The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Either because you agree with his platform or as a protest vote?

I kind of made a joke about this in the other thread, but in all seriousness  a person should not vote a protest vote unless (a) they honestly don't care, or (b) they are sure it will not affect the outcome.

I'm hearing this all the time at the National level this year, specifically with regard to voting Libertarian.  And you know, I kind of like Gary Johnson and my politics is  generally in line with Libertarian philosophy.  But I also know that he has zero chance of winning.  So do I and others like me vote Libertarian as a protest vote this season?  In OK, maybe.  It is a virtual certainty that Trump is going to win OK.  So hey,  why not?   But in a swing state, neither side (trying to be fair to both sides...) can afford to waste a vote because those votes could actually matter, and regardless of which side of the aisle a person is on, I'm guessing they DO have an opinion between the two major candidates for president.

So everyone should vote how they want, that's what we are supposed to do.  But understand that if you/we actually have a preference between the two leading mayoral candidates we should not squander that opinion on a protest vote, but rather actively support which ever each of us thinks is the best (better?  least objectionable?) option.

In one of his previous campaigns, Tay received about 900 votes.

If he was serious he'd actually campaign and might get the 10% polling to make the stage at a debate.  His campaign is not serious though and when he hopped on stage and had a full minute or two in front of the cameras he didn't say anything of substance.   His facebook page is pretty clearly satire.  If you're not serious, don't get upset when you're not taken seriously. 

I see your point, but I don't see any vote as wasted unless you are voting for a pure joke candidate like Tay.

I am one of those people who will be voting for Gary Johnson this November. I am a lifelong Republican, the sane non-religious fanatic kind, and cannot stomach voting for Trump. I also cannot see any situation where I would vote for Hillary, so my choice is to either not vote or to find another alternative. Is my vote wasted? I don't believe so as I am voting for Gary Johnson as a matter of principle.

#feelthejohnson

I'm a white male Republican voter in South Tulsa.  This means I get to vote more than once in Oklahoma.

I will use one of my votes for Gary Johnson solely because of this pound sign.

Is there a bumper sticker for this?  Because I would seriously consider putting one on my truck.

I'm a white male Democrat voter in Midtown Tulsa, so I'll only get on real voting opportunity.    :D

To the "wasted vote" discussion, I honestly don't think it makes much difference here in OK and may vote for Johnson too, just on principle.   But I hear a lot of the Bernie supporters getting all self-righteous and saying they will never vote for Hillary, and (assuming they live in a swing state) I completely disagree with their logic.  Regardless of how we would like the system to be, for this election it is going to come down to Hillary or The Donald.  And if a person is in a state that is up for grabs, those votes on principle would be a 1/2 vote for the other person.  For them, they have to ask themselves "would I rather have Hillary or The Donald?"  Regardless of how much they may dislike Hillary, my gut says they'd rather have her in there than him, and if so they need to vote that way.

I don't really like the system either, but it's what we have.   Use it wisely.  (or, at least not stupidly...)

 

HA...you think your vote is counted!!!

Hey guys!  Democrat over there thinks his vote is counted.  (Rolling on floor laughing emoticon placed here)

Did you know Gary is an avid endurance cyclist?  He’s planning to do Ride The Divide and he’s run the Leadville Trail 100.  Means he’s pretty much a badass. 

In a few more years, your vote and mine will be worthless. 

One of my friends (yes, I have a few) had the opportunity to change his voter registration to CA from OK.  He did so to have a voice in politics.  I say the only change he made is to a state where his voice is a majority.  He still does not make a difference.

I used to feel that way.  But.. I cannot vote for either Trump or Clinton while I cannot not vote at all either   :'(

Almost removes that barrier for the honest common person who never would have committed a felony for fear of losing their right to vote.  As of now it’s like: “Give me a suspended sentence and the right not to vote ever again, and I’m good!”

Did not know that.  I'll have to do some more reading on him.   I wish he had a real chance.  He'd definitely be my pick this round.

By being in the majority he is one of the voices to be heard. I have friends here who are registered as Republicans for the same reason. They want to mitigate the damage that a canoe with only the right hand paddling the boat causes.

BTW, I loved your comment about change and progress. Some time I will pm you how profound that really was.

I could never vote for Paul Tay.

Elections are about the message and his is only graffiti. There is no substance and it should be painted over as soon as it appears.

Few more years?    Naw...that day is today!

Creates a dilemma, doesn't it?  Vapor-lock....

I'm surprised to see that Who is voting for Mr. Tay. Never even knew he lived in Tulsa. He was a fine 3rd baseman though.

Wow!   Look who's back...  Trump fan, I bet...?

Who's on first?

Derp!

Tay is an attention whoring dipshit at best.....

He was marching around in a trench coat and cowboy hat all weekend at Tulsa tough when he wasn’t riding around on a tandem bicyle by himself.

Got kicked off of Crybaby Hill apparently.

I was managing the Gran Fondo hospitality area on Saturday at Guthrie Green.  He was kicked off that property by the GG people as they won’t allow any campaigning on their property and he had one of his handwritten signs.  They asked if I wanted them to call higher authorities to have anything done to get him out of our event venue and I declined. 

I did him chatting up a few people and back slapping others who didn’t look so comfortable on Friday and Saturday.  I figured if he got too close to the wrong person the problem would solve itself.

I've seriously never had a problem with him. Why do I always miss the negativity you guys see? I've known him for years at this point. Always nice and good for a random conversation.

If you haven’t noticed it then maybe... ;D

His ability to twist off out of nowhere like he did at the RSU debate is one reason people have a problem with him.  He can be incredibly disruptive.

Also his antics on a bike make other cyclists look like idiots.  This is one of the reasons I’ve been pretty outspoken with you about your delivery riders running red lights downtown and making some really sketchy decisions in traffic down there.  I appreciate you guys using bike delivery, I think it’s really cool.  But, it only takes one as@hole cyclist to ruin everyone else’s view of the rest of us who abide by the rules and who are cautious.  Really, let that sink in.  The reason drivers think cyclists are narcissist idiots is due to the behavior of the ones who can’t follow common traffic law or go out of their way to impede traffic like Tay has by riding on the BA Expressway or pulling a trailer with a washing machine behind his bicycle down Yale Ave in the middle of the day.

Or like the @ss hat that was riding South on Peoria from 15th or so, all the way to Brookside at 5:15 on a Monday, and riding exactly in the middle of the right lane and backing cars up for a block or so.   When I finally got around him and glanced over, he just gave me this smug grin.    This is the kind of person that turns people against cyclists.    Also, during this debacle I noticed that there actually are bicycle signs on Peoria along there, so this must be officially a bike road?  If so, that is asinine. 

There are some bicycle crossing signs around 18th Street, but I'm not aware of any bicycle route signs along that stretch.

But regardless of any designated route signs or sharrows, where is someone on a bike, heading south on Peoria, at 5:15 or any other time, on a Monday or any other day of the week, supposed to ride? 

Peoria is a major arterial street,  and although (per earlier posts) I am an active and avid rider all over Tulsa,  the major arterial streets are not good routes for bikes.  The one recent discussion regarding 31st st West of Peoria being a slight exception.  While it is a mile-line street, once TGP is finished that section will basically be TGP traffic, and so bike lanes could make sense there.

Specific to the guy in question,  he could easily have popped over a block or two West and ridden Woodward South all the way to 31st and on to Brookside. Or if he was going even further South,  continued to move West and keep going South on Cincinnati/Madison/Detroit all the way to 44.   I often ride this  basic route when going to Brookside, or up to Cherry St., or recently (because of TGP construction) just to get to 41st so that I can get over to the river trails.  Granted, it is not as perfectly direct as biking straight up Peoria, but it's a lot more peaceful and much safer.

Per earlier threads talking about riding down on 71st, it is true that in South Tulsa in particular there may not be secondary through-streets, and so it is difficult to get anywhere on bike down there without riding at least some distance on a major arterial.  But in mid-town and on into downtown, there are plenty of non-arterial options that will allow a biker to get virtually anywhere without putting themselves in danger or irritating the heck out of drivers.

Peoria is designated as an Urban Arterial and a Multi-Modal street.  The average traffic counts are about 17,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day.  You wouldn't choose Peoria as a bike route, and neither would I.  But maybe the guy you saw riding on Peoria with a smug grin on his face didn't know about alternate routes. 

Every now and then, I see someone riding a bike on an arterial street.  If they're in the right lane, then I usually just slow down, and sometimes pass them on the left.  Not a problem.  A four lane street can handle cars, trucks, bikes, buses, pedestrians (if there are adequate sidewalks).

19th Street is a signed bicycle route.  I think the signs near 18th and 19th on Peoria are to warn motorists about the possibility of bikes crossing Peoria, not to designate Peoria itself as a bike route.

I'm going to go check out those signs again.  They were, to me at least, confusing as to what they were signifying.   With regard to passing him,  I (and all the other cars.  I have to say everyone in the cars were very polite to the guy.) simply moved over and passed without incident.   However, it did cause a fairly lengthly backup with all the cars trying to get around him, which is one reason I made a point of it being a weekday at 5:15.  Regardless of the street, if it is off-peak and can be ridden without being dangerous and causing undue aggravation to the auto traffic, then rock on.  (71st at about 6:30 am is pretty cool to ride down.  No cars, and you can at least for a brief period have the road to yourself.)  I think though, that regardless of street designation all cyclists should consider the amount of traffic, time of day, etc,  when choosing which major roads in Tulsa to ride.

I'm fully ok with a bike using any city road in Tulsa.

Okay.  I think what they are signifying is a bike route on 19th Street (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1351715,-95.9759168,3a,75y,115.66h,69.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQ9KwJCP1Y_aWdgFiT1mHwA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), as I stated in a previous post.  On Peoria, I think what they are signifying is a warning to motorists that bicycles might be crossing (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1348954,-95.9756295,3a,75y,358.56h,78.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ6tCYHTnorDBTkQkWJSkIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in the vicinity of 18th and 19th Streets, as I stated in a previous post.  There's a small offset in 19th at Peoria, so maybe the little arrows confused you.  To me, the signs are not confusing.  They have standardized symbols found throughout the United States.  I see them often on streets that are intended to be used by cars and bikes, which includes Peoria Avenue and nearly every other street in Tulsa.


That's good.  It's nice when drivers are polite and pass around people on bikes without incident.


Backups can be expected around 5:15 on weekdays for a variety of reasons because many motorists choose to drive at that time.  The guy grinning smugly probably didn't have to be on Peoria then, but neither did the cars.  My guess is that almost everyone on Peoria at 5:15 on that Monday chose to be on that street then.


The slower the traffic, the less dangerous it is for everyone:  for those on bikes, for pedestrians, and for people in cars, too.  And I imagine that the grinning cyclist you saw on Peoria at 5:15 on a Monday afternoon did consider the amount of traffic, the time of day, etc --- and he chose to ride on that street at that time, under those conditions.  That is not when and where you would choose to ride, and it's not when and where I would choose to ride, but he did make that choice.  When I'm driving around Tulsa, it doesn't aggravate me to see bikes on most streets, including Peoria.  I might have to slow down a bit.  So what?  If everyone got out of their cars and rode bikes or walked instead, Tulsa would be a better place.


So am I, unless it's a road where bikes are prohibited.

Probably has something to do with earning a living and Tulsa having no viable public transit option.

I expect that many of them had that choice influenced by Riverside Drive being closed for some project.  I'm sure the people in the neighborhoods would rather have the bicyclists come through their neighborhood than an endless stream of automobiles.

And he accepted the possibility of injury due to his choice, much as a bank robber accepts the risk of being shot in his job choice. 

Pokie Okies need to pull over occasionally just out of common courtesy to other citizens.  This applies for motor vehicles as well as bicycles.  I dislike following bicycles even if they can keep up speed.  If they fall, even due to no fault of their own, there may not be anything I can do to not hit them.  I don't like following motorcycles for the same reason.

You're stretching a bit there.

??    Can't miss a fallen bike??

By definition, you are supposed to maintain a safe distance to the vehicle in front of you for road conditions - written into the book of privileges regarding driving (Drivers manual).  So the first part is true - due to no fault of their own.  But if you or anyone hits them, then it is defined as that persons fault.  That person was going to fast for the road conditions regardless of posted speed limits.  Same thing with motorcycles.

Probably or possibly.  The people in the cars might have been going to or from work.  The guy on the bike might have been going to or from work.


Of course he accepted the possibility of injury due to his choice.  Riding a bike in the right lane on Peoria at 5:15 on a Monday is a legal choice.  I'm not saying it's a wise choice, but in contrast, robbing a bank is both illegal and unwise.


I agree.  That's common courtesy.  According to rebound, cars were backed up about a block behind the cyclist on Peoria, and the drivers slowed down, then passed him.  Dedicated, protected bike lanes on Tulsa's arterials would be nice and probably would have helped in this particular situation.  But even on streets with bike lanes, drivers need to slow down or stop from time to time, just out of common courtesy to other citizens who are walking, riding bikes, boarding buses, pulling into parking spaces, etc.



In my opinion, Tulsa would be better if fewer people drove and more people walked, rode bikes, or rode buses.  Public streets, especially Multi-Modal Urban Arterials, are common property for the common good, meant to be used by a variety of vehicles. 

I don't know how many cyclists rebound sees riding on arterials, but I see almost zero.  For me, it's such a rare occurrence that I can't remember the last time.  So I don't mind spending a few moments to slow down and wait for cyclist every now and then.  Someone on a bicycle has a right to be on the street, as I do in my car.  We need to learn how to share common resources with courtesy for others.


From around 17th St to Crow Creek, Peoria is in a neighborhood, essentially residential.  It's not really a stretch for me to say that if people would walk or ride bikes instead of drive cars, then Tulsa would be a better place.  It would be quieter and safer, at least ... probably healthier, too.

   

Not a bad discussion on all sides.   I'm not going to quote everything and try to respond to all points, but generally I get where Bamboo is coming from.   I also don't see many cyclists on major streets, and that's a good thing because (and this I think would be our main point of argument) I simply don't think that cyclists should ride on certain roads at certain times of day due to the general issues related to car/bicycle interactions.   On the other hand, I completely agree with the assertion that Tulsa would be  better off if more people rode or walked, or took mass transit in some form. As for Peoria, the point about it being basically residential from 17th to Crow Creek  is a good one, and I think I'd support re-striping it to make it a two-lane, with wider single car lanes and bike lanes on each side. But right now, with the conditions on Peoria and a lot of the major streets, I just don't think cyclists should ride on them. 

I disagree. You cyclist policy nerds take over too many threads.

It seems appropriate. Many cyclists don't want their own lane; they want to take over one from a car.

I prefer "Wonk" instead of Nerd.  ;D    But yeah, I thought of that.  Definite thread drift.  But it was Paul Tay,  and Tulsa Tough, and CBH, and...   OK, OK...   I'll try to keep on topic.

Do you really mean that??  Seems so out of character for you....


In case yes, as for taking over a lane - state law says they have the right to use the lane to the same degree as a car does.  Just as valid to say the cars want to take over a lane from a bicycle....

Ummm...it's public property, Michael, free to use provided you do so lawfully.

I think he was using satire...

https://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/tulsa-city-councilor-files-police-report-claiming-paul-tay-threatened/article_ca03e316-b350-50ac-9c8c-859f2cf9cba0.html

....was seen today huffing and puffing his bicycle past Monte Casino when the kids were being picked up.
Mommy and Daddy have some 'splaining to do.

FIFY

I hate bumping this thread but feel it's relevant.

https://www.facebook.com/tulsapolice/posts/10158351608808663

If you can't or don't want to get on FB, the gist of it is the following from the presser from TPD: