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

[Conan71]

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.

Let's face it auto licensing has become little more than a fee collection source.  It always disturbed me someone could fly an ultra-light without a license or any prior training.

[patric]

Let's face it auto licensing has become little more than a fee collection source. 

You got that right, the Governess recently doubled the price of ID cards and replacement licenses, and bumped the cost of a renewal up another $13 to fund various DPS "needs."

http://kfor.com/2013/05/17/some-fear-more-than-fee-increase-in-new-drivers-license-law/

[Red Arrow]

Let's face it auto licensing has become little more than a fee collection source.  It always disturbed me someone could fly an ultra-light without a license or any prior training.

You are mostly right but at least at one time the candidates knew some rules of the road and how to physically make a car go someplace specific.  That is no guarantee of future judgement or skills. Requiring nothing from bicyclists is not the best policy either.  I understand your reluctance to have licensing for bicyclists but there appear to be too many who would benefit from at least a minimal amount of training.  And hey, the state could use the revenue from another fee collection source.  Many bicycles today cost more than my first car did.  The money could be earmarked for trails etc.  Of course in OK that means that money already being spent on trails could be diverted elsewhere.

[Hoss]

You got that right, the Governess recently doubled the price of ID cards and replacement licenses, and bumped the cost of a renewal up another $13 to fund various DPS "needs."

http://kfor.com/2013/05/17/some-fear-more-than-fee-increase-in-new-drivers-license-law/

Well, she had to do something to cover that income tax cut.

[Red Arrow]

It always disturbed me someone could fly an ultra-light without a license or any prior training.

I guess the thinking was that there was very little mass or energy involved and that any crash would not hurt much of anyone or anything except the pilot.  Sound familiar?

I'm not sure about ultra-lights but I believe the Hang Glider community was/is self regulating and basically no one is permitted to fly from any recognized site without USHGA credentials. I guess someone could go to a remote spot and jump of a cliff though.  They may become a candidate for the annual Darwin award.

I remember reading once that the primary purpose of the FAA is to protect other people, including people on the ground, from pilots.  If that involves training pilots to make crashes less probable, so be it.

[Snowman]

You are mostly right but at least at one time the candidates knew some rules of the road and how to physically make a car go someplace specific.  That is no guarantee of future judgement or skills. Requiring nothing from bicyclists is not the best policy either.  I understand your reluctance to have licensing for bicyclists but there appear to be too many who would benefit from at least a minimal amount of training.  And hey, the state could use the revenue from another fee collection source.  Many bicycles today cost more than my first car did.  The money could be earmarked for trails etc.  Of course in OK that means that money already being spent on trails could be diverted elsewhere.

Their will likely not be enough money from licenses to do anything, part of why bicycles have not needed plates anymore is that it was costing more money to run the program than it took in and they wanted to reduce the barrier to increase utilization. Plus that was back in the 40s or 50s so labor has only gotten more expensive, destinations are further apart and many areas are less bike friendly for daily use.

[Red Arrow]

Their There will likely not be enough money from licenses to do anything, part of why bicycles have not needed plates anymore is that it was costing more money to run the program than it took in

Then raise the price. 

Are you talking about vehicle registration?  I think the minimum price for a car registration is $25/year.  That would be equivalent to $2.59 in 1950. 
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

I think most of us are presently talking about rider training and licensing.  It could be handled as a category on a regular driver's license the same as motorcylces.  Those under 16 would be rated for non-motor vehicles only. Use the existing bureaucracy.  No need to create a new one.

[Conan71]

You are mostly right but at least at one time the candidates knew some rules of the road and how to physically make a car go someplace specific.  That is no guarantee of future judgement or skills. Requiring nothing from bicyclists is not the best policy either.  I understand your reluctance to have licensing for bicyclists but there appear to be too many who would benefit from at least a minimal amount of training.  And hey, the state could use the revenue from another fee collection source.  Many bicycles today cost more than my first car did.  The money could be earmarked for trails etc.  Of course in OK that means that money already being spent on trails could be diverted elsewhere.

Sales tax is collected on those bikes and parts just like they are on any other vehicle, assuming they are purchased in state.  If you put an annual tag fee on a bicycle, it becomes a disincentive for people to commute by bike or to ride recreationally which seems counter-intuitive to what communities are doing to try and reduce emissions and congestion, as well as helping maintain a healthier population.  How do you enforce current tags on thousands more vehicles?  There seems to be some sort of misconception that adults who ride bikes are doing so at the cost of other taxpayers as if we contribute nothing to the tax base.  I'm a taxpayer, I purchase tags on five motor vehicles every year. I pay sales tax on every bike component I purchase and use in state or pay a use tax on those pieces bought outside the state.  

The sum total of adding a motorcycle endorsement to my driver's license was a brief written exam as I recall. I pay nothing extra for that endorsement at renewal time and honestly don't recall what questions were on that test.  What I do rely on is years of riding experience and how to handle certain situations and make myself more visible to the rest of traffic.  If anything, motorists should have more questions regarding rules of the road and cyclists when they get their license as this would cover two things: Drivers would understand what rights cyclists have and what their responsibilities are in regards to them, and motorists who cycle would understand the same when they are on a bicycle.

I did take a bicycle safety training course when I was in elementary school. I don't recall who sponsored the program, possibly AAA.  They set it up in the parking lot at Utica Square and it was useful at the time.  I believe it was marketed to schools to target children who were commuting to school by bicycle, which was a common thing in the 1970's when I was in elementary school. I also recall a city licensing requirement for bicycles at that time which was a $1 or $2 fee for a permanent sticker that went on your seat downtube.  The stickers were just about impossible to remove, it was designed as a theft deterrent, IIRC.

The complaint that cyclists should have to tag their bike, carry insurance, and have a special license always seems to come from people who are put off by having to slow down for 30 seconds to a minute to slow down and safely pass a cyclist with a minimum of three feet of clearance.  Even if cyclists tagged their bike, carried an insurance policy, and had a special license, motorists would still be pissed off for the occasional 30 second to one minute inconvenience.

FWIW, I'm a licensed motorist.  Others are covered from my negligence on my bike by my homeowners liability, I'm covered from uninsured motorists from the UIM on my auto policy, and my bikes are protected from theft, etc. by my homeowners policy.  I play by the same rules everyone else in a vehicle plays by.

I'm an advocate for better education for those who cycle.  I also advocate better education for all motorists as it relates to all rules of the road, not just when there's a cyclist on the roadway.  There are certainly riders in my community who either don't have a clue or don't care about their responsibilities as cyclists.  It should come as no surprise that some of those people are also shitty motorists when they are in their car or on their motorcycle. 

What would raising my costs and nuisance factor of remembering tag dates for 10-12 bicycles which may or may not be ridden on public roads do to improve my relationship with motorists who are simply annoyed I'm on my bike on a public roadway in the first place?

Not picking on you, Red, but your post brought up some issues I see repeated in the comments section of the Tulsa World when there's been a notable cycling accident or comments on Facebook when there were problems with a few asshat motorists and cyclists out near Sand Springs this last summer.

[AquaMan]

Good points. Would you be in favor of specific crackdowns on bicyclists for red light running, riding under the influence, corking, lane change infractions, hindering traffic, riding on sidewalks etc. that auto drivers are also subject to?

See, the problem is that those asshats that drive both cars and bikes are not being held accountable on their bikes. When I am on a bike I am confident. I  know that my capabilities to cross a street mid-block, ride on the wrong side, cut through a parking lot to avoid a light or simply slip between two lanes of cars is doable because I have greater vision that most vehicles allow, better agility than 4 wheels and better braking. But, it is the abuse of those capabilities that anger auto drivers. They feel that the bicyclist gets to operate under a different set of rules without consequences.

I am unaware of a set of rules specifically codified for bicyclists that are taught and enforced.

[Conan71]

Good points. Would you be in favor of specific crackdowns on bicyclists for red light running, riding under the influence, corking, lane change infractions, hindering traffic, riding on sidewalks etc. that auto drivers are also subject to?

See, the problem is that those asshats that drive both cars and bikes are not being held accountable on their bikes. When I am on a bike I am confident. I  know that my capabilities to cross a street mid-block, ride on the wrong side, cut through a parking lot to avoid a light or simply slip between two lanes of cars is doable because I have greater vision that most vehicles allow, better agility than 4 wheels and better braking. But, it is the abuse of those capabilities that anger auto drivers. They feel that the bicyclist gets to operate under a different set of rules without consequences.

I am unaware of a set of rules specifically codified for bicyclists that are taught and enforced.

Yes, I would and do support crackdowns like that. 

There was an incident that happened last summer on the Wednesday night ride route that goes out north of Sand Springs, on Old North Road, out around Pogue Airport or Shell Creek Lake, then back in through west Sand Springs and in Avery Drive.  A cyclist who was following traffic laws was purposely knocked off his bike by a motorist who was pissed at being slowed down by 30 seconds until it was clear to pass.  The fall-out resulted in a summit between Sand Springs residents, cyclists, the SSPD, and OHP.  As a result, SSPD monitored the ride route, not only looking out for dangerous moves and antagonism by motorists, but also cyclists running stop signs, cutting off traffic, and violating other traffic laws.  In other words, equal enforcement for all.

For the "semi-organized" cycling group in Tulsa, we will take a cyclist aside who is doing stupid and dangerous things and explain to them not only is it dangerous, but it's a bad impression that motorists gain of all cyclists.  For cyclists who consistently break laws and do stupid things, others will simply refuse to ride with them or allow them to ride in their group.  There's plenty of peer pressure amongst the more mature cyclists for obeying traffic laws and creating as minimal of obstruction as possible.

[AquaMan]

That is good to hear (read).

That drive to Shell Lake is pleasant. And with the hills I'm sure it is challenging as well. Sand Springs should have grown just as strong as Bixby/Jenks/BA and would have had it not been for heavy industry, petro-chemicals and the SS home.

[Ed W]

Title 47 Chapter 11 Article 12 has the bicycle-specific laws, but other sections influence bike operation also. Two critical parts are 11-1202:

"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." Emphasis added.

If a motorist cannot drive on the wrong side of the street against traffic, a bicyclist cannot. If a motorist can't split lanes or pass stopped traffic on the right, a bicycle rider can't.

There's a common complaint that bicyclists impede traffic, but in Oklahoma, they're only subject to the "slow traffic must keep right" law and they have no obligation to ride on a shoulder, the fog line, or sidewalk. Here's the language for the Oklahoma version of impeding traffic, section 11-804:

"No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law." Emphasis added.

Now, this would seem to be fairly clear. Bicycles are not motor vehicles as OK law defines them as devices propelled by human power, so it would seem the law does not apply. But who reads the law? Numerous law enforcement officers are woefully ignorant of bicycle law, so they fall back on so-called common sense, and end up enforcing their own biases. Worse, local judges can ignore it and bring a judgement against a cyclist who committed no offense. Sure, it could be over-turned on appeal, but that takes time and money. Sometimes it's better - for the cyclist - to just shrug it off, pay the ticket, and go on his way. It's not justice. It's reality.

But if police and judges are unaware of the law, how should we expect motorists to have a better awareness? Is it any wonder that with the deck stacked against them, some cyclists develop a massive antipathy toward law enforcement, motorists, and traffic law? For the most part, the chances of getting stopped and ticketed are slim, even when a LEO witnesses an infraction. They generally can't be bothered.

That's changing in LA where a larger number of commuter cyclists and pedestrians has now made law enforcement a more critical issue.

"From that perspective, the crackdown is a coming-of-age moment for this city, a ratification of how far it has come. It is a matter of simple mathematics: There are now enough people around to ticket."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/26/us/in-a-car-culture-clash-its-los-angeles-police-vs-pedestrians.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=US_IAC_20131226&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1385874000000&bicmet=1388638800000&fblinkge0&_r=2&

And before I forget, there's a good section on sharing the road with bicyclists in the Oklahoma Driver's Manual, section 11-1:

http://www.dps.state.ok.us/dls/pub/ODM.pdf

[davideinstein]

Good points. Would you be in favor of specific crackdowns on bicyclists for red light running, riding under the influence, corking, lane change infractions, hindering traffic, riding on sidewalks etc. that auto drivers are also subject to?

See, the problem is that those asshats that drive both cars and bikes are not being held accountable on their bikes. When I am on a bike I am confident. I  know that my capabilities to cross a street mid-block, ride on the wrong side, cut through a parking lot to avoid a light or simply slip between two lanes of cars is doable because I have greater vision that most vehicles allow, better agility than 4 wheels and better braking. But, it is the abuse of those capabilities that anger auto drivers. They feel that the bicyclist gets to operate under a different set of rules without consequences.

I am unaware of a set of rules specifically codified for bicyclists that are taught and enforced.

Police downtown hold cyclist to the same standards as automobiles.

[Conan71]

That is good to hear (read).

That drive to Shell Lake is pleasant. And with the hills I'm sure it is challenging as well. Sand Springs should have grown just as strong as Bixby/Jenks/BA and would have had it not been for heavy industry, petro-chemicals and the SS home.

Most cyclists think like I do.

A large majority doesn't want exceptional treatment and do follow traffic laws and do their best not to disrupt traffic by riding on heavily traveled roads during peak traffic time.

Motorists only tend to remember the last jackass motorist who cut them off in traffic or someone who missed hitting them by inches when the other car ran a stop light.  Same with cyclists.  If someone just had an encounter with Paul Tay, that's what they remember. Next time they see a cyclist, that's what comes to mind.  If someone got delayed by a corking, the next time they see a group ride, they will remember that corking.

If someone sees someone doing incredibly risky and stupid things in a kayak in the Arkansas River, the next time they see a kayaker in the river, there's an association with the last yakker they saw doing stupid things.

The perception of any group is only as good as the way the rest of the world perceives encounters with its worst members.  That's why I tend to react harshly when I see other cyclists running red lights, stop signs, riding three or four abreast, and groups rolling four way stop intersections which are full in every direction.  It reflects poorly on all of us and I don't want aggressive drivers swerving at me or things thrown at myself or my wife due to a previous encounter a motorist had with another cyclist who doesn't follow the rules.  Just because that is the reality for "good" cyclists, it's not a reason for me to quit riding on public roadways. 

Cyclists getting hurt or killed in a road accident is not the fault of a cyclist being on the road.  It's usually the result of either an indifferent or uneducated rider or indifferent or distracted driver.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

As Ed brought up the laws for bicyclists, I looked up Arizona and Oregon laws on the same, and the basics of the laws between the three is the same.

http://bikeportland.org/resources/bicyclelaws

http://www.azleg.gov/SearchResults.asp?SearchPhrase=Bicycle&Scope=%2Fars%2F28&SearchedFrom=%2FArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp&x=33&y=10

There are some subtle difference but they are very close.

As Conan brought up, the vast majority of cyclist actually abide by traffic laws, and don't want to be looked down on. In Arizona the relationship between cyclist and motor vehicle driver is pretty good, and they all tend to respect each other. Here you have the real cyclist like Arizona, but there are a larger number (militant cyclist) that believe that traffic laws don't apply to them, and they believe they can ride anywhere at any time. I've lost track of the number of cyclist I have had riding towards me on I-5 while I'm driving at 70. They are also the type that change lanes with no signal, and roll through stop lights/signs with out a care.

Here is a link to the Arizona Gov't Office Of Highway Safety, with a chart for '07 to '11 statistics on injuries and deaths for cyclist and the numbers are fairly stable year to year.

http://www.azgohs.gov/transportation-safety/default.asp?ID=16

http://www.azbikeped.org/images/adot%20STR061208.pdf

In Arizona local LEO's do enforce traffic laws on cyclist, and I think that is where the difference comes in. Here they could have a cyclist run a red light, and the a lot of LEO's won't even blink.

One other issue, and I will limit my thoughts to before I moved from Tulsa in '98, Tulsa was not a pedestrian or cyclist friendly town, D/FW was not. Cyclist and pedestrians were considered sport, and back then the LEO's downtown did not notice, or seem to care.