
New York’s success provides road map for others taking aim at pedestrian deaths - okket
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/new-york-s-vision-zero-success-provides-road-map-for-others-taking-aim-at-pedestrian-deaths-1.4771286
======
Vinnl
For those interested in this, I can highly recommend "What Seattle can learn
from Dutch street design" [1]. It's a presentation that gives an overview of
all sorts of small infrastructural measures, similar to the Queens Boulervard
redesign, taken in the Netherlands to prevent traffic deaths. What makes it
especially interesting is that e.g. rather than reducing the speed limit, cars
are nudged to slow down through using different material for the road, or by
simply making the road less wide.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0GA901oGe4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0GA901oGe4)

~~~
albertgoeswoof
The most interesting concept is that of shared spaces- it’s a bit counter
intuitive, but if you put cars on the same level (figuratively and literally)
as pedestrians, cyclists and other road users you can significantly reduce
accident rates. You do this by removing curbs, signage, lane markings etc.
This encourages road users to pay attention to the road ahead and slow down,
and also makes the whole area a nicer place to be in.

The journey time may seem slower to car drivers, but given you eliminate most
major accidents the average journey time is probably the same.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Presumably there is a limit to this, after all at some point in the distant
past we started adding curbs, signage etc in an attempt to improve road
safety.

~~~
ehnto
To make way for faster cars. We have collectively conceded our streets to
cars. Making shared spaces requires cars go very slow. In city centers and
precincts it makes total sense. Cars shouldn't dominante the CBD traffic flow.

------
subpixel
As a New Yorker and a driver, I can tell you I've been gobsmacked by the
resistance put up to fight protected bike lanes and speed cameras (which we
just lost in bulk as the legislation supporting them was not renewed).
Madness.

~~~
fibonachos
As a former Phoenix resident, I completely understand the resistance to speed
cameras. They are always touted as a public safety measure, but widely
regarded as little more than a revenue machine. In my experience, the trigger
speed was always perilously close to the natural flow of traffic which (at
least in the places where I have lived) is consistently the speed limit + some
amount. The net effect was always a sudden, dramatic slowing of traffic in the
camera zone followed by a return to business-as-usual.

Edit: I should clarify that these were freeway speed cameras. Maybe they are
more effective as a safety device in pedestrian-heavy areas, but I have no
experience with the cameras is that context.

~~~
Flowsion
In South Korea, this is taken to an extreme. Every freeway speed camera is
indicated on the default Maps app. It beeps (shorter and louder as the camera
gets closer) and then stops.

So everyone just slows down as their maps beep and speed up again once they
pass the camera. But, I think this is accepted practice and my suspicion is
that a lot of these cameras aren't even real.

Just by having them placed along the freeway every x metres, they force cars
to constantly slow down.

~~~
privacypoller
people dramatically slowing down then speeding up is likely more dangerous
than everyone maintaining a speed higher than the posted limit, which makes
the cameras a net negative from a safety perspective. Highways built for
safety and limited speed differential across users is so much safer than
limiting top speeds.

~~~
cimmanom
More dangerous to drivers (especially those inclined to drive at dangerous
speeds), maybe. More dangerous for pedestrians? I'm not sure about that --
especially if nobody's obeying the limit in the first place, getting drivers
to slow down at all is a good thing. Or do you like to have drivers speeding
at 50MPH down the narrow side street (signed at 20MPH) your kids cross every
day to get to school?

~~~
ghusbands
They're talking about freeways and highways, not narrow side streets.

------
bigpeopleareold
Cars must stop for pedestrians at crosswalks in Norway. I got very used to
this. Occasionally drivers ignore that rule, but in general, it's a very nice
thing.

However, in Oslo, the only thing that doesn't stop for pedestrians is trams. I
don't know why.

~~~
dionidium
The same is true in NYC (and I strongly suspect it is everywhere else in the
U.S., too):

> When there is no traffic control signal, drivers must yield the right-of-way
> to pedestrians in the crosswalk. (Sec. 1151).

[https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/opdm/local-
progra...](https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/opdm/local-programs-
bureau/repository/pedestrian/resources/faq.html)

~~~
jessriedel
There's a silly tendency in discussion of US issues to prefer examples from
European countries over the almost-always more applicable examples from US
states. This isn't to say European or other international examples aren't
extremely useful, but when there are multiple possible _equivalent_ examples,
the ones from places that are most closely related to the place under
discussion are likely to be more informative. (For instance, people love to
cite Sweden when discussing the US educational system, but it's usually more
illuminating to look at similarly wealthy states like Massachusetts for
information about what could actually be ported to the US.) </rant>

Anyways, in a minority of US states cars are required to stop for pedestrians
in a crosswalk, while they are required to yield to them in _all_ states.

> Nine states and the District of Columbia require motorists to stop when
> approaching a pedestrian in an uncontrolled crosswalk. Minnesota mandates
> that a motorist stop when a pedestrian is in any portion of the roadway. Six
> states and D.C. require a motorist to stop when a pedestrian is upon the
> same half of the roadway or within one lane of the lane that the motorist is
> traveling upon, and two states require a motorist to stop when a pedestrian
> is upon the same half of the roadway or approaching closely enough from the
> opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger...The majority of
> states, however, only require motorists to yield to, rather than stop for,
> pedestrians crossing at uncontrolled crosswalks. Nineteen states require a
> motorist to yield when a pedestrian is upon any portion of the roadway.

[http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-
cross...](http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-
crossing-50-state-summary.aspx)

~~~
bigpeopleareold
I agree with you there is a silly tendency and it is pretty annoying to see
it. But this is what I am seeing myself, since I grew up in NYC. I have grown
used to having cars stop for me when crossing the street.

For all other places in Europe (like Paris), it's same as usual - cars just
will zoom by, except for lights.

I have always been a tad uncomfortable after getting hit by a car when I was
14. I mean, it's nice to see cars stop, but I am still not trustful of those
behind the wheel (and who should be anyway?)

------
bogomipz
>"New York's transportation officials and safety advocates say the experience
of the largest U.S. city offers a road map for others."

This is all very self-congratulatory and likely a PR piece that was put out on
the news wire.

I imagine that the reduction in fatalities is almost exclusively due to the
changes around pedestrian crossings on Queens Blvd. a horrid monstrosity that
more closely resembles a highway than any kind of regular street.

It is actually rare to see police pulling over cars and issuing traffic
tickets in NYC. And if anything as the congestion has worsened drivers have
gotten more brazen. Cars regularly block the intersection, run red lights
rather than stop, regularly block the cross walk and regularly fail to yield
to pedestrians in cross walks. In fact these are the norm. Spend 5 to 10
minutes walking during rush hour you are pretty much guaranteed to observe all
of these in the short time frame.

NYC is a road map for what a dysfunctional to non-existent traffic policy
looks like.

------
jessriedel
The number of pedestrian fatalities fell from 148 to 101.

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city-traffic-
fatalitie...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city-traffic-fatalities-
fell-in-2017-by-7-report-says-1521848322)

That's a saving of roughly $500M with the ~$10M/life figure used by government
agencies like the EPA and the NHTSA, which works out to ~$60 per NYC citizen.
Has anyone tried to estimate the value lost to less efficient traffic flow?
Median household income is $50k, so valuing the median person's time at a few
times the minimum wage, say $30/hour, suggest that initiative was worth it if
it cost the typical person less than 2 hours over the year.

This should of course include the bike and pedestrian traffic flow, which has
plausibly gotten _more_ efficient considering the type of changes being made.

~~~
ikawe
Keep in mind this isn’t just about pedestrian fatalities - traffic fatalities
across all modes decreased.

I think sometimes these conversations get framed only as “driver convenience”
vs “pedestrian and cyclist lives”. Which, admittedly it sometimes comes down
to, but these programs are saving drivers lives too.

~~~
tomatotomato37
>traffic fatalities across all modes decreased

The first couple lines of linked WSJ article says differently, though I don't
have a WSJ account so I can't say if this is an actual rise or just the result
of a higher driving population

~~~
ikawe
> overall traffic fatalities down by 27 per cent. The first half of 2018 has
> seen the fewest traffic-related fatalities in any six-month period ever
> measured in America's most populated city, officials say.

Edit: From the original article, but you’re right, 2017 showed an increase in
certain modes, with a decrease overall.

------
insickness
Gridlock has gotten far worse in NYC. Cars constantly pull into and block
intersections and crosswalks.

~~~
notyourday
Hear, hear!

The issue is a total lack of enforcement. One can recognize the older NYC
drivers by their _refusal_ to enter an intersection if they cannot be sure to
clear it on green. It is because in the late nineties in Manhattan blocking
the box was equivalent of doing 90mph in a 55 zone in front of a state trooper
( the only time one could get away with it if the said state trooper was
already busy writing a ticket to someone else ) -- you would get the a
$100-$500 dollar ticket _and_ you would get points on the license. Not it
barely happens even on the streets with SBS lanes and traffic cops.

Let this sink in. $300 dollar and two points on a license for not clearing the
box ( including crosswalks ) in 1996. It was when a spiffy dinner for two in
NYC was about $80.

If NYC were to deploy a 1000 cops to write these tickets for a month today
there would be no congestion in three months as no one would want to risk
thousands of dollars in tickets for the $10 they could make by trying to
squeeze the cars into the yellow light -- and the ones that would risk it are
sure to lose the cars and licenses quite quick.

~~~
o_____________o
Please add honking to that list, it's out of control in lower Manhattan.

~~~
astura
Not just Manhattan, everywhere in the City.

I had a car follow me laying on the horn non-stop for two straight blocks in
Brooklyn, no exaggeration. I was going less than 45 miles per hour on a narrow
residential street with cars parked on both sides, that was completely
unacceptable. They eventually illegally passed me when it was clear I wasn't
going to drive in a way to leave myself enough reaction time to be able to
stop if an obstacle jutted out from between parked cars into the road.

That's just one example that sticks out in my head.

~~~
cimmanom
Given that those narrow residential streets are typically home to lots of
kids, and that the speed limit on them is 25MPH, I hope you were driving not
just under 45 but under 30.

~~~
astura
I don't feel safer going over 20 on those sorts of streets.

------
hindsightbias
No mention of bulb outs. New York's streets probably don't have room for bulb
outs like they've tried in SF. Most SF streets with bulbs really don't have
the pedestrian congestion you see on NYC corners. There, you might see a dozen
people standing in the crosswalk waiting for the light change and traffic
racing past them. Many pedestrians trying to jump ahead of those standing on
the curb.

But at least New Yorkers use the crosswalks. Market, Van Ness, Tenderloin, SF
multi-lanes jaywalkers Xanadu.

~~~
mhb
For the non-SF, similarly unenlightened (like me):

Bulb out:

 _Curb extensions (also called bulb-outs) extend the sidewalk into the parking
lane to narrow the roadway and provide additional pedestrian space at key
locations; they can be used at corners and at mid-block. Curb extensions
enhance pedestrian safety by increasing pedestrian visibility, shortening
crossing distances, slowing turning vehicles, and visually narrowing the
roadway._

[https://www.sfbetterstreets.org/find-project-
types/pedestria...](https://www.sfbetterstreets.org/find-project-
types/pedestrian-safety-and-traffic-calming/traffic-calming-overview/curb-
extensions/)

------
RankingMember
Somewhat-related: The US Department of Transportation recently released
finalized rules regarding low-speed audible warning sounds for hybrid and
battery-electric vehicles to prevent pedestrian injury:

[https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/06/us-dot-finally-
finalize...](https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/06/us-dot-finally-finalizes-
low-speed-noise-maker-rules-evs/)

~~~
kgermino
I really don’t like that plan. It may not be bad, depending on what the noise
is, but unless it’s done well it will be a new, annoying sound that I have to
hear all the time.

I don’t see the safety benefits either. Cars going less than 20 mph are not
particularly dangerous. On top that that, in most situations where you’re
going less than 20 it’s the drivers responsibility to watch for pedestrians,
not the other way around. (Parking lots, big streets in cities where there’s
crosswalks every couple hundred feet, shared spaces where pedestrians and cars
are in the same lane).

It’s probably more likely to let people drive faster through parking lots (as
people hear the car behind them and move over) than create any safety
improvements.

~~~
RankingMember
I'm not sure I understand your argument with regard to responsibility. When
I'm laying on the pavement, I don't think I'll care that much whose
responsibility it was to avoid the collision.

To your last point, why would a car emitting noise result in people speeding
through parking lots? Most cars on the road are already emitting noise. This
is just bringing hybrid and electric cars into parity with existing vehicles.

If you happen to witness a Fisker Karma cruising around at low speed, you'll
hear their take on it. I didn't find it too offensive- it sounds like the
guitar tone from that Morrissey song "How Soon is Now?".

------
kevin_thibedeau
Uber induced congestion makes jaywalking much safer.

~~~
zeristor
Ubergestion?

------
cascom
Alternate theory: increased traffic congestion leads to lower speeds resulting
in fewer pedestrian deaths

------
lwansbrough
Probably helps to have a paramilitarized police force with an annual budget of
$5.6 billion and nearly as many employees as there are active personnel in the
Canadian Armed Forces. :)

~~~
VBprogrammer
Your comment got me wondering about the NYPD. Specifically, when I visited New
York last March I was struck by the number of police vehicles visible on the
street. It felt like there was barely a block which didn't have one or two
police cruisers parked on it.

I live in London and by comparison it feels rare to see a police vehicle at
all. Nevermind just parked along a random street.

I guess this was mostly due to timing; it was just after a major snow storm.
Comparing the budget and number of officers it's not that different £3.2B and
30000 officers vs $5.6B and 40000 officers.

~~~
trothamel
I suspect visible presence would be a bit higher for the NYPD, just because
NYC has more officers in an area that's half the size of London.

~~~
VBprogrammer
Ah yes! That would do it. So they have more officers (though not drastically
more) and quite a bit smaller area to cover. That probably goes some way to
explaining what I observed.

------
dsfyu404ed
>New York strategically increased enforcement on six traffic violations it
identified as being the most likely to kill or injure, including:

    
    
        Speeding.
        Failing to yield to a pedestrian. 
        Failing to stop on a signal. 
        Improper turns. 
        Cellphone use.
        Disobeying signs.
    
    

The 1 and 3, 4 and 6 entries are almost wholly dependent on context and the 2
is sort of a tautology.

As a pedestrian (I walk ~2mi in the Boston area daily) I really have no
problem with people violating the posted speed limit, running reds that were
very recently yellow or taking a right on red where prohibited as long as they
travel at somewhat reasonable speeds, don't flagrantly run reds, and ignore
signs in a predicable manner.

Cars acting in an unpredictable manner and cars with distracted drivers (#5)
are what results in them trying to occupy the same physical space as
pedestrians (#2). As I see it four of the six things listed don't actually
impact the danger to me any more than the inherent difference among drivers.

As a pedestrian I'd actually prefer the cops write less tickets because the
blue lights distract drivers and throw a wrench into predictable traffic flow.
A good chunk of drivers act like a spooked horse when the cops are out hunting
and that's not good for my safety, attention paid to the cop who's pulling
someone over is attention not paid to not hitting me.

If the cops want to post officers on a random street corners with point and
shoot cameras and nab people for texting and driving then I can definitely get
behind that. Based on my experience and observation I don't think telling them
to go hog wild on everything else would be a net positive in terms of safety
(that said, I'll take real cops enforcing traffic laws over automated
enforcement any day).

edit:pun not intended but I'm leaving it because I like it.

edit2: Downvoted because people are too lazy to type out why I'm so wrong.
Typical Reddit.

edit3: Maybe I wasn't clear enough why I'm opposed to prioritizing enforcement
of traffic law. As long as traffic is consistent I can deal. When it becomes
inconsistent (possibly because people fear strict traffic enforcement) you get
more opportunities for pedestrians and drivers conflicting all the time and
inconsistent traffic takes the attention of the drivers away from other
things, like pedestrians. As a pedestrian I want nothing to do with an
intersection where a cop is sitting or an intersection where there's a known
cameras because driver's attention is allocated away from possible road
hazards (like me) in order to more strictly adhere to the letter of the law.
Most of the violations that NYC wants to prioritize pose no threat to me by
themselves whereas aggressive enforcement creates more inconsistent traffic
which is a danger to me. When someone slams on their brakes for a yellow the
drivers who have to change what they're doing in response to that become more
dangerous to me. Attention is finite. You can't handle the dev tickets when
prod is burning and drivers are no different, aggressive traffic enforcement
is another potential distraction to them and a danger to me.

~~~
Symbiote
You are downvoted because these violations have been identified as "the most
likely to kill or injure", and you haven't made any argument against that.

------
EGreg
Why not require cars made by a certain date to slow down and stop when they
detect or predict a pedestrian crossing? Worst case your car slows down.

------
chaosbutters314
I live in a suburb and the biggest problem I see isn't drivers, it is
pedestrians. They do not use cross walks. If there is not a cross walk
directly outside the shop they are leaving, they just cross the road whenever
they feel like it.

Pedestrians also just stand and talk in the middle of street. It blows my
mind. I have lived around the US and this is a distinctly NY thing.

And they also have the weird habit of doing their run...in the middle of the
road. Even if there is an empty sidewalk with no crossings, people will just
do their run in the road like they're a car.

Drivers are also to blame but there would be even fewer if pedestrians were
held to some standards of road safety. Police don't even need to give tickets,
just scare pedestrians into using common courtesy.

~~~
ecshafer
Why should drivers get the right of way and implicit use of all of the road?
Why not people? Cars should be second class citizens to people on the roads,
unless they are specifically highways.

~~~
fedups
Drivers are people, my friend

