This is very welcome news.... I'd honestly say increase it to 100, but this is a start. The proposal is to increase the speed limit to 80MPH.

Norman Senator Suggests Raising Speed Limit On Turner Turnpike - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/25995837/norman-senator-suggests-raising-speed-limit-on-turner-turnpike)

This is very welcome news.... I'd honestly say increase it to 100, but this is a start. The proposal is to increase the speed limit to 80MPH.

Norman Senator Suggests Raising Speed Limit On Turner Turnpike - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.news9.com/story/25995837/norman-senator-suggests-raising-speed-limit-on-turner-turnpike)

Why is it welcomed news? People already go well over 75 and raising it is just going have people go that much faster. It isn't exactly a stretch of highway out in flat terrain of West Texas.

And seriously... 100? Yeah that would go over well. We would end up with a bunch of inexperienced kids trying to floor it out there and cause more of a hazard than anything. Could you imagine a semi doing 100 and then trying to stop suddenly?

If they want to go to 80 mph fine...but I would also say the entire thing should be flagged as no tolerance and the speed camera enforced.

Can semis eve go 100? There would obviously have to be a few safety upgrades, but yeah, I think it would work. Perhaps the driver safety part of it might not work, I honestly don't know. Didn't Kansas use to have unlimited speed limits on a few highways?

Ad for the photo enforced speed cameras, I do not support that all.

Can semis eve go 100? There would obviously have to be a few safety upgrades, but yeah, I think it would work. Perhaps the driver safety part of it might not work, I honestly don't know. Didn't Kansas use to have unlimited speed limits on a few highways?

As soon as you raise the limit to 100, you'll have someone trying to do 110 or more. As far as I know Montana is the only one that legally had "reasonable and prudent" speed limits and that backfired.


Ad for the photo enforced speed cameras, I do not support that all.

That's because you, well your dad, would be broke by now with your driving habits.

Haven't popped over to Tulsa in a while but when I was running over that way some, folks adhering to the current limit were few. I do not know how strictly they enforce speed limits on the Turner anyway. In all the time over the years I have had an opportunity to visit with a trooper, none of those visits took place on the Turner. I've passed a few and been passed by a few, but never had a chat.

Can semis eve go 100? There would obviously have to be a few safety upgrades, but yeah, I think it would work. Perhaps the driver safety part of it might not work, I honestly don't know. Didn't Kansas use to have unlimited speed limits on a few highways?

Ad for the photo enforced speed cameras, I do not support that all.

Absolutely semis can run over 100 mph. Most company trucks are dialed down to run only a certain top speed, or are controlled by GPS. But there are independant truckers out there who's rigs can easily top 100.

I've made a few trips to Tulsa recently and 80-85 MPH is the norm. If you're running 75, most others are passing you.

Unless they widen the section between Sapulpa & Tulsa, 80 in that section seems unlikely, except maybe in the middle of the night.

Unless they widen the section between Sapulpa & Tulsa, 80 in that section seems unlikely, except maybe in the middle of the night.

Same with the section at and just east of Welston.

I did get a ticket years ago on Turner Turnpike. I believe it was New Years Eve day. Well I was running 69 in a 65. Yes,true story. 4 miles an hr over and HP gave me a ticket. Pretty sure the speed limit was 65 mph all the way from OKC to Tulsa at that time. He nailed me going east just a little west of Chandler exit.

So I say raise the limit to 80 mph and leave me alone when I am running 84.

There in lies the problem. Why raise it to 80 when people will just do 84-85 anyway? Like now. It is at 75 and most go 80-85 already. Effectively going to 80 you are going to have traffic push 85-90 all the time. At some point you just have to call it good and not touch it. I think 75 is a good limit for most areas and would like to see it show up on some non-toll roads.

There in lies the problem. Why raise it to 80 when people will just do 84-85 anyway? Like now. It is at 75 and most go 80-85 already. Effectively going to 80 you are going to have traffic push 85-90 all the time. At some point you just have to call it good and not touch it. I think 75 is a good limit for most areas and would like to see it show up on some non-toll roads.

Don't you think there's a point where the effect of drivers going 10 MPH over the speed limit tapers out? It's expected that with a speed limit of 60 MPH on a highway that generally feels safe to go 70 MPH people are going to tend more toward 70 than 60. But 70 MPH is a comfortable speed for many drivers. I don't think most OK drivers would be comfortable driving 90 MPH, so I doubt the flow of traffic would be 90 on the turnpike "all the time," if ever. Most drivers on the four-mile stretch of I-35 posted 70 MPH between Moore and Norman can't stand to go any faster than 65.

The best approach to speed limits is to set the limit on a given road close to the speed drivers naturally tend toward (more specifically, to the general flow of the speed of traffic). This creates more uniformity in traffic speeds, which is an important safety factor. This is why, in California (and I would assume some other states), many new roads don't have posted speed limits, but do have equipment set up to measure speed. They gather data for a few months, then post limits based on the average speed at various times during the day (in addition to road features and accident/collision data).

If most (truly most) drivers are going 80 or faster on Turner Turnpike, which has been my observation, the limit should be higher than 75 MPH.

im ok with 80MPH.. 100MPH? I will refrain from my comment on that as last one got deleted. SMH
I got stopped.. well my buddy was driving.. on the way to Tulsa for Center of the universe Festival. we were going 87 we were talking and he just didn't realize his speed. the officer was polite and seemed to be more interested if we might have weed in the car since we told him we were going to a music festival I assume.. but he wrote us a ticket and we went on our way.

That's because you, well your dad, would be broke by now with your driving habits.

Right. Someone couldn't possibly have a legitimate practical or philosophical argument against speed enforcement cameras. Obviously, anyone against them just wants to drive twice the speed limit and not get caught.

Disclaimer...because Internet: My comments above are sarcastic.

Right. Someone couldn't possibly have a legitimate practical or philosophical argument against speed enforcement cameras. Obviously, anyone against them just wants to drive twice the speed limit and not get caught.

Disclaimer...because Internet: My comments above are sarcastic.

Keep in mind the person has publicly declared on this forum (iow, made it public for us to reference) that he has routinely gone on the Indian Nation turnpike and has done well over 100, use to street race in NW OKC and did over 200 mph before he nearly killed a family in a minivan, and has a DUI before he is even 20. These are just three and he has previously trumpeted his other acts of treating speed limits as minor annoyances that won't get in his way.

Now for privacy concerns and all that...I can understand the concerns there about speed cameras and fully respect those. My home town has them and they are annoying, but they also did serve a purpose. Red light running is down. Speeds on roads that were marked 50, but many did 65-70, are finally back to safe levels.

Keep in mind the person has publicly declared on this forum (iow, made it public for us to reference) that he has routinely gone on the Indian Nation turnpike and has done well over 100, use to street race in NW OKC and did over 200 mph before he nearly killed a family in a minivan, and has a DUI before he is even 20. These are just three and he has previously trumpeted his other acts of treating speed limits as minor annoyances that won't get in his way.

If that's the case, I take back my snarkiness. :D There's no excuse for driving dangerously like that.


Now for privacy concerns and all that...I can understand the concerns there about speed cameras and fully respect those. My home town has them and they are annoying, but they also did serve a purpose. Red light running is down. Speeds on roads that were marked 50, but many did 65-70, are finally back to safe levels.

Red light cameras are a completely different beast than speed cameras. Red light cameras reduce light running, but increase fatal accidents. Kind of defeats the point of improving safety. I recall reading something about a lot of cities in Florida taking down their red-light cameras because of how dangerous the effects are.

Red light cameras are a completely different beast than speed cameras. Red light cameras reduce light running, but increase fatal accidents. Kind of defeats the point of improving safety. I recall reading something about a lot of cities in Florida taking down their red-light cameras because of how dangerous the effects are.

Yeah, there is a lawsuit in Ohio right now to make them illegal for cities to use. It'll be interesting to see how it works. It was nice to see red light running at problem intersections went down, with no uptick in accidents...but I wasn't a fan when they combined them with speed cameras at the same spots. I have no problem with a speed camera along a long stretch of roadway with no intersections that needs the speed regulated, but the combo camera thing just seems to create a bunch of issues.

I did get a ticket years ago on Turner Turnpike. I believe it was New Years Eve day. Well I was running 69 in a 65. Yes,true story. 4 miles an hr over and HP gave me a ticket. Pretty sure the speed limit was 65 mph all the way from OKC to Tulsa at that time. He nailed me going east just a little west of Chandler exit.

So I say raise the limit to 80 mph and leave me alone when I am running 84.

You found a either a really bored trooper or it was getting towards the end of the month.

Rezman,
I am a speed limit driver, not a coward but I don't like lighting a match to money (tickets). For years everybody told me that people must fly by me and it has never been the case. Yes, some do, but it's not "the norm". I went to Tulsa Thursday, set the cruise on 75 (both speedometer and GPS showed 75), and very few people passed me. I wish I had counted them but I would say 20-30 vehicles passed me. Driving home, I believe it was about the same.
C. T.
I've made a few trips to Tulsa recently and 80-85 MPH is the norm. If you're running 75, most others are passing you.

I think 80 is the max it should be raised.

Most vehicles in this state are not maintained well enough for me to be safe driving next to someone going any faster than that.

I see a lot of overinflated, underinflated, excessively worn tread, and cracked sidewalls on tires when I am walking through parking lots. Speed those tires up to 85 or 90+ and there's a very dangerous situation looming. Most drivers are not trained or experienced in how to handle losing a tire at high speed. Most drivers aren't paying attention.

Coincidentally, yesterday afternoon when I was walking in to the airport from the employee lot, I heard a loud bang and crash. I turned around, and saw a lady who's tire blew and she swerved into a concrete jersey barrier. That was at no more than 30-40 mph probably (based on how far down the road she was from the stop sign)-- just get someone unskilled who has a blowout at 95. I don't want to be anywhere nearby.

As they say, driving is easy. It's the other guy that's going to kill you.

Don't even understand why this study is being done as the OTA has already stated they do not think this is a good idea. Even at 75 mph, its a little hairy in some spots.

Assuming the OTA wanted to raise the speed limit, the turnpike in its current state would make this very risky. Dangerously short on-ramps, too many hills, lots of overgrowth from oak trees restricting visibility. There are also about 5 places on the turnpike where privately held ranch roads intersect at-grade. These are likely from when the turnpike was first built as a concession to the landowners out there and would almost certainly need to be removed.

Catch22 brings up a good point that there are too many crap cars in this state, thanks to no inspections. Too many vehicles here would have a hard time even making it to 80.

The only places where speed limits have been raised successfully are long flat stretches of road with little traffic or roads like the bypass around Austin that have been specifically designed to handle higher speeds. Turner Turnpike is none of these things.

Rezman,
I am a speed limit driver, not a coward but I don't like lighting a match to money (tickets). For years everybody told me that people must fly by me and it has never been the case. Yes, some do, but it's not "the norm". I went to Tulsa Thursday, set the cruise on 75 (both speedometer and GPS showed 75), and very few people passed me. I wish I had counted them but I would say 20-30 vehicles passed me. Driving home, I believe it was about the same.
C. T.

Like I said, I've made several runs up to Tulsa recently and 80-85 was the norm every time. There and back. I started out 75mph in the right hand lane but after being passed by numerous vehicles by the time I got past the Luther area going east, I finally stepped it up to stay with them and it was 80+ all the rest of the way. Same thing west bound. Just past Sapulpa, speed bumped up. Sure, there were were points where traffic slowed down for the left lane campers, and around the toll plaza, but after passing them, it was right back up. Virtually the same thing on several other trips I've taken up that way earler this year and late last year. I guess I should have included the disclaimer that "individual results may vary."

Even if the speed limit remains at 75 MPH, 80 doesn't bother me. Cars and trucks are much safer than they were even ten years ago. Better handling, better brakes, better tires.. It's the nuckleheads you have to watch out for.

Keep in mind the person has publicly declared on this forum (iow, made it public for us to reference) that he has routinely gone on the Indian Nation turnpike and has done well over 100, use to street race in NW OKC and did over 200 mph before he nearly killed a family in a minivan, and has a DUI before he is even 20. These are just three and he has previously trumpeted his other acts of treating speed limits as minor annoyances that won't get in his way.

Now for privacy concerns and all that...I can understand the concerns there about speed cameras and fully respect those. My home town has them and they are annoying, but they also did serve a purpose. Red light running is down. Speeds on roads that were marked 50, but many did 65-70, are finally back to safe levels.ouch... like I said, I have improved my driving and slowed, but I understand the criticism.

I'm not an expert in the matter and perhaps 100 wouldn't work, but for whatever reason it works in other countries and I think more driving awareness would go a long ways. A majority of the car wrecks in the US are due to distracted driving, not speeding.

Also keep in mind, I have not gotten in one wreck since I've been driving. I know tons of "safe" drivers who follow the speed limit and drive "safely" who started driving after I have and have already been in 2-5 wrecks, mostly fault of their own.

All you have to do is randomly drive through retail parking lots to see that many people can hardly park their cars correctly let alone drive.

My deal is it too easy to get a drivers license. I accidentally floated a stop sign because I was nervous during my drivers exam and I passed. That is ridiculous. Not to mention they test in an area with low traffic in Edmond and it is incredibly easy to navigate.

My deal is it too easy to get a drivers license. I accidentally floated a stop sign because I was nervous during my drivers exam and I passed. That is ridiculous. Not to mention they test in an area with low traffic in Edmond and it is incredibly easy to navigate.

My instructor told me the point at which I passed, so I did not even have to attempt parallel parking, I do not know if there was any other parts I got to skip since he did not say anything else after I said I was fine with just going back.

If they raise it to 80 they need to enforce left lane passing only heavily.

If they raise it to 80 they need to enforce left lane passing only heavily.

Much of the time there is left lane passing, the person in the far left lane had been failing to yield for miles

If that's the case, I take back my snarkiness. :D There's no excuse for driving dangerously like that.



Red light cameras are a completely different beast than speed cameras. Red light cameras reduce light running, but increase fatal accidents. Kind of defeats the point of improving safety. I recall reading something about a lot of cities in Florida taking down their red-light cameras because of how dangerous the effects are.

Why would it increase fatal accidents? I would think it would have the opposite effect...if someone runs a red light and plows into crossing traffic...

Why would it increase fatal accidents? I would think it would have the opposite effect...if someone runs a red light and plows into crossing traffic...

This is how I believe red light cameras contribute to fatalities. Two cars, one in front of the other, approach an intersection with a yellow light. The front car slams on the breaks while the second car hits the gas. The result is that the driver and front passenger of the second car are seriously injured or die and so do the passengers (usually kids) in the backseat of the front car.

Also, I agree that they should step up the enforcement of the "left lane is for passing only" law.

This is how I believe red light cameras contribute to fatalities. Two cars, one in front of the other, approach an intersection with a yellow light. The front car slams on the breaks while the second car hits the gas. The result is that the driver and front passenger of the second car are seriously injured or die and so do the passengers (usually kids) in the backseat of the front car.

Also, I agree that they should step up the enforcement of the "left lane is for passing only" law.

From a national law enforcement magazine:

Are Red Light Cameras an Effective Crash-Reduction Solution?

By Richard J. Ashton, Chief of Police (Retired), Frederick, Maryland; and Grant/Technical Management Manager, IACP

Following are several items that support the effectiveness of red light cameras:8

A 2011 study compared fatal intersection crash rates before (1992–1996) and after (2004–2008) 14 U.S. cities with populations of 200,000 or more had implemented red light cameras and then compared those results to 48 similarly sized cities without cameras during both periods. It found that the average annual rate of fatal red light–running crashes had declined for both study groups, but the decline had been greater for cities with red light cameras than for cities without them (35 percent versus 14 percent); and that the average annual rate of all fatal crashes at signalized intersections had decreased by 14 percent for cities with red light cameras and had increased slightly (2 percent) for cities without them. The study concluded that red light cameras had reduced the citywide rate of fatal red light–running crashes and, to a lesser but still significant extent, the rate of all fatal crashes at signalized intersections.9
Howard County, Maryland, began testing red light cameras in 1994; has utilized them for enforcement since 1997; has regularly evaluated its program; and has found “substantial overall crash reductions at almost every approach that had a red light camera,” with the majority of the approaches experiencing reductions in excess of 10 percent.10 Overall, Howard County realized a 31 percent reduction in all crashes, a 42 percent decrease in angle crashes, and a 30 percent decline in rear-end crashes.11 Moreover, a 2002 socioeconomic cost of collision study conducted by the Maryland State Highway Administration at Howard County and other Maryland red light camera sites identified statistically significant reductions in overall crashes and in left-turn crashes, which resulted in an average cost savings of $196,000 per intersection studied.12
When the Virginia legislature allowed the statute under which red light cameras had been authorized to lapse in 2005, the relative risk of red light running in the months immediately following their discontinuation was 2.63 times higher at four Virginia Beach intersections, and it increased at those same intersections to 3.59 times higher one year after the law’s demise.13
A study conducted between July 1, 2007, and June 30, 2008, by the Texas A&M University System’s Texas Transportation Institute of 56 intersections with red light cameras in 10 Texas cities showed an average 30 percent decrease in overall crashes, as well as an average 43 percent reduction in right-angle crashes.14
The Transportation Research Board’s 2003 synthesis suggested that “automated enforcement of red light running can be an effective safety countermeasure.”15 To that end,

There is a preponderance of evidence, albeit not conclusive, indicating that red light–running camera systems improve the overall safety of intersections where they are used. . . . There is also evidence, also not conclusive, that there is a “spillover” effect to other signalized intersections within a jurisdiction.16
Although nearly every study and crash analysis performed . . . has had some experimental design or analysis flaw or deficiency, there is considerable “evidence” that [red light] cameras do have an overall positive effect.17

Why would it increase fatal accidents? I would think it would have the opposite effect...if someone runs a red light and plows into crossing traffic...

There was several cities that started shortening the length of their yellow lights after the red light cameras went in (some alleged it to be an attempt to increase fees collected at the expense of safety)

This is how I believe red light cameras contribute to fatalities. Two cars, one in front of the other, approach an intersection with a yellow light. The front car slams on the breaks while the second car hits the gas. The result is that the driver and front passenger of the second car are seriously injured or die and so do the passengers (usually kids) in the backseat of the front car.

Also, I agree that they should step up the enforcement of the "left lane is for passing only" law.

So because some jackass who failed to maintain a safe distance from the car in front of him, automatically makes them more deadly?

The biggest issue I see in that scenario is the mindset that if the light is yellow = gun it and beat the read. When in reality it should be the light is about to be red and you need to stop unless you are already in the intersection.

Not say I've never sped up to make a yellow light, but I've also made sure no one was in front of me that would cause me to stop. I also act fairly cautious approaching a traffic light if I'm following someone, in case it does change and they stop. It's just proper driving IMO.

Ive read articles that cite studies showing where fatalities drop, the overall number of accidents has increased - primRily due to people hitting their brakes unexpectedly. My quarrel with them is that Ive watched the one outside my office window go off a thousand times on motorists who were legitimately in the intersection. They go off like halftime at the Super Bowl after a lightning storm.

So because some jackass who failed to maintain a safe distance from the car in front of him, automatically makes them more deadly?

The biggest issue I see in that scenario is the mindset that if the light is yellow = gun it and beat the read. When in reality it should be the light is about to be red and you need to stop unless you are already in the intersection.

Not say I've never sped up to make a yellow light, but I've also made sure no one was in front of me that would cause me to stop. I also act fairly cautious approaching a traffic light if I'm following someone, in case it does change and they stop. It's just proper driving IMO.

I never said intersections were more deadly with red light cameras, I only said how they contribute to fatalities by increasing rear end crashes. Yes, they also reduce fatalities from side impact crashes. As for the net effect, I will leave that to the experts.

Here is my opinion as a driver. I would rather the intersection not have a red light camera. If I am at an intersection and the light turns green. I look both ways before proceeding into the intersection. If there is a red light runner, I wait for him/her to clear the intersection. Now, suppose there is a red light camera and I approach an intersection with the light turning yellow. If I stop, I must assume the car behind me will also stop. If he/she does not and I do then guess what my car gets seriously hit. Hence, I feel much more in control of my safety without red light camera. Add in the fact that many people are distracted in their cars with their phones and the chance of that rear end crash only goes up because of it. Now, I know people should not talk/text and drive but they do and I can not stop them. Instead, my safety is in my ability to avoid those drivers on the road and I can best do that without red light cameras.

Ive read articles that cite studies showing where fatalities drop, the overall number of accidents has increased - primRily due to people hitting their brakes unexpectedly. My quarrel with them is that Ive watched the one outside my office window go off a thousand times on motorists who were legitimately in the intersection. They go off like halftime at the Super Bowl after a lightning storm.

I would argue against that. Any study I've ever read has shown that the cameras are held up in court in the 90th percentile. The fact that it went off while they were in the middle of the intersection means that they should have stopped at the light. They help keep the intersections clear too. If there's traffic and you end up in the middle of the intersection when it turns red and you're sitting there, that's a ticket. Decreasing the time a yellow runs is a horrible idea and any city that does that should be taken to court to comply with standards of warning light length.

We may not like them but its because it forces us to follow the law more accurately and takes away more of the decision process from your desire to beat the light and puts it in your wallet. Personally, I hate them. But I also will acknowledge what they are able to do.....IF they are used properly. There's a heft investment in installing them so don't expect to see wide spread use in OKC any time soon. Quite often, since the service is contracted outside of the city, the city itself does not earn much on the ticket, so they have to jack the tickets way up to be able to afford the overhead. <- San Diego is a good example of how NOT to do it and their own mayor was against them.

Argue all you want but I sit and shake my head at the almost daily rear-enders at the light outside my window. We had a short thunderstorm yesterday afternoon and the light was going off, indiscriminately, 2-3 times a minute for a good 30 minutes after the storm. Several states have outlawed them and Colorado probably will eventually. Where there has been the most controversy are the speed vans and lights that either get you if you run the light or if the front bumper of your car encroaches the crosswalk even an inch. The vans can deny you the ability to defend yourself because you may not have even been aware if you were speeding or not. Tickets just myteriously show up in your mailbox. Whether they hold up in court or not, they clearly are a money-maker for most cities and can be abused in many ways z as you said, by shortening the yellow lights, by falsifying radar scanners, by abusing the crosswalk encroachment laws without consideration for the realities of driving.

How are red-light cameras relevant to the thread topic?

My deal is it too easy to get a drivers license. I accidentally floated a stop sign because I was nervous during my drivers exam and I passed. That is ridiculous. Not to mention they test in an area with low traffic in Edmond and it is incredibly easy to navigate.

Plu, thank you for that testimonial. I can't disagree with you. Perhaps you can become the face of a new movement in OK, one designed to make roads safer. Call up some Ogles, including the lost one I suppose, and announce a press conference about driver safety. When they arrive, tell them you are concerned that licenses to drive are passed out faster and more freely than Justin Beiber's private cell number in a middle school assembly. Demand that it stop. Share your story and in an act of contrition and to demonstrate your commitment, whip out your DL and some sissors and cut that baby in half for the cameras.

Don't forget to arrange for a ride home. :)

So because some jackass who failed to maintain a safe distance from the car in front of him, automatically makes them more deadly?

The biggest issue I see in that scenario is the mindset that if the light is yellow = gun it and beat the read. When in reality it should be the light is about to be red and you need to stop unless you are already in the intersection.

Not say I've never sped up to make a yellow light, but I've also made sure no one was in front of me that would cause me to stop. I also act fairly cautious approaching a traffic light if I'm following someone, in case it does change and they stop. It's just proper driving IMO.

My wife was nearly killed last year when a driver sped up to beat a yellow (that actually became red before she hit the intersection) and t-boned my wife's car on the driver's side. Whatever they can do to stop and penalize the jack-asses that do this is fine with me. The sheer arrogance of people who think their time is more important than other people's lives is just amazing and a testament to their stupidity.

By the way, the driver had minimal insurance, and we are still paying out of pocket and they essentially walked away.

Ive found myself waiting a few seconds when the light turns green (I don't care if you honk!) because it seems lately that too many people are running lights. Its getting bad out there and something needs to be done

Ive found myself waiting a few seconds when the light turns green (I don't care if you honk!) because it seems lately that too many people are running lights. Its getting bad out there and something needs to be donebro I just nearly got taken the f out by a SCHOOL BUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! at Classen and 10th just a bit ago.

I used to work at Chesapeake and my office was at the building on 63rd, Expressway and Portland. I would pull out of the parking lot going south on Portland, usually stopping at the light a few times. I would say nine times out of ten, there would be someone turned west onto Expressway from NB Portland that would run the red light. One time, I was going south and was the first person after the light and FIVE cars ran the light. When it turned green, I started to go and saw two cars come through, then three more sped through like it was nothing. I laid on my horn and started to go and one of them had to go around me since I had already pulled through the intersection. I tweeted to the OKC Police twitter page that they need to sit at that intersection if they want an easy way to get tickets.

Ive found myself waiting a few seconds when the light turns green (I don't care if you honk!) because it seems lately that too many people are running lights. Its getting bad out there and something needs to be done

So anybody know why cops don't deal with red-light-runners here like they do with speeders? Motorcycle cops were out in force on NW 164th Monday with radar, and on I-44 one day last week (at least 3 cops on each day, I think I-44 had 3 on each side). If they'd devote 10% of the time to ticketing red-light-runners that they spend ticketing speeders, it would be incredibly helpful. Red-light-runners are waaaaaaaaay more dangerous than speeders, IMO. And yeah, I probably already know the answer - speeders are easier, low-hanging fruit to pick...

Ive found myself waiting a few seconds when the light turns green (I don't care if you honk!) because it seems lately that too many people are running lights. Its getting bad out there and something needs to be done

Being a motorcycle rider, I learned to do that years ago. Same with watching cross traffic with their turn signal on. I won't pull out untill they turn.

Red light running has become a serious problem.

Maybe they need to start putting in automated spike strips or steel rods that come out of the ground when the light changes. Personally I would love to see steel rods to get those people that seem to enjoy creeping and creeping and creeping past the BIG WHITE LINE waiting for the light to change.

I think we need to change the topic from Turner Turnpike to a general driver commentary at this point. LOL

Argue all you want but I sit and shake my head at the almost daily rear-enders at the light outside my window. We had a short thunderstorm yesterday afternoon and the light was going off, indiscriminately, 2-3 times a minute for a good 30 minutes after the storm. Several states have outlawed them and Colorado probably will eventually. Where there has been the most controversy are the speed vans and lights that either get you if you run the light or if the front bumper of your car encroaches the crosswalk even an inch. The vans can deny you the ability to defend yourself because you may not have even been aware if you were speeding or not. Tickets just myteriously show up in your mailbox. Whether they hold up in court or not, they clearly are a money-maker for most cities and can be abused in many ways z as you said, by shortening the yellow lights, by falsifying radar scanners, by abusing the crosswalk encroachment laws without consideration for the realities of driving.


Well you lined out all the reasons that they can be abused, but that doesn't make them "bad" be default. If they are used properly, and plenty of them are, they do correct illegal behavior....and that is what it is. If you run the light....guess what, you ran the light. And, shock, that's illegal. If you can find me a study that shows that red light cameras increase fatalities in the way you claim, then by all means post it here. However, examples studies have already been given here of studies that prove the exact opposite of that. I'm sure that I've ever seen someone so dumb as to gun it whilst still behind another person behind a yellow light. That's just grade A stupid. And that person is gonna do that whether there's a camera there or not and really has nothing to do with the actual camera.

And I'm sure there is no shortage of lawyers ready to take on any city that tries to abuse the product. Not to mention the fact that if a city does tamper with them, and are proven to have done so, they are in violation of any/all agreements with the manufacturers and would be liable for a suit from them as well. Some places may mess with them, but inevitably, they are found-out and the behavior is corrected.

I'm sure that I've ever seen someone so dumb as to gun it whilst still behind another person behind a yellow light. That's just grade A stupid. And that person is gonna do that whether there's a camera there or not and really has nothing to do with the actual camera.

The behavior is usually that person A is approaching an intersection with person B behind them, light turns yellow, person A might normally go through a yellow light, but realizes this intersection has a red-light-camera, so slams on the brakes. Person B might assume that person A was going to go through the light, but person A suddenly doesn't, person B doesn't have time to react and rear-ends person A.

And municipalities all over the US installed red-light-cameras and changed yellow-light timing, the cameras weren't that accurate, all kinds of bad things happened a few years ago when places started installing them, not sure what the current situation is now, though, but for a while, un-cool things were going on with them...

Lots more info here (disclaimer - haven't looked at the site in a while): Red Light Cameras | National Motorists Association (http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/)

Maybe they need to start putting in automated spike strips or steel rods that come out of the ground when the light changes. Personally I would love to see steel rods to get those people that seem to enjoy creeping and creeping and creeping past the BIG WHITE LINE waiting for the light to change.

I think we need to change the topic from Turner Turnpike to a general driver commentary at this point. LOL

I wish they would install permanent bollards on the far side of the left hand turn lane. That way people turning left from the intersecting street wouldn't cut their turn short and cut the left turn lane of the street they are turning on to. When they do that, and there isn't any traffic, they trip the traffic sensor. So, it holds up people wanting to go straight, because they triggered the light into giving a left turn signal when there are no cars present to turn left.

I lived in St Pete for almost 10 years. Red light runners is (was) problematic there. They put in the red light cameras at intersections that had the highest accident rates for red light runners and the City of St Pete also put up weekly videos on their youtube channel of people running red lights. I have been back in OKC for ~3.5 years now and I still look both ways first before starting at a green when I am first at the intersection in anticipation for those red light runners.

At another token I was in Valencia, Spain last year, and their people start going a few seconds before the light turns green, so people there stop at yellow so they don't get hit by people starting early. It was the strangest thing I have seen.

Don't even understand why this study is being done as the OTA has already stated they do not think this is a good idea. Even at 75 mph, its a little hairy in some spots.

Assuming the OTA wanted to raise the speed limit, the turnpike in its current state would make this very risky. Dangerously short on-ramps, too many hills, lots of overgrowth from oak trees restricting visibility. There are also about 5 places on the turnpike where privately held ranch roads intersect at-grade. These are likely from when the turnpike was first built as a concession to the landowners out there and would almost certainly need to be removed.


Questions:
(1) - What overgrowth from oak trees?
(2) - What ranch access? The gates you see occasionally are there for OTA trucks to access the road for maintenance.

I do agree with the ramp problem. Ever tried to get up to speed when leaving the Stroud concession area? Brutal if you are eastbound as you have to really strain to see oncoming traffic.