Paul Tay: Terror or Trendsetter?

[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....

[Gaspar]

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).

[ARGUS]

idiot....in my opinion.

[hoodlum]

makes a lot of sense and proves a point

[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!)

[Ed W]

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.

[1099paralegal]

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.

[Ed W]

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.

[deinstein]

He's the man.

Total trendsetter.

[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?

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.

[nathanm]

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.

[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).

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.

[RecycleMichael]

How many screen names do you have, Paul?

[Double A]

[Nick Danger]

Here's another local *trendsetter*
http://www.bikerfox.com/foxphotos3/