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

[turil.livejournal.com]

Yeah, clearly vehicle operators don't want to hit pedestrians, and I'm sure we all do our best to stay safe, but there are so many mixed signals about who has the right of way. Some places have found that taking out authoritarian traffic signs and markings (like crosswalks and "Ped Crossing" signs) have resulted in people learning to be more responsible for their own safety.

Also there needs to be clarity about who really does have the right of way. Some folks believe that pedestrians have the right of way everywhere (as it states in many of the written traffic laws) while others believe that through traffic has the right of way (as many cops and public education campaigns suggest). So it's no wonder people get confused about how to safely use the streets! So it would really be useful to come up with one basic rule about right of way, and promote that one rule to everyone in all messages that come out of the governement.

MGL

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Chapter 89: Section 11. Marked crosswalks; yielding right of way to pedestrians; penalty

Section 11. When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be so to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk marked in accordance with standards established by the department of highways if the pedestrian is on that half of the traveled part of the way on which the vehicle is traveling or if the pedestrian approaches from the opposite half of the traveled part of the way to within 10 feet of that half of the traveled part of the way on which said vehicle is traveling.

If it's a crosswalk with a don't walk sign, and the sign is lit up saying don't walk, traffic has the right of way, and a pedestrian crossing against the light has the liability.

Re: MGL

[turil.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's just one of the many conflicting and confusing messages that the government offers! It sort of implies that pedestrians don't have the right of way if there isn't a crosswalk, but that's not the case, according to other traffic laws in the MGL. So you can see why some general right of way law would be really good to create :-)

Re: MGL

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

It sort of implies that pedestrians don't have the right of way if there isn't a crosswalk, but that's not the case, according to other traffic laws in the MGL.

I'd love to know where that is . . .

Motorists have to yeild to pedestrians in the roadway...

[turil.livejournal.com]

Having had to do a lot of this sort of research for a previous job, I discovered how absolutely insane the laws are, and completely contradictory. Some indicate that pedestrians don't have the right of way anywhere except in crosswalks, while others say that motorists don't have the right of way when a pedestrian is in the road. Just a sampling of the legal silliness that we're subjected to:

Somerville Traffic Regulations
Section 12-5 Crossing at Non-Signalized Locations
Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway. At a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overpass has been provided pedestrians shall cross the roadway only by the proper use of the tunnel or overpass.

and then just a bit below that:

Somerville Traffic Regulations
Section 12-6 Operators to exercise due care
...Furthermore, notwithstanding the provisions of these regulations every operator of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian upon the roadway... and shall exercise proper precautions which may become necessary for safe operation.

And in the state laws:

MGL
Chapter 90: Section 14. Precautions for safety of other travelers
...Upon approaching a pedestrian who is upon the traveled part of any way and not upon a sidewalk, every person operating a motor vehicle shall slow down.

MGL
Chapter 90: Section 14A. Protection of blind pedestrians crossing or attempting to cross ways
Section 14A. Whenever a totally or partially blind pedestrian, guided by a guide dog or carrying in a raised or extended position a cane or walking stick which is white in color or white tipped with red, crosses or attempts to cross a way, the driver of every vehicle approaching the place where such pedestrian is crossing or attempting to cross shall bring his vehicle to a full stop, and before proceeding shall take such precautions as may be necessary to avoid injuring such pedestrian.
(i.e. a driver may not know that the individual has limited vision, but is required to stop nonetheless.)

And finally the Massachusetts Driver's Manual states (page 94):

Remember, the law says that you must slow down and stop if necessary if a person is walking in the street you are traveling on.

So clearly, there is a lot of confusion.

Ultimately, it seems clear to me that pedestrians have the least amount of clearly defined rights of all road users, which is pretty crappy when you think about it, since everyone can be a pedestrian, but only some folks can be motorists, bicyclists, and so on. So effectively, current traffic laws discriminate against the majority of road users, while protecting the most dangerous road users (vehicle operators).

Re: Motorists have to yeild to pedestrians in the roadway...

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Exercise due care is not the same as yield right of way.
Neither is "shall slow down".

Additionally, tons of state laws are outdated, useless, and not based on current situations, especially regarding traffic.

Some states still have laws requiring someone to walk in front of a motor vehicle with a bell.

Re: MGL

[enochs-fable.livejournal.com]

What traffic law do you believe contradicts it or makes it more confusing?

Re: MGL

[turil.livejournal.com]

See above...