Paul Tay: Terror or Trendsetter?

[iplaw]

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?

[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

[1099paralegal]

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.

[iplaw]

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.  []

[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?

[1099paralegal]

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.

[iplaw]

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.

[1099paralegal]

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.

[iplaw]

What kind of an idiot passes on a double yellow lane road or encourages other to do so?

[iplaw]

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?

[1099paralegal]

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.

[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.

[iplaw]

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?

[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.

[1099paralegal]

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.