Tag: OTS

concern about SacPD enforcement against bicyclists and walkers

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Update/correction: The grant was apparently approved by city council and awarded by OTS, so the program is in effect. Transportation and equity advocates are recommending that the city council advise city manager and police that the bicyclist and walker enforcement portions of the project not be carried out, and funds diverted to more effective uses.

In an April 14, 2025 SacBee article by Ariane Lange, she expressed concern about an upcoming Sacramento Police Department program to enforce and educate about dangerous roadway behaviors: Sacramento police will ticket cyclists and pedestrians with safety grant money. I had noted this grant earlier, and figured it was not focused on enforcement against bicyclists and walkers, but concern by Lange and the local transportation and equity organizations now has me concerned.

The the grant application text:

“Similar to the “Know Your Limit” program is the “Wait for the Walk” campaign. The activities include informal contact with citizens and enforcement operations where officers saturate high-density intersections, educate pedestrians about the dangers of jaywalking, and reinforce safe pedestrian habits. The message we spread is that pedestrian-related collisions can be avoided, and we should always use crosswalks and sidewalks and always wait for the walk signals. Pedestrians should stay off their phones and pay close attention to approaching traffic when crossing streets.”

Though this is not the major part of the grant, it is concerning. Law enforcement, including but not limited to SacPD, knee-jerk blames crashes involving bicyclists and walkers hit by motor vehicle drivers as the fault of the bicyclist or walker. Even when the driver is drunk or high, it is often still blamed on the victim. This world view is so deeply embedded in law enforcement thinking that most officers never overcome it. OTS (California Office of Traffic Safety) grants, which use pass-through money from NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), have often been used as stings against bicyclists and particularly walkers, targeting and ticketed them for behavior that may be against the law but does not endanger anyone. There is no guarantee that this grant will not be used in the same way.

The text uses the term ‘jaywalking’, which is a throughly repudiated term in the transportation advocacy community, indicating a deep-seated bias against people walking. Though crossing the street outside a crosswalk is still illegal in California, it is not an citable offense unless the walker interferes with traffic or otherwise endangers other people. The reason this law was passed is that police in Los Angeles, as well as other place, were targeting people crossing the street, for no other reason than they were people of color. Law enforcement bias shows up so often that the legislature spends a lot of time trying to improve law enforcement behavior, often with insufficient impact.

Common knowledge among transportation advocates, but apparently unknown among law enforcement, is that it is safer to cross the street between intersections because there are only one or two directions of motor vehicle traffic to pay attention to, whereas at intersections, there are sixteen different directions and possible threats to people walking. Certainly, ‘pedestrian related collisions’ can be avoided, but it is by controlling driver behavior and redesigning streets, not by enforcing against or ‘educating’ people walking.

Lastly, I’ll note that the bulk of the grant is towards overtime for law enforcement training, which should be happening under the regular (bloated) police department budget, not with grant money.

Apparently there is no city council meeting this week (today, April 15), so I don’t know when approval of the grant application will be on council agenda. The council should send this back to PD for a re-write that focuses solely on dangerous driver behavior, with automated enforcement, not with in-person enforcement which is frequently biases and frequently leads to escalation and harm to the person bicycling and walking.

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.