City officials adopt seven priorities

[jbrown84]

Just another thing holding us back from being a real progressive city--elitist drivers.

There's a reason they wear those "getups", just like there's a reason basketball players wear the kinds of clothes and shoes they do when they are playing seriously.

[CuatrodeMayo]

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Bicycles are considered vehicles, therefore, they are not supposed to be on the sidewalks. It will even get you ticketed in some places.

And it's far safer to ride with traffic, instead of against it.
Canadians Advised: Ride With The Traffic | BikeRadar.com
Wrong Way Cycling -- Why Bicycling Against Traffic Increases Risks
GOOD RIDING HABIT

Just Google "ride against traffic"

[traxx]

Just another thing holding us back from being a real progressive city--elitist drivers.

There's a reason they wear those "getups", just like there's a reason basketball players wear the kinds of clothes and shoes they do when they are playing seriously.

That was a joke. They're not serious they just take themselves too seriously. That'd be like you going out to play flag football with your friends and you come out sporting full pads, helmet and a neckroll. Leave the goofy attire to the "pros".

[Midtowner]

Just another thing holding us back from being a real progressive city--elitist drivers.

There's a reason they wear those "getups", just like there's a reason basketball players wear the kinds of clothes and shoes they do when they are playing seriously.

lol.. cars wanting to not be slowed down by vehicles going less than half the posted speed limit.

oh noes! leetists!

[The Old Downtown Guy]

Riders of Bicycles, scooters and motorcycles have the same right to use streets as motorists in automobiles, trucks etc. and are required to observe the same laws and ordinances. A recent law was passed requiring operators of motor vehicles to stay at least four feet (I think that is the correct distance) from bicycles. Suggesting that bicycle riders use the sidewalks is about as lame a comment as I have heard lately. I wouldn't be suprised if there was an ordinance prohibiting the practice in the first place.

I use our local streets for both my car and my bicycle. Unfortunately I also often have to use the streets to walk because of the embarassing lack of sidewalks in Oklahoma City. Observing the rules of the road and practicing a little courtesy and tolerance doesn't seem like too big a deal to me.

[jbrown84]

Observing the rules of the road and practicing a little courtesy and tolerance doesn't seem like too big a deal to me.

[Midtowner]

Riders of Bicycles, scooters and motorcycles have the same right to use streets as motorists in automobiles, trucks etc. and are required to observe the same laws and ordinances. A recent law was passed requiring operators of motor vehicles to stay at least four feet (I think that is the correct distance) from bicycles. Suggesting that bicycle riders use the sidewalks is about as lame a comment as I have heard lately. I wouldn't be suprised if there was an ordinance prohibiting the practice in the first place.

I use our local streets for both my car and my bicycle. Unfortunately I also often have to use the streets to walk because of the embarassing lack of sidewalks in Oklahoma City. Observing the rules of the road and practicing a little courtesy and tolerance doesn't seem like too big a deal to me.

Bicycles are not always courteous. If I intentionally drove my car in such a way that I held up traffic, you would probably not refer to me as courteous. Motor vehicles are things I have no problem whatsoever sharing a road with. Nor does it bother me to share the road with a bicycle rider who *clearly* has to rely on a bike as his sole means of transportation.

It does bother me, however, for someone else's recreational sport to interfere with my utilization of the road. We are all entitled to use the road so long as our use doesn't interfere with others. When you have 20 bike riders taking up 2 lanes of traffic, riding around in their little bodysuits, that bugs the hell out of me. Especially when they choose to do so on major streets at peak times of use.

[The Old Downtown Guy]

. . . . When you have 20 bike riders taking up 2 lanes of traffic, riding around in their little bodysuits, that bugs the hell out of me. Especially when they choose to do so on major streets at peak times of use.

I guess this has happened to you on occasion; so, just because I haven't experienced it during my fifty years of driving, I'm not going to suggest that it doesn't. Perhaps I just don't spend as much time in a car as you do Midtowner. And granted, tight fitting spandex clothing is often not the most flattering wardrobe choice (you won't find me trying to fit my fat ass into those duds) but all these remarks about what people wear when they ride a bike is a little petty, IMO.

And, BTW, what does all of this ranting about people on bicycles have to do with a discussion of the seven priorities that the OKC City Council recently adopted?

Oklahoma City difinitely needs to improve its transportaion network and begin to think about ways to accomodate the many alternate methods of travel available rather continuing to direct 99.99% of our resources into how to move automobiles, mostly with only one person inside, long distances at high rates of speed. Surely we can all agree that this transportation option is a total black hole. Adopting the seven priorities, one of which is improving transportation, seems to me to be a progressive first step.

[Martin]

nobody is arguing that cyclists don't have a right to be on the streets. furthermore, the average motorist does not mind sharing the roads with cyclists. the problem with many motorists occurs when cyclists impede the regular flow of traffic and therefore not 'sharing the road' so to speak. the fact is that the transporation infrastructure of this city is designed around the motor vehicle. while it may be legal for cyclists to be on the roads, they simply were not designed to carry their type of traffic. therefore the minority traffic flow of cyclists ends up impeding the traffic of the majority of motorists.

it is true that cyclists are required to follow the same traffic laws and ordnances as motor vehicle traffic. in practice, however, this is not the case. cyclists routinely treat stop signs and traffic signals as yields and pass through in an unlawful fashion. as evidence in this thread, some cyclists don't even operate their vehicles on the correct side of the road. therefore cyclists often create danger and confusion for operators of motor vehicles.

given the logic that cyclists enjoy the same right to use the roads as motor vehicles, then it must be acceptable for one to use the interstate. however, the interstates have something called 'minimum speed' that eliminates the possiblity of cycle traffic. minimum speed exists due to the fact that traffic flows far more safely when all operators are traveling at near the same speed.

the average speed limit on the highway is 60mph. minimum speed is 40mph or a little over 2/3 the average limit. the same principle of traffic flow safety can be applied to city streets where the average limit is 45mph. applying the 2/3 coefficient, the safe minimum speed would be 30mph. the generally accepted safe speed for passing through neighborhoods and school zones is 25mph. to put this into perspective, the average cyclist tops out around 18mph. traffic flowing at 18mph with traffic flowing at 45mph is not safe... there's too great a differential in the speeds. furthermore, by blocking motorists, cyclists expect them to travel on city streets at a rate that is slower than the average limit in a school zone. this is not courteous.

I suppose that cyclists wouldn't lose any patience with me if I were to drive my tractor at 5mph in front of them in such a way as they couldn't legally pass.

-M

[The Old Downtown Guy]

In the article that kicked off this thread, one of the points was trust of our municipal government, and by association, trust of our elected officials. The article stated:

Most residents are happy with their city government. A recent survey conducted by a private consultant on behalf of the city showed 77 percent of residents are happy with the direction of the city.

After MAPS and MAPS for Kids, voters passed an increase to the city's hotel tax with more than 80 percent in favor. Maintaining that level of trust is a key if the city wants to accomplish any of its other goals, Ward 3 Councilman Larry McAtee said.

"It's our responsibility to build on that and keep moving Oklahoma City forward,” McAtee said. "If things are going well, there is a tendency to want to just kick back, pat ourselves on the back and say what a great job we've done. But the job is not done. If you're not moving forward, you are moving backward.”



I am of the opinion that our elected city officials, across the board, have steadily and substantially improved across the board in recent times as has the quality of appointees to our boards and commissions. Public trust is essential to our continued progress as a city and the greater the number of citizens that spend time interacting with the city's planning and administration process, the better. There are several public boards and commissions that are responsible for many of the day to day decisions that control how our city works and looks. Having a look at their agendas and meeting times on the city's website and occasionally attending one of these meetings is an effective way to find out what's going on and why.

One thing I would like to see is our City Council meet at least once each quarter in the evening and really promote that as way to facilitate good quality public input. It would take a while to develop good attendance, but with good press coverage and thoughtful planning of the agenda, I think it would be an effective tool to improve our city government over time.

[Midtowner]

Well said m.

Also, ODTG, most of my encounters with rude bicyclists occurred when I lived in Edmond. They are a plague down there. Fortunately, the city is building a rather expansive network of trails. Unfortunately, I think most of the spandex-clad avengers would rather show off their pure awesomeness to the city by parading down the city's thoroughfares in groups of no more than 6.

[traxx]

nobody is arguing that cyclists don't have a right to be on the streets. furthermore, the average motorist does not mind sharing the roads with cyclists. the problem with many motorists occurs when cyclists impede the regular flow of traffic and therefore not 'sharing the road' so to speak. the fact is that the transporation infrastructure of this city is designed around the motor vehicle. while it may be legal for cyclists to be on the roads, they simply were not designed to carry their type of traffic. therefore the minority traffic flow of cyclists ends up impeding the traffic of the majority of motorists.

it is true that cyclists are required to follow the same traffic laws and ordnances as motor vehicle traffic. in practice, however, this is not the case. cyclists routinely treat stop signs and traffic signals as yields and pass through in an unlawful fashion. as evidence in this thread, some cyclists don't even operate their vehicles on the correct side of the road. therefore cyclists often create danger and confusion for operators of motor vehicles.

given the logic that cyclists enjoy the same right to use the roads as motor vehicles, then it must be acceptable for one to use the interstate. however, the interstates have something called 'minimum speed' that eliminates the possiblity of cycle traffic. minimum speed exists due to the fact that traffic flows far more safely when all operators are traveling at near the same speed.

the average speed limit on the highway is 60mph. minimum speed is 40mph or a little over 2/3 the average limit. the same principle of traffic flow safety can be applied to city streets where the average limit is 45mph. applying the 2/3 coefficient, the safe minimum speed would be 30mph. the generally accepted safe speed for passing through neighborhoods and school zones is 25mph. to put this into perspective, the average cyclist tops out around 18mph. traffic flowing at 18mph with traffic flowing at 45mph is not safe... there's too great a differential in the speeds. furthermore, by blocking motorists, cyclists expect them to travel on city streets at a rate that is slower than the average limit in a school zone. this is not courteous.

I suppose that cyclists wouldn't lose any patience with me if I were to drive my tractor at 5mph in front of them in such a way as they couldn't legally pass.

-M

Hear, Hear. And also cheers to Midtowner's post.

The problem is that cyclist aren't courteous. They have an entitlement attitude about sharing the road, as in: "we have the same right to the road as motorists so you'll just have to deal with it."

Tell me it doesn't bug any of you to come up behind someone doing 38 mph in the fast lane on the interstate. And don't say that never happens because it's happened to me on more than one occasion.

Yes, cyclist do have the same right to the road but they have to be courteous about it and smart about it. Those who ride their bikes for transportation rather than sport, for the most part, are smart about it.

Remember, even if a cyclist has the same right to the road, if they're not smart or safe about it and an accident does happen, a half ton pickup truck traveling at 45 mph beats a bicyclist traveling at 18 mph anytime (not to mention commercial trucks who have a more difficult time seeing cyclist). You may say that you had the same right to the road, but alot of consolation that does when you're eating your meals through a tube.