates to bicycles has already been litigated in Tulsa Municipal. Judge Burk Bishop presiding.
Holding: Because bicycles can not move at the minimum speed, 35 mph, on the Broken Arrow Expressway, the rule is not applicable.
37 TRO 1000: Every person operating a bicycle in the City of Tulsa shall be subject to the provisions of this title applicable to the driver of a vehicle, except as to those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.
quote:
You are arguing that bicycles should get all the advantages of a car at the expense of cars, but not have to follow ALL the same rules.
Again, bicyclists are the only DRIVERS of VEHICLES legally allowed to operate in TRAFFIC on Oklahoma roadways, WITHOUT proper training or licensing. Why don't you go preach it to the lepers in the State Sausage Factory and the Commissioner of Department of Public Safety?
I am sure OHSO would also love to hear from you.
quote:
None of the bike supporters have really explained to me why it is necessary to ride down the main streets. I biked to law school, to my jobs downtown, to the bar building and all over midtown and 99% of the time I was able to ride through neighborhoods. It made a nicer and safer ride for me, and didn't mess with anyone else. I guess the crux of my argument is that the only reason to insist on riding down Harvard at 5:30pm at 8pmh is because you can, and every one else be damned.
If my boy and I can use bikes as basic transportation without necessarily hindering the rest of the world, so can you.
Those who do not exercise their rights DESERVE to lose them.-----Confucious.
well if you can't go the proper speed, then why would one be allowed to travel on said road? Judges interpret the law wrong on many diff occasions. Anyways, lets agree to disagree. Keep spouting off terminology that is obviously outdated and out of reality.
1) HWY 51/64 is a STATE highway, maintained with federal funds. A municipal ordinance is not controlling.
2) My kids big wheel can not move at 35 mph, can he ride on the freeway? What about a Segway? A horse?
A bad ruling doesn't mean the law is worth while. And every time you do it, you end up getting kicked off the road.
By ordinance it is against the law to spit on the sidewalk in Tulsa, to swear in front of a woman, or to fail to observe the Sabath. Yay.
3) You admit that the only reason you do it is to be a jerk to everyone else? Awesome, thanks for that.
I have the right to call you racial slurs, to get in front of you and lock my brakes up (you are required to maintain distance, not I), I have the right to hit on your girlfriend/wife, I can call your child horrible things and/or teach him words he need not know... I have the right to do all sorts of things that one shouldn't do. Merely having the right to do so does NOT mean you should exercise it.
4) Your quote is wrong. Give me a source for it, I couldn't find one so I call BS.
ps. I voted for you in the last election. Sad, but you were the least bad choice. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I got mooned by Bike Fox on 31st a couple weeks ago. Made me chuckle.
If we want to talk about THE LAW, there are minimum speed limits on expressways. In general driving, you are required by law to keep a safe and proper speed (8 mph in a 40 would probably NOT be safe). All vehicles on public roads are required to use signals (including brake), most bikers don't even know the simple signals let alone use them. Bikes would not be able to cut through parking lots, run red lights, usurp traffic jams by riding on the shoulder/up the middle and so on. You are not allowed to drive in a turning lane (as you are fond of doing on Harvard from time to time, which I think is hilarious even though it slows me down you goofy bastage).
You are arguing that bicycles should get all the advantages of a car at the expense of cars, but not have to follow ALL the same rules.
None of the bike supporters have really explained to me why it is necessary to ride down the main streets. I biked to law school, to my jobs downtown, to the bar building and all over midtown and 99% of the time I was able to ride through neighborhoods. It made a nicer and safer ride for me, and didn't mess with anyone else. I guess the crux of my argument is that the only reason to insist on riding down Harvard at 5:30pm at 8pmh is because you can, and every one else be damned.
If my boy and I can use bikes as basic transportation without necessarily hindering the rest of the world, so can you.
Also, Paul, you really aren't supposed to have more than 1 users name...
Looking at the link to the photos of Biker Fox, he appears obsessed with his own donkey. Might be why he's never been married. [8)]
Cyclists are safer riding on the street than an adjacent sidewalk. The risk of collision is about three times greater on a sidewalk because every doorway and driveway is an intersection, and as we all know, intersections are where most collisions occur.
And as for cyclists running stop signs and red lights, I once sat at a local 4 way stop and counted vehicles that came to a complete stop, i.e. the wheels stopped turning. The vast majority of motor vehicles (80% if I recall right) did not stop, and those that did had to do so because of cross traffic in the intersection. So, insisting that you'll respect a bicyclists right to use the public roads only after they obey all traffic laws is a specious argument, but then we already knew that.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
[br
None of the bike supporters have really explained to me why it is necessary to ride down the main streets.
If my boy and I can use bikes as basic transportation without necessarily hindering the rest of the world, so can you.
CF, when a bicyclist uses his machine for basic transportation, like riding to work or the grocery store, he has the same concerns as any motorist - mainly getting to his destination as quickly and directly as possible. Arterial streets are ideal for this because unlike neighborhood streets, they're wider and have fewer intersections. It's far easier for a motorist to pass a cyclist on a 4 lane street than on a 2 lane. Honestly, this is not BS or lycra induced hyperbole. It an observable truth.
I've been writing that cyclists should ride in a normal lane with about one third of it to their right and two thirds to their left. Most lanes here in Oklahoma are no wider than 12 feet, so this puts his tire track about 4 feet from the road edge, exclusive of the gutter pan if provided. Overtaking motorists are obliged to pass safely, and it's necessary that they slow down and wait until it's safe to pass. There's nothing about arrogance or impeding traffic in this. It's just safer for the cyclist and there's nothing in the law that obligates any road user to do something he knows is unsafe. Safety ALWAYS trumps convenience.
As for "hindering the rest of the world" what can I say? The public roads belong to all of us, regardless of our mode of transportation. So while it may be a minor annoyance to have to slow down and wait to pass a cyclist, are any of us so important that a few seconds will make a critical difference in our lives? I use both a bicycle and a car, and I've learned that there's no need to try to hurry in traffic. It just adds stress to my day. So when you come up behind a cyclist in traffic, just take a deep breath and wait for a break to go around him. Hey, it could be me!
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
1) HWY 51/64 is a STATE highway, maintained with federal funds. A municipal ordinance is not controlling.
Tell that to TPD and the JUDGE. TPD normally uses City ordinances for traffic offenses on the portion of Broken Arrow Expressway within their jurisdiction.
City traffic charges are normally litigated in Tulsa Municipal.
quote:
2) My kids big wheel can not move at 35 mph, can he ride on the freeway? What about a Segway? A horse?
Yes. Your kid on big wheel, the horse, and the Segway are all allowed to operate on the Broken Arrow Expressway.
Definition of Traffic, 37 TRO 100: Traffic shall mean pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles, streetcars and other conveyances, either singly or together, while using any street or roadway for purposes of travel.
quote:
A bad ruling doesn't mean the law is worth while. And every time you do it, you end up getting kicked off the road.
By ordinance it is against the law to spit on the sidewalk in Tulsa, to swear in front of a woman, or to fail to observe the Sabath. Yay.
Yes. If anyone disagrees with the trial judge, they certainly have the right of appeal.
quote:
3) You admit that the only reason you do it is to be a jerk to everyone else? Awesome, thanks for that.
There has never been any admission to that effect. There was an admission to exercise the right of travel by bicycle to avoid losing the said right.
quote:
I have the right to call you racial slurs, to get in front of you and lock my brakes up (you are required to maintain distance, not I), I have the right to hit on your girlfriend/wife, I can call your child horrible things and/or teach him words he need not know... I have the right to do all sorts of things that one shouldn't do. Merely having the right to do so does NOT mean you should exercise it.
If you don't exercise your Free Speech rights, you DESERVE to lose it. You have to the right to call anyone any racial slur you wish. They have the right to react accordingly and appropriately. There is also a City ordinance criminalizing cussing, 27 TRO 1405 (//%22http://cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Ordinances/Title27.asp#Chapter14%22).
You have the right to hit someone's gf/wife. They have the right to call the cops and press assault and battery charges.
quote:
4) Your quote is wrong. Give me a source for it, I couldn't find one so I call BS.
Which quote do you speak of?
quote:
Originally posted by TUalum0982
well if you can't go the proper speed, then why would one be allowed to travel on said road? Judges interpret the law wrong on many diff occasions. Anyways, lets agree to disagree. Keep spouting off terminology that is obviously outdated and out of reality.
From the totality of state statutes and city ordinances, both the Legislature and City Council clearly intended to allow bicyclists to be an integral component of TRAFFIC, and operate VEHICLES as DRIVERS.
All the ordinances and statutes cited are currently in FULL force and EFFECT.
If you have an issue of law, the appellate court would have jurisdiction, but, only if you perfect the appeal. And, if you didn't timely make objections on issues of law in trial court, you can't bring it up in the Petition on Error.
"Proper speed" is an issue of fact, determined in trial court. The legal term is "normal and reasonable" speed.
What is "normal and reasonable" speed of traffic, if the definition of traffic includes, pedestrians, bicycles, motor vehicles?
quote:
Originally posted by 1099paralegal
quote:
Originally posted by TUalum0982
well if you can't go the proper speed, then why would one be allowed to travel on said road? Judges interpret the law wrong on many diff occasions. Anyways, lets agree to disagree. Keep spouting off terminology that is obviously outdated and out of reality.
From the totality of state statutes and city ordinances, both the Legislature and City Council clearly intended to allow bicyclists to be an integral component of TRAFFIC, and operate VEHICLES as DRIVERS.
All the ordinances and statutes cited are currently in FULL force and EFFECT.
If you have an issue of law, the appellate court would have jurisdiction, but, only if you perfect the appeal. And, if you didn't timely make objections on issues of law in trial court, you can't bring it up in the Petition on Error.
"Proper speed" is an issue of fact, determined in trial court. The legal term is "normal and reasonable" speed.
What is "normal and reasonable" speed of traffic, if the definition of traffic includes, pedestrians, bicycles, motor vehicles?
please don't come on these boards preaching to the choir about law and how our judicial system works. I am clearly aware how an appeal works in the court of law, as are many on these boards. (I intered with TPD for 2yrs, and my uncle is an attorney in the DA's office. I also have my degree in criminology with a minor in business, among other things) I am somewhat familiar with the process.
I dare you to find where these statues are in FULL FORCE as you say. Once again, I challenge you to find the statistics of people being cited for the infractions that you have mentioned above. They just aren't there. Throw out all the city ordinances, statues, and sections of title 37 you want, plain and simple truth is that they aren't enforced. Have you personally ever witnessed a police officer ticketing a bicyclist for riding in a business district? Have you ever seen a single ticket being issued to a person driving a car who is following too closely or not yielding to someone on a bike? I would bet not.
on to the statistics. Aaron Levenstein has a good thought on stats and I quote "Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."
William Watt also had a great thought about stats "Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say." Anyone can distort stats in their favor. For example. An average of 16.5 cyclists per million die every year in the U.S. (For motorists, it's 19.9 motorists per million.) (National Safety Council) Considering the number of cars on the streets vs bicycles, I will gladly take my chance in a car.
On a side note, found this along with the above stat "Most of the statistics for bike injuries are severly undercounted. In Texas for instance, the DPS only gets reports of crashes that involve motor vehicles and in which the motor vehicle sustains enough damage that it has to be towed. (Fatalities do get reported even if the motor vehicle isn't damaged.) "
My point is like I said above, stats an can be construed and contorted to fit anyone agenda. Andrew Lang said it best "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination.
Have a safe and enjoyable Memorial Day Weekend.
quote:
Originally posted by TUalum0982
I dare you to find where these statues are in FULL FORCE as you say. Once again, I challenge you to find the statistics of people being cited for the infractions that you have mentioned above. They just aren't there. Throw out all the city ordinances, statues, and sections of title 37 you want, plain and simple truth is that they aren't enforced. Have you personally ever witnessed a police officer ticketing a bicyclist for riding in a business district? Have you ever seen a single ticket being issued to a person driving a car who is following too closely or not yielding to someone on a bike? I would bet not.
Statutes and ordinances are considered in FULL force and EFFECT, if they are published. With all your experience, I am quite surprised you are not familiar with the term.
As for the wager, what's in YOUR wallet? You are ON. Meet me in Tulsa Municipal next week. We can meetup with the clerks. Then, we sort through the cases.
I accept cash, money order or PayPal.
quote:
Originally posted by 1099paralegal
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
1) HWY 51/64 is a STATE highway, maintained with federal funds. A municipal ordinance is not controlling.
Tell that to TPD and the JUDGE. TPD normally uses City ordinances for traffic offenses on the portion of Broken Arrow Expressway within their jurisdiction.
City traffic charges are normally litigated in Tulsa Municipal.
quote:
2) My kids big wheel can not move at 35 mph, can he ride on the freeway? What about a Segway? A horse?
Yes. Your kid on big wheel, the horse, and the Segway are all allowed to operate on the Broken Arrow Expressway.
Definition of Traffic, 37 TRO 100: Traffic shall mean pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles, streetcars and other conveyances, either singly or together, while using any street or roadway for purposes of travel.
quote:
A bad ruling doesn't mean the law is worth while. And every time you do it, you end up getting kicked off the road.
By ordinance it is against the law to spit on the sidewalk in Tulsa, to swear in front of a woman, or to fail to observe the Sabath. Yay.
Yes. If anyone disagrees with the trial judge, they certainly have the right of appeal.
quote:
3) You admit that the only reason you do it is to be a jerk to everyone else? Awesome, thanks for that.
There has never been any admission to that effect. There was an admission to exercise the right of travel by bicycle to avoid losing the said right.
quote:
I have the right to call you racial slurs, to get in front of you and lock my brakes up (you are required to maintain distance, not I), I have the right to hit on your girlfriend/wife, I can call your child horrible things and/or teach him words he need not know... I have the right to do all sorts of things that one shouldn't do. Merely having the right to do so does NOT mean you should exercise it.
If you don't exercise your Free Speech rights, you DESERVE to lose it. You have to the right to call anyone any racial slur you wish. They have the right to react accordingly and appropriately. There is also a City ordinance criminalizing cussing, 27 TRO 1405 (//%22http://cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Ordinances/Title27.asp#Chapter14%22).
You have the right to hit someone's gf/wife. They have the right to call the cops and press assault and battery charges.
quote:
4) Your quote is wrong. Give me a source for it, I couldn't find one so I call BS.
Which quote do you speak of?
They said "HIT ON" not literally hit. In Lehman's terms, FLIRT WITH.
As for the wager, you clearly did not understand my post either. I asked "how many times have you seen someone pulled over for the infractions you had mentioned." Once again, we can go pull cases if you like, which are mere stats once again and we have already gone over that topic. I am sure the number of people cited compared to the daily drivers in Tulsa X the number of days per calendar year is going to equal a very very very small percentage. Compare that to the people who are cited for speeding, no sealt belt use, illegal lane change, DUI, or any other traffic offense and you will agree that the petty bicycle laws are rarely enforced.
quote:
Originally posted by TUalum0982
As for the wager, you clearly did not understand my post either. I asked "how many times have you seen someone pulled over for the infractions you had mentioned." Once again, we can go pull cases if you like, which are mere stats once again and we have already gone over that topic. I am sure the number of people cited compared to the daily drivers in Tulsa X the number of days per calendar year is going to equal a very very very small percentage. Compare that to the people who are cited for speeding, no sealt belt use, illegal lane change, DUI, or any other traffic offense and you will agree that the petty bicycle laws are rarely enforced.
One would hope that cyclists get fewer traffic citations than motorists. There are few of them regularly riding upon the streets. One expects that if only a few hundred cars at most were driven around Tulsa, there wouldn't be many citations issued to motorists, either.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
QuoteOriginally posted by TUalum0982
One would hope that cyclists get fewer traffic citations than motorists. There are few of them regularly riding upon the streets. One expects that if only a few hundred cars at most were driven around Tulsa, there wouldn't be many citations issued to motorists, either.
I have to agree that cyclists rarely get ticketed for their most common offense - running red lights and stop signs. But there are some LEOs who are woefully ignorant of the laws pertaining to bicycle operation, and in some instances, those officers have tried to enforce non-existent laws or their own prejudices, effectively using their authority in an attempt to get a cyclist off the road. In most cases, the advocacy group has made some headway in educating those officers (with one glaring exception). Yet if police officers are not up to date on bicycling law and are unaware of the safe, practical application of those laws, why should we expect that the general public will be any better?
One quick word about the Tulsa Tough, though this should probably be a topic for another thread - I've been told that local, county, and state police agencies will be on the Tulsa Tough tour routes next weekend. THEY WILL BE ENFORCING TRAFFIC LAW AND CYCLISTS SHOULD EXPECT TO ENCOUNTER THEM. There were complaints last year about cyclist blowing stop signs and red lights en mass.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
One quick word about the Tulsa Tough, though this should probably be a topic for another thread - I've been told that local, county, and state police agencies will be on the Tulsa Tough tour routes next weekend. THEY WILL BE ENFORCING TRAFFIC LAW AND CYCLISTS SHOULD EXPECT TO ENCOUNTER THEM. There were complaints last year about cyclist blowing stop signs and red lights en mass.
Oh boy. THIS should be FUN! EVERY ticket should be CHALLENGED.
Show me a drunken, RECKLESS outta control bicyclist, I'll show you a village IDIOT impersonating Santa at the Annual TPD Awards Banquet.
Show me a drunken, RECKLESS, outta control motorist, I'll show you Kimberly Graham (//%22http://iic.tulsacounty.org/InmateDetails.aspx?Id=1180097%22)
(http://iic.tulsacounty.org/Mugshots/9805044_1180097_f.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by TUalum0982
As for the wager, you clearly did not understand my post either. I asked "how many times have you seen someone pulled over for the infractions you had mentioned." Once again, we can go pull cases if you like, which are mere stats once again and we have already gone over that topic. I am sure the number of people cited compared to the daily drivers in Tulsa X the number of days per calendar year is going to equal a very very very small percentage. Compare that to the people who are cited for speeding, no sealt belt use, illegal lane change, DUI, or any other traffic offense and you will agree that the petty bicycle laws are rarely enforced.
Your point is totally MOOT. There are simply more motor vehicle drivers than bicycle drivers. So, therefore, there will be more citations for motorists running reds, speeding, etc.
But, if an ordinance or statute is in FULL force and EFFECT, the opportunity exists to enforce them.
And, with all your law enforcement experience, I am QUITE surprise of your attitude toward the LAW. If the law is on the books, it is intended to be OBEYED, even if it means someone has to sit in the back of the bus.
They say it has been removed but a sign once beside where you paid the traffic ticket read, [h3]IF YOU MUST DRIVE THE SPEED LIMIT DRIVE TO THE EXTREEM RIGHT[H3]. I understand that this sign has now been removed.
The Chinese, I understand are selling used scooters and bicycles at greatly reduced prices since they are changing their mode of transportation (man powered) to the elite gas guzzlers ( we once could afford to operate until we decided we needed the mid-east oil now moving gasoline toward predicted $6,00 a gallon) . With the devaluated dollar (it is taboo to use run-away inflated dollar) they are forcing us to change our traffic rules, as they are bidding for our much needed oil, paying with the decreasing value of the dollar (which they have a passel of) in exchange for the value increasing EURO.
As many are aware the bicycle racks that once were available at the junior high and high schools have been replaced by parking lots. Soon it will be time to reissue of the next free money to stall for a short time of having to accept bicycles as a mode of transportation.
Then of course as we max out the plastic cards (reach our limit on the credit cards) we may need less streets with slower drivers giving more room for bicycles again.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Then of course as we max out the plastic cards (reach our limit on the credit cards) we may need less streets with slower drivers giving more room for bicycles again.
In a snarky moment earlier today, I wondered about all those hulking, manly SUVs on area roads. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they intended for rough, off-road driving? The commercials show them driving to the tops of lonely desert peaks, presumably rolling over a few environmentalists and small animals along the way. So by NOT improving area roads, our political leaders are permitting SUV owners to indulge in their adventure fantasies.
On a bicycle, even a bad road is passable if you're willing to snake around potholes and rough patches. A nice, smooth surface benefits fast cyclists and those motorists who insist on driving passenger cars, but since I'm relatively slow, it's not a major concern.
Could it be a conspiracy?
Like the rabbit in the wizard of oz saying "lets have a party" If one reads the ordinances of the city it is easy to see where some were written for a special party.
The statutes and AG opinions state ordinances passed with and emergency clause must specify what the emergency is. If no emergency exist the voters has the right to petition against passage of an ordinance. (This takes away a voters right to challenge the council action by petition.)
The city has many boards that form their own rules that should be submitted to the voters through the ordinance route.
Their answer has always been "this is the way we have always done it by declaring it has an emergency clause attached'. So there are many special ordinances on the books of city hall.
Much of the bicycle usage is covered by ordinances. (They are listed by the city on internet.
The parents of their son being given a ticket for riding his bicycle down 4th Place at Sheridan at 60 mph questioned whether radar read a large car instead of the boys bicycle.
The city ordinance prohibits a cyclist from riding in the street with anything in his hands. Now the motorist can smoke, drink or talk on the telephone while driving above the speed limit..
One of the disk encyclopedias I have says that we have near one million attorneys (with tickets) to practice law in U.S.. It further suggests that this is one half of the attorneys licensed to practice in the entire civilized world. Some countries, like England, the notary public does the paper and attorneys are the only ones to address the bar.
Now if one goes through the city ordinances they become more confused as why a six year old can ride in traffic even without training wheels. Maybe that is the answer we are looking for like the advanced China three judge court system where only one judge can have any legal training leaving the other two to rule by reasoning.
We could require training wheels on all bicycles where the rider could just stop and wait without any effort of staying vertical until it came his time to move on.
quote:
Originally posted by 1099paralegal
quote:
Originally posted by TUalum0982
As for the wager, you clearly did not understand my post either. I asked "how many times have you seen someone pulled over for the infractions you had mentioned." Once again, we can go pull cases if you like, which are mere stats once again and we have already gone over that topic. I am sure the number of people cited compared to the daily drivers in Tulsa X the number of days per calendar year is going to equal a very very very small percentage. Compare that to the people who are cited for speeding, no sealt belt use, illegal lane change, DUI, or any other traffic offense and you will agree that the petty bicycle laws are rarely enforced.
Your point is totally MOOT. There are simply more motor vehicle drivers than bicycle drivers. So, therefore, there will be more citations for motorists running reds, speeding, etc.
But, if an ordinance or statute is in FULL force and EFFECT, the opportunity exists to enforce them.
And, with all your law enforcement experience, I am QUITE surprise of your attitude toward the LAW. If the law is on the books, it is intended to be OBEYED, even if it means someone has to sit in the back of the bus.
you clearly misunderstood my post. I intended to imply that the number of cars on the road being cited for speeding, running red lights, DUI, illegal lane change is by far higher then the number of people being cited for the infractions you originally cited in the statutes. Do you see where I was coming from now? My point still remains that the laws are simply not enforced compared to the other traffic laws.....
edited for clarity yet again:
I intended to imply that the number of
CARS on the road being cited for speeding, running red lights, DUI, illegal lane change is by far higher then the number of
CARS being cited for the infractions you originally cited in the statutes.
My point is that even though there are laws in place, they don't necessarily get enforced as much as other traffic laws.
quote:
Originally posted by TUalum0982
you clearly misunderstood my post. I intended to imply that the number of cars on the road being cited for speeding, running red lights, DUI, illegal lane change is by far higher then the number of people being cited for the infractions you originally cited in the statutes. Do you see where I was coming from now? My point still remains that the laws are simply not enforced compared to the other traffic laws.....
I don't think there was any misunderstanding. It stands to reason given the hundreds or thousands of times greater number of motorists on the road than bicyclists that there would be very, very few tickets issued to bicyclists.
Say you have a city where there are 90 female motorists and 10 male motorists, who all drive essentially the same. Of course about 90% of the tickets will go to the female motorists. Discrimination, you say? No, statistics.
Paul:
quote:
Those who do not exercise their rights DESERVE to lose them.-----Confucious [sic].
That quote is wrong, no such quote exists. In fact, on the whole of the internet it is attributed only here. Not only is the quote non existent anywhere, it is not even consistent with the teachings of Confucius (virtue, ethics and self control > firm rules. Though of self as well as others > hierarchical order. In other words, riding on a freeway because you can would be seen as an extreme extensional and selfish act, not condoned by the man. Go read a book or two before making up quotes).
Next, you basically said "I ride on the freeway because I can." And I can do all things I listed - including doing all I can to slow down traffic and be a jerk in other ways. The ability to do something is not an excuse nor reason to partake in it.
And finally, because some juco prosecutor didn't care enough to prepare for your BS case doesn't mean it is good law. You won a mighty battle in traffic court and hold it out as a edict and firm jurisprudence. "In the matter of City of Tulsa v. Santa the court held..." Kudos on your big win... it's still a dangerous act the sole point of which is to gain attention to yourself at the expense of the rest of the public.
That, my friends, is called an attention whore. No, I'm sorry... you're on a quest for the public well being and preserving our rights to be an idiot.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Next, you basically said "I ride on the freeway because I can." And I can do all things I listed - including doing all I can to slow down traffic and be a jerk in other ways. The ability to do something is not an excuse nor reason to partake in it.
Bikes don't slow traffic. Bicycles ARE traffic. O.S. 47 1-177, 37 TRO 100.
quote:
And finally, because some juco prosecutor didn't care enough to prepare for your BS case doesn't mean it is good law. You won a mighty battle in traffic court and hold it out as a edict and firm jurisprudence. "In the matter of City of Tulsa v. Santa the court held..." Kudos on your big win... it's still a dangerous act the sole point of which is to gain attention to yourself at the expense of the rest of the public.
The City could have appealed when they had the chance. They also could have sought a restraining order pending appeal.
quote:
That, my friends, is called an attention whore. No, I'm sorry... you're on a quest for the public well being and preserving our rights to be an idiot.
How to Beat the Attention Whore on the Broken Arrow Expressway, WITHOUT Really Trying:
1) Slow down;
2) Signal the lane change;
3) Pass in the other lane.
Problem SOLVED.
quote:
Originally posted by 1099paralegal
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Next, you basically said "I ride on the freeway because I can." And I can do all things I listed - including doing all I can to slow down traffic and be a jerk in other ways. The ability to do something is not an excuse nor reason to partake in it.
Bikes don't slow traffic. Bicycles ARE traffic. O.S. 47 1-177, 37 TRO 100.
quote:
And finally, because some juco prosecutor didn't care enough to prepare for your BS case doesn't mean it is good law. You won a mighty battle in traffic court and hold it out as a edict and firm jurisprudence. "In the matter of City of Tulsa v. Santa the court held..." Kudos on your big win... it's still a dangerous act the sole point of which is to gain attention to yourself at the expense of the rest of the public.
The City could have appealed when they had the chance. They also could have sought a restraining order pending appeal.
quote:
That, my friends, is called an attention whore. No, I'm sorry... you're on a quest for the public well being and preserving our rights to be an idiot.
How to Beat the Attention Whore on the Broken Arrow Expressway, WITHOUT Really Trying:
1) Slow down;
2) Signal the lane change;
3) Pass in the other lane.
Problem SOLVED.
How about... Bicycles slow
other traffic.
1) Slow down; listen for crunching metal and glass behind you.
2) Signal the lane change, force your way into the other lane to avoid really slow "traffic" you didn't see in time to slow down sufficiently. Reap same results as in first lane. (Motorcycles are not always easy to see, a bicycle is even more difficult to see, especially if you aren't expecting one.)
3)Pass? Except for one really slow vehicle you hopefully missed, everyone else in front of you is long gone. The mess behind you isn't going anywhere.
Legal or not... riding a bicycle on the BA Expy is just not too intelligent.
Listen Paul, you can posture all you want. It boils down to you riding your bike in order to mess with other people and gain attention to yourself. If that sounds like a noble goal - or you think you are helping other bikers (who bemoan you for degrading their chosen mode of transit), then I disagree.
Generally, in my world, doing something that is rude, dangerous, and inconvenient to other people for your own gratification is simply being a jerk.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Listen Paul, you can posture all you want. It boils down to you riding your bike in order to mess with other people and gain attention to yourself. If that sounds like a noble goal - or you think you are helping other bikers (who bemoan you for degrading their chosen mode of transit), then I disagree.
Generally, in my world, doing something that is rude, dangerous, and inconvenient to other people for your own gratification is simply being a jerk.
Nailed it.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Listen Paul, you can posture all you want. It boils down to you riding your bike in order to mess with other people and gain attention to yourself. If that sounds like a noble goal - or you think you are helping other bikers (who bemoan you for degrading their chosen mode of transit), then I disagree.
Generally, in my world, doing something that is rude, dangerous, and inconvenient to other people for your own gratification is simply being a jerk.
You do have TWO choices when you encounter a JERK on a bike, in front of your windshield.
Either:
1) Slow down; Signal the lane change; AND, pass in the other lane;
OR
2) RUN the JERK over.
Your choice. Fox23, Newson6, and KRMG would LOVE it. It's a pretty slow news day in the neighborhood. MAKE my DAY.
Syllogism goes something like this: JERK shouldn't have been in the middle of the road. So, he deserved it.
Oh, I almost forget about TPD. They'd LOVE it too. A validation of EVERY one of their mis-guided beliefs about bikes on Memorial during RUSH. And, no more 911 switchboard lighting up like the PSO Christmas Parade every time Santa rolls.
Tell me cops gonna OUT-bike Santa on the BA.
Or...
3) Get in front of the JERK and slam on your brakes. [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
Or...
3) Get in front of the JERK and slam on your brakes. [:D]
MAKE my DAY.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
How about... Bicycles slow other traffic.
You are still NOT understanding the BLACK letter of the LAW, in plain ENGLISH: Bikes don't slow other traffic. Bikes ARE traffic.
Even a pedestrian walking in the middle of Memorial is traffic. O.S. 47 1-177, 37 TRO 100: Traffic shall mean pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles, streetcars and other conveyances, either singly or together, while using any street or roadway for purposes of travel.
quote:
1) Slow down; listen for crunching metal and glass behind you.
If there's crunching glass and metal behind the Santa, maybe the motorist should have HUNG UP, PAY ATTENTION, AND DRIVE?
quote:
2) Signal the lane change, force your way into the other lane to avoid really slow "traffic" you didn't see in time to slow down sufficiently. Reap same results as in first lane. (Motorcycles are not always easy to see, a bicycle is even more difficult to see, especially if you aren't expecting one.)
If you can't PLAINLY see the Santa in front of you, you are either BLIND, drunk, or you just need to HANG UP AND DRIVE.
quote:
3)Pass? Except for one really slow vehicle you hopefully missed, everyone else in front of you is long gone. The mess behind you isn't going anywhere.
SHOW ME THE MESS.
quote:
Legal or not... riding a bicycle on the BA Expy is just not too intelligent.
According to AAA, 43,000 Americans die EVERY year because of motor vehicle crashes. 2 die EVERY day in Oklahoma because of motor vehicle crashes. Law enforcement actions are INEFFECTIVE to stop the carnage. Motor vehicles have killed MORE Americans than the Nazis, the Vietnamese, or the Iraqis, COMBINED.
Will the REAL village IDIOT please STAND up?
Show me a reckless, DRUNKEN, outta control bicyclist, I'll show you the village IDIOT impersonating Santa at the Annual TPD Awards Banquet.
Show me a reckless, DRUNKEN, outta control motorist, I'll show you Kimberly Graham, (//%22http://iic.tulsacounty.org/InmateDetails.aspx?Id=1180097%22) the poster girl for ALL reckless, DRUNKEN, outta control MOTORISTS.
(http://iic.tulsacounty.org/Mugshots/9805044_1180097_f.jpg)
Since you are so hung up on the concept that bicycles are traffic, I guess I will have to elaborate.
quote:
Originally posted by 1099paralegal
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
How about... Bicycles slow other traffic.
You are still NOT understanding the BLACK letter of the LAW, in plain ENGLISH: Bikes don't slow other traffic. Bikes ARE traffic. Even a pedestrian walking in the middle of Memorial is traffic. O.S. 47 1-177, 37 TRO 100.
By saying "other traffic" I have acknowledged that bicycles are traffic, regardless of my personal opinion. Please read what I wrote, not what your agenda causes you to see. Slow motor vehicles can cause similar problems.
quote:
1) Slow down; listen for crunching metal and glass behind you.
If there's crunching glass and metal behind the Santa, maybe the motorist should have HUNG UP, PAY ATTENTION, AND DRIVE?
Actually I was referring to the crunching metal and glass behind the motorist slowing for Santa but for no apparent reason to the traffic behind the motorist that couldn't see Santa. It happens even with motor vehicles and no bicycles involved.
quote:
2) Signal the lane change, force your way into the other lane to avoid really slow "traffic" you didn't see in time to slow down sufficiently. Reap same results as in first lane. (Motorcycles are not always easy to see, a bicycle is even more difficult to see, especially if you aren't expecting one.)
If you can't PLAINLY see the Santa in front of you, you are either BLIND, drunk, or you just need to HANG UP AND DRIVE.
I believe you are making some common but not necessarily valid assumptions.
quote:
3)Pass? Except for one really slow vehicle you hopefully missed, everyone else in front of you is long gone. The mess behind you isn't going anywhere.
SHOW ME THE MESS.
I guess there has never been a pile up accident where vehicles not involved in the original problem become involved. I've seen on aerial shots where there are several vehicles involved in a series of collisions. They block traffic behind them but not in front of them. The road ahead of the collision is usually empty.
quote:
Legal or not... riding a bicycle on the BA Expy is just not too intelligent.
According to AAA, 43,000 Americans die EVERY year because of motor vehicle crashes. 2 die EVERY day in Oklahoma because of motor vehicle crashes. Law enforcement actions are INEFFECTIVE to stop the carnage.
Probably because many drivers in the USA got their driver's license off the back of a cereal box. They have no concept of things like it takes distance to stop, two objects of matter cannot occupy the same space at the same time etc. No fancy math, just observation.
Maybe driving a motor vehicle on the BA is not too intelligent? Naaaaaaaaaaah. Forget it.
Maybe it is not so great but it is less risky than driving a bicycle.
Show me a reckless, DRUNKEN, outta control bicyclist, I'll show you the village IDIOT impersonating Santa at the Annual TPD Awards Banquet.
Should be arrested for DUI, same as a motorist.
Show me a reckless, DRUNKEN, outta control motorist, I'll show you Kimberly Graham, (//%22http://iic.tulsacounty.org/InmateDetails.aspx?Id=1180097%22) the poster girl for ALL reckless, DRUNKEN, outta control MOTORISTS.
(http://iic.tulsacounty.org/Mugshots/9805044_1180097_f.jpg)
Not all accidents are caused by drunk drivers and cell phone users.
You can use UPPER CASE LETTERS all you want to. I doubt you will change too many minds that the BA Expy is not a good place to ride a bicycle.
quote:
Originally posted by 1099paralegal
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
How about... Bicycles slow other traffic.
You are still NOT understanding the BLACK letter of the LAW, in plain ENGLISH: Bikes don't slow other traffic. Bikes ARE traffic.
Even a pedestrian walking in the middle of Memorial is traffic. O.S. 47 1-177, 37 TRO 100: Traffic shall mean pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles, streetcars and other conveyances, either singly or together, while using any street or roadway for purposes of travel.
quote:
1) Slow down; listen for crunching metal and glass behind you.
If there's crunching glass and metal behind the Santa, maybe the motorist should have HUNG UP, PAY ATTENTION, AND DRIVE?
quote:
2) Signal the lane change, force your way into the other lane to avoid really slow "traffic" you didn't see in time to slow down sufficiently. Reap same results as in first lane. (Motorcycles are not always easy to see, a bicycle is even more difficult to see, especially if you aren't expecting one.)
If you can't PLAINLY see the Santa in front of you, you are either BLIND, drunk, or you just need to HANG UP AND DRIVE.
quote:
3)Pass? Except for one really slow vehicle you hopefully missed, everyone else in front of you is long gone. The mess behind you isn't going anywhere.
SHOW ME THE MESS.
quote:
Legal or not... riding a bicycle on the BA Expy is just not too intelligent.
According to AAA, 43,000 Americans die EVERY year because of motor vehicle crashes. 2 die EVERY day in Oklahoma because of motor vehicle crashes. Law enforcement actions are INEFFECTIVE to stop the carnage. Motor vehicles have killed MORE Americans than the Nazis, the Vietnamese, or the Iraqis, COMBINED.
Will the REAL village IDIOT please STAND up?
Show me a reckless, DRUNKEN, outta control bicyclist, I'll show you the village IDIOT impersonating Santa at the Annual TPD Awards Banquet.
Show me a reckless, DRUNKEN, outta control motorist, I'll show you Kimberly Graham, (//%22http://iic.tulsacounty.org/InmateDetails.aspx?Id=1180097%22) the poster girl for ALL reckless, DRUNKEN, outta control MOTORISTS.
(http://iic.tulsacounty.org/Mugshots/9805044_1180097_f.jpg)
So let me make sure I am understanding the BLACK LETTER OF THE LAW....if you rear end me on BA while riding your bike, it would be your fault correct? would you be cited for inattentive driving? following to closely? failue to follow minimum speed limit posted? would you be subject ed to higher insurance rates since after all you are traffic?
The example you keep beating in the ground is an extreme. It doesnt happen everyday, hence why there was so much publicity about it. Your daily avg of 2 people dying in OK everyday in a motor vehicle crash took a hit, no pun intended,this past weekend when 0, thats right, ZERO fatalities were reported on Oklahoma highways over the Memorial Holiday weekend. I thought I had already covered stats in an earlier post in this thread. You must have misunderstood that post, just like the one you confused with "hitting a wife/gf" and "hitting on a wife/gf".
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Listen Paul, you can posture all you want. It boils down to you riding your bike in order to mess with other people and gain attention to yourself. If that sounds like a noble goal - or you think you are helping other bikers (who bemoan you for degrading their chosen mode of transit), then I disagree.
Generally, in my world, doing something that is rude, dangerous, and inconvenient to other people for your own gratification is simply being a jerk.
Congrats, you're a jerk and the law is on your side. Here's a picture of a rabbit with a pancake on it's head.
(http://nicks.martnet.com/picture-archive/st00f/cute_bunnies/rabbit_pancake.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by TUalum0982
So let me make sure I am understanding the BLACK LETTER OF THE LAW....if you rear end me on BA while riding your bike, it would be your fault correct? would you be cited for inattentive driving? following to closely? failue to follow minimum speed limit posted? would you be subject ed to higher insurance rates since after all you are traffic?
Yes. If a bicyclist rear-ends a motorist on the BA, a reasonable judge would probably find the bicyclist at fault for SPEEDING. Yes, probably the bicyclist insurance would increase accordingly. But, then again, of course, the Tour d'France and the World Anti-Doping Agency would also come calling to find out HOW in the world a village IDIOT, impersonating Santa, in bum-fcuk Tulsa, Oklahoma is moving at over 45 MILES PER HOUR.
GIT A FRIGGIN' GRIP.
quote:
The example you keep beating in the ground is an extreme. It doesnt happen everyday, hence why there was so much publicity about it. Your daily avg of 2 people dying in OK everyday in a motor vehicle crash took a hit, no pun intended,this past weekend when 0, thats right, ZERO fatalities were reported on Oklahoma highways over the Memorial Holiday weekend. I thought I had already covered stats in an earlier post in this thread. You must have misunderstood that post, just like the one you confused with "hitting a wife/gf" and "hitting on a wife/gf".
According to OHSO (//%22http://www.ok.gov/ohso/Crash_Data_and_Statistics/index.html%22), the motor vehicle kill rate for Oklahoma is approximately 700-720 per YEAR, year-in, year-out. Works out to around 2 per day. Sure, we might go a couple of days without a kill. But, the stats catch up next week when there's a whole rash of 'em.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
Not all accidents are caused by drunk drivers and cell phone users.
You can use UPPER CASE LETTERS all you want to. I doubt you will change too many minds that the BA Expy is not a good place to ride a bicycle.
Oh, I don't have to. The gas prices will do THAT for me.[:P]
quote:
Originally posted by 1099paralegal
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
Not all accidents are caused by drunk drivers and cell phone users.
You can use UPPER CASE LETTERS all you want to. I doubt you will change too many minds that the BA Expy is not a good place to ride a bicycle.
Oh, I don't have to. The gas prices will do THAT for me.[:P]
I was going to say don't hold your breath waiting but on second thought.... go ahead, give it a try.
Hey Tay,
quote:
Penalizing a bicycle properly operating in traffic because of speed is tantamount to banning bicycles. Trotwood v. Selz, 139 Ohio App. 3d 947 (2nd. Dist.-2000).
First off, what does the Trotwood decision have to do with Oklahoma statutory interpretation? Even if it was from the 3rd Circuit...do you have any Oklahoma cases citing this case in whole or in part?
Also:
O.S. 47 11-313The Department of Transportation, the Oklahoma Transportation Authority, or local authorities may, with respect to any controlled-access roadway under their respective jurisdictions, prohibit the use of any such roadway by pedestrians, bicycles or other non-motorized traffic or by any person operating a motor-driven cycle. The Department of Transportation, the Oklahoma Transportation Authority, or local authorities adopting any such prohibitory regulations shall erect and maintain official signs on the controlled-access roadway on which such regulations are applicable and when so erected no person shall disobey the restrictions stated on such signs.
This statute gives the State and local governements the ability to keep bicycles off of any controlled access road if they so choose.
quote:
The minimum speed rule as it relates to bicycles has already been litigated in Tulsa Municipal. Judge Burk Bishop presiding.
Holding: Because bicycles can not move at the minimum speed, 35 mph, on the Broken Arrow Expressway, the rule is not applicable.
37 TRO 1000: Every person operating a bicycle in the City of Tulsa shall be subject to the provisions of this title applicable to the driver of a vehicle, except as to those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.
Was this "holding" in response to a charged violation of 37 TRO 1000, or an interpretation of the statute? If not, you can't simply connect the two. Also, could you provide us with access to holding in its entirety, not that I don't believe you...
quote:
Bikes don't slow other traffic. Bikes ARE traffic.
This statement is just plainly stupid. Cars are vehicles as well and can slow other traffic. I am happy to define a bicycle as a vehicle, it still doesn't mean you aren't slowing traffic when you operate one on a highway at 10 mph.
Here's one more for you:
O.S. 47 Ch. 74 1102:
33. "Vehicle" means any type of conveyance or device in, upon or by which a person or property is or may be transported from one location to another upon the avenues of public access within the state. "Vehicle" does not include bicycles, trailers except travel trailers and rental trailers, or implements of husbandry as defined in Section 1-125 of this title. All implements of husbandry used as conveyances shall be required to display the owner's driver's license number or license plate number of any vehicle owned by the owner of the implement of husbandry on the rear of the implement in numbers not less than two (2) inches in height. The use of the owner's social security number on the rear of the implement of husbandry shall not be required...
So bicycles are "traffic" but not a "vehicle." Which means that you can ride on the sidewalk when it's available.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Penalizing a bicycle properly operating in traffic because of speed is tantamount to banning bicycles. Trotwood v. Selz, 139 Ohio App. 3d 947 (2nd. Dist.-2000).
First off, what does the Trotwood decision have to do with Oklahoma statutory interpretation? Even if it was from the 3rd Circuit...do you have any Oklahoma cases citing this case in whole or in part?
There are no Oklahoma cases with mandatory authority related to Trotwood. It has PERSUASIVE authority. The appellant's brief uses a Georgia combine impeding case as persuasive authority.
quote:
Also:
O.S. 47 11-313
The Department of Transportation, the Oklahoma Transportation Authority, or local authorities may, with respect to any controlled-access roadway under their respective jurisdictions, prohibit the use of any such roadway by pedestrians, bicycles or other non-motorized traffic or by any person operating a motor-driven cycle. The Department of Transportation, the Oklahoma Transportation Authority, or local authorities adopting any such prohibitory regulations shall erect and maintain official signs on the controlled-access roadway on which such regulations are applicable and when so erected no person shall disobey the restrictions stated on such signs.
This statute gives the State and local governements the ability to keep bicycles off of any controlled access road if they so choose.
Yes. That is correct. Until successfully challenged, bicycle driving on turnpikes is illegal.
The holding was in response to a charged violation of 37 TRO 619 (//%22http://cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/ordinances/Title37.asp#Chapter6%22), speed less than minimum posted speed.
You should contact Tony Cellino, Tulsa Municipal Court Clerk, to gain access to the case. The City didn't appeal.
quote:
Bikes don't slow other traffic. Bikes ARE traffic.
This statement is just plainly stupid. Cars are vehicles as well and can slow other traffic. I am happy to define a bicycle as a vehicle, it still doesn't mean you aren't slowing traffic when you operate one on a highway at 10 mph.
[/quote]
How to Beat the Slow-moving Vehicle on Tulsa Streets, Without Really Trying:
1) Slow down;
2) Signal the lane change;
3) Pass in the other lane.
PROBLEM solved.
That's what I thought, you're using a holding which isn't interpreting the statute in question. A fun exercise, but essentially meaningless.
quote:
There are no Oklahoma cases with mandatory authority. Trotwood has PERSUASIVE authority. The appellant's brief uses a Georgia combine impeding case as persuasive authority.
Which, I'm sure you can appreciate, creates NO binding precedent for an Oklahoma judge looking to interpret our statutes.
lol Paul. The city rarely if EVER appeals traffic court cases. "Today the Supreme Court will decide if bicycles can be ridden down the freeway..."
I'm sure you put 5 times more effort into defending yourself than the prosecution put into researching the law against it. Res ipsa loquitur. The things speaks for itself - driving a bicycle on a freeway is just one of those things that just SEEMS like it should be illegal, so he/she didn't put in the time to prove it.
So again, congrats on your win in traffic court.
Other than the law specifically allowing the city to restrict bicycle access to freeways and the law negating your legal arguments by excluding bicycles from the definition of vehicle... you found some good law. Unfortunately, given that those two little ditties destroy or negate that which you did find - you're wrong in the legal sense too.
So not only are you being an attention whore by acting like a jerk to hundreds of people, you are also legally in the wrong.
Time to start a new screen name.
This idiot makes cycling difficult for everyone that does it without making attention whores out of themselves....Do cyclist a favor and stay off yours, same goes for your boyfriend Biker Fox.....You two use cycling as vehicle to accomplish your out of whack personal mission....
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
This idiot makes cycling difficult for everyone that does it without making attention whores out of themselves.
+1
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
That's what I thought, you're using a holding which isn't interpreting the statute in question. A fun exercise, but essentially meaningless.
quote:
There are no Oklahoma cases with mandatory authority. Trotwood has PERSUASIVE authority. The appellant's brief uses a Georgia combine impeding case as persuasive authority.
Which, I'm sure you can appreciate, creates NO binding precedent for an Oklahoma judge looking to interpret our statutes.
That is correct. But, if Trotwood, an Ohio case, used a Georgia case as persuasive authority to win, maybe it is reasonable to assume an Oklahoma case might use an Ohio, to prevail?
quote:
How to Beat the Slow-moving Vehicle on Tulsa Streets, Without Really Trying:
1) Slow down;
2) Signal the lane change;
3) Pass in the other lane.
PROBLEM solved.
This is fantastic for multi-lane roads, but does nothing for vehicles traveling on roads where passing is either too dangerous or prohibited by law (for example, 61st between Harvard and Lewis).
quote:
Originally posted by 1099paralegal
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
That's what I thought, you're using a holding which isn't interpreting the statute in question. A fun exercise, but essentially meaningless.
quote:
There are no Oklahoma cases with mandatory authority. Trotwood has PERSUASIVE authority. The appellant's brief uses a Georgia combine impeding case as persuasive authority.
Which, I'm sure you can appreciate, creates NO binding precedent for an Oklahoma judge looking to interpret our statutes.
That is correct. But, if Trotwood, an Ohio case, used a Georgia case as persuasive authority to win, maybe it is reasonable to assume an Oklahoma case might use an Ohio, to prevail?
Since it can be ignored by a judge just as easily as it can be relied upon it's really not worth mentioning. In other words, if you're going to hang your hat on this the next time you get picked up by the fuzz then you should hire an attorney next time. I heard from William Shatner that Jeff Martin is fantastic.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Here's one more for you:
O.S. 47 Ch. 74 1102:
33. "Vehicle" means any type of conveyance or device in, upon or by which a person or property is or may be transported from one location to another upon the avenues of public access within the state. "Vehicle" does not include bicycles, trailers except travel trailers and rental trailers, or implements of husbandry as defined in Section 1-125 of this title. All implements of husbandry used as conveyances shall be required to display the owner's driver's license number or license plate number of any vehicle owned by the owner of the implement of husbandry on the rear of the implement in numbers not less than two (2) inches in height. The use of the owner's social security number on the rear of the implement of husbandry shall not be required...
So bicycles are "traffic" but not a "vehicle." Which means that you can ride on the sidewalk when it's available.
The correct cite is O.S. 47 11-186, Vehicles DEFINED:
A. A vehicle is any device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
B. As used in this title, the term "vehicle" shall not include:
1. Implements of husbandry, as defined in Section 1-125 of this title;
2. Electric personal assistive mobility devices, as defined in Section 1-114A of this title; or
3. Motorized wheelchairs, as defined in Section 1-136.3 of this title.
Bicyclists are statutorily defined as DRIVERS of VEHICLES that operate in TRAFFIC on Oklahoma roadways and City streets. O.S. 47 11-177, O.S. 47 11-186, O.S. 47 11-1205, 37 TRO 1000.
Bicycles, operated as vehicles, are prohibited on City sidewalks. 37 TRO 1009, 37 TRO 638
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
lol Paul. The city rarely if EVER appeals traffic court cases. "Today the Supreme Court will decide if bicycles can be ridden down the freeway..."
I'm sure you put 5 times more effort into defending yourself than the prosecution put into researching the law against it. Res ipsa loquitur. The things speaks for itself - driving a bicycle on a freeway is just one of those things that just SEEMS like it should be illegal, so he/she didn't put in the time to prove it.
So again, congrats on your win in traffic court.
Other than the law specifically allowing the city to restrict bicycle access to freeways and the law negating your legal arguments by excluding bicycles from the definition of vehicle... you found some good law. Unfortunately, given that those two little ditties destroy or negate that which you did find - you're wrong in the legal sense too.
If you consider the TOTALITY of BOTH Oklahoma Statutes, O.S. 47 11-177, O.S. 47 11-186, O.S. 47 1202, O.S. 47 11-1205, AND Tulsa Ordinances 37 TRO 100, 37 TRO 1000, 37 TRO 1009, 37 TRO 638, BOTH the Oklahoma Legislature AND Tulsa City Council INTENDED bicycles to be operated as VEHICLES, in TRAFFIC, on ALL State roadways and City Streets.
The one LONE exception: the turnpikes. There is NO safety reasons to ban bikes from turnpikes. That rule merely reflects OTA irrational bias and IGNORANCE.
There is a statutory conflict. Which means making any concrete claims about either statute presumptive. I just wanted you to see that just because you think the law says one thing doesn't necessarily mean it's the case.
Statutes do conflict, often.
There are no clear cut answers to the problems we face as motorists when it comes to bikers like you and Foxx. I appreciate the conservation aspects, exercise benefits, and other benefits that biking can bring. God knows I could benefit from a few miles.
What I would like to see is at least a modicum of personal responsibility. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you OUGHT to or you MUST. IMO, your right to ride a bike in the road stops at the doorstep of impinging on other's freedoms. The freedom to operate their vehicles at a minimum posted speed.
We don't expect you to go 40 mph, why do you expect others to go 5 mph?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
How to Beat the Slow-moving Vehicle on Tulsa Streets, Without Really Trying:
1) Slow down;
2) Signal the lane change;
3) Pass in the other lane.
PROBLEM solved.
This is fantastic for multi-lane roads, but does nothing for vehicles traveling on roads where passing is either too dangerous or prohibited by law (for example, 61st between Harvard and Lewis).
General duty and obligation of ALL roadway users to exercise DUE care when passing on two-lane roads. O.S. 47 11-305
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
This idiot makes cycling difficult for everyone that does it without making attention whores out of themselves....Do cyclist a favor and stay off yours, same goes for your boyfriend Biker Fox.....You two use cycling as vehicle to accomplish your out of whack personal mission....
That is correct. The "out of whack personal missions?" Getting from POINT A to Point B AND back to POINT A, WITHOUT Really Dying.
Same as EVERYBODY's "out of whack personal missions."
How to BEAT Attention WHORES, WITHOUT Really Trying:
1) Slow down;
2) Signal the lane change;
3) Pass in the other lane.
PROBLEM solved.
quote:
If you consider the TOTALITY of BOTH Oklahoma Statutes, O.S. 47 11-177, O.S. 47 11-186, O.S. 47 1202, O.S. 47 11-1205, AND Tulsa Ordinances 37 TRO 100, 37 TRO 1000, 37 TRO 1009, 37 TRO 638, BOTH the Oklahoma Legislature AND Tulsa City Council INTENDED bicycles to be operated as VEHICLES, in TRAFFIC, on ALL State roadways and City Streets.
The one LONE exception: the turnpikes. There is NO safety reasons to ban bikes from turnpikes. That rule merely reflects OTA irrational bias and IGNORANCE.
Except for the fact that other statutes specifically exclude bicycles from the definition of a "vehicle." None of us is obligated to accept that these statutes, either alone or in combination, would yield the result you assume. There's probably a good reason you aren't a judge, and until you are, I think we need to leave matters of interpretation to those best suited to deal with them.
As to the OTA, they're familiar with physics. Bicycles and cars don't mix at 75 mph. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by 1099paralegal
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
How to Beat the Slow-moving Vehicle on Tulsa Streets, Without Really Trying:
1) Slow down;
2) Signal the lane change;
3) Pass in the other lane.
PROBLEM solved.
This is fantastic for multi-lane roads, but does nothing for vehicles traveling on roads where passing is either too dangerous or prohibited by law (for example, 61st between Harvard and Lewis).
General duty and obligation of ALL roadway users to exercise DUE care when passing on two-lane roads. O.S. 47 11-305
Exactly, what happens when there are no opportunities to pass or passing is specifically banned (there are many streets which do), should a driver be obligated to sit behind you for miles on end?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
We don't expect you to go 40 mph, why do you expect others to go 5 mph?
Because the LAW requires motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, horse riders, combines, and ALL other users of the roadway, COLLECTIVELY known as TRAFFIC, to exercise DUE care, to respect the right of ALL other users of the roadways, AND their respective LIMITATIONS.
The TOTALITY of the LAW clearly states the intentions of BOTH the Legislature AND the City Council: Bicyclists are DRIVERS of VEHICLES, that operate in TRAFFIC, on Oklahoma roadways and City streets.
Repeating this stuff over and over doesn't make it correct.
Can you cite me a judicial interpretation (i.e. case law) that holds this as true. If none exists, it's merely your OPINION. As I said before, a fun exercise, but essentially meaningless.
The "totality" of the law must also include the express exclusion of bicycles as vehicles, unless you only want to look at statutes that bolster your position.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by 1099paralegal
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
How to Beat the Slow-moving Vehicle on Tulsa Streets, Without Really Trying:
1) Slow down;
2) Signal the lane change;
3) Pass in the other lane.
PROBLEM solved.
This is fantastic for multi-lane roads, but does nothing for vehicles traveling on roads where passing is either too dangerous or prohibited by law (for example, 61st between Harvard and Lewis).
General duty and obligation of ALL roadway users to exercise DUE care when passing on two-lane roads. O.S. 47 11-305
Exactly, what happens when there are no opportunities to pass or passing is specifically banned (there are many streets which do), should a driver be obligated to sit behind you for miles on end?
How to Roll Two-Lane Roadways, Without Really Dying:
Bicyclist's action:
1) Check rear-view mirror and on-coming traffic;
2) Stick left arm out;
3) Move to the left, toward the double-yellow line;
4) If motorist cooperates, wave him/her through on the RIGHT.
Motorist's action:
1) Slow down;
2) Pass on the right when bicyclist indicates.
PROBLEM solved.
What kind of an idiot passes on a double yellow lane road or encourages other to do so?
You can't be this dense. You're a smart guy other than the inflatable penis...
I have provided you with a conflicting statute expressly excluding bicycles from the definition. Giving me more statutes DOES not obviate the conflict. Answering the question now requires judicial interpretation. Do you have any case law that covers these matters?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Except for the fact that other statutes specifically exclude bicycles from the definition of a "vehicle." None of us is obligated to accept that these statutes, either alone or in combination, would yield the result you assume. There's probably a good reason you aren't a judge, and until you are, I think we need to leave matters of interpretation to those best suited to deal with them.
What part of BLACK letter of the LAW, in plain ENGLISH, do you
NOT understand?
Bicycles DEFINED, O.S. 47 1-104:
A. A bicycle is a
device upon which any person or persons may ride, propelled solely by human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having two or more wheels, excluding mopeds.
Vehicles DEFINED, O.S. 47 1-186:
A. A vehicle is any
device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
B. As used in this title, the term "vehicle" shall not include:
1. Implements of husbandry, as defined in Section 1-125 of this title;
2. Electric personal assistive mobility devices, as defined in Section 1-114A of this title; or
3. Motorized wheelchairs, as defined in Section 1-136.3 of this title.
Traffic DEFINED, O.S. 47 1-177, 37 TRO 100:
Pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles, and other conveyances either singly or together, while using any highway for purposes of travel.
Bicyclist DEFINED as DRIVERS of VEHICLES, 37 TRO 1000:
Every person operating a bicycle in the City of Tulsa shall be subject to the provisions of this title applicable to the
driver of a
vehicle, except as to those provisions which by their very nature can have no application. Any such person shall obey the instructions of official traffic signals, signs and other control devices applicable to vehicles unless otherwise directed by a police officer.
O.S. 47 11-1205
Every person riding a bicycle or motorized scooter upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the
driver of a
vehicle by this title, except as to special regulations in this article and except to those provisions of this title which by their nature can have no application.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
What kind of an idiot passes on a double yellow lane road or encourages other to do so?
There is NO requirement, legal or otherwise, on the part of bicyclist to allow others to pass in a no passing zone. It is merely a courtesy extended by bicyclists to those who cooperate by slowing down, and respect the bicyclist's right-of-way.
I guess you really are.
I presented you a statute that conflicts with the one you just cited. Why is your statute relevant and controlling and the other is not?
quote:
Originally posted by 1099paralegal
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
What kind of an idiot passes on a double yellow lane road or encourages other to do so?
There is NO requirement, legal or otherwise, on the part of bicyclist to allow others to pass in a no passing zone. It is merely a courtesy extended by bicyclists to those who cooperate by slowing down, and respect the bicyclist's right-of-way.
And quite illegal too if you consider yourself to be driving a vehicle and not simply a bike. As you point out with your strict adherence to the law by not riding on the sidewalk, why would you encourage others to break the law? IOW, you can't have it both ways, either you're operating a vehicle or not.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
And quite illegal too if you consider yourself to be driving a vehicle and not simply a bike. As you point out with your strict adherence to the law by not riding on the sidewalk, why would you encourage others to break the law? IOW, you can't have it both ways, either you're operating a vehicle or not.
There is NO violations of the law. NEITHER the bicyclist or passing vehicle cross the double yellow line. If there's enough room, one vehicle can pass the other on the right, if EVERYONE cooperates.
In practice, this manuver is safer because the bicyclist is on the same side of the motor vehicle as the motorist, which easily allows the motorist to judge distance to bicyclist.
The courts have also held that bicyclists, and all other users of the roadway, have a duty and obligation to prevent foreseeable problems, short of abridging their own right to travel.
The double-yellow line bans passing in the lane with oncoming traffic.
O.S. 47 11-307:
a) The Oklahoma Department of Highways or other designated authorities are hereby authorized to determine those portions of any highway where overtaking and passing or driving to the left of the roadway would be especially hazardous and may by appropriate signs or markings on the roadway indicate the beginning and end of such zones and when such signs or markings are in place and clearly visible to an ordinarily observant person every driver of a vehicle shall obey the directions thereof.
(b) Where signs or markings are in place to define a no-passing zone as set forth in paragraph (a)
no driver shall at any time drive to the left side of the roadway within such no-passing zone or on the left side of any pavement striping designed to mark such no-passing zone throughout its length.But, you are right. Bicyclist should probably allow vehicles behind him to STEW in the no passing zones of two-lane roadways.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by 1099paralegal
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
What kind of an idiot passes on a double yellow lane road or encourages other to do so?
There is NO requirement, legal or otherwise, on the part of bicyclist to allow others to pass in a no passing zone. It is merely a courtesy extended by bicyclists to those who cooperate by slowing down, and respect the bicyclist's right-of-way.
And quite illegal too if you consider yourself to be driving a vehicle and not simply a bike. As you point out with your strict adherence to the law by not riding on the sidewalk, why would you encourage others to break the law? IOW, you can't have it both ways, either you're operating a vehicle or not.
While I can't quote a specific Oklahoma statute, in most states (and probably in Oklahoma) it's perfectly legal for one vehicle to pass another in the same lane when there is room on the main traveled portion of the roadway for two lines of vehicles. So if there is room for a bicycle and a car in the same lane with both of them remaining within their lane and not upon the shoulder, if any, it's perfectly legal for a car to pass a bicycle or vice versa, even where there is a double yellow line.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I presented you a statute that conflicts with the one you just cited. Why is your statute relevant and controlling and the other is not?
You presented O.S. 47 1-177, Vehicles DEFINED:
A. A vehicle is any device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
B. As used in this title, the term "vehicle" shall not include:
1. Implements of husbandry, as defined in Section 1-125 of this title;
2. Electric personal assistive mobility devices, as defined in Section 1-114A of this title; or
3. Motorized wheelchairs, as defined in Section 1-136.3 of this title.
The statute does NOT exclude bicycles to be defined as vehicle. So, therefore, bicycles are included as vehicle, a device for the purpose of travel. There is NO conflict.
Ok let me get this straight; Paul Tay is the guy who wears a Santa suit while on a bicycle and usually has signage and or a trailer...usually holding up traffic? If so he is an IDIOT.
Perhaps he should go to work for Nosak where he can be an idiot on TV.
wait.......Biker Fox and Tay and Nosak...wow...my head hurts typing all those idiots in one sentence; now that would be an idiot convention!
quote:
Originally posted by 1099paralegal
You presented O.S. 47 1-177, Vehicles DEFINED:
A. A vehicle is any device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
B. As used in this title, the term "vehicle" shall not include:
1. Implements of husbandry, as defined in Section 1-125 of this title;
2. Electric personal assistive mobility devices, as defined in Section 1-114A of this title; or
3. Motorized wheelchairs, as defined in Section 1-136.3 of this title.
The statute does NOT exclude bicycles to be defined as vehicle. So, therefore, bicycles are included as vehicle, a device for the purpose of travel. There is NO conflict.
[xx(]
No. I showed you O.S. 47 Ch. 74 1102
not O.S. 47 1-177, and 1102 specifically excludes bicycles from the definition of vehicles. So there is in fact a conflict. Let me ask again, why does the statute you provided control and not 1102?
quote:
Originally posted by ARGUS
Ok let me get this straight; Paul Tay is the guy who wears a Santa suit while on a bicycle and usually has signage and or a trailer...usually holding up traffic? If so he is an IDIOT.
Yes. Paul Tay is the guy that always runs for office, wears a Santa suit on the freeway, and rides a bike/trike slowly in traffic with random signs and/or a penis on his head.
Paul Tay is also user Paralegal 1099, TulsaSignNazi, and a couple older ones that have been locked. He pops on here about every 3 months to ramble and make losing arguments. Like, for instance:
quote:
There is NO safety reasons to ban bikes from turnpikes.
Everyone knows that 2,000 lbs at 80mph and 200 lbs at 8mph can share the same space in perfect harmony. We also all understand that bikes have a need to travel on freeways and that sharing narrow busy roads at high speeds is safer than using nearly abandoned side streets with slower moving traffic. Likewise, if someone wants attention they can do anything within the law to get it - even if it means being a jerk to the rest of Tulsa.
- - -
IP, you have been kind enough to remind me from time to time so let me help you out: You are arguing with an illiterate cabbage. No good will come from it.
My advice, write a paragraph legal memo outlining the conflict in law. Then state in one sentence why your interpretation is better if not why yours is controlling. Then call him a dolt and leave.
I think I'll just leave. Cabbage always gives me gas...
Who does Mr. Tay work for if he is in fact a paralegal?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by 1099paralegal
You presented O.S. 47 1-177, Vehicles DEFINED:
A. A vehicle is any device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.
B. As used in this title, the term "vehicle" shall not include:
1. Implements of husbandry, as defined in Section 1-125 of this title;
2. Electric personal assistive mobility devices, as defined in Section 1-114A of this title; or
3. Motorized wheelchairs, as defined in Section 1-136.3 of this title.
The statute does NOT exclude bicycles to be defined as vehicle. So, therefore, bicycles are included as vehicle, a device for the purpose of travel. There is NO conflict.
[xx(]
No. I showed you O.S. 47 Ch. 74 1102 not O.S. 47 1-177, and 1102 specifically excludes bicycles from the definition of vehicles. So there is in fact a conflict. Let me ask again, why does the statute you provided control and not 1102?
Very good, IP! Chapter 74 refers to the Oklahoma Vehicle License and Registration Act.
Upon review of the Legislative history, the intent of this Act is to promulgate rules on licensing and registration of vehicles. At the time of enactment, 1985, the Legislature exempted bicycles from licensing and registration.
By specifically defining "vehicle" for the purposes of this Act, bicycles are EXEMPT from the same standards of licensing and registration required of motor vehicles.
The sales receipt for the bicycle purchase would qualify as certificate of ownership and registration, thus, in compliance with the BLACK letter of the law, O.S. 47 74-1102:
It is the intent of the Legislature that the owner or owners of every vehicle in this state shall possess a certificate of title as proof of ownership and that every vehicle shall be registered in the name of the owner or owners thereof. All registration and license fees and mileage taxes imposed by this act shall be for the purpose of providing funds for the general governmental functions of the state, counties, municipalities and schools and for the maintenance and upkeep of the avenues of public access of this state. Such registration and license fees shall apply to every vehicle operated upon, over, along or across any avenue of public access within this state and when paid in full, shall be in lieu of all other taxes, general and local, unless otherwise specifically provided.
Chapter 11 promulgates Rules of the Road, operation of bicycles. Thus, Chapter 11 would be the CONTROLLING statute, rather than Chapter 74, if the issue of law is roadway behavior, NOT licensing or registration.
Certainly, it is a loophole the Legislature should close. Bicyclists are the only DRIVERS of VEHICLES that operate in TRAFFIC, in Oklahoma, WITHOUT licensing and registration required of motor vehicle drivers.
Pedestrians and operators of husbandry that use the roadways are also exempt from licensing and registration required of motor vehicle drivers.
In lay language, bicyclists are required to behave as DRIVERS of VEHICLES that operate in TRAFFIC, on Oklahoma roadways and Tulsa streets. O.S. 47 11-177, O.S. 47 1-177, O.S. 47 11-1202, O.S. 47 11-1205, 37 TRO 100, 37 TRO 1000.
But, bicycles are NOT required to undergo the same standards of licensing and registration of motor vehicles. O.S. 47 74-1202.
Operations and licensing of vehicles are SEPARATE issues of law. Thanks for pointing out this very interesting LOOPHOLE. Maybe the Legislature will recognize this interesting "discrepancy" in definition of "vehicles" in the next session.
quote:
Chapter 11 promulgates Rules of the Road, operation of bicycles. Thus, Chapter 11 would be the CONTROLLING statute, rather than Chapter 74, if the issue of law is roadway behavior, NOT licensing or registration.
The issue is neither licensing nor roadway behavior but classification. IOW, you can't make a determination of any issue until the classification problem is settled, and we have two equally valid statutes which conflict on the classification of bicycles as vehicles. I can't believe this is that hard for you to understand, but that's what emotional investment in an idea gets you. When you become crazed and foam at the mouth when bicycling is discussed, you effectively detach yourself from any semblence of objectivity.
I'm not wasting any more time on this...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
you can't make a determination of any issue until the classification problem is settled, and we have two equally valid statutes which conflict on the classification of bicycles as vehicles. I can't believe this is that hard for you to understand, but that's what emotional investment in an idea gets you.
If the Attorney General is reading, I hope he clarifies the differences between OPERATIONS and LICENSING.
The Legislature is way AHEAD of you. It's INTENT is clear and uncompromising. The classification issues have ALREADY been solved.
In Chapter 11, Rules of the Road, promulgating rules of roadway behavior, bicycles are VEHICLES that operate in TRAFFIC.
In Chapter 74, Licensing and Registration, bicycles are not required to be licensed and registered similarly to automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles.
Lets see:
- Rides bike on freeways
- Wearing a Santa Suit and intentionally disrupting traffic
- Wearing Santa suit and making a mockery of the National Anthem in public
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpUGBmrROsU
You have attention issues.
- - -
I'll try one last time for my own amusement.
No one is arguing against bikes as transportation. The argument is that no one is using bikes as a viable form of transit on the freeway. Not even you.
Your antics are geared towards making other people yield to you because you can. Again, this is a classic symptom of mental illness - an exhibition of power for your own gratification. Some young children do it when they realize they can make traffic stop by pressing the crosswalk button over and over. Same basic concept and at the same level.
If you want to bike for transportation, kudos. I will yield to you so long as you are courteous to me as a driver (majority rules, minority rights). This means doing your best to facilitate the rest of the world while attempting to meet your own needs.
But you goal is not to meet your transportation needs, it is to gain attention for yourself. Your antics have hindered cyclists in Tulsa if they have had any effect, so clearly that is not your goal. So the entire discussion about bikes and what law applies is irrelevant.
See you on Harvard soon I'm sure. The temperature is just about right for Santa to come out and play.
Tay. Would you please stop editing your threads before we can respond. You went from STUMPED, to SOLVED, then to "The Legislature is way AHEAD of you" before I could register a response.
As far as the substance of your three posts,
Rinse, lather, and repeat.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
You have attention issues.
ALL bicycle DRIVERS have ATTENTION issues. Visibility is 99% of surviving going from POINT A to POINT B, and back to POINT A, without really dying.
Bicycle drivers who violate the number ONE rule of defensive bicycle driving, VISIBILITY, do EVERYONE, including motorists, a HUGE disservice.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Lets see:
- Rides bike on freeways
- Wearing a Santa Suit and intentionally disrupting traffic
- Wearing Santa suit and making a mockery of the National Anthem in public
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpUGBmrROsU
You have attention issues.
ALL bicycle DRIVERS have ATTENTION issues. Visibility is 99% of surviving going from POINT A to POINT B, and back to POINT A, without really dying.
Bicycle drivers who violate the number ONE rule of defensive bicycle driving, VISIBILITY, do EVERYONE, including motorists, a HUGE disservice.
quote:
Your antics are geared towards making other people yield to you because you can. Again, this is a classic symptom of mental illness - an exhibition of power for your own gratification. Some young children do it when they realize they can make traffic stop by pressing the crosswalk button over and over. Same basic concept and at the same level.
If you want to bike for transportation, kudos. I will yield to you so long as you are courteous to me as a driver (majority rules, minority rights). This means doing your best to facilitate the rest of the world while attempting to meet your own needs.
How to BEAT the Attention Whore on Tulsa streets, WITHOUT really trying:
1) Slow down;
2) Signal the lane change;
3) Pass in the OTHER lane.
Problem SOLVED.
quote:
But you goal is not to meet your transportation needs, it is to gain attention for yourself. Your antics have hindered cyclists in Tulsa if they have had any effect, so clearly that is not your goal. So the entire discussion about bikes and what law applies is irrelevant.
Oh yeah, right. ONE bicycle driver making ANY difference on ANYONE's roadway behavior.
GIT A GRIP. Have some PURPLE Kool-Aid.
(http://www.spacejunk.org/docblog/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/jonestownreview3.jpg)
Wow. You have either gone incoherent or are really in a fit over this discussion. In either case, you failed to retort any of by claims.
You dress up like Santa in summer heat, draw a sign that says will get nekkid for $1, and then slowly ride a tricycle in rush hour traffic. You put effort into getting on the ballot so you can recycle your antics to a new audience. You dress up in the same suit and sing poorly at open auditions.
Read the paragraph above, especially the first sentence, and tell me that these actions are for something OTHER THAN getting attention for Paul Tay. I'm happy I can provide you with a little bit more attention on the internet. It isn't that much effort for me and apperently you are getting really excited over it.
I think he has been scorned by Biker Fox and is re-directing his anger to the forum.....
What are the chances? I ran into Biker Fox out of uniform at Red Rock Canyon Friday night before last and saw Santa when I was eating on Brookside this last Saturday night. Biker Fox needs to leave the helmet on, the skullet look is nasty. Just kills the appetite...
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Wow. You have either gone incoherent or are really in a fit over this discussion. In either case, you failed to retort any of by claims.
You dress up like Santa in summer heat, draw a sign that says will get nekkid for $1, and then slowly ride a tricycle in rush hour traffic. You put effort into getting on the ballot so you can recycle your antics to a new audience. You dress up in the same suit and sing poorly at open auditions.
Read the paragraph above, especially the first sentence, and tell me that these actions are for something OTHER THAN getting attention for Paul Tay. I'm happy I can provide you with a little bit more attention on the internet. It isn't that much effort for me and apperently you are getting really excited over it.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?! Santas in the middle of June. Will Sing Nekkid 4 $1? Yep. I believe too!
(http://www.spacejunk.org/docblog/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/jonestownreview3.jpg)
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
I dont know the man,but if if uses extremes to get his point across,more power to him!!!He has my attitude,if ya dont like it"KISS MY donkey!".
Im thinking of getting together a easter Bunny outfit together and loading up my bike on weekends to terrorize Tulsa!
With a sign on my back that says"Rebuild The Camelot Hotel!">
quote:
Originally posted by mdunn
Im thinking of getting together a easter Bunny outfit together and loading up my bike on weekends to terrorize Tulsa!
With a sign on my back that says"Rebuild The Camelot Hotel!">
Better yet, how about one that just reads "yeah , I'm an idiot." That way we don't have to assume, we can tell just by reading your sign!
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3204/2602042262_7c2468f362.jpg?v=0)
quote:
Originally posted by mrB
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3204/2602042262_7c2468f362.jpg?v=0)
You are a photoshop master! Thanks I love it!
quote:
Originally posted by TUalum0982
quote:
Originally posted by mdunn
Im thinking of getting together a easter Bunny outfit together and loading up my bike on weekends to terrorize Tulsa!
With a sign on my back that says"Rebuild The Camelot Hotel!">
Better yet, how about one that just reads "yeah , I'm an idiot." That way we don't have to assume, we can tell just by reading your sign!
And you are the exact target Mr Tay wants!He feeds off people that get insulted at sight of him,Its people like you that have given him his fame,People like me just look and laugh and thats the end of it,but your kind has to debate his reason for living,his ideals,his purpose.Thats is what he wants.
Deep down you wish you had the kind of balls it takes to make a statement like he does,but you hide in your cubicle all day and pass judgement instead.
People like him makes life more interesting,he is different,thats his crime.Should we all be from same mold?I think not.Yes maybe we wouldnt elect him as mayor,but who knows,he may not do a bad job.