Bike to Work Day, May 18th

[jbrown84]

Well, I just meant that naturally if that's the rule for running, it is for walking too. But yeah, people don't realize it.

[Misty]

I remember being taught pedestrian/bike rules in school as well.

[Rifleman2C]

Just saw this... what if you aren't working on the 18th of May? Can we go ahead and do penance by biking to work for an entire week some other time when we'll actually be going there?

Because I plan to be a long way from work in Belfast when the 18th rolls around. Maybe someone up there will let me borrow a bicycle...

[SoonerDave]

Let's see...live near I-44 just S of the airport, and work in MWC....bike to work? I think not.

I don't have trouble with city-created bike lanes, so long as it is made absolutely and unequivocally mandatory that bikers actually use them. Because bikes by their mere presence create an inherent safety hazard for conventional traffic, bikes generally need to be off the roads. The obvious next-step in the creation of bike paths is the city and/or state requirement that bikes be titled, registered, and annually tagged, with corresponding fees, which would generate a great revenue stream for their construction. Right now, bikes can use the roads, but they contribute *zero* to their maintenance.

The problem with traffic laws is that they do recognize bikes as vehicles on a par with cars, which is patently ludicrous on its face. Heck, some small dirt bikes aren't even street legal because they're underpowered (among other reasons), but bikes have an inherent carte blanche? That doesn't pass the sniff test.

The irony of this thread is that just the other day, driving along May avenue, there's a double-stream of cars having to slow down to go [i] around this biking moron (yes, moron, and to be clear, I don't impute this to all bikers) who doesn' t have the sense to get out of the way of faster vehicular traffic. He was squarely in the middle of the right-most lane. I have absolutely no respect for anyone who rides in oblivion to the hazard they are creating not only for themselves, but for other drivers who have enough to deal with without having to account for those who have no business on the road in the first place.

It strikes me as nothing short of stunning that some bikers will enter the road and then claim stunned amazement when the rest of the driving world doesn't bow and scrape to their presence. IMHO, bikes are an inherent hazard because of their lack of speed and their relative lack of visibility. It should be incumbent upon bike riders to make themselves more visible in every way possible; even if they have little or no regard for their own safety, they can at least contemplate the hazard they pose to regular vehicular traffic.

I'm sorry if these opinions offend bike riders out there, because I surely don't mean to, but when it comes to the safety of the broader driving public, conventional vehicles should and must always win, and vehicles that don't belong in that category don't belong on the same roads. That means bike paths make great sense.

-SoonerDave

[jbrown84]

The obvious next-step in the creation of bike paths is the city and/or state requirement that bikes be titled, registered, and annually tagged, with corresponding fees, which would generate a great revenue stream for their construction. Right now, bikes can use the roads, but they contribute *zero* to their maintenance.

I'd be interested to see what Texas, and more specifically Austin, does with this issue. Considering our status as one of the fattest cities in the nation, I'd say we should do everything in our power to encourage a healthier lifestyle. Charging cyclists is only going to discourage anyone who might pick it up otherwise.

[BailJumper]

Right now, bikes can use the roads, but they contribute *zero* to their maintenance.

I don't see that ever happening. What next, I have to buy a permit to walk on sidewalks.

Actually cyclists do pay to maintain roads. I doubt you know any (or very few) cyclists that do not also own tagged cars.

However, I'm all for making the Indians buy a damn car tag!

[SoonerDave]

Actually cyclists do pay to maintain roads. I doubt you know any (or very few) cyclists that do not also own tagged cars.

But the payment for that tag is implicitly tied to the use of that car (or similar vehicle) on the road. Use of the bike on that same road is unfunded. If people want bike paths, we have a perfect opportunity to develop funding for them.

Charging cyclists is only going to discourage anyone who might pick it up otherwise.

Understand, but if we want an extensive bike path "network" (for lack of a better term), it has to be paid for somehow...

However, I'm all for making the Indians buy a damn car tag!!

Amen!!

-SoonerDave

[jbrown84]

Understand, but if we want an extensive bike path "network" (for lack of a better term), it has to be paid for somehow...

I'm just not sure that's the way to do it.

Like Bailjumper said, do we charge anyone we catch walking on a sidewalk so that we can pay for new sidewalks???

[SoonerDave]

Like Bailjumper said, do we charge anyone we catch walking on a sidewalk so that we can pay for new sidewalks???

You think you aren't paying for them now? Many/most neighborhoods incorporate the requirement to build sidewalks as matter of the convenants imposed on the builders, and that cost gets rolled right back into the price of the house. Downtown areas that front streets generally build out concrete to the curb, so sidewalks are a nice benefit, but that cost is rolled up in the construction of the building and rolled to its purchaser or lessee(s).

A bike path is a unique entity; it needs to be pedestrian-free so bikers don't face the same type of obstruction from walkers as drivers do when encountering bikers on busy roads. Bike paths need to have interconnects to other areas to make them practical in the vein of a legitmate form of alternative transportation.

The point here is that it isn't as simple as "let's have bike paths." If you're serious about advocating bicycling as a truly legitimate alternative to automotive transporation, you have to start thinking of these kinds of things eventually. A bike path around a park isn't the same as the kind of bike thoroughfare implied in an alternative transportation system.

Just trying to stir the pot a bit...

-soonerdave

[jbrown84]

You think you aren't paying for them now? Many/most neighborhoods incorporate the requirement to build sidewalks as matter of the convenants imposed on the builders, and that cost gets rolled right back into the price of the house. Downtown areas that front streets generally build out concrete to the curb, so sidewalks are a nice benefit, but that cost is rolled up in the construction of the building and rolled to its purchaser or lessee(s).

Exactly. Nowhere in there do you mention anything that singles out the people that use the sidewalks.

I agree with all that you said about planning it and making it practical where everything connects, etc. I just think there's other ways of funding it. In OKC, you'd have to charge every serious biker $1000 a month to pay for any serious changes.

[SoonerDave]

Exactly. Nowhere in there do you mention anything that singles out the people that use the sidewalks.

You don't have to. The point is they're being paid for already, via other means. If bike paths don't exist right now as a by-product of some other activity, they'll have to be built (and therefore funded) from scratch. I see no reason why those who benefit most from them, and want them the most - the biking community - shouldn't be expected to bear the majority if not the entirety of that cost.

-SoonerDave

[BG918]

I sense Norman is much more bike-friendly than most of OKC, mainly because lots of students don't want to pay to park and would rather ride their bikes to campus. The drivers seem to "share" the road better in Norman as well. The bike paths around Lake Hefner and the Oklahoma River are great, but more major streets need them. With as many bikes as there are in Norman you would think there would be more bike paths, and there needs to be!

[Tim]

I'd be interested to see what Texas, and more specifically Austin, does with this issue. Considering our status as one of the fattest cities in the nation, I'd say we should do everything in our power to encourage a healthier lifestyle. Charging cyclists is only going to discourage anyone who might pick it up otherwise.

Thanks jbrown! To SoonerDave, do you slow down for buses? They are slow and block traffic, yet they are another form of alternative transportation with absolutely no health benefits for the users. Why is your need to get from point A to point B in air-conditioned comfort more important than my need to maintain a healthy mind and body while contributing to a cleaner environment?

[MadMonk]

Thanks jbrown! To SoonerDave, do you slow down for buses? They are slow and block traffic, yet they are another form of alternative transportation with absolutely no health benefits for the users. Why is your need to get from point A to point B in air-conditioned comfort more important than my need to maintain a healthy mind and body while contributing to a cleaner environment?

Then again, why is your need to meander the streets on a bike more important than my need to get to work on time so that I can bring home an income to feed my family (or any of the many other people's needs that you slow down with your bike during the course of your ride)? In this case, the actions of one (or a few) affect many and the balance of benefit is not in your favor.

[Tim]

So, the assumption is that everyone on a bicycle is unemployed?

[MadMonk]

So, the assumption is that everyone on a bicycle is unemployed?

No.

[Tim]

[QUOTE=MadMonk;94175]Then again, why is your need to meander the streets on a bike more important than my need to get to work on time so that I can bring home an income to feed my family (or any of the many other people's needs that you slow down with your bike during the course of your ride)? In this case, the actions of one (or a few) affect many and the balance of benefit is not in your favor. [/QUOT
Maybe I'm mis-reading you here, but you seem to be saying that cyclists should not travel the roadways under any circumstances. Is that your point, or am I missing it?

[MadMonk]

No, I was just pointing out that you shouldn't compare the benefit of a cyclist riding to work to the benefit of those that are in cars or busses, there's no contest there. On one hand, you have a lot of people quickly transported to their desired/needed places and on the other you have one person who's ride could take quite a lot of time to complete, that's all (granted this depends on how close you live to your work or desired destination). Perhaps I was misreading you, but it sounded like you were stating that those that ride to work were more important than the rest of us.

[Tim]

If you compare the impact on the economy, the environment and the overall well-being of our citizens, I agree there is no contest. Bikes are better! I dare you to name one automobile that makes you thinner, healthier, happier and produces zero emissions.

[MadMonk]

If you compare the impact on the economy, the environment and the overall well-being of our citizens, I agree there is no contest. Bikes are better! I dare you to name one automobile that makes you thinner, healthier, happier and produces zero emissions.

I dare you to name one bike that can get me to work and to various locations I need to be in the line of my duties (as well as when hauling the equipment that I need) faster and better than my car.

I guess we're supposed to do this:


No thanks.

[windowphobe]

Is the cyclist holding his breath all the way to work? Otherwise he's emitting carbon dioxide, which these days is feared more than its cousin carbon monoxide.

[Tim]

Is the cyclist holding his breath all the way to work? Otherwise he's emitting carbon dioxide, which these days is feared more than its cousin carbon monoxide.

You oughta see what I emit after a bean burrito and a beer!

[Tim]

I dare you to name one bike that can get me to work and to various locations I need to be in the line of my duties (as well as when hauling the equipment that I need) faster and better than my car.

I guess we're supposed to do this:


No thanks.

I think we're making two different arguments here. Obviously a bike can't haul the load a pickup can ( or even a small car) but the point I'm trying to make is that bicycles have a valid place in traffic. They are for many a viable, healthy form of transportation. Are they for everyone? No. Do we have a right to share the road? According to federal, state and local law, yes. You can chew on me all day and I'll keep right on riding. If you truly believe that we should be banned from the roadway then you should contact your elected representatives and make your case. BTW, just last year the Governor signed a bill that increased the penalties for passing a cyclist within three feet and further enhanced our protection under the law.

[metro]

Just reminding everyone TOMORROW is bike to work day!!!

[Karried]

Just the other day I thought of you Tim.. I was at an intersection... Western and 150th.. it was morning commute time and there was a bike going South on Western ( in the car lane)..there is no bike lane.

What was interesting is that even though he tried to veer as far to the right as possible, traffic couldn't pass him or move as he tried to go up the slight incline. It made for a very dangerous situation as cars tried to go around this guy into the other lane to avoid him and traffic was backed up into the intersection. I just knew he was going to get hit.

He was crawling along.. the kicker?

There is a perfectly good sidewalk that he could have easily used all along Western. I know it's not bike etiquette to use the sidewalk but it would have been a whole lot better than risk being hit by all these drivers narrowly passing him. There are just a few driveways along Western between 150th and Memorial.. it would have been very safe.

I'm all for bike riders. I think it's great for our environment and overall health of the individual, but getting hit by a car.. not so healthy.

I'm certainly not bashing riders.. but we really need more bike lanes.