Hey, there! Log in / Register
Let's start by accepting we're all lawbreakers
By adamg on Wed, 08/19/2009 - 7:51am
Rather than trying to get bicyclists, or motorists, or pedestrians to obey the law, Dave Atkins wonders if maybe the answer to traffic chaos around here is to accept human behavior and deal with that:
... We need to change the road, not the rules. We need to stop believing that education and common sense are enough to protect us as a society from the tragedy of accidents. We need to say, OK, drivers and cyclists alike are breaking the law and endangering each other, so what can we do to make it less likely they will do that? ...
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I detect a false assumption
You could argue that some speed limits are suboptimal, but you can't convincingly say that speeding is safe because speeding drivers think it is. Just look at accidents caused by people who thought they were driving safely.
No, you can't necessarily
No, you can't necessarily make that connection. But I think the thrust of his argument, and one that I strongly support, is that the emphasis should be on sensitivity to conditions and the application of appropriate choices. We've seen many discussions on UH about bicycles running red lights. Yes, it's against the law, yes, many of us do it. When I run a red light on my bike, I'm applying the same logic and rationale that I apply to speeding. If conditions at that moment on that street make it a safe option and it will enhance my overall trip performance, then I will run the red or speed (as the case may be).
Please note that I do not consider it generally safe to run a red in a car, nor am I generally able to achieve speeds in excess of the posted limit while cycling. All of which is to say that different vehicles require a different analysis.
speeding
In the perfect AASHTO world, speed limits would be set at the 85th percentile speed. Boston does not set limits for individual streets.
The major false assumption
The major false assumption in all of these discussions is that drivers and bicyclists are rational actors concerned with their safety and/or the safety of others The prima facie evidence is against this. Bike riders do not run red lights and ride on the sidewalk because it is safe. They run red lights and ride on the sidewalk because they can. Etcetera. This is why the author's point has some merit; people are basically careless and selfish, particularly in our society. But it is foolish to think that design alone will change things. There must always be agreed rules to the road and they must be enforced, or any design principles will be ignored.
Licensing and training of car drivers greatly reduced accidents. The same should be done for bicyclists. And there should be actual pass/fail training for both rather than the casual form currently applied to driver's training.
Let's get off the bicycle high horse
And the car high horse, and the walking high horse. The response from traffic engineers has been more lanes, more stoplights, more crosswalks and less effectiveness. All they have done is make it possible for the police to bust you any time.
I stay out of the crosswalks because the cars' reaction is unpredictable. At least in the middle of the street, I know they won't stop and I can time it.
Let's get rid of half of these stoplights, but make it clear to the drivers that they are entering a shared zone, where they have to look out for bikes and walkers. Right now, as a driver, you have to gun it to get through the lights, otherwise you're stuck in a computerized traffic system which doesn't respond to the actual presence of traffic.
Where/what are you talking about?
I'm open to some overhauling of the lane/light system, but your last sentence doesn't make sense. I drive around in Boston all day as part of my job. I don't ever have to "gun it" to get through lights. I frequently do have to stop for people wandering across the road nowhere near a crosswalk, or pushing their baby carriage out into a crosswalk despite the bigass red hand telling them not to. Also adults on children's bikes riding around in figure eights in the middle of the road. And adults who walk down the middle of the road despite there being a lovely sidewalk. Sometimes I have to quickly steer or brake because some asswad in a car is gunning it for no apparent reason, passing in the oncoming lane where there's a double yellow and similar things. How about if the police start enforcing traffic laws for cars and pedestrians and bikes, especially the laws that to affect safety? They could start by raising the jaywalking fine from the current $1.00 so that there would be a point to actually enforcing it.
(Also, a goodly number of the traffic lights that stop arterial traffic to allow cars from the side street do have triggers on them, so the computerized system is responding to the actual presence of traffic. I pretty much know which lights have triggers, and I can expect that after I pull up, there will be a bit of a delay, and then the artery will get a red in a few seconds and I'll get a green. At some of these lights if you don't pull up far enough, you won't trigger the light. Sometimes when I've done this, before I realized that the light wasn't changing, one of the aforementioned asswads screeched around me in the oncoming lane and ran the light.)
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Jaywalkers will not respond
Jaywalkers will not respond simply to enforcement. In many cities, such as those in which jaywalking is not as much a part of the culture, walk signals automatically come on during the phase in which cars are going in the same direction. There are no buttons to push.
If crossing at the white hand is too inconvenient.. which is usually the case in Boston, people will ignore it. I do myself, because if I only crossed when I saw a white hand, it would take forever to get anywhere, and work against the convenience of walking over driving in the city. Sure I'm breaking the law, and potentially putting myself in danger, but it's a risk I'm willing to take for the convenience of getting somewhere in a timely manner.
Do you...
...ignore the big red hand and walk out right in front of cars going through a green light at a controlled intersection and then yell at the drivers that they don't know how to yield to pedestrians?
I'm not talking about the normal darting across the road when there's time to, like we all do. I'm talking about pedestrians who have no regard for car traffic and especially those who endanger their children with their crossing habits.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Seen that before
My friend and I were driving down Comm Ave in Brighton one day when we approached a green light (had been green for quite a while as seen from up the road). From the right side, about 200 feet before we got to the intersection, two girls (around 12-14 in age) just start walking out into the road at a slow-to-normal pace talking to each other without even looking! When one notices that we're almost on top of them, she steps a little faster out of our right lane.
The other one, instead, STOPS in the lane. Stares at my friend behind the wheel. And throws up her hand and mouths the word "STOP" to us. What the flying hell is THAT all about?? I mean, that's just screwed up.
Of course, my friend hits his horn as he slams on the brakes and I give her the finger and yell at her to get the hell out of the road. She starts walking across the road again and laughing at us all the way like she's queen of the street.
We should have hit her and done the world a favor.
And then there's
the passive-aggressive jaywalk, where someone wanders out into the road with their gaze fixed forward and down, so you aren't sure that they're watching traffic and you pretty much have to stop.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
State law states that all
State law states that all traffic has to stop for a person in a crosswalk irregardless of signals. Doesn't matter if the person is a total asshat, the law is still the law.
No it doesn't
MGL 89-11: "When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be so to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk..."
This was in a location where traffic control signals are in place and in operation. Don't pretend to quote the law if you aren't going to a) link or even name the actual chapter and section and b) have no idea what you're talking about.
And just to demonstrate a
And just to demonstrate a bit more about how wrong that idea is, a car is not even required to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk, as long as passing the crosswalk does not impede the pedestrian's progress: "slowing down or stopping if need be," has been interpreted by the courts to mean that the pedestrian must be within 10 feet of where the vehicle would pass. If they are stepping into the crosswalk on the other side of the street, for example, the car is not required to stop.
Unless the guy next to you stops
However, even if they are 10 feet to your right and you are in the left lane of 2 lanes and the guy next to you stops to let them begin walking, then you also have to stop regardless of distance.
I got scolded for this by a cop in Davis Square because I didn't realize the car on my right had stopped at the crosswalk (and not stopping for traffic beyond it) after I had just turned onto the street from behind them. At least the cop realized that I actually felt bad for having passed by the pedestrians (mom and stroller) and let me off with a yelling (not even a warning). I'm always good about stopping even if there's absolutely nobody behind me on the road and someone is waiting to cross.
This is so typical for this
This is so typical for this area. I hate driving down this stretch. It's chock full of Darwin candidates. It's probably the one place where I trust the not-so-great-either drivers more than I do either the pedestrians or people on bikes (I refuse to call these idiots actual 'cyclists'), who are riding around like they are still back home in the sleepy suburbs. I don't even bother responding to any of these butt-hats. I just want to GTFO of there ASAP.
Read your MGLs
"No driver of a vehicle shall pass any other vehicle which has stopped at a marked crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross, nor shall any such operator enter a marked crosswalk while a pedestrian is crossing or until there is a sufficient space beyond the crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle he is operating, notwithstanding that a traffic control signal may indicate that vehicles may proceed."
Notice it says jack shit about whether or not the little hand is lit up, and it specifically says that a green light isn't an OK to just charge though. If a pedestrian is in the crosswalk, you have to yield. Yes, even at a "controlled intersection."
Also, is it just me, or is Adam not approving anonymous comments?
Read the paragraph before that one
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
Incorrect reading of context
The point of this segment is to keep you out of a crosswalk in the case that there isn't room for you to proceed cleanly and stop on the road outside of the crosswalk.
In plain English instead of legalese it would say:
"Hey, Masshole, don't even start to enter a crosswalk with your car if you can't pull all the way through it because there's too much traffic on the other side. I don't care if the light is green, you can't block the crosswalk with your car if someone is using it to cross."
Oh ok
Thought you were talking about the normal jaywalking. Walking in front of cars moving at a high rate of speed isn't a particularly smart thing to do, even if you might be able to judge whether they will stop or not.
I don't think you either
I don't think you either remember or were alive back in the 60s and 70s when many of the city's lights were added. Pedestrian fatalities and major accidents were FAR MORE COMMON back then, and that's why our current system of lights were added.
We're all trying to get somewhere
I'm saying let's take the emotion out of it, and slow the traffic without official policies, but by making it necessary for road users to be aware of each other. Making it all done by electronics and mechanics takes the decision-making out of your hands.
There is a Dutch idea called something like a Wyvern (I know it's not that, but something like that) which is to reduce speed, allow for smaller accidents, and take out the over-hand of official traffic signals. The driver is going slower, but gets where he is going faster, and is less aggravated because he's moving more, even if at a slower speed.
Laweiplein
It's essentially a rotary with only the most minimal signage. It causes everyone involved to be much more attentive to what they are doing, reducing speeds and increasing signal usage.
Walk/Don't Walk Signals don't kill pedestrians, cars do
Exactly correct. And the corollary is that a Walk/Don't Walk signal has struck and killed or injured a pedestrian.
That's why I pay them no heed: They aren't the danger. But, I watch cars like a hawk, and stay out of their way.
It's the Laws that Need Changing
When such a large percentage of people break the law (cars, cyclists and pedestrians), perhaps it's the laws themselves that need fixing?
In a few other places in the US, bicyclists are allowed to treat red lights like stop signs. If the coast is clear then they can go.
It makes complete sense to me, and I think would encourage more cyclists to stop and look. At the same time, look at something like jaywalking, how often does that law get broken here in Boston? Let's wipe it out and replace it with common sense, you can legally cross the street whenever/wherever, but if you walk into traffic and get hurt that's on you.