Posts about Road Safety

Outages are everywhere

From a discussion among our contributors, it seems that neighborhoods with underground power lines, like in the L'Enfant city, fared the best; Dan Malouff wrote that in Dupont, there was "Not even so much as a flicker" of a power outage, and I experienced the same.

Ben Ross said, "Pretty much everyone in Bethesda lost power except the small portion of downtown that has underground wires." Not all places with underground wires were spared; Geoff Hatchard said, "Places like Bloomingdale and Eckington, which have underground lines, still lost power (as they seem to do somewhat regularly). We have underground lines in Trinidad but didn't lose power."

David Klion said, "My family in Chevy Chase lost power. I drove along Colesville Road [last night] and everything outside of downtown Silver Spring was dark, including the traffic lights." Neil Flanagan wrote that in Ward 3, houses seem to be out of power more individually based on where trees came down. John Muller says, "No power in most of Anacostia—street lights out—although the library was wide open for folks until 9."

People have been using public facilities to keep cool and also to charge their phones. Julie Lawson stopped by the Wheaton Mall, and said, "The gym was closed but everything else seemed to be open. Crowds of people huddled around every wall outlet charging their phones, etc. Target was also sold out of car chargers." Matt Johnson agreed: "Downtown Silver Spring had power, and I've never seen it so crowded. Each electrical outlet had people clustered about charging cell phones."

Not every business district had power; Ballston and Clarendon did not. Eric Hallstrom wrote, "We were able to eat, but it was cash only because the phone lines power many of the credit card machines. ... We retained our power [in South Arlington] while many other streets in our neighborhood were without. That led to the interesting phenomena of seeing extension cords running across the streets at regular intervals as neighbors shared their power to keep refrigerators on."

What about transportation?

The outage primarily knocked out power to a lot of traffic lights, and brought trees down on a number of trails. Contributor reports say that by and large the bicycle and pedestrian facilities are working well. AWalkerInTheCity wrote, "The cyclists I've seen out and about seem to be enjoying it, and buses seem to be doing fine."

Ben Ross noted, "Yesterday I rode my bike to Alexandria via the Capital Crescent & Mount Vernon trails. The only real problem in MoCo was one section where a couple of trees had fallen on the electric wires, and the trees and 4 or 5 electric poles were hanging over the road at 45% angles. In DC, there were 4 or 5 places where you had to climb over trees and quite a few more where you had to leave the trail to go around them."

"A portion of the Red line was shut down for at least some of the weekend, and some of the stations lost power. Metro has announced that because of the electrical problems, there may be speed restrictions or slower service tomorrow morning," writes Michael Perkins. Ben Ross took the Red Line from Farragut North to Friendship Heights yesterday with no trouble.

Places with a street grid also benefited from having alternate routes around problems. "Although some residential streets were blocked with downed trees or power lines, Arlington's grid or semi-grid pattern of streets meant that there were always other ways to get there," said Michael Perkins.

It's been tougher with the inactive traffic lights. Drivers are supposed to treat them as a 4-way stop, not a yield sign, but not everyone is doing that. Michael Perkins wrote: "There were a lot of traffic signals which were not working, notably on Arlington Boulevard (US 50) from Clarendon to Seven Corners.

"At many of these intersections, Arlington Police Department had blocked the median of the major thoroughfare, blocking left turns across the highway. This helped traffic flow tremendously. Most of the time, drivers treated these uncontrolled intersections as a hybrid of a stop sign and a yield sign, depending on the amount of cross traffic."

Steven Yates said, "I found a number of traffic lights out with lots of people having no idea how to treat them. I even had to cross one on foot once and that felt like taking my life into my own hands. I was surprised that I didn't see any police officers directing traffic at any of the traffic lights." Julie Lawson added, "Some people obeyed the 4-way stop rule but almost nobody else was, which made the risk of being rear-ended very high."

Matt Johnson had a similar report: "The [Greenbelt] police had closed off all median crossings of Route 193 (Greenbelt Road). I've discovered that in Maryland most drivers treat dark intersections with the equivalency of a green light ("it isn't red, so I don't have to stop, right?") I saw 2 teenagers trying to cross Greenbelt Road almost get nailed. No one was yielding, and I suppose they got tired of waiting.

"At [Colesville Road and] Spring Street, the light was out, and it was a complete free-for-all. Cross-traffic, left turns, through movements, everybody was essentially just pulling into the intersection and hoping the other cars would stop. As we approached, several drivers from several directions had effectively blocked each other from moving, but they worked it out."

Eric Hallstrom noted from Ballston and Clarendon, "It felt a little chaotic, but most drivers were being conscientious about lights. Interesting, many people seemed to still be paying for their parking (because the digital meters were still working), even though it is hard to believe that parking enforcement was out checking."

Sadly, at least one interaction at a darkened signal turned into a tragedy. A driver hit and killed a pedestrian at Columbia Pike and Four Mile Run Drive. There's no information yet about whether the driver disregarded the rule to treat the signal like a stop sign, though that's the most likely way someone would have been killed.

On a lighter note, nothing seems to have changed with the insanity of the cable company. Ben Ross says, "Sunday afternoon, a Comcast truck showed up at our building which had been without cable & Internet since Friday night. The technician had come to connect new subscribers—even though the new subscribers wouldn't get any service. Fix the outage? It wasn't his department. This morning we have our cable back."

What were your experiences with the derecho's wake?

Badger writes,

[H]uman-driven cars would have to wait for a signal that would be optimized based on what everyone else is doing. And the same would be true of pedestrians and bike riders.

That certainly sounds like all other users of the road will have to act at the convenience of the driverless cars, under constraints designed to maximize vehicle movement instead of balance the needs of various users.

My background is in computer science, too, and computer scientists love figuring out how to make complex systems perform efficiently. Driverless cars provide an opportunity to optimize the real-world traffic system, if you can get most people driving computer-controlled cars and can get all of those computers to cooperate.

But you can't optimize people so easily. Already, cities host ongoing and raucous debates over the role of cars versus people on their streets. For over 50 years, traffic engineers with the same dreams about optimizing whizzing cars have designed and redesigned intersections to move more and more vehicles.

These changes frequently pushed other users aside with longer waits for crosswalks, the need to push buttons to get a walk signal, awkward bridges over wider and wider arterials, or simply omitting bike or pedestrian facilities entirely and then blaming those users when careless drivers hit and kill them.

Some pro-automotive advocacy groups like to push the theme of a "war on cars," but bicyclists and pedestrians feel like there's been a war against them since the early 20th century. This Texas team's video just perpetuates that impression.

The video even depicts an intersection with a whopping 12 lanes for each roadway, at a time when most transportation professionals have come to believe that grids of smaller roads, not mega-arterials, are the best approach to mobility in metropolitan areas.

Driverless cars, therefore, are poised to trigger a whole new round of pressure to further redesign intersections for the throughput of vehicles above all else. It won't only happen in the cities, either. Suburban areas are often ground zero for these debates, where the majority of people drive, but a significant and often growing number are either unable to drive due to age or disabilities, or are unable to afford cars. (Driverless cars probably won't be cheaper.)

Suburbs, therefore, often develop a greater tyranny of the majority, where county and state departments of transportation optimize their roadways for car throughput and leave bus stops in awkward and narrow roadside spots, leave crosswalks out or even remove existing ones, and set the stage for rising deaths.

If autonomous cars travel much faster than today's cars and operate closer to other vehicles and obstacles, as we see in the Texas team's simulation, then they may well kill more pedestrians. Or, perhaps the computers controlling them will respond so quickly that they can avoid hitting any pedestrian, even one who steps out in front of a car.

In that case, we might see a small number of people taking advantage of that to cross through traffic, knowing the cars can't kill him. That will slow the cars down, and their drivers will start lobbying for even greater restrictions on pedestrians, like fences preventing midblock crossings.

Our metropolitan areas could then look, more and more, like zoos for humans interlaced with pathways for the dominant species, the robot car. Maybe the machines really are on the way to taking over, but instead of Skynet declaring war on humans, we'll be the ones passing laws and reshaping our communities for their convenience.

I'm not suggesting we avoid research into driverless cars. Like any technology, they can bring good or evil, depending how society handles them. Driverless cars can allow buses to become on-demand jitneys and virtually eliminate the need to own a personal car in a city, or to build huge amounts of parking under office buildings. Instead of storing cars during the day, they can just drive around and transport people like taxis.

But we do need researchers excited about driverless cars not to forget the human element. The goal of our built environment is not to move cars as fast as possible everywhere, but to create a better quality of life. The computer science researchers need to also talk to their colleagues in other disciplines, set appropriate goals that consider all users of the roads, and think about what algorithms can actually make life better.

Cross-posted at The Atlantic Cities.

The stories, like many press accounts about traffic cameras, are fairly one-sided, assuming that all readers drives, not walk or bike, and all of the drivers care more about having to pay a ticket than about being safe on the roads. Fox reporter Brian Ackland starts out with the leading question, "Is it about safety or is it really about making money?" Then, he talks only about the money and not at all about the safety.

Like too many reporters, he also quotes AAA and nobody else. There's one paraphrase of something Mayor Gray said in "a recent interview" on the opposing side. There are actually many groups in DC, like the Pedestrian Advisory Council, which have advocated and testified around cameras, and could provide a meaningful perspective from those who like the safety effect of cameras.

Still, the original petition has a point. A $40 fine in Maryland seems to get people to drive slower. Does DC need higher fines?

It would make sense to lower fines, if DC adds more cameras to catch more unsafe behavior. The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) issued an RFP in June to buy more cameras, including ones that can detect drivers blocking crosswalks, not stopping before turning right on red, and not stopping when another vehicle stops to let a pedestrian cross. Some of the cameras will be mobile, so MPD can periodically move them to hot spots where residents have complained about dangerous driving.

Unfortunately, the RFP is still stuck in procurement, and it's been well over a year since MPD publicly talked about getting these cameras. Whichever agency or official currently needs to sign off, for whatever step it's at, should move it forward swiftly, and start the process to get even more cameras. Then, it may make sense to lower the fines.

How does the level of fines relate to the number of cameras? To achieve the goal of deterring unsafe driving, we can either hit drivers with huge charges when they're caught, or just catch them more often.

Criminologist Mark Kleiman has done substantial research on the tradeoff between the severity of punishment and the certainty of getting caught. A long prison term might deter someone from a crime more than a short prison term, but a far better deterrent is simply arresting people more quickly and more frequently when they commit a crime.

Kleiman studied fairly complex policing strategies to achieve this in criminal law, such as focusing intense police attention on a certain area for a period of time. For traffic, it's simple. With cameras, it's possible to enforce more of the laws against unsafe driving behavior, more of the time.

At a recent policy forum, I met Kleiman and asked him what he thought of cameras. He said the ideal enforcement system would be one where running a red light, or speeding, triggered a fine every time, but the fine was fairly low.

We'd need to make sure it's high enough that wealthier people don't just decide to constantly run red lights (which is dangerous) and then pay the extra cost, but it doesn't need to be very high. Experimentation could determine the lowest level of fine that actually deters the dangerous behavior.

And what of the argument that this is all about money? Lower fines but more cameras would prove it's not really about money. So would a policy of keeping the camera revenue out of general spending. Camera revenue used to go into a special fund to pay for traffic safety programs. Mayor Gray ended almost all such funds when he took office, but keeping the fund would ensure that nobody is trying to soak speeders just to pay for other priorities.

Regardless, DC needs to break the infuriating logjam in procurement. These cameras pay for themselves through tickets. In a for-profit company, a division that brought in revenue that covered costs would get to keep growing. Government budgeting doesn't work that way, and MPD can't simply take the money from camera tickets and buy more cameras. They need the Mayor and Council to allocate budget to buy and maintain the cameras, even when the effect is to return all the money to the budget for the next year.

Mayor Gray and the DC Council: Please put more cameras on the streets. Then, let's seriously look at whether we can still deter unsafe driving with lower fines.

page/2

Our current Breakfast Link editors are looking to move on from curating the links each day. Meanwhile, many of our contributors now use Twitter, and can submit or curate items through that service.

We decided to try creating a links post collaboratively, by building the post from tweets contributors and readers sent in to a new Twitter account, @GGWashTips, plus some from our regular tip queue. This is the result.

Have a tip for the tweets? Tweet it to @GGWashTips.

Want to edit the Breakfast Links in either the old style or this one? Email us at info@ggwash.org.

The above is not, you might guess, what the Post article said. But it said the exact same thing, substituting the act of speeding for shoplifting. Ashley Halsey III printed this article on Wednesday, writing:

When zipping through the near-vacant streets of the District on Thanksgiving, most drivers give thanks for the lack of traffic. They are less likely to be thankful later when they get a speeding ticket in the mail.

AAA cautions its members seeking information on traveling to Washington that the District is a "Strict Enforcement Area" for speeding. "That's a modern-day parlance for speed trap," said AAA's John B. Townsend II. "By zipping through town this weekend, you're likely to speed and to get a ticket."

Nowhere does the article note a simple, but extremely important fact: if you don't break the law, you won't get any tickets. MPD argues that they only place the cameras in areas where there's greater danger to drivers, pedestrians, or cyclists. AAA doesn't think that's true.

We need more traffic cameras, not fewer, and should place them in the real danger spots. DC is getting 9 new permanent cameras, but it's been over a year that MPD has been trying to bring in a more comprehensive system. There would be mobile cameras that they can deploy temporarily at high-danger spots, and cameras to catch box-blocking or failing to yield to pedestrians.

A year ago, MPD's Lisa Sutter told the Pedestrian Advisory Council the camera program was waiting to go through the procurement process. In February, she told John Hendel the same thing. What's the holdup?

Cameras meaningfully reduce fatal crashes, catch unsafe behavior, and even bring in less money than anticipated because people's behavior is changing.

I drove Connecticut Avenue to and from Montgomery County for Thanksgiving, and there's not much speeding, especially in Chevy Chase and Kensington where everyone knows there are cameras.

The only problem with Montgomery's cameras is that people know they only write tickets for driving more than 12 mph over the speed limit. Therefore, many people confidently set the cruise control for 40 in the 30 mph zone. What speed does Maryland want you to drive—30 or 40?

AAA's Lon Anderson told Halsey,

One would think that traffic safety in the city must be going south with this infusion of new camera sites or that the city's coffers desperately need replenishing. So if traffic safety isn't the issue, we must conclude that the city is more concerned that the $43 million netted last fiscal year in automated speeding enforcement was insufficient. If they are for safety, we applaud the city. But if, perchance, they are for revenue, then shame on them.

I can agree with AAA's Lon Anderson on one thing: cameras shouldn't be a revenue grab. In fact, criminal justice science suggests that cameras should carry much lower fines. When we increase the chance of catching lawbreakers, we don't need such high penalties. Just as a 5¢ fee for a plastic bag was enough to significantly change behavior, might a $20 or even $10 ticket stop speeding or red light running if drivers knew they're sure to get caught?

This would be especially fair for box blocking cameras. When we discuss them, many drivers worry that they'll inadvertently get caught blocking the box if they enter an intersection expecting room on the other side, but suddenly find traffic stopping. Many drivers abuse this by moving into intersections even when there's stopped traffic on the far side, but it's true that from time to time the unexpected happens and even a well-behaving driver can get stuck.

Instead of levying a high fine and expecting drivers to contest tickets they think are unfair, just set the fine low, like $10. If you get stuck blocking the box, you did screw up a bit, so pay the fee that's less than the cost of most parking garages anyway. It will only really start hitting people's pocketbooks when they drive in a way that frequently creates box-blocking. Those drivers need to reexamine their actions.

How about it, AAA? Would you join me in lobbying for a Council bill to speed up implementation of a number of box blocking cameras, provided that the fines are set low?

The purple dots represent vehicle occupants—not necessarily drivers—who were killed. It may look like a lot of purple, and it certainly is, but when you zoom in closer you see a lot of blue dots, for pedestrians, as well as an awful lot of yellow dots, for motorcyclists.

The green dots for bicyclists are fewer and farther between, but if you zoom into the cities, you'll find them. Each dot even lists the year of the crash and the victim's age and gender.

ITO World got their fatality data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It appears they've captured not just fatalities on highways but on local streets as well.

The World Health Organization reports 12.3 annual traffic deaths per 100,000 inhabitants in the United States. Compare that with 3.85 in Japan and 4.5 in Germany. If the U.S. achieved similar rates, more than 20,000 deaths would be prevented each year.

This map is a useful way of visualizing the terrible consequences of our auto-addicted culture. Beyond that, it can be an indispensable tool for community transportation advocates to show local officials where problem spots are and how their community compares to others.

Just counting collisions misses important facts

How many of these were just property damage? Minor injuries? Major or disabling injuries? Fatalities? It's important to keep in mind that in the District, the number of traffic fatalities each year can usually be counted on one hand.

Some road designs reduce severe crashes but potentially increase minor collisions. For example, many areas are finding "modern roundabouts," the small circles without signals, to be a fantastic alternative to huge intersections with multiple turn lanes or freeway-style interchanges. They move traffic more smoothly and safely, but minor collisions are more common while major ones are less so. Limbs and lives are more valuable than bumpers.

On the flip side, bad road design can contribute to collisions. Short yellow lights or poorly-coordinated signals can lead to red light running. Poor signage or markings can confuse drivers and induce sudden movements. And what about maintenance? Crumbling roads can damage cars, potentially adding to the collision tally if the person places a claim with Allstate.

What about other modes? If the methodology counts based on Allstate claims, it might undercount pedestrians or cyclists being struck who might not have insurance. That could penalize cities with good ped/bike safety practices. On the other hand, areas with more walking and bicycling can require more attention from drivers than areas with long, straight, very wide roads where nobody dares walk, and the rate of cars touching each other might be higher despite the many other benefits of these more lively places.

We also can't let Allstate's and the press's repeated usage of the word "accidents" pass by. When we have thoroughly vetted users traveling on context-sensitive travelways being taken aback by sheer acts of God, then these can be genuinely called "accidents." Until then we have crashes, collisions, and oft-unintended unions of flesh and metal.

Maryland actually has the best drivers?

Rankings always seem to grab the most headlines, and this is useful data for Allstate to release. But it's always important to keep in mind that statistics are very finicky. A quick analysis (XLS) shows that the rankings vary enormously based on what gets factored in.

Allstate ranked areas based on the average time between claims per driver. If we adjust these numbers to equalize vehicle miles traveled per capita, then Maryland comes out with the fewest collisions. So this story could easily have also borne the headline, "Maryland drivers the best in the nation." Are they the best or among the worst? We don't really know enough to say.

What can we do?

Even though it's disputable whether the area's drivers are really the worst, most people aren't contesting or doubting it. Rather, they're nodding in agreement and cheering it on among the blogosphere. We seem to agree that we're lousy drivers.

So perhaps we don't even need thrown-together numbers to tell us that? If we just assume our region is full of bad drivers, what's next?

We could look at licensing regulations, and do more to ensure those who get or keep licenses have a decent competency to drive. However, any weeding-out is politically difficult. What if we were the ones being weeded out? In one study, the vast majority of drivers said they thought they were above average. That's statistically impossible if there's anything close to a normal distribution.

What about enforcement? We could detect and punish more of the particularly unsafe behaviors on our roadways. Automated traffic cameras are an effective solution, but they too encounter resistance. Plus, as with the roundabouts, cameras might actually make a region's Allstate ranking worse while saving lives. Statistics on red light cameras also show that they often lead to more minor low-speed rear-end collisions while reducing the much more dangerous side-impact crashes.

Finally, we can design roads for the safety of all users, motorized and not. There's often pressure to design for higher speeds and then jurisdictions set lower speed limits when people get hurt. We can do more to build in the visual cues that help people slow down, pay attention, and reduce crashes, or at least reduce the most severe ones.

Any of these take some political courage. Will our region's leaders stand up to take action to improve DC's ranking on this survey or, better yet, on the more important statistics of fatalities and severe injuries?