-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Batson, Scott
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 11:23 AM
To: ROUNDABOUTS@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: Re: "access" vs. "safety" issues
As I understand it, in the UK the presumption is that pedestrians and cyclist have the right of way (no such thing as jaywalking - somebody expand and correct as needed please). This seems like the model to move towards. I've heard this concept referred to as vulnerable users laws and policies. I envision a typical intersection (likely a roundabout ped crossing) where the driver must cross a raised crosswalk and signs remind drivers that they must stop for pedestrians, drivers slow down at marked crossings (20 mph or
less), and where pedestrians often no longer look both ways because the dominance of vehicles in such places has been negated.
I recognize that there are still going to be those locations where the auto dominates, like freeways and expressways, but such facilities will have separated pathways and crossings for vulnerable users.
Then there are the in-between locations. The ones where roundabouts may not work (heresy, I know), but for some reason, perhaps poor past planning that necessitates triple left turn bays on 6-lane arterials (or not even a LasVegas nightmare), a signal will end up being the best solution. It seems to me that many agree that current solutions for the sight impaired at signals have been identified, either via technology or due to the nature of the operation. I hope we can agree that at the auto dominant end of the spectrum, complete separation is reasonable (and is currently occurring). The under 40k vpd entering will continue to be the (vast?) majority of
intersections and the paradigm shift discussed at the beginning (morelike the UK) is one solution that is feasible. Do you think this might be achievable on a 20-year plan? Apart from the reduction in loss of life andinjuries, might such a transportation system also be more efficient and have other health benefits? ....random thoughts for today.
-Scott Batson
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Dovey, Dan
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 4:00 PM
To: ROUNDABOUTS@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: Re: "access" vs. "safety" issues
Thank you, Scott. You mentioned something that has always bothered me about this issue. Up here in Washington, state law not only requires that pedestrians have the right of way at crosswalks but it also includes the provision that they must take one step into or otherwise occupy the crosswalk in order for drivers to be required to yield to them. (RCW 46.61.235) This is quite similar to the situation Duane G. described where they instruct visually impaired individuals at signals to "take control of the intersection" and use their cane to detect a right turner who may not have yielded to them. This also implies that gaps in traffic streams must be created through active behavior on the part of the pedestrian, not detected in the hopes something eventually opens up. What I notice about
drivers is that their yielding rates are near 100% when they receive clear, direct information from pedestrians regarding their intent to cross a street. Drivers have no interest in being involved in a collision any more than pedestrians do, especially when it would be the driver's fault. Much of the problem that exists today is that pedestrians either aren't aware of the provisions the law makes for them or they don't understand how to apply it on the street. Instead, they wait passively on the side of the road for a large opening in traffic and drivers are then left to assume that the pedestrian either isn't ready to cross, has no intention of crossing, or is relinquishing their right of way in the crosswalk to the driver (I've been waved on by peds doing exactly this countless times). If this happens often enough then driver yielding rates start to plummet as well (even so, yielding rates in the northwest are still the highest in the nation).
The great thing about roundabouts is that it is easy for a pedestrian to assert their right to cross and create a gap in traffic that is approaching at only 20 MPH. The other great thing is roundabouts usually have a greater separation between the crosswalk entries and the adjacent sidewalks that progress around the corners. This makes the intent to cross even more obvious to approaching drivers. These crosswalk conditions hold true for visually impaired individuals as well. Instead of detecting a gap their behavior actively creates the gap they desire, they just have to literally "take the first step." The only concern I see is that our state law also says:
(2) No pedestrian or bicycle shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or otherwise move into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to stop.
Roundabout entry speeds are such that this too may not be much of a concern since vehicles can stop rather quickly when their travel speeds are low and the visual distance to the crosswalk is still far enough that a pedestrian entering the crosswalk can be identified and responded to in adequate time.
What is the typical stopping distance for vehicles traveling up to 25MPH? I'll bet it's shorter than the visual distance to the crosswalk from the approaching roadway or the exit crosswalk from the circulatory roadway. I do understand the distinction between access and safety. I also understand that the safest intersection in the world still doesn't offset a lack of accessibility. Perhaps our perception of how pedestrians use crosswalks could be expanded both in the interest of accessibility as well as better vehicle/pedestrian interaction. I agree with your other point too, Scott. Busier intersections that involve high vehicle and pedestrian volumes deserve better separation, whether it's accomplished through physical means, signal systems, or other devices. This should be up to the engineer and evaluated on a case by case basis IMO.
Dan Dovey, PE
Traffic Control, Modern Roundabouts, and Barrier Systems
King County Road Services Division, Traffic Engineering
W: 206-263-6144 C: 206-423-0973
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: "access" vs. "safety" issues
yes, but...rumble strips or raised pavement markers used to generate noise,
generate noise that can be intrusive (a form of pollution) if the adjacent land uses are primarily residential. higher tech alternatives could include detector loops that measure speed and sound a warning if a threshold is exceeded. That might reduce how often a noise is generated, or could even permit what kind of noise is generated. The more general concern has to do with signalized intersections and the quieter cars that will appear in the next 5-10 years. detection on vehicles may be easier to implement. However,
most of these concepts and ideas are attempts to compensate for inattentive users (drivers mostly) - the root problem.
Scott Batson, PE
Portland Office of Transportation
1120 SW 5th Avenue, Room 800
Portland, OR 97204
Phone: 503-823-5422
Fax: 503-823-7576
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Jay Vorisek
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 4:26 PM
To: ROUNDABOUTS@LISTSERV.KSU.EDU
Subject: Re: "access" vs. "safety" issues
I don't think I understand your concern about the clause "(2) No pedestrian or bicycle shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or otherwise move into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to stop." In my view the purpose of that sentence is to establish a limit of liability for the driver who unfortunately hits a pedestrian or bicyclist. The driver shouldn't be at fault for the negligent act of someone else.
Jay Vorisek, P.E.
CrossRoad Engineers, PC
Office 317-780-1555 ext 126
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.