Bicycling Public Service Announcement

[TURobY]

Has there ever been public education or concerted effort to educate Tulsa drivers that they share the road with cyclists?

The reason I ask is because while I usually don't have any problems as I ride through neighborhood streets, today I had about 10 cars honk or appear generally upset during the two minutes that I was on the road (15th near Delaware). They were yelling things about being on the sidewalk and such, not realizing that I was following every legal aspect of vehicular cycling.

I'm not talking about education where people break the law by running red lights, holding up traffic and riding in a pack that takes up multiple lanes. I mean an actual effort demonstrating how cyclists use the road or the laws put in place to protect both cyclists and drivers.

[Ed W]

We've provided bicycling education to interested cyclists in the area for about 5 years.

http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/

Reaching adult cyclists is difficult because they've been riding bikes since they were in fourth grade and they're convinced there's little more to learn.  Yet a Smart Cycling course can be an eye-opener even for experienced cyclists.

Getting to motorists, policy makers, and law enforcement is equally difficult.  It's astounding what people believe, what they 'think' they know, because they're very often wrong yet they speak their misinformation with utter conviction.  I've been told it's illegal to ride on the road.  It's illegal to ride more than 3 feet from the curb.  One guy said I should ride facing traffic.  And a county sheriff's deputy tried to bully me off the road. 

There's one quite effective demonstration of the efficacy of riding a bike safely on area roads.  And that's to ride a bike regularly - like to work and back - at the same time of day over the same routes.  You can 'train' motorists to expect a cyclist somewhere along their commute.  You simply become another guy going to work.  Nothing special, just an ordinary part of their day. 

Ride assertively, not aggressively, and obey the traffic laws.  Take the lane by riding in the right hand tire track.  Know that when a lane is too narrow to share side-by-side with a motor vehicle you are safer by riding in the middle, discouraging dangerous overtaking.

All this and more is included in a Smart Cycling course.  But if any of you are interested, I'd gladly meet up on a weekend for a ride.

[Conan71]

Then you get a moron like Paul Tay who gives bicyclists a bad image with his contrived elitism, riding in the middle of main thoroughfare lanes, throwing his bike down in a parking spot at QT, etc.  I passed him Sunday night while he was pedalling up the Broken Arrow Expressway shoulder in the eastbound lanes.

[cannon_fodder]

I respect bicycles as vehicles.  But when I am driving I extend courtesies to other vehicular traffic - I take the least intrusive parking spot I can, I get over so faster traffic can pass me, I try not to stop in the right lane so traffic can turn right.   Just things to be courteous. 

But I also maintain a speed that is proper for the roadway (10-20 mph in a 40 mph road is not proper).  I always respect the laws of the road (bikes that "turn into pedestrians" to run red lights or go between traffic then moments later demand full recognition as a vehicle).  I use signals at all times (breaking and turn).  I'm not saying YOU don't do these things on your bike, just that many bikers don't bother to.  They demand respect as a vehicle when advantageous to them without extending any courtesy to others and being a "bike" when the rules of the road no longer benefit them.

It is perfectly legal for a bicycle to ride 10mph down a lane of Harvard at 5pm, that doesn't mean it is a courteous thing to do.  If any vehicle is doing half the speed limit and impeding traffic I'm likely to be upset at them.  There always seems to be some idiot driver doing 20mph that screws up traffic on my commute home!

(it is not always possible to avoid the major roads.  Motorized vehicles should sympathize and share the road with vehicles.  But some bicycles seem to want to ride down the middle of the busiest streets they can find;  this I do not get.)

[Ed W]

C_F, it's all too easy to get into a tit-for-tat argument over this.  I truly wish to avoid it.  "Motorists do thus and so versus Cyclists do thus and so."  Everyone gets angry and we all wave our arms like a bunch of Italians.  (Not that I have anything against Italians, even Guido.)

So let's try a different angle.  This is not unlike trying different keys in a lock.  When someone 'gets it' you can see their eyes light up.  It's one reason I really enjoy teaching.

There's a great deal of confusion over the issues of safety and convenience.  Traffic engineers, motorists, and some law enforcement types want to see the maximum throughput on a given street, and anything that reduces that throughput is possibly illegal, immoral, or an ungodly usurpation of their rights.  (I'm exaggerating with that last bit - can't resist).  But each individual using that roadway, regardless of their mode of travel, must exercise due care toward every other person using that same roadway.  In other words, safety trumps convenience.  Do you agree with me up to this point?

Now, what constitutes safe bicycle operation?  Obviously, adhering to the vehicle code by stopping at traffic lights and stop signs is one aspect - one that I truly wish more cyclists would do.  But what of that cyclist riding in the center of the lane on a busy street?  Is that safe or is he being rude, arrogant, and inconsiderate?

Let's tackle this in two parts: legal and practical.  First, most lanes in Tulsa are rarely more than 12 feet wide.  A cyclist should keep at least 2-3 feet between the end of his handlebar and the right side of the road surface, excluding the gutter pan where all the debris accumulates.  For simplicity's sake, let's say there's a fog line on the right.  That means the bicycle's tire track will be 3-4 feet from the fog line.  Generally, this puts him solidly in the right side tire track laid down by cars.  It's a good rule-of-thumb position.

It's always the responsibility of the overtaking driver to pass safely.  The law requires a minimum of 3 feet between the car and bicycle when overtaking.  So if our cyclist is taking up the right hand 4feet within the lane, the motorist will have to be roughly 7 feet from the fog line.  Most cars are about 8 feet wide, so this puts him 3 feet over the centerline into the opposing lane (assuming it's a 2 lane road). 

It would certainly be more convenient for the motorist if the cyclist hugged the fog line, riding along it like a tight rope act.  And I've seen cyclists do this.  They complain vociferously about the motorists buzzing by inches from their handlebars.  They endanger themselves in a misguided attempt at courtesy.

So the takeaway is that cyclists are legally entitled to the full width of the lane when it's not wide enough to share side by side with motor vehicles, and overtaking traffic has the responsibility to pass safely.  In practice, riding in the right hand tire track of a relatively narrow lane is one way a cyclist can increase his visibility and arrive at his destination safely.  No one - regardless of their travel mode - is required to operate unsafely in order to make travel more convenient for others.

Damn, I'm long winded tonight!  One last thought and I'll close.  Why make the assumption that a cyclist doesn't need to be on a busy, traffic-filled street at rush hour?  If he's trying to reach a particular destination, he may need to use that road just like any motorist, truck driver, or motorcyclist.  I may be wrong, but I think the assumption is that anyone on a bike is out for a recreational ride, and for that purpose, any route will do.  But we don't make that assumption for other slow-moving vehicles like tractor-trailers, farm equipment, or say, elderly drivers. 

My friend Brian said, "The city pays huge amounts of money for traffic calming projects.  Cyclists do that for free!"   

[Red Arrow]

My friend Brian said, "The city pays huge amounts of money for traffic calming projects.  Cyclists do that for free!"   

The official term may be traffic calming but I believe the term for the drivers may be something less friendly. 

The courteous thing for any slow moving traffic to do is occasionally pull over, stop if necessary, and let the traffic that wants to go faster pass.  This applies to old folks, farm equipment, bicycles, ...

[cannon_fodder]

Ed,

I agree.  If and when I have to ride down a major street I take up the entire lane too.  You have to, as you mentioned, because otherwise people will attempt to pass with unsafe clearing spaces.

But when I want to get from 41st and Harvard to 28th and Harvard, I'll take Louisville instead of Harvard.  On my ride I will rarely, if ever, impede a single car.  I will not feel threatened by traffic.  I will not feel rushed.  I will not get honked at and flipped off.  I will have a more quiet ride and better scenery.  I will go at my own pace.  I will waive at people in their yards.

I walk/ride my bike places a lot.  Alone.  With my family.  With the dogs.  For recreation, to get groceries, to a park/festival/game, to go to Conans house and drink his beer.  I understand the perspective from the bicyclist.

I guess my angst against some cyclists is because they impede traffic not because it is easier or more convenient for them, but because they can.  I understand you have a right to go 15 mph on Harvard and block traffic.  But the way Tulsa's roads are constructed that isn't the best idea.

I wish we had more/better bike routes.  I wish we were a more dense city in which I could walk more.  But for now, I just have to deal with what we have.  Which for me, means riding on side streets, waiting for crosswalks, and watching out for idiots that have no idea people go places without an SUV.

[Gold]

Get the bikes off the busy streets during peak traffic hours.  It's crap to have someone peddling at 15 mph when traffic is going 40.  Especially on Riverside.  Often times there are suitable alternatives for bicycles; for example, don't take the Cincinatti overpass at 5:00, take a less busy street like Boston or even the bike trail (which is right there). 

I'm all about giving bicyclists their due.  But it might seem appropriate for all to create some non-biking streets.

If I see a bicycle run a red light, that's when I usually lose it.  Play by the rules we all play by or quit playing.  If your downtown on Saturday at 2 pm, it's probably OK to run the red light to save your momentum.  But at 5 pm on Wednesday, you play by the same rules as the rest of us.

I agree that Paultay gives bicyclists a bad name.  But I've seen a lot of other inconsiderate actions by others.  Slowing down a major street during peak hours is inconsiderate, especially when you have alternatives.