View Full Version : Bike to Work Day, May 18th



Keith
04-10-2007, 07:24 PM
Bike to Work Day.....
City of Oklahoma City

Oklahoma City has partnered with the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG) to participate in the 3rd annual Bike to Work Day, on Friday, May 18, 2007, 8:30 am, at Bicentennial Park, (west of City Hall).

For the past two years, Oklahoma City has designated the third Friday in May as “Bike to Work Day”. Participants in this event converge on Downtown Oklahoma City on Friday morning to attend a bicycle rally with the City Manager and City Council members.

Bike to Work Day is a national event sponsored by the League of American of Bicyclists and has attracted as many as 250 participants in Oklahoma City.

The intent of Bike to Work Day is to:

Educate the community that bicycles are a beneficial mode of transportation
Provide basic information on bicycle commuting available to potential riders
Encourage people to try bicycle commuting
Increase the general public's awareness and respect for bicyclistsBicycling is a viable and environmentally friendly form of transportation, an excellent form of fitness, a quality of life element, an economic development tool, and provides quality recreation.

The League of American Bicyclists has recognized the month of May as National Bike to Work Month since 1956.

Misty
04-11-2007, 02:44 PM
I hope we have TONS of participants this year to show the city that there are many of us that are passionate about biking, more bike lanes, etc. ALRIGHT! It would be great to see 500 people attend. Think we can do it? Everyone recruit a few friends to attend with you!

MadMonk
04-11-2007, 03:04 PM
I hope we have TONS of participants this year to show the city that there are many of us that are passionate about biking, more bike lanes, etc. ALRIGHT! It would be great to see 500 people attend. Think we can do it? Everyone recruit a few friends to attend with you!
More bike lanes and paths would be fine but, only make sense if more bike riders used them when they are available. A quick drive around Lake Hefner will show you how much they don't get used. It drives me crazy to have to slowly creep behind some idiot hogging the middle of the road when 20ft away there's a bike path for their use. It's there for the convenience of both of us...use it!

That said, good luck with the bike day. Perhaps you can encourage the use of the bike paths and lanes with your fellow bike commuters. :tiphat:

Tim
04-11-2007, 03:22 PM
More bike lanes and paths would be fine but, only make sense if more bike riders used them when they are available. A quick drive around Lake Hefner will show you how much they don't get used. It drives me crazy to have to slowly creep behind some idiot hogging the middle of the road when 20ft away there's a bike path for their use. It's there for the convenience of both of us...use it!

That said, good luck with the bike day. Perhaps you can encourage the use of the bike paths and lanes with your fellow bike commuters. :tiphat:

MadMonk, there are a number of reasons cyclists choose the road rather than an adjacent path, especially Hefner's trails. First, they are multi-use, which means that a cyclist moving at 20 mph has a very good chance of running into a walker going 4 mph, or their dog, or child, or dog/child's leash. Frankly, multi use trails can be as dangerous as sidewalks for a person on a bicycle. Oklahoma law recognizes bicycles as vehicles, and their place on the road is protected by law. I do take issue with cyclists being referred to as "idiots".
Now, back on topic, Edmond is also hosting a Bike to Work Day event. I'll post full details on the Edmond board tomorrow!

"I thought of that while riding my bicycle" Albert Einstein on the Theory of Relativity

MadMonk
04-12-2007, 09:35 AM
If a bike rider is doing 20MPH in a 35-40 zone in the only lane I can drive my car in and feels the need to "own the lane" thereby slowing me and the increasingly long line behind me then he/she is indeed an idiot. It if was you, then you will surely remember my verticle middle finger as I went by as well as another car's "friendly" honk when he went by. If not, then you have nothing to take issue with.

Tim
04-12-2007, 09:51 AM
Y'know MadMonk, it's kinda pathetic that a grown man has to resort to name calling and obscene hand gestures because he was delayed in traffic for a few seconds. Grow up man.

jbrown84
04-12-2007, 10:33 AM
If you're in such a hurry, why the heck are you on the Lake Road????

Misty
04-12-2007, 10:48 AM
Holy Road Rage Batman! Unfortunately this type of attitude is very typical towards those that ride bikes here in OKC. With time, as bike lanes and sidewalks are added to the city and we have less smog & fewer cars on the road thus reducing commute times maybe people will start to understand.

Tim
04-12-2007, 11:00 AM
Holy Road Rage Batman! Unfortunately this type of attitude is very typical towards those that ride bikes here in OKC. With time, as bike lanes and sidewalks are added to the city and we have less smog & fewer cars on the road thus reducing commute times maybe people will start to understand.

Ahhh...utopia! My only hope is that gas hits $6.00 per gallon and suddenly us bike geeks will be considered geniuses! Seriously, I really cannot comprehend the anger behind those drivers that freak out on us. Why do they feel the need to yell and scream and throw stuff?

Misty
04-12-2007, 11:57 AM
I know! It's unbelievable. We need to band together to promote change. In Austin there aren't problems like that, the city has gotten used to sharing the road with bikes (plus Lance Armstong has had a huge influence). Maybe we just need on Okie to win the Tour de France!

MadMonk
04-12-2007, 12:00 PM
Y'know MadMonk, it's kinda pathetic that a grown man has to resort to name calling and obscene hand gestures because he was delayed in traffic for a few seconds. Grow up man.
What's pathetic is that there are perfectly good trails for the bikes that our tax money pays for and some riders don't have the wits enough to figure out how to get around some old lady walking her dog, so they decide it's SOOO much safer to jockey with multi-ton vehicles.

BTW, it's not that I had to resort to the finger, more like settle for it. And who said anything about throwing stuff?!? Are you pissing people off that badly when you ride? That says a lot right there.

Grow up? Never!
Here, these are just for you. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/Mad_Monk/Smileys/double_finger.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/Mad_Monk/Smileys/finger-1.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/Mad_Monk/Smileys/preecher.gif


jbrown,
It's not that I was in a hurry, it's the principle of the thing. This guy seem to think he owned the road and refused to get over enought to allow traffic to get by without going into the opposite lane. And it's not as if he were some clueless grandad out for his first ride in 30 years, this guy knew exactly what he was doing.

Don't you agree that that is wrong and inherently unsafe?

The irony here is that you guys think that I just have this crazy hate for bike riders. You're totally wrong, I ride one myself! I just hate inconsiderate bike riders who don't take advantage of the trails made for them and instead choose to meander along like they own the road. I do my best to make things easier riders who are considerate and intelligent enough use the trails and to at least get over enough to pass if a trail isn't available. I do it and I would expect any reasonable person to do the same.

Misty
04-12-2007, 12:12 PM
There aren't any bike paths from my house to my office. Many of the bike paths in the city are fine for recreation but some people choose to bike rather than drive a car. It keeps you in shape, lets you enjoy the fresh air and sunshine and is better for the environment. I don't agree with cars OR bikes hogging the road, but maybe there was glass or a pothole. Or maybe he just felt safer because it was a dangerous area to ride in and riding in the middle of the lane forces drivers to be aware of you so you don't get run over and killed.

Tim
04-12-2007, 12:28 PM
What's pathetic is that there are perfectly good trails for the bikes that our tax money pays for and some riders don't have the wits enough to figure out how to get around some old lady walking her dog, so they decide it's SOOO much safer to jockey with multi-ton vehicles.

BTW, it's not that I had to resort to the finger, more like settle for it. And who said anything about throwing stuff?!? Are you pissing people off that badly when you ride? That says a lot right there.

Grow up? Never!
Here, these are just for you. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/Mad_Monk/Smileys/double_finger.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/Mad_Monk/Smileys/finger-1.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/Mad_Monk/Smileys/preecher.gif


jbrown,
It's not that I was in a hurry, it's the principle of the thing. This guy seem to think he owned the road and refused to get over enought to allow traffic to get by without going into the opposite lane. And it's not as if he were some clueless grandad out for his first ride in 30 years, this guy knew exactly what he was doing.

Don't you agree that that is wrong and inherently unsafe?

The irony here is that you guys think that I just have this crazy hate for bike riders. You're totally wrong, I ride one myself! I just hate inconsiderate bike riders who don't take advantage of the trails made for them and instead choose to meander along like they own the road. I do my best to make things easier riders who are considerate and intelligent enough use the trails and to at least get over enough to pass if a trail isn't available. I do it and I would expect any reasonable person to do the same.

The bottom line seems to be that you got angry, are uninformed as to the laws of the State regarding cyclist's rights (or don't care) and are trying to justify your bad behavior by blaming the cyclist.

Martin
04-12-2007, 12:54 PM
i don't have a problem sharing the roads with cyclists... but there are times that they choose busy streets and cause traffic/safety problems. when the speed limit is 45mph, i don't think it's unreasonable to get irked when stuck behind somebody doing around 20 regardless of whether or not they're on a bicycle. sure, the cyclist has the legal right to be there... but that doesn't mean it isn't rude to the rest of us. -M

MadMonk
04-12-2007, 01:10 PM
No, the bottom line is that the law says you have to ride as far to the right as can be safely done. The road was not potholed and there was no reason why this person needed to ride in the middle of the lane other than to be an ass. You can't seem to stomach my little outburst, but have no problem with a cyclists hogging the road.

How about if I drive 10MPH in front of the 20MHP cyclist and not let him pass? Would that be acceptable behavior in your reality? I hope not, but that's what you are saying I should put up with. If you can't see that then you are beyond any hope of reasoning with.

Misty, I'm all for more bike paths to get bike commuters off the main roads. My gripe is for those irresponsible cyclists that don't use the ones we already have.

Tim
04-12-2007, 01:11 PM
i don't have a problem sharing the roads with cyclists... but there are times that they choose busy streets and cause traffic/safety problems. when the speed limit is 45mph, i don't think it's unreasonable to get irked when stuck behind somebody doing around 20 regardless of whether or not they're on a bicycle. sure, the cyclist has the legal right to be there... but that doesn't mean it isn't rude to the rest of us. -M

I'll grant you that. The purpose of National Bike to Work Day is two-fold. To raise awareness among motorists and to educate cyclists. Anger and obscenity do absolutely nothing to foster a positive relationship. On that note, (this one's for you Misty!) if you study the history of paved roadways in the US, you will find that the League of American Wheelmen (now the League of American Cyclists) lobbied successfully for paved streets to accomodate high wheel bicycles! :tiphat:

MadMonk
04-12-2007, 01:23 PM
I think I should clarify something. My grip specifically was with this one guy a couple years ago and generally with those who are either clueless or careless or both when they are on their bikes. I pass by countless cyclists every day that are good, responsible and mindful cyclists that know what they are doing.

Yes, I know my little outburst was childish and no I wouldn't want to present that as an example for my children, but the fact remains that there are cyclists out there that bring that sort of behavior out among motorists - just as there are motorists out there that are just as much of an ass as that one guy on the bike.

Awareness and education is a good thing and I think it should go both ways.

Tim
04-12-2007, 01:23 PM
No, the bottom line is that the law says you have to ride as far to the right as can be safely done. The road was not potholed and there was no reason why this person needed to ride in the middle of the lane other than to be an ass. You can't seem to stomach my little outburst, but have no problem with a cyclists hogging the road.

How about if I drive 10MPH in front of the 20MHP cyclist and not let him pass? Would that be acceptable behavior in your reality? I hope not, but that's what you are saying I should put up with. If you can't see that then you are beyond any hope of reasoning with.

Misty, I'm all for more bike paths to get bike commuters off the main roads. My gripe is for those irresponsible cyclists that don't use the ones we already have.

Monk, you really need a ride to relax man! We have a difference of opinion, but there is really no need for name calling! If you feel the need to pull in front of me and go 10 MPH, cool! Is it OK if I hang on to your bumper for a while?

Misty
04-13-2007, 07:29 AM
Tim-very interesting fact, I didn't know that! I'll have to do some research. Thanks for sharing!

BailJumper
04-13-2007, 08:29 AM
I agree that 90% of cyclists seem to have enough sense to keep to the right. However, I always seem to find the few that will literally pedal down the middle of the lane oblivious to the line of cars and safety hazard they have created. I am also constantly annoyed by those who still believe the myth that they are to pedal facing traffic.

jbrown84
04-13-2007, 08:41 AM
You run against the traffic, but bike with the traffic.

BailJumper
04-13-2007, 09:02 AM
Actually, you also have to WALK facing traffic where a sidewalk is not provided.

Tim
04-13-2007, 09:16 AM
I agree that 90% of cyclists seem to have enough sense to keep to the right. However, I always seem to find the few that will literally pedal down the middle of the lane oblivious to the line of cars and safety hazard they have created. I am also constantly annoyed by those who still believe the myth that they are to pedal facing traffic.
That drives me NUTS! Believe it or not, when I was but a wee lad, they actually taught that in school! Again, educate, educate, educate!

jbrown84
04-13-2007, 09:21 AM
Actually, you also have to WALK facing traffic where a sidewalk is not provided.

naturally...

BailJumper
04-13-2007, 11:41 AM
naturally...

I don't think it is that obvious. How many people know that when walking on the grass next to a public street (not even in the street) they have to face traffic if there is not a sidewalk?

jbrown84
04-13-2007, 11:50 AM
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
04-13-2007, 01:57 PM
I remember being taught pedestrian/bike rules in school as well.

Rifleman2C
04-13-2007, 03:26 PM
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... :cool:

SoonerDave
04-15-2007, 09:29 PM
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 around this biking [i]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
04-16-2007, 09:03 AM
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
04-16-2007, 09:09 AM
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
04-16-2007, 09:43 AM
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
04-16-2007, 10:04 AM
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
04-16-2007, 12:06 PM
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
04-16-2007, 12:17 PM
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
04-16-2007, 12:33 PM
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
04-16-2007, 10:59 PM
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
04-18-2007, 08:00 AM
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
04-18-2007, 08:17 AM
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. :tiphat:

Tim
04-18-2007, 09:25 AM
So, the assumption is that everyone on a bicycle is unemployed?

MadMonk
04-18-2007, 09:41 AM
So, the assumption is that everyone on a bicycle is unemployed?
No.

Tim
04-18-2007, 10:09 AM
[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. :tiphat:[/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
04-18-2007, 10:43 AM
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
04-18-2007, 10:52 AM
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
04-18-2007, 11:28 AM
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:
http://www.rideyourbike.com/images/cargoload1.jpg

:D No thanks.

windowphobe
04-18-2007, 05:07 PM
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
04-19-2007, 07:48 AM
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
04-19-2007, 07:54 AM
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:
http://www.rideyourbike.com/images/cargoload1.jpg

:D 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
05-17-2007, 03:55 PM
Just reminding everyone TOMORROW is bike to work day!!!

Karried
05-17-2007, 04:50 PM
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.

BaconCheeseburgerDeluxe
05-17-2007, 06:04 PM
No, Thanks I will enjoy the ride in the mighty F-150 instead.

http://www.my-ford-f150-truck.com/150ii.jpg

CuatrodeMayo
05-18-2007, 07:25 AM
I rode to work today. And I couldn't have asked for a more beautiful morning.

jbrown84
05-18-2007, 07:47 AM
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.

He shouldn't of been riding on a street that didn't have a shoulder. If I remember right Western is just two-lane with zero shoulder along there.

Martin
05-18-2007, 08:18 AM
took the bike to work today... am i doin' it right? -M

http://members.cox.net/magnvs/pics/biketoworkday.jpg

NE Oasis
05-18-2007, 08:50 AM
For the record, I bike to work regularly. My motorcycle gets greater than 30 mpg even when I'm doing Lake Hefner Parkway speeds on all the local highways. My vehicle is always at least 50 % occupied, and I'm nimble enough to save even more fuel by getting past those that don't know how to merge, panic at the sight of a commercial truck, etc.