The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

One of my bike drivers got hit on Cincinnati last night by a drunk driver (Not while working). He'll survive but they deal with this threat every single day when they're at work as well.

Absolutely sick of hearing the stories about automobiles being completely oblivious to these guys. Infuriates me actually.

Helmet Cam.  GoPros are worth their weight in gold.

What constitutes bike safety? It's not a facetious question because it has multiple aspects that many of us do not agree upon. For instance, a lot of people believe that bike lanes or other separate facilities will increase bicyclist safety. Unfortunately, the studies that exist are flawed in that they do not perform longitudinal study of the effects of these facilities, and even worse, they often reflect the agenda and biases of the organizations promoting them. Painted lines have no magical qualities, and they complicate intersections where most collisions occur.

The separated bike lanes, sometimes called cycle tracks because they have physical barriers that are meant to prevent motor vehicle incursion, merely introduce another set of problems. The latest fad is to locate these lanes between the curb and parked cars, effectively hiding cyclists behind those cars when they're approaching the next intersection, with predictable results.

None of this will protect a rider against a drunk or inattentive driver. It's often promoted as a way to encourage people to ride bicycles more often, and while there may be a modicum of truth in that, it also fosters dependency in that these inexperienced cyclists will not be capable of operating outside such lanes.

Education is effective but unpopular. Most people learned to ride a bike at the age of 10 or so. Unfortunately, their skills haven't progressed much since then. They'll ride on sidewalks or on the road against traffic in the mistaken belief that it's safer. Two education programs exist that offer a shorter path to skill development, a process that takes at least a year or two through trial and error. One is available through the League of American Bicyclists, the other - Savvy Cycling - through an independent group.

And none of this will protect a rider against a drunk or inattentive driver. What could work to protect all of us are tough drunk driving laws and more stringent licensing requirements. If it took a year or two before a driver's license was issued, more drivers would take the potential loss of it far more seriously. But we've all seen instances of multiple arrests and convictions of drunks without any real jail time or other penalties. And believe me, when they hit a cyclist, the courts are even more lenient.

David, as a very avid cyclist, I'm tired of hearing of cyclists being run over and near misses.  My wife and I both ride and our social circle is mainly other cyclists.  I hope he recovers quickly.

Please don't think I'm putting all blame on the rider, but riding after dark carries with it quite a bit of additional risk due to limited visibility and in a mixed light environment in a place like downtown, my rear blinky light will be drowned out from a driver's attention with all the other signs, street lights, and vehicle lights.  Also, many drivers aren't expecting to encounter cyclists on the road at night.

There's also the issue of drivers who are too distracted with things other than driving while behind the wheel, or they are in such a big hurry, it's worth risking a collision to them to save a bucking minute off their drive.  I simply won't ride the streets at night, I feel like a big enough target as it is during daylight.  I sure as hell don't expect a drunk driver to see me or my bicycle lights.

As far as the jackass drunk driver, I'm sick of the attitude that drunk driving penalties are nothing but a fund raiser for law enforcement.  Sorry, that's a raw subject at the moment.  My brother was killed by a drunk driver over in Stillwater 13 years ago this week.  I visited the niche where his ashes are interred at his church for the first time in years today after a couple of hard days of riding dirt and gravel in Stilly.

Your question is only part of the question.  The answer however is the same - never.  This is the state that considers drunk driving to be just a natural part of life - it's the "good ole boy" syndrome.  Part of this is the huge number of legislators who are stopped regularly for drunk driving (both sides!).  We literally, as a state, do NOT care about this enough to elect people who will actually make a difference and take action on the topic! 

The rest of the question applies to the automobiles that are also struck by drunk drivers.  We also don't take "hit and run" as being very serious, either.  No matter that both the actions can and are regularly fatal to people!  We would rather prosecute and imprison people for smoking a little bud...since that is SO much worse a problem!!

I too hope he recovers quickly. I'd like to think I have as much experience as just about anybody in urban riding and night riding in various cities.

My night routes are way, way different than day routes. Daytime, there's not many streets I won't ride on. At night, the stranger the route, the better. Alleys, little-traveled residential/side streets, whatever. More emphasis should be placed on cyclist safety, but until then, when I ride at night I'll be the guy taking a crazy route and avoiding any streets where cars exceed 25mph.

You are wise to do so.

Not like the crazy coming the wrong way on Cincinnati last week between 18th and 14 th street. Full biking gear, head down, pedalling to beat hell head on into four lanes of traffic coming right at him. Two were entering the BA eastbound entrance, one was the 15th lane and the one I was in has been one way south for at least 30 years. He rode the white line between the lanes. We let him live another day.

Drivers will take cycling safety more seriously when obviously serious bikers like this guy stop playing chicken by coasting through reds, running stop signs, slipping between lines of cars and failing to observe common traffic rules the rest of us try to follow.

I know most of you are not in this group, but like idiot car pilots, we all suffer when they show their arses.

A "serious" cyclist takes the safety of themself and motorists seriously. 

The guy you saw was an assclown on a bicycle.

I give him the benefit of the doubt that he made a bad decision by not noting a one way sign at 18th and Cincinnati. Maybe coming up from Maple Park or from the Path nearby. He made it worse by not pulling over and admitting his mistake.

I log a lot of miles each day in a commercial vehicle and am very aware of the inattention and downright incompetence that most drivers exhibit. Between their obsession with cell phones, cigarettes, food consumption, ignorance of the difference between Yield, Merge and Stop along with their impatience with anyone who won't drive like they do, you have to be one brave MF (and lucky) to survive driving a bike among them.

Over the bridge? What a donkeyhat

He seemed to be getting a rush from it. I am so glad no one looked down to read a text at that point. I've seen enough tragedy.

This seems like an important point that often gets lost in the bike/car conversation. I have only lived in tulsa a few years, so i don't know a lot about how things are here. But I  have spent a fair amount of time riding on the trails and streets. I feel like in the last year or so I have seen an increase in bikers doing dumb stuff, ether out of ignorance or willfully.

Im all for driver education about how to interact with bikes, but it seems critical to pair that with education for bikers as well. There is a disconnect that is hard to overcome when we ask drivers to respect bikes, watch out for safety etc, and then the next day they see 20 bikers blow through a red light making all the cars with green lights wait for them (which a saw recently. I was sitting at the red they were running). Everybody has to work hard to lower the general frustration level. drivers cutting off bikes, throwing bottles, not paying attention, etc does not help, but nether does bikers running red lights, being unpredictable in traffic, etc.

 

100% correct.  You can’t demand respect if you aren’t willing to give it.

While running last night I was in the cross-walk with the "walk" sign lit and a guy in an SUV turned right and almost hit me. Then he leaned on his horn and flipped me off. If I had been walking and not running I he would have tagged me.

Interesting when you go to more pedestrian-friendly cities, cars stop at mid-block crosswalks and don’t pull into the crosswalk at stop lights.  In Tulsa, crosswalks are just staging areas for smoky burn-outs for when the light turns green or mark where to stand on the gas while blowing a red light.

Red light running seems to be getting worse.  Used to be you’d see someone blow  a red or shave it pretty close once or twice a week.  Seems like I’m seeing it every 2nd or 3rd intersection these days.  That’s a lot of risk to save a couple of minutes.

honestly. I saw one of those motorized bicycles cruising up Admiral at Yale while getting my muffler fixed. HE RAN THE RED! Must have doing about 7mph which made it look like slow motion. I was so surprised that the drivers on Yale didn't flatten him. They were probably as astounded as I was.

Cyclists need to realize how hard they are for drivers to see at night, heck, a few days ago I saw a cyclist dressed in all black riding at night on N. 73rd ave. the only thing that gave him away was the reflective bike pedals, (no light or anything). Riding any bike at night is risky no matter what. The best place to ride a bike is on the jogging trails.  I am not a cyclist and I have not rode a bike in decades, but I am a hard core runner and the only place I ever run is on the jogging trails, you'll never catch me jogging in the streets, not even side streets, I stick to the trails only when I go running.

Many posts talk about drunk drivers, but a even worse threat  is cell phone and texting drivers- for some reason talking on a cell phone  while driving zones out the brain, texting is worse, they say texting is more dangerous than a drunk 90 year old driver and ya can't get any more dangerous that that. I seen cars drive normally on I-244, then suddenly the car slows down and weaves I drive around and see the driver on the cell phone.

The driver problem of  texting/cell phone use  can be solved by a couple of ways: One, design cars to block cell phone signals (shield) when the engine is on, and Two,  Design cell phones so that they don't work when they are moving faster than 5mph (a walking pace). I guess some laws will need to be changed. That will instantly stop many crashes. No cell phone talking/texting ban laws needed. :-\

I have no problem with a passenger in a car (not the driver) using a cell phone or texting.

What is so urgent that that it can't wait? Besides  a cell/texting passenger can involve the driver and take his mind off the road. We can't have it all. Ban 'em totally from cars IMO-  A passenger cannot drink in car even if the driver is not drinking- why is that?  The same can apply to cell phones. "Hang Up -N- Drive"

I have hands free Bluetooth in my car and it's no different than talking to the person next to you. Should we also ban talking?

My latest car has that (BT hands free) and it's excellent.

Sauer is living in the 70s still.  Explains his ideology.

Probably.  I have seen a lot of very distracted drivers who got that way just by talking to the person next to them....

Mostly the hands free isn't the big problem - it's the hands ON, either dialing or texting - both are the same, dialing is just fewer digits most of the time.

God forbid parents talk to the kids in the back seat. I'd like to see a study on that.

Even hands-free some people are miserable multi-taskers and forget they are driving. 

Friday morning I was directly behind a lady who apparently did not see that everyone in front of her was stopped at a red light. She plowed her Expedition into the car in front of her which then pushed four more cars together. I have no idea whether she was on the phone, daydreaming, turned around talking to her kid, or whatever other scenario, but she was distracted enough to not even hit her brakes more than half a second before she hit the car in front of her. Thankfully, no one was injured too badly, but we have all got to pay attention while driving. Especially with the size of many people's vehicles - several tons of metal can quickly turn deadly.

What do you tell the cops on the scene when that happens?  "I'm sorry officer, I had my head so far up my donkey I didn't see the brake lights and red traffic signal."

I'm convinced people simply have no respect for other motorists, are entirely pre-occupied with other things than driving, and are in too big a hurry to get where they are going they take really stupid risks without considering the consequences to themselves and those around them.

It's really gotten worse the last 10 years or so, IMO.

Three psyoclists riding east on 111th towards Memorial in the mid afternoon on Sunday It's a forty-plus mph zone for a reason, and those selfish clowns had traffic backed up. Thankfully, the leader of the three was directing traffic behind him, I'm sure they appreciated that.

Are they worse than the selfish clowns who feel the need to run red lights in a two ton vehicle?  MC and I drove a mile to Walgreens tonight and I saw three red lights blatantly blown. 

Next time, I'll make sure I'm driving when she's under the influence of pain meds.  Damn it!

Go get em...

Can we make that retroactive about 50 years and get the old man to stay facing forward??   With both hands if possible.... (No real complaint - I deserved a lot more than I ever got caught for.)

They had cars back then?

Chebbies!!  (Bow-Ties)  34, 48, 52, 57, 61, 64, 70.  Then on to the Buicks and Oldsmobiles!!

Three 57 Chevies in the family at one time!  Geez, I wish we had kept them!

I'm a runner as most know, and I also cycle. So am I offended by this? Nope. Hilarious, because I am a little guilty because I post run times on FB via Nike. And you can easily substitute cyclists for runners.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304448204579186401818882202?mod=trending_now_2

I rode 3 centuries and one century and a half.  One of the centuries was the day after the the 1 1/2.... Went way up into Kansas to visit friends/family, then came back the next day...ran out of steam at 104 miles near Bartlesville, so had to get a ride the rest of the way.  Fantastic ride, though.  Gotta get back on that bike.

Rode 6,200 miles in 9 days on the Harley one time, with half day stop to visit friend in Spokane.  About as much fun between bicycle and 'bike'.... wind is good!  Looking forward to an "Iron Butt Rally" sometime soon....have done several Saddle Sore rides over the years.

"Why would someone want to get up at 5 a.m. and run 10 miles adorned with fluorescent tape to avoid being struck by someone who has the good sense to use a car for a 10-mile journey?"

I've heard that same gripe (critique, etc..) about almost every sport/recreational activity there is, and almost always by somebody who doesn't participate in that particular activity.  "Why would somebody want to drive all the way to South Dakota to hunt pheasants?",  "Why would anybody want to ride 100 miles on on a bike", etc.  But this guy sounds more like the purist who takes excessive pride in "doing it for the pleasure of it", and will lord it over anybody who (a) doesn't do it like he does, and/or  (b) ever mentions any sort of personal achievement to anyone.  I saw a similar rant the other day related to taking and posting the requisite "hero shot" of a big fish somebody might want to brag about, before the fish is released. 

I haven't caught a 20" Brown Trout, or finished a 100 miles on a bike in under five hours, or run a marathon.  ("yet", to all...), but if you did, brag about it.  You earned it, and it gives me something to shoot for.  Because really, if that idiot with the sticker on their car do it, I figure I can too.


       

Yes, I have to confess to being guilty of having a “look at me” sticker on my car for the LT-100.  Being an LT finisher is a pretty neat feeling.  I’m going back for my third one next summer.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-e9kJflyMw[/youtube]

Look at me stickers and t-shirts are awesome. If you worked hard enough to participate in the event then why not brag about it. Sports are hard work.

Wow. This writer has no problems calling it like he sees it. Someone tell Ed and Conan its just one side of the story.  :D

http://freebeacon.com/blog/bicyclists-are-terrible/

Guido, you should ride with me sometime.

I saw that piece some time ago. The officer did indeed screw up by stepping out in front of a group of cyclists. Cops get hurt doing that and in a group ride, those in back can't see him. A sudden, unexpected change in speed or direction can cause collisions, too.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

I’m going to start trolling 111th and ride right in the middle of the road  ;D

Would you rather get hit by a car, SUV, or pickup?  No arrangements necessary.  It will happen.
 
 :D

Contrary to popular belief, getting hit from behind is comparatively rare as it comprises about 8% of all crashes, and the majority are at night with unlit cyclists. If I remember right, about 60% of crashes occur at int err sections when someone fails to yield, and fault is about evenly divided btw cyclists and motorists. Riding in the middle of a lane that's too narrow to share safely side by side with a motor vehicle (almost all Tulsa streets) makes a bicyclist more visible and forces motorists to wait until it's safe to pass.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

I’m holding out for a Caterpillar D-9

Every bike I have ever seen (including being pushed while walking next to it) can outrun a D-9, so that should never be a problem.  Maybe if one were to lie in front of the Cat and try to "roll" away, it could catch you.....?

But they do make a big 'impression' if they do hit....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/09/milton-olin-jr-dead_n_4413431.html

Here's an interesting graphic:

(http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2013/12/23/quartz%20screen-shot-2013-12-20-at-1-42-10-pm.jpg)

This also reflects the United States' lack of safe bicycling infrastructure.  

Here's another quote that reminded me of some of our local bike "advocates" who always advocate against protected bike lanes and say that you should just "take a lane" and ride in traffic (in the middle of Harvard, where cars routinely drive over 50 MPH, or--why not--on the BA Expressway:

"Streets with protected bike infrastructure are safer than streets without it. People prefer to ride in protected bike lanes as well.... Having to ride with traffic means that your city’s bicyclists will range 'from the most fit to the least fearful.' But if you want to broaden cycling’s appeal beyond 'one percent of the population,' you’ll have to make it safer and more comfortable.

But for years, influential American cyclists, almost out of a sense of pride, resisted protected bike lanes....

Bike store owner John Forester was a keen 'vehicular cyclist.' He could keep pace with cars, assert his right to a lane, and gracefully somersault onto the grass if ever a driver looked but didn’t see him....

The 'vehicular cycling' movement that Forester helped spawn in the United States is thankfully waning. But we’re still dealing with some of the results of resisting bike infrastructure: much lower cycling rates and much higher traffic fatality rates than countries like Denmark and the Netherlands.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/10/16/macho-bike-culture-and-americas-paucity-of-bike-infrastructure/ (http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/10/16/macho-bike-culture-and-americas-paucity-of-bike-infrastructure/)

The chart is mostly BS. Cyclist numbers are more largely influenced by economic factors rather than the presence or absence of bike-specific infrastructure. In places that combine density with high cost of living and good public transportation, more people ride bikes. Think Amsterdam, Copenhagen, San Franscisco, New York, etc. Places with sprawl, low cost of living, and inadequate publis transport have lower mode shares.

Many of us resist bike lanes because they introduce more problems than they solve, particularly at intersections. But we also realize that for so-called "bicycle" advocacy groups, bike manufacturers, professional consultants, and elected officials bike lanes are where the money can be found. It's that simple.

The thinking is that engineering is a superior approach over awareness and some education. But this is equivalent to building roads for motorists with little or no knowledge of traffic law or safe driving practices.

And where did you get that bit of fantasy about Forester "gracefully somersaulting into the grass"?

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

It seems the majority of the discussion of bicycle safety revolves around actions by those other than the cyclists. With all the rules governing drivers (licensing, safety, insurance), why not start there with cyclists.

Licensing and insurance exist for motorists because of the catastrophic damage a motor vehicle can cause to people and property, as I'm sure you're aware, Guido. Bicyclists...not so much. I'd support some kind of mimimal training for cyclists as part of a drivers ed curriculum, but that's unlikely to ever become a reality. One of my instructors said that most people learn to ride a bike in the third grade, but they don't learn much more afterward.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

We've pretty much been over this several times.

I think "licensing" for bicyclists is a good idea.  In the township (PA) where I grew up, everyone had to get a bicycle license.  It was mostly aimed at the kids to make sure they could actually ride but also to make sure they knew the rules of the road etc.  Even adults had to get a license for their bicycle.  There were claims about recovering stolen bikes and maybe some other things but mostly it was a safety thing.  We have discussed here about State vs. City until we all got tired of it.  What's wrong with a bicycle "rider's license"?

I almost forgot, shortly after we moved to OK the kid across the street (about 11 or 12 at the time) got killed when he ran a stop sign at 101st & Mingo and got hit by a car.  My sister wasn't far behind.  

Oh, one more thing, she was slowing down to stop for the stop sign.  I guess that licensing thing from "back east" probably saved her life.  She may not have come to a "full stop" but she is still alive.  Recognizing that the "right of way" is to be yielded, not taken, is a big thing.

I cannot imagine that the driver who hit our neighbor kid and killed him just brushed it off as a stupid kid on a bicycle.  Bicyclists can have catastrophic effects on others.

Mandatory helmets and protective gear for safety, licensing since cyclists have to comply with the rules of the road, and liability coverage for the accidents that cyclists cause. What's wrong with that? If a 50lb bike with a rider wearing Lycra wants to roll with a 2T car, why is it that the 2T car is the party that must take on all the responsibility?

I will say this again, bicycles have no business on Tulsa's main or heavily trafficked roads--regardless if their presence is approved of by the legislature. Too damned risky with very little reward. Just use the paths/trails that are available.   

You'll have a difficult time with that for adults since adult motorcyclists are not required to wear helmets.

Does everyone here wear their seat belts in a car/truck?

Religiously.

There is the issue.   Some people need to ride bicycles down Memorial at rush hour when there is little enough space for cars because they have a "right" to.   

If cyclists need a license so do joggers if they are going to run on public roads.  Licensing changes nothing in behavior. Look how crappy all these licensed drivers drive.

OK, lets eliminate motor vehicle driving licenses as they have no positive effect on safety.  Everyone gets a free State issued photo ID suitable for driving and voting. What the heck, fly an airplane on a State issued photo ID.  We don't need no stinking training.

The bottom line is no matter how they try to fix it, cars and bikes do not mix. The safest way to cycle is on a trail free of motor traffic. I'm a jogging nut and I do not jog on the streets at all- I keep to the jogging  trails only. Joggers and cyclists who use the streets also get hit with flying objects from the cars like beer cans. Bike lanes on streets and roads are worthless and give cyclists a false sense of security. The best and most safe way to cycle around the city would be to have a system or network of trails. Bikes are also hard for drivers to see. It is what it is.

Fort Worth Texas requires bikes to be licensed -or they did- I dunno about bike riders being licensed too. I heard stories that sometimes a bike rider who breaks the  law can get a ticket from a cop and points on his/her drivers license if the cyclist has a driver license. However,  A license for joggers is nuts I don't agree at all with that, license joggers/runners you may as well license walkers too.

Let's face it auto licensing has become little more than a fee collection source.  It always disturbed me someone could fly an ultra-light without a license or any prior training.

You got that right, the Governess recently doubled the price of ID cards and replacement licenses, and bumped the cost of a renewal up another $13 to fund various DPS "needs."

http://kfor.com/2013/05/17/some-fear-more-than-fee-increase-in-new-drivers-license-law/

You are mostly right but at least at one time the candidates knew some rules of the road and how to physically make a car go someplace specific.  That is no guarantee of future judgement or skills. Requiring nothing from bicyclists is not the best policy either.  I understand your reluctance to have licensing for bicyclists but there appear to be too many who would benefit from at least a minimal amount of training.  And hey, the state could use the revenue from another fee collection source.  Many bicycles today cost more than my first car did.  The money could be earmarked for trails etc.  Of course in OK that means that money already being spent on trails could be diverted elsewhere.

Well, she had to do something to cover that income tax cut.

I guess the thinking was that there was very little mass or energy involved and that any crash would not hurt much of anyone or anything except the pilot.  Sound familiar?

I'm not sure about ultra-lights but I believe the Hang Glider community was/is self regulating and basically no one is permitted to fly from any recognized site without USHGA credentials. I guess someone could go to a remote spot and jump of a cliff though.  They may become a candidate for the annual Darwin award.

I remember reading once that the primary purpose of the FAA is to protect other people, including people on the ground, from pilots.  If that involves training pilots to make crashes less probable, so be it.

Their will likely not be enough money from licenses to do anything, part of why bicycles have not needed plates anymore is that it was costing more money to run the program than it took in and they wanted to reduce the barrier to increase utilization. Plus that was back in the 40s or 50s so labor has only gotten more expensive, destinations are further apart and many areas are less bike friendly for daily use.

Then raise the price. 

Are you talking about vehicle registration?  I think the minimum price for a car registration is $25/year.  That would be equivalent to $2.59 in 1950. 
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

I think most of us are presently talking about rider training and licensing.  It could be handled as a category on a regular driver's license the same as motorcylces.  Those under 16 would be rated for non-motor vehicles only. Use the existing bureaucracy.  No need to create a new one.

Sales tax is collected on those bikes and parts just like they are on any other vehicle, assuming they are purchased in state.  If you put an annual tag fee on a bicycle, it becomes a disincentive for people to commute by bike or to ride recreationally which seems counter-intuitive to what communities are doing to try and reduce emissions and congestion, as well as helping maintain a healthier population.  How do you enforce current tags on thousands more vehicles?  There seems to be some sort of misconception that adults who ride bikes are doing so at the cost of other taxpayers as if we contribute nothing to the tax base.  I'm a taxpayer, I purchase tags on five motor vehicles every year. I pay sales tax on every bike component I purchase and use in state or pay a use tax on those pieces bought outside the state.  

The sum total of adding a motorcycle endorsement to my driver's license was a brief written exam as I recall. I pay nothing extra for that endorsement at renewal time and honestly don't recall what questions were on that test.  What I do rely on is years of riding experience and how to handle certain situations and make myself more visible to the rest of traffic.  If anything, motorists should have more questions regarding rules of the road and cyclists when they get their license as this would cover two things: Drivers would understand what rights cyclists have and what their responsibilities are in regards to them, and motorists who cycle would understand the same when they are on a bicycle.

I did take a bicycle safety training course when I was in elementary school. I don't recall who sponsored the program, possibly AAA.  They set it up in the parking lot at Utica Square and it was useful at the time.  I believe it was marketed to schools to target children who were commuting to school by bicycle, which was a common thing in the 1970's when I was in elementary school. I also recall a city licensing requirement for bicycles at that time which was a $1 or $2 fee for a permanent sticker that went on your seat downtube.  The stickers were just about impossible to remove, it was designed as a theft deterrent, IIRC.

The complaint that cyclists should have to tag their bike, carry insurance, and have a special license always seems to come from people who are put off by having to slow down for 30 seconds to a minute to slow down and safely pass a cyclist with a minimum of three feet of clearance.  Even if cyclists tagged their bike, carried an insurance policy, and had a special license, motorists would still be pissed off for the occasional 30 second to one minute inconvenience.

FWIW, I'm a licensed motorist.  Others are covered from my negligence on my bike by my homeowners liability, I'm covered from uninsured motorists from the UIM on my auto policy, and my bikes are protected from theft, etc. by my homeowners policy.  I play by the same rules everyone else in a vehicle plays by.

I'm an advocate for better education for those who cycle.  I also advocate better education for all motorists as it relates to all rules of the road, not just when there's a cyclist on the roadway.  There are certainly riders in my community who either don't have a clue or don't care about their responsibilities as cyclists.  It should come as no surprise that some of those people are also shitty motorists when they are in their car or on their motorcycle. 

What would raising my costs and nuisance factor of remembering tag dates for 10-12 bicycles which may or may not be ridden on public roads do to improve my relationship with motorists who are simply annoyed I'm on my bike on a public roadway in the first place?

Not picking on you, Red, but your post brought up some issues I see repeated in the comments section of the Tulsa World when there's been a notable cycling accident or comments on Facebook when there were problems with a few asshat motorists and cyclists out near Sand Springs this last summer.

Good points. Would you be in favor of specific crackdowns on bicyclists for red light running, riding under the influence, corking, lane change infractions, hindering traffic, riding on sidewalks etc. that auto drivers are also subject to?

See, the problem is that those asshats that drive both cars and bikes are not being held accountable on their bikes. When I am on a bike I am confident. I  know that my capabilities to cross a street mid-block, ride on the wrong side, cut through a parking lot to avoid a light or simply slip between two lanes of cars is doable because I have greater vision that most vehicles allow, better agility than 4 wheels and better braking. But, it is the abuse of those capabilities that anger auto drivers. They feel that the bicyclist gets to operate under a different set of rules without consequences.

I am unaware of a set of rules specifically codified for bicyclists that are taught and enforced.

Yes, I would and do support crackdowns like that. 

There was an incident that happened last summer on the Wednesday night ride route that goes out north of Sand Springs, on Old North Road, out around Pogue Airport or Shell Creek Lake, then back in through west Sand Springs and in Avery Drive.  A cyclist who was following traffic laws was purposely knocked off his bike by a motorist who was pissed at being slowed down by 30 seconds until it was clear to pass.  The fall-out resulted in a summit between Sand Springs residents, cyclists, the SSPD, and OHP.  As a result, SSPD monitored the ride route, not only looking out for dangerous moves and antagonism by motorists, but also cyclists running stop signs, cutting off traffic, and violating other traffic laws.  In other words, equal enforcement for all.

For the "semi-organized" cycling group in Tulsa, we will take a cyclist aside who is doing stupid and dangerous things and explain to them not only is it dangerous, but it's a bad impression that motorists gain of all cyclists.  For cyclists who consistently break laws and do stupid things, others will simply refuse to ride with them or allow them to ride in their group.  There's plenty of peer pressure amongst the more mature cyclists for obeying traffic laws and creating as minimal of obstruction as possible.

That is good to hear (read).

That drive to Shell Lake is pleasant. And with the hills I'm sure it is challenging as well. Sand Springs should have grown just as strong as Bixby/Jenks/BA and would have had it not been for heavy industry, petro-chemicals and the SS home.

Title 47 Chapter 11 Article 12 has the bicycle-specific laws, but other sections influence bike operation also. Two critical parts are 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." Emphasis added.

If a motorist cannot drive on the wrong side of the street against traffic, a bicyclist cannot. If a motorist can't split lanes or pass stopped traffic on the right, a bicycle rider can't.

There's a common complaint that bicyclists impede traffic, but in Oklahoma, they're only subject to the "slow traffic must keep right" law and they have no obligation to ride on a shoulder, the fog line, or sidewalk. Here's the language for the Oklahoma version of impeding traffic, section 11-804:

"No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law." Emphasis added.

Now, this would seem to be fairly clear. Bicycles are not motor vehicles as OK law defines them as devices propelled by human power, so it would seem the law does not apply. But who reads the law? Numerous law enforcement officers are woefully ignorant of bicycle law, so they fall back on so-called common sense, and end up enforcing their own biases. Worse, local judges can ignore it and bring a judgement against a cyclist who committed no offense. Sure, it could be over-turned on appeal, but that takes time and money. Sometimes it's better - for the cyclist - to just shrug it off, pay the ticket, and go on his way. It's not justice. It's reality.

But if police and judges are unaware of the law, how should we expect motorists to have a better awareness? Is it any wonder that with the deck stacked against them, some cyclists develop a massive antipathy toward law enforcement, motorists, and traffic law? For the most part, the chances of getting stopped and ticketed are slim, even when a LEO witnesses an infraction. They generally can't be bothered.

That's changing in LA where a larger number of commuter cyclists and pedestrians has now made law enforcement a more critical issue.

"From that perspective, the crackdown is a coming-of-age moment for this city, a ratification of how far it has come. It is a matter of simple mathematics: There are now enough people around to ticket."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/26/us/in-a-car-culture-clash-its-los-angeles-police-vs-pedestrians.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=US_IAC_20131226&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1385874000000&bicmet=1388638800000&fblinkge0&_r=2& (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/26/us/in-a-car-culture-clash-its-los-angeles-police-vs-pedestrians.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=US_IAC_20131226&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1385874000000&bicmet=1388638800000&fblinkge0&_r=2&)

And before I forget, there's a good section on sharing the road with bicyclists in the Oklahoma Driver's Manual, section 11-1:

http://www.dps.state.ok.us/dls/pub/ODM.pdf (http://www.dps.state.ok.us/dls/pub/ODM.pdf)

Police downtown hold cyclist to the same standards as automobiles.

Most cyclists think like I do.

A large majority doesn't want exceptional treatment and do follow traffic laws and do their best not to disrupt traffic by riding on heavily traveled roads during peak traffic time.

Motorists only tend to remember the last jackass motorist who cut them off in traffic or someone who missed hitting them by inches when the other car ran a stop light.  Same with cyclists.  If someone just had an encounter with Paul Tay, that's what they remember. Next time they see a cyclist, that's what comes to mind.  If someone got delayed by a corking, the next time they see a group ride, they will remember that corking.

If someone sees someone doing incredibly risky and stupid things in a kayak in the Arkansas River, the next time they see a kayaker in the river, there's an association with the last yakker they saw doing stupid things.

The perception of any group is only as good as the way the rest of the world perceives encounters with its worst members.  That's why I tend to react harshly when I see other cyclists running red lights, stop signs, riding three or four abreast, and groups rolling four way stop intersections which are full in every direction.  It reflects poorly on all of us and I don't want aggressive drivers swerving at me or things thrown at myself or my wife due to a previous encounter a motorist had with another cyclist who doesn't follow the rules.  Just because that is the reality for "good" cyclists, it's not a reason for me to quit riding on public roadways. 

Cyclists getting hurt or killed in a road accident is not the fault of a cyclist being on the road.  It's usually the result of either an indifferent or uneducated rider or indifferent or distracted driver.

As Ed brought up the laws for bicyclists, I looked up Arizona and Oregon laws on the same, and the basics of the laws between the three is the same.

http://bikeportland.org/resources/bicyclelaws (http://bikeportland.org/resources/bicyclelaws)

http://www.azleg.gov/SearchResults.asp?SearchPhrase=Bicycle&Scope=%2Fars%2F28&SearchedFrom=%2FArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp&x=33&y=10 (http://www.azleg.gov/SearchResults.asp?SearchPhrase=Bicycle&Scope=%2Fars%2F28&SearchedFrom=%2FArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp&x=33&y=10)

There are some subtle difference but they are very close.

As Conan brought up, the vast majority of cyclist actually abide by traffic laws, and don't want to be looked down on. In Arizona the relationship between cyclist and motor vehicle driver is pretty good, and they all tend to respect each other. Here you have the real cyclist like Arizona, but there are a larger number (militant cyclist) that believe that traffic laws don't apply to them, and they believe they can ride anywhere at any time. I've lost track of the number of cyclist I have had riding towards me on I-5 while I'm driving at 70. They are also the type that change lanes with no signal, and roll through stop lights/signs with out a care.

Here is a link to the Arizona Gov't Office Of Highway Safety, with a chart for '07 to '11 statistics on injuries and deaths for cyclist and the numbers are fairly stable year to year.

http://www.azgohs.gov/transportation-safety/default.asp?ID=16 (http://www.azgohs.gov/transportation-safety/default.asp?ID=16)

http://www.azbikeped.org/images/adot%20STR061208.pdf (http://www.azbikeped.org/images/adot%20STR061208.pdf)

In Arizona local LEO's do enforce traffic laws on cyclist, and I think that is where the difference comes in. Here they could have a cyclist run a red light, and the a lot of LEO's won't even blink.

One other issue, and I will limit my thoughts to before I moved from Tulsa in '98, Tulsa was not a pedestrian or cyclist friendly town, D/FW was not. Cyclist and pedestrians were considered sport, and back then the LEO's downtown did not notice, or seem to care.

For the cyclist here, this is one of the popular routes in North Scottsdale. When they start out going north, by the time they get to Pima and Dynamite, they have climbed almost 1000 over 7 miles. It doesn't look like it but it is.

https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=N+Greenway+Hayden+Loop&daddr=N+Pima+Rd+to:E+Rio+Verde+Dr+to:N+Fountain+Hills+Blvd+to:E+Shea+Blvd+to:N+Greenway+Hayden+Loop&hl=en&ll=33.678926,-111.818161&spn=0.200846,0.41851&sll=33.633988,-111.887169&sspn=0.050238,0.104628&geocode=FaYyAQId92lU-Q%3BFYPZAgIdIK1U-Q%3BFeHaAgIdSQRY-Q%3BFeVrAAIdLflW-Q%3BFb5tAAIdOYpV-Q%3BFeYxAQId3mhU-Q&t=h&mra=mi&mrsp=5&sz=14&z=12 (https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=N+Greenway+Hayden+Loop&daddr=N+Pima+Rd+to:E+Rio+Verde+Dr+to:N+Fountain+Hills+Blvd+to:E+Shea+Blvd+to:N+Greenway+Hayden+Loop&hl=en&ll=33.678926,-111.818161&spn=0.200846,0.41851&sll=33.633988,-111.887169&sspn=0.050238,0.104628&geocode=FaYyAQId92lU-Q%3BFYPZAgIdIK1U-Q%3BFeHaAgIdSQRY-Q%3BFeVrAAIdLflW-Q%3BFb5tAAIdOYpV-Q%3BFeYxAQId3mhU-Q&t=h&mra=mi&mrsp=5&sz=14&z=12)

 
Aw gee, you're breaking my heart.  Do you remember the term "red herring"?

How much of a fee would it take to keep you off your bicycle or to only have one bicycle?  How are car tags enforced?  I expect mostly when Mr. LEO sees one out of date or missing.  I got stopped once in San Antonio, TX with a trailer because the trailer, which is not required to have a tag in OK, didn't have a tag.  I showed my insurance papers etc and he let me go on my way but I was still stopped.  I see a LOT of "new" cars with paper tags well over the month allowed.  I should get a break on my car tags because I file single no dependents and take the standard deduction on my Federal and State income tax.  I have contributed enough already.  All you guys taking a mortgage deduction etc need to step up and stop making me pay your way.

When did you get your motorcycle endorsement?  Is it the same now.  If it is, the requirements should be changed to have the candidate show that they can actually ride a motorcycle.  I'm sure I could read and pass a written test to get that endorsement but I have NO business on anything bigger than a Honda 90.  One of my co-workers used to teach motorcycle safety.  He told me a few things I never would have guessed on my own being a non-motorcycle guy.

I believe that was the main goal of the bicycle licensing of the township where I grew up.  They also applied it to adults, I presume, just to be fair.


More red herrings.  True, a bicyclist is not likely to cause much physical damage as compared to a 4000 lb motor vehicle.  What about a wreck caused by a bicyclist that trashes a few cars.  If I have to make a decision between killing a bicyclist or messing up a few cars, I'll mess up a few cars.  Maybe I should change that philosophy. What about the motorist that killed my young neighbor back in 71ish?  I didn't see the car but I assume it at least had a few dents.  What about the vision of killing someone on a bicycle?  


Are apartment dwellers required to carry "homeowner's" insurance.  I doubt it.  So maybe you are covered but what about the apartment dwellers we are trying to attract?  FYI, I've been told by my insurance agent that uninsured motorist insurance only covers medical. What does Mrs. C say?

We agree here.


Probably nothing at all.  There are really two issues, testing and licensing drivers and taxing and licensing bicycles.  I am definitely in favor of training, testing, and licensing riders.  That includes kiddies. One of the things that really scares me as a motor vehicle driver is to see a kid on a bicycle riding erratically in front of me.  I also don't like to see any bicycle rider hugging the shoulder, especially with a crappy road surface.  I really don't want to spend the rest of my life with the vision of a rider falling in front of me with nowhere for me to go.  When I legitimately pass that rider, I don't want to do it all over again because he/she rode up the shoulder at a 4-way stop to get in front of me again.  The other issue is taxing a vehicle used on public roads with all the same (and actually a few more regarding obstructing traffic) rights that I have as a motorist.  Most of the fee for a car tag in OK does not go to roads. Road maintenance is not a legitimate issue regarding vehicle licensing fees.  Stop shirking your responsibility to society.  Pay up.

Motor Vehicle: 
Revenue Apportionment for Vehicles, Boats and Outboard Motor

36.20%  To the Various School Districts
29.84%  To the General Revenue Fund
15.00%  To the County Improvements for Roads and Bridges
7.24%    To the County Highway Maintenance and Construction Fund
3.62%    To the Emergency County Road Fund for County Fund
3.10%    To the Various Cities and Incorporated Towns
2.59%    To the County Road Fund for County Fund
1.24%    To the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement Fund
0.83%    To the Counties for the Support of County Government
0.31%    To the State Transportation Fund
0.03%    To the Wildlife Conservation Fund

http://www.tax.ok.gov/mv8.html

I am not picking on you either.  I really see many of the arguments as tired reasons to avoid training that would benefit everyone.  Tags on bicycles is probably a wash financially but I pay at least some state tax on every vehicle I own that uses public facilities.  Why shouldn't everyone else?

One more "thing".  My tax dollars have gone towards building and maintaining the bicycle trails around here.  I should be able to drive my car on those trails since my tax dollars have supported them.

$21.50+!3.00 = $34.50 for 4 years.  
$.0236/day  

Welcome to inflation.  Several posters here have said inflation is good for the economy.  Enjoy.

Don't buy a few bags of chips, candy, or fast food.  Your arteries and veins will thank you.

Oklahoma needs to get rid of a state income tax all together like Texas, and that is a goal of Mary Fallin.

In the meantime, enjoy your low property taxes, because that will be the first to go up by a factor of two if state income tax is eliminated.  You wonder why property taxes were so high in Texas?  No state income tax.

You pay for it one way or another.

Unless your Mary Faillin's personal OHP trooper-guard.

You really should go try out Texas for a while - some reality therapy would be good for you.  Here, you are writing a check every month for about $75 - maybe a little less - if you own a house two blocks from the Admiral Twin.  That would be a house of maybe $70,000 to 80,000 value, with homestead exemption.  And if you made under $55,000 one year after turning 65, you get a lifetime freeze so your property tax value never goes up again (might go up a little if millage rate goes up).  If renting it, you are still paying that amount, just buried in the rent.  

Same house - same rent in Texas - about $300 a month property tax.  

Compare to the income tax you pay... is it more than about $3000 a year?  I bet not.  (That means a very decent income - you could afford a more expensive house if you wanted!)

But if you move out south, say near 91st and Garnett (near where a friend used to live), you will pay $200 a month here for property tax.  In Texas, similar size house and value - over $600 a month.  Ya gotta make a whole lot of money in Oklahoma to pay about $4,500 income tax.  

You really should look at reality once in a while - it might be a refreshing change for you.   Sometimes I wonder if you watch those extreme preppers on NatGeo...?  Or maybe are one.

You know, I'm thoroughly convinced, that if I took your brain, and shoved it up a gnats a$$, it would look like a BB in a boxcar.

How can I be Mary Fallin's Personal  OHP-guard if I live in Omaha, Nebraska like you believe? In Fact, I'm just a regular lunch box Joe Blow who likes the strong economy we have in Oklahoma, and the things Mary Fallin does that  grow our state...  Am I they only person who remembers how bad things were before Mary Fallin became governor? Think back to Brad Henry, Oklahoma was a mess the economy was in shambles. Mary Fallin reversed that. Talk about Doom & Gloom look at the Brad Henry era we had jobs fleeing and unemployment was sky high.

I don't know what Gov Fallin can take credit for as far as job creation.  But I do know that she is seriously shortchanging the education of children in Oklahoma by the recent ranking of 44th in per pupil spending at just under $9.1K/ student vs. the national average of $11.9K/ per student (and downgraded from a D+ to a D rating in spending this year compared to other states).  If this level of support and attitude towards education continues in the state, then we won't even have a workforce capable of performing those warehouse jobs that you credited her with landing. 

Be mindful that a state, city, or region's commitment or lack thereof to education is vital to attracting good jobs.  Oklahoma or any other state will not fair well in the long run without a competitive educational system.  Companies do not want want to set up in an area where there is an inadequately skilled workforce (not currently the case in Tulsa), and perhaps more importantly people do not want to relocate for jobs to areas where education is not a high priority.

The employment picture at the tail end of Brad Henry’s tenure was a direct result of the national economy, it had nothing to do with any of his policies.  In fact, he was re-elected with a 66% margin in 2006 which means he would have to have carried a lot of conservatives to earn re-election.  If he were a sorry governor, he would have struggled in that re-election and we would have had jobless issues well ahead of the end of his first term.  As I recall, we actually gained jobs early in his first term as Oklahoma shook off the after-effects of the recession of 2001.  He would be considered a Republican by just about anyone’s yard stick outside of Oklahoma.  He’s probably right about a John McCain on the Conservative scale.

Psst, you guys are trying to reason with the Cabbage about OK governors on a thread about Tulsa's cycle safety policies.

Might as well swim in syrup.

(http://netstorage.discovery.com/feeds/brightcove/asset-stills/dsc/126108313030412580444701197_SwimmingInSyrup.jpg)

You really have no grasp of reality, do you?

Is it plain corn syrup or high fructose corn syrup??  Looks like fun, either way....

I already peed in it.

Syrup is reminiscent of good times many years ago of a thing called a "Mazola Party"... 5 gallon bucket of Mazola oil, a heavy duty plastic sheet, a few close friends....before Twister was invented!!