"Vision Zero" Aims To Eliminate Traffic Fatalities In San Diego

An anonymous reader writes: San Diego city officials Monday expressed support for a plan called "Vision Zero" to make San Diego's roadways safer for pedestrians and bicyclists over the next 10 years. Vision Zero aims to eliminate traffic deaths in the city by 2025 by improving crosswalks, raising medians, creating buffers between vehicle and bicycle lanes, and improving sidewalks. NBC 7 in San Diego reports: "Allison Street next to La Mesa City Hall provides a blueprint of sorts. Diagonal parking lines reduce the size of the street. Jim Stone, Executive Director of Circulate San Diego, says studies show smaller streets help slow traffic. Then there's the crosswalk with lights on the ground and signs that alert drivers when someone crosses. The curb extension also provides better visibility. 'They can see cars coming but more importantly the cars can see them coming,' Stone said about the curb extensions. 'So it's a great way to improve pedestrian safety.'"

Comments

What would Monderman say?

[digsbo]

This guy suggests they're going about it the wrong way. It's counterintuitive, but he found that making things more ambiguous causes people to use more caution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: What would Monderman say?

[Kunedog]

I was thinking of this project too. Perhaps we should not train drivers that every pedestrian is accompanied by flashing lights.

Re: What would Monderman say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that the way London streets are (less signage)? Where I live there are so many signs everywhere you can't possibly see them all. So people ignore the signs.

Re:What would Monderman say?

[xevioso]

The problem with this approach is that ambiguity doesn't really mesh well with traffic laws.

Lets say you follow his design approach and you remove curbs, crosswalks and signage from a busy intersection. While trying to navigate through the intersection, I accidentally hit someone who has run into the street. There's no signs, no lights or anything...who is to blame? In California, the pedestrian always has the right of way, but this doesn't make it easy to navigate traffic in a busy city where you are trying to pay attention to 1000 things on the road at once.

Street signs have they benefit of at least attempting to make things predictable. If there is a "Do not cross" light for pedestrians at an intersection when I approach it, I can be reasonably certain that a pedestrian won't run out in front of me...I could easily be wrong, and some idiot could still do it, but most of the time they won't. With no traffic signs/lights, there is no predictability.

Re:What would Monderman say?

[Ichijo]

this doesn't make it easy to navigate traffic in a busy city where you are trying to pay attention to 1000 things on the road at once.

When you have trouble paying attention to your surroundings, you should slow down to a reasonable and prudent speed for conditions. That's the law.

Re:What would Monderman say?

[mjwx]

This guy suggests they're going about it the wrong way. It's counterintuitive, but he found that making things more ambiguous causes people to use more caution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Yes but this guy obviously didn't consider ego and the Dunning-Kruger effect. Remove all the road signs and make the rules unintelligible and you'll end up with a problem with attitudes like "I have right of way, am perfectly safe doing eleventy thousand KPH and can drive on the phone" making up their own rules which will make things more dangerous.

Re: What would Monderman say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live there are so many signs everywhere you can't possibly see them all. So people ignore the signs.

Illegals can't read the signs anyway.

Re: What would Monderman say?

[bmimatt]

I live in San Diego. This is just another example of city officials funneling money to their buddies. It was the same with illegal hi-rise development and some other larger projects. The city is also a partner with ACE Parking corp and has effectively removed all free parking space downtown in exchange for ACE's paid parking and red 'no parking' curb. Bullshizzle.

Re: What would Monderman say?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in San Diego. This is just another example of city officials funneling money to their buddies. It was the same with illegal hi-rise development and some other larger projects. The city is also a partner with ACE Parking corp and has effectively removed all free parking space downtown in exchange for ACE's paid parking and red 'no parking' curb. Bullshizzle.

Why exactly should every other citizen subsidize the construction and maintenance of a parking spot in front of a corporately owned business? If the business wants to provide parking, pay for the land and build it yourself. Ditto for home owners - if you want "free" street parking, then build it yourself.

There was never free parking in any downtown area. There were just spaces that the government paid for but couldn't directly monetize. There's plenty of street parking in rural towns - move there if you want to park your car for free.

Re: What would Monderman say?

[bmimatt]

...

There was never free parking in any downtown area. There were just spaces that the government paid for but couldn't directly monetize. There's plenty of street parking in rural towns - move there if you want to park your car for free.

There were several building removed and space turned into parking lots. Some of these buildings were taken from their rightful owners through the abuse of the imminent domain laws. Some of these ex building owners even won their cases against the city, after their buildings and businesses had already been leveled.

Re: What would Monderman say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Developers own San Diego, they get whatever they want. Always.

Good luck fighting City Hall when the real estate interests have the council in their pocket.

Re: What would Monderman say?

[Runaway1956]

The better question is, why should all citizens subsidize a business whose model it is to use public facilities to turn a profit?

Perhaps you didn't really comprehend GP's post. Those parking spaces are being monetized by a private corporation. Said corporation throws some chump change at the city government. And, taxpayers are still paying for all that paved area, the corporation has not assumed any responsibilities in providing parking spaces.

Taxpayers are ENTITLED to park on the city streets, because they PAID FOR those streets.

Re:What would Monderman say?

[KingMotley]

You want less traffic deaths? When the light turns red have spikes come up from the ground right before the crosswalk. People will learn to stop before the crosswalk, or they will go broke repairing their car.

Re: What would Monderman say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Road tax is supposed to pay for public car parks.

Re:What would Monderman say?

[wonkey_monkey]

Yes but this guy obviously didn't consider ego and the Dunning-Kruger effect.

How do you know he didn't? He also went out and performed experiments, and found that shared space can make things safer and more efficient.

Re:What would Monderman say?

[AmiMoJo]

You are oversimplifying how the ambiguity technique works. On a busy intersection you wouldn't just remove curbs and crosswalks. You would try to separate pedestrians and traffic completely, and the ambiguity would come from say removing lane markings in order to slow traffic.

The only place you would completely remove barriers between pedestrians and vehicles is in areas where vehicles must travel at extremely low speeds anyway. Certainly not in a busy area.

Re:What would Monderman say?

[AmiMoJo]

It's the exact opposite. People think they know the rules of the road and are fully aware of their surroundings, so assume that any accidents will be someone else's fault and drive with unwarranted confidence. By making them sell certain they tend to behave more conservatively.

Re:What would Monderman say?

[jafiwam]

The ideas for changes they are describing go a long way towards making them more like eastern europe or soviet roads.

I suggest you go over to youtube and search for "russian car crash" and view a couple hours of video in the results.

Then come back and explain how fewer, and less defined rules will make things safer.

Re:What would Monderman say?

[wonkey_monkey]

Then come back and explain how fewer, and less defined rules will make things safer.

Ask the guy who proved experimentally that it can work. He apparently knows what he's doing when it comes to shared space, which is not simply "removing all the roadsigns" or "making it more like Russia." It's not meant to be applied globally without thought to specific local conditions.

Re: What would Monderman say?

[KGIII]

Do you live in Georgia? They have more signs than any state that I know of. Anyhow, I modeled traffic as a business. I am going to go out on a limb and say that this plan will not be as effective as they are hoping. A smart and informed driver is the solution. The rest is just stuffing. Who is going to buy further consulting if it does not cover everything? Recommend 100 changes, really, short-list 50, get 20, pay for 10, and hope that they go with 10 priority changes.

Re:What would Monderman say?

[hey!]

Except experience with the "risk compensation effect" has been mixed. It turns out that sometimes taking away street markings and traffic control devices makes a place safer; in other cases it makes it more dangerous. Specifics matter, that's why it's called "traffic engineering".

If you look at places put forward as examples of "shared space" traffic design they look distinctly Old World -- they're in neighborhoods that are designed around pedestrian traffic. American Sun Belt cities aren't designed around the needs of people, they're organized to maximize the flow of cars. San Diego might well be the most pedestrian hostile urban environment in the world. It has residential neighborhoods without a single store or even playground within convenient walking distance of most of its residents. You need a car for everything, and everyone needs a car. Traffic everywhere is heavy and fast.

Here's one of the San Diego intersections in question, 4th and Broadway. Compare it to a Dutch shared space. Click a few times to move around both neighborhoods to see the difference. Yes, the Dutch city has a lot more bikes, but that's a result of the real difference, which is that the Dutch neighborhood is a destination; most of the people there are going places that are there. The San Diego intersection is a crossroads; almost everyone there is heading somewhere else.

Now you can put a fountain in the middle of the 4th and Broadway intersection; remove all the traffic signals and markings in the neighborhood and put up a four way stop sign, obliterate the distinction between sidewalk and roadway in the area. All these things would probably make this particular intersection safer. But it won't make the city as a whole safer because it doesn't address the underlying planning problem: San Diegans have to drive everywhere. The fast, heavy traffic will simply shift over a street or two on the grid. You'd have to make those same changes on all the possible alternate routes as well. This would make the city safer, at the expense of trapping many residents in commercially lifeless residential neighborhoods.

You can't make the city safer transforming a single intersection or even a handful of intersections into "shared spaces". To make that work you'd have to radically redesign the entire city to eliminate most of the driving people have to do. That's actually a really good idea, but good luck convincing San Diegans to pay to have their city transformed into Leeuwarden. In the meantime people will continue to be killed at the crossroads.

Re: What would Monderman say?

[rpstrong]

That would be eminent domain, especially if it already happened. But your point is valid.

Re:What would Monderman say?

[shutdown -p now]

Russia doesn't have fewer or less defined road rules. If anything, it has more - the book that you has to study to pass the theory exam has like a dozen pages of various signs alone, and overall is thicker than the road rule book for the three other countries where I have studied one (New Zealand, Canada/BC and US/WA) combined. Plenty of signs on the roads, too.

Re:What would Monderman say?

[david_thornley]

You're comparing the thickness of a book in Russian to a book in English. Russian is a less efficient language than English, and if you have the exact same content in both the languages the English version will be significantly shorter. How much thicker was the Russian book?

Re:What would Monderman say?

[shutdown -p now]

Since I've actually read all of those (as I had to pass exams in all of these jurisdictions), I can compare them meaningfully. I can definitely say that it's not just about the language. For starters, the Russian version has a lot more text in general, while other versions were more picture-heavy. But also the sheer amount of rules was significantly larger in Russia, and the theory test much more complicated as a result.

It's also written in a much drier and more formal language. I suspect it's because the rule books in other countries don't copy the laws verbatim, but try to condense them into something easier to read and understand, while in Russia what you get is what is in the law.

If you're curious, here is [google-translated] current edition. For laughs, go to the annex where it has several sections on signs, and see how many of them you knew before. You are expected to know every single one, and any of them can show up in the theory test.

Re:What would Monderman say?

[Anonymous Coward]

this doesn't make it easy to navigate traffic in a busy city where you are trying to pay attention to 1000 things on the road at once.

When you have trouble paying attention to your surroundings, you should slow down to a reasonable and prudent speed for conditions. That's the law.

Yep. Unfortunately, what people like you have trouble figuring out is that accidents still happen when people are driving reasonable and prudent speeds. Some of these accidents will be fatal. People do a lot of stupid things. A driver that is being reasonable and prudent still can not hope to predict everything going on around him or her, when the pedestrians are being stupid (or are high, or insane, or simply suicidal, or running from the cops). Shit happens. A slow speed will help one avoid other people's stupidity, but nobody is perfect and thus there will be times when the evasion or braking attempt fails. Even at a ridiculously slow speed, an accident can be fatal. People can simply fall, hit their heads, and die. Even if there is no contact with the vehicle, somebody can lose their balance with the same result. Anger and stress can make an accident trigger a heart attack or stroke, which can also be fatal. The complex and stressful city environment will increase the likelihood of any of these happening.

Further, the human brain is subject to optical illusions and various limitations on perception that the driver almost certainly will not be aware of. Get a good book on psychology for some of the simpler examples. Even if the driver knows about this, they won't necessarily have the ability to apply that knowledge real time. The complexity of the city environment greatly increases the likelihood of problems of this kind as well, but I've also seen a case where a driver failed to see a dark car moving in the shade of some trees while in the country (nowhere near dawn or dusk, so no headlights were in use), so this kind of thing can happen anywhere.

This aspect of reality is generally recognized by the law, when the courts are in a reasonable mood.

Usually, a failure to comprehend the reality of how the world works is associated with youth, and more experience with life with correct the problem. Once you figure out you're not immortal, you'll start becoming more aware of the many ways in which mistakes happen, including a lot of mistakes you make.

Re:What would Monderman say?

[RockDoctor]

Right general idea, but you put the spike in the centre of the steering wheel, requiring pressure from the driver's chest to keep the ignition enabled. Dead drivers don't kill pedestrians.

Re: What would Monderman say?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, if the city provides parking spaces in appropriate locations then they can be shared between multiple businesses, decreasing the total amount of space spent on parking and thus allowing other (arguably more useful) construction to take its place.

Of course, that's not to say that the parking has to be free; in fact, for this to work at its best pricing would ideally follow demand and vary throughout the day, as they trialled in San Francisco some years ago with the "SFPark" scheme.

Re:What would Monderman say?

[david_thornley]

Thanks for the clarification.

how do you stop jaywalkers?

[known_coward_69]

i live on the blvd of death in NYC and they made safety improvements 15 years ago by building fences in the islands so people don't cross outside the crosswalk. the next month a 68 year old man died when he slipped jumping over the fence mid-block and falling into moving traffic. here in NYC i've seen dummies cross the street midblock behind a car with it's reverse lights on trying to get out of a parking spot. don't get me started on all the people on bikes who run red lights all the time

Re:how do you stop jaywalkers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Traffic lights are optimized for cars, not bikes or pedestrians. Sometimes it's better to ignore them, of course after careful consideration and at your own risk. On a bike it's often safer to run over a red light when the street is empty, than to move with motorized traffic and risk being run over by a truck that takes a right turn.

Re:how do you stop jaywalkers?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't stop jaywalkers... you allow jaywalkers and require cars to move more slowly so that they can stop safely when a pedestrian crosses the street.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is a local news story about a civil engineering project on /.?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

You heard it here first, everybody: engineering isn't nerdy!

Re:Huh?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Why are you on Slashdot if this story isn't interesting to you?

Re:Huh?

[known_coward_69]

it is interesting. history has shown technology won't solve people's stupidity

Re: Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is a crap Monday article, the whole civil engineering involved is total bullshit , none of this crap is on the fe exam, this is a how do we separate cars and people/bikes better which is not engineering, determining the coefficient of friction to slow a car and increase the friction to make the car stop in a shorter distance is engineering

Seattle too

[Sowelu]

Yeah, we've got the same thing around Seattle, including radio ads where they ask people "how many yearly traffic fatalities do you think are acceptable" and of course people say zero. How silly. If someone is senile and doesn't look before taking a left turn...if a kid rides their bike directly into the road ignoring crosswalks...if someone is staring at their phone and walks in front of a moving bus...those are sad but they are pretty acceptable to me.

Re:Seattle too

[Anonymous Coward]

There is serious issues with idiot pedestrians with these systems. I have seem people hit the crosswalk button and just start walking out without noticing the car 20ft away heading toward them. I have also see way to many people step out as lights change, and with out automated lights they have delayed walk lights in some cases. So a right turn on red might turn into pedestrians getting a late walk light. This is more an east side thing as it has the 'smart' lights. It is great tech, but you can tell they are tweaking it still.

Re:Seattle too

[Jumunquo]

Oh man, do we ever. Did you read the article written by our transportation director?
http://www.seattletimes.com/op...
The summary is that he wants to redo all the sidewalks around schools (most of which are already abundantly signed, reflective, and lighted/flashing), implement massive lane reductions, and a 5-mph speed reduction across the board (lowering it to 25mph on arterials), all of which are very expensive projects. I'm sorry, but anyone who is old enough to walk alone has an infinite number of stupid ways they can kill themselves and an infinite number of places. If you're going to speed money anywhere, fix the key dangerous spots (if any still exist) and then spend the rest on mental health. Or police/fire/ambulance are good services too (most of the time), and they safe innocent lives. They are going to ask us in the Fall to vote a nearly billion dollar road-fixing proposition that only spends around $200M on fixing roads, $100M million on fixing bridges, and $600M on other stuff, like "safety projects." I wonder if the voters know that passing that means they will get fixed roads, but not for their cars to travel on!

Re:Seattle too

[Nemyst]

The problem is that any accident has a pretty good chance of harming/killing someone who did not do anything wrong. That senile person doing a left turn might run into a minivan with two kids on board. That kid riding their bike in traffic might cause someone to swerve into the opposite lane and collide with someone else. It's not that easy to say "eh, those are acceptable".

Re:Seattle too

[Ol Olsoc]

It's safety Culture. And Safety Culture never sleeps, and is never satisfied. Coupled with our increasingly reactionary nature, it's the perfect storm of hysteria.

And some times very stupid. Regarding those 25 mph limits, sometimes they backfire. A small town near mine was trying to get control over the main route that went through it. Speed limit was 35 mph. But they had to think of the children. So they lowered it to 25. The result was more accidents, as vehicles spent longer going through town than before, and backups were common. And a child darting in front of a car can be hurt just as easily as going 35. They ended up raising the speed limit back to it's original value.

Re:Seattle too

[Ol Olsoc]

The problem is that any accident has a pretty good chance of harming/killing someone who did not do anything wrong. That senile person doing a left turn might run into a minivan with two kids on board. That kid riding their bike in traffic might cause someone to swerve into the opposite lane and collide with someone else. It's not that easy to say "eh, those are acceptable".

Unless you are a safety culture zealot, you cannot say that anything over 0 is unacceptable. Perhaps Sowelu might have phrased it better, but at core, his argument is how exactly are you going to save that person? I've personally saved two students who were doing something very important on their smartphone, and started to walk out into heavy traffic. And in the last year, we've had a couple fatalities that I know of. One was a jogger in the zone who ran out into traffic and was sent airborne, and the other a young lady who had something really important on her smartphone, and walked into the side of a moving bus.

Zero? Ain't gonna happen. And unless we plan on bankrupting ourselves, in real life,we will have to accept some demise as inevitable. Actually even if we do bankrupt ourselves. people are sadly quite the experts at accidentally killing themselves. Just tonight, a young man on a scooter was killed when he and a Guy coming from the opposite direction was killed when they both tried to beat a red light, the mini turned in front of the scooter, and that was all she wrote. Sad, but no way to prevent that kind of stupidity.

Re:Seattle too

[DigiShaman]

I'm amazed they didn't just create a tunnel under the road for pedestrians to walk under. You know, make-work shovel ready jobs in which the tax payer gets it up the ass. Obviously the politicians haven't been getting their evil on right.

Re:Seattle too

[Anonymous Coward]

You totally don't get it. What you aim for, and what you get is sometimes totally different things, but that doesn't mean that you a) shouldn't have aimed for your original target, or that b) you even *could* have archived your current result if you had aimed any lower and said "eh, I'm happy with result y instead of result x".

Your reasoning sounds suspiciously similar to some kid who flunks his test because he tells himself, "I'll do the minimum amount of studying to get a 'pass', and then proceeds to misjudge the amount of studying actually needed.

Re:Seattle too

[Anonymous Coward]

Safety Culture: Seat belts, helmets, speed limits and similar were criticized heavily when introduced.

I'm not saying that what is happening now is all good. I'm only saying that it is really hard to see when you are in the center of the action.

Re:Seattle too

[Agent0013]

Some studies show that injuries are worse when helmets are worn. It's not the neck injuries you might think due to the weight of the helmet either. It's more along the lines of people feeling indestructible when wearing one that they act in much more dangerous ways.

Re:Seattle too

[KGIII]

They will be unsatisfied until the death or injury number is no greater than zero. This will never happen - even if we automate the cars and move pedestrian traffic to isolation. This means that they will be able to complain, able to get attention, able to seek funding - forever. We are never going to be safe and, I hate to say this, our highway deaths are already at an acceptably low level. At some point you reach a state where throwing money at the problem or making changes is no longer effective enough to warrant the expense. Accidents and death are, realistically, an acceptable event. It sucks when it happens to you, few of us have not lost someone to a vehicle accident, but the reality is different than what people want.

It is much more difficult to explain this to a room full of the "genuinely concerned" and PTA mothers. It sucks to be called in to explain what is happening, why it is happening, and how it will change things to the public - they simply do not understand. They do, however, have a right to know how their money is being spent and they have a right to know why. I would also say that they have an obligation to be willing to be educated and an obligation to think logically.

Anyhow, I know the people doing this project - the people who consulted on it and made the recommendations, and they are not dumb. You start with a model, it is generic, and you check it against reality. You then tweak the algorithms until the model matches reality, this is the most important step. If you do not match reality, in terms of observation and data, then you keep tweaking until you are "close enough." (You will not get perfection.) Then you make the changes to your model and crunch the numbers again. Then you tell the people who hired you what the changes should be (and never get even half of them accomplished or paid for) and what the expected results will be. Those people then lie to the public and tell them what they want to hear. (I can assure you that not one consultant expects to eliminate fatalities or accidents.) Then you are called into a few meetings where they ask you to tell them what the most important aspects of your plan are. Then they trim those down to whichever streets they personally live on or where the money is. Then you get to go to a public hearing (or ten) where the administration lies to the public about the effectiveness and you simply try to explain the science behind the changes.

The people will listen, or not, and not actually take the time to think it through. They will ask silly questions like, "Will this make us completely safe?" Or, "I live at ____ and my commute is ____ hours. How much quicker will this be after the changes are made?" The first question is silly but you answer it as politically as you can. This usually upsets people because you do not lie to them and tell them that they will be completely safe and that Little Johnny is still ill advised to play in the road. The latter question you attempt to answer with qualifications such as how it may decrease their commute time while making them safer and then you go on to point out that commute times can be rapidly decreased if people do things like maintain a steady speed that keeps up with traffic, if they move to the left at a merge (or allow them to merge more easily), if they use clear signals and obey traffic laws, if they maintain their speed in the right lane, etc... You even go so far as to have the municipality put electronic signs up that they can use to tell people these things. Instead they convey information that should be on situational signs and then slam a bunch of traffic into the congestion caused by road construction.

The other thing? Take the damned billboards down! Especially those that are bright and flashy. Make sure to keep signs in good repair - a sign that can not be read is less than acceptable. If there is construction or some other hazard put the warning signs up WITH a distance and do not put them up too early or too late. When merging construction traffic into a single lane do s

Re:Seattle too

[KGIII]

You forget affordability. (Opera insists that is not a word, I am going to leave it.) You do not aim for zero accidents. You aim for as safe as possible within budget. You could make the highways much safer but the cost is great and the benefit little after a certain number of dollars are spent. Additionally, these safe practices are not going to be looked at favorably. Do you really want a restricted access highway to have a heavily enforced speed limit of 30 MPH? No? Me either.

Re:Seattle too

[Methadras]

Safety Culture is is nothing but perpetual central control and bureaucratic imposition of justification of existence for that bureaucracy.

Re:Seattle too

[Ol Olsoc]

I'm amazed they didn't just create a tunnel under the road for pedestrians to walk under. You know, make-work shovel ready jobs in which the tax payer gets it up the ass. Obviously the politicians haven't been getting their evil on right.

Yeah, tunnels make sense to me too. Though on our local campus, they had a tunnel under a busy intersection.

They filled it in because of......... safety concerns. Someone thought it was a place for people to get attacked or robbed. Despite not once ever happening. And despite people getting attaced regularly out in the "Safe" open Sheesh.Tunnels are dawk and scawee I guess.

Saftey culture is reaching the point where they kinda look insane.

Re:Seattle too

[Ol Olsoc]

You totally don't get it. What you aim for, and what you get is sometimes totally different things, but that doesn't mean that you a) shouldn't have aimed for your original target,

I'm saying that dreaming the impossible dream should be reserved for Don Quixote as he tilts at windmills.

otherwise, I can assure everyone that thes project will fail in meeting their stated goal.

You want to try to minimize deaths? Hey - I'l sign on. Eliminate them? my bullshit sensor is triggered, and I suspect other motivations, like cash grabs. I worked long and hard and experienced much to get this cynical.

Re:Seattle too

[Ol Olsoc]

You do not aim for zero accidents. You aim for as safe as possible within budget.

Correct - I have no idea why that is so hard to grasp.

It's like asking how many bug pieces are acceptable in grain for sale.

The obvious answer is none at all.

Except that is impossible, and we would all starve to death while good grain rotted in elevators.

Some things are simply not possible, so we have to set some practical limits.

I think some of the problem is that safety culture is so entrenched and invasive, that there are a lot of people who would have no issue with bankrupting us for an impossible dream.

Re:Seattle too

[Ol Olsoc]

It's more along the lines of people feeling indestructible when wearing one that they act in much more dangerous ways.

And every time cars are made safer, people just drive faster.

Really, it's the failure of safety culture. aside from making more restrictive conditions, they don't take into account that at least half of us are pretty stupid.

Re:Seattle too

[munch117]

A small town near mine was trying to get control over the main route that went through it.

There's ya problem right there. The way to fix it is to create (or improve) a bypass road that goes around the town, and then, and only then, lower speeds through the town.

Re:Seattle too

[Ol Olsoc]

A small town near mine was trying to get control over the main route that went through it.

There's ya problem right there. The way to fix it is to create (or improve) a bypass road that goes around the town, and then, and only then, lower speeds through the town.

A few businesses wuold probably g under as a result.

Quite a price to pay for a "what if" problem. No one was ever hurt at the 35 mph speed limit. And remember, children might be hurt along the new stretch of highwayas well, unless they make it limited access for the couple mile change, people might lose their homes, and other issues.

Re:Seattle too

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, you're still not getting it.

A vision is what you are working for, and what you should be ultimately aiming for. Think of it like this; if you kick a football, it's rarely going to go exactly where you aim it. However, if you have no clear vision (idea) of precisely where and how you want it to go, it will usually not go anywhere particularly productive. So while zero dead in the traffic may be a long shot indeed, if you're not aiming for an absolute "goal", much like the footballer, you're probably not going to hit anywhere close to it, and wherever you land will be more or less totally random.

You also, beside the point that we are supposed to value human lives over material values, so saying "we consider XXXXXX persons dying in the traffic every year acceptable" isn't really an option thing, clearly demonstrate that you have not understood that safety, to paraphrase Bruce Schneier, is "a process not a product". So, you do indeed do aim for zero fatal accidents, that whole "zero accidents" thing is a total strawman btw.

The point is to have a process in which you continually, proactively, work to minimize risks and mitigate consequences, instead of throwing your hands in the air and saying "Too bad Charlie died in that completely unnecessary accident because of that poorly planned out road crossing. It just cost too much to fix and we're not going to stop building such road crossings, because we've always made them like that", or only fix things after 20 fatal accidents have happened in the same way at the same place, which would be what "minimizing deaths" would imply; you have a confirmed problem causing "excessive" deaths, so you fix the problem, thereby minimizing the future deaths.

Re:Seattle too

[KGIII]

Correct - I have no idea why that is so hard to grasp.

It's like asking how many bug pieces are acceptable in grain for sale.

The obvious answer is none at all.

I have no idea what prompts people to do these things. I can only assume it is in our nature to strive for perfection when perfection is impossible. We do not want people to die and will ignore reality in favor of insisting on an ideal that is not going to happen.

I think some of the problem is that safety culture is so entrenched and invasive, that there are a lot of people who would have no issue with bankrupting us for an impossible dream.

Forest for the trees, perfection getting in the way of good, and all that... You see this in the form of regulation where choices are being taken away in the name of safety and what is "good" for you. I guess it is nice to have people so concerned about my wellbeing and so aware of my desires that they know what is best for me and are willing to restrict my liberties to do ensure that I follow along.

What bothers me is that some folks also like to couch their reasoning by saying that people have a right to choose. Umm... No? You just took away my right to choose. I may have been quite open to making the "correct" choice in the first place but now I am being told that I must and that this, somehow, is increasing my choice. Why take away my choice to ingest trans-fat only to tell me that this is increasing my choice? Read the various comments in that thread. I, of course, do not want trans-fats but the reality is that they are taking my liberty away from me by telling companies that they can no longer provide products that contain it. There is nothing being increased here. Simply enforcing labeling laws would be good - make them display any trans-fat content on the front in a size 14 font.

Anyhow, I suspect that I am preaching to the choir. We are never going to reduce the accident rate to zero - anywhere. Why? Because accidents are, by their nature, an anomaly where things have gone wrong. Accidents are caused by people and people are prone to making mistakes - those mistakes sometimes have dire consequences. The adage about building a better idiot comes to mind and we will, no doubt about it, continue to produce better and better idiots. Folks think autonomous cars are going to solve things like this. The reality is that there will not only be stupid pedestrians but there will also be some stupid bastard that figures out a way to turn their vehicle completely off while driving down the road at highway speed.

Re:Seattle too

[KGIII]

No, I can assure you that nobody who is actually in charge (in any area where I have worked) aims for a zero. They aim for the fewest accidents within the allowed budget. They aim to be as safe as possible. I suspect you are in full agreement but disagree with the verbiage. When they say they would like to have zero work-related accidents this year they do not mean that they are aiming for zero accidents, they mean they will work to reduce hazards and increase safety awareness.

If they wanted zero accidents they could achieve this by simply stopping the work entirely and there would be no more accidents. Thus the stated goal is usually zero but nobody is actually working towards that as the end result, they are more realistic than that. The goal is reduction of harm and increased safety and this is limited by things like budget, work-output goals, productivity vs. safety equipment, and things of that nature.

Like I said, we seem to be saying much the same thing but the difference is semantics. I know of nobody who truly works for a null value but rather looks for a value greater than the level where it is unacceptable. Unacceptable varies per industry, activity, and goals - it has many factors.

Actually, I should not say 'nobody.' I have known a few people who did things like insist that their teen wore a life-jacket while swimming in a pool.

Re:Seattle too

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that we're probably on the same page, neither of us wants people to die for no good reason at all.

The point is that zero has to be the goal, because if it isn't, we're basically saying "N number of deaths is OK". This in turn means that as soon as we reach a maximum of N deaths, we're stopping. We won't investigate why these persons actually died, and whether anything actually could have been done to prevent any of them from perishing, because N number of deaths is, according to our criteria, OK. Of course this means someone else could die at a later point in time for the same quite possibly bloody stupid reason.

Now I hear you saying "No, no, no, I said we should minimize the deaths where possible, not that we should stop trying at N deaths!" And that my friend is when you just have started working towards zero, whether you like admit it or not. :) As long as you make any kind of investigation or try to learn anything from a fatal accident in order to prevent it from repeating, even if it was the only fatal accident that year, you are working towards zero.

The only other thing we don't seem to agree on is what this vision zero is about, you're consistently writing accidents, which might be a slip, while I'm talking about fatal accidents, which obviously isn't the same thing. Preventing accidents is sometimes impossible, however, making their consequences less severe and reduce the risk of them being fatal is frequently both cheap and simple. If you want an example just look at the sand traps found on any sane race track. It doesn't stop you from spinning off the track, but it usually prevents you from hitting the barrier at Mach 1.

So, sorry for being long-winded, but there it is, why zero is the goal, and not an "acceptable" or "realistic" number.

Re:Seattle too

[KGIII]

That is just it - we *are* saying (in my opinion and experience) that "N number of deaths is OK." We just are not saying it publicly or where we can be overheard and end up in print. I modeled traffic for years - that was my business. I was the author of the original software (consulting firm really, the software was NOT one-size-fits-all) that modeled traffic on a computer. Oddly this was just a hmm... Call it a long term project. It got noticed and mentioned to someone at the local highway department who just happened to be able to take the time to contact me and put me in touch with an early proposal for the "Big Dig" in Boston. (They did not take most of the suggestions and listened to their in-house engineers far too much as well as placed their money in the wrong areas but I digress.) Anyhow, this expanded and I grew the business and finished my education. I have since sold the company to a well known company that does nothing much more than government contracts of all types from military to intelligence to food supplies.

The reason I mention this is not because it is an appeal to authority. I trust you to make up your own mind. It is to explain where I am coming from and how I have reached the conclusions that I have reached.

In this industry, at least, we do not kid ourselves with claiming to even strive to reach a level of perfection with no accidents. We target the high-risk areas and work to reduce the traffic levels, smooth out the traffic, or increase safety through things like signage, decreased (or even increased) speed limits, and things of that nature. Adding lights, decreasing lane width at intersections (yes, it works) by adding a median with flowers, and things like that all potentially reduce risks. If enough of these things are incorporated then you could claim a theoretical reduction in accidents to reach a level that is perfect. (Each potentially reduces the chance by, say, 0.003% to 0.007% and there is a 0.09% chance of an accident at this fictional intersection.) These numbers can add up so that the potential is for a 0.000% chance of an accident which is, of course, absurd. What this means is that you will then inform the board who will then bring it to the press and the press will announce that the design will aim for a 0% chance of accidents which means it will be accident free. However, nobody ever said that and, worse, of all the things that would have actually accumulated those mythical numbers they will pick the ones they feel are most pressing (often ignoring our advice for prioritization) and those that fit within their budget. We did not do things like put up signs (except for testing) and we did not do road construction or the likes. We actually even refused to recommend companies to do those things (a practice the business still continues even though they do have some construction capability within the parent company) because of the potential conflict of interest.

So, really, nobody is actually (in this case - I guess I shouldn't speak for other industries) is trying to achieve an accident rate of zero. It is not even really the goal. Maybe it is verbiage and whatnot but we are certainly on the same page. The goal is increased safety within the allowable limits and yes this does mean that we discuss allowable limits and assume fatalities will continue to occur regardless of how hard we try. No matter how hard we strive to make things idiot proof they will invent a better idiot. If anyone suggests that we are striving to make things 100% safe they are in marketing or politics and not actually involved in anything more than (I do shudder) approving the program.

However, yes, we could say the goal is 0% if you would prefer. I am used to dealing with politicians and bureaucrats. ;-) The goal is reducing accidents as far as is possible and if 0% is possible then that is our goal.

In theory we could make it near zero or perhaps even zero. Highway speeds would be 30 MPH, they would be single lane divided highways, intersections would

Re:Seattle too

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking cynic. I hope you become "senile" and die a painful death in a "pretty acceptable" accident.

Re:Seattle too

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Sowelu, I know some people who ought do die in traffic. I disagree with him, however, that this should be public policy.

Sheesh.

Re:Seattle too

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, we've got the same thing around Seattle, including radio ads where they ask people "how many yearly traffic fatalities do you think are acceptable" and of course people say zero. How silly. If someone is senile and doesn't look before taking a left turn...if a kid rides their bike directly into the road ignoring crosswalks...if someone is staring at their phone and walks in front of a moving bus...those are sad but they are pretty acceptable to me.

Silly? A kid misjudging when to cross the street or a confused senior getting killed is "silly" to you? People, whether walking, cycling, or driving, are fallible. Just because somebody makes the mistake of stepping off the curb at the wrong time doesn't mean it should be a death sentence. The key is road design. Most of these fatalities can be prevented by slowing down traffic. If it was your child or your grandmother who was hit and killed because they made a mistake, perhaps you would have a different perspective.

So..

[Anonymous Coward]

They will make it illegal for people to actually be able to drive cars?
Self driving cars everywhere!

Capital of bad drivers

[techno-vampire]

If it's true that there are more traffic fatalities every year in San Diego than there are murders, it must be the world capital of bad drivers. Maybe they should be putting some of this money into improving their Driver's Education and Driver's Training classes instead of trying to make it harder for people to use the streets.

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[aardvarkjoe]

I think you mean that it must be the world capital of bad murderers. I mean, the drivers aren't even trying.

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[Ichijo]

The problem is that San Diego is mostly suburb, and suburbs are more dangerous than inner cities.

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[amRadioHed]

There were only 32 people murdered in San Diego in 2014. As cities go it's a pretty safe one.

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[viperidaenz]

Congratulations, your murder rate (~2.4 per 100,000) is above that of Syria (2.2).
A good rate would be more around the 1.0 mark

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[Etcetera]

There were only 32 people murdered in San Diego in 2014. As cities go it's a pretty safe one.

This. We're the sixth or seventh largest city in the US (or Greater San Diego taken as a whole), but it's really more of a large small town. Our Downtown is nice, but it's nothing next to the urban monstrosity that composes most of the other big cities in the US.

Crime was higher in the 90's, but crime was higher *everywhere* in the 90's.

Also, we have a ton of cars, and a freeway system that's twice as dense as the Bay Area, LA, or most of the rest of California.... So yeah, that statistic is quite believable. Still a very safe place.... America's Finest City (political scandals notwithstanding).

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[viperidaenz]

USA murders in 2013: 14,196
USA road fatalities in 2013: 32,719

It would be strange if there were more murders than road fatalities in San Diego

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

USA murders in 2013: 14,196 USA road fatalities in 2013: 32,719

It would be strange if there were more murders than road fatalities in San Diego

what about the murders done with a car? are they bloating both stats or are they removed?

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[Ol Olsoc]

Congratulations, your murder rate (~2.4 per 100,000) is above that of Syria (2.2). A good rate would be more around the 1.0 mark

That's because stoning people for religious infractions is considered entertainment and not murder there.

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[Ol Olsoc]

America's Finest City (political scandals notwithstanding).

I love the place except for one thing. Flying into the airport. Nothing like the rapid drop from the mountains - never seen so long a approach flying just over the rooftops. But once you land - yeah, pretty darn nice place.

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[amRadioHed]

You realize that you're comparing a city to a while country, right? Cities tend to have higher crimes rates than countries as a whole.

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[amRadioHed]

Most people who live here consider the airport approach a feature.

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[viperidaenz]

According to http://www.neighborhoodscout.c... San Diego is safer than 24% of cities in USA. So it's in the bottom quarter.
It's about average for California.

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[Ol Olsoc]

Most people who live here consider the airport approach a feature.

I could see the swimming pools pretty easily, Probably could watch people skinny dipping

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[matfud]

I think flying into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
was probably far more pants wetting.
Mind you there are still some fun ones out there.
http://dailynewsdig.com/top-te...

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[amRadioHed]

You're comparing it to cities a fraction of its size. San Diego is the 7th largest city in the country. You need to go down the list to the 19th largest city, El Paso, to find one with a lower murder rate.

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[rtb61]

Is that the greater city area or just the centre portion zoned as being the local government district. I have noticed more and more fudging going on, where positive propaganda calls up greater city statistics and negative reports are down played by only calling up the specific city centre local government.

Want safer cities with regards to cars, have less cars and that means substantively bigger buildings, where people can work, live and play within the one structure and receive services support from directly adjoining major structures. Arcologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... would have to become the norm else, cities will choke to death with traffic problems and making traffic flow worse will certainly no solve problems just lead to permanent traffic jams and economic avoidance of problem traffic areas.

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[Etcetera]

Is that the greater city area or just the centre portion zoned as being the local government district. I have noticed more and more fudging going on, where positive propaganda calls up greater city statistics and negative reports are down played by only calling up the specific city centre local government.

Want safer cities with regards to cars, have less cars and that means substantively bigger buildings, where people can work, live and play within the one structure and receive services support from directly adjoining major structures. Arcologies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... would have to become the norm else, cities will choke to death with traffic problems and making traffic flow worse will certainly no solve problems just lead to permanent traffic jams and economic avoidance of problem traffic areas.

That phrase / metric refers to the City of San Diego, although I guess we've dropped down to 8th at this point.

That being said, unless you're comparing jurisdictions or running for office we refer to the overall area as just "San Diego". The city of San Diego is huge and broken up into about 100 different neighborhoods, some of which are just as large as the smaller cities that the City of San Diego now adjoins but which were once 10 miles away. cf http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/profiles/index.shtml vs https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=San_Diego_County,_California#Communities

Between having a strong County government system in California, a surprisingly effective regional planning council known as SANDAG, and a huge 20 mile desert and/or 80 mile national forest separating the county/region from surrounding areas, we don't care too much. Non San Diegans barely think of San Diego in the first place, so they're definitely not going to know what you're talking about if you say you're from "Santee" instead.

Also, we hate dense urban development. The vast majority of San Diego county is composed of single family homes, aside from the downtown core, where there are lot of condos. Pretty sure San Diego is the last urban place that's going to become an Arcology... the people that want that will move up to the Bay Area, or the blurry mass that is Greater Los Angeles.

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[viperidaenz]

San Diego population 1.35M
Murder rate: 2.4

Auckland population: 1.37M
Murder rate: 1.1 (higher than the country rate of 0.9)

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[CrimsonAvenger]

This. When I read:

âoeWe have a traffic fatality rate in San Diego thatâ(TM)s greater than our murder rate," exclaimed Jim Stone, Executive Director of Circulate San Diego.

my first thought was "what an idiot! murder rate is lower than traffic fatality rates pretty much everywhere".

The only way he's going to get traffic fatality rates below murder rates is to really encourage murder, or alternatively, redefine "traffic fatality" to not include 80% of what is currently defined as traffic fatalities (which is the path he seems to have taken, since he seems to be defining traffic fatalities as "pedestrians killed in auto accidents")

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[KGIII]

Is Dog Park still where one goes to see the gangsters and to open-air buy heroin or crack? I spent some six months at Pendleton and then did some consulting work in the area. Other than that I have driven through but I have not spent any time there since the mid-90s. I assume things have changed. The crime rate is noticeably lower now, which is nice. The area is very nice and I would not mind living there except I prefer seasons and actually enjoy the cold weather.

Another project more likely to waste tax payer's

[Anonymous Coward]

money. The ultimate way to eliminate 99.9% traffic fatalities is to implement auto-drive car as soon as possible.

Nature is pruning itself!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't stop it!!! We have enough stupid people on this planet. You can make rules but people choose to break them, you choose the consequences. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

Not so fast, ...

[Obfuscant]

The curb extension also provides better visibility. 'They can see cars coming but more importantly the cars can see them coming,' Stone said about the curb extensions. 'So it's a great way to improve pedestrian safety.'

They call these "bulbed intersections" where I live.

Here's the problem. By law (also where I live) vehicles are not required to stop for pedestrians unless they are in the crosswalk. Not standing on the corner looking helpless, not waving at cars going by to get their attention. Actually in the crosswalk.

A bulbed intersection forces pedestrians to be much close to active traffic before that traffic has to stop for them. Instead of putting a foot into the street that is still ten feet away from the moving traffic (the width of the parking lane), they will be putting that foot into, or very close to, the lane that has moving traffic. That cannot be a safer situation.

It will certainly create confusion for the hapless pedestrian who thinks that because the drivers can see him better they will be more likely to stop for him when he stands on the sidewalk. "Why aren't they stopping", he will ask, from his protected perch on the sidewalk where nobody is required to stop for him.

Re:Not so fast, ...

[Anubis IV]

Maybe it's mostly intended for intersections where traffic comes to a stop for a light or sign and then pedestrians get to go? The major danger for those intersections is that the driver simply doesn't think to check for a pedestrian in the first place, since pedestrians aren't usually there anyway. Instead, the driver will pull up to the intersection and won't see the pedestrian, will look towards oncoming traffic to see whether they're clear to turn/cross, and then will advance into the intersection, putting the pedestrian in danger.

A bulbed intersection/curb extension would ensure that the pedestrian was visible to the driver as they were coming to a stop, rather than requiring them to be proactive in checking for the pedestrian. I could see how that sort of thing could drastically improve the safety for pedestrians, though those accidents would only ever be slow speed to begin with, so I'm not sure how much of a concern it is.

But yeah, for moving traffic, I have no clue how this helps. People could be standing at the bulb for all sorts of reasons, whereas stepping into the street is a clear indication that you intend to cross (and in many cases has legal weight to it, as you said). Giving people less room to cross means the drivers have less room to react.

Re:Not so fast, ...

[The Raven]

You are making assumptions about laws and construction. The simple solution is to have part of the 'bulb' be the crosswalk. Have the lines for the crosswalk start ON the bulb (say, on the wheelchair pedestrian ramp) and then you have a safe place to stand where cars must legally stop for you.

Now I'm not in San Diego, so I have no idea if this is part of their plan or what their laws are. I'm just saying that even with your example law there are simple, safe solutions.

Re:Not so fast, ...

[Obfuscant]

You are making assumptions about laws and construction. The simple solution is to have part of the 'bulb' be the crosswalk.

Sorry, but I know the law. You assume that the sidewalk can be the crosswalk, and that isn't how the law is written.

Have the lines for the crosswalk start ON the bulb

The lines are irrelevant. We have crosswalks without lines -- in fact, many more of those than ones that are marked. The only benefit from lines is when a courteous pedestrian steps outside the lines and allows traffic to proceed before it could otherwise legally. (E.g., on a two lane road where there is no traffic he needs to worry about coming the other way, he can step out of the marked crosswalk as soon as he gets past your car and you can go.)

Fortunately, cities cannot just slap paint on something and change the laws of the state. That's what painting lines on the sidewalk to try making them into crosswalks would be doing. Imagine the confusion when someone from out of town comes visiting and knows state law.

All you'll do is make the "standing on the corner chatting with someone" problem worse. Yes, there are people who stand on the sidewalk taking to other people. If you make the sidewalk part of the crosswalk you will force traffic to stop for no reason at all, and eventually traffic will learn to not stop when there is a reason.

Re:Not so fast, ...

[Ichijo]

If you make the sidewalk part of the crosswalk you will force traffic to stop for no reason at all

There ought to be a law against loitering in a crosswalk.

Re:Not so fast, ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's mostly intended for intersections where traffic comes to a stop for a light or sign and then pedestrians get to go? The major danger for those intersections is that the driver simply doesn't think to check for a pedestrian in the first place, since pedestrians aren't usually there anyway. Instead, the driver will pull up to the intersection and won't see the pedestrian, will look towards oncoming traffic to see whether they're clear to turn/cross, and then will advance into the intersection, putting the pedestrian in danger.

A bulbed intersection/curb extension would ensure that the pedestrian was visible to the driver as they were coming to a stop, rather than requiring them to be proactive in checking for the pedestrian. I could see how that sort of thing could drastically improve the safety for pedestrians, though those accidents would only ever be slow speed to begin with, so I'm not sure how much of a concern it is.

But yeah, for moving traffic, I have no clue how this helps. People could be standing at the bulb for all sorts of reasons, whereas stepping into the street is a clear indication that you intend to cross (and in many cases has legal weight to it, as you said). Giving people less room to cross means the drivers have less room to react.

They could always equip the crosswalk with a pop up spike strip. That way pedestrians can hit the button, the light changes, up pop some spikes and then they cross. I guarantee you that $500 in guaranteed tire damage will make drivers more cautious than the slim chance of being prosecuted for killing a pedestrian. Probably by a factor of about 500x. It's just economics. A million to one shot that I kill someone and go to jail/beta it for a million in legal defense and time, is a $1 loss vs $500 in new tires.

Sure, the pedestrian may be dead either way, but in my scenario the driver at least learns. Plus we might be able to track them down after they kill since the tires are flat.

Re:Not so fast, ...

[Ol Olsoc]

A bulbed intersection/curb extension would ensure that the pedestrian was visible to the driver as they were coming to a stop

When they put in the bulbed pedestrian extensions in my city, it took the snowplows 4 times as long to clear the streets. Previously, they would send two big plows down the street, and clear it in one pass. Now they have to take four separate passes in four smaller trucks

We can decide if that change was an improvement in safety or not. The highways are happy to have the bigger trucks at their disposal, but the locals are pissed it takes longer to clear the roads now, as the smaller trucks have been diverted. TANSTAFFAL. Unintended consequences. Oh, and the people downtown are annoyed it takes longer to clear the roads.

Re:Not so fast, ...

[matfud]

By law, where I live, anything in front of you has priority. Pedestrian, Bicycle, car or pretty much anything (oddly dogs and cats are exempt). It is your responsibility to not hit something in front of you. You are the one driving, you are the one that can see what is in front of you (I hope) So it is your responsibility. It is odd that Jay walking laws do not exist in Europe (apart from Autobans, Motorways etc which are difficult to walk on to)

Oddly it seems to work

As a pedestrian crossing streets California I was bemused by the green light letting peds walk but still allowing cars to drive into the junction.

Re:Not so fast, ...

[Anonymous Coward]

By law (also where I live) vehicles are not required to stop for pedestrians unless they are in the crosswalk.

Since you seem to know the law about this, I have a question, as I was thinking about this the other day. (Yes, I have no idea if your answer applies to where I live, but whatever.)

Does the law say anything about when the pedistrian is allowed to enter the crosswalk?

Where I live, some cities are making a huge deal about the "you must yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk" law, to the extent that the common belief is that pedistrians can simply step out into the roadway at any moment, with no regard to traffic whatsoever, and expect it to stop on a dime to allow the pedistrian to cross. I've always felt this was patently absurd, as I felt that pedistrians have some obligation to choose an appropriate time to cross the road. I imagined mounting a protest to the laws, by finding a hundred people and setting them on a route through downtown that takes them across a few crosswalks in a continuous loop, such that traffic remains at a standstill indefinitely. Also, one might easily conduct insurance "fraud" by stepping from the curb into traffic at just the right moment, such that the driver cannot stop before crossing the crosswalk, such that they're struck by the car, and I put "fraud" in quotes because, as these local towns present the law, it wouldn't be fraud as the cars are required to yield to any pedestrian in a crosswalk.

Anyway, what I was thinking the other day is that this understanding of the law may simply be a perversion of a more sensisble law. Perhaps it is actually the case that pedestrians are required to wait for an appropriate time to cross the road, but once they see an opportinuty and enter the roadway, new traffic may arrive that wasn't in view when they began crossing the roadway, and it is this traffic that is required to yield to the pedestrians. This would actually make sense to me.

Indeed, I think what throws people off most about this law is that it simply isn't how anyone actually does it. (other than police officers looking to write tickets, that is) Everyone was taught by their parents when they're a child to wait until traffic is clear, then cross the road. No one walks into the road expecting traffic to stop for them, and to do so is foolish because if it doesn't you'll simply get yourself killed. Thus, when anyone sees anyone standing at the side of a road full of traffic, the assumption is that the reason they are standing there is because they don't have a good enough view of traffic from the curb, not because they expect traffic to stop and allow them to cross the road.

Indeed, when I see cars yield to pedestrians, many times it is a situation that could easily lead to an accident. One common situation is on a four lane road, two lanes going in each direction, when a truck yields to a pedestrian at a crosswalk in one lane, but cars approaching from behind in the other lane, all they see is a large truck stopped for whatever reason (making deliveries perhaps) and so they drive right by in the other lane and nearly hit the pedestrian as he steps out from behind the truck that is yielding to him. If the vehicles simply didn't yield to him, but instead he waited for an appropriate gap in traffic to cross the road and so only relatively further-away vehicles who could all see him easily and with plenty of time to react would be required to yeild, it would be a lot safer.

Re:Not so fast, ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Giving people less room to cross means the drivers have less room to react."

I'm not going to argue with you, but I'd really like you to think through this statement, and consider whether drivers really use that room to react... or simply drive faster.

Re:Not so fast, ...

[rpstrong]

The lines are irrelevant. We have crosswalks without lines -- in fact, many more of those than ones that are marked. The only benefit from lines is when a courteous pedestrian steps outside the lines and allows traffic to proceed before it could otherwise legally. (E.g., on a two lane road where there is no traffic he needs to worry about coming the other way, he can step out of the marked crosswalk as soon as he gets past your car and you can go.)

The lines are still irrelevant - I am free to go as soon as the pedestrian passes my car, regardless of whether he stays in the crosswalk or not.

Re:Not so fast, ...

[KGIII]

No one walks into the road expecting traffic to stop for them, and to do so is foolish because if it doesn't you'll simply get yourself killed.

Where I currently reside, Maine, the law is that the pedestrian always - ALWAYS - has the right of way. This means that if they walk out in front of you that you are legally obligated to yield the right of way to them. This is of little importance where I actually live but the nearest real town is a college town. They have since changed the layout and signage but students used to frequently just walk into traffic without looking and would expect the vehicles to stop.

This resulted in a number of vehicular accidents and nothing changed. Then, in a span of a single school-year, some four students were hit and two of them died. This is when they put in a crosswalk that is not on the top of a blind hill and added a button that makes lights flash instantly - at which time traffic stops and the students cross. The number of pedestrian vs. vehicle accidents has dropped to zero as far as I know.

However, yes, a pedestrian could walk out into traffic and be "in the right." As far as I know there was fairly decent justice serving after this. I do not recall anyone getting successfully sued over stunts like that. The only one that I am aware of was where the driver was intoxicated and they ended up being sued and, if I recall the paper well enough, were sued for hospital bills and a fairly small pain and suffering judgment. It seems to be pretty rational here which is contrary to what, I suppose, may be suspected. (That is an unwieldy sentence.)

Re:Not so fast, ...

[Obfuscant]

The lines are still irrelevant - I am free to go as soon as the pedestrian passes my car,

Not in my state. He must be out of the lane next to you. I.e., for a two lane road, you must stop and remain stopped if there is anyone in the crosswalk. I would guess that your state laws are similar.

Re:Not so fast, ...

[Anonymous Coward]

While we might not have "Jay walking" laws in many parts of Europe it's still illegal to cause accidents in most places.

Like in Sweden if you cross the street when the sign is red (for the pedestrian) you won't get fined. However if you do it when a car is coming and it causes an accident you could still be prosecuted for "Vårdslöshet i trafik" (Recklessness in traffic).

Re:Not so fast, ...

[rpstrong]

What is your state? In mine (California) there is an old wive's tale to the effect that a driver has to wait till the pedestrian gets all the way across the street, and must similarly stop (and wait) for a pedestrian who steps off the far curb, even if they won't be crossing the driver's lane for several seconds. In fact, the driver must yield the right of way to the pedestrian, but is free to pass in front of (or behind) the pedestrian if it is safe to do so.

Re:Not so fast, ...

[rpstrong]

In California, there is - see 21950 (b).

quote: "nothing more than a can of paint"

[turkeydance]

protects a pedestrian? i want to buy stock in that paint company.

Where are the round-abouts

[markus]

I am always surprised that American cities don't learn from the rest of the world and install round-abouts instead of intersections. Many European countries have been aggressively converting their intersections to traffic circles; and they found that accident rates go down, throughput goes up, there are zero operating costs (i.e. no need for traffic lights), and often the round-about needs the same or even less space than traditional intersections.

It takes a little bit of time for everybody to get used to the new design -- and that means both city planners, drivers, and pedestrians. But in the end the benefits are very obvious.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Obfuscant]

I am always surprised that American cities don't learn from the rest of the world and install round-abouts instead of intersections.

Because roundabouts consume a lot more land and are not that much safer for pedestrians. The drivers are busy looking for traffic going around the circle and not compelled by personal protection to look both ways like they are at intersections. I care what vehicles are coming from the left. The ones coming from the right have to stop for me.

Many European countries have been aggressively converting their intersections to traffic circles;

Where I live, traffic circles and roundabouts are two different things with two very different sets of rules.

and often the round-about needs the same or even less space than traditional intersections.

You must be talking about something other than the roundabouts that I know of in Europe. How can a circular roadway be smaller than a simple intersection? You can't put a median in the middle of an intersection and force the traffic to go around it without it being bigger than a simple cross.

But in the end the benefits are very obvious.

The benefits of a simple, cheap crossing intersection are also obvious. We're dropping half a million dollars in our area to replace a simple intersection because a few people don't like waiting at the stop signs on the intersection side streets. I see no obvious benefit to that waste.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[rmdingler]

We have a few, especially in New England, but we can't keep the European drivers from turning clockwise.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[turkeydance]

tried that and STILL trying that in my USA state. problem is: BIG trucks which blocked every view. wrecks ensue. several circles have been removed.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Obfuscant]

We have a few, especially in New England, but we can't keep the European drivers from turning clockwise.

We had a traffic circle where we couldn't keep the locals from going clockwise. It's gone now. Good riddance.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[drinkypoo]

I am always surprised that American cities don't learn from the rest of the world and install round-abouts instead of intersections.

No, the only place we install them is in the country, in the path of heavy freight. Here in Lake County, CA, they are actually taking out a traffic warning light and installing a second roundabout on the highway 20. I believe the project overall will cost eight million dollars, for a tiny fraction of which they could have put in a traffic light and maintained it for quite some time... because much of what they needed was already there, including power and all lane markings for both left and right turns (it's a T-intersection.)

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Ichijo]

roundabouts consume a lot more land

At the intersections, but what about between intersections?

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Noah Haders]

yeah, rounabouts destroy cities, too. converts a vibrant intersection with cars, peds, bikes, shops, parking, businesses to a sterile area that feels like a perpetual onramp. it's like a mass fish kill event for the city life.

if you've ever been to paris, you've likely seen the arc de triumphe - the fanciest traffic circle in the world.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Firethorn]

I go through 3 round-abouts on my way to work, in the USA.

The main 'problem' is that a traditional intersection is more space efficient - so in a lot of places there simply isn't room for one.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[zlives]

no need to plan for round about, soon the only means available for the peasents.. err i mean citizens will be their feet so planning for bikes and feet.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[pr0fessor]

We have two round abouts in my US mid-western town, they are not that great and are in places of low pedestrian traffic. The rest of our intersection are more like the ones vision zero are purposing. They work very well in business areas, slows the cars down so they see the businesses, the angle parking allows more cars parked on a block, and is generally easier than parallel parking. Crosswalks are usually at the end of the blocks where there are traffic lights or have a pedestrian signal that's activated when they press a button to walk.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[viperidaenz]

You're supposed to go clockwise.
The real problem is you drive on the wrong size of the road.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[known_coward_69]

i've seen more intersections in europe than round a bouts. a lot of americans want to walk into the street without paying attention and then complain why the world doesn't revolve around them

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[vux984]

Because roundabouts consume a lot more land and are not that much safer for pedestrians.

Even a little safer is better. Roundabouts generally bring the speed of traffic approaching the intersection down.

How can a circular roadway be smaller than a simple intersection? You can't put a median in the middle of an intersection and force the traffic to go around it without it being bigger than a simple cross.

They put one in by the school near where I live, and the new roundabout doesn't take any more space than the old intersection did.

And that's a residential simple one lane going each way intersection, with parking along the curb. At the roundabout the curbs bulb out preventing parking, and create the room for the circular space.

Previously, there was effectively 2 lanes of room at the intersection, so someone waiting to turn left could be driven around on the right side, or cars could make right turns while people were waiting to go through or turn right. This complexity is what often led to accidents both between vehicles and involving pedestrians.

Now, its always one car entering from each side at a time; and it never really stops except for pedestrians. Honestly its been working well.

It seems to scale well to 2 lanes as well We have several 2 lane round abouts and those also work well.

We're dropping half a million dollars in our area to replace a simple intersection because a few people don't like waiting at the stop signs on the intersection side streets.

Yeah I can't comment on that. The local roundabout only cost $200,000; or about a $5 per household; and that budget was part of larger project that repaved about 2 blocks on either side of the round about along the main road; new sidewalks, and landscaping including midsize trees, shrubs, and planters along the roadway. So... we got a lot more than "just a roundabout" for 200k. Not sure why yours costs 500k. That seems to be the average price for a large non-residential roundabout...

Like the ones shown here... most of the big ones cost ~500k

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/int...

I see no obvious benefit to that waste.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[mjwx]

Because roundabouts consume a lot more land and are not that much safer for pedestrians.

Roundabouts actually consume the same amount of land as an intersection of similar traffic, they're also self regulating and dont require power. They're also more efficient and help the flow of traffic, with a crossroad or traffic light, you can only be using a maximum of two lanes, with a roundabout you can use all four at once.

The drivers are busy looking for traffic going around the circle and not compelled by personal protection to look both ways like they are at intersections

But it seems that it requires a higher quality of driver than is typical of your area.

At a roundabout you look both ways as you would for any intersection, not just for pedestrians but because people dont follow the rules. Think of it this way, when you're turning right at a T junction, do you only look for traffic approaching from the left?

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, rounabouts destroy cities, too. converts a vibrant intersection with cars, peds, bikes, shops, parking, businesses to a sterile area that feels like a perpetual onramp. it's like a mass fish kill event for the city life.

if you've ever been to paris, you've likely seen the arc de triumphe - the fanciest traffic circle in the world.

Roundabouts are also a fucking nightmare to use when they're busy. Seriously, just give me a traffic lighted crossroad over a roundabout any day.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Anonymous Coward]

Even a little safer is better. Roundabouts generally bring the speed of traffic approaching the intersection down.

So can snipers.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[PNutts]

i've seen more intersections in europe than round a bouts. a lot of americans want to walk into the street without paying attention and then complain why the world doesn't revolve around them

If I walk into the center of a round about it will look like the world is revolving around me.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Anonymous Coward]

I go through 3 round-abouts on my way to work, in the USA.

The main 'problem' is that a traditional intersection is more space efficient - so in a lot of places there simply isn't room for one.

The professionals say otherwise, as numerous posts above link. Perhaps you mean that the traditional intersection encourages safety margin shaving in an attempt to cram in more overly narrow lanes in violation of statistical norms?

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Anonymous Coward]

Between intersections, they are equivalent because they are both straight lines. It's amazing. I'm explaining this to a person on slashdot. Used to have the top 25% of the intelligence pool, now it seems like the bottom.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Anonymous Coward]

We have roundabouts in Austin. However, I have to dodge morons who go the wrong way (the one near Ladybird Lake), or on the smaller roundabouts on bicycles, they just ride around in circles to deny access to motorists.

The pedestrian stuff is stupid as well. This assumes people will not jaywalk or deliberately jump in front of cars in hopes of netting a fat insurance settlement. Your only protection against this is a hidden dash cam.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised there are American cities without roundabouts.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a good thing you're posting as AC, because you're wrong:

A roundabout may need more property within the actual intersection, but often take up less space on the streets approaching the roundabout. Because roundabouts can handle greater volumes of traffic more efficiently than signals, where drivers may need to line up to wait for a green light, roundabouts usually require fewer lanes approaching the intersection.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Applehu Akbar]

My area (rural northern AZ) is going whole hog for roundabouts. They have worked really well once people got used to them, but this area is really tourist-intensive, and that's where we get problems. They are a great replacement for 4-way stops and low-volume signals, and we even have some two-laners.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[advocate_one]

throughput may go up, but t1) there is a limit to that and pretty soon you find yourself putting traffic lights all over the roundabout just so each entrance gets it's fair share... also pedestrians hate roundabouts as cars tend to come off them at high speeds if they've been designed for throughput... to cater for pedestrians means putting in things like double stage Toucan crossings which mean pedestrians can be faced with waiting for well over 4 minutes total just to cross two arms... Crap like this with traffic lights all over it plus double stage crossings https://goo.gl/maps/1EAbn

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[matfud]

You do know that you are not supposed to drive your vehicle if you CAN NOT FUCKING SEE where you are going or what is driving at you?
I would have thought that there would be Darwin awards there.

Did you also know that backing off to give a large truck space to maneuver is also a good idea. Or perhaps stopping when there is a wall in front of you.

You do know that there is a break peddle along with the accelerator. Perhaps a clutch to confuse the american masses.

Sorry that was not directed at you but the concept of Americans not being able to drive. Roundabouts/traffic circles are not difficult. If you can manage a reverse parallel park then they are trivial.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[radarskiy]

"How can a circular roadway be smaller than a simple intersection?"

No turning lanes on the approaches.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would European drivers go clockwise on roundabouts in the US?

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with roundabouts is that they only work well if a the traffic is spread evenly across all directions. If there is a dominant direction, there are many more stops than would be needed with a normal intersection with traffic lights. This is very wasteful and bad for the air quality.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[jabuzz]

Thing is roundabouts are not just a little bit safer than a crossroads/intersection they are massively saferm we are talking 90% reduction in fatal accidents by converting an intersection to a roundabout, 40% reduction in pedestrian collision and a 37% reduction in collisions overall.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Chris Mattern]

Roundabouts/traffic circles are not difficult. If you can manage a reverse parallel park then they are trivial.

This just in: Maryland has just dropped the requirement to be able to parallel park to get a driver's license. With this, you can get a driver's license anywhere in the metro Washington DC area without being able to parallel park at all.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[TemporalBeing]

I am always surprised that American cities don't learn from the rest of the world and install round-abouts instead of intersections.

Because roundabouts consume a lot more land and are not that much safer for pedestrians. The drivers are busy looking for traffic going around the circle and not compelled by personal protection to look both ways like they are at intersections. I care what vehicles are coming from the left. The ones coming from the right have to stop for me.

But you still have to care about what's coming from the right - namely pedestrians as you're still required to stop for them.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Anonymous Coward]

There are only two times when that's true. 1) is when everyone is a selfish idiot and doesn't give way as they are supposed to, and 2) when you're in France, because France of course is special and knows better than everyone else, so there people who are already inside the roundabout are supposed to give way to the people going in, rather than the other way around like in the rest of the world -- with pretty easily foreseeable consequences.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[matfud]

Doomed, I tell you, Doomed ;)

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[KGIII]

Every rotary (ie. roundabout) that I have been on or that I have designed has the yield signs on the outside. Traffic entering the traffic circle must give way to the vehicles already in the circle. Of course this should be seamless and speedy but people do not always use the inside lane (where applicable). There are, also, some very varied rotaries - including a design where it is backwards and one where traffic flows in both directions. Those are fairly rare and I have neither recommended one nor have I driven on one.

The best functioning roundabout, in my opinion, is in a middling town in Vermont. It is not round, it is square. It is single lane (and obviously single direction) and goes around the town square. The exits and entrances are in the middle of the straight sections which provides great visibility. I have seen the same thing in a small town in Mississippi as well but that one had the worst signage ever - to know which road you are on you had to actually take that exit and go up that exit in order to see the route number. It was absurd.

The one in Vermont is nice but it does have a pedestrian crossing (paved) through the middle of it - making a cross - and I once drove across it, it was dark and raining, by taking the pedestrian route. I was unaware of the rotary and it turns out there was a sign but it was hidden behind some bushes so I never saw it. The police officer who stopped me was actually really polite. I realized the mistake as I was halfway through the town square but, alas, I had no choice but to keep going at that point. I did not get a ticket or anything and it turns out that I am not the only one that the officer had stopped for the same offense.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[shutdown -p now]

when you're in France, because France of course is special and knows better than everyone else, so there people who are already inside the roundabout are supposed to give way to the people going in, rather than the other way around like in the rest of the world -- with pretty easily foreseeable consequences.

It's actually the rule in most countries, unless overridden by an explicit "give way" sign for those entering - it is a direct consequence of the "yield to the right" rule, since for the traffic on the roundabout, merging traffic is always on the right and hence has right of way. Most countries just realize that it's a very stupid rule to apply to roundabouts, and so consistently put signs reversing it. I'm not sure if anyone specifically overrides it for all roundabouts by a special rule.

France is not the only country that doesn't put those signs up, though. It's also the norm in Russia.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[KGIII]

Pedestrians should always cross up-stream from a rotary. If they must cross at a rotary they should cross on an elevated surface. This is less important with single-lane rotaries but is really important where they are double-lane. It is very dangerous to have pedestrian traffic on a rotary as drivers are, and should be, paying attention to traffic more than they are paying attention to pedestrians. Slow rotary speeds can help this but it still not the best practice and should be avoided whenever possible (which is pretty much every time and every place). Again, you can get away with it with single-lane rotaries but it is still a bad idea in practice. Elevating pedestrian traffic is not hugely expensive provided there is enough land to do so but it does have some impact for some folks with certain handicaps so you generally need to provision for pedestrian traffic up-stream anyhow.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[shutdown -p now]

I've seen plenty of roundabouts in Seattle, including new ones being installed to replace intersections.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[KGIII]

Nah, they take less space actually. It seems like more because there is the unused space in the middle but they *typically* take less space than would be required by a traditional intersection that allows for the same flow of traffic. Now if they were all single lanes, without the (increasingly frequent) three lane spacing, then the circle, especially two-lane, will take up more space. This is hardly ever a factor. Rotaries are an excellent routing method IF you have educated drivers. Another one is to disallow the four-way stop and to change them to yield signs. That, too, requires educated drivers who are aware of the laws regarding the right of way. You can actually get rid of most stop signs just by using yield signs but this requires that drivers be logical and aware of the rules concerning the right of way. I wonder how much fuel we would save if we eliminated stop signs where it is feasible.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Obfuscant]

Roundabouts actually consume the same amount of land as an intersection of similar traffic,

They can't be the same size. Where do you get the space for the median in the middle? It has to come from somewhere.

they're also self regulating and dont require power.

I've yet to see a stop sign that needs power, and what is "self regulating"?

They're also more efficient and help the flow of traffic,

That depends on what they are replacing. I'd say that a main route that has to come to a stop because someone on a side street has entered the circular roadway is making things less efficient. Compare all the cars on the main route that don't have to do anything special and the few cars on the side street have to stop and wait for a few seconds, versus every car having to slow down and those on the main road being forced to stop so side street traffic can have immediate access.

But it seems that it requires a higher quality of driver than is typical of your area.

You don't know where my area is, so your insult is particularly stupid.

At a roundabout you look both ways as you would for any intersection,

At a roundabout you need to yield to traffic in the circular roadway. Since that roadway is going ONE DIRECTION, you need only look the direction the traffic is coming from to know if you need to yield or not. Traffic you see looking the other direction is going away from you and you don't need to yield to them.

not just for pedestrians but because people dont follow the rules.

Yes, people can go the wrong way around. It's pretty easy to detect that with a quick glance. If there's nobody in the circle, there's nobody going the wrong way.

Think of it this way, when you're turning right at a T junction, do you only look for traffic approaching from the left?

I don't care what the traffic coming from the right is going to do.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Obfuscant]

"How can a circular roadway be smaller than a simple intersection?"

No turning lanes on the approaches.

Simple intersections don't have turn lanes. They have two roads that cross.

So in addition to the median in the center that a simple intersection doesn't have, a roundabout has physical dividing barriers in each of the approaching roadways, forcing those roads to be widened to allow space for them.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[drinkypoo]

I've seen plenty of roundabouts in Seattle, including new ones being installed to replace intersections.

Well, I guess Seattle wanted to be different. It's all rearranging deck chairs on the titanic, anyway. Cars suck. They especially suck in Seattle; hills plus slippery streets plus lots of rain and frost equals fail.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[shutdown -p now]

I should have been more accurate - it's more like "Seattle metro area". There are a few new ones popping up in Bellevue and Redmond lately, and plenty existing ones in Sammamish. There's even one here in North Bend (and cars definitely don't suck out here!).

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are confusing Europeans with people from the British Isles (And I guess Gibraltar and Malta), a huge majority of all drivers in EUrope drives on the right side of the road and turns counter clockwise in roundabouts.

Not to mention that a properly constructed roundabout makes it very convoluted (as in "it feels wrong") to go the wrong way round, as I noticed when driving in New Zeeland.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[radarskiy]

Intersections with that little traffic aren't being proposed for conversion anyway.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of it this way, when you're turning right at a T junction, do you only look for traffic approaching from the left?

I don't care what the traffic coming from the right is going to do.

You should. I learned this as a teenager while turning right at an intersection onto the frontage road for a freeway. I had a stop sign and had dutifully stopped. Automobile traffic only came from the left. When it was finally clear, I proceeded and immediately hit a jogger approaching from the right.

You can say the jogger was being stupid for jogging in front of my car without making eye contact with me, but I still hit him and I probably still would have been ruled at fault had there actually been any injuries or an accident report had been filed.

Slow traffic

[silas_moeckel]

What fsking idiots thought this up?? Want crosswalks to be safer, build a walkway, install traffic circles, build tunnels. Stop stealing time from people by slowing traffic.

Re:Slow traffic

[Noah Haders]

there are two goals here. one, keep people safe. Two, take back the streets from the automobile. building tunnels or walkways just cedes more territory to cars. we want walkable, vibrant communities, not traffic islands and expressways. cars will slow down and they will take heed.

Re:Slow traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't roads/streets for.... ya know, cars? What else are roads for, but to drive on?

Re:Slow traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

probably a retarded politician placating some idiots that can't afford cars.

Re:Slow traffic

[known_coward_69]

these are the new streetsblog idiots who want to walk in the streets and have cars stop on command. they will go away in a few years because millennials are starting to buy more cars and get away from the idiotic cars are bad crap i've seen spouted in the last few years.

Re:Slow traffic

[topnob]

I doubt it, car sales are dropping, all over the developed world. More and more people are walking, riding bikes and talking public transport. In all the cities I have lived(Launceston, Brisbane, Melbourne and Shanghai) in bicycle use and infrastructure has increased while I was living there. Also there will be big changes when the self driving cars start going commercial, some of the above problems may be solved. Studies have proved that traffic jams are often caused by the inconsistent braking and acceleration of drivers. With self driving cars, they maintain a constant speed, and optimally brake and accelerate, thereby reducing congestion. Plus other interesting ideas could occur, such as sending your car home after dropping you off, or sharing cars, so that they are almost like taxi's, that arrive on time. All that parking space can be re-allocated to bike paths or more car lanes. see car sales drop. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01...

Re:Slow traffic

[topnob]

Just because you can afford a car does not mean you have to buy one! even if you have one you don't have to always use it. Think of the parking issues in major cities eg New York, or Beijing for example has 1/3 the number of car parks for its estimated 5 million registered cars on its roads as of 2011.

Re:Slow traffic

[topnob]

I think that roads are ways for people to get places, in the cities where cars have been limited or banned all together, the city centres have prospered, contrary to the naysayers.

Re:Slow traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

Then make the cars go underground. Seems to work pretty well at the Mall in Washington, D.C. and that's built in a swamp!

Re:Slow traffic

[silas_moeckel]

Ever been to vegas the strip is pretty walkable and vibrant, it's a good compromise. This is a proposal to pretty much punish car drivers.

Re:Slow traffic

[Applehu Akbar]

This is an amazing change from the way it used to be in Vegas. People dashed from resort to resort in cars, ad you never saw a pedestrian on the street. But now the Strip has become a highly walkable place, with shops right on it, as opposed to being only in resorts, and even food trucks and pushcarts. I even saw a Segway being ridden in the wild there once - not by a mall cop, not a tour group.

Re:Slow traffic

[david_thornley]

I can't get to work without a car. Seriously. This is a US city, and the mass transit system sucks except on the main routes. I can't move closer because my wife works in the opposite direction (she could take the bus by accepting an hour or more additional commute time), and I like this job a lot.

When I could reasonably get to work without a car, I have. I have nothing against functioning public transport, but I'm not likely to find that in most US cities.

Not in New England

[crow]

I serve on the Planning Board in my small New England town. We've looked at some of these same measures, but many of them are eliminated because they make it more difficult for snow plowing. Anything involving raised crosswalks or bump-outs gets push-back from the DPW. Paint gets mostly sanded off every winter.

Separated bike lanes ("cycletracks" is the buzzword here) are great. The problem is our roads are too narrow and old, so even if we have the money to put them in, there simply isn't enough space without using eminent domain to take land for widening. That doesn't go over very well.

It's great that they can do these things in San Diego. It's unfortunate that we can't do all the same things here. Every location needs to find solutions to improve safety that work in that location.

Re:Not in New England

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is our roads are too narrow and old

Do what old European cities are doing, eliminate the traffic altogether from that areas, make it pedestrian and or ped/cycling mix, it built communities and help to lower the car dependency

Re:Not in New England

[ChrisMaple]

Very many New England towns have only one road through town. Eliminating motor vehicle traffic on that road is simply not an option.

Re: Not in New England

[Anonymous Coward]

If your roads are too narrow to support one traffic lane and a bike lane each way, then your roads are too damn narrow and need to be widened anyways. Where are cars supposed to stop when a problem arises, the middle of the road?

Re:Not in New England

[matfud]

welcome to the 20th century. Build a bypass. But then the 21st century will rapidly catch up. So a highway around that. Then pedestrianise the town centre.

Re: Not in New England

[matfud]

Yes. And let them fugure out why their car was fucked and how to get it out of the way. There will be many willing hands to push it anywhere but where it is.

Re:Not in New England

[locofungus]

Separated bike lanes ("cycletracks" is the buzzword here) are great.

Separated bike lanes are a total nightmare. On a major arterial route where there is no more than one junction every 3+ miles then they're great for the very small proportion of cyclists who are doing 50+ mile rides but in towns they're a disaster. (The vast majority of cyclists don't make journeys where there are no turnings for three miles - they're going from A-B because it's just about walkable but cycling is less effort and faster)

For motorists they're a nightmare - turning left for me (right for the US) you're going to be negotiating a gap through a barrier across the bike lane - possibly with two way cyclists to look out for. As a cyclist they're lethal - it's hard enough getting drivers to see a bicycle in front of them - it's a guaranteed certaintly that they won't see you if you're in a separate segregated lane - so they'll overtake and then hook you or turn across you without a moments thought.

Unfortuately, I can no longer get google maps to work at all but try looking at streetview for Tavistock Place in Bloomsbury, Central London
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#...

Try cycling along there - where pedestrians will step out in front of you or pushchairs will be pushed out in front of you and you have nowhere to go. Where people take great pleasure in smashing glass in the cycle lane because they hate cyclists and you can't go around it.

In my 10 years of commuting from N1 to EC2A, every time a new cycle lane got "designed" on my route I had to find a new route.

Some cycle lanes are good, a very, very few. The vast majority make the roads more dangerous for cyclists than no lane.

There's a "cycle superhighway" near Whitechapel. I'd never used it - but I'd heard of it by reputation - by the number of deaths to cyclists since it had been built. And the first time I used it I had to make two sudden stops for cars making reckless manoeuvres. The "cycle superhighway" makes it more dangerous - for one thing it keeps a space (mostly) clear of cars - so when someone wants to turn left (right in the US) they can pull out of the queue and nip along the "cycle superhighway" for a dozen feet before their turn. Of course, they do this at the last minute without warning and with a burst of speed and acceleration. A bit of scratched paint and another dead cyclist.

In cities (London), mix cars and bikes together. The average speed of the cars is hardly different to the average speed of cyclists. We've just had a guy gaoled for leading the police on a ten mile (car) chase across London (starting in Farringdon) and despite ignoring signals, driving along pavements, knocking cyclists off their bikes (you can google for the video of some of his driving if you're interested) it took him 40 minutes to do those 10 miles.

Give cyclists an extended green phase at junctions - allow them to get away first - to avoid the pinch at the other side of the junction - and it will also make it easier for pedestrians to finish crossing. Allow cyclists to turn left (right for the US) on red lights but don't think building segregated facilities, or magic paint on the road, will make life safer or easier for anyone.

Re:Not in New England

[Anonymous Coward]

A small AC addition to this:
In Norway, Pavement is for pedestrians and bikers. But the road is ALSO for motorists/vehicles and bikes.

The great nightmare about British law is that you can't bike in the sidewalk, since its against the law.
Then bikelanes was added to the sidewalk, with a few layers of paint. The problem is that is that they are half the sidwalk. A sidewalk designed to be blocked by 3 or 4 people walking hand in hand. You got a bike field thats 1.5 pedestrian wide, thats fair. They are a death trap because they are unidirectional, and they are just added to existing road. It means light poles, signs, and god knows what can be inside the "Biker Lane" on the sidewalk/pavement.
Bonus points exist, if the pavement is not flatted out between intersections. Climing a square brick thats 20cm tall is a special kind of stupid, because you hit the ground if you fail.

A bike lane to existing road, can be a special kind of death trap too. They must be wide enough(can swerve inside the field without accidentally hitting a passing car), they must be cleaned. Generally they are not cleaned properly in spring, because whoever cleaning has not gotten a habit of taking a second round of cleaning due the extra width of the road.

A start is to abolish the law that prevents bikes in sidewalks/pavement. And let the people who attempt to occupy the entire sidewalk in 1 direction, let those people stay mad. It would also encourage causal biking, since sidewalks are generally easy to follow.

Re:Not in New England

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Town Meeting member of a larger New England town. I served on the design committee for our latest road redesign, now underway.

Design needs to be site-specific, but your DPW department needs more of a can-do attitude for things that are proven to slow traffic and save lives. Yes San Diego is very different and has different opportunities, but many of these design techniques are widely deployed here in the Northeast. Curb bumps are not cutting-edge any more, they are widespread.

If car-oriented San Diego can cut pedestrian fatalities to zero, why can't a New England town? It's a question of political will, not technology.

Offhand, the only thing I see in the list of San Diego measure that sounds problematic for New England is the crosswalk lights embedded in the roadway.

Our road redesign was controversial, attracting many of the same sort of drive-by judgments I read in this thread. A local tea-party group was especially outspoken.

Traffic engineering and street design are actually as counterintutive and fascinating as any other technical issue. And these issues attract the same sorts of militantly ignorant views. Very often, as Will Rogers said, "It's not what you don't know, it's what you do know that ain't so."

No Vision

[Sir Realist]

"provides better visibility"

Then what idiot ad company exec came up with "Vision Zero" as the name?

Re:No Vision

[PPH]

Oh Magoo. You've done it again.

Re:No Vision

[Anonymous Coward]

It comes from the workplace incident counters. The "drive to zero" where zero means "zero injuries". It all comes from the supposedly self-motivating displays where you can proclaim "32 days without an accident!" except those had to be updated daily, so now we just list how many accidents per month with a "drive to zero". Since this guy hasn't started the drive, I guess he has a "vision of zero" but opted to call it (for motivational purposes) "vision to zero".

Re:No Vision

[Anonymous Coward]

Vision Zero means a vision for having zero pedestrian deaths. But then, you probably knew that and just enjoy being a disagreeable curmudgeon.

72 hour roadside suspensions work better

[WillAffleckUW]

If people know there is an 80 percent chance they will be stopped, forced to park their car, and not able to use that car for three days (72 hours), or any other car, they will stop doing certain risky things.

The certainty of an immediate penalty is more important than the severity of the penalty.

Stop molly-coddling car drivers. Most of the urban roads were built for bicycles and pedestrians originally.

Re:72 hour roadside suspensions work better

[viperidaenz]

If you punch the cop who's trying to arrest you, there are immediate penalties - like being tasered or pepper sprayed.
People still do it.

The streets will be full of cars.

Re:72 hour roadside suspensions work better

[Anonymous Coward]

"bicycles and pedestrians originally" yes before there were cars... and computers

Re:72 hour roadside suspensions work better

[xevioso]

Except that car drivers are in the majority, they vote, and have power. So when lots of car drivers start getting 72-hr suspensions for minor infractions, you can be sure that they will rapidly replace the municipal leaders who stop "mollycoddling" them. yes urban roads were built for peds and bikes originally. Welcome to the future.

Re:72 hour roadside suspensions work better

[known_coward_69]

the original roads in downtown manhattan were built for bikes and pedestrians. as the city expanded along with car ownership the roads were built for cars and trucks.

Re:72 hour roadside suspensions work better

[Obfuscant]

If people know there is an 80 percent chance they will be stopped, forced to park their car, and not able to use that car for three days (72 hours), or any other car, they will stop doing certain risky things.

I have no idea where you got this from. Who is forcing people to park their cars and not drive for three days? Is just visiting a store in an urban area and arriving by car supposed to be considered a crime sufficient to justify such nonsensical punishment? Do we not value the concept of "considered innocent until proven guilty" enough that we would force someone to park for three days just for being stopped for a traffic infraction?

Stop molly-coddling car drivers.

Allowing people free access to visit downtown businesses and do so from distant places is hardly "molly-coddling".

Most of the urban roads were built for bicycles and pedestrians originally.

Citation required. Most of the urban roads I've seen have been built for cars, and have the markings to prove it.

Re:72 hour roadside suspensions work better

[WillAffleckUW]

Not here. Advanced tech cities are ditching cars. Cars are a 19th Century solution using an outmoded power source.

Re:72 hour roadside suspensions work better

[WillAffleckUW]

RTFM. Try looking at pictures of any US city 100 years ago.

What do you see?

That's right. Bikes and streetcars.

No cars.

Re:72 hour roadside suspensions work better

[Anonymous Coward]

the original roads in downtown manhattan were built for bikes and pedestrians. as the city expanded along with car ownership the roads were built for cars and trucks.

Yeah, but you can't expect every town to deal with city planning the way a city of eight million did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissioners%27_Plan_of_1811

Oh wait, they figured that stuff out in 1811 (1797 actually). I guess we can expect them to figure it out. The real question is why they saw the right way to do something, then decided to do it a different way. I'm guessing short sighted planning.

NYC was ahead of it's time 200 years ago, and still is. I hate trying to a find a place on Oak street and Elm Ave.

Re:72 hour roadside suspensions work better

[ChrisMaple]

Very funny. Now, go look for photographs of downtown Manhattan pre-1900 What you'll see are horse-drawn vehicles in the streets, pedestrians on the sidewalk.

Here's a clue. One of the inventions necessary for automobile travel was also necessary for useable bicycles: pneumatic tires. Widespread bicycle use preceded widespread automobile use by less than 10 years.

Don't confuse high quality paving with a road.

Re:72 hour roadside suspensions work better

[Overzeetop]

Huh, I see mostly horses and carriages. They should really make the streets safer for those. Oh, and ox carts. Won't someone think of the livestock?

Re:72 hour roadside suspensions work better

[Cro Magnon]

The other day, I was driving on a narrow street in an older area and had to pull over to give the car going the other way room. My mom said something about the narrow street, and I commented that it was probably wide enough when it was built for the horses.

Re:72 hour roadside suspensions work better

[KGIII]

Innocent until guilty and all that jazz... One exception, justified by driving being a privilege and not a right, is that the DMV can revoke licenses immediately for a few specific violations. Perhaps you can add this clause. I wonder if they will accept the storage and any potential renewal fees as being within the bounds of the law? I suspect they will as one can lose their license immediately for drunk driving (even without going to court - not applicable in all states as far as I know) and if you are found not-guilty they can still charge you a license reinstatement fee. I was not, and am not, fond of such policies as it is directly punishing those who have not been convicted and it is financially punishing those who have been acquitted as they are still obligated to pay the renewal fee. Throwing it under the "it is a privilege and not a right" umbrella does not make it acceptable to me. It is akin to not getting all of your bail money back after you have been acquitted. A certain amount, $60 USD where I live, goes to the bail commissioner and is not refundable even if you are found not guilty. This is a dreadful practice. The onus of payment should reside with the State when one is found to be not guilty.

Re:72 hour roadside suspensions work better

[Obfuscant]

RTFM. Try looking at pictures of any US city 100 years ago.

You said most of the roads, not most of the roads 100 years ago. Today they're built for cars. I've see a lot of roads in European cities that haven't been rebuilt, but I see few urban roads in the US today that are still 100 years old. Certainly not enough of them to say that most of them are.

And they're not built with the idea that a policeman will pull you over and make you park there for three days. I don't know what manual you think I should read that would explain that one.

I've got it!

[viperidaenz]

says studies show smaller streets help slow traffic

Make the streets too small to drive down.
Zero vehicle fatalities if everyone has to walk.

Re:I've got it!

[Etcetera]

says studies show smaller streets help slow traffic

Make the streets too small to drive down.
Zero vehicle fatalities if everyone has to walk.

Never lived in So-Cal, eh? :)

Randabout

[PopeRatzo]

Damn big government making people safer.

It'll never happen

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't even keep up with the potholes in San Diego.

What idiocy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, let's take a place where there is already a massive traffic snarl everywhere, and intentionally decrease available street space with the primary goal of causing more traffic disaster.

Yeah, you know how to eliminate all vehicle related deaths? Get rid of all vehicles. Problem solved.

Of course, you have new problems now

Call me cynical, but...

[Snotnose]

I see this as an excuse for the cops to hand out a lot more tickets for various infractions that don't really mean diddly to safety, but deposit lots of $$$$ into the budget.

/ San Diego resident
// On Allison street a couple times a week
/// You can't regulate stupid
//// But stupid is a great excuse to ticket everybody

Good fucking luck

[Khyber]

It's like they forgot the unpredictable factor of drunk motherfuckers and idiots on their cell phones.

Smaller streets?

[Runaway1956]

What I read in a related study, is that there is a "sweet spot" for the correctly sized lanes. 10 to 10 1/2 feet in width makes for safer driving. Reducing below 10 feet in width and increasing over 10 1/2 feet both make driving less safe. Those skinny little streets with 8, or even 7 foot wide lanes are definitely UNSAFE.

Everybody Safen Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pizza Hut has Peruvian cherry peppers that taste like Tomacco and San Diego is imitating The Simpson's safety episode. WTF reality.

been done and is being abandoned

[Anonymous Coward]

look at the streets in many European cities. They're a jumble of special lanes, safety zones, specialized marks for each speed zone and any number of other thing that can be encoded in paint on the road. Guess what? They finally figured out that drivers were spending so much of the attention to decoding all the special marks, lines, safety zones and what not encoded on the road they weren't paying attention to the pedestrians, cyclists and other cars. Accident rates were going up as they put more marks on the road.

A few towns have reversed this trend. They've eliminated the special lanes, safety zones, weird marks and just made plain roads and the accident rate dropped as drivers had less to worry about reading on the road and paid more attention to the pedestrians, cyclists and other cars around them.

K.I.S.S.

Hey, it's California

[vandamme]

All they have to do is pass a law banning it. Problem solved. Vote for Quimby.