I hate to post YET ANOTHER thread about getting around downtown - especially about traffic lane identification - but this one caught my eye and I thought a few people here would find it interesting.

Location scouts upset again over green bike lane in downtown L.A. - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-location-scouts-green-bike-lane-20130329,0,7502614.story)

Apparently a 1.5 mile bike lane through downtown Los Angeles has been painted neon green in order to better identify it to motorists. Movie makers have voiced their complaints saying that it causes a distraction in their films, which I can understand. Grumpy cinematographers notwithstanding, it is a very clear way of identifying where the bikes go.

This may/may not be a practical solution for downtown OKC, but I'll toss it out as grist for the mill.

Yes, all throughout Southern California they have started painting the ubiquitous bike lanes bright green. This must be a state initiative because I've seen them in many communities.

As an avid cyclist I really like anything that draw attention to bikes and pedestrians.

And especially in OKC where bikes on the street aren't nearly as common, I think it's a great idea.

I think this guys says it all.


Sorry movie scouts, people live here, people work here, people ride bikes here. If you want to remove the green lane, then do it, and after you do your shoot, you can repaint it. You worry about costs, a few thousand dollars of digital work can remove the green lane. With all the money you make on your productions, whatever it costs to hide the green is probably less than you are paying for the catering.

Alas, a better setup would have been to place the parked cars between the bike lane and traffic so no bright green would be needed at all.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2009/06/25/ottawa-090625-bike-lane-Montreal-banner.jpg

Yeah, I was driving downtown one day and this lady passed me in the bike lane and continued all the while in the bike lane as if it were a motorist lane. I saw somewhere that you only pull into the bike lane if you're turning right at an upcoming intersection. I think it's gonna take a while to get Oklahomans appreciation for bike lanes.

Yeah, I was driving downtown one day and this lady passed me in the bike lane and continued all the while in the bike lane as if it were a motorist lane. I saw somewhere that you only pull into the bike lane if you're turning right at an upcoming intersection. I think it's gonna take a while to get Oklahomans appreciation for bike lanes.

Seems like easy money for the police department. Just sit in one spot and wait for the stupid people to come to you.

Until there is consistent biking occurring in the bike lane, OKC will never be bike friendly. Spokies is a great start, but we need people from LEVEL/Maywood/DD Apt to start biking. Show the city we NEED bike lanes. I think the separate bike lane guarded by a curb and street side parking would be neat for the Boulevard. But it would be odd biking next to 18 wheelers while I-40 is shut down for a catastrophe.

That is kind of like saying until semis start driving across the open prairie we don't need to make a paved road to Amarillo. Step 1 has to be building an environment where biking is safe, otherwise only the brave will attempt it. Cars driving down the bike lane might even be too risky for the brave. However, you are right about people in the area using it. Maybe a regularly scheduled 'awareness ride" is in order.

I think this guys says it all.



Alas, a better setup would have been to place the parked cars between the bike lane and traffic so no bright green would be needed at all.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2009/06/25/ottawa-090625-bike-lane-Montreal-banner.jpgYes, that seems like a good idea, dedicated right turn lanes seem to pose a risk to bikers, these would help a lot.

Seems like easy money for the police department. Just sit in one spot and wait for the stupid people to come to you.Also, have bike police. maybe undercover police that patrol the bike lanes, I bet that would stop people from doing it.

We have several bicycle police downtown. I see them every day.Huh, well I have yet to see them, but I don't usually go downtown though. Good to hear it though.

As for the initial project 180 renderings, having the green paint on the bike lanes would definitely send a message to drivers. No where in OKC is there green paint on the driving surface and would definitely get attention. Maybe a couple "ONLY" text boxes next to the Bicycle design that's painted on the lane.

Can someone inform the website of OKC's current offerings and plans? There is a form (http://greenlaneproject.org/submit-your-lane/) on the website to submit (along with pics). I would do it but alas, I'm not local in OKC.

I am not a very good biker but I do have a Spokies membership. The Spokies kiosk at 9th and Broadway is one block from my office. So many of our "bike lanes" near there are actually a silhouette of a bike painted in the middle of the road. Apparently a bike is supposed to share the road with the cars. I would really prefer not to.

I am not a very good biker but I do have a Spokies membership. The Spokies kiosk at 9th and Broadway is one block from my office. So many of our "bike lanes" near there are actually a silhouette of a bike painted in the middle of the road. Apparently a bike is supposed to share the road with the cars. I would really prefer not to.

Well actually, those painted signs denote exactly that: a "sharrow" or a shared-lane for automobiles and bicyclists.

Meet me at the coffee shop at around 7. A couple of them come in just about every morning before 8.That sounds good, but I live in Edmond haha, so it would be harder for me to find good time to head down there. I could try sometime around thursday-friday before I head to class though.

That's good to hear they are there though. Really surprises me to hear about that in OKC. I still think a police presence on horses would be cool to, esp. in Bricktown.

I chased a lady down on my bike on a sharrow marked bicycle route after she almost clipped me just a few days ago. She was busy texting on her cute pink phone which I could clearly see through her rear window.

Short of separating cyclists from cars with on street parking or jersey barriers, it's just not very safe to cycle on streets not named 19th or Shartel. Honestly, I think Afghanistan might be more bike friendly than Oklahoma City sometimes.

Something with a little more neon in it would definitely keep cars off:

http://smspoke.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/IMG_0491.jpg

Yeah, I was driving downtown one day and this lady passed me in the bike lane and continued all the while in the bike lane as if it were a motorist lane. I saw somewhere that you only pull into the bike lane if you're turning right at an upcoming intersection. I think it's gonna take a while to get Oklahomans appreciation for bike lanes.

I plead guilty to the same thing last week. I wonder if many cyclists even recognize that this is a bicycles-only lane.

Guerrilla road safety group ?politely? installs illegal bike lane protectors on Cherry Street | Seattle Bike Blog (http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2013/04/04/guerrilla-road-safety-group-politely-installs-illegal-bike-lane-protectors-on-cherry-street/)

This is actually really smart.

Yes would be helpful on 4th street especially.

I'd personally prefer the LA method. The concrete barrier method is a waste of money. Take a look at that picture with the barrier and count how many cars there are compared to bikes...then consider how much extra money it put to put that in for any length of road.

I have a grudge against bikes because so many of the riders refuse to follow traffic laws. You dont get to drive on the road and then do whatever you want. I also don't want to spend millions upon milions on extra road work (especially if there's a sidewalk next to it...that no one is walking on!) just to say we have it when we don't have people that use them in the areas they do exist. Even in the most bike-happy town in OKC, Norman, you don't see them. Just get the annoying bikers in the way every where.

That 'polite' response from the City of Seattle ticks me off and is yet more proof that traffic engineers are on the 'problem' side of the issue, not the 'solution' side. If only we had more people on the solution side, instead of the problem side.....

That reposnse from the City of Seattle ticks me off and is yet more proof that traffic engineers are on the 'problem' side of the issue, not the 'solution' side.

what the reality that A. they don't own the road and B. even if they did the installed posts are too tall ?

I'd personally prefer the LA method. The concrete barrier method is a waste of money. Take a look at that picture with the barrier and count how many cars there are compared to bikes...then consider how much extra money it put to put that in for any length of road.

I have a grudge against bikes because so many of the riders refuse to follow traffic laws. You dont get to drive on the road and then do whatever you want. I also don't want to spend millions upon milions on extra road work (especially if there's a sidewalk next to it...that no one is walking on!) just to say we have it when we don't have people that use them in the areas they do exist. Even in the most bike-happy town in OKC, Norman, you don't see them. Just get the annoying bikers in the way every where.

Wait, wouldn't the annoying bikers finally be out of your way if there were a bike lane provided on the streets?

Do you think bikers would obey traffic laws better if the design of the infrastructure considered them at all?

Bike lanes do not cost "millions upon millions."

There are a lot of cyclists in the city- you don't see them because in a car you are always driving on arterial streets. Most cyclists in the city ride as much as possible on quieter, safer neighborhood streets. Robinson, Walker, Shartel, 19th, Youngs, Villa, 30th, Drexel, Independence... These are part of the street network that cyclists use. Most of the cycling population is invisible to people who drive on arterial streets.

Has anyone ever been brave enough to use the "shared" bike lane on Walnut, as a cyclist?

The mentality of Oklahomans has to change. For some reason there is this weird cars vs bikers groupthink going on. And it should not be that way, I think designating lanes by painting green or using collapsable posts would help. But in reality, we need more people using the bike lanes so people get used to sharing. Everyone has a "me first" mentality right now and bike lanes going [mostly] un used does not bode well for the changes.

what the reality that A. they don't own the road and B. even if they did the installed posts are too tall ?

You missed the whole point. Instead of taking them down they should have found a way to keep them, or at least replace them with something 'to code'. It's not like they made a bike lane where one didn't exist. And hitting the handle bars on a flexable plastic post is a safety issue - please. The posts were only too tall in the opinion of the traffic engineer who wrote the email. As one of the readers pointed out, I would rather hit my handle bar on a plastic post then get hit by a 3,000 pound car.

I also don't want to spend millions upon milions on extra road work
Joyride: Pedaling Toward a Healthier Planet | Planetizen (http://www.planetizen.com/node/48286)

From the article (talking about Portland):

For the cost of one mile of freeway – about $50 million – we've built 275 of bikeways.

Read the comments on the blog. There are several people who say they have wrecked or almost wrecked because of them.

There may indeed be a liability concern there.

Fine, but like I said, if height is the issue then the City should have made an effort to put shorter ones in, or just cut the ones that were there off to the correct height. An exacto knife could have solved the whole safety issue.

Except it wasn't up to them. It wasn't their ROW.

What this group needs to do is reinstall these, with shorter pylons, on a street that is owned and maintained by SDOT. Then see if they take them down.

If the ROW doesn't belong to SDOT why did they remove them? That should have been the state's job. But anyhow, that doesn't even matter. The first email from a Seattle traffic engineer should have been to the state saying someone installed plastic bollards along the bike lane, and then ask what would it take to keep them in place because it is a good idea. I guess saying no and following the little green book is just too easy.

Except it wasn't up to them. It wasn't their ROW.

What this group needs to do is reinstall these, with shorter pylons, on a street that is owned and maintained by SDOT. Then see if they take them down.

i agree with this

Well, I guess we all said what we wanted to say. Maybe I'll send this group a few bucks to buy more bollards, or better yet, maybe I should do the same thing somewhere around here. Wonder how I would go about finding an underground rebel bicycle club hell bent on polite civil disobedience.

If you want to turn the general populace against bicyclists, get Critical Mass to hold one of their events.

Wait, wouldn't the annoying bikers finally be out of your way if there were a bike lane provided on the streets?

Do you think bikers would obey traffic laws better if the design of the infrastructure considered them at all?

Bike lanes do not cost "millions upon millions."

There are a lot of cyclists in the city- you don't see them because in a car you are always driving on arterial streets. Most cyclists in the city ride as much as possible on quieter, safer neighborhood streets. Robinson, Walker, Shartel, 19th, Youngs, Villa, 30th, Drexel, Independence... These are part of the street network that cyclists use. Most of the cycling population is invisible to people who drive on arterial streets.


That's why i said I prefer LA's method. But i am correct in the cost. The amount of money required to add 1/2 of a lane for, say a mile, can be several millions. If you don't believe me, go check some of the recent road projects. Remember, you have to pave it to be able to handle car weight, not just a bike. You're not putting a sidewalk on the side of the street, you're making a street-worthy lane for bikes to ride on. So yes, it does cost millions upon millions o put these in at any meaningful level. If you put in a couple miles of it, of course it's cheaper....it also doesn't mean much of anything....sort of like the downtown light rail.

But if that lane isn't there, then the bikers need to follow rules of the road...or get off it. You don't get to decide to cross lanes of traffic at a stoplight just because it's clear. Why do you think cars don't do that. You dont get to weave in and out of traffic at a stop light so you can get furth to the front of the line. And if someone splashes you on the road or can't get over because another car is in the way, then remember, oh yeah, it's a road for CARS!

That's why i said I prefer LA's method. But i am correct in the cost. The amount of money required to add 1/2 of a lane for, say a mile, can be several millions. If you don't believe me, go check some of the recent road projects. Remember, you have to pave it to be able to handle car weight, not just a bike. You're not putting a sidewalk on the side of the street, you're making a street-worthy lane for bikes to ride on. So yes, it does cost millions upon millions o put these in at any meaningful level. If you put in a couple miles of it, of course it's cheaper....it also doesn't mean much of anything....sort of like the downtown light rail.

But if that lane isn't there, then the bikers need to follow rules of the road...or get off it. You don't get to decide to cross lanes of traffic at a stoplight just because it's clear. Why do you think cars don't do that. You dont get to weave in and out of traffic at a stop light so you can get furth to the front of the line. And if someone splashes you on the road or can't get over because another car is in the way, then remember, oh yeah, it's a road for CARS!

As an occasional bicycle commuter, the fact that you share the same streets as me is frightening. I think it's pretty obvious that anger has no place on the road.

That's why i said I prefer LA's method. But i am correct in the cost. The amount of money required to add 1/2 of a lane for, say a mile, can be several millions. If you don't believe me, go check some of the recent road projects. Remember, you have to pave it to be able to handle car weight, not just a bike. You're not putting a sidewalk on the side of the street, you're making a street-worthy lane for bikes to ride on. So yes, it does cost millions upon millions o put these in at any meaningful level.

Usually there is plenty of room to stripe a bike lane on an existing paved street by narrowing overly wide lanes or removing unnecessary lanes. But yes, high quality bike facilities can cost more.


If you put in a couple miles of it, of course it's cheaper....it also doesn't mean much of anything....sort of like the downtown light rail.

Wow, glad you realize this- you have solved your problem of why no one uses the haphazard blocks of bike lanes we have installed in OKC.




But if that lane isn't there, then the bikers need to follow rules of the road...or get off it. You don't get to decide to cross lanes of traffic at a stoplight just because it's clear. Why do you think cars don't do that.

Because cars are able to trigger the magnetic strip that turns the light green for them. Many cities have bike triggers for green lights. Our infrastructure is not accommodating to bikes so they do what they have to do to get where they are going.


And if someone splashes you on the road or can't get over because another car is in the way, then remember, oh yeah, it's a road for CARS!

Nope, it's a public road and cyclists have the right to the full lane of it.

Please don't pretend people driving cars are angels and always follow the rules of the road. That's always the biggest fallacy with the "bikers don't follow the rules" argument. Why do cars change lanes in intersections? Block the intersection when the light is turning red and they can't pass through? Speed through my neighborhood? Float stop signs? Park blocking the sidewalk (rendering it useless)? Fail to use turn signals? Fail to yield to pedestrians in crosswalk? There are plenty of behaviors that bikes or cars do that are against the law. They just break different laws- Drivers who hate bikes think bikers are the ones breaking the rules have forgotten that they usually follow "common law rules of the road" just as the cyclist is following "common law rules of how to get by on a bike."

Don't lump me in with nitwit cyclists who don't follow laws or common sense. Don't take it out on me when I'm riding where and how I should. I've learned traffic laws and how they apply to both motorists and cyclists, and generally comply with both. Like virtually all motorists I'll float stop signs and drive a little over the posted speed limit. But I'm not salmoning into traffic, riding at night without lights, weaving through traffic or becoming a danger to myself or others.

Bomber - if you don't like how some cyclists ride, did you ever consider learning traffic laws as they apply to cyclists, and enlightening a few of them? Or would you rather bitch on forums like this?

Maybe we need to revamp law for cars to make it safer for bicylist and pedestrains and then build complete streets. When I get to a red light on my bike I have 3 choices; 1) I can wait for a car to show up and trigger the light for me, 2) I can go push the walk button so it stops traffic on the busier cross street for 45 to 90 seconds, or 3) I can wait until traffic clears and just go through the red light. I don't know about OKC, but here in Jax option 3 is totally legal and it is the one I choose everytime I get the chance.

I wonder how many drivers would prefer I pick option 2 instead.

JTF - Option 3 is becoming the accepted norm because bikes don't usually trigger the sensors. This issue arose in Edmond last year where a police officer observed a bicyclist stop at a light, waited for several minutes and realized that it wasn't going to change for him, looked both ways and then proceeded through. The cyclist was cited, and when he appealed, they modified their ordinances. Some states have a traffic law that serves cyclists in similar situations: If the light doesn't change, the cyclist may proceed after ensuring that other traffic isn't affected, with the understanding that the light has malfunctioned. It hasn't, but it isn't functioning for him on a bike.

Common sense.

There's many times I have to use Option 3 when I'm on a motorcycle.

I have no problem with bicyclists. I try to give a full lane when I pass, signal my merges over and back giving plenty of room. Most cyclists will give a friendly wave in return as thanks for watching out for them.

The one big problem I have is with cyclists who ride on state highways that have no shoulder. IMO, they have no business being out there, regardless of what the law says. The current traffic laws are antiquated where this is concerned.

The one big problem I have is with cyclists who ride on state highways that have no shoulder. IMO, they have no business being out there, regardless of what the law says. The current traffic laws are antiquated where this is concerned.

That is why we need to require all new streets to be complete streets and retro-fit existing streets. Maybe we should also differentiate between people who bike as means of transportation and those weekend bikers who are doing it for exercise (or just want to be seen in a bike racing uniform).

JTF - When you start differentiating within a group, there will be no end. Applied just to motorized vehicles you'd have trucks v. cars, SUVs v. compacts, teenagers v. elderly, gasoline v. hybrid, solo motorists v. carpoolers, new v. old, commuters v. Sunday drivers, etc.

Rez - Regarding riding on a highway without a shoulder, there's a big difference between "can ride" and "should ride." How would you fix that with a more modern (and enforceable) traffic law? Remember: Too many cyclists don't even know that its against the law to ride into traffic.

And if someone splashes you on the road or can't get over because another car is in the way, then remember, oh yeah, it's a road for CARS!

I didn't realize that it's my own fault if I show up for work drenched in mud. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

JTF - When you start differentiating within a group, there will be no end. Applied just to motorized vehicles you'd have trucks v. cars, SUVs v. compacts, teenagers v. elderly, gasoline v. hybrid, solo motorists v. carpoolers, new v. old, commuters v. Sunday drivers, etc.

I was specifically talking about the attitude of the bicycle rider. My own personal experience is that the exercise rider decked out in his 'race uniform' is far more on the arrogant side than the guy in the suit riding his bike to work or the one in casual garb riding to the store. As a car driver, the 'uniform' guys pose a much bigger issue as many seem to think they do own the road. When I ride my bike I am more concerned about getting home from the store alive than I am about making an ownership statement.

JTF - The togs identify different objectives. The guy in civvies on a comfort bike is trying NOT to sweat while going to work, the store, the GF's house or the coffee shop. The guy in team kit on the $2,000+ carbon fiber bike IS trying to sweat by either touring, training, racing or riding with his buddies on the weekly group ride. The "kit" consists of high-visibility performance fabric that wicks, breathes, doesn't billow, and washes well, and has padding in the seat area.

Pete usually stays out of the board discussions between motorists and cyclists, but he wears the same thing when he's training and racing on his bike, plus he wears a pricey wetsuit in the water, and some pretty expensive kicks when he's on foot.

I'm just saying, the way these riders handle themselves on the road are like night and day. And I'm not saying it is all of them because the average person has a sense of self-preservation but as a driver, if a bicyclist is frustrating me or impeding my progress, odds are they have a team kit on. Maybe that is because of the difference in miles ridden. A ride for me is 5 miles. The exercise guys are going 50, 75, 100 miles. They simply encounter more cars and ride where alternate routes aren't possible.

Agree JTF.

In my life before kids, I had a lot more time to ride. This was back before cycling became a thing...at least here in Oklahoma. This was around early to mid '90s. I would ride between 25-50 miles a day. Now I might not have ridden every day but I rode several times a week. My attire consisted of basketball shorts, a t-shirt, a Sox hat turned backwards (because of wind resistance) and shades. I had been riding for quite a while when I finally started seeing more riders around and they were wearing the body suits and helmets with rear view mirrors etc. My attitude toward the road was definitely different than theirs. And I probably rode just as much or more than them. I had a hybrid bike so I did nearly as much off road riding as street riding but I certainly had a different attitude concerning the road than they did.

Following the rules of the road does seem to be an issue with several of them these days. A couple of years ago I was a passenger in a vehicle and we had come to a 4-way stop sign. Both roads (east/west and north/south) were two lane black top and the intersection was fairly busy. The driver after coming to a stop and letting the cross traffic go proceeded to make a left hand turn (signal was on) and nearly ran over a cyclists who had come up on the left hand side of the vehicle (weaving through a line of cars waiting at the intersection) and was attempting to go through the intersection without waiting their turn nor paying attention to what the other traffic was doing. The group of riders who were with the cyclists that almost got ran over got all up in arms about it. But according to the laws of the road, they were in the wrong.

I prefer not to ride on the road at all if I can help it. I will in neighborhoods but not on city streets. I just don't trust it. I'll ride on sidewalks in order to get to bike trails. And I'll get over in the grass if I see a pedestrian. Now if there were dedicated bike lanes or even bike paths like what's shown in the complete roads video, I would utilize that.

I didn't realize that it's my own fault if I show up for work drenched in mud. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

You're welcome.