The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

3 Bycyclists were run off the road in Sand Springs by a hit and run drunk driver....


http://www.kjrh.com/content/news/breaking/story/Double-fatal-accident-shuts-down-highway/ReMp2sE4LUKaBhsmf3VuAA.cspx

Thanks for posting that link.  It has better information that the TW story, with the added benefit of the absence of those mouth-breathing goons in the newspaper comments.

The Wednesday Night Ride goes out that way tomorrow.  It has a reputation of provoking some of the locals.  I've never been on that one, but then again, riding to work and back regularly kind of takes the fun out of social rides.

None of those involved in the crash have been identified yet.  My thoughts and prayers are for them and their families - including the motorist.

Does not matter how wide the shoulder is cycling on a state highway during rush hour is just a really bad idea. Tulsans have the ability to cycle from one end of the county to the other on dedicated bike paths and still these people are not content and insist on putting themselves in danger by riding on highways. We can say share the road all we want but maybe that misses the point. I would love to cycle out to Keystone on that highway but did it once and saw the situation.

A state highway was not the issue here. Drunk driving was. These bikers were on the shoulder. This could have been someone walking, a disabled vehicle or service vehicles. Why share blame with the bikers? I seldom hear of sober, alert, capable drivers running into bikers who are following safe practices.

A few years back a driver jumped the curb on Riverside and plowed into some runners on the path, killing a local architect. I don't remember if the driver was drinking, but paths and sidewalks are little protection when 3200lbs of poorly guided metal descends on you.

I hear you, but the issue is speed and proximity.  Texting and driving is dangerous, eating and driving is dangerous, tending kiddos and driving is dangerous.  The likelihood of being hit and killed on a bike trail is virtually zero.  The architect's tragedy notwithstanding, I will take my chances on the trails thank you.

One of my favorite rides is from the boathouse out the KATY trail to Hwy 97 then back in on Avery Drive or the reverse of that.  I admit, I'm never 100% comfortable in the curves on the west end of Avery, where these cyclists were, they shouldn't have had any reason to worry about being run over.  Granted a sober driver could have swerved to miss a cat or another car and hit some cyclists on the shoulder, but alcohol seems to be the real issue here.

Very sad.

Alcohol is the issue and I'm not blaming the cyclists at all, but I don't even understand why that's such a popular route for cycling. What's the speed limit there?

In thousands of miles of riding, I can count on one hand the times I've ridden on a four-lane highway. It's just not relaxing with a constant stream of vehicles buzzing past at 70mph. Give me some windy, curvy back road any day.

There is a virtual 100% chance that the riders would be alive if they were on a trail.  I love the Katy but will not loop around to come east on W 21st EVER.  The stretch from Chandler to the river is suicidal, and I had one kid put his foot out his jeep door and try to clip me.  That is all it took for me to get it.  Further, those routes were dedicated before Tulsans' excellent trail system was in place.  There is no reason to cycle on highways, but I will concede cyclists' right to do so.  Alchohol is clearly a factor, but what if the killer had been texting? Or farding? Or tending kiddos in back?  Highways, back roads, arterial streets, wherever cyclists and cars are in close proximity that is one game of chicken where the 'winner' is never ever in doubt.

i've wondered the same thing, but more specifically along 21st street out by the refineries.
why would anyone want to suck a lot of wind out that way is beyond me.

This makes me sick.  

This is what?  The third time in a year that multiple people have been run down & killed by drunk drivers?

Something is wrong here.

Clearly alcohol needs to be criminalized.  No other solution or explanation.

This is very sad & very grim, my guess is they just off from work and and wanted to do some cycling and enjoy the day. 3 bike riders got hit, one is still alive, the pictures in the newspaper show the bikes riped apart it must of been a horrific crash. This is why I do not run on the streets & highways. I only run on the jogging trails. There is no second chance once your dead, there is no "do-over" in the game of life..  There are all kinds of drivers on the roads, I don't take chances I stay on the trails. The Tulsa World's story said that many cyclists have been hit there and that it's a popular street for cyclists but it's dangerous. :'(

Bikes do have a legal right to be on the road but none the less a bike and  4,000 pound cars don't mix. There is no appeal when your 6' under... I guess sometimes bike riders have to be on the streets since where they are going there are no trails. Then you got some people wanting to make pot legal, that's just what we need more drivers with altered brains. This is a very sad story. :'(

Clearly.
 ::)

I can see how you inferred that from my post.

I was speaking for myself in response to your comment.  Sorry did not mean to infer that was your point.

That's a good route Conan. I suppose many people do it for the rural, small town feel and others for the challenge. That stretch from Chandler to West 23rd is brutal. At one time in my life I would have wanted to do that.

My wife made this interesting comment. "I don't think many of these upper middle class, $1000 bike, spandex clad riders know what they're letting themselves in for when they bike through industrialized, blue collar areas where people don't have the time, the energy or the money to be enjoying such pastimes." I don't think she means its Easy Rider type folks. Its just that during really tough economic times, class consciousness is magnified. There is some jealousy.

This case was just tragic alocol related. If you look at the tracks of the car you see that if there had been a nearby running path, like on Riverside, she would have veered into it. Why not equip cars with alcohol breathalizers or some simple checklist that must be finished before the car is operable, to keep seriously drunk drivers off the roads?

Of course, there's the argument from joggers that bicycles shouldn't be on jogging trails.  Who wins in a collision between a bike and jogger on a crowded trail?  There are some totally mindless cyclists who take every opportunity to haul arse in the midst of crowds of joggers and people walking their kids and dogs.

Yes, quite true. Last night as I jogged I made note of how many bikers exercised the courtesy to tell me they were passing. And how many of them looked like "enthusiasts" (helmet, logo gear, expensive bikes). None of the enthusiasts warned me because they are too intense and focused on themselves. Only one of the old schoolers warned me and I heard him from way back, grunting and grinding gears.

The same arguments are also made for motorcycles and sub compact cars.

The reason we don't is simply because those of us that don't drink and drive should not have to be subjected to that hassle.  Also these types of systems are not very reliable.  Honestly, I think that the best answer is making sure that repeat offenders do serious time, and loose their priviledge to drive permanantly.

The test would need to be repeated during the drive to prevent someone from getting a sober buddy to get the car started.  I don't think the sober drivers would put up with blowing into a machine while driving.  That in itself could be a bad distraction.

Out of the hundreds of drivers who travel the highway every day, there are bound to be a few idiots.

Therefore, hanging out on the shoulder is the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette. Its like each 70mph car is a gun chamber, and about 1 in every 1,000 or so chambers is loaded.

We are living in a declining society. Watch out for the idiots at all times.

I am very thankful that they were able to arrest this particular idiot and get her off the streets for good.

Its a shame that these people had to die.

One reason cyclists use your roads is because not all speeds are safe for them to be on the trial.

Let's be clear - the risk of riding a bicycle on the roads is greatly exaggerated.  Nationwide, roughly 700 cyclists die each year, and about a third of them are children.  When you look at the statistics based on miles traveled, time spent, or per capita, riding a bicycle has just slightly more risk than traveling in an automobile. 

I know, I know, some of you are disinclined to pursue this line of argument when it veers off into a discussion of real facts and figures rather than the far more popular fear-mongering that's so prevalent on the TW comments thread.

As an instructor with the League of American Bicyclists, I take crash investigations and reportage very seriously.  I was annoyed by the comment from state trooper Brian Warren, who said there are numerous bicycle/motor vehicle crashes along that stretch of roadway.  It was irresponsible of the reporter to not ask for information supporting that obviously biased statement.  It was irresponsible of their editor to allow it in the paper without any corroboration. 

It was irresponsible to suggest that somehow their helmets did not protect them in this crash.  Magic Styrofoam or Magic Paint Stripes (bike lanes) are no protection against stupid, inebriated people driving two thousand pound death machines.

 

If you look at overall gross mortalities, far more people are killed in motor vehicles than bicycles every year.  I think the MV death rate in Oklahoma is 700 to 800 per year alone.

The media becomes ignorant when there's sensational blood and guts to report.  This is the same thing that happens when there's a small plane crash.  "A flight plan was not on file" is the ignorant media comment when a small plane goes down, as if not filing a flight plan causes light aircraft to crash. 

I agree with you on Trooper Warren's comments.  I'm not aware of many cyclists getting mowed down out in that area.  I think someone got hit on Avery last year or the year before, I don't recall hearing of more crashes, you'd be in a better position to know if that was a BS statement.  He made it sound as if they are scraping someone off the pavement on a weekly basis.

So your thought its better to put walkers, runners, joggers, families, and dogs in danger over bicyclists using a designated well marked bike rout?

Uh, yes.  Absolutely. Unless they are snotty geek types.  They can go play in traffic for all I care.  More often the better.

That has been a problem in Tulsa for years, is that while there are a few true multi use paths for bikes,walkers, joggers,families, 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) I will say that Phoenix is a much more bike/pedestrian friendly city, they aren't considered sport, and it's not unusual to see bike groups riding on the state highways here, there are several rides from Phoenix to the Hoover Dam each year, and yes there is a state law that requires yo to give cyclist 3 feet  of space as you pass by them.

Would bike lanes have helped in this case? It doesn't sound as if it would since the driver was impared, and in a case like that even if they were wearing all the right protective gear it might not have made any difference.

Fewer & fewer people yell out "passing on your left" on the trails these days I noticed, however on Riverside they now have two seprate trails, so the runners don't have to worry about the cyclists.. This tragic accident should show the Casino why the Riverside jogging trail should be moved to back of the casino. It'll be a matter of time before a car hits someone in the driveway.

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*. 

The city of Omaha has a outstanding trail system totally free of street crossings. They have a big network of trails They even have mile markers inbeded (at every 1/10 of a mile) in the pavement they use a 4" plastic disc with the trail name and the mile mark such as "Papilo Trail- Mile 7.4"  the next one says the same thing except it's Mile 7.5 and so on, they say the reason for that mile marking is for emergency responders should someone get hurt, like if  two bikes crash on the trail the EMS would know exactly where to go what trail it's on and what mile marker. Runners use the mile markers for timing themselfs. Many years ago a 42 year old cyclist was killed on Omaha's Keystone bike/jogging Trail, he got struck by lightning that came from a storm far off in the distance. As I recall it blew out his bike tires and split his helmet, very grim he had a wife & kids and he just got home from work, there is nothing safe in life..  www.omahatrails.com

Some cyclists ring a bell as they come up from behind. I don't know too much about cycling I'm not into that sport, I like the sport of running. I have not rode a bike in years.

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.

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.

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. :'(

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.

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.

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.

It's really not about the bike.  It's all about DRUNK DRIVING.  On 9 June 2010, about another 250 Oklahomans (http://www.ok.gov/ohso/documents/07FB_18_Crashes_Alcohol.pdf) 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 (http://www.rideofsilence.org). 

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 (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=82364), 37 TRO 1000. (http://cityoftulsa.org/media/17866/Title37_000.pdf)

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. :-X

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?

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. :-X