Paul Tay: Terror or Trendsetter?

[nathanm]

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.

[1099paralegal]

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.

[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.
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!

[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?

[cannon_fodder]

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.

[iplaw]

I think I'll just leave.  Cabbage always gives me gas...

[Gold]

Who does Mr. Tay work for if he is in fact a paralegal?

[1099paralegal]

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.

[iplaw]

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...

[1099paralegal]

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.

[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.
- - -

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.  

[iplaw]

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.

[1099paralegal]

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.

[1099paralegal]

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.

[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.