Citizen Tay Declares War on Tulsa Bike Lanes

Since the voter approval of the so-called Improve Our Tulsa $1 BILLION capital improvement program (CIP), INCOG, through the sham called Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee, is all set to bestow Tulsa with dangerous bike lanes.  

They hired yet another predictable out-of-town consultant to draft the Bicycle Master Plan, Toole Designs, of Maryland, "experienced in planning and design of on-street bicycle facilities (i.e. bike lanes, bike boulevards, cycle tracks)."  The total contract amount is nearly $400,000.

Through back-channel dealings typical of Tulsa City Council, $4.2 million is the allocation for potential bike lanes.  Upon Council approval of the Plan, the City of Tulsa is all set to definitively encourage clueless, inexperienced new bicyclists into the far, right hand side of the road, in motorists' blind spots, the roadkill zones.  

An Illinois case, Boub v. Wayne, instructs on the extent of municipality responsibility for adverse tort claims.  More than a few experienced Tulsa cyclists have warned the City Council, INCOG, and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee.  

Portland, OR has an extensive history of bike lanes roadkills.   There are more than a number of sites warning of bike lane fallacies.  Through a number of emails to City Council, and BPAC, all warnings have been completely ignored.  This should be duly noted by every personal injury attorney representing future victims bicycling in bike lanes.

Neither Oklahoma State Statutes, Title 47, nor Tulsa Revised Ordinances, Title 37, legally define "bike lanes," "bikeways," or "bike routes."  Oklahoma Driver Manual makes no mention of bike lanes, or any roadway treatments specifically for bicyclists.

Without legal definitions, City of Tulsa Chief Prosecutor Bob Garner testified during the August 1, 2013 Urban Economic Development meeting bike lanes will create more legal issues for both motorists and cyclists.  

At the May 9, 2013 meeting of the City Council Public Works Committee, INCOG Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee made dangerous recommendations to the City Council.  They called for funding to be set aside for future "bikeways," to be described by the upcoming 2013 Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan.

In many well-documented cases of major bicyclists injuries or deaths, bike lanes were the common denominator.  Bike lanes are NO solutions for bicyclists' safety.  

The intents of both legislative bodies are completely CONTRARY to BPAC recommendations. Both 37 TRO 100 and 37 TRO 1000 define bicycles as vehicles.  37 TRO 100 goes further to define traffic as the collective of all vehicles operating on public roadways.  Therefore, bicycles are traffic.

Defined by FHWA MUTCD Part 9, the widely accepted technical definition of bike lanes is CONTRARY to legislative intent:  "A portion of a roadway that has been designated by signs and pavement markings for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists."

Interpreted through the lens of the State and City legislative intent, "bikeways," as defined by MUTCD Part 9, has NO meaning:  "A generic term for any road, street, path, or way that in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes."

With foreseeable and well-documented combined circumstances, bike lanes are potential death traps, which channel new, inexperienced cyclists into motorists' blind spots.  

Source: ATTENTION: Jeff Martin