Tag: emergency declaration

Howard Chan and traffic deaths emergency

Dan Allison1 Comment

Note: I have always thought it was part of my role to say the things that other people are afraid to say, for fear of rocking the boat or retribution. But this needs to be said.

On November 12, the city Law & Legislation Committee considered agenda item 6, Councilmember Proposal Request for Committee Consideration – Declaring a State of Emergency Regarding Traffic Deaths. This was introduced by Council Member/Vice Mayor Caity Maple and also sponsored by Mayor Darrell Steinberg and Mayor Pro-tem Karina Talamantes. The item was amended before the committee meeting to remove item 3, ‘Direct the City Manager to work with the Police Department to ramp up enforcement of traffic laws, especially around distracted driving, speed enforcement, and crosswalk violations’ which was opposed by most of the transportation advocacy community including Civic Thread and SABA, which led community discussion of the proposal and made recommendations for improvements. This is a sign of progress, though many have questioned whether it will make a difference, given that there is only support for and not specific funding tied to quick-build projects to make our streets safer, now.

How did we get to the point of emergency?

I believe City of Sacramento City Manager Howard Chan is the person most responsible for creating this emergency. Chan has opposed including any funds in the city budget for addressing the crisis. When the proposal from Sacramento Active Transportation Commission for $10M in funding to address the problem came before the council, he nixed it. Chan has a regressive understanding of public safety, which counts the number police officers and ignores other threats to the safety and lives of citizens. Chan is uninterested in public health. Chan has supervised the Department of Public Works, accepting and promoting the idea that roadways are for moving cars, and not community resources for access and life. Chan has created a city staff culture that avoids innovation and accountability, live in fear of getting sued or getting fired. Chan carries out projects and programs that he is interested in, and ignores everything else.

Read More »

SacCity pedestrian safety emergency: enforcement

Dan Allison2 Comments

The draft City of Sacramento emergency declaration on pedestrian safety: ‘Declaring a state of emergency regarding pedestrian safety in the City of Sacramento and calling for immediate action to address pedestrian injuries and fatalities’ is available (pdf of text, 2 pages, 68KB) (pdf of attachments, 28 pages, 26MB).

This post focuses on the enforcement item.

3. “The City Manager is further directed to work with the Sacramento Police Department to ramp up enforcement of traffic laws that protect pedestrians, including speed limit enforcement, crosswalk violations, and distracted driving. The City shall prioritize enforcement in high-injury corridors and areas with frequent pedestrian activity.”

Three advocacy organizations specifically commented about the draft that it must focus on ‘equity and mobility justice’, as did most of the people who spoke at the city council meeting.

I’ll be blunt. There is a deep and well justified mistrust of Sacramento Police Department (SacPD) among people of color and low-income, particularly among, but not limited to, blacks. SacPD has a history of oppressing black people, and has often used traffic stops as a pretext to harass people. Many of these have escalated into arrest, beatings, and even death. I have seen no real evidence that SacPD has changed their stripes. They are not people that I want interacting with the public about traffic law. And, apparently, they don’t want to either. SacPD has reduced its traffic officer group to almost nothing, and does little traffic enforcement by traffic officers or any officers. It is time to move past the idea that law enforcement has much to contribute to reducing traffic violence.

At the same time, no enforcement of any sort is not the answer. People are dying when drivers violate traffic law, and these deaths are unacceptable. Speed is a contributing factor to all traffic crashes, and is sometimes the primary factor. Driving too fast for conditions, and these conditions include walkers and bicyclists on and close to the roadway, is always wrong, even though road design encourages it.

Automated enforcement is a partial answer. It avoids the pretextual stops, avoids harassment of people of color and low-income by police, at least over traffic law, avoid the escalation that police engage in, and is much less expensive than police officers.

The three main traffic violence issues to be addressed, at least at this time, are:

red light running: Red light cameras and automatic ticket issue to the owner of the vehicle are a partial solution to red light running. Of course some drivers will always run red lights, will always endanger others, and will not be deterred by tickets. But most drivers will notice that tickets are being issued, and will change their behavior. Red light running does have infrastructure solutions, including changing from far-side signals to near-side signals, and raised crosswalks and raised intersections. But there are not easy or inexpensive fixes, so automated enforcement is a good interim solution. When the county ended its red light program, which operated the red light camera in the City of Sacramento, the city made no effort to replace that program, and at least some city staff celebrated it (the red light runners?). The city should create a red light camera program of its own. It should be administered by Public Works, not by SacPD. There are equity issues, since the wide, high speed arterials that most encourage red light running are in low-income communities. Two solutions are to distribute cameras across the city in locations where red light running might occur, and not just those locations with a history. The egregious violators, which are who we really want to target, will be receive tickets eventually. The second is to adjust violation fees (and court costs) to a factor related to income. It would be awkward and perhaps invasive to base it on income, but it could easily be based on vehicle value.

failure to yield to walkers: Drivers have been trained by roadway mis-design to not yield to people in crosswalks. The recent SacPD, OTS funded, sting on J Street demonstrated how common this is. But again, as drivers have been trained to do this, they can be untrained. There are options for automated enforcement of failure to yield, but it requires more complicated and less widely used technology. The city should be experimenting with this technology (they are not), but in the meanwhile, this may be one situation in which in-person enforcement, on a limit basis and with close attention to equity concerns, may be justified. Any in-person enforcement by SacPD raises issues of police violence and over-reaction, including high-speed chases of violators. One solution is to ban high-speed chases. With technology such as helicopters (which the police love) and drones, there is no reason to endanger the lives of violations, bystanders, or officers themselves with high speed chases. Too many cops have watched too many movies with the thrill of high-speed chases. The practice must end.

speeding: There is available and highly reliable technology for automated enforcement of speeding. There is a state-authorized pilot program of speed camera enforcement in six cities and part of Pacific Coast Highway. Sacramento is not among them. To its credit, City of Sacramento asked to be part of this pilot but was not included. The city should strongly lobby the next legislative session for inclusion, and should have a program designed and ready to go when authorized. Speeding is the most common concern of the public, and it is true that speed is a factor in every crash, I’m doubtful that it is the biggest concern. I’d rather see a focus on red light running and failure to yield.

I believe that item 3 should be deleted for its likely failure on equity and mobility justice.

I have not yet written about the other six items, and don’t know when I’ll be able to get to it. However, I will say now, in case you were wondering, that by far the most effective city response is temporary (quick build or tactical urbanism) and permanent changes to roadway design. And what it will take to accomplish those changes is funding, from the city general fund. The seeking of grants, and waiting years or decades for the funding to address traffic violence, is only part of the solution. If this is truly an emergency, and it is, the city must spend significant funding to act on it, and act now.

SacCity pedestrian safety emergency: education

Dan Allison1 Comment

The draft City of Sacramento emergency declaration on pedestrian safety: ‘Declaring a state of emergency regarding pedestrian safety in the City of Sacramento and calling for immediate action to address pedestrian injuries and fatalities’ is available (pdf of text, 2 pages, 68KB) (pdf of attachments, 28 pages, 26MB).

This post focuses on the education item, a public awareness campaign.

2. “The City Manager is directed to identify funds for a public awareness campaign, to educate drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians about traffic safety, with a focus on reducing speeding, improving crosswalk use, and ensuring safer interactions at intersections.”

Public awareness campaigns, or education campaigns, are not an effective response. Despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars on these campaigns, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) do not seem to have any research documenting the effectiveness of such programs. But the basic concept of such campaigns is that most crashes are caused by driver, or walker, or bicyclist error, continuing the implication of the rescinded and widely ridiculed ‘94% of all crashes are caused by human error’ (‘It Ain’t 94 Percent’: NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy Discusses the Role of Human Error in Car Crashes). We just need to educate roadway users, and these crashes won’t happen anymore. Ha!

Many of the public awareness campaigns from NHTSA and OTS are actually victim-blaming campaigns. If only you had been wearing a reflective vest and carrying a light, if only you didn’t cross the street or ride your bike on the street (but don’t ride it on the sidewalk!), if only you hadn’t assumed that our roadways were safe to use, if only you ran faster, if only you weren’t in a wheelchair, if only you’d been willing to walk the half mile to a safe crossing, you’d still be alive. The classic pedestrian safety campaign that shows tire tracks across the face of walkers serves as an example. Do I trust the city to come up with more constructive ‘education’. No, I don’t. I’m afraid that they would just copy and perpetuate existing programs, spending a lot of money and not changing behavior.

Almost drivers know the law, California Vehicle Code, at least the major and not recently changed parts. They know they are supposed to stop at stop signs. They know they are not supposed to run red lights. They know they are supposed to drive the speed limit. They know they are supposed to yield to walkers in the crosswalk (painted or not). They know they are not supposed to enter the intersection unless they can clear it. They know there are clear rules about taking turns at stop sign controlled intersections. So why do they so often do the wrong thing? Why do they kill and severely injure people walking and bicycling, not to mention people in other motor vehicles, their own passengers, and themselves? Because the mis-design of our roadways encourages them to do so. The design says drive fast, consider yourself to be the privileged user of the roadway, and that people walking and bicycling should get out of the way. That kind of education is actually quite effective. It is true that most drivers do not know about recent changes in traffic law, because the state agency responsible for educating them about changes, the Department of Motor Vehicles, does not do so, and is not interested in doing so.

What would be the point of an education program telling people what they already know? None.

I have been involved professionally in walker (pedestrian) and bicyclist education for 22 years. Every program that I have worked in, and designed, included information about the law and how to stay safe, and then, most importantly, practice of that knowledge and those skills. Without practice, education is of very little value. Would the city somehow implement supervised practice for drivers, walkers, bicyclists? I can’t imagine that. The one thing that the city might productively do is educate about traffic laws that have changed during the last legislative session. But I’ve never seen a government agency do that. Walking and bicycling advocacy organizations (CalBike and Walk San Francisco among them) do, but not cities, not counties, not the state.

I believe that item 2 should be deleted as being ineffective.