TW & TPD Perpetuate Lighting Myths

[dsjeffries]

The Tulsa World and Tulsa Police Department seem keen on keeping roadway lighting myths alive. Patric, get 'em.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100628_11_0_Amnwow628052

Crash on dark stretch of Tulsa highway kills man


By MATT BARNARD World Staff Writer
Published: 6/28/2010  6:34 AM
Last Modified: 6/28/2010  5:14 PM

A man who was pushing a stalled car along a dark highway in downtown Tulsa died Sunday night when another vehicle hit him from behind.

Brandon McKinney, 25, and a woman were pushing the 1980s model Chevrolet Caprice, which had run out of gas, along U.S. 75 near the Interstate 244 interchange about 11 p.m.

Streetlights in the area and the car's emergency blinkers were turned off, Cpl. Brandon Disney said.

Another motorist tried to swerve as she approached the car, but couldn't avoid hitting McKinney. The driver – a nurse who was on her way home from work – performed CPR until medics arrived, but McKinney died at the scene, Disney said.

Neither woman was injured and there were no other occupants in the nurse's newer model Chrysler minivan.

Disney said there were no indications that the drivers were impaired and the lack of lighting was a factor in the collision.

Highway lighting is among several city services that have suffered under Tulsa's budget problems.

Mayor Dewey Bartlett has proposed several revenue-building ideas that would keep the lights on, but some city councilors say the plans amount to "double taxation."

The council found money within the budget to pay for most of those services that Bartlett said his ideas would fund, but Bartlett vetoed most of the council's changes.

Bartlett said he supports funding the services, but he objects to the funding sources the council chose — one-time revenue for ongoing services and wages.

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation released the following statement Monday afternoon:

"First and foremost, our thoughts and prayers are with the families who lost a loved one last night. Safety is our first priority, and we are greatly saddened by this tragic accident.

"Although ODOT generally provides funding for construction of highway lighting, local governments, such as the city of Tulsa, have control of operation of the system and its maintenance.

"Although crews have been working in the area to reconstruct major sections of the IDL, lights generally would have been turned off only in areas where traffic was prohibited because of construction work and for very limited periods of time.

"However, in light of this tragic situation we are working with the city of Tulsa to review exactly what happened in this specific incident. The department urges drivers to exercise caution when driving in areas without lighting and to remember to use all tools available to facilitate driver safety."

Dark does NOT mean unsafe. Light does NOT mean safety.

[sgrizzle]

If only they would invent some sort of forward facing light that could be installed on the front of vehicles...

[dsjeffries]

If only they would invent some sort of forward facing light that could be installed on the front of vehicles...

Or some kind of flashing device on cars for when they have trouble.

[patric]

If only they would invent some sort of forward facing light that could be installed on the front of vehicles...

Or some kind of flashing device on cars for when they have trouble.

Ahhh, An oasis of common sense (if not dry wit...)
My letter to the council, seen here first:


The city council is under pressure from people expressing their unfounded fears that unlit expressways are dangerous, but stop and think...

The lights on this part of the road were turned off in August of last year, and it took till now, almost a year later, for someone to be able to cite an accident they think might be related to the lights out.

To make the evidence fit their case, the alarmists had to ignore the fact that the victim's vehicle was being pushed along the expressway with out any headlights or emergency flashers that would have made the vehicle visible.
They also had to ignore the scores of similar incidents (many of which were fatal) where pedestrians were struck on expressways with the lights still on, or in broad daylight. 
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=7753.0
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=4110.0

Dont get me wrong, Im strongly in favor of lighting interchanges, ramps and underpasses (that call for extra attention and visual acuity), but to say that lighting every inch of expressway is necessary to prevent the type of accidents that routinely take place in broad daylight, is just beyond absurd.

Just turning on his 4-way flashers would have improved his safety much
more than having a streetlight on overhead.  Dimming the glare from a nearby LED billboard (visible in KOTV's photos) might have also eliminated a deadly distraction.

God help these fear-mongers when they have to drive outside the city limits at night, and discover most of America's highways dont have streetlights...

To the council:  I sympathize that you must endure often passionate calls to act on people's unfounded perceptions and fears, but in this case, before we rob Peter to pay for Paul's paranoia, it would be wise to investigate whether or not this is even a wise financial and safety move.

There is not a credible body of evidence that proves expressway lighting make expressways "safe".  Not in Tulsa, or the U.S., or the rest of the motoring world.
Even FOX23 reported a few months after the lights were turned off that expressway crashes went down slightly, perhaps as a result of people slowing down and paying more attention to their surroundings.
A little research around the world shows similar results, as communities cut back on unnecessary lights to meet their budgets.
Paris saw as much as a 30% drop in crashes after cutting back on unnecessary "continuous lighting", and saved money in the process.

So before we commit to an expense that may actually be a waste of money, the city has the obligation to prove that expressway lights actually provide the safety people claim, and that spending the money on them is a justifiable priority.  Otherwise, simply re-activating an unproven system of mostly cosmetic lighting with the unqualified perception that it will make expressways "safe" would be fiscally irresponsible, and deprive funding for items that truly provide safety. 

[Townsend]

I have a feeling there will be deaf ears.

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0610/750363.html

Having the lights back on is included in a budget proposal approved by the city council. However, that budget was vetoed last week by mayor Dewey Bartlett. The city council is expected to override that veto during Thursday night's city council meeting.

So they're saying that Dewey Bartlett killed a guy.

[waterboy]

I saw nothing that perpetuated lighting myths in that story. You guys must have read into it your own biases. Funny, media is always considered as promoting biases but that was just a compilation of comments, facts and police reporting.

I have no dog in this race. Common sense says the guy took a huge chance pushing a car with no lights visible. NOt too unheard of though. Common sense also says the car would probably have been more visible had there been street lights as well but no one promises a risk free adventure when driving.

[patric]

I have no dog in this race. Common sense says the guy took a huge chance pushing a car with no lights visible. NOt too unheard of though. Common sense also says the car would probably have been more visible had there been street lights as well but no one promises a risk free adventure when driving.

That same "common sense" leads people to believe that expressway traffic can see and avoid hazards at expressway speeds, and people often loose their lives as a result, even in daylight.

I have a feeling there will be deaf ears.
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0610/750363.html

If the mayor wants to save money wasted on cosmetic safety to spend on real safety, more power to him.

[waterboy]

Your crusade isn't resonating with me. Common sense rules. I can show you studies that almost all murderers started life drinking milk. We still offer milk to kids.

[patric]

I saw nothing that perpetuated lighting myths in that story.

Ill add one more thing... if the cost of continuous end-to-end expressway lighting came from the police budget, officers would be a lot more careful about making blanket statements about it, and be doing some real research...   

[Red Arrow]

Coincidence is not necessarily cause and effect.

[waterboy]

Look, when I drive the black highways in rural Kansas, all I see is the white stripes and two headlights coming at me. That's fine cause there isn't much out there and I can deal with it. But to try and stop lighting city expressways to save money is different. More traffic, more idiots, more entrances and exits. Makes sense that any light is better than none doesn't it?

[patric]

Look, when I drive the black highways in rural Kansas, all I see is the white stripes and two headlights coming at me. That's fine cause there isn't much out there and I can deal with it. But to try and stop lighting city expressways to save money is different. More traffic, more idiots, more entrances and exits. Makes sense that any light is better than none doesn't it?

It does make sense to light the entrances and exits, and we should be encouraging that in lieu of an "all or nothing" approach that is too expensive to sustain.

The city intended to just leave interchanges (ramps, exits, etc) on, but the way ODOT built the lighting system was to cut corners, and Public Works would have to go in and isolate some of the circuits.
(Why they havent used part of the last year to at least attempt that I really dont know).

Ideally, the interchanges should be on a different circuit from the straightaways, so you can control them independently.  Any competent electrician could do it...

But back to the point:  Straightaways shouldnt need lighting, that's what retro-reflective lines, markers and signs are for.  You light up interchanges to draw attention to the increased hazards and assist in seeing them.
You can operate an "Interchange-Only" system at a fraction of the cost of a "Continuous" system (that we are used to having), and it would actually be safer.

When Tulsa turned off portions of it's system, it was done sloppily because of the way the segments were wired.  Re-wire the segments and you have expressway lights where you actually need them, and a system that costs less to operate.  Sound better?

[custosnox]

Look, when I drive the black highways in rural Kansas, all I see is the white stripes and two headlights coming at me. That's fine cause there isn't much out there and I can deal with it. But to try and stop lighting city expressways to save money is different. More traffic, more idiots, more entrances and exits. Makes sense that any light is better than none doesn't it?

I think one of the biggest problems Patric has with the lighting systems is that often it is considered "better" then nothing, even when the lighting can create a more limited field of view if not properly done (what is in the light can be seen, but if it is outside of the light your screwed).  More is not always better.  On a clear night with a full moon, if I'm out away from the city, I actually prefer to drive without headlights because I can see better.

[waterboy]

It does make sense to light the entrances and exits, and we should be encouraging that in lieu of an "all or nothing" approach that is too expensive to sustain.

The city intended to just leave interchanges (ramps, exits, etc) on, but the way ODOT built the lighting system was to cut corners, and Public Works would have to go in and isolate some of the circuits.
(Why they havent used part of the last year to at least attempt that I really dont know).

Ideally, the interchanges should be on a different circuit from the straightaways, so you can control them independently.  Any competent electrician could do it...

But back to the point:  Straightaways shouldnt need lighting, that's what retro-reflective lines, markers and signs are for.  You light up interchanges to draw attention to the increased hazards and assist in seeing them.
You can operate an "Interchange-Only" system at a fraction of the cost of a "Continuous" system (that we are used to having), and it would actually be safer.

When Tulsa turned off portions of it's system, it was done sloppily because of the way the segments were wired.  Re-wire the segments and you have expressway lights where you actually need them, and a system that costs less to operate.  Sound better?

Yes. That is a defensible position that I can agree with.

[nathanm]

On a clear night with a full moon, if I'm out away from the city, I actually prefer to drive without headlights because I can see better.

Which works great until someone else comes along and doesn't see you... 

I do also find the full moon to be plenty of light to see, though. I don't get people's obsession with streetlights. Even interchange lighting on expressways can make it hard to see past the end of the lit area. On surface streets, corner lighting just makes for midblock blind spots.

In more dense and pedestrian friendly areas, I'm all for ample lighting. Pedestrians don't generally have headlamps and lit up businesses can create deep shadows, making it hard to see. In residential neighborhoods and more car-oriented areas, that's not usually an issue because the lighting is less intense or set back from the road/sidewalk, making it less blinding.