The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Here are the 15 cities that ranked the worst:

15. Oklahoma City, Okla.
Population: 551,789
Total fatality rate per 100,000 population: 13.41
Total fatalities: 74
Percentage of fatalities that were pedestrians: 13.5

14. Birmingham, Ala.
Population: 228,798
Total fatality rate per 100,000 population: 13.55
Total fatalities: 31
Percentage of fatalities that were pedestrians: 15.2

13. Tulsa, Okla.
Population: 385,635
Total fatality rate per 100,000 population: 14.00
Total fatalities: 54
Percentage of fatalities that were pedestrians: 18.5

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/15-dangerous-cities-for-driving.html

Is this any surprise to anyone living and driving in Tulsa?

Nope!  We are too polite to use our horns.

81st Street eastbound from Riverside is like a racetrack to see who can pass who at the traffic lights because of the merging lanes. In-between lights, they tailgate you as punishment for not letting them pass until the next traffic light.

How slow are you driving?

40mph..........good point. That's too slow.

Depends on where you are, which lane you are in, and if it takes you a half mile to get up to that speed.

I have followed traffic which was not racing to the next red traffic light only to have the light turn green then red again.  That won't usually happen downtown where the lights are closely spaced.

Where do the lanes merge?  East side of Harvard?

That's just it, there are sooo many lane merges, construction, wheel-jarring bumps unexpectedly along the way... this city's street department is just something else!  No wonder drivers are getting impatient with each other.

Oh, I remember the Tulsa World, an editorial a few weeks ago, that said in the city's defense, 90% of the streets in Tulsa were not having any repairs made to them. Now there's a fine example of how you can say anything with statistics.  Sure, 90% of our streets are going without repair, because of the sheer number of neighborhood streets.  But out of all of Tulsa's main arteries (41st, 31st, Utica, Garnett, etc.) what percentage of those are having work done to them, all at the same time (and for a long long time, too).  It's so very frustrating. I just think we as taxpayers deserve so much better.

I had an incident with another city department recently that was, well, it was just literally astonishing, the level of incompetency that was shown. But even more notable is the waste of taxpayer funds it involved. And this is just little ol' me... I wonder how much more incompetency and waste is multiplied all over the city.  Sad.  : (


..just my $0.02 worth

Did you expect you weren't to be inconvenienced while the city does upgrades to its woefully inadequate infrastructure?  It amuses me.  Usually the very same people complaining about the construction work are those same people who complain about how crappy our roads are.  And while I'm not saying you do this, I know many that do.  Do you think there's not an inconvenience while we wait?  I remember when they were six-laning the BA from I-44 to BA and how much of a pain that was.  When it got finished I remember how people lauded the expressway.  These were likely also the same people who put a pox on the contractors doing the road construction.  Sure, it's a pain, but look what happens in the long run.

We finally beat OKC though. We're 13th, those grandma's are 15!

Just east of Lewis, IIRC. I thought the speed limit was actually 45 down there, but it's been quite a while since I've been in that particular area.

Edit: No, it's Harvard now. I forgot about the reconstruction between Lewis and Harvard some years back.

I can't think of any length of time since I've been driving in Tulsa (around 92) that 44 hasn't been under construction.  It's things like that that really give the perception that everything is constantly under construction.

By '92 I think the BA had been under widening construction for 5 or 7 years.

I wonder why so many FL cities made the grade? Most of them are retirement areas for the elderly. It just makes me wonder if advanced age drivers  plays a part in driving safety. ???

Didn't play a part according to the article and its comments section following. Most retirees in the Florida area live in communities where they don't drive as they don't need to. This list pointed out that pedestrians are in more danger in Tulsa than they are in much larger cities.

They really didn't pin a reason but from friends I know who live there its a combination of dense population, young people, immigrants, alcohol, drugs, wealth and tourism. All the stuff people want in a big city. ;)

Hey, Tulsa didn't make the list of most dangerous for pedestrians.

http://t4america.org/resources/dangerousbydesign2011/states/worst-metros/ (http://t4america.org/resources/dangerousbydesign2011/states/worst-metros/)

Would seem to reason that one must have pedestrians in the first place, in order for there to be a danger to them.  Can't have a real danger to something that doesn't really exist.  ;)

Different studies. Go figure.
The Yahoo one had Tulsa population at 385,000 with 18.5% of our traffic deaths as pedestrians.
Jacksonville at 807,000 with only 13.8%
Memphis at 669,000 with only 11.9%
OKC at 551,000 with only 13.5%

Actually the smaller cities seemed to have larger pedestrian deaths than the larger ones. More cars less pedestrians?

Not trying to be rude here, but have you ever been to Florida? Those jerks. I have never seen more impatient drivers in one place. Granted, half of them are tourists, but Florida is not an easy place to try to drive in. It's an espescially scary place to be a pedestrian in.

Then you've not been to:

New York
DC/ NoVa (that's Northern Virginia)
San Francisco
Los Angeles (worst of all of them)
Dallas is nearly as bad as all of them.

If so, my apologie, but I was in Florida for work back in my youth.  Maybe it's changed, but their driving seemed tepid as it compared to some of the cities above I mentioned.

I've never noticed anything with Dallas drivers being impatient, I've never actually been to LA, but around San Diego, and Del Mar it wasn't bad, I've never been to San Francisco, New York, or DC, so I don't know about them. I guess I shouldn't have said that Florida was the worst I've been to though, because drivers in Chicago are some of the biggest jerks I've ever seen.

You can get run over on the LBJ if you are going slower than 75.  Even worse on I-35 to Austin.

On the North Central Freeway near McKinney, it never fails to have the worst drivers I have ever seen.  Ever..don't know if it's the water or what, but they epitomize impatience.

Tulsa is good training to gain patience.   3 abreast on Memorial at 10 to 15 less than the speed limit in clear dry weather with no traffic in front teaches you to ride the brake.

I'd rather that than someone trying to run me down at 85 mph while I'm in the middle lane.  That's why they have left lanes, to all the N. Texas moron drivers.

There are no left lanes in Tulsa.  All lanes are equal.

On 169 that's definitely the case.  Especially for the dimwitted dump truck drivers who refuse to tarp their cargo and think that 5 under the speed limit in the left lane is amusing.

  What really irks me is when I happen to be in the left lane and going the speed limit, or even a hair over, and still some jerk zooms right up on me and acts like I am the one in the wrong?  Seriously!?  They couldn't have got up on my tail in the first place, unless THEY were the ones breaking the law.  And then are apparently wanting me to continue letting them break the law by moving over so they can illegally speed onward lol.

Under the law of most states, you are in the wrong. They post those "slower traffic keep right" or "keep right except to pass" signs for a reason. In Oklahoma, you are to use the farthest right lane unless you are passing. In Arkansas, you can hang out in the left lane as long as you like so long as you're not blocking traffic.

Only if it's been changed within about the last 5 years.  I remember an article in the TW about an unhappy teen driver who was blocking the left lane on 169 in front of an OHP or Tulsa Police car.  She got cited for impeding traffic or something similar.  I called the OHP to ask about left lane rules.  At that time, driving in the left lane was legal as long as the driver was faster than the posted minimum speed.

About a year or so ago, there was an attempt to keep drivers out of the left lane except for passing so emergency vehicles would have clear passage.  I vaguely remember that if you were going the speed limit, there was nothing they could do as long as you yielded to emergency vehicles displaying their warning lights etc.

Around Tulsa, there is too much traffic to restrict access to left lane on a regular basis.  I just wish the pokie okies would keep right.

While I agree with your sentiment, let them go.  It's not worth the potential road rage.  Besides, they can be the high speed Police Catcher.

Speedometers are a lot better than they used to be but if someone creeps (not zooming as you described) up on you, it could be differences in speedometers.

Tulsa seems to have no shortage of people who treat crossing an expressway the same as they would crossing Boston Ave.   Lots of daytime fatalities, but they are braver at night under the bright lights they think help drivers see them.

They'll ticket you in Colorado for driving in the left lane on the interstate.  It is for passing only.

Title 47, Section 11-301 states:

47-11-309 states (with exceptions omitted):

Nice to know, wish more drivers did.  Any idea on the date(s) of enactment?  Just curious.

"less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions"  is probably a necessary loophole for weather etc which allows everyone to go 35 in a 45 zone.  The guy next to me was only going 35, therefore the normal speed must be 35.  Argh!

2010. The law was much stricter in the 2009 version:


Section 5 was unchanged from the 2006 revision.

The first version (2002) had this (and it's made it through to the present version), though:

Sign says "slower traffic keep right," the law says you must obey, just like you would a sign indicating the directionality of a particular lane.

So, the posted speed limit has little to do with the normal flow of traffic. So if the normal flow was 80, even though the speed limit is 55, you would be breaking the law if you drove the limit and impeded that normal flow. Interesting dilemma. Bottom line is just get out of the left lane if you get tailgated and keep moving right till you find your comfortable flow. You're not going to change human nature with rules unless every other car in traffic is a police car.

As an aside, I won a moot court case in high school a long time ago using the same rules regarding driving in the right lane on city streets unless passing or turning left. My case had a driver who was using the left lane when there was no other traffic on the road. My client didn't see him and turned left into the left lane and was hit by the other car. We alleged that the driver in the left lane had significantly contributed to the accident since he was un-necessarily driving in that lane. Both were negligent and had to share in blame.

I have seen some "slower traffic keep right" signs on 412 between Tulsa and Chouteau.  I don't remember seeing them anywhere else.

Thanks for the research.

Agreed on the dilemma.

I heard rumors that the California HP tried to stay off the freeways when the freeways weren't parking lots to prevent accidents caused by drivers hitting the brakes when the saw the CHP car.  The rumors were from local CA residents but I never verified the rumors.

  I would figure that the normal flow of traffic must be at most the upper posted speed limit, or within the lower posted speed limit. It would be assumed that "normal" would include "legal".      

It would still seem to me that your not impeeding the normal flow of traffic if your in the left lane and going 65 in a 65mph zone.  Say its 2 lanes either direction and busy. The right lane may be full of people going say 55 or 60 so I don't see what the problem is if you get into the left lane and are going 65.  You could be passing a line of people for miles and miles lol. Often in such a situation the left lane may have plenty of other people in it going 65 as well.  Nobody should want to get by you in the left lane, they cant even legally catch up to you or want to want to try to pass you if they are obeying the speed limit.  Usually I will shift over into the right lane whenever its convenient, but often when its very busy you can be in the left lane for quite a bit, going the speed limit while there is a line of people to your right going lower than the upper speed limit. Its at those times that someone weaving throught traffic and zooming up on your tail, in either lane, is annoying.  Or if I am passing a line of people and I am going 65 in a 65mp zone, and they zoom up on me trying to get me to squeeze into the busy, slower right lane, I am like,,, ok a$$hole be patient and let me get past.

Also, if you were doing 65 in the right lane, and the speed limit was 65, wouldn't it be illegal to pass me? Left lane or no, in order for you to do so you would have to break the law by going over the speed limit.  

All I can say Artist, is that the law in this case seems to be recognizing human nature and being pretty pragmatic. Yes, they are breaking the law when they exceed the speed limit (even in passing you) and those people who dog you at high speed trying to push you out of the way are seriously irritating. But in the interest of traffic flow the speed limits are not heavily enforced. Now if you are involved in an accident and they determine you were exceeding the limit, you can bet you'll be ticketed for that.

Thank heavens they don't approach drug law enforcement the same way...wait a minute....

I'll see that minute and raise you 20 seconds.
 
 ;D

I am not so much concerned with fast as I am with erratic and otherwise dangerous.  I drive the speed limit because I don't want to pay the price of a ticket. 

Americans don't have the lane discipline to allow Autobahn speeds.  I was fortunate enough to drive the Autobahns in 1995.  160 km/hr (100 mph) was comfortable with the right road surface.  200 km/hr (127 mph) was a little on the edge in the BMW 316 I rented.  I think a 325 would have been fine.  I doubt most OK roads would be good for that speed but 85 mph is probably not out of the question, assuming the driver is not a typical US moron.

My violation of the traffic laws does not excuse your violation of the traffic laws. The law used to apply only up to the speed limit, but it was changed. A less than 10 over ticket is the same penalty as obstructing traffic. Over that, better to take the obstruction ticket than drive faster, if you assume a 100% chance of getting caught. Of course, in reality, it's very hard to get a ticket here in Oklahoma if you don't get pulled over often. I've gotten a couple of warnings (one for 14 over, oops!), but never a ticket here in Oklahoma. Not yet, anyway.

That said, as long as you're passing people, it would be pretty hard to argue that you're not entitled to use the left lane. When there's a 30 second gap on the right and you choose to continue blocking the left lane, that's when the keep right law is operative.

Edited to add: Chances are, if someone going faster than you was able to pass on the right (not illegal in Oklahoma in most circumstances, BTW, although it is in some states), you had a fine opportunity to move over and let faster traffic pass. Interestingly, Oklahoma is one of the few states where it's legal to drive on the right shoulder if you're doing it so faster traffic can pass. In most states, to be within the law, one must stop to let others pass, as it's illegal to drive on the shoulder.

And do note that you don't have to use the right lane if it's full or if there's significant merging traffic. (say, the BA between Lewis and 31stish at busy times)

And further regarding the speed limit issue, the legislature spoke when they changed the law in 2006. It used to read:


Clearly, the legislature intended to get rid of the "I was driving the speed limit!" argument when they removed the bit about "less than the maximum posted speed".