2 Bycyclists Killed In SS by DUI

[cynical]

Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have never had anyone complain because I warn them I'm passing them on the path.  The problem I have is with the popularity of Ipods and the like, the walkers/joggers often can't hear my warning.  Others seem to lack comprehension about what "on your left" means.  Sometimes a pedestrian will move to the left as if I had instructed them to do so. 

The biggest problem for bicyclists on the paths, even more than the folks who walk four or five abreast, are the small kids who either or weaving around on bikes or who are wandering all over the path like the kid in the "Family Circus" comic.  The rule around little kids is ride very slowly.

I get called a jerk or something else probably one in ten times when I call "on your left" on a ride.  But I still do it.  I don't expect anyone to hear me coming from behind when I'm on my bike.  Some people don't realize cyclists do this as a courtesy to prevent a collision for both of us, not to be a *one-eyed bishop*. 

[Ed W]

...there has never been an attempt to put bike lanes on the surface streets, and in areas where there are sidewalks, has there been any improvement where the sidewalk meets the street? (some form of a transition ramp, not only for bikes but for people with disabilities)

Two things - first, Tulsa does indeed have bike lanes - bad ones that were poorly designed and poorly maintained.  I find it had to believe that by adding more lane-miles we'll get a better system.  Bike lanes are a failed idea and we can learn from that failure.

Second, in places where sidewalk ramps have been installed (I'm thinking of NYC in particular) the current thinking is that the ramps have encouraged sidewalk cycling.  This is dangerous both for pedestrians and cyclists.  A bicycle rider has 3 times the risk of a collision on a sidewalk as compared to the adjacent street.  Why is this?  Every curb cut and every doorway represents an additional intersection, and intersections as we all know, are where the vast majority of all types of crashes occur.

Finally, I have to correct something I wrote yesterday.  When I said that the fatalities per mile traveled indicated that cycling was slightly more dangerous than driving, I was wrong.  The figures show that per mile traveled, cycling appears to be far more dangerous than driving.  I say 'appears' to be more dangerous, because the slower speeds and shorter distances skew the figures.  I drive about 8000 miles per year and ride a bike about 3000.  Those 3000 miles on the bike take far more time.  There's an additional problem getting good figures on regular bicycle use.  The NBDA (a trade org) estimates 50-60 million bicyclists, but they count anyone who rode a bike even one time during the year.  A realistic figure for 'enthusiast' or commuter bicyclists is probably in the 5-6 million range. 

[joiei]

Two things - first, Tulsa does indeed have bike lanes - bad ones that were poorly designed and poorly maintained.  I find it had to believe that by adding more lane-miles we'll get a better system.  Bike lanes are a failed idea and we can learn from that failure.

Second, in places where sidewalk ramps have been installed (I'm thinking of NYC in particular) the current thinking is that the ramps have encouraged sidewalk cycling.  This is dangerous both for pedestrians and cyclists.  A bicycle rider has 3 times the risk of a collision on a sidewalk as compared to the adjacent street.  Why is this?  Every curb cut and every doorway represents an additional intersection, and intersections as we all know, are where the vast majority of all types of crashes occur.

Finally, I have to correct something I wrote yesterday.  When I said that the fatalities per mile traveled indicated that cycling was slightly more dangerous than driving, I was wrong.  The figures show that per mile traveled, cycling appears to be far more dangerous than driving.  I say 'appears' to be more dangerous, because the slower speeds and shorter distances skew the figures.  I drive about 8000 miles per year and ride a bike about 3000.  Those 3000 miles on the bike take far more time.  There's an additional problem getting good figures on regular bicycle use.  The NBDA (a trade org) estimates 50-60 million bicyclists, but they count anyone who rode a bike even one time during the year.  A realistic figure for 'enthusiast' or commuter bicyclists is probably in the 5-6 million range. 

I was run over by a young dude on his bike riding at a high rate of speed when I stepped off the deck at Tucci's.  The young man did not stop or even look back but he knew he hit me.  Cyclist do not belong on the sidewalks unless they are young kids who are learning to ride and in front of their home with Mom and/or Dad there with them.

[sauerkraut]

Tulsa clearly needs to build more trails IMO to save lives- That way joggers & cyclists won't have to tango with motor traffic so much. The June 11, 2009 issue of the Tulsa World said that Christa Voss the female cyclist that was killed was also a marathon runner and a hard core cyclist, She offten got up at 4am or 5am to cycle before work and she at times would ride  her bike nearly 100 miles in a single day. The cyclists of Tulsa are close tight knit group of people everyone knows everyone. The accident was very tragic & grim.

[waterboy]

I think you miss the point Sauer. Build as many paths as you can possibly afford, even parallel the main drags with paths, and cyclists will still utilize the roadways.

They legally have every right to do so and in the long run, more bikes and less motor vehicles is a plus for us all. I don't remember ever reading about a drunk who killed innocents with his bicycle or jogging shoes. You simply can't effectively operate a bike under the influence. A car? Simple. Turn the key, hit the gas, kill people. The more practical solution is to heighten the training and awareness of both groups and to encourage city planning to react as well.

Though I cannot identify with the mentality, its that serious, driven, (over)dedication to these sports that guarantees that the participants will use every opportunity and every locale to practice them. It also guarantees that the hospitals, clinics and orthopedic industries will thrive in the next few decades.

[sauerkraut]

I think you miss the point Sauer. Build as many paths as you can possibly afford, even parallel the main drags with paths, and cyclists will still utilize the roadways.

They legally have every right to do so and in the long run, more bikes and less motor vehicles is a plus for us all. I don't remember ever reading about a drunk who killed innocents with his bicycle or jogging shoes. You simply can't effectively operate a bike under the influence. A car? Simple. Turn the key, hit the gas, kill people. The more practical solution is to heighten the training and awareness of both groups and to encourage city planning to react as well.

Though I cannot identify with the mentality, its that serious, driven, (over)dedication to these sports that guarantees that the participants will use every opportunity and every locale to practice them. It also guarantees that the hospitals, clinics and orthopedic industries will thrive in the next few decades.

It depends on where the trails are built, many trails are far from from motor traffic, in Omaha they are 100% safe and there is zero chance of a car hitting someone on the trails.. Tulsa's RiverSide trail runs alongside the roadway and at times comes close to traffic and that is a bit dangerous, but it's still far safer than using a so-called "bike lane". Trails need to built as far from motor traffic as possible. The Heritage Trail in Hilliard, Ohio runs on a old rail-road bed right of way and it's totally safe from cars except for  the street crossings. When there is a race on that trail the local cops stop traffic at the street crossings so runners will not be interupted. Trail location is important that is why the Casino should re-locate the RiverSide Trail to the back area for safety.

[Ed W]

I'll overlook the blatant hyperbole of any trail being "100% safe" because it's patently untrue.  Many believe the trails are safer than the road, but belief and reality aren't the same thing.  Tulsa's mix of trails and on-street routes can't connect every conceivable destination.  No trail system can do that.  So eventually a cyclist has to ride on the street with traffic.  And again, many believe that's extremely dangerous.  It ain't necessarily so.

Maybe I'm over generalizing, but I remember that when I first started the process of learning to drive, I was terrified.  I had a death-grip on the steering wheel and wouldn't let go for anything - including going around street corners.  It takes time and education to overcome that fear, just as any cyclist can learn the techniques of riding in traffic thereby defeating his fears.

[sauerkraut]

They can build cement barriors between the street and the RiverSide trail at places where the trail comes close to Riverside drive, (like that stone wall divider they have  around 33rd street & Riverside drive). It's true no bike lanes can be 100% safe and are just as dangerous as riding in the streets IMO, but a trail that is built far from motor  traffic with no street crossings is 100% safe, you can't get hit by a car that is not there. Omaha's trails are totally away from motor traffic. However, a 42 year old man still was killed while cycling on the Keystone Trail in Omaha about 08 years ago- he was killed by lightning from a freak storm still off in the distance as he biked along- so in that sense nothing is totally safe.

[Conan71]

They can build cement barriors between the street and the RiverSide trail at places where the trail comes close to Riverside drive, (like that stone wall divider they have  around 33rd street & Riverside drive). It's true no bike lanes can be 100% safe and are just as dangerous as riding in the streets IMO, but a trail that is built far from motor  traffic with no street crossings is 100% safe, you can't get hit by a car that is not there. Omaha's trails are totally away from motor traffic. However, a 42 year old man still was killed while cycling on the Keystone Trail in Omaha about 08 years ago- he was killed by lightning from a freak storm still off in the distance as he biked along- so in that sense nothing is totally safe.

You can also get dead from a collision with a concrete barrier bordering a trail.

[ILUVTulsa]

Tulsa clearly needs to build more trails IMO to save lives- That way joggers & cyclists won't have to tango with motor traffic so much. The June 11, 2009 issue of the Tulsa World said that Christa Voss the female cyclist that was killed was also a marathon runner and a hard core cyclist, She offten got up at 4am or 5am to cycle before work and she at times would ride  her bike nearly 100 miles in a single day. The cyclists of Tulsa are close tight knit group of people everyone knows everyone. The accident was very tragic & grim.

It's really not about the bike.  It's all about DRUNK DRIVING.  On 9 June 2010, about another 250 Oklahomans will have already die on the roadways, because of drunk driving, while the spandex'd mo's memorialize Voss and Edmonds, with yet another Ride of Silence. 

If you think more bike trails will solve the problem, I'll have whatever you are SMOKING.  Besides, Tulsa already has over 5,000 miles of bike lanes, all within City limits, by state statute and city ordinance.  O.S. § 47 11-1202, 37 TRO 1000.

[sauerkraut]

It's really not about the bike.  It's all about DRUNK DRIVING.  On 9 June 2010, about another 250 Oklahomans will have already die on the roadways, because of drunk driving, while the spandex'd mo's memorialize Voss and Edmonds, with yet another Ride of Silence. 

If you think more bike trails will solve the problem, I'll have whatever you are SMOKING.  Besides, Tulsa already has over 5,000 miles of bike lanes, all within City limits, by state statute and city ordinance.  O.S. § 47 11-1202, 37 TRO 1000.

A "Bike lane" and a "Bike trail" are not the same thing. A bike lane is a joke, it's just the same as riding in the street with the cars except there is a line painted on the roadway for bikes, any car can go over that line... A trail is seprate from the street and has no motor traffic near it.

[Ed W]

A "Bike lane" and a "Bike trail" are not the same thing. A bike lane is a joke, it's just the same as riding in the street with the cars except there is a line painted on the roadway for bikes, any car can go over that line... A trail is seprate from the street and has no motor traffic near it.

Bike lanes, multi-use trails, cycle tracks and the like are expensive pacifiers provided to fearful cyclists.  Don't misunderstand me - trails are very popular with nearly everyone - but they still offer about 3 times the risk of collision as compared to a nearby road.  The difference is that the collisions involve other cyclists, pedestrians, and pets rather than motor vehicles.  The last I heard, trails cost roughly a million dollars per mile, so while they're undeniably popular, they're also budget busters. 

Bike lanes are such miserable failures that their proponents are now focusing on cycle tracks - bike lanes physically separated from motor vehicle lanes by a line of parked cars.  Think of it - car doors to the left of them, pedestrians to the right, volley'd and thundered.  Then, when you get to the next intersection on your bike, you're effectively screened from right-turning motorists field of vision by those parked cars.  Rather than clearing the slate and starting over, bike lane apologists like New York's Transportation Alternatives keep trying to add that last little detail that will make their fantasies come true.  But it never quite works out.

We have an opportunity to learn from other communities mistakes, but there are some who'd prefer to continue repeating those mistakes in the foolish hope of a different outcome.

I ride a meat-powered motorcycle.  Wanna join me?

[sauerkraut]

You can also get dead from a collision with a concrete barrier bordering a trail.

Not as likely to do serious damage. A collision on the bike trail is not as serious as a collision between a bike and 4,000 pound vehicle going at any speed. I stongly favor the building of more trails. I'd like to see the Riverside Trail extended farther south for one thing. Cars and joggers/bikes do not mix and for safety they need to be kept apart. We can never stop all DWI drivers, drunk drivers will always be with us laws or not. There are laws against robbery & murder and people still do those things. I don't cycle but I am a runner and I do not run on any streets, I stick to trails only.