At what point does this city start taking cyclist safety seriously?

[heironymouspasparagus]

I'm holding out for a Caterpillar D-9

Every bike I have ever seen (including being pushed while walking next to it) can outrun a D-9, so that should never be a problem.  Maybe if one were to lie in front of the Cat and try to "roll" away, it could catch you.....?

But they do make a big 'impression' if they do hit....

[Vashta Nerada]

Former Napster COO Milton Olin Jr. died Sunday afternoon after he was fatally struck by a Los Angeles Sheriff's patrol car. Olin, who was bicycling, was pronounced dead on the scene.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/09/milton-olin-jr-dead_n_4413431.html

[PonderInc]

Here's an interesting graphic:



This also reflects the United States' lack of safe bicycling infrastructure.  

Here's another quote that reminded me of some of our local bike "advocates" who always advocate against protected bike lanes and say that you should just "take a lane" and ride in traffic (in the middle of Harvard, where cars routinely drive over 50 MPH, or--why not--on the BA Expressway:

"Streets with protected bike infrastructure are safer than streets without it. People prefer to ride in protected bike lanes as well.... Having to ride with traffic means that your city's bicyclists will range 'from the most fit to the least fearful.' But if you want to broaden cycling's appeal beyond 'one percent of the population,' you'll have to make it safer and more comfortable.

But for years, influential American cyclists, almost out of a sense of pride, resisted protected bike lanes....

Bike store owner John Forester was a keen 'vehicular cyclist.' He could keep pace with cars, assert his right to a lane, and gracefully somersault onto the grass if ever a driver looked but didn't see him....

The 'vehicular cycling' movement that Forester helped spawn in the United States is thankfully waning. But we're still dealing with some of the results of resisting bike infrastructure: much lower cycling rates and much higher traffic fatality rates than countries like Denmark and the Netherlands.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/10/16/macho-bike-culture-and-americas-paucity-of-bike-infrastructure/

[Ed W]

The chart is mostly BS. Cyclist numbers are more largely influenced by economic factors rather than the presence or absence of bike-specific infrastructure. In places that combine density with high cost of living and good public transportation, more people ride bikes. Think Amsterdam, Copenhagen, San Franscisco, New York, etc. Places with sprawl, low cost of living, and inadequate publis transport have lower mode shares.

Many of us resist bike lanes because they introduce more problems than they solve, particularly at intersections. But we also realize that for so-called "bicycle" advocacy groups, bike manufacturers, professional consultants, and elected officials bike lanes are where the money can be found. It's that simple.

The thinking is that engineering is a superior approach over awareness and some education. But this is equivalent to building roads for motorists with little or no knowledge of traffic law or safe driving practices.

And where did you get that bit of fantasy about Forester "gracefully somersaulting into the grass"?

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[guido911]

It seems the majority of the discussion of bicycle safety revolves around actions by those other than the cyclists. With all the rules governing drivers (licensing, safety, insurance), why not start there with cyclists.

[Ed W]

Licensing and insurance exist for motorists because of the catastrophic damage a motor vehicle can cause to people and property, as I'm sure you're aware, Guido. Bicyclists...not so much. I'd support some kind of mimimal training for cyclists as part of a drivers ed curriculum, but that's unlikely to ever become a reality. One of my instructors said that most people learn to ride a bike in the third grade, but they don't learn much more afterward.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[Red Arrow]

Licensing and insurance exist for motorists because of the catastrophic damage a motor vehicle can cause to people and property, as I'm sure you're aware, Guido. Bicyclists...not so much. I'd support some kind of mimimal training for cyclists as part of a drivers ed curriculum, but that's unlikely to ever become a reality. One of my instructors said that most people learn to ride a bike in the third grade, but they don't learn much more afterward.

We've pretty much been over this several times.

I think "licensing" for bicyclists is a good idea.  In the township (PA) where I grew up, everyone had to get a bicycle license.  It was mostly aimed at the kids to make sure they could actually ride but also to make sure they knew the rules of the road etc.  Even adults had to get a license for their bicycle.  There were claims about recovering stolen bikes and maybe some other things but mostly it was a safety thing.  We have discussed here about State vs. City until we all got tired of it.  What's wrong with a bicycle "rider's license"?

I almost forgot, shortly after we moved to OK the kid across the street (about 11 or 12 at the time) got killed when he ran a stop sign at 101st & Mingo and got hit by a car.  My sister wasn't far behind.  

Oh, one more thing, she was slowing down to stop for the stop sign.  I guess that licensing thing from "back east" probably saved her life.  She may not have come to a "full stop" but she is still alive.  Recognizing that the "right of way" is to be yielded, not taken, is a big thing.

I cannot imagine that the driver who hit our neighbor kid and killed him just brushed it off as a stupid kid on a bicycle.  Bicyclists can have catastrophic effects on others.

[guido911]

Licensing and insurance exist for motorists because of the catastrophic damage a motor vehicle can cause to people and property, as I'm sure you're aware, Guido. Bicyclists...not so much. I'd support some kind of mimimal training for cyclists as part of a drivers ed curriculum, but that's unlikely to ever become a reality. One of my instructors said that most people learn to ride a bike in the third grade, but they don't learn much more afterward.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Mandatory helmets and protective gear for safety, licensing since cyclists have to comply with the rules of the road, and liability coverage for the accidents that cyclists cause. What's wrong with that? If a 50lb bike with a rider wearing Lycra wants to roll with a 2T car, why is it that the 2T car is the party that must take on all the responsibility?

I will say this again, bicycles have no business on Tulsa's main or heavily trafficked roads--regardless if their presence is approved of by the legislature. Too damned risky with very little reward. Just use the paths/trails that are available.   

[Red Arrow]

Mandatory helmets and protective gear for safety,

You'll have a difficult time with that for adults since adult motorcyclists are not required to wear helmets.

Does everyone here wear their seat belts in a car/truck?

[patric]

Does everyone here wear their seat belts in a car/truck?

Religiously.

[TeeDub]

I will say this again, bicycles have no business on Tulsa's main or heavily trafficked roads--regardless if their presence is approved of by the legislature. Too damned risky with very little reward. Just use the paths/trails that are available.   

There is the issue.   Some people need to ride bicycles down Memorial at rush hour when there is little enough space for cars because they have a "right" to.   

[Conan71]

It seems the majority of the discussion of bicycle safety revolves around actions by those other than the cyclists. With all the rules governing drivers (licensing, safety, insurance), why not start there with cyclists.

If cyclists need a license so do joggers if they are going to run on public roads.  Licensing changes nothing in behavior. Look how crappy all these licensed drivers drive.

[Red Arrow]

If cyclists need a license so do joggers if they are going to run on public roads.  Licensing changes nothing in behavior. Look how crappy all these licensed drivers drive.

OK, lets eliminate motor vehicle driving licenses as they have no positive effect on safety.  Everyone gets a free State issued photo ID suitable for driving and voting. What the heck, fly an airplane on a State issued photo ID.  We don't need no stinking training.

[sauerkraut]

The bottom line is no matter how they try to fix it, cars and bikes do not mix. The safest way to cycle is on a trail free of motor traffic. I'm a jogging nut and I do not jog on the streets at all- I keep to the jogging  trails only. Joggers and cyclists who use the streets also get hit with flying objects from the cars like beer cans. Bike lanes on streets and roads are worthless and give cyclists a false sense of security. The best and most safe way to cycle around the city would be to have a system or network of trails. Bikes are also hard for drivers to see. It is what it is.

[sauerkraut]

If cyclists need a license so do joggers if they are going to run on public roads.  Licensing law gets pointchanges nothing in behavior. Look how crappy all these licensed drivers drive.

Fort Worth Texas requires bikes to be licensed -or they did- I dunno about bike riders being licensed too. I heard stories that sometimes a bike rider who breaks the  law can get a ticket from a cop and points on his/her drivers license if the cyclist has a driver license. However,  A license for joggers is nuts I don't agree at all with that, license joggers/runners you may as well license walkers too.