Paul Tay: Terror or Trendsetter?

[1099paralegal]

quote:Originally posted by TUalum0982
So let me make sure I am understanding the BLACK LETTER OF THE LAW....if you rear end me on BA while riding your bike, it would be your fault correct? would you be cited for inattentive driving? following to closely? failue to follow minimum speed limit posted? would you be subject ed to higher insurance rates since after all you are traffic?

Yes.  If a bicyclist rear-ends a motorist on the BA, a reasonable judge would probably find the bicyclist at fault for SPEEDING.  Yes, probably the bicyclist insurance would increase accordingly.  But, then again, of course, the Tour d'France and the World Anti-Doping Agency would also come calling to find out HOW in the world a village IDIOT, impersonating Santa, in bum-fcuk Tulsa, Oklahoma is moving at over 45 MILES PER HOUR.

GIT A FRIGGIN' GRIP.

quote:
The example you keep beating in the ground is an extreme.  It doesnt happen everyday, hence why there was so much publicity about it.  Your daily avg of 2 people dying in OK everyday in a motor vehicle crash took a hit, no pun intended,this past weekend when 0, thats right, ZERO fatalities were reported on Oklahoma highways over the Memorial Holiday weekend.  I thought I had already covered stats in an earlier post in this thread.  You must have misunderstood that post, just like the one you confused with "hitting a wife/gf" and "hitting on a wife/gf".

According to OHSO, the motor vehicle kill rate for Oklahoma is approximately 700-720 per YEAR, year-in, year-out. Works out to around 2 per day.  Sure, we might go a couple of days without a kill.  But, the stats catch up next week when there's a whole rash of 'em.

[1099paralegal]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

Not all accidents are caused by drunk drivers and cell phone users.

You can use UPPER CASE LETTERS all you want to. I doubt you will change too many minds that the BA Expy is not a good place to ride a bicycle.

Oh, I don't have to.  The gas prices will do THAT for me.[]

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by 1099paralegal

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

Not all accidents are caused by drunk drivers and cell phone users.

You can use UPPER CASE LETTERS all you want to. I doubt you will change too many minds that the BA Expy is not a good place to ride a bicycle.

Oh, I don't have to.  The gas prices will do THAT for me.[]

I was going to say don't hold your breath waiting but on second thought.... go ahead, give it a try.

[iplaw]

Hey Tay,

quote:Penalizing a bicycle properly operating in traffic because of speed is tantamount to banning bicycles. Trotwood v. Selz, 139 Ohio App. 3d 947 (2nd. Dist.-2000).

First off, what does the Trotwood decision have to do with Oklahoma statutory interpretation?  Even if it was from the 3rd Circuit...do you have any Oklahoma cases citing this case in whole or in part?

Also:
O.S. 47 11-313
The Department of Transportation, the Oklahoma Transportation Authority, or local authorities may, with respect to any controlled-access roadway under their respective jurisdictions, prohibit the use of any such roadway by pedestrians, bicycles or other non-motorized traffic or by any person operating a motor-driven cycle. The Department of Transportation, the Oklahoma Transportation Authority, or local authorities adopting any such prohibitory regulations shall erect and maintain official signs on the controlled-access roadway on which such regulations are applicable and when so erected no person shall disobey the restrictions stated on such signs.

This statute gives the State and local governements the ability to keep bicycles off of any controlled access road if they so choose.

quote:
The minimum speed rule as it relates to bicycles has already been litigated in Tulsa Municipal. Judge Burk Bishop presiding.

Holding: Because bicycles can not move at the minimum speed, 35 mph, on the Broken Arrow Expressway, the rule is not applicable.

37 TRO 1000: Every person operating a bicycle in the City of Tulsa shall be subject to the provisions of this title applicable to the driver of a vehicle, except as to those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

Was this "holding" in response to a charged violation of 37 TRO 1000, or an interpretation of the statute?  If not, you can't simply connect the two.  Also, could you provide us with access to holding in its entirety, not that I don't believe you...

quote:
Bikes don't slow other traffic. Bikes ARE traffic.

This statement is just plainly stupid.  Cars are vehicles as well and can slow other traffic.  I am happy to define a bicycle as a vehicle, it still doesn't mean you aren't slowing traffic when you operate one on a highway at 10 mph.

[iplaw]

Here's one more for you:

O.S. 47 Ch. 74 1102:
33. "Vehicle" means any type of conveyance or device in, upon or by which a person or property is or may be transported from one location to another upon the avenues of public access within the state. "Vehicle" does not include bicycles, trailers except travel trailers and rental trailers, or implements of husbandry as defined in Section 1-125 of this title. All implements of husbandry used as conveyances shall be required to display the owner's driver's license number or license plate number of any vehicle owned by the owner of the implement of husbandry on the rear of the implement in numbers not less than two (2) inches in height. The use of the owner's social security number on the rear of the implement of husbandry shall not be required...

So bicycles are "traffic" but not a "vehicle."  Which means that you can ride on the sidewalk when it's available.

[1099paralegal]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Penalizing a bicycle properly operating in traffic because of speed is tantamount to banning bicycles. Trotwood v. Selz, 139 Ohio App. 3d 947 (2nd. Dist.-2000).

First off, what does the Trotwood decision have to do with Oklahoma statutory interpretation?  Even if it was from the 3rd Circuit...do you have any Oklahoma cases citing this case in whole or in part?

There are no Oklahoma cases with mandatory authority related to Trotwood.  It has PERSUASIVE authority.  The appellant's brief uses a Georgia combine impeding case as persuasive authority.

quote:
Also:
O.S. 47 11-313
The Department of Transportation, the Oklahoma Transportation Authority, or local authorities may, with respect to any controlled-access roadway under their respective jurisdictions, prohibit the use of any such roadway by pedestrians, bicycles or other non-motorized traffic or by any person operating a motor-driven cycle. The Department of Transportation, the Oklahoma Transportation Authority, or local authorities adopting any such prohibitory regulations shall erect and maintain official signs on the controlled-access roadway on which such regulations are applicable and when so erected no person shall disobey the restrictions stated on such signs.

This statute gives the State and local governements the ability to keep bicycles off of any controlled access road if they so choose.

Yes.  That is correct.  Until successfully challenged, bicycle driving on turnpikes is illegal.

The holding was in response to a charged violation of 37 TRO 619, speed less than minimum posted speed.

You should contact Tony Cellino, Tulsa Municipal Court Clerk, to gain access to the case.  The City didn't appeal.

quote:
Bikes don't slow other traffic. Bikes ARE traffic.

This statement is just plainly stupid.  Cars are vehicles as well and can slow other traffic.  I am happy to define a bicycle as a vehicle, it still doesn't mean you aren't slowing traffic when you operate one on a highway at 10 mph.
[/quote]

How to Beat the Slow-moving Vehicle on Tulsa Streets, Without Really Trying:

1) Slow down;
2) Signal the lane change;
3) Pass in the other lane.

PROBLEM solved.

[iplaw]

That's what I thought, you're using a holding which isn't interpreting the statute in question.  A fun exercise, but essentially meaningless.

quote:There are no Oklahoma cases with mandatory authority. Trotwood has PERSUASIVE authority. The appellant's brief uses a Georgia combine impeding case as persuasive authority.

Which, I'm sure you can appreciate, creates NO binding precedent for an Oklahoma judge looking to interpret our statutes.

[cannon_fodder]

lol Paul.  The city rarely if EVER appeals traffic court cases.  "Today the Supreme Court will decide if bicycles can be ridden down the freeway..."

I'm sure you put 5 times more effort into defending yourself than the prosecution put into researching the law against it.  Res ipsa loquitur.  The things speaks for itself - driving a bicycle on a freeway is just one of those things that just SEEMS like it should be illegal, so he/she didn't put in the time to prove it.

So again, congrats on your win in traffic court.

Other than the law specifically allowing the city to restrict bicycle access to freeways and the law negating your legal arguments by excluding bicycles from the definition of vehicle... you found some good law.  Unfortunately, given that those two little ditties destroy or negate that which you did find - you're wrong in the legal sense too.

So not only are you being an attention whore by acting like a jerk to hundreds of people, you are also legally in the wrong.

Time to start a new screen name.

[Breadburner]

This idiot makes cycling difficult for everyone that does it without making attention whores out of themselves....Do cyclist a favor and stay off yours, same goes for your boyfriend Biker Fox.....You two use cycling as vehicle to accomplish your out of whack personal mission....

[cks511]

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

This idiot makes cycling difficult for everyone that does it without making attention whores out of themselves.

+1

[1099paralegal]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

That's what I thought, you're using a holding which isn't interpreting the statute in question.  A fun exercise, but essentially meaningless.

quote:There are no Oklahoma cases with mandatory authority. Trotwood has PERSUASIVE authority. The appellant's brief uses a Georgia combine impeding case as persuasive authority.

Which, I'm sure you can appreciate, creates NO binding precedent for an Oklahoma judge looking to interpret our statutes.

That is correct.  But, if Trotwood, an Ohio case, used a Georgia case as persuasive authority to win, maybe it is reasonable to assume an Oklahoma case might use an Ohio, to prevail?

[iplaw]

quote:
How to Beat the Slow-moving Vehicle on Tulsa Streets, Without Really Trying:

1) Slow down;
2) Signal the lane change;
3) Pass in the other lane.

PROBLEM solved.

This is fantastic for multi-lane roads, but does nothing for vehicles traveling on roads where passing is either too dangerous or prohibited by law (for example, 61st between Harvard and Lewis).

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by 1099paralegal

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

That's what I thought, you're using a holding which isn't interpreting the statute in question.  A fun exercise, but essentially meaningless.

quote:There are no Oklahoma cases with mandatory authority. Trotwood has PERSUASIVE authority. The appellant's brief uses a Georgia combine impeding case as persuasive authority.

Which, I'm sure you can appreciate, creates NO binding precedent for an Oklahoma judge looking to interpret our statutes.

That is correct.  But, if Trotwood, an Ohio case, used a Georgia case as persuasive authority to win, maybe it is reasonable to assume an Oklahoma case might use an Ohio, to prevail?

Since it can be ignored by a judge just as easily as it can be relied upon it's really not worth mentioning.  In other words, if you're going to hang your hat on this the next time you get picked up by the fuzz then you should hire an attorney next time.  I heard from William Shatner that Jeff Martin is fantastic.

[1099paralegal]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Here's one more for you:

O.S. 47 Ch. 74 1102:
33. "Vehicle" means any type of conveyance or device in, upon or by which a person or property is or may be transported from one location to another upon the avenues of public access within the state. "Vehicle" does not include bicycles, trailers except travel trailers and rental trailers, or implements of husbandry as defined in Section 1-125 of this title. All implements of husbandry used as conveyances shall be required to display the owner's driver's license number or license plate number of any vehicle owned by the owner of the implement of husbandry on the rear of the implement in numbers not less than two (2) inches in height. The use of the owner's social security number on the rear of the implement of husbandry shall not be required...

So bicycles are "traffic" but not a "vehicle."  Which means that you can ride on the sidewalk when it's available.

The correct cite is O.S. 47 11-186, Vehicles DEFINED:

A. A vehicle is any device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

B. As used in this title, the term "vehicle" shall not include:

1. Implements of husbandry, as defined in Section 1-125 of this title;

2. Electric personal assistive mobility devices, as defined in Section 1-114A of this title; or

3. Motorized wheelchairs, as defined in Section 1-136.3 of this title.

Bicyclists are statutorily defined as DRIVERS of VEHICLES that operate in TRAFFIC on Oklahoma roadways and City streets.  O.S. 47 11-177, O.S. 47 11-186, O.S. 47 11-1205, 37 TRO 1000.

Bicycles, operated as vehicles, are prohibited on City sidewalks.  37 TRO 1009, 37 TRO 638

[1099paralegal]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

lol Paul.  The city rarely if EVER appeals traffic court cases.  "Today the Supreme Court will decide if bicycles can be ridden down the freeway..."

I'm sure you put 5 times more effort into defending yourself than the prosecution put into researching the law against it.  Res ipsa loquitur.  The things speaks for itself - driving a bicycle on a freeway is just one of those things that just SEEMS like it should be illegal, so he/she didn't put in the time to prove it.

So again, congrats on your win in traffic court.

Other than the law specifically allowing the city to restrict bicycle access to freeways and the law negating your legal arguments by excluding bicycles from the definition of vehicle... you found some good law.  Unfortunately, given that those two little ditties destroy or negate that which you did find - you're wrong in the legal sense too.

If you consider the TOTALITY of BOTH Oklahoma Statutes, O.S. 47 11-177, O.S. 47 11-186, O.S. 47 1202, O.S. 47 11-1205, AND Tulsa Ordinances 37 TRO 100, 37 TRO 1000, 37 TRO 1009, 37 TRO 638, BOTH the Oklahoma Legislature AND Tulsa City Council INTENDED bicycles to be operated as VEHICLES, in TRAFFIC, on ALL State roadways and City Streets.

The one LONE exception: the turnpikes.  There is NO safety reasons to ban bikes from turnpikes.  That rule merely reflects OTA irrational bias and IGNORANCE.