OU Projects

[Pete]

I was on campus yesterday and noticed they are progressing with the reconstruction of the south oval. Brooks will be a pedestrian/bike path all the way across campus from Elm to Jenkins, and both sides of the oval will be ped/bike paths with car and bus traffic only on Asp. It should be a really nice improvement when it's finished.

Yes, that is called "Scholar's Walk":

[BG918]

Are the dedicated bike lanes part of this project, or is that a future phase? I know they eventually want to have bike lanes on both sides of the south oval to connect to the dorms, and along the Brooks pedestrian mall. These would also connect to the existing bike lanes on Asp that end at Lindsey (which will also get bike lanes) and future paths on the north oval and University Blvd. I hope they paint them crimson like this rendering:

[bombermwc]

If they put a bike lane in, it needs to be outside of the space a car would be in. The second picture is what's wrong with adding bike lanes without doing actual construction. You put bikers on a road built for CARS, and don't give the cars adequate room for them to drive past each other with a biker on either side. You can't just leave an existing road-width there, you have to increase the width for it to work right. Otherwise you're just putting the biker into the position of feeling they have the right of way (which legally or not, the car always wins...you risk your own life but if I were riding the bike, I'd always let the car be the winner), and you get a large car (say a box truck) and lets just see what happens.

And if the bikes are going to be on the ROAD, which was built for CARS, then they need to follow the traffic laws. That means either you stay on the sidewalk and use the cross walk, or you wait for the light to turn green. But you don't get to just have it your way whenever you feel like changing it up. If you do, you should get a ticket.

I'm not opposed to bike lanes or bikers. I just don't want them on the road. I want them where they should be, which is a dedicated lane. I am opposed to the crap-faces (which are not all of them) that think that because they are on a bike, that they don't have to follow any rules but their own.

[Spartan]

I'm not opposed to bike lanes or bikers. I just don't want them on the road. I am opposed to the crap-faces (which are not all of them) that think that...

Typical bomber...

[Snowman]

If they put a bike lane in, it needs to be outside of the space a car would be in. The second picture is what's wrong with adding bike lanes without doing actual construction. You put bikers on a road built for CARS, and don't give the cars adequate room for them to drive past each other with a biker on either side. You can't just leave an existing road-width there, you have to increase the width for it to work right. Otherwise you're just putting the biker into the position of feeling they have the right of way (which legally or not, the car always wins...you risk your own life but if I were riding the bike, I'd always let the car be the winner), and you get a large car (say a box truck) and lets just see what happens.

And if the bikes are going to be on the ROAD, which was built for CARS, then they need to follow the traffic laws. That means either you stay on the sidewalk and use the cross walk, or you wait for the light to turn green. But you don't get to just have it your way whenever you feel like changing it up. If you do, you should get a ticket.

I'm not opposed to bike lanes or bikers. I just don't want them on the road. I want them where they should be, which is a dedicated lane. I am opposed to the crap-faces (which are not all of them) that think that because they are on a bike, that they don't have to follow any rules but their own.

No mater if it is marked a bike lane or not, bikes have the right to be there, you usually only see shared lanes marked on roads without a passing lane that are around 25 miles an hour anyway and are probably residential

[Plutonic Panda]

If they put a bike lane in, it needs to be outside of the space a car would be in. The second picture is what's wrong with adding bike lanes without doing actual construction. You put bikers on a road built for CARS, and don't give the cars adequate room for them to drive past each other with a biker on either side. You can't just leave an existing road-width there, you have to increase the width for it to work right. Otherwise you're just putting the biker into the position of feeling they have the right of way (which legally or not, the car always wins...you risk your own life but if I were riding the bike, I'd always let the car be the winner), and you get a large car (say a box truck) and lets just see what happens.

And if the bikes are going to be on the ROAD, which was built for CARS, then they need to follow the traffic laws. That means either you stay on the sidewalk and use the cross walk, or you wait for the light to turn green. But you don't get to just have it your way whenever you feel like changing it up. If you do, you should get a ticket.

I'm not opposed to bike lanes or bikers. I just don't want them on the road. I want them where they should be, which is a dedicated lane. I am opposed to the crap-faces (which are not all of them) that think that because they are on a bike, that they don't have to follow any rules but their own.

I agree. Oh, and this is coming from someone who bikes everyday. Bicyclists need to learn to stay to the side of the road and not take up an entire lane.

[mugofbeer]

I agree. Oh, and this is coming from someone who bikes everyday. Bicyclists need to learn to stay to the side of the road and not take up an entire lane.

In bike-friendly Denver, bikers have the same right to be on the road as others. What they so-ofter forget is that the law also requires them to stay to the right if there is room. I've had a verbal or 2 with those who ride at a leisurely pace holding up traffic behind yet have plenty of opps to move right.

[Plutonic Panda]

In bike-friendly Denver, bikers have the same right to be on the road as others. What they so-ofter forget is that the law also requires them to stay to the right if there is room. I've had a verbal or 2 with those who ride at a leisurely pace holding up traffic behind yet have plenty of opps to move right.

Well, that's what I mean, some bikers seem to think they own the road and act like jackasses taking up an entire lane and hold up traffic and just piddle along.

[FighttheGoodFight]

Well, that's what I mean, some bikers seem to think they own the road and act like jackasses taking up an entire lane and hold up traffic and just piddle along.

I have no problems with bikers in the lane. The only problem I have is when they do not obey the runs of the road. Such as not stopping at stop signs or signalling. I am a biker myself and I try my best to stay on the right and obey the rules. It really isn't too hard.

[ou48A]

Well, that's what I mean, some bikers seem to think they own the road and act like jackasses taking up an entire lane and hold up traffic and just piddle along.

It sure seems like its those types of bikers who have a greater tendency to be struck and killed.
I have known 2 bikers that had "the bikers attitude" that have been killed...
One of them was turn into a grease spot by a Mac truck.

[Plutonic Panda]

It sure seems like its those types of bikers who have a greater tendency to be struck and killed.
I have known 2 bikers that had "the bikers attitude" that have been killed...
One of them was turn into a grease spot by a Mac truck.

Yeap, ultimately physics will determine who has the right of way.

[Geographer]

For every 1 stupid bike rider, there are 200 stupid car drivers.

[ou48A]

For every 1 stupid bike rider, there are 200 stupid car drivers.

Maybe so, but how often will the bike rider do well in the car -vs- bike collisions?

[ou48A]

Yeap, ultimately physics will determine who has the right of way.

Yep... there have been more than a few times when the law just isn't going to protect bike riders.

[mugofbeer]

There really are ton of bike riders in central Denver and all power to them. I'd be cool with it if there was a dedicated street or 2 for bikers and local traffic just to keep them off the main roads.

[Plutonic Panda]

For every 1 stupid bike rider, there are 200 stupid car drivers.

Probably because there are 1000x more car drivers than there are bike riders period.

[bombermwc]

Typical bomber...

I stand by it, and looks like other agree with me.

You can argue bike rules all you want, but like Plutonic and OU said, "knowing" you are right when it's a fight between a car and a bike means nothing, but that you're dead or at least injured. I don't want to keep bikes away, I want them placed where they should be...where they are safe. So don't put words into my mouth...remember, you're setting yourself up to fight with the person that supports people getting off their butt and walking. I just don't think that shoving a stripe of paint on an existing road counts. It's just a cheap-butt way of saying you're bike-friendly without having to fork it over for it to be done proper.

Do 5 minutes of google searching on bike lanes and you'll see what it SHOULD be like, and you WON'T see this OU style plan anywhere there. What you will see, is what I'm talking about. A separate lane that does NOT take away space from the car. Either do it proper, or let them stay on the sidewalk and make them follow sidewalk rules.

[Mississippi Blues]

Probably because there are 1000x more car drivers than there are bike riders period.

Really? That's why I see more cars than I do bicycles, I guess. I couldn't figure that out, but this makes so much sense. LOL

[Snowman]

Do 5 minutes of google searching on bike lanes and you'll see what it SHOULD be like, and you WON'T see this OU style plan anywhere there. What you will see, is what I'm talking about. A separate lane that does NOT take away space from the car. Either do it proper, or let them stay on the sidewalk and make them follow sidewalk rules.

Are you saying walking? Cause bikes should not be ridden on the sidewalk, the one with it in the lane may just be a reminder to the cars as much as a recommendation to promote bike use, plus even if it was not marked a shared lane it is not exuding bikes from using that road anyway.

[Plutonic Panda]

Really? That's why I see more cars than I do bicycles, I guess. I couldn't figure that out, but this makes so much sense. LOL

Yeah I know, it's kind of shocking at first, but when you realize it, it all comes together.

[Plutonic Panda]

Are you saying walking? Cause bikes should not be ridden on the sidewalk, the one with it in the lane may just be a reminder to the cars as much as a recommendation to promote bike use, plus even if it was not marked a shared lane it is not exuding bikes from using that road anyway.

I believe it is pretty clear what Bombermwc is saying. Bikes should not take up space from cars and I agree. They need to their own separate lanes on certain streets.

[Mississippi Blues]

Yeah I know, it's kind of shocking at first, but when you realize it, it all comes together.

Man. No joke. At first, I thought you were full of it, but then I got to thinking and what you said seems pretty logical. +2 street creds for you! Haha

[TAlan CB]

For every 1 stupid bike rider, there are 200 stupid car drivers.

No doubt this is true, numbers alone would dictate this is true. Having said this, the problem lies in physics and 'common sense'. The same argument I have with pedestrians crossing outside the crosswalk or whenever they want. They may have the 'right of way' or live where this is common - like university towns - but the car will win every time. Common sense tells you that your 'rights' do you little good when your dead.

[Plutonic Panda]

Man. No joke. At first, I thought you were full of it, but then I got to thinking and what you said seems pretty logical. +2 street creds for you! Haha

No problem.

[catcherinthewry]

In an attempt to get back on topic, I was on campus last weekend and checked out the construction on the South Oval. I really like the idea of making it pedestrian only. Gaylord Hall is a nice addition and the remake of Gould hall is spectacular. The new facade on Collings Hall is an improvement, but nothing special. I'm ready for a remake of Gittinger and Kaufman, those are two of the ugliest buildings on campus. Overall I like what they've done on the South Oval, but it wouldn't take much to improve it because most of those buildings were hideous.