Get off the expressway.
I know that you want to make us weird and it is obvious that you want the attention, but quit it.
I understand your want to be a performance artist as well. Costumes can be fun too.
But this isn't clever. You can do better.
And stay the hell off Memorial too.
I almost ran into the back of you lastnight.
Maybe you remember me?
If I had of crashed my motorbike lastnight due to you making your "statement", guess who would have had the longer hospital stay recovering from a cranial-anal-boot-ectomy?
Your invisable after dark, Dude.
Next time, jdb
Who are you talking about?
I have seen Biker Fox around before about 5 years ago, is he the Bicycling Santa?
www.bikerfox.com
Two of them, eh?
Gonna need a bigger boot.
http://www.bikerfox.com/tulsaworld.htm
(http://www.bikerfox.com/tulsaworld_files/061116_D1_Foxsf5134_D1biker16.jpg)
I think it's hilarious.
I think they should take on Avery Drive outbound during rush hour. Unlike the Expry or Memorial Ave, Avery Drive has mega bike signage.
bikerfox is not santa. Santa is paul tay.
Bikerfox primarily rides memorial's center median, removing signs and doing occasional "bike tricks" in his spandex outfit.
Tay rides all over town and on highways
They should both be fined for reckless endangerment.
It's all fun and games till someone gets hurt or worse.
I love how they make people so mad.
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
I love how they make people so mad.
P.S. to deinstein
They're both on myspace.
quote:
Originally posted by jdb
And stay the hell off Memorial too.
I almost ran into the back of you lastnight.
Maybe you remember me?
If I had of crashed my motorbike lastnight due to you making your "statement", guess who would have had the longer hospital stay recovering from a cranial-anal-boot-ectomy?
Your invisable after dark, Dude.
Next time, jdb
Why don't you simply put the idiot out of his misery and run him over? You'll get a hero's medals from the cops, fo' shure. They hate him with a passion too. In fact, let's declare OPEN season on ALL bicyclists.
quote:
Originally posted by lsimmons
They should both be fined for reckless endangerment.
It's all fun and games till someone gets hurt or worse.
Worse. Forget about the fines. Just run them down.
quote:
Originally posted by ttownjoe
QuoteOriginally posted by lsimmons
They should both be fined for reckless endangerment.
It's all fun and games till someone gets hurt or worse.
Worse. Forget about the fines. Just run them down. It should be pretty easy. After all, they deserve it, right?
removed for racist slur
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid222/p3e21d58684e6152ac107ab3cbb81153c/eb2acae1.jpg)
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid222/pc021e7f95931edcd3929b49ee022e4ca/eb2acc73.jpg)
(http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid222/pd204d4c44d1cc02a1f451be9a6f4d319/eb2acc29.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj-dSPeyHd0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8wzVP_chdo&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e9IrlXSeko
Biker Fox has been around for years. He used to be very over weight and he started riding bike to lose weight and now he rides bike to encourage others to do the same. He is a bit strange but a very nice guy. He does not ride the highways and is usually on Memorial or Brookside (he loves to go where the motorcycles hang out and do tricks)
Don't confuse him with the Dirty Santa. Santa guy is also the one who was dragging around the inflateable penis a few years ago. Paul Tey or something like that. He's the same guy who puts blow up dolls on the back of his bike and runs for Mayor.
The santa guy is definately missing more than the top 3 floors of his two story building.
I figure one of these days the gene pool will cleanse itslef when he rides infront of a semi and that will be that.
quote:
Originally posted by Sangria
Biker Fox has been around for years. He used to be very over weight and he started riding bike to lose weight and now he rides bike to encourage others to do the same. He is a bit strange but a very nice guy. He does not ride the highways and is usually on Memorial or Brookside (he loves to go where the motorcycles hang out and do tricks)
Don't confuse him with the Dirty Santa. Santa guy is also the one who was dragging around the inflateable penis a few years ago. Paul Tey or something like that. He's the same guy who puts blow up dolls on the back of his bike and runs for Mayor.
The santa guy is definately missing more than the top 3 floors of his two story building.
I figure one of these days the gene pool will cleanse itslef when he rides infront of a semi and that will be that.
Avery Drive. Every Wednesday night, between 6-8:30. A whole bunch of 'em. Cull the HERD, people!
quote:
Originally posted by ttownjoe
quote:
Originally posted by Sangria
Biker Fox has been around for years. He used to be very over weight and he started riding bike to lose weight and now he rides bike to encourage others to do the same. He is a bit strange but a very nice guy. He does not ride the highways and is usually on Memorial or Brookside (he loves to go where the motorcycles hang out and do tricks)
Don't confuse him with the Dirty Santa. Santa guy is also the one who was dragging around the inflateable penis a few years ago. Paul Tey or something like that. He's the same guy who puts blow up dolls on the back of his bike and runs for Mayor.
The santa guy is definately missing more than the top 3 floors of his two story building.
I figure one of these days the gene pool will cleanse itslef when he rides infront of a semi and that will be that.
Avery Drive. Every Wednesday night, between 6-8:30. Tay and a whole bunch of 'em. Cull the HERD, people!
quote:
Originally posted by ttownjoe
quote:
Originally posted by ttownjoe
QuoteOriginally posted by lsimmons
They should both be fined for reckless endangerment.
It's all fun and games till someone gets hurt or worse.
Worse. Forget about the fines. Just run them down. It should be pretty easy. After all, they deserve it, right?
Very nice, time to go away again Paul.
quote:
Originally posted by ttownjoe
quote:
Originally posted by ttownjoe
QuoteOriginally posted by lsimmons
They should both be fined for reckless endangerment.
It's all fun and games till someone gets hurt or worse.
Worse. Forget about the fines. Just run them down. It should be pretty easy. After all, they deserve it, right?
removed for racial slur
I love racism!
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
quote:
Originally posted by ttownjoe
quote:
Originally posted by ttownjoe
QuoteOriginally posted by lsimmons
They should both be fined for reckless endangerment.
It's all fun and games till someone gets hurt or worse.
Worse. Forget about the fines. Just run them down. It should be pretty easy. After all, they deserve it, right?
removed for racial slur
I love racism!
You do understand that "ttownjoe" is just Paul Tay again, and that Paul is the biking Santa and that he's calling himself that for shock value, right?
Several years here my primary transportation was a custom cut Bianchi. True enough I rarely left the IDL, but still that's how I hupped around.
As a semi-transplant from the West Coast - where bikes are everywhere - I have no problem with bicycles on the roadways and believe we can all share the road.
Item: out there bicyces pay taxes too in one of several ways.
However, riding the middle of a lane, after dark, with no lights is an unsafe situation. If it were so for just the dumb@ss on the bike then that would be one thing, but when it puts everyone on that stretch of road at risk, it becomes another.
That being said, I'll run down a cager who's more interested in their phone conversation then their driving long before I'll jump a bicyclist - even one that is just asking for it.
jdb
I am a bad, bad person. I give a hearty 'Gooooo Dan Chang!' when I see 'Santa' and a rowdy 'We love Biker Foooooxxth!' Frank always cuts and runs real quick like and ceases all tricks.
Isn't there a saying that goes something like,
"Some people are alive simply becaue it is illegal to kill them"?
That Santa bike wagon guy fits the bill. 150 years ago, a guy like that would get gunned down in the street, and everyone would just look the other way.
Think about it. Only recently (in the larger scheme of civilization) has our society and law enforcement become so efficient that stupid people are protected to the point that we are de-evolving as a species...
Regardless of how it can be scrutinized it cannot be said of him that he is not exercising his rights and securing yours. Remember how stupid it was for the colonist to throw that good tea overboard in the harbor merely because it had a tax placed on it? All of life is in the eyes of the beholder.
I agree that sometimes we need a Boston Tea Party to shake things up, and I probably feel that the world is a pretty messed up place--to the same extent that Paul Tay does.
But I will NEVER, EVER resort to riding around on a tricylce wagon thingy dressed up as Santa.
LOL.
Remember when Lloyd Benson told Dan Quayle, "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy!"?
Well, if Paul Tay were reading this I would say, "You sir, are no Boston Tea Party!"
--
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Well, if Paul Tay were reading this I would say, "You sir, are no Boston Tea Party!"
Screw tea parties. They for rich people, like Mommy Warbucks and hubby. I NEED beer.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Think about it. Only recently (in the larger scheme of civilization) has our society and law enforcement become so efficient that stupid people are protected to the point that we are de-evolving as a species...
Yep. Definately proof positive intelligent design is a SCAM.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Regardless of how it can be scrutinized it cannot be said of him that he is not exercising his rights and securing yours. Remember how stupid it was for the colonist to throw that good tea overboard in the harbor merely because it had a tax placed on it? All of life is in the eyes of the beholder.
[}:)][}:)][}:)]
Post of the century.
Anyone taking bets on how long ttownjoe, aka Paul Tay, lasts on the forum before he gets kicked off again?
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Anyone taking bets on how long ttownjoe, aka Paul Tay, lasts on the forum before he gets kicked off again?
[}:)]
50 clams he's gone by 1300 today.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
I think they should take on Avery Drive outbound during rush hour. Unlike the Expry or Memorial Ave, Avery Drive has mega bike signage.
Yep. Memorial and the BA are dangerous for bikes. They are dangerous for motor vehicles too. Why stop at banning bikes from Memorial and the expressways?
Ban ALL vehicles from the roadways and allow pedestrians to use the roadways ONLY after church on Sundays.
In my personal opinion, Paul Tay is pathetic and will do anything for attention. He don't care if it is good or bad attention so long as someone sees him.
He must have a very low self esteme to have to stoop to degrading himself by dragging around inflated penis' and blow up dolls.
quote:
Originally posted by Sangria
In my personal opinion, Paul Tay is pathetic and will do anything for attention. He don't care if it is good or bad attention so long as someone sees him.
He must have a very low self esteme to have to stoop to degrading himself by dragging around inflated penis' and blow up dolls.
You don't laugh?
I mean, I think it's hysterical...
You're driving down a busy road with SUVs and uptight people...and BAM! Paul Tay...Santa, Blow Up Dolls...absolutely hilarious.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Anyone taking bets on how long ttownjoe, aka Paul Tay, lasts on the forum before he gets kicked off again?
[}:)]
Pretty quick
Can't say as if I have ever seen either one of them. I knew Frank in the 1980's, but have never seen him riding his bicycle.
Guess they rarely come to Mid Town, and because I have no use for much of anything in South Tulsa, I make it a point to never go south of 21st unless it is a necessity or a life or death type deal.
Not going south of 21st is diehard.
I put my boundaries at 41st Street.
And yes, these people are all over Tulsa.
To all the spoiled drivers of this little town with one of the shortest commute times in the country: slow down and read your driver's manual.
Bicycling Santa and BikerFox--are these the icons of cycling in Tulsa? And what about this group's highly intelligent, socially conscientious responses to them?
Bicycling Santa was pictured splitting the lane, which is illegal. BikerFox is afraid of traffic and rides the median, which is illegal. But unique as these two are, the people on this forum seem to have no clue about what is legal and safe when it comes to cycling. Threatening to run people down? Is that funny to you? You know what's funnier than that? An all day seat in front of a driver's education instructor. Or how about a little jail time? I know several police officers who are also cyclists and would be glad to oblige you.
Just for the record, I'm the guy in yellow panniers who rides all over town, doesn't swerve out of the way when you yell and throw things, signals his turns, takes the right-hand lane, stops at lights, and will even stop to have a civil conversation with you, if you're actually civil. No, I'm not taking a lane on the B.A., so keep your one-fingered salutes to yourselves--although until they ban bikes from HWY 51, Santa has a right to use the shoulder. But unlike Santa, I belong to a growing group of people who don't want your attention. We're usually going somewhere, like work or school, so keep in mind that when you yell out your car window, the doppler effect makes you sound retarded and incoherent, beyond any actual significance your words might have.
P.S. Stop passing other cars on the right at high speed. Bad "car"ma will follow.
Ok, Mr Outraged Bicyclist, let me tell you what the rest of us see...
Maybe you do signal your turns - you are one of the few.
Maybe you obey the street signs - again you are one of the few.
In one day I have had the green light and had a bicyclist blow the stop and ride out in front of me. It's nothing to see them riding against traffic on Skelley Drive. I have almost hit them.
They do what they want, where they want and thumb their noses at laws intended to keep them AND US safe on the streets.
For every one rider who does what he or she should, there are many more who are a complete nightmare to the rest of us.
As for Paul Tey - yes, I think he is funny in a Beavis and Butthead kind of way. But it doesn't mean I approve of what he does.
I think people should be able to cycle wherever they want until there are biking lanes on every main road.
One of the things that pisses me about some of these byciclist they sometimes take up a whole lane.When you are a bike stay as far right to the side of the road as possible.The police should give any bicyclist a ticket who ride in the middle of a lane.I used to ride a bike a to work everyday so I know it is possible to stay to the far right of the road as possible.
quote:
Originally posted by jamesrage
One of the things that pisses me about some of these byciclist they sometimes take up a whole lane.When you are a bike stay as far right to the side of the road as possible.The police should give any bicyclist a ticket who ride in the middle of a lane.I used to ride a bike a to work everyday so I know it is possible to stay to the far right of the road as possible.
But by law they are entitled to the lane.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
Quote
we have a lot of laws that grant certain rights, doesnt mean they make sense in this day and age.
Actually, taking the lane makes a lot of sense. Motorists are VERY good at judging when something is in front of them, but they're not as good at judging how much clearance they have to the right. So if a cyclist rides down the fog line, he'll have motor vehicles going right by his elbow. If he moves further left, motorists have to wait until it's safe to pass. And it's always the responsibility of an overtaking driver to do so safely. No one - regardless of their mode of transportation - is obligated to get out of his way.
It seems counter-intuitive that a cyclist is safer by moving further left in the lane, but it's true. Motorists will usually pass to his left with about as much room as he leaves to his right.
Drivers often don't understand why a cyclist would take the full width of the lane, and they mistake it as arrogance or an attempt to impede traffic. Nothing in the law requires anyone to do something unsafe, and riding as far right as possible is definitely unsafe. Oklahoma law was changed to reflect this last year. The old language said that cyclists were to ride as far right as practicable. The new language says they're to ride as far right as is safe. And the perception of safety is greatly different when your protection consists of a few layers of fabric and a styrofoam hat rather than a ton or more of steel and glass.
Isn't it odd that these people feel the cycling Santa is in their way to rush home to lie to their children that Ole' Santa is going to bring them all the presents they can think of if their credit card is not maxed out?
Remember before the auto these problems never happened. Much never happened before the days of the plastic cards either. The man is making a point and it is a shame that grown educated persons cannot cope with it.
shadows, I'm so happy you came back to the forum. [8D]
We actually had advertising for our state-wide site on Paul Tay's rickshaw wagon for a while.
Sorry ... I had to. I think there are photos somewhere, but they kill me every time. [:D][:D]
Nonsense. There are "biking lanes" on every main road and every side street. In fact, these lanes are useful for all vehicular traffic. Cyclists are already expected to behave as operators of vehicles on all roads. All other behaviors invite confusion and conflict.
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
I think people should be able to cycle wherever they want until there are biking lanes on every main road.
Okay, I'll bite. If they are expected to operate as the rest of the vehicles on the road:
Where are their signal lights?
When is the last time you saw one give a signal (other than waving or fingering)
When did you last see a car weave back and forth between sidewalks and roadways?
Where are their brake lights?
Where are their Head lights?
When did you last see a car just pause at a red light then keep going?
When did you last see a car slip into the 4ft between lanes of cars waiting in line to get to the front?
How much did you pay for your bicycling license and your license plate? Is your license plate lighted and easy to read?
My point is that bikes are not built for city streets or planned for on city streets but are expected to follow the same rules. Reality is that bikes on busy roadways exist at the pleasure of 3000lb vehicles carrying half witted drivers pre-occupied with cell phones and mental problems (on a good day). Not understanding that can be tragic.
I wish we did have protected bike lanes and bikes that were designed for street use, but we don't.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Okay, I'll bite. If they are expected to operate as the rest of the vehicles on the road:
My point is that bikes are not built for city streets or planned for on city streets but are expected to follow the same rules. ...
I wish we did have protected bike lanes and bikes that were designed for street use, but we don't.
Let's take these in order:
1. State law does not require signal lights on bicycles, pedestrian, or horse-drawn vehicles.
2. The last time I saw a cyclist give a signal was today...as I rode home from work.
3. Motorists seldom weave between sidewalks and roadways. Neither do experienced cyclists. They take the lane just like any other vehicle.
4. State law does not require brake lights on bicycles, pedestrians, or horse-drawn vehicles.
5. State law requires a white front light visible from 500(?) feet, a red rear reflector and a red rear light, with appropriate specifications as to their visibility at a distance. This only applies if the bicycle is ridden at night.
6. Motorists seldom come to a complete stop at stop signs, though compliance ar red lights is much greater. Red light running is a ticketable offense for anyone on the road, not just cyclists, though it's seldom enforced. I truly wish it were.
7. While it's illegal for a cyclist or a motorcyclist to pass BETWEEN lanes of traffic, it's entirely legal for a bicyclist to pass stopped traffic on the right. It may not always be smart, but it's legal.
8. As you know, there are no licensing requirements for cyclists. Licensing was instituted for motorists nearly a century ago as a means of ensuring that motorists met a minimum standard of performance. Since motor vehicles are capable of extensive damage to people and property, it was necessary to see that the operators were minimally competent. Finally, there are no requirements for a bicycle tag or lighting for a tag in state law, though some municipalities enforce such laws - primarily college towns - as a means of fleecing the student population just a little bit more.
Interestingly enough, paved streets, highway maps, and pneumatic tires were all introduced as a means to increase the use of bicycle traffic. The advent of the safety bicycle in the 1890's was the death knell for livery stables and the extensive use of horse-drawn vehicles on city streets. People who couldn't afford a horse were able to purchase a bicycle for personal transport. The machines were so popular that mass-production methods were invented in order to keep up with the demand. A decade later, Henry Ford drew on that experience when he started building the Model T.
So, if you don't mind a slightly facetious tone, since bicycles predate the introduction of automobiles, we cyclists have a greater historical claim to the streets than do motorists. So get off OUR road!
When it comes to transportation, regardless of type, there are three things necessary to the safe usage of our streets and roads. They are: Education, Engineering , and Enforcement. I work with the local advocacy group on the education end. Public Works is responsible to see that the road system is usable for all modes of transportation, not motor vehicles alone. And finally, law enforcement is supposed to identify and ticket those individuals who simply cannot obey the law, regardless of their transportation choice.
Damn, I'm long-winded tonight! Gotta cut back on the coffee.
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p315/TYProle/emperortay-2copy.jpg)
Okay, this is not a popular view. But here goes. I am a bicyclist too. I love riding but have always been surprised at how cavalierly we take to the road with vehicles 100's times our weight with little or no safety in mind.
No offense but the point I wanted to make was just what you explained. I know there are exceptions for bicycles. That is what I find amazing. Motorcycles, the cousin to bikes, at least make an effort to protect the driver and conform to safety rules of the road. Signal lights, brake lights, lane change rules etc.
Some bicycles now can easily travel as fast as minimum speed limits in neighborhoods but lack minimum equipment a car would have to have. They can do serious damage to pedestrians as well as operators. The fact the state sanctions it is no defense. The state didn't use to require seat belts either. Or standard height bumpers. Or child seats. When I see one of those child carriers on the back of a bike I shudder. My neighbor's little girl broke her leg in one.
BTW you may have seen someone use hand signals but it is rare from my experience. How many "experienced" bikers are on the road % wise. Judging by how many pass me at light speed when jogging without so much as a grunt I would say less than half. It isn't rare to see a biker weave onto the running path, onto 21st, onto the sidewalk and back to the street. I see it daily. If you're behind one of these weavers you just have to guess where he's going next.
No license tags required? So a biker can ride by a car, key it, road rage the driver and the best any one can do is say, "well officer, he was wearing a Santa Suit and riding a blue Schwinn." That's not comforting.
It may be the way things are right now but its hardly defensible. If you want serious rights enforced for bikers you should champion serious changes in safety including bike lanes or dedicated bike roads. Or get rid of the cars and go back to the 1890's when most bike regulations were written.
Rant off.
City law requires lights on bicycles at night.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Okay, this is not a popular view. But here goes. I am a bicyclist too. I love riding but have always been surprised at how cavalierly we take to the road with vehicles 100's times our weight with little or no safety in mind.
...If you want serious rights enforced for bikers you should champion serious changes in safety including bike lanes or dedicated bike roads. Or get rid of the cars and go back to the 1890's when most bike regulations were written.
Rant off.
Bike lanes, side paths, or the oddly separated bike facilities proposed in NYC are primarily for the benefit of motorists, not cyclists. The intent is to get those pesky cyclists off the road and away from 'real' traffic. They also address the very real fears that many bicyclists experience when riding in traffic. They believe that bike lanes or similar facilities make them safe from rear-end collisions. But that's a belief that is not supported by facts. Getting hit from behind is a small fraction (about 8%) of all bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. The overwhelming majority occur at intersections - about 60% if I recall right.
Make no mistake - the fear is very real. But the remedy is education. Riding a bicycle in traffic is not a death-defying experience best left to those with a serious death wish. It's not rocket science. It's an additional set of skills, not unlike adding motorcycling skills on top of one's driver education. We teach those skills in the League of American Bicyclist's Road1 class. The next class is coming up in March, and the sign up is available on the Tulsa Parks website, but I'll have to find it.
http://www.active.com/search/org_browse.cfm?org=tulsapr
Say a road like Harvard.
One lane north. One lane South. Turning lane.
On each side of the road, a biking lane.
Don't like it? Ride a bike.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
Quote
we have a lot of laws that grant certain rights, doesnt mean they make sense in this day and age.
Actually, taking the lane makes a lot of sense. Motorists are VERY good at judging when something is in front of them, but they're not as good at judging how much clearance they have to the right. So if a cyclist rides down the fog line, he'll have motor vehicles going right by his elbow. If he moves further left, motorists have to wait until it's safe to pass. And it's always the responsibility of an overtaking driver to do so safely. No one - regardless of their mode of transportation - is obligated to get out of his way.
It seems counter-intuitive that a cyclist is safer by moving further left in the lane, but it's true. Motorists will usually pass to his left with about as much room as he leaves to his right.
Drivers often don't understand why a cyclist would take the full width of the lane, and they mistake it as arrogance or an attempt to impede traffic. Nothing in the law requires anyone to do something unsafe, and riding as far right as possible is definitely unsafe. Oklahoma law was changed to reflect this last year. The old language said that cyclists were to ride as far right as practicable. The new language says they're to ride as far right as is safe. And the perception of safety is greatly different when your protection consists of a few layers of fabric and a styrofoam hat rather than a ton or more of steel and glass.
unmotorized bikes should not be allowed on any 4 lane road with a speed limit over 30mph. period.
quote:
unmotorized bikes should not be allowed on any 4 lane road with a speed limit over 30mph. period.
Yes, I understand how difficult it is to pass a small, slow moving bicyclist when there's an entire open lane to his left. It takes great driving skill to change lanes and pass safely.
Oddly enough, it's the two lane roads that frustrate impatient drivers when it's impossible to overtake safely. I call it the 'suicide maneuver'. A truly inspired driver will pass when there's oncoming traffic, putting himself, the oncoming driver, and the cyclist at risk. It's hardly the cyclist's fault that some motorists are so stupid. Worse, there are sometimes 'lemmings' who'll follow him, even if they can't see what's coming.
i can tolerate the average cyclist clipping along at 20-30 mph, which is why I have no problem with them on neighborhood streets, but they have no place on multilane streets where they cannot keep up with the flow of traffic. It has nothing to do with inability of drivers, it has to do with the abilities of the cyclist.
Soooo....if I understand this right, you don't have a problem with cyclists on narrow roads where they're harder to pass, but you do have a problem with them on wide roads where they're easy to pass?
The speed issue is irrelevant. Public roads are just that - public - and they're for the use of all of us regardless of our transportation choice.
What ticks me off is that cyclists can use the street, but they do not carry liability insurance. If one of those idiot cyclists causes an accident, I guess the person(s) in the cars are SOL.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
What ticks me off is that cyclists can use the street, but they do not carry liability insurance. If one of those idiot cyclists causes an accident, I guess the person(s) in the cars are SOL.
Somewhere up above I wrote that licensing for drivers was instituted because of the potential damage to people and property posed by motor vehicles. While it's true that cyclists cause occasional injury and death, it's a very rare event. Besides, the potential damage from 250 pounds of bicycle and rider (in my case, at least!) can't compare with the damage done by a ton or more of steel and glass, even at low speeds.
But you seem to imply that cyclists are exempt from responsibility for any damages they may cause. We all know that's simply not true. Riding a bicycle doesn't give any of us a 'get out of jail free' card. If it did, the roads would be jammed with bicyclists.
Next.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
What ticks me off is that cyclists can use the street, but they do not carry liability insurance. If one of those idiot cyclists causes an accident, I guess the person(s) in the cars are SOL.
Somewhere up above I wrote that licensing for drivers was instituted because of the potential damage to people and property posed by motor vehicles. While it's true that cyclists cause occasional injury and death, it's a very rare event. Besides, the potential damage from 250 pounds of bicycle and rider (in my case, at least!) can't compare with the damage done by a ton or more of steel and glass, even at low speeds.
But you seem to imply that cyclists are exempt from responsibility for any damages they may cause. We all know that's simply not true. Riding a bicycle doesn't give any of us a 'get out of jail free' card. If it did, the roads would be jammed with bicyclists.
Next.
Not even close. How dead do you have to be to require insurance? A 250lb load moving at 25 mph is deadly. Try running into a wall and see. Somewhere in my past I remember talking to a jogger who was hit. It is not all that rare. And in the bigger picture even if the bicyclist is the only one hurt we all pay even if he has insurance. Just like we pay for smokers who are sure its their risk only. Absolutely no reason for a bicycle capable of negotiating city streets to not be insured. None.
Licensing may have been designed for cars but that is hardly a reason to not extend it to bikes that ride the city streets. You're logic is failing....
Next.
quote:
It is not all that rare. And in the bigger picture even if the bicyclist is the only one hurt we all pay even if he has insurance. ...Absolutely no reason for a bicycle capable of negotiating city streets to not be insured. None.
Extending that logic, it would be reasonable to require insurance verification from anyone using the public way, motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and presumably horseback riders. Each is capable of inflicting some harm or damage, but the crux of the argument is how much damage and how often. If bicyclists were causing wide-spread harm, the state and the city would clearly act to mitigate that harm by enacting legislation. This has not happened because such damages are (thankfully) rare.
I can think of two incidents over the last year in which a cyclist killed a pedestrian, yet the carnage inflicted by motorists surpasses that on an hourly basis.
Next.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
quote:
It is not all that rare. And in the bigger picture even if the bicyclist is the only one hurt we all pay even if he has insurance. ...Absolutely no reason for a bicycle capable of negotiating city streets to not be insured. None.
Extending that logic, it would be reasonable to require insurance verification from anyone using the public way, motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and presumably horseback riders. Each is capable of inflicting some harm or damage, but the crux of the argument is how much damage and how often. If bicyclists were causing wide-spread harm, the state and the city would clearly act to mitigate that harm by enacting legislation. This has not happened because such damages are (thankfully) rare.
I can think of two incidents over the last year in which a cyclist killed a pedestrian, yet the carnage inflicted by motorists surpasses that on an hourly basis.
Next.
No points there. First, I don't agree with your extension of logic. I carry identification (a license). I am responsible for any damage I do and if I spent time jogging on public streets in traffic at 25mph I would be required eventually to be licensed and insured (besides getting my own talk show). If you own a horse that regularly walks on city roadways, I assure you it better be insured and licensed. Even my Schnauzer has a license tag and required to have shots.
You aren't making valid comparisons. If we had the number of bicyclists that they have in China that might be a good comparison. I'm sure someone will pull stats out to show injuries but this really is common sense. If you run with the big boys (semis, cars, motorcycles) you should be prepared for licensing, insurance and injury. Good luck with educating the public to just watch out for you. They can barely handle their own cars.
With gas prices, tempertures and tempers rising, bikes and cars seem to be coming into greater conflict.
A common complaint by motorists is bikes aren't registered or taxed, and should have no right to the road (ignoring the current vehicle statues in the Great State of Oklahoma which grant cyclists the same rights as motor vehicles - see HB2926 - http://www.tulsawheelmen.com/articles.php?article=27 )
Our friends at the Texas Bicycle Coalition with the help of a Canadian study figured out that bicyclists are actually subsidizing motorists.
www.malcolmfoster.com/CyclistsPayTheirShare.pdf
Follow this:
- 95% of cycling adults own automobiles, they pay registration and fuel taxes for an average of $700 a year per car same as every other motorist.
- It costs cities and counties over $1100 per vehicle per year to maintain streets and roads.
- The extra $400 comes from government's general funds, which are sales, property and income taxes. Taxes that are paid by everyone, including the 5% of cyclists who don't own cars. Even renters indirectly pay property taxes.
Given that most of us drive our cars many more miles per year than we ride our bikes, we're paying an average of 50 times more per mile traveled than a motorist.
In Oklahoma we pay about 35¢ a gallon in taxes on gasoline, a few cents less for diesel. That is not a sales tax. Even as the price of gas goes up, the tax remains the same. If road costs were truly reflected in the price of gas, we'd be paying over $6 a gallon for gas today.
Bicyclists, along with government, subsidizes motor vehicle usage.
So the next time you're confronted with the "taxes" issue, you've got the answer.
Motorists aren't mad. They're jealous.
quote:
Originally posted by Pete
With gas prices, tempertures and tempers rising, bikes and cars seem to be coming into greater conflict.
A common complaint by motorists is bikes aren't registered or taxed, and should have no right to the road (ignoring the current vehicle statues in the Great State of Oklahoma which grant cyclists the same rights as motor vehicles - see HB2926 - http://www.tulsawheelmen.com/articles.php?article=27 )
Our friends at the Texas Bicycle Coalition with the help of a Canadian study figured out that bicyclists are actually subsidizing motorists.
www.malcolmfoster.com/CyclistsPayTheirShare.pdf
Follow this:
- 95% of cycling adults own automobiles, they pay registration and fuel taxes for an average of $700 a year per car same as every other motorist.
- It costs cities and counties over $1100 per vehicle per year to maintain streets and roads.
- The extra $400 comes from government's general funds, which are sales, property and income taxes. Taxes that are paid by everyone, including the 5% of cyclists who don't own cars. Even renters indirectly pay property taxes.
Given that most of us drive our cars many more miles per year than we ride our bikes, we're paying an average of 50 times more per mile traveled than a motorist.
In Oklahoma we pay about 35¢ a gallon in taxes on gasoline, a few cents less for diesel. That is not a sales tax. Even as the price of gas goes up, the tax remains the same. If road costs were truly reflected in the price of gas, we'd be paying over $6 a gallon for gas today.
Bicyclists, along with government, subsidizes motor vehicle usage.
So the next time you're confronted with the "taxes" issue, you've got the answer.
Motorists aren't mad. They're jealous.
Spin. Weak spin at that. The assumption is you drive your car less because you ride your bike more than the average motorist, therefore you pay more per mile for road maintenance. I can use that logic too. My car weighs less than my neighbors suburban and he vacations more than I do. I'm so jealous.
[/quote]
Spin. Weak spin at that. The assumption is you drive your car less because you ride your bike more than the average motorist, therefore you pay more per mile for road maintenance. I can use that logic too. My car weighs less than my neighbors suburban and he vacations more than I do. I'm so jealous.
[/quote]
Enlightenment dawns! I understand now. Facts - however interesting - are irrelevant.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
Spin. Weak spin at that. The assumption is you drive your car less because you ride your bike more than the average motorist, therefore you pay more per mile for road maintenance. I can use that logic too. My car weighs less than my neighbors suburban and he vacations more than I do. I'm so jealous.
[/quote]
Enlightenment dawns! I understand now. Facts - however interesting - are irrelevant.
[/quote]
I think we're at a stalemate. We've stated our positions, facts are not in evidence, and neither of us is moving. I wish you luck in your endeavor to educate the public and I'll watch carefully for you in traffic.[8D]