Should Tulsa adopt the Idaho Stop?

[Conan71]

No, the road was built for vehicular traffic, not bikes. Period. And yes, cyclists should have to cover liability insurance, precisely for this reason:
http://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2007/05/bikes_vs_cars_c.html

Why is the hell are cyclists above the law? I ride and do my best to NOT get on the roads out of respect and for safety. The cyclists I often see in South Tulsa are arrogant and selfish. Yes, Conan. Selfish. Especially at rush hour/high traffic time in speed zones between 40-50 mph. Why pick that time to put on the Lycra dress up and pretend its Tour de France time?

To drive a vehicle on Oklahoma's roads, you have to get licensed, pass tests, carry insurance, obey traffic laws, etc. Cyclists? No need I guess because that's a "straw man". Let's remember that next time a cyclists get's severely hurt or killed on Tulsa's roads, and we have a thread talking about how it's the drivers' fault for not being more aware of the cyclist.    

Townsend's right about this. And Tulsa has built a very nice and lengthy trail for cyclists to use. Use them.

You are letting your personal frustration with the issue control your logic.  Cyclists, by being on the road, are not above the law.  The law clearly states those cyclists may be on the road and they can even ride two abreast.  That's not being above the law by being on a public road.  There is a better chance than not those cyclists that pissed you off for making you a minute late: passed tests, have Oklahoma Driver's licenses, and were obeying traffic law.  If they were riding single file or two abreast, they were LEGALLY using the roadway.  That said, are they exercising the best common sense with their timing?  No.

If you regularly roll stop signs, speed, and fail to signal lane changes then you are engaging in behavior that is "above the law".  I see far more people driving cars, trucks, and commercial vehicles acting "above the law" than I do cyclists every single day.  Now it's a common occurrence on my daily commute to see someone run a stoplight every other intersection I come to.  A large number of motorists I observe do "California stops" at stop signs, essentially rolling through them.

The reason why some cyclists prefer the road over the trail is careless pedestrians along the trail which makes it harder and more dangerous for competitive cyclists to train at the intensity level they need to.

Now, is that a place I would choose to ride at rush hour?  Not a chance.  I think part of the reason you are seeing more riders in the area is two bike shops which have opened in the last 2 1/2 years plus Lifetime Fitness has a cycling club.

I suspect the few asshats on bikes who do flaunt the laws and do think they are above the law on their bike also operate their cars or motorcycles in the same manner.

Licenses and insurance doesn't make people better drivers.  I suspect the sampling of CHP numbers you cite were a significant number of C.O.B.'s (court-ordered bicyclists= had their license revoked) especially those who were intoxicated.  Not the same type of folk you are encountering at 111th & Sheridan.

[Red Arrow]

Who's being selfish?  The rider going 15 to 20 MPH, or the impatient driver who will get home a whopping 30 to 60 seconds later?  I've seen the math worked out on a mile stretch in terms of delay to motorists, it's not a huge delay.

True, the delay usually is insignificant.  I still think the bike rider (or even a slow car driver) is being selfish and generally inconsiderate by not pulling over occasionally to let drivers who wish to go faster to do so.  Share the road should include bicyclists sharing with autos and not trying to control the autos. "You" like to go slow and see the sights or work up a sweat....  I don't like to go slow.

If a bike hits your car at 15-20 MPH (very highly unlikely) the damage would be quite minimal and you could still sue them if they failed to pay for damage to your vehicle.

Good luck with that.  That logic would allow us to get rid of liability insurance for autos too.

Cyclists needing a specific cycling endorsement and/or liability insurance is a complete straw man.

Fail to get you foot out of the clips at a stop sign, fall into a fancy car like a Ferrari, Maserati or even something that dents easily like a Honda S2000 (2 seater with REALLY Thin sheet metal, a friend had one) and you may change your mind.

[Conan71]

True, the delay usually is insignificant.  I still think the bike rider (or even a slow car driver) is being selfish and generally inconsiderate by not pulling over occasionally to let drivers who wish to go faster to do so.  Share the road should include bicyclists sharing with autos and not trying to control the autos. "You" like to go slow and see the sights or work up a sweat....  I don't like to go slow.
Good luck with that.  That logic would allow us to get rid of liability insurance for autos too.
Fail to get you foot out of the clips at a stop sign, fall into a fancy car like a Ferrari, Maserati or even something that dents easily like a Honda S2000 (2 seater with REALLY Thin sheet metal, a friend had one) and you may change your mind.

If the insurance industry thought this was necessary and they could make enough money off it, compulsory liability insurance would already be on the books for cyclists.  Consider how many motorists apparently ignore the compulsory liability insurance law.  Compliance and enforcement would be a biznitch.  The "gotcha" on the stop sign fallacy is a car should NEVER pull alongside a bicycle in the same lane and the cyclist should NEVER pull alongside a car in the same lane.  It's no different than pulling your car up to another car in a single lane at an intersection.  If you ever do encounter a cyclist doing this to you, don't hesitate to roll down your window to advise them they need to brush up on their knowledge of traffic laws.

Pulling over every so often on a one mile stretch of two lane road simply is not a wise idea if you look at all the debris along the road-side, if anything it would make it even slower for motorists at the end of the line if someone pulled over a couple of times.  They law allows you to pass the cyclist when it's clear.  No different than someone on horseback, a tractor, or some other slow moving vehicle.

Insurance, license endorsement, tag, and inspection sticker still isn't going to make you happy when you come upon a cyclist going 15 to 20 MPH on a two lane south Tulsa road now is it?  Do any of you want extra permits, taxes, and insurance requirements for your hobbies or past times?

If you guys want cyclists off the road so bad, go lobby in OKC to get the laws changed. 

[Townsend]

If you guys want cyclists off the road so bad, go lobby in OKC to get the laws changed. 

Most of us don't.

I want the roads designed for autos and bicycles to share safely.

I want sidewalks for pedestrian traffic.

The city is better with less auto traffic.  There's something added to an area of town when you see people riding or walking.  It feels safer and friendlier.

[Conan71]

Most of us don't.

I want the roads designed for autos and bicycles to share safely.

I want sidewalks for pedestrian traffic.

The city is better with less auto traffic.  There's something added to an area of town when you see people riding or walking.  It feels safer and friendlier.

Agreed.

[Red Arrow]

If the insurance industry thought this was necessary and they could make enough money off it, compulsory liability insurance would already be on the books for cyclists.

Give it a few more years.  It will come.  I agree that the odds of massive damage by a bicycle to my car is not all that great.  I believe that in the past Oklahoma drivers were allowed to post a bond in place of buying insurance.  The greater likelyhood is that I would be involved in an accident caused by me or someone else trying to avoid an errant bicycle and that the bicyclist would beat feet and never be found.

Consider how many motorists apparently ignore the compulsory liability insurance law.  Compliance and enforcement would be a biznitch.

Enforcement is obviously a problem for auto insurance. That doesn't fly as a reason for me.

The "gotcha" on the stop sign fallacy is a car should NEVER pull alongside a bicycle in the same lane and the cyclist should NEVER pull alongside a car in the same lane.  It's no different than pulling your car up to another car in a single lane at an intersection.  If you ever do encounter a cyclist doing this to you, don't hesitate to roll down your window to advise them they need to brush up on their knowledge of traffic laws.

My guess is that most bicyclists don't know they shouldn't do that.  A brief license procedure would take care of that.  Perhaps an on-line reading assignment and take that info to a tag agent for a "state issued license".   Most adults will be able to drive a bicycle although I understand getting used the pedal clips is difficult for some (like my sister-in-law).  It might be a good idea for kids to prove they can actually ride.  The town where I grew up had a township license for bicycles.  It applied to adults as well as children but the real emphasis was for elementary school kids to know the rules of the road and to prove they could ride.  Enforcement would be the same as motor vehicles.  If you screw up, you get your license checked.  I haven't had my license looked at by law enforcement in nearly 20 years.  Banks, voting, using a personal check at stores etc are a different story. 

Pulling over every so often on a one mile stretch of two lane road simply is not a wise idea if you look at all the debris along the road-side, if anything it would make it even slower for motorists at the end of the line if someone pulled over a couple of times.  They law allows you to pass the cyclist when it's clear.  No different than someone on horseback, a tractor, or some other slow moving vehicle.

I don't mind following a bicycle for a bit and passing when it's safe for both of us.  Some of the 2 lane roads get packed at times and there may be no opportunity to pass. Come on out and visit Guido or me at the wrong time of the day and you may soften you opinion some.

Insurance, license endorsement, tag, and inspection sticker still isn't going to make you happy when you come upon a cyclist going 15 to 20 MPH on a two lane south Tulsa road now is it?

See above

Do any of you want extra permits, taxes, and insurance requirements for your hobbies or past times?

I know you are aware of taxes, insurance, recurrent training, licensing etc involved in flying.  Bad choice to pick on in my case.  I believe boaters are required to take some training in OK.  My parents taught the Coast Guard Auxiliary safe boating course when we lived in PA.  Chucking a rock with your lawn mower is probably covered by your homeowner's insurance if lawn maintenance is your hobby.  Knitting, there's something that I believe can remain unregulated.

If you guys want cyclists off the road so bad, go lobby in OKC to get the laws changed.

You assume too much.  I just want some common courtesy.