Pedestrians
Speed kills. Traffic cameras save lives.
More and better traffic enforcement is key to reducing pedestrian crashes along our main streets. Last week, Mayor Gray announced that he is giving the green light to a new set of traffic cameras which MPD has been trying to buy for over a year. This is great news for DC pedestrians.
Photo by ell brown on Flickr.
Older folks are at particular risk in crossing our streets, such as Connecticut Avenue, because speed kills. A driver traveling 30 mph who hits a pedestrian is only 45% likely to kill that person, but at just 10 mph faster, the odds jump to 85%. For seniors, the risk is even greater.
Seniors feel very vulnerable crossing the street, because drivers don't wait for them to cross when making right- and left-hand turns. And, of course, there are those cars that blast through red lights. In fact, most pedestrians hit by drivers are struck when in the crosswalk and crossing legally with the light.
Pedestrians will welcome any measures to slow down cars, make drivers stop for pedestrians in crosswalks, and clear the box so that parents crossing the street to take their small children to their preschool don't have thread their way through the cars blocking the intersection and the crosswalks.
Lisa Sutter, head of photo enforcement for DC's Metropolitan Police Department, first presented her photo enforcement program to the DC Pedestrian Advisory Council in December or 2010. I thought Santa had delivered the absolute best Christmas presents. The new cameras will catch violators not stopping for pedestrians in crosswalks, speeding through red and green lights, and blocking the box.
Ms. Sutter has the proof. She collects data on how her cameras affect driver behavior.
Cameras work. Drivers slow down and stop going through red lights. Plus, revenues drop over time.
Many of the complaints against cameras, such as those from AAA, say that the measure is just a play for revenue. But it is not really a good revenue source once drivers learn and begin to follow the law. Maybe new cameras would help plug a budget gap this year, but DC will not be able to count on a lot of revenue over time. What they can count in is safer streets.
Look at Connecticut Avenue north of Chevy Chase Circle. The cars go the speed limit. As a pedestrian who has had many near misses, I am all for it. And I drive a car, as well.
Besides, we all want safer streets, and we need to invest the resources to get there. If an effective method pays for itself and provides funding for more expansion, should we not support it?
Each pedestrian killed costs $3.84 million (in 2005 dollars) from losing wages and productivity, medical expenses, motor vehicle damage and employers' insurance costs. A pedestrian injury costs $52,900 (also in 2005 dollars, according to the National Safety Bureau.)
Aren't these fines a small price to pay to reduce crashes?
ANCs 3C and 3F passed a resolution in favor of photo enforcement, and other ANC's across the city are considering similar actions. It is time to view the risk of bodily harm from the traffic violations on our streets as we do the risk from crime. In fact, the risk is greater.
In their report of Traffic Safety in the New Millennium, the International Association of Chiefs of Police wrote, "More people are killed and injured and the economic losses to society are greater from traffic crashes than that from crime."
It's long past time to install more traffic cameras and make our streets safer. Mayor Gray took the right step, and the DC Council should approve the program as part of this year's budget.
 | Marlene Berlin is a community activist who has lived in DC since 1975. She chairs Connecticut Avenue Pedestrian Action as the pedestrian advocate for Iona Senior Services, staffs the DC Senior Advisory Council on transportation issues, and is Vice-Chair of the DC Pedestrian Advisory Council. Most mornings, you can find her out on her daily walk trying to get across the street safely.  |
Comments
@ggwash
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Prince George's County struggles to get trails right
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
Look at Connecticut Avenue north of Chevy Chase Circle. The cars go the speed limit.
Exactly. There's no reason that every major thoroughfare in DC shouldn't receive the same coverage as this stretch of Chevy Chase, MD.
by oboe on Mar 27, 2012 2:20 pm • link • report
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/13803/lower-camera-fines-sure-once-we-have-more-cameras/
by Falls Church on Mar 27, 2012 2:48 pm • link • report
by aaa on Mar 27, 2012 3:14 pm • link • report
Speak for yourself. Some pedestrians recognize a money grab when they see it and will oppose more of these intrusive cameras until the myriad problems with the current system are fixed.
by Boomer on Mar 27, 2012 3:17 pm • link • report
Let's see how many cameras we're talking about. 50% more? Not likely. 1000% more? Lower the fines!
by oboe on Mar 27, 2012 3:18 pm • link • report
by Joe on Mar 27, 2012 3:23 pm • link • report
by thump on Mar 27, 2012 3:25 pm • link • report
by EAH on Mar 27, 2012 3:25 pm • link • report
by Devoe on Mar 27, 2012 3:26 pm • link • report
by aaa on Mar 27, 2012 3:32 pm • link • report
by Crickey7 on Mar 27, 2012 3:36 pm • link • report
by Froggie on Mar 27, 2012 3:36 pm • link • report
by Falls Church on Mar 27, 2012 3:37 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on Mar 27, 2012 3:37 pm • link • report
I wish the cameras could also ticket pedestrians that cross against the crosswalk and wander into oncoming traffic.
Also litterbugs and people that "forget" to shovel their walks after a snowfall. And truants.
Also, I have yet to see one compelling bit of evidence that speed cameras are *not* about safety. Please post.
by oboe on Mar 27, 2012 3:42 pm • link • report
by Canaan on Mar 27, 2012 3:55 pm • link • report
And somehow they manage this with just $50 fines rather than DC's $125 fines.
by JustMe on Mar 27, 2012 4:02 pm • link • report
by dcdriver on Mar 27, 2012 4:05 pm • link • report
by ah on Mar 27, 2012 4:06 pm • link • report
Yeah, and that new speed camera on Porter at the bridge interchange where there are no cross walks and one house (that fronts another street) within 100 yards is protecting who exactly? Saving whose life exactly?
DC loses any "safety motivation" argument with that camera.
by ConnAve on Mar 27, 2012 4:11 pm • link • report
by Canaan on Mar 27, 2012 4:12 pm • link • report
by dcd on Mar 27, 2012 4:15 pm • link • report
Cameras have the potential to be used wisely and be only about safety but it's just too tempting to use it as a revenue device as well.
by Falls Church on Mar 27, 2012 4:18 pm • link • report
As for speed cameras, yeah, right.
Those speed cameras at the I-395 tunnel south of NY Avenue sure do improve pedestrian "safety".
As do the ones on 295.
Not to mention the one on the East Captiol Street underpass at 295, where BTW pedestrians are prohibted.
It's about "safety". Yeah, right. I'll believe it when I see speed cameras in areas where pedestrians are prevalent instead of on freeways and commuter routes.
BTW, I've got no problem with traffic cameras deployed to promote safety. I'm 100% in favor of red light cameras. My problem is with the way the speed cameras are currently used. In DC, they're deployed as predatory cash-machines - And based on the locations where they're being used, it is safe to conclude that Maryland commuters are the prime target.
by ceefer66 on Mar 27, 2012 4:23 pm • link • report
by JustMe on Mar 27, 2012 4:28 pm • link • report
If you look at the recent history of speed and red light cameras, you see large revenues on the front-end, tapering off over time. Which is entirely consistent with an effective safety program.
But it's likely--at least at first--that we'll see revenue. Nothing wrong with that, it's a pleasant side-effect of enforcement. Gray would be a bit silly to pretend no money is forthcoming.
by oboe on Mar 27, 2012 4:28 pm • link • report
It's obvious that other factors come into play (like road design) but to say that you can't use cameras until the speed limit is raised to meet the road capacity is just moving the goal posts. I too think it's ludicrous that 395 is 45mph in some places however DDOT spent a lot of time analyzing why thats so and it doesn't negate the need for people to watch their speed going in and out of a tunnel.
by Canaan on Mar 27, 2012 4:36 pm • link • report
No more predatory than the time-honored practice of the small-town cop waiting for speeders behind the billboard. Speeding? You're breaking the law. Slow down.
It's good practice for the pedestrian-choked areas of the city.
Anyway, it's nice to see the second-generation speed cameras coming online in places like Bladensburg Road, Florida Ave, and Connecticut. More like this please.
by oboe on Mar 27, 2012 4:36 pm • link • report
by Tina on Mar 27, 2012 4:43 pm • link • report
I think part of it is that many drivers (particularly non-local ones) are completely oblivious to such hazards. One excellent example is the one at Branch Ave and Alabama Ave EOTR. Before the camera went in, it was pretty much impossible to cross the street here. Pretty residential area, and the Fort Circle Trail crosses Branch Ave here.
You can actually get across now without risking your life. Of course, for most people who never walk in this area, I'm sure it seems like gratuitous "predation".
by oboe on Mar 27, 2012 4:52 pm • link • report
Some people have an issue with that concept.
by Crickey7 on Mar 27, 2012 5:19 pm • link • report
Thanks being said, if these new camera can detect (and ticket) people blocking the box, I want one at every intersection, facing every angle. Won't do as much for safety, but it sure as hell will help with traffic flow.
by shaw guy on Mar 27, 2012 5:21 pm • link • report
If there were some other effective way to move about the city, perhaps by buses that ran on a regular basis, synchronized traffic lights even while driving at the posted speed limits, or more effective metro service, I might have greater sympathy for this argument.
by JustMe on Mar 27, 2012 5:23 pm • link • report
No, it is entirely consistent with a human response to incentives. It tells us nothing about increased safety whatsoever, or effective safety.
The fact that speeds have slowed down at a specific location may or may not have a meaningful effect on safety, if speeding was not a genuine safety issue at the location to begin with.
The problem with Mayor Gray's proposal is that it is not made to discuss the need for each of those speeding cameras, or even that MPDC/DDOT have identified an additional 250 (or X) locations where speeding cameras would materially enhance safety, and the budget will provide for those, and it will result in added revenue.
by ah on Mar 27, 2012 5:48 pm • link • report
Now what happens is cars speed up to the camera, jump on the brakes down to 20 mph, causing other drivers to have to focus not on the road but the car slowing in front of them, and then speed up again to beat the light.
Yes, at that one point there is less speeding. But I don't think safety has been meaningfully improved by the camera's existence at that location.
by ah on Mar 27, 2012 5:51 pm • link • report
Just want to point out that, no, *cars* do not do this. *People* do this. Let's stop pretending this is some sort of implacable force of nature and call it what it is: irresponsible scofflaw behavior on the part of human actors that degrades the urban environment.
In the scenario you describe, more than one speed camera is called for. Or perhaps we should use "dummy" speed cameras that are extremely visible, and easily redeployable. Or "average speed" enforcement devices like they're deploying in Britain. Eventually we'll re-train humans that drive cars (and not the cars themselves) that they have a responsibility to obey the law.
by oboe on Mar 27, 2012 6:01 pm • link • report
by Canaan on Mar 27, 2012 6:26 pm • link • report
DC isn't West Buttcuss.
As for the "speeding" canard, one doesn't always know when they're "speeding", especially when they are in pace with the other vehicles on the road and when there is no speed limit posted. Get a friend who drives to explain it to you.
by ceefer66 on Mar 27, 2012 6:30 pm • link • report
[Deleted for violating the comment policy.]
What exactly does Ms. Sutter have proof of?
If you think that "cameras work" means that people act in an essentially Pavlovian way - when something hurts, such as driving through a particular speed camera at a speed which produces a violation, then yes. They work. People remember where they got a speeding ticket and don't speed there again.
However, the stated goal of the camera program is improving safety. To say that you have proof that cameras work -- and you presumably define "working" as "achieving your stated goal" then you need to show that they improve safety. Ms. Sutter has never done this. She has never presented any statistics on accident rates at specific locations in the city, and the effect of a camera on these rates, despite decades of this data being available to her (though not easily to the public).
What nobody has demonstrated is any of the following:
1. The cameras improve safety at the locations where they are installed. What is the history at each, or even any single, location? What is the safety record after installation? How many car accidents? How many pedestrian accidents?< /i>
2. The cameras improve safety throughout the city. (We know this to be untrue, at least as far as deaths go, since the pedestrian fatality rates are all over the place and have no relationship to the history of cameras being installed).
3. The cameras reduce the speed of traffic anywhere except a very small area around where they are actually installed.
4. The alleged safety benefits of the cameras are at least as good as one could achieve by doing other things like, increasing red light timings, reconfiguring dangerous intersections, and so on. What kind of analysis does the city do before installing a camera? Are any solutions other than revenue-generation ones considered, ever?
You have proven that when people get a ticket, they remember it and usually don't do it again at the same location. That is astoundingly obvious.
You have not proved the cameras work.
"Each pedestrian killed costs $3.84 million (in 2005 dollars) from losing wages and productivity"
For this fact to be at all relevant, you need to demonstrate a link between the cameras, and lowering pedestrian deaths. Since pedestrian deaths have varied 300% in the last decade based on the statistics published on MPD's web sites, including a huge jump a couple years after the first round of cameras were installed in 2001, this is clearly impossible to do.
by Jamie on Mar 27, 2012 6:35 pm • link • report
by Canaan on Mar 27, 2012 6:37 pm • link • report
As for the "speeding" canard, one doesn't always know when they're "speeding", especially when they are in pace with the other vehicles on the road and when there is no speed limit posted. Get a friend who drives to explain it to you.
Maybe this friend can explain the DC Motor Vehicles laws to you while he's at it . Unless otherwise posted the maximum speed is 25 MPH on streets and 15 MPH in alleyways. Pretty simple. So no signs are needed.
by JeffB on Mar 27, 2012 7:50 pm • link • report
Nobody? Nobody in this whole wide world has found speeding cameras to improve safety???
Then I guess this report from our dear neighbor Montgomery County is a mirage ...
EFFICACY OF SPEED CAMERA ENFORCEMENT
Evaluation of Montgomery County, Maryland's Safe Speed Program
Montgomery Country, Maryland began its Safe Speed program in 2006. It uses speed cameras to photograph vehicles traveling 11 or more miles above the speed limit on residential streets or school zones with a speed limit of 35 mph. A September, 2009 study by the county's Office of Legislative Oversight found, among other things, that:
● the number of monthly citations decreased by an average of 78% from the program's first full month compared to the same month in the following year;
● of the half-million vehicles identified on camera over a two-year period, about two-thirds received only one citation, indicating that the accompanying $40 fine deterred most drivers from speeding again;
● average speed where there were speed cameras declined by about 6% one year after the program began;
● after one year of enforcement, the percentage of vehicles exceeding the speed limit when passing camera sites was cut in half; and
● total reported collisions within one-half mile of the camera sites decreased by 28% in the year after the program began; collisions involving an injury or fatality declined by 39%.
The complete report can be found at http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/olo/reports/pdf/2010-3_speed.pdf.
by JeffB on Mar 27, 2012 8:09 pm • link • report
@ConnAve, as Tina pointed out, you seem to have missed the pedestrians who actually use that area. In fact, there are two pedestrian crosswalks just up the hill from the camera. They have new bump outs and markings, and yet apparently (judging from your sarcastic comment), you still missed them. So, yeah, the speed camera help save the people in those crosswalks. If you're driving 30, instead of 40 or 50, you stand a chance of stopping for them.
by Paula Product on Mar 27, 2012 8:30 pm • link • report
1. Those pedestrian crosswalks are (according to google) 1/4th of a mile up the hill from the camera. This camera cannot and does not affect driving speed a fourth of a mile away as people slow down right before the camera (after they've passed those crosswalks), or speed up right after it coming up the hill.
2. The RCP bike path is UNDERNEATH this grade seperated interchange, not on top of it. Driving speed on the overpass has zero affect or consequence on what people are doing on the multiuse path beneath it. Even when the Klingle bike path is built out, people will be biking underneath the bridge to get to the other side, not on top of it.
As I said, there are no pedestrian cross walks on that bridge, one side doesn't even have a sidewalk and there is one house within ~100 yards that fronts another street. This camera is all about revenue which is fine, but the city is just shoveling piles of BS at people claiming these things have anything to do with safety.
by ConnAve on Mar 28, 2012 8:49 am • link • report
The safety impact of speed cameras is just not for pedestrians. It also applies to other motorists.
You say a speed camera can't impact safety 1/4 mile away. Yet the Montgomery County Speed Camera report used a 1/2 mile zone and did find a dramatic safety improvement. Do you have any attribution to make supporting your claim?
Even stipulating all that you assume from the placement of this single camera is it fair to extrapolate it to the entire program? Is every camera in the program similarly so situated?
by JeffB on Mar 28, 2012 9:22 am • link • report
by goldfish on Mar 28, 2012 9:49 am • link • report
Oh, I see. The argument now has "scope creep". Mayor Gray said himself his plan was to blanket the city with them to make it safer for "pedestrians". No one has ever mentioned this as a car/car safety mechanism. Let me ask, how many car accidents have their been on this interchange on Porter in the past decade? I don't know if any.
Also, have you actually ever been down to this particular camera, ever driven past it? People drive down Porter at pre-camera speeds, right past those new cross walks halfway down the hill and then jam on the brakes right before the camera, as soon as they are past it, they resume their previous speed. Same in the opposite direction. This camera has zero effect on traffic past those crosswalks. If the city wanted to slow traffic down that hill, a speed bump would have been much cheaper and quicker. Then again, there is no money to make from speed bumps.
If speed cameras are so effective as you say at distances of a 1/4th of a mile, why then are the two in Southbound Conn Ave in Chevy Chase only (according to google) 1/10th of a mile apart? Why so close if they are so effective over longer distances?
by ConnAve on Mar 28, 2012 9:52 am • link • report
by W7C on Mar 28, 2012 9:56 am • link • report
by oboe on Mar 28, 2012 10:10 am • link • report
I wonder how much ATS is paying the DC council? And mayor?
by charlie on Mar 28, 2012 10:11 am • link • report
I don't know why you persist so a single camera location. All one has to do is simply obey the speed limit and it and all other speed cameras can be ignored.
Obviously many factors go into where and how closely cameras are sited. Speeding is epidemic in the city. Speed cameras seem to be a very efficient way of ending that.
by JeffB on Mar 28, 2012 10:13 am • link • report
Because it completely refutes (this and most of the rest of the locations mentioned above) any claim the city has made about them improving pedestrian safety, which is their entire justification for them.
You want to use them for nothing more than to print money? Great, then say that. The city, and many others nationwide simply lie to you about their utility and folks like you eat it up. Thats too bad.
And a minor correction to your statement above -
Speed cameras seem to be a very efficient way of ending that (within 100 yards of the actual camera).
by ConnAve on Mar 28, 2012 10:47 am • link • report
I'd prefer if the city kept that money; as far as policy goes, it's irrelevant.
by oboe on Mar 28, 2012 10:50 am • link • report
Because it completely refutes (this and most of the rest of the locations mentioned above) any claim the city has made about them improving pedestrian safety, which is their entire justification for them.
It does nothing of the sort. Leaving aside the placement of that single camera, clearly there are benefits to raising drivers' awareness that speeding is frowned upon. See, we're talking about it right now!
by oboe on Mar 28, 2012 10:53 am • link • report
We can't have people blind to the fact that the way cameras are distributed throughout the city right now isn't likely to make a significant impact on pedestrian safety. The cameras are all on low or no pedestrian traffic roads.
If we're going to institute a de facto commuter tax, let's be honest about it-- call a spade a spade. Let's also acknowledge the economic incentive affecting Gray and other pols. DC's current surplus was created in no small part by these cameras. The politicians of this city have a very strong incentive to expand the current program, just as speeders now have a strong incentive to slow down. Gray's claim that it's about safety is belied by the fact that these cameras aren't in pedestrian heavy areas: downtown, Dupont, U Street -- and most notably around the Mall. If we really cared about safety, we'd blanket the mall with cameras. (Clearly, there's never going to be political will for this, given the negative impact on tourism that cameras would have -- a perfect example of how our gov't truly values money over safety.)
by tresluxe on Mar 28, 2012 11:20 am • link • report
Furthermore in your response you ignored the footpaths that, in order to access or continue upon the trail, one must traverse the interchange.
Again, that spot is not only a motor vehicle intersection.
by Tina on Mar 28, 2012 12:28 pm • link • report
The purpose of speed cameras is to enforce the speed limit. Along DC-295, speeding threatens other (largely out of state) drivers and passengers; in other areas it threatens pedestrians, cyclists, and construction workers. If the Mayor chooses to emphasize safety for DC peds over Maryland drivers, so what?
ConnAve and some commenters are overstating the extent to which speed cameras caused a hyper-localized compliance. Some very devoted speeders study camera locations (and buy radar detection equipment); but many casual speeders just say "oh" when they get a ticket and stop speeding in the entire area because for all they know the camera was moved. Nevertheless, ConnAve's concern could be addressed by reconsidering the policy of posting the location of traffic enforcement cameras, until they become ubiquitous.
by Jim T on Mar 28, 2012 12:48 pm • link • report
by adam on Mar 28, 2012 12:52 pm • link • report
by Tina on Mar 28, 2012 12:56 pm • link • report
by adam on Mar 28, 2012 1:07 pm • link • report
by Jim T on Mar 28, 2012 2:11 pm • link • report
ConnAve's concern could be addressed by reconsidering the policy of posting the location of traffic enforcement cameras, until they become ubiquitous.
Hopefully we'll get point-to-point speed cameras in the not-too-distant future, but I still think "dummy" cameras--and not posting the location of "real" cameras obviously--would be a more effective solution.
by oboe on Mar 28, 2012 2:31 pm • link • report
You, like every other camera opponent on this thread, seem to focus on these cameras to say that they are not effective in improving pedestrian safety, and that they are instead a "revenue grab." You claim there's no evidence that cameras are effective. People point you to studies showing that cameras result in lower speeds. You claim that doesn't show they're effective at improving pedestrian safety. They point you to studies showing improvements in pedestrian safety near cameras in MoCo. You say that doesn't prove they improve pedestrian safety in the District. And then, switching gears, you say that if the camera studies are true, then we shouldn't have cameras less than 1/2 mile apart.
What would actually convince you? Would you like a comprehensive study of pedestrian safety in the District? Great. (I do hope you're willing to pay for it, though.)
But let's just suppose for a second that what you imply (without any evidence, mind you) is true - that cameras aren't leading to fewer pedestrian injuries. Let's further suppose is really is just a District revenue grab. What exactly would be so terrible about that? DC has to get money somewhere. It imposes taxes on real estate and sales of goods and incomes and restaurant meals and cigarettes. Even if cameras were designed solely, 100% to raise revenue, whi is that so bad? They impose a cost on people who break the law. So long as there's no trickery going on (like shortening yellow lights where red-light cameras are installed, or putting up false speed-limit signs, or miscalibrating the speed cameras -- and there's no indication that DC is doing any of these things), what's wrong with a fee or tax whose incidence falls on those who violate the law, and is easily avoidable? (I can think of some reasons why relying on such a source of revenue is a bad idea, and can create bad incentives, but I can think of reasons why other fees, taxes, and enforcement schemes likewise have their problems. That doesn't mean those things are worth doing, on balance.)
The fact is, having cars move the speed limit (i.e. slower than they would be going in the absence of enforcement) not only decreases the likelihood of crashes, it tends to decrease the likelihood that injury will be serious or fatal in the event of a crash. (And that's leaving out the benefits that reduced car speeds have on pedestrian access -- pedestrians can actually dare to enter a crosswalk if cars are approaching at a reasonable speed, instead of bearing down at 40 or 50 on a city street.) And as numerous studies have shown, cameras do tend to lead to decreases in speed.
I know you don't want to believe any of the above, and you want to suggest that cameras somehow make things worse. But if you do, then why don't you find some evidence for that? Find the study showing that drivers speed up as a result of cameras (*and* that that extra speed leads to more injuries, and diminished convenience for pedestrians). We all realize that speed limits can feel like a burden when one is driving, and needs to get somewhere fast. Try to realize that having cars speeding by can also be a burden to others.
by Paula Product on Mar 28, 2012 3:33 pm • link • report
@JeffB
"Maybe this friend can explain the DC Motor Vehicles laws to you while he's at it . Unless otherwise posted the maximum speed is 25 MPH on streets and 15 MPH in alleyways. Pretty simple. So no signs are needed."
------
At the risk of sounding as snarky as you're trtying to be, let me try to make my point a little simpler than I thought I already had.
We all know the default citywide speed limit in DC is 25 mph. That is not the issue here. The issue is with areas where the speed limit is greater than 25 - and they are numerous.
In many of those areas, the speed limit varies, and in many cases drops as much as 10-15 mph in areas where a camera is located. AND, in some locations, the reduced speed limit is NOT prominently posted - if at all.
A good example is the eastbound East Capitol Street underpass under 295. There are no pedestrians or bicycles - they're prohibited. The POSTED speed limit is 40mph, according to a sign about a half-mile before the mobile camera hidden behind the underpass abuttment, where it apparently drops to 35.
Why do I say "apparently"? Because I got a ticket at that spot in 2009 for going 38 mph in a supposed 35 mph zone. THAT's what I mean by "predatory and unfair".
Like I said, have a friend who drives and actually has to deal with the nonsense explain it to you.
by ceefer66 on Mar 28, 2012 4:34 pm • link • report
Hey don't worry about it. I was only parroting your snarkiness with oboe. But I g u e s s y o u m i s s e d t h a t.
Supposedly DC speed cameras are programed for a threshold limit of about 10 MPH OVER the posted limit. So if you really got a ticket for going 38 in a 35 zone I think you should have been able to get it dismissed as it sounds like the camera was programmed for a 25 MPH zone.
by jeffB on Mar 28, 2012 9:36 pm • link • report
by Jack on Mar 29, 2012 9:22 am • link • report
Speeding doesn't actually kill. Drivers not paying attention kills (get off your phones). Drivers trying to make turns in rush hour traffic kills. Drivers constantly having to change lanes because of parked cars in right lanes and left turners kills.
Also, and the cyclists in the room may want to cover their eyes: cyclists running red lights kills.
Here's a better idea. In order to make DC more pedestrian/bike friendly, you have to make parts of it less friendly. Sorry folks, Connecticut is a major north-south artery into / out of DC. So is 16th street. So is Wisconsin. There is no 395 to handle that mode of transit, though there are plenty of valid north-south commuters in NW (DC residents who commute to Montgomery County for example). Up the speed limit on Connecticut, get rid of the asinine lane-switching system, ban parking in the right lane, cut down on the number of unnecessary left turns during rush hour, and create left turn lanes where left turns are unavoidable. Then Connecticut can properly handle traffic flow and become a much safer street to drive.
by ende on Mar 29, 2012 10:19 am • link • report
One could reasonably make the argument that *any* pedestrian killed by an automobile is killed by speed. A street where the speed limit is 15 mph, and is enforced by draconian measures is one in which deaths will be virtually nil.
by oboe on Mar 29, 2012 10:34 am • link • report
by ende on Mar 29, 2012 10:39 am • link • report
The problem here is that "resonable levels" to a person speeding by in an automobile, and "reasonable levels" to every single other user of the public space are radically different things. The speed limits in DC are already "reasonable". They only appear unreasonable to people who have been accustomed to suburban driving where policies have explicitly driven all non-automobile users from the public space. When one spends 90% of your time driving in a suburban traffic sewer, it's understandable why one would think the speed limit on Connecticut Ave should be 40-50 mph. The voters of DC have decided to de-prioritize automobile speed in relation to other interests. Don't like it? Lobby to get those laws changed.
I suggest you go to a military base sometime. The speed limits are usually 20, 15 mph. And they're enthusiastically enforced.
by oboe on Mar 29, 2012 10:43 am • link • report
Not sure how you read "15" and came up with "0". Personally, I think the default speed limit in DC should be 15 given that 99% of drivers exceed the limit by at least 10 mph anyway. DC's default speed limit of 25 is a de jure 30 mph, and a de facto 35 mph.
My larger point is that saying "speed doesn't kill" is overly simplistic. Speed absolutely kills. Unfortunately, 50 years of indulgence of reckless drivers has distorted the way we think of such things, and now a citywide speed limit of 20 mph is considered a draconian affront to liberty.
That's just silly.
by oboe on Mar 29, 2012 10:49 am • link • report
I'd be interested in seeing some sort of support for this. Or did you mean cyclists who run red lights are sometimes killed by automobiles?
by oboe on Mar 29, 2012 10:51 am • link • report
Fact is, the problem is far more complex than automobile speed. Tell me how many pedestrian collisions on Connecticut Avenue have resulted in non-fatal injuries, instead of fatalities, due to the strict enforcement north of Chevy Chase Circle. None, I'll wager. Pedestrian crossing of that busy highway is hazardous at any traffic speed, and making it pedestrian-safe requires something better than reduced vehicle speeds.
I'm no advocate of fast driving. I'm that old-guy slowpoke that you hate to be caught behind. But I don't believe that setting unreasonably low speed limits, and implementing draconian enforcement, is the answer to the pedestrian safety problem. Pedestrian deaths are down by 43 percent since 1975, and it's not because people are driving slower.
by Jack on Mar 29, 2012 11:06 am • link • report
Additionally, at a slower speed more crashes are avoided b/c of: 1)increased time for driver reaction, 2) decreased stopping distance. Again, physical laws of nature.
by Tina on Mar 29, 2012 11:56 am • link • report
Don't forget 3) Increased time for pedestrian reaction. Ever try to get out of the way of a charging turtle?
Even without a single crash, speeding traffic degrades the urban environment. It's just *unpleasant*, particularly when coupled with very narrow sidewalks. Obviously some will feel that's trivial, but there's a reason the speed limits on the Mall, Haine's Point, and elsewhere are "artificially low".
by oboe on Mar 29, 2012 12:30 pm • link • report
by Tina on Mar 29, 2012 12:41 pm • link • report
One more thing, setting speed limit laws with the expectation that it is acceptable that everybody will drive 10 mph faster undermines the respect for law. OTOH setting speed limits unreasonably low also undermines the respect for law. Legal types normally value law greater than life (that is why there is a death penalty).
by goldfish on Mar 29, 2012 1:16 pm • link • report
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/hs809012.html
by Tina on Mar 29, 2012 1:32 pm • link • report
So then, if lowering speeds improves safety, why not set speed limit to 5 mph? Because lowering speeds reduces mobility. Moving people and things are essential for the economy, and lowering speeds increases costs for everybody. And it does so in countless ways: Let's say that the speeds on the highways were magically reduced to 15 mph. This would make commutes from the outer suburbs intolerable, lowering real estate prices there and increasing demand closer to where jobs are (increasing so called "commute friction"). Result would be that housing costs would go up for everybody.
To repeat myself: there is a trade-off between mobility and safety, and finding that balance is the what must be done to set speed limits. You can go too far in either direction.
by goldfish on Mar 29, 2012 1:49 pm • link • report
I agree here completely. But where I might depart from goldfish is what is "reasonable". Too often in this thread it had come down to the eye of the beholder.
On the German Autobahn - reasonable might well be any speed.
On many US Interstates in rural areas - reasonable might be a pretty high speed.
But in dense urban areas where there are a multitude of road users, many who are not protected by a several ton steel cocoon, I think reasonable has to defined as the speed that is safe for all.
Tina provides the link that supports a 25 MPH speed or less for the unprotected road user to survive.
25 MPH might be workable, but only if 26 MPH or greater were never tolerated. As it is many drivers are going 35, 40 or faster.
by JeffB on Mar 29, 2012 1:52 pm • link • report
Fantastic. I'm glad you accept the science. However, you yourself commented that commenters are asking for "proof" of the relationship. So I'm not conviced we all had the F = ma material in high school.
But to your point. Yes I agree there is a compromise to be made for certain circumstances. However, are you asserting that causing drivers to slow down from 45-30mph, via the incentive/deterrence of speed cameras in the District of Columbia will measurably adversely affect commerece in DC?
by Tina on Mar 29, 2012 2:05 pm • link • report
If you're actually going 26mph, but because of reasonable tire wear your spedometer shows 25, you could likely challenge the ticket and win.
In short, only ticketing 10+ mph over the limit ensures a much greater rate of success in enforcement.
@Goldfish
So then, if lowering speeds improves safety, why not set speed limit to 5 mph? Because lowering speeds reduces mobility.
The relationship isn't linear. Lowering speeds from 35 to 25 makes a huge difference in safety. Lowering them from 25 to 15 likely makes a difference, but not as much.
Or, consider a different scenario:
http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm
Collision with a ped at 40mph: 85% chance of death.
Collision with a ped at 30mph: 45% chance of death.
Collision with a ped at 20mph: 5% chance of death.
Lowering the speed limit to 5 mph isn't going to massively reduce the chances of death the same way that going from 40 to 30 would, or from 30 to 20.
by Alex B. on Mar 29, 2012 2:09 pm • link • report
are you asserting that causing drivers to slow down from 45-30mph, via the incentive/deterrence of speed cameras in the District of Columbia will measurably adversely affect commerce in DC?
Yes. Question is, is it worth it?
by goldfish on Mar 29, 2012 2:13 pm • link • report
The reason I choose 30mph as an example is that I beleive along much of Conn Ave the posted speed limit is 30mph, which is habitually exceeded, and the dif. in fatality risk from 30 to 45 is the stat Marlene provided in her post. Marlene's work has focused on Conn Ave, and I expect that is why she focused on that stat.
by Tina on Mar 29, 2012 2:13 pm • link • report
If you're actually going 26mph, but because of reasonable tire wear your spedometer shows 25, you could likely challenge the ticket and win.
I agree. Hence the logic behind reducing the speed limit to 15 MPH and tolerating those who speed up to 25 MPH.
by JeffB on Mar 29, 2012 2:13 pm • link • report
There is much more to this than the simplistic "speed kills".
BTW, I have a Ph.D. in physics. Don't bother with lectures about principles of physics. The problem is far more profound than "speed is bad".
by Jack on Mar 29, 2012 2:17 pm • link • report
by Tina on Mar 29, 2012 2:21 pm • link • report
Automated speed enforcement should just be considered a stop gap measure until we can do the re-engineering of our roads. Many of these roads were built in a time when the safety needs of non-motorists didn't factor into their design.
by JeffB on Mar 29, 2012 2:22 pm • link • report
I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure that all that needs to be proved is that a person was speeding -- you do not need to prove that they "knew" they were speeding.
So for a conviction, all that needs to be done is show that the equipment used to measure the speed had the necessary accuracy and was properly calibrated. Thus there could be a guilty for someone driving with a measured speed of 25.5 ± 0.1 in a 25 mph zone. In practice however, I am sure judges will make some allowances for the driver, if for no other reason that judges also drive and are sympathetic to its challenges.
by goldfish on Mar 29, 2012 2:28 pm • link • report
by goldfish on Mar 29, 2012 2:30 pm • link • report
As noted above, the world is not populated at any one time by pedestrians alone - or drivers alone for that matter - and compromises are needed. Also noted above, DC lacks any major north-south arteries equivalent to 395 in the south. Commuting is a completely valid need for many residents of the district (and visitors). There is plenty of room for pedestrian friendly zones and streets while transforming streets such as Connecticut to serve as a swift conduit for commuters. A cross walk (even with nifty communal orange crossing flags) at a major exchange between DC and Maryland motorists on a major north-south street is among one of the more terrible ideas one can envision for such a location.
Mixed-user environments are just asking for trouble, yet both sets of users require their own environments. Increasing the number of speed cameras if need be, but lower the fines across the board to reasonable levels, adjust unreasonably low speed limits where they exist (most are fine), but more importantly repurpose 16th, Conn, and Wisconsin as commuter roads by banning parking, reducing left turns, creating left turn lanes, and in general promoting stable, fluid, safe traffic flow that facilitates getting people from point A to point B swiftly and safely.
by ende on Mar 29, 2012 2:31 pm • link • report
The greatest proportion of fatalities occurr in urban settings (like DC). Are you asserting that DC doesn't have the evidence to justify implementing interventions aimed at improving the pedestrian fatality rate?
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811394.pdf
by Tina on Mar 29, 2012 2:37 pm • link • report
by Tina on Mar 29, 2012 2:41 pm • link • report
yes that is simplistic. Look up causal inference.
Regarding your assertion that lane changing and what not are more important to the outcome of a crash than speed. Nonsense. I.e. a vehicle is travelling at some speed when it changes lane. The most important modifiable factor is the speed of the vehicle at the time the lane is changed, if you are aserting that the lane changing is what leads to the crash. Its the speed of the vehicle that determines the outcome.
by Tina on Mar 29, 2012 2:49 pm • link • report
by ende on Mar 29, 2012 2:51 pm • link • report
by goldfish on Mar 29, 2012 2:52 pm • link • report
OK, how about "speed is not the only thing that kills"? That sounds good to me.
I'm assuming that you didn't mean "speed doesn't kill".
by Miriam on Mar 29, 2012 2:56 pm • link • report
"commerce in DC will be measurably adversly affected by causing drivers to slow down from 45mph to 30mph, on roads where the speed limit is 30, like Conn Ave".
I don't mean to be rude, but this seems laughable on its face. If there is a impact on commerce, it would be so small it would just as likely be positive as negative. Have you got any kind of support for this at all, or is it just "Yes"?
by oboe on Mar 29, 2012 2:56 pm • link • report
@goldfish - we are talking about DC, which is what 10 miles across at its widest point? 20? The argument about time lost/gained going 30 instead of 45 along Conn Ave e.g., is negilible given all the other factors -stoplights, stop signs, congestion, delivery trucks parked in travel lanes (since you brought up delivery), etc.
by Tina on Mar 29, 2012 2:59 pm • link • report
by goldfish on Mar 29, 2012 3:01 pm • link • report
And I say the same thing to you. Neither of us anything more than an opinion on wherther of not reducing speed on e.g. Conn Ave from 45 to 30 affects commerernce. So please stop attacking me personally.
by Tina on Mar 29, 2012 3:02 pm • link • report
Not true. Mixed-use environments are just fine. The key factor here is speed. As several people have noted up-thread, "frequent lane changes, left turns amid dense traffic, etc..." are all relatively benign with the lack of one single variable: speed.
I agree there are places where automobiles should be allowed to drive at an "automobile" pace. Those places are segregated, limited-access highways. There are very, very few of those in DC proper.
As for the rest of DC's urban fabric, no, thankfully DC public opinion seems to finally be swinging to the point where we're done ceding major boulevards to the automobile. I think those days are over.
by oboe on Mar 29, 2012 3:03 pm • link • report
by Tina on Mar 29, 2012 3:04 pm • link • report
by David R. on Mar 29, 2012 3:10 pm • link • report
@oboe Didn't mean that as a universal statement. There are plenty example of very good, safe mixed environments to be found throughout the district.
But DC is not now nor ever destined to be some sort of pedestrian-only district, that's just nonsense. There are DC residents who work outside of DC and there are non-DC residents who work in DC. They require such conduits for transit. There is room enough for both commuters and non-commuters.
Also, what exactly are you referencing in terms of 'DC public opinion"?
by ende on Mar 29, 2012 3:12 pm • link • report
Pee Wee Herman impressions aside, you still fail to make your point. Perhaps if DC were some Cartesian plane or simplistic computer model, we could draw the conclusion that a simple 5mph increase in the allowed top speed of vehicles would yield some efficiency benefit. Since vehicles in an urban environment don't operate at a constant maximum allowed speed limit, that's a fatuous conclusion to draw.
Vehicles in an urban environment operate in a range of speeds from 0-Max. In the majority of the time, they operate below the max speed. They're waiting at lights. They're stuck in traffic jams. In the case of delivery trucks, they're sitting in a bike lane, or pulling into an alley.
So what we're really talking about is the tiny fraction of time that drivers see a stretch of open pavement ahead, and decide they're going to "make up some time." It's the jerk I saw in a dump truck driving 10 mph over the speed limit past an elementary school on a residential street who realizes he can really "open it up" for those 4 blocks.
No, I don't think forcing that guy to slow down to the posted speed limit through universal enforcement is going to adversely effect commerce. At least not without a coherent argument beyond, "There are multiple factors and such!"
by oboe on Mar 29, 2012 3:16 pm • link • report
That's always been my point as well--one that's never been answered beyond "Isn't it obvious?" and references to studies of interstate traffic flow.
There's a reason everyone evacuates in a calm and orderly fashion during a fire, rather than everyone running pell-mell for the exits. Slower traffic speeds would likely lead to an insignificant loss of street efficiency--if not a gain.
by oboe on Mar 29, 2012 3:19 pm • link • report
No, obviously not. But it's also obvious that the days of wishing Connecticut Ave were more like Rockville Pike are pretty much done. We're likely to see expanding sidewalks, more bike lanes, and as we've just heard, a proliferation of automated enforcement devices targeting automobiles. These are all reflections of public opinion. Whatever policy differences there might have been between Fenty and Gray and Williams, it's pretty clear there's an emerging consensus. Given the stark demographic trends we've seen over the last decade, that consensus is only going to get stronger.
by oboe on Mar 29, 2012 3:23 pm • link • report
There's no need to start out your comment by belittling another person's comment. You aren't going to get anywhere with comments that just say "you haven't justified what you are saying." Give your own arguments and facts rather than talking about whether the other person's arguments and facts are or aren't sufficient. Thanks!
by David Alpert on Mar 29, 2012 3:26 pm • link • report
The "higher speed = higher mortality" argument assumes that pedestrians will be hit, therefore having the cars go slower will reduce the number of victims who die. I suppose, but I think the problem is much more complex than that.
Re the decline in pedestrian fatalities over the years -- actually the pedestrian decline exceeds the car-occupant decline, pedestrian deaths now accounting for 13% of all highway deaths, vs. 17% in 1975. That's a pretty surprising statistic, given that occupant deaths have been substantially reduced by air bags and anti-lock brakes, factors which do little for pedestrians. Given further that (1) automobile speeds have not decreased, and (2) SUVs are more lethal to pedestrians than sedans -- well, there's much more going on here than just a decline in all highway deaths.
Also more to the point, the subject here is speed cameras in DC, where congestion tends to keep traffic speeds low. To cite examples near me, a speed camera on Porter Street has resulted in a lot of speeding tickets, and evidently has caused traffic to slow, but it's in a location where there is very little pedestrian traffic, so its life-saving benefits are negligible. On the other hand, the intersections considered most dangerous to pedestrians are the Irving Street and Kenyon/Park Road crossings of 14th Street. Speed cameras won't do any good there, yet that's where the pedestrian collisions happen, that's where the risk is.
As for red light cameras, absolutely! Red-light running in DC is, IMHO, far more hazardous to pedestrians than whether a car is moving at 35 mph, vs 25 mph.
by Jack on Mar 29, 2012 3:30 pm • link • report
Public opinion is a bit irrelevant though, we don't live in a majoritarian world. The rights of the minority need to be respected too, and includes commuters.
by ende on Mar 29, 2012 3:37 pm • link • report
yes there is a decrease in proportion from 1975. However there has been no change in proportion in the last decade. I think that is the more relevant data to consider. 1975 was a long time ago, ~two generations. A lot has changed -a lot more than the things you cited. One factor is discontinuance of social accpetance of drunk driving and/or increased awareness of the risk involved in drunk driving/improved enforcement.
Another is road design with pedestrian safety in mind that have changed since 1975. Take a look at the NTHSA reports. They discuss ways to improve pedestrain safety. They come down to reducing speed w/ road design. Even the 'right hook' you refer to wouldn't be as deadly if drivers stopped before turning right on red. Its the speed of the impact that affects the outcome.
Finally, if the specific place you are referring to near Porter that "doesn't have many pedestrians" is the interchange w/ Beech Dr., I disagree. I personally have walked and biked there thousands of times and I regularly see other people walking and biking there. Its one of the few E-W get-on/get-off points for the RCP trail in addition to other trails. Its ~100 yards by foot to the Klingle Mansion at that point; thats a major destination in RCP.
by Tina on Mar 29, 2012 4:10 pm • link • report
This is, of course, merely a "framing" sleight-of-hand.
The streets are a public space; and that space is a limited resource. Cars should indeed be accommodated. But because they have the potential to do great harm, and because they have a history of driving other users out of the public spaces into which they're permitted, it's simply wrong to cast them as some persecuted minority class that needs protection. Their use drives out other users: bicyclists are the obvious example. They've taken over broad streets, and relegated pedestrians to narrow sidewalks, at least where there are sidewalks. After steady expansion of the role of the auto, they've become a perfect example of the "tyranny of the minority."
Cars have a place in the city--a severely curtailed and highly regulated place.
by oboe on Mar 29, 2012 4:14 pm • link • report
by Pelham1861 on Mar 29, 2012 4:19 pm • link • report
I really can't agree with you much there (except the notion of cars as persecuted minorities is pretty funny). I understand that there is a sizable swath of the urban populace who would rather cars didn't exist and all roads were traversed by cyclists and pedestrians alone. But we simply don't live in that world, and automobiles are a necessary and ubiquitous mode of transportation for a very large number of DC residents, many of whom commute outside of the bounds of the district. There are many parts of the city where they should be expected to drive at a snails pace in the name of safety, etc, but there also need to be fast, high-throughput conduits into/out of the city. For NW, these must include Connecticut, Wisconsin and 16th unless the District plans to build a northern branch of 395 through Rock Creek Park.
by ende on Mar 29, 2012 4:34 pm • link • report
by Tina on Mar 29, 2012 4:43 pm • link • report
by Canaan on Mar 29, 2012 4:44 pm • link • report
There is a section of Connecticut by Van Ness, for example, that is 2-lanes northbound in the mornings where a line of cars queueing to turn left and a line of cars queueing to turn right effectively shuts down all northbound traffic until those queues have cleared. That's obviously poor planning.
@Canaan, how does it come at the expense of other modes? Very few people are commuting out/into the district by bicycle (and those crazy few that are certainly aren't doing it along Connecticut). Metro has it's own dedicated conduit. Automobiles need their own as well. Some parts of the city have to be less safe for pedestrians in order to accommodate that. You have to share.
by ende on Mar 29, 2012 5:02 pm • link • report
But you're ignoring the reality that tens of thousands of people live on Conn Ave with additional density on the blacks east and west of Conn Ave; that there are hundreds of businesses on Conn Ave; there are 3 metro stops on Conn Ave and a 4th and 5th easily accessed from Conn Ave (Friendship Hts and Columbia Hts). Its already a places where 10's of thousan ds of people walk. Its too late to talk about it as a place "that shouldn't be for pedestrians". The ship has sailed. People live, walk and shop all along Conn Ave. To change that would require radical changes in the structure of DC including displacing 10's of thousands of residents.
by Tina on Mar 29, 2012 5:13 pm • link • report
I'm not sure how sizable the swath is, but for my part, I'm quite glad that cars exist. The issue isn't reserving roads for cyclists and pedestrians alone, but rather allowing cyclists and pedestrians meaningful access to roads at all.
One thing's for sure: If speed limits were set at 15 mph, the aggrieved sense of entitlement that seems to overcome every area driver as soon as they get behind a cyclist would be greatly diminished. How about "15 mph When Cyclists or Pedestrians Are Present" since we're all about finding a reasonable compromise.
by oboe on Mar 29, 2012 5:33 pm • link • report
Here's a fact. Pedestrian fatalities are down by 60% since 1975, and down by 10% in the last decade. Why? Is it because drivers are going slower? I don't think so. Is it because cars are safer? They're surely safer for the passengers, but not for pedestrians, the high profile of SUVs making them exceptionally pedestrian-lethal.
So it's got to be other factors, and focusing on speed, as if reducing vehicle speed is the answer to the problem, is a mistake.
Re Porter Street, that's a place where I have to dive to the right just as soon as the second lane opens up, to get out of the way of the demons behind me who are in a big hurry to get to that left turn to Beach Drive. Pedestrians? Occasional, but nothing like the numbers found at the 16th Street and 14th Street intersections. And that's where the pedestrian collisions, and pedestrian fatalities, occur.
Clearly road design, and lighting, are crucial. The one fatality here in recent years was due to a left-turning bus, the driver simply failing to see the pedestrian, the pedestrian somehow failing to see the bus. Speed, not a factor. We've taken measures to reduce that left-turn hazard.
A pedestrian near-fatality here is indicative of another problem: distracted walking. How many times have you seen pedestrians strolling across a street with their eyes, and minds, focused on a cellphone, talking or texting? The very unfortunate incident here involved a person simply walking into the side of a turning truck, and falling under the rear wheels. Speed, not a factor.
Don't underestimate the role of pedestrians in road fatalities. Half of all adult pedestrians killed after dark were legally too drunk to drive, a factor possibly contributing to the incident.
Sure, slowing traffic is nice, but numerous other factors are involved in pedestrian safety. Annoyed as I am by those drivers pushing me to "go faster", I don't think speed is the principal factor, or even a major factor, in DC pedestrian fatalities. The great decline in pedestrian fatalities in past decades, in the absence of any (to my knowledge) decline in traffic speed, says that other factors are predominant here.
by Jack on Mar 29, 2012 6:02 pm • link • report
again if the choice is going to be auto speed or pedestrian safety I'm gonna go ahead and suggest that I find it reasonable that we're better keeping the whole city safe for pedestrians rather than giving parts of it up (or reclaiming spaces that were given up)
by Canaan on Mar 29, 2012 6:42 pm • link • report
You've actually put your finger on how we've acheived such amazing an amazing improvement in pedestrian fatalities. As a society, we've pretty much shifted the blame from drivers onto pedestrians. Your scenario of the pedestrian being run down by a left-turning truck illustrates this.
If a left-turning truck ran down a pedestrian, he was by definition travelling too fast. Whether or not the pedestrian was able to obey the law of GTFOOMY is of secondary importance.
Regardless of the benefits of some individual speed camera at some individual intersection, cultivating a culture of driver care is valuable in and of itself. Higher fines, or ubiquitous fines is one way of doing that.
by oboe on Mar 30, 2012 9:30 am • link • report
No, you have it wrong. The truck was making a very slow LH turn from one narrow residential street onto another in our neighborhood. The pedestrian walked into the side of the truck, behind the cab, ahead of the rear wheels, and fell under those wheels. The truck driver immediately stopped and backed up. Speed had nothing, nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Similarly, the pedestrian killed by the left-turning Metrobus was not a victim of excessive speed. More to the point, in neither the bus case nor the truck incident would speed cameras made any difference. Neither driver was anywhere near the speed limit. Neither driver was driving recklessly. The Metrobus driver evidently didn't see the pedestrian in the dark, the truck driver could not possibly see the pedestrian behind his cab. It's about visibility, not speed.
by Jack on Mar 30, 2012 10:06 am • link • report
respectfully, you do not know that speed was "not a factor" in the bus crash. Also, that example is not the only example of pedestrian fatalities in DC "in recent years". See @oboes's comment. By definition if the bus turned so fast the driver was not able to see and stop for pedestrians the vehicle was going too fast.
Re Porter St -so you see how people drive there habitually -- does it surprise you that you don't see more pedestrians? even though you don't see them, they are there, despite of the behavior of drivers. I am often one of them. Maybe you don't see pedestrians b/c many drivers "don't see" pedestrians and bicyclists. I often feel invisible when I'm on the road. For 6 years I traversed that interchange every weekday morning and evening by bike on my way to work, so your insistence that its not used by non-motorists is not going over very well with me. I crossed that interchange on foot every weekend walking from an eastbound foot trail to a northbound foot trail. I encountered many other people doing the same. Non-motorists cross there. It is not a solely motor vehicle cross-roads.
Of course there are many factors on every road in an environment like DC. You keep insisting that vehicle speed as its affects crash outcome is simplistic. Yet vehicle speed is the most important modifiable contributing factor to the outcome of a crash. And your response to this is to dispute the assumption that a crash will occur. But ignoring speed in that equation ignores that speed contributes to the risk of crash as well as to its outcome.
Again, according to NHTSA, (see link above)pedestrian fatalities as a proportion of all fatalities has remained the same since at least 2000. And, again, all fatalities have decreased since 1975, again according to NHTSA. So looking at raw n's doesn't tell us whats happening.
by you people on Mar 30, 2012 10:16 am • link • report
The assertion made by this GGW report is that speed cameras will save lives. Fact is, in this bus incident, the bus could not possibly have exceeded any speed limit, not in making a sharp left-hand turn from a standing start.
As for "windshield perspective", I know that well, having been a bicycle commuter in DC for many years, and still putting 3000-plus miles on my bicycle every year, in the city. Speed isn't the problem. Driver disrespect for bicyclists, and bicyclist disregard for traffic laws, is.
As for the Porter Street matter, yes, there are occasional pedestrians and bicyclists. When was there ever a collision there? Compare the 14th and 16th Street intersections, where hordes of pedestrians cross, and, yes, that's where the collisions happen. But speed isn't the controlling factor. It's about visibility, and distractions, and drivers and bicyclists failing to respect the limitations on drivers. The greatest risk comes from turning vehicles, not straight-through, and speed cameras are irrelevant.
by Jack on Mar 30, 2012 11:06 am • link • report
Speed is the controlling factor in the outcome of a crash. Speed contributes to crash risk.
by Tina on Mar 30, 2012 11:38 am • link • report
Speed played an important role in the outcome of that fatal crash just as it does in all fatal crashes. Recognizing the contribution of speed to the outcome of a crash is not the same thing as dismissing other factors that contribute to crash risk. No one here including me has denied there are other factors in an urban setting (any environment) that contribute to crash risk. B/c there are other variables contributing to crash risk speed is even more important b/c its a factor of driver behavior thus can be modified. Vehicle size is unmodifiable; congestion is unmodifiable; people stopping to turn left is unmodifiable; delivery trucks parked in the travel lane is unmodifiable; the requirement to stop for red lights is unmodifiable. Driver behavior is modifiable. Speed is modifiable. Because speed is modifiable so is total crash risk and predicted outcome of crash.
by Tina on Mar 30, 2012 12:58 pm • link • report
We don't know why the pedestrian didn't see the bus coming, and the driver didn't see the pedestrian in the crosswalk. Fact: left turns are especially hazardous. In the dark, from inside a bus with interior lights on, dodging oncoming traffic -- visibility is challenging.
"Because speed is modifiable so is total crash risk and predicted outcome of crash." And how is a speed camera going to affect the speed of a bus making a left turn? How are you going to control, or limit, the speed of a bus making a left turn?
"The bus driver definitely did not begin the turn from a stop, or even from a slow down." You don't know that. "Definitely"? You're just guessing.
"Also, that bus made a left turn with the green light. The pedstrians that got hit were in the crosswalk crossing with a walk sign." No longer. We brought about a revision to the intersection, which now has a dedicated left-turn phase, oncoming traffic stopped, pedestrians with a "wait" light.
by Jack on Mar 30, 2012 1:23 pm • link • report
There were witnesses and the event is documented. The driver had a green light.
How are you going to control, or limit, the speed of a bus making a left turn? this is driver behavior. Human behavior is always modifiable. In this case "how?" With better training.
We don't know why the pedestrian didn't see the bus coming Lets say they did see the bus. Why didn't they get out of they way? Probably b/c there wasn't time. Why wasn't there enough time? B/c of the speed the vehicle bearing down on them was travelling.
visibility is challenging Yes. This is one of those other factors contributing to crash risk. But visibility does not contribute to crash outcome. Speed does.
We brought about a revision to the intersection, which now has a dedicated left-turn phase, oncoming traffic stopped, pedestrians with a "wait" light. Bravo us. This is one example of an intervention that can reduce crash risk. Crash risk, not crash outcome.
by Tina on Mar 30, 2012 1:44 pm • link • report
I don't think we're talking about the same incident. The incident I'm referring to was on January 16, 2007, and involved a single pedestrian. As for the bus, certainly it had the green, but southbound traffic on 16th is always so heavy that anyone making the left turn has to stop and wait for a break.
by Jack on Mar 30, 2012 2:54 pm • link • report
seems so. I'm talking about a more recnet crash that killed two peds downtown. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JhsmDMIRNo
Which of course makes the crash you're referring to not "the only one around here recently" that resulted in a fatality. In every crash, speed of the vehicle is a major contributing factor to crash outcome. Speed is especially relevent with large vehicles. In the vidio clip it is apparent to a reasonable observer that at a much lower speed the outcome of that crash would be predictably different and/or avoided altogether.
Yes, there are many factors contributing to crash risk -which is greatest at intersections (like the intersection of Porter St & Beech Dr). Speed of the vehicle is the major modifiable contributing factor to crash outcome. Drivers control speed. Driving is a human behavior and is modifiable. Vehicle speed -even at intersections where busses turn left -is modifiable.
Incidentally there are ~8 bus stops within a 1/4 mi of the Porter St Beech Dr intersection. Who rides busses? Pedestrians. How will they reach those bus stops? By walking on or near that interchange -the bus stops are NOT all at cross walks.
by Tina on Mar 30, 2012 3:30 pm • link • report
by oboe on Mar 30, 2012 3:57 pm • link • report
First Year Reductions in Average Driving Speeds
at Fixed Speed Camera Locations:
6 percent
Camera with Greatest 12-Month Reduction: 11%
Camera with Least 12-Month Reduction: 1%
"11+ Miles Per Hour Above Speed Limit (before) 2%
(after) <1%"
"To date, 32% of citations have been for
vehicles measured at exactly 11 miles per hour above the speed limit"
I think these numbers speak for themselves.
As for the "total reported collisions within one-half mile of the camera sites decreased by 28%" - well - that's certainly interesting.
Unfortunately, these numbers are pretty small, and probably vary a lot from year to year. The pedestrian fatalities in DC vary up to 300% from year to year.
"Before Camera Activation (Four-Year Average)"
"After Camera Activation (One Year)"
Sorry. That's not proof. Interesting, but comparing an average to a single year isn't proof of anything.
by Jamie on Mar 30, 2012 9:53 pm • link • report
A couple of years back I decided to drive at 5 mph below the posted speed limit, at all times, no exceptions. I did this for about 6 months. Besides enduring the honks and the tail-gaiting by drivers stuck behind me -- even by the police, who pulled me once over for going too slow -- the time it took to get somewhere, anywhere, increased by quite a bit. I invite you to try a similar experiment. I am sure you will find that it takes longer to get around. Now you could claim that if all drivers slowed down by this much would have no effect on commerce -- but then you could justify that only if you think peoples' time has no value.
by goldfish on Mar 31, 2012 12:55 pm • link • report
Forgive me if I say that you are moving the goal posts here. I agree it would be informative if there were followup to this study. But budget cuts being what they are ...
What is most curious to me in this thread is all the anti-speed enforcement posters keep arguing that there is no safety benefit to controlling speed on our local roads. Therefore the cameras can only be there for the purpose of revenue enhancement.
Setting aside the very legitimate argument that enforcing the posted speed limit itself (apart from any other benefit) is reason enough for installing speed cameras it would seem to me that the argument as constructed by the anti-enforcement posters here fails as soon as you show reasonable evidence that enforcing speed limits does reduce crashes and injuries and so has a safety benefit.
This thread is full of anti-enforcement posters offering personal anecdotes why there can be no such benefit. What not a single one of them has done is offer up any link to an authoritative source supporting their contention.
And when the pro-enforcement posters respond with such links supporting their position the information is instantly dismissed as being "insufficient". It is pointless to argue with people who have chosen to tie one lobe behind their head.
So I'll just conclude with one final link to a NIH summary survey of speed cameras and safety. By the way all this takes is 5 seconds with Google.
Speed cameras for the prevention of road traffic injuries and deaths.
AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS: Despite the methodological limitations and the variability in degree of signal to noise effect, the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.
by JeffB on Apr 1, 2012 9:53 am • link • report
The pro-camera argument is elementary: speed cameras save lives. Unconditional, no exceptions. That's the fallacy: that if speed cameras reduce accidents and save lives under some conditions, then speed cameras must reduce accidents and save lives under all conditions.
I don't think so. Certainly there are places where speed cameras will contribute to safety, in particular, on arterials through populated urban areas. I've asked for speed cameras at certain locations myself. But there are other places where the hazard is small, and the speed limits may be unrealistically low. Speed limits are commonly set by politicians, not by traffic engineers. When a speed camera results in hundreds of citations every day, one has to question the validity of the speed limit.
A characteristic of the inner city is that traffic accidents generally involve turns, not straightaway collisions. In my neighborhood, I have yet to see the case where speed was a factor. Visibility, especially of pedestrians crossing streets after dark, is a problem. Drivers running red lights is a problem. Bicyclists willfully violating traffic laws is a problem. Pedestrians ignoring the "don't walk" sign, or crossing the street in mid-block, after dark, in dark clothing, is a problem. Pedestrians paying more attention to the cellphone in their hands than to the traffic around them, is a problem.
Traffic speed is an annoyance, no doubt, for the minor arterials crossing my neighborhood, so I hear plenty of calls for controlling traffic speeds. But I have yet to encounter the case where a speed camera, causing a driver to go only a little over the posted speed limit, made the difference in a collision either not happening, or having less dire consequences.
In fact, I can point out two instances of residents of my neighborhood being killed by speeding cars. In one case, the driver was fleeing the police (he thought), so a speed camera wasn't going to change his behavior. In another, the speeding driver blasted through a red light, drunk. Again, a speed camera wouldn't have changed his behavior. But in those cases, as in the case of the pedestrian killed by the left-turning Metrobus, the result was a fatality, and speed cameras are irrelevant to the outcome.
Speed cameras are fine in certain places, no doubt. But the notion that any speed camera will "save lives" anywhere, anytime, whatever the road conditions, isn't valid. The problem is far more complex than that.
by Jack on Apr 1, 2012 10:35 am • link • report
Bicyclists willfully violating traffic laws is a problem. Pedestrians ignoring the "don't walk" sign, or crossing the street in mid-block, after dark, in dark clothing, is a problem. Pedestrians paying more attention to the cellphone in their hands than to the traffic around them, is a problem.
Your point is essentially that drivers should be able to drive very fast, and that the problem is that pedestrians aren't attentive enough in getting out of their way. Frankly we've seen enough of that kind of framing. Again, if a child were run down on an airport concourse by a courtesy shuttle, the idea of blaming it on the kid, or his parents for being insufficiently attentive, would be ridiculous. Since we've had 60-70 years of shifting the blame for any traffic deaths from drivers to pedestrians, the balance is now completely opposite, and when a driver runs down a kid, he's held completely blameless--unless he's either drunk (assuming he doesn't flee) or driving 20 mph over the speed limit.
Sorry, but stepping up enforcement to change those attitudes is a completely legitimate use of speed cameras and other types of enforcement.
As you said "traffic speed" is an annoyance. As I said above, it degrades the urban environment. Again, perfectly legitimate to curtail such behavior, even if people aren't dying. We have noise ordinances for similar reasons.
At the end of the day, the DC electorate sets the rules. If you want to increase tolerance for speeders, take it to them.
by oboe on Apr 1, 2012 12:05 pm • link • report
I'm curious: what on Earth makes you think that "traffic engineers" are the ones who should be setting speed limits? Or that the speed the majority of *drivers* choose is the 'right' maximum speed.
I'm sorry, but in my opinion, that's considerably more absurd than the idea that consistently enforcing the law leads to more law-abiding behavior.
by oboe on Apr 1, 2012 12:18 pm • link • report
Said the man before the judge charged with assault:
"It's not my fault, your honor, that he put his nose where I was swinging my fist".
by JeffB on Apr 1, 2012 2:11 pm • link • report
by goldfish on Apr 2, 2012 8:22 am • link • report
by DeeDee on Oct 29, 2012 2:11 pm • link • report
Add a Comment