New York’s success provides road map for others taking aim at pedestrian deaths

For anyone interested in learning more, these measures are examples of traffic calming [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming

I remember the disaster of an intersection at the juncture of Queens Blvd and the northern terminus of Woodhaven Blvd at Queens Center Mall. There was an average of one accident per day at that intersection with the yearly total closer to 400. I took the bus to school and passed through that intersection on a daily basis. It was so bad that I would cross the streets using the subway station as a tunnel to avoid setting foot in that death trap. I have also witnessed a handful of accidents myself when passing through.

They redesigned the traffic pattern and made the street along the mall one way which solved the accident problem. Now the entirety of Queens Blvd is safer.

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.

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.

According to this article it seems to be:

- They take away from parking spots

- I don't care about cyclists

- Maybe a bit of anti-gentrification sentiment

https://qns.com/story/2018/06/08/dont-care-cyclists-board-2-...

I think I'd rather have speed cameras than a multitude of state troopers/cops. But that is dependent on the type of camera. A few places in the US have gotten out of control with the number of law enforcement setting up speed traps on commuter routes. At least I know where a speed camera is if I live in the area.

> I've been gobsmacked by the resistance put up to fight protected bike lanes

Two factors. One, traffic lanes are generally reduced; street side parking is left untouched. This leads to congestion and noise.

Two, some bikers in New York are assholes to pedestrians. Most are not, but the sting of a biker riding the wrong way, running a red light and narrowly missing you while cussing you for the gaul of walking on a designated crossing stays for a while.

When Citibike was first announced, there was all kinds of outrage. Comments predicting that it will be mayhem, there will be a bloodbath, it will snarl the streets, and all kinds of other doomsday scenarios were put forth in hearings and online forums.

None of it came to pass. There has been one fatality with Citibike in 5+ years, during which 60+ million trips have been taken. The city has adjusted to the increase cycling activity- I used to get cut off, honked at, and generally harassed for being on "their" road, but the active hostility is all but gone, and I see many more drivers actively looking at the bike lane before attempting a turn.

NY is large enough that there will always be a vocal minority to change. In my own building I was in disbelief when a board member is trying to drum up resistance to a citibike rack being put outside of our building. He is an older gentleman, and just a month before had been complaining about cars illegally parking in the space across the street where they proposed to put the rack. When pressed about what his specific concern was, the best he could come up with is "it will be bad for the buildings value!" and got visibly angry with me when I asked how additional transportation options would decrease the value of the building...

The stopping distance is more than twice as long as for a bus[1], so this actually makes sense.

[1] https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/trams-...

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

Same thing in Amsterdam, although the stopping distance seems fairly short. I think it has mostly to do with minimizing interruptions and being relatively infrequent.

And taxis also never stop, but they don’t seem to stop for anything ever.

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...

A tram driver pressing the emergency brake can cause injuries in the tram: the ride is normally so smooth, that many people aren't holding on to anything, or are barely holding on, and will fall.

Also, the stopping distance is longer than most people would expect. It's therefore safer to discourage people from jumping out in front of trams and expecting the tram to slow/stop to avoid them.

Reno NV has that rule. I almost hit someone when I visited because I was not used to it and blew through a crosswalk when someone wanted to cross. Imho having rules like that without explicit controls like stop signs/lights seems dangerous.

Crosswalks are not allowed to be on roads with tram lines in Germany.

I suspect the same is true just about everywhere. In Seattle it’s not just crosswalks, technically cars have to stop for pedestrians at ALL unsignalized intersections. (Those without lights.)

Surprisingly many drivers here are pretty good about it too. Obviously it’s a bit of a negotiation depending on the intersection and visibility.

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.

I wonder if they record traffic casualties, not just fatalities. Those cost $$$ too.

> Has anyone tried to estimate the value lost to less efficient traffic flow?

I currently work with traffic safety applications, and while I do not claim full expertise in this industry, I do know that the primary metric for success is reducing the number of fatalities. I have never seen a single product request around balancing efficiency of traffic against lives. That just isn't how the goalposts are set.

That doesn’t apply to Queens boulevard that is being discuses in the Article.

Chalk it up to Uber and their ilk, which not only discourages people from using public transport, but also significantly adds trips, which wouldn't have happened otherwise.

As a pedestrian, am I allowed to yell at/curse cars that block the crosswalk?

I've lived here for 22 years and it seems about the same to me as a pedestrian.

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.

This is particularly egregious as it forces pedestrians out into oncoming traffic to cross. Sadly this also seems to be the new normal.

NY has them and seems to be adding more (not fast enough in my opinion), sometimes in conjunction with chicanes. The crosswalks are also relatively massively wide (especially compared to Chicago which seem almost comically narrow).

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...

NYC streets have plenty of room for bulb-outs, but it would require reducing the amount of (mostly free) on-street parking, which is a political third rail.

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.

Ubergestion?

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.

The NYPD is fairly useless when it comes to traffic enforcement other than ticketing cyclists.

They'll ignore trucks blocking crosswalks (and endangering pedestrians). Double parking in bus and bike lanes. Tractor-trailers (which are technically illegal to drive through the city at all without a special permit for each delivery, but that's never enforced) blocking both crosswalks and the entire intersection because they didn't wait for the street ahead to have room, and making blind turns where they come within inches of mowing down pedestrians crossing with the light (whom they couldn't see because their cab and hood are too high, which is part of why they're illegal).

Heck, police cruisers are some of the worst offenders when it comes to blocking crosswalks; parking on sidewalks (thus forcing pedestrians into the street), and other such obnoxious behavior.

And when a driver crushes or kills a pedestrian or cyclist, the NYPD goes out of their way to defend instead of prosecuting the driver. Even when eyewitness accounts and video evidence show the driver at fault. Even when the driver was driving without a license or under the influence.

No, it doesn’t. The police around here generally ignore traffic violations unless they are specifically conducting a “sting”.

I recently was told that this is actually a matter of policy, because someone discovered that cops were using traffic violations as an excuse to disproportionally target minorities, like the old “broken windows” policing days.

Honestly, it even makes a bit of sense... traffic is so dense now and violations so frequent that even the minimal effort of enforcement would shut down entire arteries. How do you pull over a bad driver when there’s no space to pull them over?

There’s no way out of this mess except for fixing the subway and congestion pricing.

The NYPD doesn't give a shit about traffic violations, and is very heavily on the side of drivers. This is a longstanding cultural thing, certainly affected by the fact that nearly all NYPD officers themselves commute to work by car.

Found the person whose never been to New York City.

Traffic laws are largely unenforced in New York City.

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.

Drivers act "like spooked horses" when a cop is pulling people over because they're taught that they'll never be caught breaking the law. Your summary is indicative of a vastly more serious problem: Drivers break the law so frequently that it doesn't even occur to them that they're doing it.

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.

Running on a sidewalk is terribly unpleasant, and has its own dangers. Sidewalks tend to be uneven, among other tripping hazards. And there is limited reaction time to anticipate motorists who speed out of driveways, bowling past the sidewalk but braking before they enter the street.

Maybe that is why it's "legal" to murder someone by car in New York.

Your sentiments sum up what is wrong in much of the U.S. I am not blaming you. This is the culture you grew up in. But this type of thinking is dead wrong. Cars are what cause the danger. Pedestrians in the US have lost much of there safe access to the streets. Runners use the road because the sidewalks generally suck. If a driver doesn't have time to slow down and stop for a pedestrian, they are going too fast. It's that simple.

After a century of "cars are the actual first-class citizens, everybody else is merely tolerated," this attitude doesn't suprise me: https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

> If there is not a cross walk directly outside the shop they are leaving, they just cross the road whenever they feel like it.

I don't want to be too glib, but when your gut reaction is to blame human beings for using their human legs to move around in space (instead of the cars that prevent them from doing this), then it might be time to consider whether the culture has been perverted beyond a reasonable standard.

>"Drivers are also to blame but there would be even fewer if pedestrians were held to some standards of road safety."

So a car that weighs 3 tons, is made of metal and moves at 25 - 35 miles and hour and human who weight less than 200 pounds and travels at 3 MPH should be held to the same standard of safety? How many fatalities do you have in your suburb where drivers are killed by walkers?

While this may all be true, we're talking about people being killed. Courtesy isn't what its about. Until ordinary people begin to 'walk defensively', drivers are going to have to be careful.

I wonder how you feel about bicycles!

I think there is problematic behavior on all sides. However, the problematic behavior of a driver results in a death due to the ton of steel they're driving at 30 mph. While pedestrians do bear responsibility for their own lives, they aren't going to kill a driver if they make a mistake. Pedestrians should be prioritized above cars, and bicycles above cars as well, if we want safe communities and a cleaner atmosphere. This does mean drivers will have to wait and move more slowly, but frankly driving is already too cheap. That's why everyone drives everywhere. We have to do more to discourage driving and encourage safer, non-polluting transport. If not, increased vehicle miles travelled, like uber/lyft and future self driving taxis, will only worsen the already car-clogged infrastructure.

Let's turn this around: you're expecting your neighbors to give up their public space, safety, and environment because you're not willing to accept the inconveniences of more socially-aware means of transportation.

I for one would love to live in your area. I'm tired of it taking five minutes to grab a coffee from the coffee shop across the street from me because I have to walk several hundred feet to the nearest pedestrian crossing and wait for an entire light cycle to be able to safely cross a four lane street that is entirely out of scale for the business district I live in. Just so people don't have to use their legs or god forbid public transit to get around.

It's about time pedestrians reclaim what they've lost to auto-monoculture.