San Francisco Still Among Most Dangerous For Pedestrians

dkatana writes: The city of San Francisco averages 200 injuries per year and 30 deaths. This is almost double the number of Barcelona, Catalonia, which has about the same population. The city started a Vision Zero program, aimed at reducing and ultimately eliminate pedestrian deaths by 2024. But after a year-long Vision Zero education push called Safe Streets SF, whose key message is that pedestrians always have the right of way, the results have been modest. Now a series of banners on light poles in the South of Market neighborhood with the message: 'Slow down! We live here!' are trying to convince drivers to respect people on foot.

Comments

Population/Area has to be a factor

[s.petry]

People per square foot in SF is pretty dang tight. Between 8 and 10 million people live in the Bay area, depending on who's estimates you enjoy. To make it in and out of the city, you need to use Public transportation, which means lots more pedestrians than other places I have been (including DC, NYC).

Finally, we have things like the Embarcadero where cars can be stuck for a really long time because the Pedestrians have the right of way and at lunch time thousands are crossing the streets. A system like a ramp which allowed both cars and people would make a big difference in those areas.

Re:Population/Area has to be a factor

[gweilo8888]

True, but they weren't talking about the Bay Area. They were talking about San Francisco, and here the numbers are much different. The city of San Francisco has a population of about 852,000 in a land area of about 47 square miles. By contrast, the city of Barcelona has a population of 1.6 million in an area of just over 39 square miles.

That's 18,188 per square mile for San Francisco versus 41,100 per square mile for Barcelona -- less than half the density, as you'd expect. American cities are typically more sprawling, when compared to their more compact European rivals. (Other countries just can't afford the sprawl that America can. But then nor can America really, any more.)

"But they said both cities had the same population," you proclaim. Well, yes, but they were probably comparing the metro population (4.6 million for San Francisco; 5.4 million for Barcelona.) But the same holds true here -- the San Francisco metro area (San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area) has a land area of 2,474 square miles, versus just 1,648 square miles for the metropolitana de Barcelona. So once again, San Francisco has roughly half the density.

But perhaps that's the problem. San Francisco has a low-enough density that drivers can get some speed up with which to kill pedestrians, whereas in Barcelona there are just so many people that you're used to constantly watching for them and sitting on the brakes, or you couldn't get through a day without hitting one.

Re:Right Of Way

[Ichijo]

The crime of jaywalking didn't exist until cars came along. Streets were once shared spaces for everyone. Cars were slaughtering people left and right, so to protect their own interests, the automobile lobby came up with the term "jaywalking" to ridicule the victims, and they also managed to get legislators on their side.

Meanwhile, in San Francisco, motorists violate the right-of-way of pedestrians more often than the other way around. (See the linked article above for proof.)

And are you aware that crosswalks can be unmarked? The details vary between jurisdiction about how to identify an unmarked crosswalk.

Far worse elsewhere

[Moof123]

See page 9:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/P...

SF is 1.7 deaths per 100k residents
Dallas, Detroit, El Paso, Oklahoma City, Albequerque, and Jacksonville are all over 3 deaths per 100k residents.

Re:Have an awareness raising conversation

[MisterSquid]

Another problem is that driving in SF can can very confusing, draining driver attention. Try to make a left turn onto Market Street on a busy day.

A few months ago, SF made private vehicles turning onto Market Street illegal. Today, biking home, I saw half a dozen cars flout those new laws.

As part of Vision Zero SF, the SFPD have pledged to Focus on the Five (PDF, sorry) "violations that are most frequently cited in collisions with people walking. These violations are"

• Driving at unsafe speed given conditions of roadway
• Red light signal violations
• Failure of driver to yield to pedestrian at a crosswalk
• Failure of driver to yield while making a left or U-turn
• Failure to stop at a STOP sign limit line

I cannot tell you (yeah, yeah, anecdote) how many times I've encountered while riding my bike motorists speeding through the streets of SF as if they were Karl Malden in a 1970s era TV cop show.

So, I'm in perfect agreement with you, ShanghaiBill, that a number of downtown SF city blocks should be turned into pedestrian malls strictly controlled for public transportation only.

As a side note, the first week or so Market Street had SFMTA employees keeping private vehicles from turning onto Market Street was the day public transit drivers and cabbies started racing down Market at over 35 miles per hour and jockeying to beat every. Single. Light. and running them if they couldn't.

Re:I much prefer...

[swillden]

...the way pedestrians act in Boston and New York: total chaos. People wander across the street randomly, and drivers are very aware that this is going to happen, so they slow down.

Interestingly, Boston and New York have very different pedestrian accident rates. New York has 1.52 pedestrian deaths per 100K, not much better than San Francisco's 1.70. Boston, though, has 0.79.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811888.pdf

It's also worth pointing out that SF is actually safer for pedestrians than most big US cities. Boston appears to be the safest.

Re:Have an awareness raising conversation

[tehcyder]

but this is exactly what SF is failing to do. All of their effort is focused on changing driver behavior, when much of the effort should be on pedestrian behavior.

You are asking the liberals who run that city to use logic and common sense. In actual fact the pedestrian does NOT always have the right of way. For example, if a pedestrian steps off the curb right into my bumper against a red light, while I have the green, I can run their ass over and have no liability whatsoever. Their death in that case, tragic though it may be, is their own stupid fault. Pedestrians are not excused from the traffic laws simply because liberals believe that walking is more noble than driving.

SF (and the US in general) may be different, but in most places I've been a green light means "proceed if it's safe to do so".

Here in the UK, if a pedestrian is crossing while your car has a green light, you do not have the right to run them over, or even try to intimidate them by revving your engine or blowing your horn.