Greater Greater Washington

Pedestrians


Most people don't speed. For some values of "speed."

by David Alpert   •   February 19, 2009 2:55 pm

DC police officer David Baker thinks pedestrians aren't paying enough attention, writes Michael Neibauer in the Examiner. They cross the street while listening to iPods or checking their Blackberries, contributing to crashes like those on Connecticut and Nebraska. He's probably right that there are many pedestrians don't pay attention.


Photo by sirwiseowl on Flickr.

At the same time, Baker's quote shows the auto-oriented thinking so endemic in our society (in addition to Neibauer using the common but dangerous term "accidents" to refer to 15 pedestrian deaths):

Some vehicles do speed through that busy crossing, Baker said, but most average 34 to 37 mph. The speed limit there is 30 mph.
If most cars go 34 to 37, that sounds like most vehicles are speeding. Sure, they're only speeding a little, and I admit I often go 34 to 37 on roads like Connecticut. Still, let's be clear: most vehicles are speeding.

Many of you posted some great stories of police and policymakers having different standards for hitting pedestrians with a car and doing almost anything else bad in a car.

Max wrote,

When I was 8 years I used to bike everywhere with my friends. One day, one of my friends was biking along a local road and all of a sudden a car pulled out of a driveway and hit her. She ended up being all right ...

But the driver of the car immediately blamed her and yelled at her as her bike was all mangled and she was bleeding. He said she should have been on the sidewalk and looking both ways.

[The police] ended up taking my friends bike and giving her a ticket. She was doing nothing illegal. She was wearing a helmet and going under 25 mph, but they decided that it was her fault that she was hit, not the driver's, who should have looked both ways before backing out. If she had been a driver instead of a biker, the guy who backed out of the driveway would have been at fault.

And Bianchi added,
Last week I was driving on I-195 outside of Baltimore and I was pulled over by the MD State Police and issued a $50 ticket because one of my headlights had burned out. It had been working earlier, it just happened to burn out that evening. ... Yet the State of Maryland thinks the burned out bulb is so important that I should be held responsible for it to the tune of $50.

However if I hit someone and kill him/her while s/he is trying to cross Ritchie Hwy I will not be held responsible for anything. No ticket. No points on my license. Nothing. The State of Maryland values a burned out bulb more then a human life.

Greater Greater Washington has a new safety beat contributor, Stephen Miller, who wrote yesterdays piece about Ritchie Highway. If you see a crash in person or on the news, send Stephen a tip at smiller@ggwash.org.

Here's a small sampling Stephen has assembled of the carnage on our streets:

Update: Bianchi and B make a terrific point in the comments: a car hitting a pedestrian is 75% more likely to kill that pedestrian if it's going 37 mph than if it's going 31.

Update 2: For those of you who wondered if Baker meant "the speeders go 34 to 37" or (as I read it) "most people go 34 to 37" and Baker doesn't consider that speeding: it's the latter. Here's a fuller quote from the MPD 2nd District email by Baker:

The first thing that everyone says is the driver must have been speeding. The speed limit is 30 mph. I did a survey of the area with my lidar gun and the average speed was 34 to 37 mph. Yes I had a few come through at a high rate of speed, but it was not blatant.
66 comments
Tags: bike safety, pedestrian safety, road safety, Upper Connecticut
Related posts:
David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 

Comments

Add a comment »

The examples of how dangerous a car-dependent society is for all just never stop coming.

by Cavan on Feb 19, 2009 3:08 pm • link • report

You can increase penalties all you want, but you still have to convince 12 people, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone is at fault. That is the difference between a headlight ticket and a manslaughter or reckless driving ticket. The headlight one is not worth fighting, the others requires you to lawyer up and go to battle.

by RJ on Feb 19, 2009 3:08 pm • link • report

they ticketed an 8 year old? and took her bike? sounds make up.

by Sir Spicious on Feb 19, 2009 3:14 pm • link • report

Somebody please tell Officer Baker that probability of fatality from being hit by a car goes up exponentially with each increased mph of speed.

E.g. at ~19mph the p. of death=10%; at ~25 mph p.=20%; 31mph p.=40%; 37mph p.=70%.

A 30% increased probability the pedestrian will be killed from getting hit by a car going 30 mph to one going 37 mph.

http://www.erso.eu/knowledge/content/40_pedestrians/no_speed_no_mass_and_no_protection.htm

Automobile collisions are the number one cause of death in the US for ages 1-34 (2004 CDC report).

by Bianchi on Feb 19, 2009 3:32 pm • link • report

Note that baker points the finger at peds *and* drivers:

"People walking and driving are not aware of their surroundings as much as they should be"

Perhaps MPDC, and Baker, should do some more ticketing of drivers with cellphones.

That said, while it seems inapplicable in this case, Baker's fundamental point is right in this case--there are a lot of peds who aren't paying attention to anything other than the person on the other end of the line.

by ah on Feb 19, 2009 3:36 pm • link • report

@Bianchi

Actually, given the statistics you just cited, the probability of a pedestrian fatality increases 30 percentage points from 31mph to 37mph, or 75%. Being careful with how you talk about statistics makes your point more persuasive.

by B on Feb 19, 2009 3:46 pm • link • report

In general, when bikers start obeying all traffic laws like they are suppose to, then maybe they will start gaining more respect on the road. I have been walking and hit by a biker in a cross walk when I had the right of way. Guy told me to watch where I was going.

by bob on Feb 19, 2009 3:53 pm • link • report

RJ, there's nothing for me to fight. The light was burned out and that's the law -$50 for that offense in which no one was hurt. My point is that I think, and I'm sure you disagree, that accountability could and should be built into the code the same as it is for a burned out light when someone is killed, regardless of circumstances. If there's provable drunk driving or something then that would be in addition to the 2 points or $50 ticket for "operating a car that struck and killed someone". MD State police do not routinely test for alcohol in collisions. They are forbidden by law to do so unless there is an obvious reason to suspect. There was nothing intentional in the burned out light. I did not intend to drive with one headlight and I had no control over when it burned out, yet I'm responsible. I'm just saying that loss of human life seems more important then a headlight but the code doesn't recognize it.

by Bianchi on Feb 19, 2009 3:55 pm • link • report

B, yes Thank you. the proabablity of death increases 75% (or 30 percentage points) from 30mph to 37mph.

by Bianchi on Feb 19, 2009 4:01 pm • link • report

Maybe Baker meant that of the speeders, most averaged between 34 and 37 mph? (Still, to say "most averaged" is also a bit of a statistical fudging.)

by NotInTheCoolCrowd on Feb 19, 2009 4:03 pm • link • report

@notinthecoolcrowd: I took it to mean a statistical fudging of a bell curve with the majority of traffic being around 34-37 mph, with outliers above and below.

by ah on Feb 19, 2009 4:09 pm • link • report

Can you update the last list please? What about the ped struck on Neb and Ct.? Was she killed (I forget)? Thanks.

by Jazzy on Feb 19, 2009 4:11 pm • link • report

bianchi-the difference is that the headlight is totally in your control, whereas pedestrians are not. Pedestrians do sometimes jaywalk, and to assign liability to drivers in all cases would violate most peoples' sense of fundamental fairness. As it is, if you strike a pedestrian in a crosswalk you are essentially automatically deemed in violation of some traffic law. As for murder/manslaughter, why should the rules for that be changed when you're driving a car as opposed to doing anything else?

by ah on Feb 19, 2009 4:15 pm • link • report

Oh, and if the penalty for a busted headlight were 2-5 years in jail, rather than $50, I'll bet you would want the chance to challenge it, and you probably would be able to mount a pretty successful defense that the headlight had been out for only a couple hours and you never intended to violate safety laws. And a jury would likely acquit.

The fact that the fine is only $50 means it's not worth society's while to spend time adjudicating your intent or whether you keep your car in good shape, etc.

by ah on Feb 19, 2009 4:17 pm • link • report

Around 13,000 more people every year are killed by cars than by guns. Perhaps we should ban cars and give all the firearms companies big stimulus packages and give citizens tax breaks for buying new guns. I'm not sure why our society is so warped that 43,000+ car deaths in the US every year is acceptable.

by ontarioroader on Feb 19, 2009 4:19 pm • link • report

Ah said, "Pedestrians do sometimes jaywalk, and to assign liability to drivers in all cases would violate most peoples' sense of fundamental fairness. As it is, if you strike a pedestrian in a crosswalk you are essentially automatically deemed in violation of some traffic law."

The pedestrian in upper NW was in the crosswalk, and the "some kind of traffic violation" the driver was cited for was going through a yellow light. The recently struck ped in upper NW was not jaywalking. The two women killed last year by a metrobus drivr were not jaywalking. So many instances of pedestrian fatalities that did NOT involve jaywalking.

by Jazzy on Feb 19, 2009 4:20 pm • link • report

Bianchi,

My point is that this is more of a judicial problem than a legislative one. Sure if you drove around with a burned out light and then you hit and killed someone, the DA would have to look at the circumstance of the case and decide to prosecute or not. Most likely the DA would do nothing in this case because the evidence is just not there to support a prosecution. This would only leave the issue of burned out light, which of course the accused could fight, but the evidence threshold for prosecution is must lower. Accidents rarely produce enough evidence to point to one direction or the other, and to establish fault beyond a reasonable doubt is very difficult. Plus you have to deal with a jury, that in almost all cases, are filled with drivers, who would be more sympathetic the defense than in most in any other type of trial. The problem isn’t that the vehicle code is not written strictly enough, it is that pesky 6th amendment.

by RJ on Feb 19, 2009 4:29 pm • link • report

Jazzy -- I understand that. I was discussing the general case, not the specific one. Bianchi was proposing a rule that would make any driver striking a pedestrian liable, regardless of the circumstances. I was suggesting such a rule might not be appropriate.

In the specific case, liability was assigned to the driver, and it's not really at issue, so I don't think there's any debate on that one.

by ah on Feb 19, 2009 4:41 pm • link • report

"I'm not sure why our society is so warped that 43,000+ car deaths in the US every year is acceptable."

Perhaps you would prefer the alternative society we had around 1900 when there were no cars?

We make tradeoffs. Every piece of technology that improves quality of life also carries risks; the question is only if that risk is acceptable. Obviously, the vast majority of people in this country answer "yes" to that question when it comes to driving, flying in an airplane, riding a train.

We could halve all speed limits in the country and aggressively enforce them, that would probably eliminate a lot of those deaths. But then again, it would dramatically increase the time required for any trip by car. The additional time would have significant consequences - it would increase the cost of goods which are transported by common carrier; it would worsen congestion on heavily traveled routes since fewer cars per hour can pass through; it would make certain types of leisure trips less enjoyable or impossible because of the added time.

Riding a bicycle is riskier than walking. I am assuming that you believe that small risk is worth it when you decide whether to ride your bike or walk somewhere because of the time you save.

by Jamie on Feb 19, 2009 4:47 pm • link • report

Couple of suggestions for David - one, can you update the list on this entry? Two, maybe when people click on the "transit" tag, some kind of stat/counter is available to show the number of pedestrians and bicyclists struck down in traffic - ahem - accidents. Just to dramatize or illustrate it more. Three, unrelated to this entry - can you add a "transit subsidies" or "highway subsidies" tag? And it would be great for the next discussioin of hiway subsidies, to really break down where the funding comes from (not just big groups like, "public financing").

by Jazzy on Feb 19, 2009 4:58 pm • link • report

rj I agree murder/mansl. laws should not be changed when driving as opposed to other activity/actions. I didn't suggest that. I suggested that regardless of circumstances if i hit a pedestrian/kid-on-a-bike I should be held to a minimum level of responsibility just as I am for a burned out light. If it's deemed I murdered the person that would be another charge/penalty in addition to the minimum one.

I am not in total control of the light. If i had been able to magically make it work I would have. It's inevitable the light will burn out. No one has control over when that happens.

The greater problem, which i think this ticketing thing would begin to address-again in my perspective but probably not yours, is the prevailing attitude/societal more that pedestrians/bikers be held fully responsibility for their own deaths when they are struck and killed by motorists.

Motorists, in my perspective, have a special responsibility to look out for the saftey of pedestrians/bikers b/c in a collision the ped is killed, not the other way around.

The attitude placing extra responsibility on peds is expressed by the Officer, who expresses concern, when he thinks it's okay for drivers to be going 4-7 mph over the speed limit in the exact place where so many pedestrians have been killed by cars. It's expressed in the fact the speed limit is 30 and not 25 given the probablity for survival in the differences of those speeds. It's expressed in the badly designed roads that facilitate fatal collisions between peds and cars. Badly designed roads for pedestrians that is. It's expressed in the short cross times across Conn Ave. What is it at that intersection-18 seconds? That's not enough time for a lively 30 something to get across w/o hurrying. There is a retirement home right near that intersection. The cross time isn't long enough for the elders to get across. We, societally, value motorists getting through the intersection faster more than we do giving time to the elders to get across safety.

All of this together is indicative of societal mores that place priorty status on motorists over pedestrians.

by Bianchi on Feb 19, 2009 4:58 pm • link • report

"The State of Maryland values a burned out bulb more then a human life."

Hyperbole like this weakens otherwise sensible points. When you make this type of inflamatory statement, it detracts from your credibility (at a minimum) - at the extreme, it gives readers reason to think you are a zealot who is not open to logic-based discussions.

by dcd on Feb 19, 2009 6:44 pm • link • report

Is it hyperbole, though?

Matthew Yglesias featues a discussion on ped safety today

The community, including our neighborhood association, has been pushing DDOT for a number of changes to the area. One thing we’d like to see is for them to take down the freeway-style signs on New York Avenue. And another is to increase the amount of time pedestrians are given to cross the street. DDOT has responded to the queries about that and they’re saying ‘no’. And beneath all the verbiage in their reply, what they’re saying comes down to the basic point that if you gave pedestrians more time to cross New York Avenue, that would slow New York Avenue traffic. Which seems fair enough. But by the same token, if you slowed New York Avenue traffic down, you’d make it easier to cross the street.
And Marc Fischer agrees that not enough is done to deter pedestrian deaths (holding drivers accountable) -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/02/18/DI2009021802844.html

by Jazzy on Feb 19, 2009 7:02 pm • link • report

@ontarioroader

"Perhaps we should ban cars and give all the firearms companies big stimulus packages and give citizens tax breaks for buying new guns."

More Americans are killed abroad from vehicle accidents than terrorism . Perhaps we should pull out of the sandbox, launch a "war on cars" and nuke Australia.

I'm being stupid, but absolutely hear what you're saying. There are countless examples of things like this. Social Security is indexed to inflation, but the gas tax is not (nor is the minimum wage). You get fined for littering, but McDonald's is not required to pay any more taxes to a city that has to empty the trash produced by its customers. And so on and so on. It all comes down to what we value as a society (and what terrifies us). It also comes down to some of the failures of our particular brand of democracy.

by JTS on Feb 19, 2009 8:04 pm • link • report

Is that area really even a 30mph zone? I would have figured Nebraska at least was no more than 25mph given the residential nature of the street. Either way Officer Baker's response to speeding is well, irresponsible- though not unexpected.

Part of the blame needs to fall on us bike/ped advocates however. Until we collectively demand that a)MPD start a traffic enforcement division to enforce the real speed limits b)engineers start making streets with a design speed of 25-30mph (or at least traffic calm on the streets we have) instead of 40-50mph design speed then this is going to continually be a reoccurring problem throughout the city.

by jeff on Feb 19, 2009 8:11 pm • link • report

@Jeff

hear hear.

by JTS on Feb 19, 2009 8:33 pm • link • report

@dcd - right on. There are strong enough arguments to be made without resorting to over the top hyperbole. The hyperbole is weakening the message rather than aiding.

by Paul S on Feb 19, 2009 8:58 pm • link • report

As I asked before, how is that hyperbole?

by Jazzy on Feb 19, 2009 9:05 pm • link • report

I think it is hyperbole to say that Maryland cares more about broken lightbulbs than pedestrian lives.. The fine for a lightbulb is $50. For killing a pedestrian, it's potentially a severe jail sentence. The difference is because of the severity of punishment, Maryland (or let's just say, "the government") gives someone who kills a pedestrian a meaningful opportunity to prove they should not be punished.

by ah on Feb 19, 2009 9:19 pm • link • report

@ah - It's good to be reminded that no one ever engages in hyperbole on the internet.

by Ben Ross on Feb 19, 2009 9:33 pm • link • report

@JTS: I'm late to this thread, but Virginia does have a $10 per year "litter tax (PDF)" on businesses.

You owe $10 per year if you retail any of these:

• Food for human or pet consumption

• Groceries

• Cigarettes and tobacco products

• Soft drinks and carbonated waters

• Motor vehicle parts

• Distilled spirits, wine, beer and other malt beverages

• Newspapers and magazines

• Paper products and household paper

• Metal and glass containers

• Plastic or fiber containers made of synthetic material

• Cleaning agents and toiletries

• Non-drug drugstore sundry products

You also owe an additional $15 per year if you retail beverage containers, essentially.

I'm summarizing heavily, so read the PDF if you're really curious.

by Michael Perkins on Feb 19, 2009 9:46 pm • link • report

Bianchi,

I suggest you take that $50 ticket to court and fight it. The MSPD is not suppose to issue citation for burned out lights they are suppose to issue repair orders. I quit counting the number of time I have been pulled over and issued repair orders by the various police agencies in the state of Maryland. Hell one night I was pulled by two different municipal police officers for the same burned out head light. Before the second cop got a chance the explain why he pulled me over I showed him the repair order issued to me earlier that evening. After seeing repair orders he thanked me and went back to his car, got in and drove off.

by Sand Box John on Feb 19, 2009 10:47 pm • link • report

@Michael Perkins: I Did not know that. Thanks for the insight!

by JTS on Feb 20, 2009 7:54 am • link • report

@Ben Ross--there'd be less of it if Maryland cared more about hyperbole on the internet than it does about broken headlights.

by ah on Feb 20, 2009 9:58 am • link • report

I appreciate a lot of what you're saying, but you're going off the deep end. The fact that an accident occurred and someone died does not mean that the person who lived goes to jail, or should go to jail. That's not being "auto-centric". It's a central feature of the criminal justice system.

Now, whether or not certain presumptions ought to apply in -civil- cases is an entirely different policy discussion, and one that's a lot more interesting. This kind of ranting makes the author look like a zealot.

by rumpole on Feb 20, 2009 10:20 am • link • report

The fact of the matter is that pedestrians are more likely to be at fault than the driver is. Just because Marc Fisher or whoever makes a pronouncement based on nothing but a couple recent stories in the news, does not make it true.

Marc: "So I'm with you--the problem here is motorists far more than it is pedestrians, and the distraction issue is more pertinent to the folks behind the steering wheel than to those moseying along the avenue. "

Reality: http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/pedestrians.html

"A 2002 Institute study of pedestrian deaths in Baltimore and Washington, DC, revealed that pedestrians were more likely than drivers to be judged at fault in these collisions (50 percent versus 39 percent)."

"The contribution of alcohol to pedestrian deaths is major. In 2006, 37 percent of fatally injured pedestrians 16 and older had blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent. Fifty-four percent of pedestrians 16 and older who were fatally injured in nighttime crashes (9 p.m. to 6 a.m.) had high BACs."

by Jamie on Feb 20, 2009 10:35 am • link • report

The protests about hyperbole are themselves becoming hysterical. I think the original point was that in many cases, the drivers are not even cited. No points, no fine, nothing. Which is more than what happened to Bianchi when her light went out.

by Jazzy on Feb 20, 2009 10:37 am • link • report

Are the BAC at which you're not competent to operate a motor vehicle and the BAC at which you're not competent to walk down the street really the same?

by Johanna on Feb 20, 2009 10:42 am • link • report

Thanks for the link to the industry web site on HIGHWAYS.

by Jazzy on Feb 20, 2009 10:43 am • link • report

Is your point that because the data is from NHTSA, which is an evil government agency designed to kill pedestrians, it must of course be completely fictional?

It's hard to have a rational discussion with people who rejects actual data, but accept as gospel anecdotal, completely unsubstantiated conjecture.

by Jamie on Feb 20, 2009 10:56 am • link • report

Forget my point. Why don't you just say what that study tells you?

by Jazzy on Feb 20, 2009 10:59 am • link • report

At the risk of being overly dramatic, I was hit crossing the street in Rockville in November and so far it's all been my fault, even though I was in the crosswalk, and to my knowledge not against the light. But the Rockville police say otherwise, because they showed up, saw my body and a car and decided, without interviewing me or the driver, or witnesses, of which there was a full bus stop, (seriously) it was my fault. Because I totally wanted to throw myself out into traffic. The more channels I go through--insurance, doctors, hospitals--the more people I find who say, "You should learn to cross the street better," despite a lifetime of responsible pedestrian activity. If I had been a car there's no question that it wouldn't have been my fault.

(I think I said this all already, and if so, apologies to GGW. It's just so hard to believe sometimes that I thought derailing my life would be a good idea.)

Thank you for responding to David Baker's asinine position. GGW is an important blog to me, and I think that if this post had fully supported his ideas I would be heartbroken.

by Katherine on Feb 20, 2009 10:59 am • link • report

Er, huh? I thought that was pretty clear from my original post. Let me try again.

The study tells me that it is not true, contrary to Marc Fisher and others' unsubstantiated assertions, that "the motorist is the problem far more than the pedestrian."

by Jamie on Feb 20, 2009 11:01 am • link • report

Jazzy -- in most cases, drivers with non-functioning equipment are not cited. Drive around, and the number of brake lights, headlights, etc. that are clearly not functioning are astounding. I very much doubt they are all being cited. Bianchi drew the short straw on that one for sure.

(Maryland might do better to require routine inspections, instead of relying on police)

by ah on Feb 20, 2009 11:09 am • link • report

Jazzy -- the fact that the study was by IIHS doesn't mean it related solely to highways.

by ah on Feb 20, 2009 11:12 am • link • report

Johanna -- I believe they used .08 as a threshold to determine drunkeness, not because it is some legal threshold. I think it is fair to say that if someone is at .08, even a pedestrian is likely to have impaired judgment that may lead them to cross a street when it is not safe.

by ah on Feb 20, 2009 11:14 am • link • report

AH: As Katherine's experience points out, just because pedestrians are usually found to be responsible doesn't tell us how often they actually are responsible.

Anyway, nobody is saying that all drivers who hit any pedestrian should go to jail. However, the police seem to simply assume that the pedestrian or cyclist is at fault, and drivers who contribute in some way, like speeding, still typically still face no penalties whatsoever.

by David Alpert on Feb 20, 2009 11:16 am • link • report

@David, while I am sure that is true sometimes, I'm sure the opposite also happens. The point is, the data on file is the best there is and it's a lot more meaningful than just making something up. It does nobody any favors to pretend that pedestrians don't endanger their own lives on a regular basis when they break the law.

If we want to make the streets safer for everyone, peds, cyclists, and drivers alike, then everyone needs to drop the rhetoric and be willing to look at the best information available about the causes and types of accidents, instead of just saying the drivers are always at fault because they speed or have a burned-out headlight.

And there is at least one person is saying that all drivers who hit any pedestrian should be held responsible.

Bianchi - "I suggested that regardless of circumstances if i hit a pedestrian/kid-on-a-bike I should be held to a minimum level of responsibility"

by Jamie on Feb 20, 2009 11:23 am • link • report

David--agreed. The data are weak to the extent they are based on police reports, which some contend are biased against pedestrians. On the other hand, the fact that katherine has had her accident classified incorrectly doesn't mean that is epidemic. (Indeed, the Conn/Neb. accident appears to have resulted in the driver being deemed at fault for running a yellow.) Or that there is systematic bias--absent such data showing who "really" was at fault, I don't see how anyone can contend the figures are biased one way or the other.

As both a walker and a driver, I see plenty of drivers run red lights (including improper right on red). And I see plenty of pedestrians cross right in front of me, mid-street, when I have a green light. So no one group is innocent here.

by ah on Feb 20, 2009 11:38 am • link • report

Yes. This is the model in the Netherlands. The thinking is that in a collision between a car and a person-not-in-a-car the collision will always result in serious or fatal injury to the person-not-in-the-car while the person-driving-the-car while be unharmed. Therefore the onous(sp?) for preventing such collisions is placed on the driver. The driver is expected to take on extra responsibility. This expectation of extra responsibility is expressed in the traffic code. One way to codify/socially express this type of expectation is to assign first responsibility to the driver - as an expression of the extra responsibility people are expected to take on when we drive.

We cannot control the behavior of others but when we drive we have control over our own behavior. To say "oh well of course a pedestrian is going to get hurt if s/he is hit so s/he should take on extra responsibility to stay out of the way" is a bully's attitude. The person who has the potential to do the most harm is the person who bears the greatest responsibility for preventing the harm. (My perspective-feel free to respectfully disagree). It's a nuanced philosophical discussion about a mode/perspective that is already in place in another 1st world westrn nation that contrasts with our own typical way of approaching how car-drivers, pedestrains and bikers can share the road equitably-where the definition of equitable includes expectation on the part of walkers and bikers that we won't be run down by a driver who ADMITS to running a yellow light yet is not held responsible for hitting us when we are in the crosswalk. Part of the reason we have laws/codes is to deter behavior and to educate. Do you think this driver would have made a different set of decisions when the light turned yellow in a crowded city neighborhood with lots of pedestrians if s/he had grown up accustomed to thinking of him/herself as bearing primary responsibility for avaoiding collisions with pedestrains and expected to modify his/her behavior accordingly? I am the same person when i drive as when i walk yet when i drive i am given priviledge I don't have when i walk. When I walk or bike I am expected to stay the hell out of the way and if I don't and get hit it's my fault.

by Bianchi on Feb 20, 2009 12:02 pm • link • report

So the upshot of this philosophy is that the ones with the most to lose (pedestrians) should not be expected to take any responsibility for keeping themselves alive?

My feeling is quite the opposite. When you are 200 lbs. of flesh, and you are potentially facing 3000 lbs. of steel, you damn well better pay attention because even if you're technically "right," you're still "dead." At the Connecticut & Nebraska incident, it seems clear the driver was at fault. But what also seems clear is that the victim started crossing the street without even looking to see if a car was coming. While I certainly place blame on the driver, at the end of the day, the one with the most to lose (the pedestrian) is the only one who can ensure that they don't get run over. LOOK BEFORE YOU WALK INTO A STREET!

Have you ever spent even 10 minutes on, say, U street after 8 PM? Pedestrians do whatever they damn please. They run between moving cars. They cross against lights. The saunter across an intersection, failing to clear it long after the lights have changed, possibly out of view of someone in another lane. I would say I slam on my brakes to avoid hitting a pedestrian crossing illegally at least once a week if not more.

There are many, many conceivable scenarios in which a pedestrian places himself unavoidably in the path of a moving vehicle. The law you propose is stupid because it will inevitably punish innocent people.

by Jamie on Feb 20, 2009 12:13 pm • link • report

Have you ever spent even 10 minutes on, say, U street after 8 PM?

Have you? 4-8 foot sidewalks can't contain that level of pedestrian traffic. Couple that with the short intervals at lights crossing U St. means you have to be at the corner when it changes or forget about it; and fighting drivers making turns for the same space in the same short time and its hardly hospitable. Given the proximity to high density neighborhoods, Metro stations, major bus lines and bike routes, why would you want the automobile to have priority through there?

Driving in this country is supposed to be a privilege, while walking should be an inherent right. Unfortunately the reality is the exact opposite.

by jeff on Feb 20, 2009 12:39 pm • link • report

The woman struck and killed in the crosswalk at Conn&Neb was innocent. She had the walk signal. The ticket the driver was given was for running a yellow. The driver has not been held to any level of responisbility for hitting and killing someone. At this same interecstion a police officer who expressed concern for how pedestrians and drivers behave ACCEPTED that most people were driving 34-37mph. You might think it's a stupid model. It's the model in the netherlands most famously (other western nations lean more this way then our way) and they (ND) have a very successful road safety record. the model is not just traffic tickets but includes saftey education beginning in the earliest grades. I think our current model is stupid.

by Bianchi on Feb 20, 2009 12:42 pm • link • report

Bianchi, the bottom line is very simple. You do not have control over whether a car is breaking the law. They could be drunk, rushing someone to the hospital, or just driving too fast. You do not have control over whether someone is running a red light, or whether perhaps a police car or emergency vehicle is speeding through an intersection.

However, you do have control over whether or not you decide to step in front of them. If you want to live in the moral high ground, then fine, but you will probably not live very long.

by Jamie on Feb 20, 2009 1:16 pm • link • report

Jamie, do you really think that there are hordes upon hordes of pedestrians who are stepping in front of speeding cars on purpose just so that they can live in the moral high ground? It doesn't make any sense.

Shifting the presumption of legal responsibility away from the pedestrians and toward the drivers is probably not going to make pedestrians any less careful when crossing the street, for exactly the reason you mentioned: When you're dead, it doesn't matter to you whether you're legally right or legally wrong. But I bet that it will make drivers more careful.

Here is a question: I've seen crosswalks (I think in Falls Church, maybe other places too) with signs for drivers that say things like "$500 fine for failing to yield to pedestrians." Are there any fewer fatalities at these crosswalks than at others? Do pedestrians behave any more recklessly? Do drivers behave any more carefully? Anybody know?

by Johanna on Feb 20, 2009 1:40 pm • link • report

johanna--do you think there are hordes upon hordes of drivers who are speeding with the purpose of mowing down pedestrians?

I doubt it--I don't believe that either drivers or pedestrians are trying to create accidents. The question is who should be taking more care (both) and who should be responsible when either or both do not take sufficient care that an accident happens.

by ah on Feb 20, 2009 1:49 pm • link • report

BTW, I don't believe the woman struck at Conn/Neb. was killed. She suffered "serious" injuries, but not death.

by ah on Feb 20, 2009 1:51 pm • link • report

Do you really think that there's any driver on earth who considers hitting a pedestrian anything other than the worst thing that could happen?

Do you think that people are any safer in a car with a "baby on board" placard? Has anyone who rear-ended someone else actually said, "wow, if you'd had a baby on board placard, I wouldn't have decided to rear end you."

The whole point here is that accidents are accidents. I think most people assume that if they run over a pedestrian they are in a world of crap. $500? There are $500 parking tickets in this town. The punishment doesn't matter for situations like this because these are things that people don't do on purpose. You don't say "I'm going to run over a pedestrian because the punishment isn't that bad," or "Gee, there's a pretty stiff penalty for hitting someone so I guess I'll avoid that today."

Nobody wants to hit a pedestrian. But yet it still happens, and even in situations where the driver broke a law, many times (like this one) the pedestrian could have avoided it entirely by simply being alert.

The culture needs to change, not the laws. We need to start enforcing red-light running and speeding in the city. And we also need to make pedestrians realize that they are far from invincible, and it doesn't matter who's at fault when you're dead.

by Jamie on Feb 20, 2009 1:52 pm • link • report

I thought DC has a standing law requiring cars to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks? shouldn't pedestrian advocates start demanding that police enforce that rule to the point where it becomes common knowledge and practice? Look at Massachusetts. Everytime I'm there I am so hesitant to cross, thinking it's like DC, yet every time I do, it is because a car stopped (they always do). Why are Boston/Cambridge drivers so much more courteous to pedestrians and DC drivers are not? Both municipalities have the same law on the books. What's the deal?

by anonymous on Feb 20, 2009 2:35 pm • link • report

@anonymous -- DC has a similar law, but like most traffic laws enforcement is pathetic.

Many of these discussions, however, relate to intersections where there are lights as well. In that case, the pedestrian has the right of way only when getting a walk sign. (Or, put the other way around: there's no requirement for a car to stop for a ped. when it is proceeding straight through a green light [turning is different]).

by ah on Feb 20, 2009 2:46 pm • link • report

I wish there were an ethicist or logician reading these posts to synopsize them and point out the ways we are talking past each other.

by Jazzy on Feb 20, 2009 2:50 pm • link • report

Jamie, you placed responsibility on the pedestrian by stating that she didn't look to see if a car was coming. How do you know? Maybe she did look and didn't see it. Did the car have it's headlights on? (one or both). That would have made the car more visible. Maybe the pedestrian has impaired sight. It's this very attitude -that the pedestrian is held responisble first regardless of circumstances that contributes to our national appaling pedestrain saftey record. Back in 1972 The Netherlands had the same rate of death as the US. They made conscious descisions to improve the environment and the death rate has gone down every year since then (trend) and they now have the best record in the EU.

anon, DC does have those laws but they aren't enforced. Indeed speeding through that intersection was viewed as acceptable by an officer of the law.

ah, I agree, this apparently controversial idea I suggested is beside the point. Lets focus instead on the solutions for preventing collisions. We all agree collisions are bad for both people invloved, driver and walker. We can and should protect both drivers and walkers from life-altering collisions. For this we need to improve our built environment. Attitudes take generations to change but there are things that can be done to make immediate improvements. Those solutions are design improvemnts, educational campaigns and enforcement of current laws, i.e. speeding through an intersection known for it's collisions should not be tolerated.

by Bianchi on Feb 20, 2009 2:56 pm • link • report

I didn't say the pedestrian was responsible. I said that the pedestrian could have protected themselves in light of the law-breaking driver simply by being more alert.

The eyewitness account is very clear. The driver ran a yellow light, and so clearly was already in the intersection at the time the signal changed to "walk." The person was only steps off the sidewalk at the time of the collision, so the car could not have been far away.

You don't think that every pedestrian should be at least alert enough to ensure that there isn't a car actually in the intersection, moving at maybe 30 MPH in their direction, most likely less than 50 feet away, before stepping into a road, regardless of whether the sign says "walk" or "don't walk?"

This is not about assigning blame, it's simple self-preservation. The attitude of pedestrians in this city is frequently one of invincibility, not of self preservation.

I am no apologist for drivers breaking the law. I agree we need better enforcement; speeding and light-running are hardly enforced. But there are just as many situations where pedestrians act with little regard for their own safety. And it is impossible to ensure the safety of someone who doesn't care about it themselves.

by Jamie on Feb 20, 2009 3:08 pm • link • report

Last night I rode in a cab in which the driver had suction-cupped a mini DVD player to the front windshield, driver-side. Larry Cramer's CNN stock show was on. (I mentioned to him that that should be illegal.)

I guess the charge that pedestrians need to take out their iPods and put down their blackberries, needs to be expanded to drivers now.

by Jazzy on Feb 21, 2009 8:56 am • link • report

Jazzy: it is illegal, but like so many other DC laws, it's not enforced.

D.C. Code of Municipal Regulations 735.2 9 (2008): No television equipment shall be installed in or on any motor vehicle in a manner which will make the reception of the television visible to the vehicle operator while the vehicle is in motion.

by ontarioroader on Feb 21, 2009 10:47 am • link • report

"[The police] ended up taking my friends bike and giving her a ticket. She was doing nothing illegal. She was wearing a helmet and going under 25 mph, but they decided that it was her fault that she was hit, not the driver's, who should have looked both ways before backing out. If she had been a driver instead of a biker, the guy who backed out of the driveway would have been at fault."

That's ridiculous; traffic on a road has priority over traffic entering from a driveway that has to yield to the former.

How about an equal protection suit for the bicyclist?

by Douglas Willinger on May 20, 2009 1:15 pm • link • report

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or

Subscribe

All posts RSS · Add to Google

Comments on this post

Posts by David Alpert

Follow on Twitter @ggwash

Become a fan on Facebook

Get a daily summary by email:

Most Active Posts

Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks

Recent Links

Breakfast links: Best policies

Upcoming Events

Archives

2008

February · March · April · May

June · July · August · September

October · November · December

2009

January · February · March · April

May · June · July · August

September · October · November

December

2010

January · February · March · April

May · June · July · August

September · October · November

December

2011

January · February · March · April

May · June · July · August

September · October · November

December

2012

January · February · March · April

May · June · July · August

September · October · November

December

2013

January · February · March · April

May