Tulsa ranked in America's Top 50 Bike Cities

[nathanm]

What are you running from, sauerkraut? 

[Ed W]

Dead men tell no tales...Sorry, but that's reality when your atop a 40-50lb bike and get whacked by a 1-2T metal projectile/automobile going 45 mph.

Many so-called 'bicycle' advocates rely on the politics of fear, Guido.  It's an excellent fund-raising tool, but when confronted with reality, the fear is largely exaggerated.  We kill roughly 700 bicyclists each year on our roads, with about a third of them children.  We also kill another 35,000 motorists, and that's actually a reduction from a high of 42,000 a few years ago.  When you look at the risk on a per-capita basis, cycling and motoring are about even.  But this is based on a large assumption since there are no accurate statistics of the number of adult cyclists.  The National Bicycle Dealers Association counts anyone who rides a bicycle even once per year as a cyclist.  If I recall right, their estimate is around 60 million.  They also estimate the number of 'regular' cyclists, those who ride one or more times per week as around 6 million.

When you look at risk on miles traveled, the risk for cyclists is higher.  But if you look at the time spent cycling versus the time spent driving, cycling is less risky.

But all of that doesn't mean squat to the average cyclist, motorist, police officer, elected official, or municipal planner.  They're not interested in the reality of cycling, only their perceptions, just as you are.  And their perception is that road cycling is extremely dangerous, so dangerous in fact, that cyclists should be barred from the roadways for their own safety.  Granted, you haven't advocated that, but you've adopted the blame-the-victim mentality that comes with an assumption that driving a motor vehicle somehow confers superior rights to the public way.  It's ain't so, and I ask you to seriously examine that thought.

Contributory negligence merely blames the victim.  In some cases it's appropriate, like when a cyclist rides through a stop sign or red light.  But that would be the same for a car driver.  Yet you seem to be saying that by being on the road riding in a legal and lawful manner, a cyclist is somehow at fault if a motorist hits him.  It's the same as saying a rape victim deserved it because of the clothing she wore, or that a pedestrian in a crosswalk who gets hit by a motorist turning right on red is at fault just because he got out of bed that morning.  It's a bad argument, Guido.

I vaguely recall a case in Oklahoma where a child was hit by a motor vehicle, and the child was at least partly at fault.  He was on the blind side of a curve or a hill, if I remember right, and there wasn't time for the driver to react and stop.  Still, that's entirely different from someone operating a vehicle lawfully.  If you know of a case where a person was driving legally and was convicted of contributory negligence, I'd sure like to know more about it.   

[sauerkraut]

What are you running from, sauerkraut? 

Right now at my rip old age I'm running from a family history of strokes. My dad got his first stroke at age 50 and a major stroke at age 57. When I first started the sport of running in the 1980's I did it for pleasure and enjoyment, today I'm thinking more of the health bennies as I run.

[sauerkraut]

Cycling on streets seems risky no matter how the numbers are adjusted. The best place to cycle is on the jogging trails. I'm not into cycling and can't cycle very good anyhow- never could understand the sport of bike riding, and don't know much about it. I also can't swim worth a hoot either. I do know that cars and bikes don't mix.

[Conan71]

Cycling on streets seems risky no matter how the numbers are adjusted. The best place to cycle is on the jogging trails. I'm not into cycling and can't cycle very good anyhow- never could understand the sport of bike riding, and don't know much about it. I also can't swim worth a hoot either. I do know that cars and bikes don't mix.

Bikes and people running three wide or walking their kids and dogs on the trail don't mix either.

[Townsend]

Bikes and people running three wide or walking their kids and dogs on the trail don't mix either.

Sure they do.  Just painfully.

[godboko71]

Cycling on streets seems risky no matter how the numbers are adjusted. The best place to cycle is on the jogging trails. I'm not into cycling and can't cycle very good anyhow- never could understand the sport of bike riding, and don't know much about it. I also can't swim worth a hoot either. I do know that cars and bikes don't mix.

So because you think its "risky" to be on the rode that's built for tired vehicles you think its better to have said tired vehicles on a trail with runners, dogs, and babies.

Would it not be safer for everyone if people followed the rules of the road and used them?

PS: Did anyone know some elementary schools are still teaching kids to walk and ride into traffic? Which is not only unsafe, nut its against the law.

[nathanm]

PS: Did anyone know some elementary schools are still teaching kids to walk and ride into traffic? Which is not only unsafe, nut its against the law.

Walk into traffic, ride with traffic. Is that not the rule?

[godboko71]

Walk into traffic, ride with traffic. Is that not the rule?

Walking into traffic on side streets with no sidewalk is one thing, riding into traffic is just asking to get hurt.

[Ed W]

....never could understand the sport of bike riding, and don't know much about it....I do know that cars and bikes don't mix.

That's like saying, "I know nothing about driving, but I'll tell you how you should drive."  Or, "I know nothing about football, but allow me to explain how the game should be played."

If you know little about it, perhaps you should consider learning more.

[dsjeffries]

That's like saying, "I know nothing about driving, but I'll tell you how you should drive."  Or, "I know nothing about football, but allow me to explain how the game should be played."

If you know little about it, perhaps you should consider learning more.

+1

[Red Arrow]

So because you think its "risky" to be on the rode that's built for tired vehicles you think its better to have said tired vehicles on a trail with runners, dogs, and babies.

What's with the tired vehicles?  Do they need a 5 hour energy boost?

[sauerkraut]

So because you think its "risky" to be on the rode that's built for tired vehicles you think its better to have said tired vehicles on a trail with runners, dogs, and babies.

Would it not be safer for everyone if people followed the rules of the road and used them?

PS: Did anyone know some elementary schools are still teaching kids to walk and ride into traffic? Which is not only unsafe, nut its against the law.

People are people and will never follow all the rules, then toss in cell phone drivers and you get an intresting mix stired up. The bottom line is simple physics- a 4,000 pound car vs a 10 pound bike with a 170 pound rider- who will come out better in a tango dance between the two? It is what it is.

[sauerkraut]

What's with the tired vehicles?  Do they need a 5 hour energy boost?

Tired and exausted from doing the "Tulsa Tuff" bike ride no doubt.

[Ed W]

People are people and will never follow all the rules, then toss in cell phone drivers and you get an intresting mix stired up. The bottom line is simple physics- a 4,000 pound car vs a 10 pound bike with a 170 pound rider- who will come out better in a tango dance between the two? It is what it is.

You don't understand the statistics and the risks.  Which results in more injuries and death - riding a bicycle or simple falls around the house?  Do more cyclists get killed or injured, or is the number of killed and injured pedestrians higher?  Do motorists often die from head injuries, and if so, should they be required to wear helmets?  Is a sedentary lifestyle more likely to result in heart disease and death as opposed to one that includes regular exercise? 

Sure, there's a chance that a cyclist could be crushed under a motor vehicle.  We all know that and accept the slim possibility.  There's also a possibility that any one of us could be crushed while walking across the street or driving a motor vehicle, yet no one exaggerates that possibility and by extension, argues that driving or walking is extremely dangerous.

Go peddle your fears somewhere else.