Category: Vision Zero

21950 and Vision Zero

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

California Vehicle Code 21950, failure to yield to pedestrians, is in my opinion the most important violation as it applies to implementing Vision Zero in Sacramento. The Vision Zero Sacramento Action Plan (draft) says “Launch high-visibility enforcement campaigns against speeding, failure to yield to pedestrians, distracted driving, and impaired driving. Campaigns will focus on HIN corridors.” The state code says:

21950.
  (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.
(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

VEHICLE CODE – VEH, DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD,CHAPTER 5. Pedestrians’ Rights and Duties; http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=21950; retrieved 2018-12-15

So, how is the Sacramento Police Department doing on enforcing this code against drivers who fail to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk? Well, from the ‘Sacramento Police Vehicle Stop Data’ (http://data.cityofsacramento.org/datasets/sacramento-police-vehicle-stop-data) of the last two years, there were 101 violations of 21950 recorded, out of 61,151 violations. This is 0.17 percent, or, other violations were 582 times more common.

Anyone spending more than 10 minutes standing on the corner of any busy pedestrian intersection could count a hundred violations of this law. I know this because I do it. It is part of my job and it is also part of my advocacy. In two years the police only wrote 105 citations? I will also add that I have seen Sacramento Police Department officers in motor vehicles violating this very code hundreds of times, on myself and on others. Even the bicycle mounted officers are frequent violators. I will say that officers have yielded to me in the crosswalk, but it is much more common that they don’t. I’m not saying that they are trying to run me down, rather than they don’t wish to be slowed or inconvenienced, and so will cross through the crosswalk when I’m in it. They are, in this sense, just like other drivers.

So what is this disconnect between what is important and what officers do? I’m going to be blunt here. The police not partners in achieving Vision Zero, in fact they are the main impediment to Vision Zero. If they persist in their windshield perspective that pedestrians are the problems and drivers don’t mean to cause harm, pedestrians will continue to die, and drivers will continue to not face consequences for their violations, for their assaults, for their murders.

If you wish to reply that we all need to work together, and consider perspectives, well, please present evidence that this has worked in the part, or some construct that says it will work in the future. I’m not seeing it. In case you think I am picking on Sac PD, things are actually worse in other jurisdictions, but since this is where I live and observe the issue every day, it is the place I focus on.

By the way, thank you Don Kostelec @KostelecPlan for getting me fired up about all the ways in which our entire system is biased against pedestrians, and that those people whose job it is to consider and act on safety are mostly only concerned about drivers and traffic flow. I encourage you to follow his ‘The Twelve Days of Safety Myths‘ series.

Sacramento Vision Zero Top 5 outreach

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

This information from the City of Sacramento via email.

Vision Zero Top 5 Corridors Banner

We have added and updated upcoming outreach events for the Vision Zero Top 5 Corridors.

Join us to learn more about the Vision Zero Top 5 Corridors Study and share your experience biking, walking and driving along these streets at one of the following events:

 

Date and Time Event Location Corridor of Interest
Monday, November 5th

5:00-7:00 p.m.

 Community Workshop Peter Burnett Elementary School

6032 36th Ave.

 South Stockton Blvd.
Wednesday, November 7th

Noon-2:00 p.m.

 Pop-up Event Transit stop at Broadway and Stockton near Food Source (4401 Broadway) Broadway/Stockton Blvd.
Saturday, November 10th

9:30-10:15 a.m.

 Old North Sacramento/Dixieanne Community Association GraceCity

701 Dixieanne Ave.

 El Camino Ave.
Thursday, November 15th

5:00-7:00 p.m.

 Community Workshop Luther Burbank High School

3500 Florin Rd.

 Florin Rd.
Thursday, November 15th

6:30-8:00 p.m.

 Gardenland/Northgate Neighborhood Association Stanford Settlement Conference Room

450 W. El Camino Ave.

 El Camino Ave.
Friday, November 16th

4:00pm-6:00 p.m.

 Pop-up Event Grocery Outlet

2308 Del Paso Blvd.

 El Camino Ave.
Wednesday, December 5th

6:00-8:00 p.m.

 Hagginwood Community Association William J. Kinney Police Facility

3550 Marysville Blvd.

 Marysville Blvd.

 

About the Study

In 2017, the City of Sacramento identified the five corridors in Sacramento with the highest numbers of fatal and serious crashes involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.

The Vision Zero Top Five Corridor Study will analyze the factors that contribute to these corridors’ high crash rates.  Based on technical analysis, community input, and best practices in roadway safety and design, the study will identify improvements for each of these corridors that can be implemented in the near-term.

More information about the project is available at http://visionzerosac.org

Crosswalk removal and CVC

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

At the community meeting, Ryan Moore kept saying “we followed the law” in removing crosswalks. Though he was not specific, the law he may have been referring to is the section of California Vehicle Code (CVC) below. It remains to be seen if this law was followed, but it may have been since the requirements are minimal. Residents in the neighborhood were uniform in saying that they had not seen any notice, but that does not prove it did not occur. There are additional legal requirements on the city that will be addressed in future posts.

CVC 21950.5. (a) An existing marked crosswalk may not be removed unless notice and opportunity to be heard is provided to the public not less than 30 days prior to the scheduled date of removal. In addition to any other public notice requirements, the notice of proposed removal shall be posted at the crosswalk identified for removal.

(b) The notice required by subdivision (a) shall include, but is not limited to, notification to the public of both of the following:

(1) That the public may provide input relating to the scheduled removal.

(2) The form and method of providing the input authorized by paragraph (1).

Community meeting on crosswalks – 2

Dan Allison1 Comment

Part one, Community meeting on crosswalks, prior posts:  removal of crosswalks, Don’t use the ‘A’ word. Next related post will be about Zegeer.

Question and answer session of the meeting:

  • The city is doing a speed study on Freeport from Sutterville Rd to Meadowview Rd, and will include part of Sutterville (not clear what part)
  • There are no red light cameras on Freeport; the city piggybacks on country red light program
  • There are no lead pedestrian interval signals on Freeport, or even is south Sacramento (all are in the central city); Ryan Moore said these should not be used in low pedestrian areas (which is false)
  • Resident commented on Fruitridge Rd, 24th to Freeport, a lot of red light running and few safe crossings
  • Resident who lives on Oregon suggested changing the speed limit on Freeport
  • Steve Hansen says that the city would like to change Freeport, but to do so, the community (residents, businesses, neighborhood associations) will need to come together to decide how; people will have to give up some time for better safety; he also mentioned narrow sidewalks with obstructions
  • Several people asked about or commented on specific sections and intersections; Matt mentioned catching egregious speeders
  • South Land Park Neighborhood Association (Ryan?) asked what public notice there was before crosswalk removal and said they were not notified; not clear if the other two were notified
  • Ryan Moore said that each removal was analyzed, he says they followed the law of CA MUTCD; said most of the removals were result of complaints; said neighborhood input makes no difference; mentioned FHWA info on crosswalks, referring to Zegeer report though not by name (more info about Zegeer in a future post)
  • Neighbor said that any process that removes crosswalks is flawed; mentioned no still phase on signals (time between red one direction and green the other); going out of the way is not reasonable to ask; can’t have data on people walking because people are scared to walk
  • Steve Hansen and Jay Schenirer want to review pedestrian guidelines, not sure what document this is; said we need to talk about equity because the top corridors of Vision Zero concern are not necessarily located in disadvantaged communities
  • Neighbor said speed display signs don’t seem to have any effect on behavior; asks for immediate action and not years out
  • Ryan Moore continually says “we’d like to but we can’t” but offers no proof; continues to say that crosswalks at this volume and speed are not safe
  • Neighbor said there are bus stops close to Oregon which is true and which might make removal a violation of Title 6
  • Issue of sidewalk maintenance responsibility has come up several times; city continues to insist that it is the responsibility of the property owner (even though most sidewalks are part of the public right-of-way and all are part of the transportation network)
  • Many people pointed out that improvements could have been made at the Freeport-Oregon intesection, such as bulb-outs, refuge median, lighting; there is a median already but it is too narrow to provide refuge
  • Participant asked for a pedestrian commission, Jennifer Donlon Wyant said the the city Active Transportation Commission would be seated in April or May
  • Jay Schenirer wrapped, mentioned that McClatchy students drove the changes to Freeport north of Sutterville Rd

My overall take on the community meeting is that the city council members and the public, both residents of the neighborhood and others, want proactive changes to increase pedestrian safety and walkability. They don’t want excuses. Ryan Moore, the Interim City Traffic Engineer, seem prepared only to offer excuses.

Of all the people on stage, Ryan Moore seemed the least sympathetic to the person killed, or the issues that it raises. He said much the same thing he’d said to the SacBee: “Instead, traffic engineers hope that by removing some crosswalks, pedestrians will instinctively choose to cross at a safer, nearby intersection,” Moore said. He kept referring to federal and state standards that were being followed, though a number of people in the audience who know a great deal about traffic engineering noticed that he was mis-stating and mis-using standards and research to defend his actions and opinions.

Community meeting on crosswalks

Dan Allison1 Comment

I had promised I’d report on the community meeting to address the crosswalk removal over Freeport at Oregon and related issues, but it has taken me a while. Previous posts: removal of crosswalks, Don’t use the ‘A’ word. For background, see the SacBee article: Why Sacramento erased 23 crosswalks, including one where a grandmother died after removal.

The meeting was hosted by City of Sacramento council members Jay Schenirer and Steve Hansen, and school board president Jessie Ryan, and held March 8 at Hollywood Park Elementary which is east of the intersection where the fatality occurred.

Steve talked about the concept of a stroad, a street/road hybrid that doesn’t do either well, though he did not use the term. Freeport is a stroad. He introduced vision zero, talked about changing both infrastructure and behavior, mentioned that the traffic motor officers are gradually being built up but are far below what they should be, and said “we should enjoy the public space and not be afraid.”

Ryan Moore, Interim Traffic Safety Engineer, and the person responsible for the removal of crosswalks, repeatedly mentioned a ‘Systematic Safety Analysis Report’ but is was not clear what this is, and the city website has no mention of it. He also said that he was following all the federal and state rules, as well as research, by removing the crosswalks.

Jennifer Donlon-Wyant, the Active Transportation Specialist, gave a Vision Zero presentation similar to what many people have seen before, but highlights are that Sacramento is the second worst in the state for pedestrian fatalities per capita. She went over the ten profiles that are the core of the draft Vision Zero Action Plan, of which three are related to speed, and one related to transit stops, which all play a role in this incident. One that does NOT apply is ‘Pedestrian Crossing Outside of an Intersection or Crosswalk.’ Though the city had erased the marked crosswalk, it was and is still a valid legal crosswalk. Freeport Blvd is not one of the top five fatality and injury corridors in the city.

Matt Armstrong, Sergeant of the Motor Team (officers on motorcycles) said he has 7 officers on at a time, maximum, for the entire city. They respond to complaints, but otherwise focus on schools and high volume corridors. He said top concerns are red light running, distracted driving, and speed. He mentioned something I had not heard before, that this was a multi-lane threat crash. A multi-lane threat crash occurs on streets with more than one lane in the same direction (Freeport has two lanes in each direction), when one driver stops for a pedestrian and other drivers does not. This is a violation of CVC 21951 “Whenever any vehicle has stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.”

Jessie Ryan said the district recognized that their policies were insufficient and were going to adopt the California School Boards Assocation Safe Routes to School policy (which is very weak), that they were creating heat maps to prioritize unsafe routes, is committed to using and reviewing data, and welcomes public input. The district, prior to this, has shown little interest in Safe Routes to School and has implemented only some minor projects.

Kirin Kumar of WALKSacramento and Jim Brown of Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates (SABA) spoke briefly about the need for culture change in the community and in the city bureaucracy.

Next post I’ll discuss some of the public comments and questions, and the answers provided.

Don’t use the ‘A’ word

Dan Allison2 Comments

I attended the community meeting hosted last evening by Jay Schenirer, Steve Hansen, and the school district, called as the result of the recent fatality and severe life-threatening injury on Freeport Blvd. I’ll write more soon about the meeting itself, but for today, a comment about use of the ‘A’ word, accident. Every public official that evening, with the exception of Jennifer Donlon Wyant, used the word accident. Some of them repeatedly, with Ryan Moore, the Interim City Traffic Engineer, being the worst offender. Many of these uses were made while standing in front of the Vision Zero slide that states “Vision Zero ~ a traffic safety philosophy that rejects the notion that traffic crashes are simply “accidents,” but are preventable incidents that can and must be systematically addressed.” Oh, the irony.

Not the time to go into a detailed explanation of the harm that using this word causes, but you can check out http://droptheaword.blogspot.com, or #CrashNotAccident on Twitter. Basically, the common understanding of the word in traffic violence conversations is to excuse motor vehicle drivers (and engineers) of responsibility for their actions, implying that nothing could have been done, when in fact many things could have been done.

So, a modest proposal. Every time a public official uses the ‘A’ word, they make a contribution of $20 to a local transportation advocacy organization. Eventually, people will cure themselves of using the word, but in the meanwhile it will be an important source of income for nonprofits working to overcome the bias inherent in use of the word, and the underlying windshield perspective that accepts traffic violence as inevitable.

Is law enforcement the answer?

Dan Allison2 Comments

From my post on Vision Zero and law enforcement, it might be assumed that I think increased enforcement is the answer. I’m not so sure. The problem is that law enforcement in general, and traffic enforcement specifically, has long been used as a tool by law enforcement to harass and oppress people of color, low income people, and the homeless. As a white male, or course, I don’t experience this, but I certainly observe it happening to others. I see it in Sacramento, I see it everywhere I travel. It is part of the purpose of law enforcement to maintain privilege for those in power. And it can, and does, also protect people. But the privilege function seems to me to overwhelm the protection function. It is certainly true that people of color and low income, and the homeless, do not trust law enforcement officers, because they have long been victims. Having a tail light out, which results in a stop, and frequently a search, and sometimes brutality, and sometimes even death, does not lead anyone including me to think that simple enforcement is a solution to traffic violence. And yet, ignoring the real threat of traffic violence, which affects people of color, low income, and homeless, far more than people of privilege, is not a solution either.

So, what to do?

Automated speed enforcement (ASE) is part of the answer. Cameras don’t racially profile, and assuming that there is no bias in sending tickets, does not oppress. The city has included a recommendation for ASE in the Vision Zero Action Plan: 3.4 Support state Automated Speed Enforcement legislation. Of course speeding is much better controlled by street design, but ASE can contribute to a reduction in the number and severity of collisions, particularly during the long period of time it will take to fix our unsafe streets.

I have a theory that most traffic violations, at least the ones likely to result in fatality and severe injury (KSI), are the result of what I call egregious violators, those who continuously and flagrantly violate the law. These are the ones that are not going 30 in. 25 mph zone, but going 50 in a 25. If ASE can catch these drivers, and eventually remove them from the road, I would expect a great decrease in KSI.

Another solution is to prevent law enforcement from using stops as a pretext, for the purpose of racial profiling. A stop should be just a stop, dealing with the violation and no more. That will take a change in law enforcement policies and attitudes, and probably changes in law that restrict officers in what they can do on traffic stops. When traffic stops shift from low riders to Escalade drivers, we will have made some progress.

Another solution, one implemented in some European countries, is that a traffic violations of safety significance results in a ticket whose amount depends on either the value of the vehicle or the income of the driver, and is not a flat rate. Standard violation fees, with court and processing costs added on, are a huge burden to many lower income people, while high income people hardly notice. If you don’t think that income matters, look at parking violations. Many higher income people routinely get parking tickets, every day, but it does not change their behavior, they see it just as part of the cost of getting the best parking spot and keeping it.

To implement Vision Zero in Sacramento, the community is going to have to talk about how law enforcement has long affected people of color, and continues to. We are going to have to come up with solutions that reduce and eliminate the effects of profiling based on race, income, and housing status, and the disparate impact of tickets on different income levels. I don’t have the answers, but I have faith that the WHOLE community does.

What do you think?

Vision Zero and traffic enforcement

Dan Allison1 Comment

Sacramento essentially has no traffic enforcement currently, which has led to significant increase in:

  1. running stop signs (not talking about illegal failure to come to a complete stop, but running at full speed or slowing only slightly)
  2. failure by drivers to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk (actually in the crosswalk, not just waiting to cross).

If these issues of non-enforcement and encouragement of unsafe behaviors is not addressed, the Vision Zero effort will fail, no matter what other actions are undertaken.

I have been watching patterns of driver violation in the central city for seven years, as my profession provides me the interest and skills, while my sense of preservation as a pedestrian gives me the motivation. I can state unequivocally that both violations have increased significantly over that time. While it once felt safe and even a bit welcoming to walk in the central city, it does no longer. Why? That is harder to say, but I think that the lack of enforcement of these laws by the Sacramento Police Department has contributed to the problem. Drivers know they won’t be held accountable for failure to yield, and so they don’t. Of course a few do, but with drivers in the other lanes on multi-lane one way streets failing to yield, pedestrians are at just as much risk as if no one yielded.

I have been wanting to delve into traffic enforcement data for the City of Sacramento and all other locales in the region, but that is a major undertaking I haven’t gotten to. A sampling of data below will provide some context. Traffic stop data for years prior to 2016 is not available online, so I can’t speculate about trends in the data.

California Vehicle Code (CVC) “22450. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection.”

Using data from Sacramento Traffic Stops, 2016 had 30001 stops, 2432 of which were for 22450, 8.1%. 2017 had 32267 stops, 2642 of which were 21950, 8.2%. Stand on any single corner in the central city, and you could see this many violations in a day. Clearly, this law is being only lightly enforced.

CVC “21950: (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.”

Using data from Sacramento Traffic Stops, 2016 had 30001 stops, 66 of which were for 21950, 0.22%. 2017 had 32267 stops, 43 of which were 21950, 0.13%. Stand on any single corner in the central city, and you could see this many violations in an hour. Clearly, this law is not being enforced.

Vision Zero comments

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Here are my comments on the draft Vision Zero Action Plan for Sacramento. Most of these were posted on the boards at the 2018-01-31 meeting, and in email to the city.

  • Sacramento essentially has no traffic enforcement currently. More about this tomorrow.
  • I was concerned by the prominence of the bicyclist fatalities increasing 150% without any contextual information. As with any data point with small numbers, as bicyclist KSI (killed and severely injured) is with respect to pedestrian and vehicular KSI, noise can lead to apparently huge changes that may not indicate a pattern. It would be sad if that one statistic were used to argue that changes to protect bicyclists should be prioritized, when it is clear from all the other data in the plan that pedestrians are at the greatest risk.
  • If 78% of KSI occurred at intersections, issues can be addressed more quickly and cheaply by focusing on intersections rather than corridors.

Profiles

All profiles should have the DAC/CES overlay, not just profile 3.

  • Profile 1: unsafe speed and profile 3: 35+ streets: Street Narrowing should say Street Narrowing and Speed Limit Reduction
  • Profile 4: 30+ streets should include lane narrowing
  • Profile 5: broadside: is there evidence that adding signals reduces crashes, anecdotal evidence would argue that it increases crashes
  • What does no bullets for efficacy mean, that there is no benefit, or that there is insufficient research?

I asked about why there was a 30+ and a 35+ profile. The answer is that collision characteristics change considerably between 25 and 35, with 30+ being an issue for bicyclists, and 35+ being an issue for all modes.

Vision Zero Actions (p. 45-50)

  • 1.5 Launch online, interactive crash data map and website. > short-term
  • 2.2 Install 10 low-cost safety improvements, including new road markings, signs, and minor signal modifications per year. > 10 locations
  • 2.3 Develop prioritized list and deliver half of engineering safety projects on the HIN in Disadvantaged Communities (commensurate with share of fatal collisions). > separate so that list is short-term, deliver is long-term
  • 4.4 Install school zones at all schools. > what about reductions at qualified locations?
  • 5.4 Update City signal timing policy to improve safety for all modes (e.g. all red time, pedestrian crossing times). > should include specific mention of LPI at high-pedestrian or high-collision intersections

Sacramento Vision Zero and Bicycle Plan meeting January 31

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

You might have thought you had other plans for the evening, but…

The City of Sacramento is holding the last of four public meetings on Vision Zero and Bicycle Master Plan implementation tonight, January 31, 5:00 to 7:00PM at city hall.

You can see the new Bicycle Master Plan and draft implementation plan at http://bit.ly/SacBicyclingProgram. You can see the Vision Zero Draft Action Plan and other documents at http://bit.ly/VisionZeroSac.

Just one of these would be reason to attend, but both! Hope to see you there.