Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

San Francisco Still Among Most Dangerous For Pedestrians

Posted by samzenpus on from the don't-drive-like-my-brother dept.

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.

14 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. Have an awareness raising conversation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If only we force people to engage in a diverse, non-confrontational conversation that raised awareness of this community issue, it would solve the empathy-deficit problem practically overnight.

    1. Re:Have an awareness raising conversation by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If only we force people to engage in a diverse, non-confrontational conversation

      I know you are trying to be funny, 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. When pedestrians step into traffic without even looking, the metal in my bumper isn't going to care that they "always have the right of way".

      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. Some streets should just be shut down and turn into pedestrian malls, such as Grant Street through Chinatown, since all the tourists are already oblivious to the cars.

    2. Re:Have an awareness raising conversation by MisterSquid · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      blog
  2. Right Of Way by myrdos2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    whose key message is that pedestrians always have the right of way

    What? Should that be "they always have the right of way if on a crosswalk"? Because otherwise I think I can explain your pedestrian death rate...

    1. Re:Right Of Way by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even Missouri gets that right. ... That means that any pedestrian-involved accidents are automatically the vehicle driver's fault, including any applicable criminal charges.

      The problem here is you think that's getting it "right."

      Virtually everywhere else, if a pedestrian is hit on a roadway and they're NOT in the crosswalk, if they aren't killed then THEY'RE the ones getting a ticket for jay-walking.

      And THAT is "right." And I say this as someone who prefers walking when possible.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    2. Re:Right Of Way by tlambert · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The crime of jaywalking didn't exist until cars came along. Streets were once shared spaces for everyone.

      And then someone figured out that things with large amounts of momentum required long stopping distances, and that you were an idiot if you stepped out in front of them, and expected the laws of physics to bend to your whim.

      And then someone else came up with traffic signals and road markings, which made it safe for pedestrians and cars to share the street again ...so long as everyone, including the pedestrians, obeyed the signals and road markings.

      And then "jaywalking" ... not obeying the signals and road markings in a way dangerous to those sharing the road with you ... became a crime.

      And everyone lived happily every after! Except the people who were jaywaking: they got splatted like birds flying into the path of a 747 (something that also can't stop on a dime, even if the birds happen to be members of an endangered species).

    3. Re:Right Of Way by Malc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not everywhere. Maybe virtually everywhere in this US? Come to London: we don't have this nanny state concept of "jaywalking", just personal responsibility. Pedestrians do cross the roads wherever they like and whenever they think they can. It's up to the drivers to be aware of this and drive appropriately for the conditions. Trust me, as a cyclist in this city some parts of the West End are pretty scary: not because of the vehicles but because of nob-ends with their noses in mobile phones or just crowd mentality of one person's crossing so we all will.

  3. Don't know about SF... by Derekloffin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...But if it is anything like my home town, a concurrent campaign of 'hey, you there walking, actually exercise a little caution' would be probably a good idea too. A few too many people on both sides of this equation acting like they are the only thing moving out there.

  4. I much prefer... by __Paul__ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...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. It made for a much more pedestrian-friendly environment there than on the west coast, where cars travel far too fast and pedestrians are timid and restrained.

    Nearly got knocked over when crossing - legally - at a pedestrian crossing in Berkeley, and a driver refused to stop and I had to jump out of the way.

    --
    worldmobilenet.com -- World Prepaid Wireless Internet plans
  5. Nope by Ryanrule · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Peds SHOULD NOT have the right of way. people can stop on a dime. cars cannot. you dont make the oil tanker yield to the dinghy.

  6. Re:Population/Area has to be a factor by gweilo8888 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  7. Re:Population/Area has to be a factor by gweilo8888 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yep, but once again this statistic falls very, VERY firmly in favor of a less-dense San Francisco. You get about 18 million visitors per year (http://www.sanfrancisco.travel/article/record-breaking-economic-impact-2014) versus 27 million annually for Barcelona (http://www.thelocal.es/20150705/barcelona-struggles-with-rising-tide-of-tourists). That's 1.5 tourists in Barca for every one in SanFran, another big reason why Barcelona is by far the more densely-populated city.

  8. Far worse elsewhere by Moof123 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  9. Change mechanics, not minds. by Etherwalk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A propaganda effort to change how safe drivers are can help a little bit, but what makes cities safer is physical world changes that make it easier to drive safely and harder to hit someone. In Seattle, for example, they redesigned 75th street after an accident and saw a major reduction in the number of collisions. (Things like removing parking, adding bike lanes, etc...)

    http://www.seattle.gov/transpo...

    Bike lanes are actually useful in that even if not used by bikes, they ensure you can nudge out into a road slightly for better visibility when turning into it if you need to. You also are less likely to intuitively drive as close to the center line as if you are avoiding parked cars.