Distraction, on Street and Sidewalk, Helps Cause Record Pedestrian Deaths
npr.org
npr.org
We already know how to do this. We know that thinner streets cause drivers to slow down. We know that bulges at intersections shorten the distance that pedestrians have to cross, limiting interactions with cars. Cities need to rebuild their streets to be safer.
The onus is on drivers to pay attention, slow down, and not kill people. It's a reasonable expectation that a human can behave in an unexpected manner. Drivers need to behave accordingly. Good urban design can guide them into doing this naturally.
I often hear something like, "I have the right of way!" as a common refrain. So I just assume they'll be self-satisfied getting killed and having their headstone read, "Here lies someone who was technically right."
The above is a common occurrence in inner-SE Portland after hours. Especially on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.
It's fascinating from a particular perspective.
The above is embarrassingly coming in downtown and NW Portland.
That assumes we are talking about a city by the way, a city which has functional street lightning, outside a city I will be using the very powerful beam headlights setting I will actually be able to see you at the same time whether you have lighting on not and will adjust accordingly — assuming you're in front of me, because without lighting I will never see you if you're behind or to my side. Meaning, if you are bicycling straight ahead and I need to turn right, I will see you when I run you over.
I don't ever want to be in a situation where I have killed somebody by accident. I will do what I can to avoid or minimize damage, but if you're not lit up there is basically nothing I can do. The best you can hope for, is that I'm quick enough on the brakes that you will only be maimed for life.
Afterwards you can blame me or not, I don't really give a shit.
> I will do what I can to avoid or minimize damage, but if you're not lit up there is basically nothing I can do.
You can always slow down, until you can stop within the distance you can see.
This reminds me of a sailing lesson. Smaller vessels have right of way. Sails have right of way over engine driven. A friend of a friend was sailing and came close to allowing his 30 foot sail boat to be run into by a mega ocean fairing cargo ship. He saw it coming at him, had plenty of time to drop sail, but refused to take action because "he had right of way" completely ignoring that the cargo ship needed a mile or more to meaningfully turn out of his path. The sailor was right. Right but stupid. Stupid might mean dead, and stupid people dying is evolution at work.
We should always design our transportation networks to be as safe as possible but one should take responsibility for their own life when crossing roads that two ton missiles hurtle down. You never know when someone is going to have a heart attack, stroke, be drunk, fall asleep at the wheel, etc. when approaching a crossing. Just because the light gives one the go ahead does not make it safe.
Also, too often I see pedestrians asserting their right of way to cars. Being right isn't more important than being alive.
This is such an odd way to phrase it. Walking across the street is not more dangerous. People are acting more reckless. The amount of danger is the same as it has always been, pull your face out of your phone and look at it!
It is worth considering, but not really worth arguing about, since we don't have the data. This NPR piece is just following the reporter's agenda and not the study. The study does not give any suggestion that pedestrians distracted by their phones are causing the increase. In fact, pedestrian deaths in the top 10 cities decreased in 2016.
As a driver: Assume the pedestrian at the corner will step into the road.
This is basic common sense and I don't understand why people don't get it. In the story:
"It is alarming," says GHSA executive director Jonathan Adkins, "and it's counterintuitive."
It's not counterintuitive. It's entirely predictable that people who are not paying attention to their surroundings and not exercising common-sense caution and defensive behavior are going to learn the hard way.
Though to comment more seriously. I'm sick of everyone's knee-jerk reaction of "lower speed limits". As if that makes it OK for pedestrians and cars to interact.
The correct approach to safety is better design. Ideally provide cars and pedestrians completely isolated levels and/or venues of travel. A stopgap might be the installation of 'splash guards' and covered awning style sidewalks that provide an increased physical barrier, more as a mutual reminder that crossing the line is a bad idea. Once you've done that, it should also be possible to provide some kind of barrier at crosswalk portals.
The bike path I ride to work goes through the local university and is split into three parts: one for walking, and two cycling (one for each direction). They're clearly marked, and it gets enough traffic that most people make sure to use the correct lane.
Almost every day, though, I ride past at least one person walking in the cycling lanes, headphones on, eyes glued to their phone, not paying any attention whatsoever to where they're going. Worse still, I've seen cyclists on their phones, riding down the walk lane, or the wrong way in one of the cycle lanes.
That verbal reminder is great and exactly what everyone SHOULD be doing.
Now I'm not sure how to solve this conundrum but I'd rather be more inclined to believe we need better design than resorting to strangers shouting their ever-changing location.
I think you're underestimating just how oblivious people can be.
Ugh. If you're walking with your phone, at least hold the screen in front of you level with your eyes so you can see ahead of yourself instead of looking at the ground.
If that's the case, these deaths will indeed decline rapidly as human (i.e., poor) drivers are replaced with self-driving vehicles.