I was wondering if any charges had been filed against the woman who hit and killed the charity cyclist in western Oklahoma last week?

Given her admission she was apparently involved with her phone and killed someone as a result, it seemed fairly obvious to me some manner of charges would be pending, but I haven't heard anything. Just wondering.

Having driven that section of state Hwy 152 on a regular basis, not to defend anyone messing with their phone, but that stretch has some hills and absolutely no shoulder. With a 65 mph speed limit, it's a bad stretch of road to be on a bicycle.

Having driven that section of state Hwy 152 on a regular basis, not to defend anyone messing with their phone, but that stretch has some hills and absolutely no shoulder. With a 65 mph speed limit, it's a bad stretch of road to be on a bicycle.

Also sounds like the worst road on which to be messing with your phone while driving.

I just caught the end of a story on news a couple of days ago about an elderly man who hit a cyclist and didn't even know he had hit them until he saw a report about it and advised authorities that he "thought he hit something" and wasn;t sure what it was. Different event from yours, but all are scary for those of us out on bikes.

Having driven that section of state Hwy 152 on a regular basis, not to defend anyone messing with their phone, but that stretch has some hills and absolutely no shoulder. With a 65 mph speed limit, it's a bad stretch of road to be on a bicycle.

With the new neighborhoods going in their has been an increase of cyclist along that stretch of road.

With the new neighborhoods going in their has been an increase of cyclist along that stretch of road.

This was out by Cordell in the hilly terrain near the Wa****a River. The woman was also from Cordell. It's desolate and people fly through there. I'll drive 68 and they zip by me.

Ah, the "river whose name we cannot write" again. Sad story indeed about the cyclist.

Going west from Mustang toward Union City I had a close call with some cyclist last year. They have lowered the speed limit a bit along that route but coming over a hill I had to lock up the brakes pretty hard ('79 El Camino) due to 3 guys on bicycles riding abreast going westbound and there was a few cars in the eastbound lane so I couldn't swerve. Didn't hit anyone but scared the spit out of me. Got flipped off like I was in the wrong. Perhaps when urban cyclist move out into the country they might want to change riding formation.

Going west from Mustang toward Union City I had a close call with some cyclist last year. They have lowered the speed limit a bit along that route but coming over a hill I had to lock up the brakes pretty hard ('79 El Camino) due to 3 guys on bicycles riding abreast going westbound and there was a few cars in the eastbound lane so I couldn't swerve. Didn't hit anyone but scared the spit out of me. Got flipped off like I was in the wrong. Perhaps when urban cyclist move out into the country they might want to change riding formation.

Mel,
I was driving West into the sun, when a runner crested a hill (dark clothes) and I swerved and it scared the crap out of me. The man gave me the finger and screamed at me. I turned around and went back. I informed him that proper clothing would help and he actually apologized for his rudeness. I know this thread is about cyclists, but rudeness and stupidity knows no boundaries.
C. T.

Having driven that section of state Hwy 152 on a regular basis, not to defend anyone messing with their phone, but that stretch has some hills and absolutely no shoulder. With a 65 mph speed limit, it's a bad stretch of road to be on a bicycle.

Too many folks, (I am not including you) look at the speed limit as speed minimum or suggested speed. With those conditions you stated, the limit should be confined to straightaways.

In many cases riding three abreast might be illegal (or at least discouraged), but it needs to be pointed out in this thread that bicyclists have exactly the same right to the road as automobiles. Depending on the locality in Oklahoma they might be required to move as safely to the right as possible, but if there is no shoulder, or there are potholes, debris in the road, etc. (describes most roads in OK), the cyclist has FULL use of the lane, and cars may only pass them where it is absolutely safe to do so. It is up to auto drivers to watch out for them.

Bicyclists also are excluded from minimum speed requirements, though in most cases they may not enter actual freeways.

Also, texting or otherwise fiddling with your phone while driving is ILLEGAL nowadays in Oklahoma. In NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM was the bicyclist that this thread was started about culpable in the accident that caused his death. NONE. The driver should automatically have been cited with violating the texting law (by her own admission), and probably should also be charged with some form of vehicular manslaughter or negligent homicide.

When you get behind the wheel of a car, you have a legal obligation not to kill somebody with it. ESPECIALLY if that someone is fully abiding by traffic laws, as this cyclist reportedly was. Was it an unfortunate accident? Of course. But that accident was precipitated by her own admitted inattention to driving, all while navigating a road that she knew was tricky and dangerous.

By the way, if this woman had been fiddling on her phone and drifted across the centerline and taken out a family, or had killed a guy changing his tire on the shoulder, I have no doubt that most people would be foaming at the mouth to string her up. But since it was a bicyclist - who was using the road legally - there is some question in people's minds about whether or not she even has any blame.

Our cultural priorities are effed up when it comes to cars vs bicycles or pedestrians, both of whom have an equal right to use our streets and roads to varying degrees.

By the way, if this woman had been fiddling on her phone and drifted across the centerline and taken out a family, or had killed a guy changing his tire on the shoulder, I have no doubt that most people would be foaming at the mouth to string her up. But since it was a bicyclist - who was using the road legally - there is some question in people's minds about whether or not she even has any blame.

Our cultural priorities are effed up when it comes to cars vs bicycles or pedestrians, both of whom have equal rights to use our streets and roads to varying degrees.

My only issue with pedestrians or cyclists is the mere fact that they can't keep up with general street speeds, which I think inherently increases the risk for everyone. I think they should have a duty to make themselves as visible as possible, eg lots of reflective gear on the bike, reflective clothing, etc.,

All that notwithstanding, based on what I've heard about this incident, I cannot fathom the driver isn't being charged. I still haven't heard one way or the other.

My only issue with pedestrians or cyclists is the mere fact that they can't keep up with general street speeds, which I think inherently increases the risk for everyone. I think they should have a duty to make themselves as visible as possible, eg lots of reflective gear on the bike, reflective clothing, etc.,

All that notwithstanding, based on what I've heard about this incident, I cannot fathom the driver isn't being charged. I still haven't heard one way or the other.

Not sure I've ever seen a pedestrian who could keep up with the speed limit. lol

In many cases riding three abreast might be illegal (or at least discouraged), but it needs to be pointed out in this thread that bicyclists have exactly the same right to the road as automobiles. Depending on the locality in Oklahoma they might be required to move as safely to the right as possible, but if there is no shoulder, or there are potholes, debris in the road, etc. (describes most roads in OK), the cyclist has FULL use of the lane, and cars may only pass them where it is absolutely safe to do so. It is up to auto drivers to watch out for them.

Bicyclists also are excluded from minimum speed requirements, though in most cases they may not enter actual freeways.

Also, texting or otherwise fiddling with your phone while driving is ILLEGAL nowadays in Oklahoma. In NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM was the bicyclist that this thread was started about culpable in the accident that caused his death. NONE. The driver should automatically have been cited with violating the texting law (by her own admission), and probably should also be charged with some form of vehicular manslaughter or negligent homicide.

When you get behind the wheel of a car, you have a legal obligation not to kill somebody with it. ESPECIALLY if that someone is fully abiding by traffic laws, as this cyclist reportedly was. Was it an unfortunate accident? Of course. But that accident was precipitated by her own admitted inattention to driving, all while navigating a road that she knew was tricky and dangerous.

I agree with you, but isn't the new texting law going to effect in November? So at this point it would be driving while distracted, or something to that effect?

Yes, the new texting is a primary traffic offense law starts 11/1/2015.
Failure to devote attention, or however it's worded, has been around forever though.

No charges related to this incident appear online as of today for the driver. That's not a total surprise.
Sometimes charges are laid quickly, sometimes less quickly,and sometimes not at all.

Urbanized, I don't want to start a war with you because I think that you are generally one of the better posters on here. But...


It needs to be pointed out in this thread that bicyclists have exactly the same right to the road as automobiles.
There was a time when bicycles were one of the main modes of transportation and motor vehicles were in the minority. Back then it makes sense that they would want to designate that cyclists had the same right to the road as automobiles. But that's also a time when there were far fewer automobiles, when autos could barely top 25-30mph, and they only weighed several hundred pounds


It is up to auto drivers to watch out for them.
But that won't always happen and is not always possible. I've seen cyclists riding at dusk or dark in non reflective material. As others have said, they've crested a hill at speed and have narrowly missed cyclists. Every cyclists who rides on a road that they share with automobiles should know and understand this risk that they are taking.



Also, texting or otherwise fiddling with your phone while driving is ILLEGAL nowadays in Oklahoma. In NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM was the bicyclist that this thread was started about culpable in the accident that caused his death. NONE.
True. But how does that help him now? The cases where being right is more important than being alive are rare.

Believe me, I'm not trying to come to the defense of someone messing with their phone while driving. But distracted driving happens all the time and it's not just phones. I pass women primping (putting on eyeliner, lipstick, brushing hair etc.) quite frequently on the road. And many are driving large SUVs. Sometimes distracted driving is a parent picking up a toy that their child has dropped and giving it back to them. It takes many forms.

To me, it should be all about safety. Yeah, it would be great if everyone followed the laws and were great drivers. But we know that'll never happen. It seems to me that putting bicycles on the same thoroughfares as trucks, pick ups, SUVs and cars that can weigh from 3,000 to 13,000 pounds and can go well over the speed limit is quite dangerous. I think the bottom line should be safety. I know people on here have posted pics and videos of cities around the US who have repurposed old railroad lines and such into dedicated bike paths. I would love to see the OKC metro do things like this. I really don't think it would be that difficult to have a connected network of bike paths to allow you to ride from Edmond to Yukon, for example.

A vigorous prosecution of such drivers is in order. As long as the perception remains that a motor vehicle operator is able to mitigate their obligation of having full control of their vehicle at all times the above results will continue.

Bicyclists need to not be stupid, especially on country roads. Visibility is bad on hills, and if you're poking along at 5 mph in the middle of the street on the other side of a hill, you are going to get hit.

People drive while distracted all the time. Drivers change the radio station. They sneeze. Their kid throws a toy in the floor and starts screaming. The driver's drink spills. Counting on everyone else to drive perfectly is a great way to end up dead.

A vigorous prosecution of such drivers is in order. As long as the perception remains that a motor vehicle operator is able to mitigate their obligation of having full control of their vehicle at all times the above results will continue.

Well, it's hard to prove that someone was distracted, and that said distraction was the cause of the accident. And then you've got to make a jury care.

You've got to pay a reasonable amount of attention to the road, but you don't have to have your eyes glued to it every moment. After all, the state puts up Oklahoma Lottery billboards on the highway, specifically so you'll look at them and not at the road, for at least a little while.

Was it reported somewhere that he was poking along in the middle of the street at 5 MPH?

Well, it's hard to prove that someone was distracted, and that said distraction was the cause of the accident. And then you've got to make a jury care.

You've got to pay a reasonable amount of attention to the road, but you don't have to have your eyes glued to it every moment. After all, the state puts up Oklahoma Lottery billboards on the highway, specifically so you'll look at them and not at the road, for at least a little while.

In this case it would not be hard as the driver admitted guilt.

Per the bolded part, Title 47, Chapter 11, Sec. 901b-
The operator of every vehicle, while driving, shall devote their full time and attention to such driving.

No law enforcement officer shall issue a citation under this section unless the law enforcement officer observes that the operator of the vehicle is involved in an accident or observes the operator of the vehicle driving in such a manner that poses an articulable danger to other persons on the roadway that is not otherwise specified in statute

As for the billboard example, yeah the state does do that, but it does not mitigate careless driving. Bars are allowed to put in parking lots, but you can't mitigate a DWI with that argument.

Not that I in any way condone any excuse by the driver, but this is why if there isn't a bike lane, then the dang things shouldn't be on the road....the road made for CARS! You can claim all day that you're legally protected and that it's your right to be on the road all you want, but at the end of the day.....the car wins and the bike loses. And in some cases, that means you lose your life. There's no moral high ground when you're dead. I deal with bikers on Sooner and Douglas quite often, and they're in areas where there is no shoulder to drive on, yet the city has designated it a "bike route". If you're going to do that OKC, then put a freaking bike land in there!!!!! The road was made for cars, and the car shouldn't have to swerve to go around an object (like a bike) on the road...which was made for cars.

Personally I'm all for sharing the road. I mean everyone wants to get from point A to B on their preferred method of transportation. If I see you I will move for you, period. I've come into so many close calls with cyclists and runners in the predawn hours that are not wearing anything reflective or anything with lights and are running straight at me on the wrong side of the road and I only see them once they are in my headlights. It is scary. It also bothers me that many cyclists want to be treated like everyone else on the roads, yet when it's convenient for them they blow through stop signs, blow through red lights, and I've personally had a cyclist on the right side of my bumper wailing his arms because he couldn't get through between me and the curb to proceed -- when I was attempting a right-on-red maneuver. Really, I don't ever think this issue will ever be resolved because there are unrealistic expectations from both sides involved. It's like motorcycles -- I grew up with motorcycles and I want to have one now so bad, but I feel like with all the inattentive drivers my life would be in danger constantly. I mean, look at BBJ for example. Minding his own business riding on a beautiful day. My fear of being mowed down by a car keeps me from getting a motorcycle. Should it be this way? No. I shouldn't have to be scared for my life to ride a motorcycle on a street. But that's my choice. I'm not going to go around preaching that folks need to watch out for me. It's a lost cause. I would be the one to die anyway. I feel the same way for bicyclists and runners who chose to bike or run on roadways. Yes share the road laws are all fine and dandy, but come on now it really is an unreasonable expectation for everyone to mind you while you're on the road. Personally, I think every new road should be built extended a few more feet to the right with a dedicated bike lane, but that's really unlikely. Okay, well there's my rant. For me, if you're out there biking or running please wear clothes that I can see you with and I'll happily share the road with you.

Not that I in any way condone any excuse by the driver, but this is why if there isn't a bike lane, then the dang things shouldn't be on the road....the road made for CARS! You can claim all day that you're legally protected and that it's your right to be on the road all you want, but at the end of the day.....the car wins and the bike loses. And in some cases, that means you lose your life. There's no moral high ground when you're dead. I deal with bikers on Sooner and Douglas quite often, and they're in areas where there is no shoulder to drive on, yet the city has designated it a "bike route". If you're going to do that OKC, then put a freaking bike land in there!!!!! The road was made for cars, and the car shouldn't have to swerve to go around an object (like a bike) on the road...which was made for cars.

Bombermwc,
That's your opinion, but the laws say differently. I'm not a biker, I haven't been on a bicycle since 1975, but I believe in following or changing the law(s) concerning bikes. I do get irritated at the bikers (and, I'm sure they are the minority) that disobey traffic laws. When I am behind one or more, I just take my time until there is an opening to pass, and most of the time the bikers move over to the far right to give me the room without going too far over the center line.
C. T.

I find that more 4 wheel and more motor vehicle operators violating rules of the road than I do two wheel, motorized or not.

Not that I in any way condone any excuse by the driver, but this is why if there isn't a bike lane, then the dang things shouldn't be on the road....the road made for CARS! You can claim all day that you're legally protected and that it's your right to be on the road all you want, but at the end of the day.....the car wins and the bike loses. And in some cases, that means you lose your life. There's no moral high ground when you're dead. I deal with bikers on Sooner and Douglas quite often, and they're in areas where there is no shoulder to drive on, yet the city has designated it a "bike route". If you're going to do that OKC, then put a freaking bike land in there!!!!! The road was made for cars, and the car shouldn't have to swerve to go around an object (like a bike) on the road...which was made for cars.

Motorist and cyclists have been peacefully coexisting on European roads for decades. And most those roads are way more narrow, hilly and winding than anything you'll ever see in Oklahoma. And the same can be said in California, where I've ridden thousands of miles on my bike on every type of road imaginable.

The big difference is that in those places you don't have the Entitled Motorist Syndrome: "the car shouldn't have to swerve to go around an object (like a bike) on the road".

That type of attitude and thinking is what is dangerous and attempts to completely shift responsibility away from the motorist.

Motorist and cyclists have been peacefully coexisting on European roads for decades. And most those roads are way more narrow, hilly and winding than anything you'll ever see in Oklahoma. And the same can be said in California, where I've ridden thousands of miles on my bike on every type of road imaginable.

The big difference is that in those places you don't have the Entitled Motorist Syndrome: "the car shouldn't have to swerve to go around an object (like a bike) on the road".

That type of attitude and thinking is what is dangerous and attempts to completely shift responsibility away from the motorist.

With all due respect, Pete, I understand where you're coming from completely, but the "entitlement" syndrome as it is phrased is a bit inflammatory - the roads do exist for the primary purpose of motorized vehicles, don't they? I mean, I am not at all suggesting there's an *excuse* for reckless driver behavior, but I do have to admit to my own sense of frustration at the idea that there should be a sense of equanimity between fundamentally dissimilar types of vehicles on the same kind of road. There's a reason some kinds of motorbikes aren't "street legal," a reason why things like Segways (as I understand it) are forbidden on streets in some places, etc.

I guess its just that the inherent notion that a bike and a two-ton car are equal is, well, bothersome. They aren't, and for reasons that have nothing to do with "entitlement." That's a physical mismatch the bike always loses. Yes, the vehicle driver has ultimate responsibility to avoid the bikes, but I think there is an important burden on that bike rider to make him or herself as visible as possible.

Let me say, again, this is a general notion separate entirely from the specific issue of *this* driver and *this* bike, where it's nearly impossible for me to fathom an exposition of the facts that would absolve the driver of responsibility.

I will never forget as a kid a friend of mine and I opted to ride from my house up to a Putt Putt course about three or four miles north of my house on an *extremely* busy street. I never began to fathom the size and speed difference between myself on a bike and a moving car until I got *on the road*, and as I started through the intersection at S. Western at the I-240 underpass where my feet slid off the pedals, I thought, "my gosh, if I fall, I'm going to get killed," and it would have been no one's fault but my own. I was an *idiot* for doing what I was doing, and I never tried it again.

Motorist and cyclists have been peacefully coexisting on European roads for decades. And most those roads are way more narrow, hilly and winding than anything you'll ever see in Oklahoma. And the same can be said in California, where I've ridden thousands of miles on my bike on every type of road imaginable.

The big difference is that in those places you don't have the Entitled Motorist Syndrome: "the car shouldn't have to swerve to go around an object (like a bike) on the road".

That type of attitude and thinking is what is dangerous and attempts to completely shift responsibility away from the motorist.

Great post Pete on laying the excuses to waste. Can't wait to see the excuses of why Oklahoma is so unique in the inability to respect cyclists. The same "EMS" is exhibited in city crosswalks daily.

When I'm driving my car, I don't expect other motorists to see me or know or even care that I'm there. I drive defensively because I've seen what other motorists do. If I have to drive this defensively in a moderately sized car and get cut off because another motorists doesn't see me there, imagine how much more invisible I would be on a bicycle.

I've seen people in golf carts and 4 wheelers get pulled over and ticketed on city streets because those vehicles are illegal. What I've read is that those vehicles are illegal on most roads because of the issue of safety. I've never understood why these vehicles that are larger than a bicycle are considered unsafe for city streets but bicycles are not.

I'm not making excuses here or shifting responsibility away from motorists. I own a bicycle and ride regularly. And I know that I have as much right to ride down NW Expwy as a GMC Yukon XL. But I just don't feel like taking that chance. I think that nearly all of these accidents can be avoided if two modes of transportation with such dissimilar size and speed are made to go on their own thoroughfares rather than sharing one. Not every motorists is always going to be paying attention. Not every motorists is going to use the signal to let others know their intentions. Despite laws to the contrary, some will still be texting. As long as bikes and cars share the same road, these wrecks will happen no matter how many laws you make.

Some of this same logic/thinking could be applied to keeping non-trucks off of highways...

In this case it would not be hard as the driver admitted guilt.

Per the bolded part, Title 47, Chapter 11, Sec. 901b-
The operator of every vehicle, while driving, shall devote their full time and attention to such driving.

No law enforcement officer shall issue a citation under this section unless the law enforcement officer observes that the operator of the vehicle is involved in an accident or observes the operator of the vehicle driving in such a manner that poses an articulable danger to other persons on the roadway that is not otherwise specified in statute

As for the billboard example, yeah the state does do that, but it does not mitigate careless driving. Bars are allowed to put in parking lots, but you can't mitigate a DWI with that argument.

Well, I haven't seen the actual quote from the driver. Perhaps she said "I was driving down the road, responding to a text, not paying a damn bit of attention, and then I heard a thump". If that's the case, then sure. But I don't know what the exact situation was.

DUIs are a great example. It is perfectly legal for me to go to a bar, drink a few beers, get in my car, and drive around. It is not illegal to drink and then drive. It is illegal to drive while intoxicated. As long as my BAC stays below a set level, I haven't broken the law.

I'm not talking about careless driving. I'm saying that "full time and attention" allows for someone to deal with the normal distractions of operating a motor vehicle. If I'm adjusting my sun-visor or looking at a street sign, if I look down to change the AC setting or get a toy out of the floorboard, and I cause an accident, I may be civilly liable. But I don't think a jury is going to convict me of a crime, even if somebody dies.

Bicyclists need to take into account that a driver who has the sun in his eyes is a lethal threat to them.

Well, now that you mention it ... a driver who has the sun in his eyes can be a lethal threat to all other roadway users

I can't drive my vehicle to work without entering a roadway but I can get all the physical benefit that a bike offers without leaving my home. Bottom line, bicycles and roads is not a good mix and fails the logic test.

Motorist and cyclists have been peacefully coexisting on European roads for decades. And most those roads are way more narrow

and the size of the automobiles over there?

and the size of the automobiles over there?

While they might not have the p/u and suv's they certainly have your full compliment of European and Asian cars. Europe also uses buses and trucks to transport goods. More importantly it is the attitude that is significantly different, not gvw.

While they might not have the p/u and suv's they certainly have your full compliment of European and Asian cars. Europe also uses buses and trucks to transport goods. More importantly it is the attitude that is significantly different, not gvw.

I've been to Europe and I don't recall many if any bikes traveling on the high traffic roads. Maybe some of the smaller side roads, but not the main thoroughfares. I also watched Top Gear until they fired Jeremy, and it seems they have the same problem in Britain that we have here. They even had a few episodes where they addressed that bicycles and motor vehicles sharing the same roads is dangerous. TG also visited many other European cities. It seemed from watching, that in those cities the places where you'd see cyclists was in the older parts of the city where the passages were too small for cars or in the town squares where autos weren't allowed. There were some episodes where they would have a race and Hammond would be on a bicycle in a European city and he was literally taking his life in his hands by sharing the road with motor vehicles.

Maybe you're right and I'm completely mistaken about European cities and bicycles. But from my observation it seems that they have similar issues that we have here.

Traxx,
This isn't really a fair reply to your post, but take a look at Amsterdam. they are definitely the exception. They cater to bikers, they have their own lane on the sidewalk, and as a pedestrian, if you get hit in that lane by a biker, you are in the wrong. They even have bicycle multi level parking garages. Of course, with the good comes the bad, they also have bicycles rotting and rusting everywhere. Also, I think Great Britain is pretty good. I have seen a lot of bikers riding around in the busy streets of London. I don't really remember that much about bikes in Ireland or anywhere else I've been.
C. T.

http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html

U.S. cyclists are three more likely to be killed than German cyclists and six times more than Dutch cyclists, whether compared per-trip or per-distance traveled. (Reuters, Aug. 28, 2003, by Maggie Fox)

Saftey in numbers. Worldwide, the greater the concentration of cyclists, the lower the fatality rate. That is, the more cyclists, the safer it is to cycle. By converse, the fewer cyclists, the more dangerous it is to cycle. This is a main reason why cyclists oppose helmet laws, because they're shown to reduce the number of cyclists, and that makes cycling more dangerous for those who remain (whether they wear a helmet or not). The Safety in Numbers principle was proved even within this country, as NYC has a similar rate of cycling fatalities per capita compared to the rest of the country, but nearly four times as many people bike or walk to work in NYC compared to the rest of the U.S. (Bicyclist Fatalities and Serious Injuries in New York City PDF, 1996-2005)

I know the numbers are a few years back, but have nothing to indicate they are not still valid.

Sarah Morris still has not been charged for this killing that happened on 7-31.