Gateway to Davis Square

[turil.livejournal.com]

In the somewhat recently released city report called "Safe-START - Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, Priority Locations, Assessment & Recommendations" there was at least one recommendation that I thought was really interesting and potentially wonderful:

4. Summary of Recommendations for Long-term Improvements
...
D. Develop “Gateways” to key nodes around the City
including Davis Square, Union Square and Tufts
that will highlight that motorists are entering high
pedestrian traffic areas;

And by "Gateways" they mean visual clues that indicate a special area, like the pretty gate that they have in Chinatown in Boston. It can be done with permanant architechtural structures, or with more easily changable banners, bollards, artwork, signs, and flags. It's a very useful way to work with people's subconscious minds so that they instinctively know that they have to pay more attention, and to slow down so that they can more effectively react to unexpected activity in the streets when passing through districts that are busy with commerce and other "destination" activities. The only problem with an idea like this is that once people leave these destination areas, there is an opposite psychological trigger to pay less attention and speed up. So maybe it's safer to go with a less abrupt "gate" message, or have several gates and/or use smaller, but still obvious visual clues to be aware of local activity in other areas of the city. I'm particularly thinking of playground and school areas, where things like kid's artwork, flags, decorated traffic signals, and multicolored crosswalks might be useful.

Anyway, I thought this idea was a wonderful starting point for really bringing in some creative problem solving (and artistry) to making Somerville's places safer and healthier.


* The report is available here as a PDF download. It's intened as a rough draft, I believe, for public comments. Though the public comment period seems to be over, unfortunately. But it's intersting to look at nonetheless. The general recommendations are pretty tame, and probably won't do a heck of a lot of good, but you never know.

Comments

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

would be nice to see enforcement of traffic laws on pedestrians ...
I'm sorry, why should pedestrians expect vehicular traffic to obey signage, lights and laws when pedestrians don't?

[turil.livejournal.com]

For one thing, I follow the laws as much as possible, no matter how I'm travelling, simply because I know that at least if I do get hit, or hit someone, I've got the law on my side. Though laws don't always mean much in the courts, as I've discovered... But I figure it's better to behave reasonably than unreasonably, if I want to others to behave reasonably, since I really can't expect others to do something if I'm not willing to do it myself.

You know, that whole "Be the change you want to see" thing...

[hahathor.livejournal.com]

To clarify, "better enforcement of existing traffic laws would be helpful" refers to all laws. Currently both pedestrians and motorists are all pretty lax in this area (as are bicyclists, roller bladers, etc). It's a self-reinforcing cycle: pedestrians want to avoid being hit by cars that refuse to stop at cross-walks, so they find other places to cross; cars see peds crossing between cross-walks, and so speed through the zebra crossings regardless of the presence of people in them. I don't know that administering shocks to pedestrians would solve the problem. In fact, given that zapping people tends to lower their awareness of anything other than the shock they've just received, it seems likely that this would lead to more injuries and fatalities rather than fewer.

the sarcasm blinker is broken

[enochs-fable.livejournal.com]

I don't know that administering shocks to pedestrians would solve the problem. In fact, given that zapping people tends to lower their awareness of anything other than the shock they've just received, it seems likely that this would lead to more injuries and fatalities rather than fewer.

Um, this is the part where I point out that I was joking.

Re: the sarcasm blinker is broken

[hahathor.livejournal.com]

Um, I got that. I just decided to carry on your joke by acting as though you were serious.

Re: the sarcasm blinker is broken

[enochs-fable.livejournal.com]

Why?

Re: the sarcasm blinker is broken

[hahathor.livejournal.com]

Why did you suggest zapping pedestrians? Presumably you thought it was funny. I thought it was even funnier to act as though you were serious.

People's sense of humor varies.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

I stop at uncontrolled crosswalks, and drive through controlled ones when I have the green light ... except when one dozen students at Huntington and opera place (Northeastern) decide they want to cross RIGHT NOW, even though I have a green arrow (and can't make a right on red there); I also stop and yield when I have a green light, am making a right turn, and the peds have a WALK signal (although that light (huntington & forsythe) needs better timing, seeing as how it ALSO no right on red).

It's called rule of law

[enochs-fable.livejournal.com]

Because, all other considerations aside, a collision with a moving car can kill people. A pedestrian running into another pedestrian, there's much less chance of injury.

I mean seriously, just because there are egregious violators of traffic laws, whether pedestrian, driver or cyclist, that's no reason for anyone not to follow the traffic laws.

"but officer, that guy wasn't obeying the law, why should I?" is not going to fly, anywhere.

Re: It's called rule of law

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

My point is that some pedestrians, by ignoring the law, put themselves in more danger; when a vehicular operator does it they are dirtbags who should be punished; when a pedestrian does it, and gets clipped, it's darwin in action.

Re: It's called rule of law

[hahathor.livejournal.com]

Well, following the letter of the law, crossing at a zebra crossing, and getting hit by a car really kind of sucks. I mean, yeah, I can have the satisfaction of saying "I was right," and if the driver stops, and has insurance, I might even get my medical bills covered. But all things considered, I'd rather not get hit.

FWIW, when I'm driving or biking, I stop at zebra crossing when I see ped in them or approaching them, and I'd say about half the time I get honked at for stopping. I've also had drivers swear at me for crossing on a zebra crossing. That doesn't make it right to jaywalk, but honestly, I find that it's safer to dart across an unmarked crossing when there's a break in the traffic flow than to use a crosswalk and expect the drivers to stop for me. I realize that many drivers do follow the law, but it only takes one car to hit me.

Re: It's called rule of law

[enochs-fable.livejournal.com]

But all things considered, I'd rather not get hit.

Of course! Nobody wants to get hit. Which is why I'd like to see pedestrians not dart out between cars. I didn't think that would be particularly controversial.

The question of whether marked crosswalks are effective is an interesting one - from a brief foray on the web, results seem to be mixed (http://www.azdot.gov/Highways/Traffic/XWalk.asp#four).

Here are some recommendations by the FHWA. (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/interbriefing/03ped.htm) ()