Greetings. My wife and I are seriously considering a move from Chicago to Tulsa, and I've been reading up on the city's online buzz, trying to get a feel for the city. One part of life that I haven't heard much about is cycling within the city. Here's what I'd like to know:
a. Do you feel that the city's infrastructure lends itself to safe cycling?
b. Do you or does anyone you know bike to/from work or school?
c. Is there any community group that promotes cycling or works with the city planners to do so?
Thanks! I hope someone can enlighten me!
Here is a bike trails map.
http://map.incog.org/website/trails/viewer.htm
Here are some local groups...
http://www.tulsabicycleclub.com/misc_tulsa_trails.php
http://www.tulsawheelmen.com/
Here is a group that organizes Bike to Work Days.
http://www.tulsacommuter.com/Bike.htm
a. Infrastrcture lends itself to safe cycling? Probaby about as good as any midwestern city I have been to.
b. Know anyone who bikes to work or school? Not really, but they have just instigated a yellow bike program on the TU campus.
c. Any community group to promote cycling, etc.? see above post.
My feel is that Tulsa is getting better and there are some woonderful biking trails and roadways around town. But there are definitely some horrible parts of town where biking or walking simply was not ever part of the equation. So If you like biking on a regular basis I would move to a part of town where there is easy access to the trail system, or be prepared to fight some traffic or drive to where you want to bike. I used to live near Riverside and it was a joy to just be able to pop out the garage and be a block away from the River Parks trail system. As a matter of fact there was a school parking lot near my house where one of the biking clubs would meet to start their rides all the time, 45th and Peoria.
Popped onto the link on your profile. If that is your wife, she is an incredible photograper. It will be great to have someone of that caliber in our town. She may find that she can be the big fish in this small pond and be quite admired. Judging from first glance, you and your wife are just the kind of people Tulsa is trying to gear itself up to attract. Tulsa has had some rough times but is turning the corner. There is a lot of buzz, new energy, and hope in the air. You can see that Tulsa is looking and searching for a new identity and direction. There are many that will welcome you to our community for your presence will add to the gathering influences of like minded individuals which are spurring Tulsa towards that new and brighter future.
Good Luck [:)]
I commuted to work by bike for years, and even lived without a car in Tulsa for about 6 months. (Since back surgery, I'm not biking much any more.)
Bicycle commuting probably wouldn't have been so easy, except that I lived in midtown (and close to the river) and worked downtown.
As a cyclist, living near the river is a definite plus. (If you live near Riverside, you have an infinite north/south bike route.) Also, I personally think that living in older neighborhoods is always better b/c they tend to be scaled for pedestrians/cyclists in a way that the more car dependent areas are not. (OK, and they're more beautiful, too!...whoops! Personal bias!) I live within a mile or two from Cherry Street, Brookside and downtown, which means that I could even bike to restaurants after work without breaking a sweat.
Most roads don't have bike lanes, and there are a lot of streets that you wouldn't want to be caught dead on...or should I say: biking on some streets could cause death. On the bright side, there are a lot of streets where people are more courteous and you can safely travel. (For example, I feel reasonably safe on Peoria, but not Harvard or Lewis...and no amount of money would cause me to bike on S. Memorial... meanwhile, 36th is a great east/west street for cyclists.)
As a cyclist, I figured out safe routes to get to most places I needed to go. Usually, this would include a combination of bike trail, side streets, and the more bike-friendly arterial streets.
Some employers have bike racks and locker rooms...but I think most don't. And, in fact, most places in the city don't have bike racks...so I always have a long cable for locking my bike to trees or whatever I can find.
Good luck and welcome to T-town!
Everyone's been throwing out terms like Cherry Street, Midtown, Brookside, etc. If you haven't already seen it, you might find this topic useful if you want to know a little bit more about those terms we're throwing around:
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5613
This last summer Tulsa hosted a huge event: the TulsaTough. Cyclists from around the world attended and Tulsans came out in large numbers to support it in its first year. I would imagine that this event will only get bigger.
http://www.tulsatough.com/ (//%22http://www.tulsatough.com/%22)
We also have a bar in the downtown Brady District that is owned by enthusiasts called Sound Pony.
Hi everyone, thanks very much for the speedy responses, I really do appreciate it. Artist thanks for the kind words regarding my wife's work. I also agree that she's talented, but of course I am biased on that point. [:)]
perspicuity85, thanks for the info. I actually lived in Tulsa back in the summer of '98 so I'm somewhat familiar with the layout. At the time I was driving to work every day (at the old BlueRose bar, RIP) but upon moving to Chicago I discovered how valuable a bike-friendly city can be for so many reasons. There is an amazing bike advocacy group (//%22http://www.biketraffic.org/%22) that works closely with the Dept of Transportation to ensure that cycling is considered in the city's ongoing development. Maybe Tulsa is ready for something along those lines.. thoughts on that?
We are looking at property at the moment, and I do agree that living close to DT, Cherry St, etc. is important. The urban Sprawl of the south side seems best suited for SUVs. I've always thought Tulsa is a beautiful city that could be the perfect cycling community with a little work. The weather, the culture, it's all there!
The bad news is that most surface streets are extemely dangerous for commuting, with the good being that Tulsans have extensive bicycling opportunities free from traffic. Ya'll can bike from far southeastern Tulsa County to far north Tulsa County with just a wee jog through the wasteland downtown.
I would recommend The Tulsan (//%22http://www.thetulsan.com/events.html%22) for links to event-related sights and thinks to do in T-Town.
Here's a story about the city extending a trail right through the urban core:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070109_Ne_A15_Trail46385
I didn't realize they were extending this trail. It's one more small but vital addition to midtown/downtown to make it more liveable. If you were thinking about re-locating to anywhere along the Peoria corridor, this trail has got to encourage you.
I cannot say enough good things about the Osage Prairie Trail. It begins at OSU (NE corner of NE lot) and goes to Skiatook. Along the way some blighted neighborhoods are on display, but past 56th st N (//%22http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address&country=US&popflag=0&latitude=&longitude=&name=&phone=&level=&addtohistory=&cat=&address=5700+n+madison+ave&city=tulsa&state=ok&zipcode=%22) (with its new parking lot!) the ride is 100% country! This is one of my favorite things about Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Here's a story about the city extending a trail right through the urban core:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070109_Ne_A15_Trail46385
I didn't realize they were extending this trail. It's one more small but vital addition to midtown/downtown to make it more liveable. If you were thinking about re-locating to anywhere along the Peoria corridor, this trail has got to encourage you.
that's encouraging indeed. although I'm not sure what to make of this:
"The neighborhood didn't want this trail coming through, so we did our best to accommodate that request," said Glen Sams, a senior engineer with the city's Pubic Works Department.Wouldn't most neighborhoods welcome a bike trail?
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
I cannot say enough good things about the Osage Prairie Trail. It begins at OSU (NE corner of NE lot) and goes to Skiatook. Along the way some blighted neighborhoods are on display, but past 56th st N (//%22http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address&country=US&popflag=0&latitude=&longitude=&name=&phone=&level=&addtohistory=&cat=&address=5700+n+madison+ave&city=tulsa&state=ok&zipcode=%22) (with its new parking lot!) the ride is 100% country! This is one of my favorite things about Tulsa.
This sounds awesome. When I land in Tulsa, I hope to see some of you on the trails.
The neighborhood wanted the trail, but not on-street through the neighborhood. They wanted it on the ODOT R.O.W. behind the neighborhood. This was very difficult to get ODOT to agree to, but they finally did.
WWW.BIKERFOX.COM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj-dSPeyHd0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8wzVP_chdo&mode=related&search=
I am a bad influence. Everytime I see either of them I scream like a groupie ('Gooooo Dan Chang!' and 'We love you, Bikerfox!!!') Tay likes it, Bikerfox (Frank) kinda freaks out.
Kenosha says the neighborhood did not want on-street traffic. The parking lot at 56th may have been in response to shared concerns about the neighborhood.
Chicagoan, if you ride the Osage I guarantee you will see less than a handful of riders each visit - including weekends.
that youTube video to "Biking in Oklahoma" is great. it looks like it cuts off... is there a continuation somewhere?
Bikerfox is well known in the cycling community up here too. Seems like any time a forum starts a pictures thread, he pops up. I honestly had no idea he was from Tulsa!
I absolutely think we should vote to have that song at the end of the first video, be Tulsa Nows theme song lol.
"And let south Tulsa buuuuuurn" [:P] love it lol.
a. Not at all, this city is one of the worst planned for cycling I have ever seen.
b. I do deliveries as a job, but besides that I ride my bike everywhere unless the weather is hideous.
c. I have no idea.
Now I'll read the rest of the thread to see...
Hey, Chicago. Stay in Chicago. We don't want any carpet-bagging' outta-towners to come in here and actually try to bike on urban streets. Cops will give ya a ticket for impeding traffic or worse, reckless driving.
Stay off the trails too. Ya might get ROBBED.
post edited and user banned (paul tay)
It's like anywhere, takes riding the road's to get the nack of it. Some spots require swinging up onto sidewalks, storm drain grating turned the wrong way, wicked curbs, etc.
Collectively, we are pretty crappy about keeping shoulders free of debris and cars here have little reason to stay out of the bike lanes. California has some pretty big fines for allowing one's car tire to even touch the paint of a bike lane.
However, you can bet your wallet you won't see our local officials (the very people that could make the roadways more friendly) humping around town on bikes.
Thing about biking in the midwest, as opposed to that of the west coast, is it's seasonal - much less time in the saddle - and people here stop riding bikes as soon as they get a license to drive.
Somehow (for more than a few cagers) this equates to adults on bikes are to poor to own a car and are just in the way: or worse, they become targets.
That said, there are far worse cities to live and bike in...Houston, TX. comes to mind.
Ride invisable, jdb
quote:
Originally posted by ChicagoJoe
Greetings. My wife and I are seriously considering a move from Chicago to Tulsa, and I've been reading up on the city's online buzz, trying to get a feel for the city. One part of life that I haven't heard much about is cycling within the city. Here's what I'd like to know:
a. Do you feel that the city's infrastructure lends itself to safe cycling?
b. Do you or does anyone you know bike to/from work or school?
c. Is there any community group that promotes cycling or works with the city planners to do so?
Thanks! I hope someone can enlighten me!
Tulsa is one of the best places for cycling that I've ever seen. Motorists are courteous - for the most part - and the topography isn't challenging. You really have to look for long, steep hills.
I commute on a bicycle nearly every day between Owasso and the airport. It's a pleasant 30 minute ride. I see the same motorists day after day, and they come to expect a cyclist on the road.
There are several area clubs devoted to touring and racing, but since you ask about advocacy, there's an ad-hoc group that promotes bicycling education, the Tulsa Area Bicycling Advisory Group, composed primarily of LAB instructors. I'm one of them. We also run the Tulsa Community Cycling Project as part of the Tulsa Wheelmen.
I write about cycling issues at: www.cycledog.blogspot.com
Please feel free to contact me.
jdb, I hear you on the seasonal midwest weather. I just got home from a full day of running errands on the bike in cold rain. Chicago definitely sees a jump in cyclists on the road in spring/summer, but winter dosen't slow down the hardcore commuter nor the messengers. There's a great site here (//%22http://bikewinter.org/tipsAndResources/ginstips.php%22) for winter tips.
EdW, I've looked at the Wheelman page, and I'll check out the others. Thanks for the info.
The trails along the river are some of the best biking trails in the region and a HUGE asset to anyone who likes biking, running, walking, or jogging. The trails are well-paved and surrounded by parks and trees and you can see the river most places through breaks in the trees. As mentioned before 36th Street is a good way to get to the river from anywhere in Midtown and is very bike-friendly.
SXSW, I couldn't agree more. The river trails are one of Tulsa's treasures and every time I'm in town I see them being used. Do you think most cyclists ride to the trails from wherever they live, or do they typically park and ride?
Wait until you all see the West Bank River Trail extension to Turkey Mountain. It is going to be gorgeous.
I have great respect for Mayor Daley and the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation. They have transformed Chicago rapidly into one of the most bicycle friendly cities in the country.
http://www.biketraffic.org/ (//%22http://www.biketraffic.org/%22)
On that note, while Tulsa hasn't taken an aggressive approach to striping bike lanes for the planned on street routes, they have aggressively pursued expansion of the multi-use trail system. I think that this program is one of the most progressive planning efforts in the city and state. With about 280 miles of trails and bikeways planned in the metro area, and about 120 miles constructed, bicycling in Tulsa is getting easier every year.
This year alone, The River Parks Authority and the City of Tulsa alone have submitted 8 or 9 new applications for state Transportation Enhancement Funds to further expand the Tulsa area trails system. Several of the surrounding communities, including Bixby, Jenks, Skiatook, Coweta, and Sand Springs have also applied for trails related funds from the state. It is safe to say that the trails system is on of the most popular amenities in our city... and one that is viewed by the Mayor, Public Works, and the suburbs as a real asset to their respective communities.
quote:
Originally posted by ChicagoJoe
SXSW, I couldn't agree more. The river trails are one of Tulsa's treasures and every time I'm in town I see them being used. Do you think most cyclists ride to the trails from wherever they live, or do they typically park and ride?
For the Wednesday ride that starts on the Westbank of the river alot drive to the park then ride.....Some live close to the river so it's feasable to ride....
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
I have great respect for Mayor Daley and the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation. They have transformed Chicago rapidly into one of the most bicycle friendly cities in the country.
http://www.biketraffic.org/ (//%22http://www.biketraffic.org/%22)
I've been a proud member of the CBF for a third year now. They really are fighting for the best interests of cyclists, and have done an amazing job. Daley seems personally dedicated to making Chicago a healthy, bikeable city which makes all the difference especially considering his sometimes, er, heavy-handed demeanor.
pfox, I'd really like to try the multiuse trails for myself. They sound stellar. Why do you think the they are more successful than on-road routes? Public backlash? Roads too narrow? Not enough car congestion to make it an issue?
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
On that note, while Tulsa hasn't taken an aggressive approach to striping bike lanes for the planned on street routes, they have aggressively pursued expansion of the multi-use trail system. I think that this program is one of the most progressive planning efforts in the city and state. With about 280 miles of trails and bikeways planned in the metro area, and about 120 miles constructed, bicycling in Tulsa is getting easier every year.
Tulsa's trails and on-street routes are truly a jewel, as Mr. Fox points out. But the city doesn't really need bike lanes. Coming from a committed bicycling advocate, that may seem like heresy, but there's a sound basis for the statement. Consider this - the on-street route system relies largely on quiet residential streets with low traffic volumes. Bike lanes on such streets are unnecessary. On the other hand, most high-traffic arterial streets are 4 lanes. When a cyclist occupies the full width of the right hand lane, there's ample room to pass on his left. Again, a bike lane is unnecessary.
Tulsa has some bike lanes that were poorly designed and never maintained. Would motorists accept shoddy, second-rate facilities? Of course not! So why should cyclists do so? One of our newest trails, the Osage Prairie Trail was opened only a year ago, and it's covered with broken glass. Without maintenance, our jewel of a trail system will become unusable.
These items were some of the subjects of discussion in the INCOG bicycling subcommittee. The subcommittee was composed of knowledgeable area cyclists with an interest in promoting cycling as a transportation alternative. The subcommittee hasn't met since last spring. Meanwhile, several bicycle-related projects went ahead without any input from those expected to use the new facilities. I can only hope that the planners get it right this time, but I know from experience that's highly unlikely.
I apologize for the negative tone. I'm not a pessimist when it comes to cycling in Tulsa. I'm fond of what Will Rogers said about Oklahoma and Oklahomans - that complete strangers will wave as they drive by - and that people from other lands think the friendly attitude of Oklahomans is what all Americans are like.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
Consider this - the on-street route system relies largely on quiet residential streets with low traffic volumes. Bike lanes on such streets are unnecessary. On the other hand, most high-traffic arterial streets are 4 lanes. When a cyclist occupies the full width of the right hand lane, there's ample room to pass on his left. Again, a bike lane is unnecessary.
Aren't there streets in Tulsa that fit somewhere in the middle? I'm sure I've driven down 2 lane arterial streets in Tulsa that have heavy traffic. Regardless, striped bike lanes have been shown (//%22http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/insight/faqs/bicycle_facilities.htm#second%22) to increase the number of riders while keeping them safer. Personally I can say that I choose my routes by which streets have painted lanes, which provide visual order to the flow of traffic, so that everyone on the street - cyclists and motorists included - has a common understanding. Plus, there are serious fines for motorists who drive in bike lanes, which keeps cars out of them, thus increasing ridership. I wouldn't say that any city necessarily
needs bike lanes, but a city that makes an effort to include bike traffic as part of it's overall urban planning is someplace I would like to call home.
The funny thing about bike lanes is that they keep cars away...but, as a result, the cars can't "clean the street" for you. They become (like shoulders) covered in sand, broken glass and other debris that would normally be blown/knocked away by passing cars. I've often wished for a mini street sweeper (like those used on downtown sidewalks) to keep the bike lanes and trails clean. (I used to fantasize about a Dr. Seuss-like broom attachment that would sweep in front of my bike as I rode...)
Having said that, I still wish that there was a bike lane on Utica between 21st and 41st. It's a big, wide, beautiful street with plenty of room for bikes...but I never ride on it b/c it's curvy and motorists drive so fast on it...and since there are no bike lanes, they think the entire space is theirs.
Ponder, that's a good point. I'm starting to realize how spoiled I am up here. The city uses huge street sweepers on every street once a month (I've had a few $50 parking tickets when I failed to notice the signs [:(]). I guess that's a topic for another thread!
Although, it could be argued that bike lanes in Tulsa would raise consciousness about street debris, resulting in the city cleaning them! OK, maybe my idealism is starting to show.
Tulsa Public Works has a maintenance backlog that keeps them behind the curve - always. They'll never catch up and be able to do proactive maintenance. So it comes down to setting priorities. Which would you prefer, that the manhours go toward maintaining streets and signalized intersections, or would the manhours be better spent sweeping debris from the roadside. From a public safety standpoint alone, the signalized intersections will be higher priority.
Couple that with the hodge-podge of agencies and governments involved in planning and maintenance, and you begin to understand why bicycle facilities can take so long to complete. A trail may cross city, county, state, and Indian land, and each of them must approve the project. And if the feds get involved, like FEMA at the missing bridge in SE Tulsa, it gets even more interesting.
Nothing happens fast in government. Maybe that's a good thing.
The quality of one's bicycling experience in Tulsa is determined on what part of the city you live in. If you live near 81st and Memorial, for example, you will probably find it very difficult to bike anywhere except your in own subdivision or apartment complex. If you live in Midtown, you will find most of the roads to have sidewalks, and most speed limits to be lower than the suburban roads. The saving grace that benefits all areas is the bike trail system. Currently, you can basically bike from NSU-BA (101st St S. & 193rd E Ave.) straight West to the river, and then north to Skiatook (146th St. N).
Hi Joe,
I've read through some of the responses to your request for info. Ed Wagner makes the most sense. Much of the rest of what you're hearing is bogus. deinstein is inordinately negative, though I won't speculate as to why. Floyd welcomes a trail that was forced through an area that doesn't need one and isn't conducive to good design. Tim Hutzinger makes an unsubstantiated claim of danger. JDB claims stiff fines in California for touching a bike lane line with one's car tire when the California Vehicle Code actually requires motorists to merge into the bike lane before turning right. Then you were unfortunate enough to be greeted by Paul Tay (in disguise) who told you not to move here. I apologize for the
sorry welcome. Despite appearances, Tulsa does have an active bicycling advocacy contingent.
Question 1: Yes, the city's infrastructure lends itself to safe cycling. It is essential to practice vehicular (Effective) cycling and not behave as a pedestrian. I've met people from Oregon & Washington who don't know what to do if they don't have a trail or bike lane, so they ride on sidewalks. If you're a sidewalk rider, no, Tulsa is not a safe place. Of course, this is true most everywhere.
Question 2: I ride on main streets every single day (5-7000 miles per year) for all purposes--commuting/utility, recreation, exercise, race-training, etc... Cyclists in Oklahoma, as in most every other state, are expected to integrate with traffic, and this is very easy to do. Most roads are amenable to this (some two lane roads with heavy traffic are not as welcoming). However, Oklahoma cyclists typically have no training, and some will make unwarranted statements about how dangerous on-road cycling is. Spend time lurking and posting on national forums, and you'll notice that most Americans know very little about cycling, so our community is not unique in this respect.
Question 3: TAOBIKE, the Oklahoma Bicycling Coalition (okbike.org), Tulsa Bicycle Club, and Tulsa Wheelmen promote safe and responsible cycling. Representatives from all of these organizations have met with local and regional government. INCOG has a mediocre record of due diligence. Public Works in Tulsa has not shown itself very knowledgeable about cycling. Its primary emphasis has been on getting big government grants to build trails, sometimes forcing the trails through areas that don't work. At a million dollars per mile, by golly, they're going to make that trail happen.
Several of the TAOBIKE members sitting on the INCOG subcommittee vociferously encouraged on-street linkages because people were being encouraged to drive their cars to trailheads instead of bicycling to them. Without these voices, Tulsa would have no on-street routes. City of Tulsa engineers did not grasp the idea that cyclists need access to important destinations, not just out and back or circular trails. The end result was okay, though we can dispute whether or not cyclists need to be told they can ride on neighborhood streets. The same engineers also had to be actively educated about the differences between cyclists and pedestrians because they tend to group the two together. Explore all the trails, but I would encourage using only the RiverTrails (because it is continuous and minimizes cross-traffic). The other trails (especially the most recent additions, such as the embarrassing monstrosity of a super-sidewalk built on North Peoria) are not built to AASHTO Guidelines and have awkward intersections with major streets. The Creek Trail is the second most embarrassing example of such improvised design.
Some bicycling advocates in Oklahoma suffer from coastal envy. Austin, Portland, San Francisco, LA, Chicago, and New York have bike lanes. It doesn't matter that bike lanes create problems--these Okie-bikers want to be more cosmopolitan. But if we can get past the mindless emulation of design models that are fundamentally flawed, we can at least not make things worse, and maybe even make them better.
... check out the bike lane contrarian page for more details (tomrevay.tripod.com/projects/MassBike/BikeLanes/).
Also, a pros and cons page on facilities that does a fair job of affecting objectivity: http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/bikelanes.html
For a broader view of bicycling friendliness, try http://www.cyclingadvocacy.com/index.php?termid=178
But I would recommend Fred Oswald's crankmail site as one of the best: http://crankmail.com/fredoswald/bike-res.html
Hope this doesn't sound too argumentative, but other than Ed, most of these posters provided pretty unreliable info. Best wishes for a safe move. Ride long and prosper,
Brian Potter
League Certified Instructor #1064
quote:
Originally posted by ChicagoJoe
Greetings. My wife and I are seriously considering a move from Chicago to Tulsa, and I've been reading up on the city's online buzz, trying to get a feel for the city. One part of life that I haven't heard much about is cycling within the city. Here's what I'd like to know:
a. Do you feel that the city's infrastructure lends itself to safe cycling?
b. Do you or does anyone you know bike to/from work or school?
c. Is there any community group that promotes cycling or works with the city planners to do so?
Thanks! I hope someone can enlighten me!
brhino42, no need to apologize, actually I'm pleasantly surprised by the array of opinions on the subject.
As it turns out I've been practicing vehicular riding for years but wasn't aware of the philosophy behind it. It seems like common sense to someone as experienced as yourself, however I'm wondering if the average citizen would subscribe to it. Personally I feel a strong rift between elite riders and folks who view a bike as an occasional transportation choice. The latter group doesn't spend time training or getting educated, rather they simply would like a safe way to pedal from their house to the convenient store without fighting cars for space on the street. If faced with such a challenge, my feeling is that they'll opt for the Buick.
Also, I found ttownjoe's comment pretty funny, actually.
Hi Joe,
ttownjoe is the pseudonym of Paul Tay. He's a fairly bright guy with a dark sense of humor who makes up aliases to troll unmoderated newsgroups. He was also recently hauled to jail in OKC for charging an abortion rights demonstration with a fake machine gun. You can do the math--or an internet search to verify.
As far as vehicular cycling goes, it shouldn't be viewed as an elitist perspective or practice any more than driving a car. The average American is on the recent side of a cultural rift, before which cycling was a normal adult tranportational activity, and after which it is a recreational activity reserved for children. While most of the rules on the books nationwide still support the latter, the change in attitude and the "coolness and convenience" of cars has made real knowledge about normal on-road cycling rather less common (but no less common-sense). Alan Wachtel, a noted cycling transportation expert, suggested (and please forgive the rough paraphrase) that when we make it easier and more popular for cyclists without knowledge to operate their vehicles in an unvehicular manner, we're making it less safe for them at the same time. Education before engineering. Check out johnforester.com for more details--oh, and always take ttownjoe with a grain of salt.
Ride long and prosper,
BDP
quote:
Originally posted by ChicagoJoe
brhino42, no need to apologize, actually I'm pleasantly surprised by the array of opinions on the subject.
As it turns out I've been practicing vehicular riding for years but wasn't aware of the philosophy behind it. It seems like common sense to someone as experienced as yourself, however I'm wondering if the average citizen would subscribe to it. Personally I feel a strong rift between elite riders and folks who view a bike as an occasional transportation choice. The latter group doesn't spend time training or getting educated, rather they simply would like a safe way to pedal from their house to the convenient store without fighting cars for space on the street. If faced with such a challenge, my feeling is that they'll opt for the Buick.
Also, I found ttownjoe's comment pretty funny, actually.
brhino,
Thanks for the reply.
I agree with the principles of vehicular cycling, although I see it being practiced in addition to other proven approaches. In Chicago I'm probably using bike lanes about half the time. The rest of the time I'm concentrating on staying out of the door-zone, making sure I'm projecting my stops and turns so that motorists are aware, etc. These are survival skills, plain and simple. Skills that should be used whether I'm in a painted lane or not.
With that in mind, I'm still puzzled by yours and Ed's aversion to the creation of bike routes. The link you gave to bicycleuniverse lists 8 arguments supporting bike lanes vs. only 1 opposed. And johnforester.com features such declarations as:
The government's bicycle design standard is based on engineering incompetence.
and
Government knows that bikeways don't make cycling safer, but it uses the public superstition that they do.
I find it difficult to get past the combative tone of these sentiments long enough to gain any "training" on safer cycling, and I'm much more of a cycling enthusiast than the average American. I'm all for education, but I also believe that the hypothetical students need a safe, well-defined government-supported surface upon which to practice.
quote:
Originally posted by ChicagoJoe
And johnforester.com features such declarations as:
The government's bicycle design standard is based on engineering incompetence.
and
Government knows that bikeways don't make cycling safer, but it uses the public superstition that they do.
I find it difficult to get past the combative tone of these sentiments ...
While it's true that Forester is well-educated and knowledgeable about cycling, it's also true that he's long-winded, highly opinionated, and, well, let's be kind and call his approach 'abrasive'. Still, that doesn't reduce the impact of what he has to say.
Statistically, the crash rates between bike laned streets and non-bike laned streets are roughly equal. There are methodology critiques that highlight the difficulties of developing reliable studies, but that's a subject for another time. The short version is that the differences in crash rates are relatively minor, so why spend inordinate amounts of public monies for what amounts to 'feel good' measures?
If we're good citizens (and we are, for the most part) we want to see that our tax money is used wisely and provides the widest possible benefit. For instance, I'd rather see signalized intersections that reliably detect bicyclists and motorcyclists than a bike lane next to an effectively inoperable signal. I'd like to see building codes that provided for bicycle parking. I want to see bicycling education in the schools, providing kids with an opportunity to learn the rules of the road and some critical judgment skills long before they ever get behind the wheel of a car.
We don't build roads for unskilled drivers. Why make the assumption that all cyclists are unskilled and have to be segregated away from the 'real' traffic? In this sense, what Forester said about engineering incompetence is entirely accurate. If there's little statistical difference in crash rates, why go to the trouble of advocating separation? It has more to do with making driving more convenient rather than providing a safety benefit for bicyclists.
When you get here, Joe, I'll gladly ride with you!