Open letter to bicycling Santa

[shadows]

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.

[carltonplace]

shadows, I'm so happy you came back to the forum. [8D]

[SoonerRiceGrad]

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. [][]

[brhino42]

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.

[waterboy]

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.

[Ed W]

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.

[Double A]

[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.

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.

[deinstein]

City law requires lights on bicycles at night.

[Ed W]

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

[deinstein]

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.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Ed W

quote:Originally posted by inteller

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.

[Ed W]

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.

[inteller]

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.

[Ed W]

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.