I’m guessing no, they do not.
I suppose I harp on this Trader Joe’s issue…
Jaywalking laws save lives right? Apparently not, per the “urbanist” urbanautic urbanisti.
But IRL, jaywalking laws save lives.
Such as these poor souls, one would hope. Or at least that was intent…
In other news, railroad crossing laws are a conspiracy from Southern Pacific. I think I’ll write a book about that, or at least a bit for the Atlantic Cities or someplace.
Just Another White Eurocentric “Urbanist”
Get up to speed here.
The limit here, betwixt Pine and Geary, is 30 MPH
This is poor planning.
This is San Francisco.
Heading east the other day:
And then the return trip heading west, just a few blocks away:
There’s something wrong with our pedestrians.*
There’s something wrong with SFGov being afraid to say anything about it…
*Are drivers in Frisco worse than average, like compared with CA or the US? IDK. But our peds are much worse than average, mostly due to an attitude problem. Oh well.
And here’s the caboose of this jaywalking / jay-running train:
I’ve been tilting at this windmill for a while now. At first on SFist back about 2007 or so and then on this tiny blog. The first TJ’s shopper death came a few years back. The next will come tomorrow or next year or in another five years, something like that.
What’s that, the speed limit here is 25 MPH and cars come through “speeding” all the time? Well, not really. Average speed for southbound traffic is fairly low. And for northbound, it’s not all that fast either. And oh, the limit on this stretch of Masonic is 30 MPH.
What’s that, Planning and DPW and the all-knowing, all-seeing SFMTA have a plan for Masonic and it’s coming soon? Well, not really. The project wasn’t as “shovel-ready as promised so they’ve loaned the Masonic-designated pork for other stuff. A “new” Masonic will eventually come, but not above Geary and TJ’s and all the photos you can see are all from north of Geary.
That’s the update for 2015.
Here’s an interesting contrast. The local is jaywalking on the far side of the intersection, and he’s made it most of the way across, and plus he’s running.
Compare that with the Airbnb-type tourists, who, in this case, were on the near side of the intersection, and had not made it most of the way across when their light turned red and, of course, were not running:
I suppose I’ve been harping on this issue over the years.
Who created this problem? SFGOV, including the Planning Department, for starters.
Who can do a better job of fixing things? SFGOV, including the SFMTA, for starters. And IDK, SFPD and DPW? And Trader Joe’s as well.
Here’s a recent example, just a couple of Bros on the west side of Masonic wanting to get to a parked car on the east side, just above the SFMTA’s Presidio Yard. (Note that they might not even be TJ’s customers, but their transit across four lanes of traffic is at the same place where shoppers do it.)
All these southbound cars have stopped for the red light at Geary. So far, so good:
But uh oh, cars are now coming up from Geary in the northbound lanes – it’s time to rethink and try again later:
Or, in this case, spend 2.5 minutes going down the hill to Geary, wait for the green light, and then ascend back up Masonic.
This is the choice people face. Sometimes they err and get hit by a car.
I’ll tell you, if you look at the death rate in Frisco due to earthquakes the past century vs. the death rates of Trader Joe’s shoppers jaywalking in front of TJ#100 the past decade or so, they’re about the same.
What can SFGov and TJ’s do now to fix things, to account for Human Nature?
As seen from Geary – look, it’s a parking lot game like what you can play on your iPhone
A normal town would deal with this, but Frisco don’t, oh well. (If you’d like to make a go of putting back to use the very unused building at the northeast corner of Geary Divis, be my guest – a Honey Baked Ham sto’ was its last use, years and years ago.)
(Hey, was this one of the HBH stores what OJ Simpson had an interest in before The Real Killer stabbed OJ’s ex-wife and the stud who drove the white Ferrari (license plate L84AD8) that OJ paid for? I know not.)
And oh, there was a fire station here? News to me. Leaving you with the still-cited case of Quinn v. Rosenfeld, 15 Cal.2d 486 (1940):
“The plaintiff had been employed for about seven years at a firehouse located in a residential district on the northerly side of Geary Street between Scott Street on the east and Divisadero Street on the west. About 6:35 P. M. on September 29, 1937, the plaintiff stepped from the northerly curb in front of the firehouse, with the intention of crossing the street at that point for the purpose of going to a store on the southeast corner of Geary and Divisadero Streets. There was no crosswalk at the point of crossing selected by the plaintiff. There were established crosswalks and stop signs at both intersections. A pole with a lighted street lamp stood about two feet east of the point where the plaintiff entered the street, and the doors of the lighted firehouse remained open. The plaintiff wore a dark blue uniform. He stopped behind a parked car which was to the west of him. There were no parked cars to the east for a distance of about 75 feet. He looked to the east and at a distance of 135 to 150 feet observed the lights of the defendant’s car in the traffic lane on the north side of the car tracks approaching at a speed of about 20 to 25 miles an hour. He proceeded safely as far as the northerly rail of the westbound car tracks and stopped again to permit another westbound automobile, which had passed the defendant’s car and which was moving at a high rate of speed, to pass in front of him. Before proceeding he observed the defendant’s car again, and saw that it was swerving onto the westbound car tracks and coming directly towards him. He stepped back but before he could clear the defendant’s path he was struck by the right front fender of the vehicle.”
What you’ll see isn’t the world-famous Golden Gate Park Panhandle Bike Path – that’s on the north side, the Fell Street side. What you’ll see is the south side, the bike-free path near Oak.
Brocephus on the left here is jogging east and he’s way late – he missed his chance to enter the crosswalk on his green. OTOH, the taxi can enter the intersection.
No matter, here’s the jogger going more south than east, “jogging” around a Prius:
Hey, are you allowed to run into a crosswalk in CA? Uh, not really. And hey, isn’t this crosswalk excessively wide? Uh, yes it is.
By this time, the left turn arrow phase started and the jogger exited the intersection. A happy ending, I suppose.
This intersection now has three signal phases, for better or worse – people are still getting used to it.
The fundamental problem here has been that traffic backs up on the left side of Oak due to all the people who want to go north on Masonic -it’s kind of a bottleneck so that’s why we got the new left turn arrows.
If this jogger had been hit by a vehicle, the SFPD would have found him at fault, the same way it found the majority (50-something percent) of pedestrians at fault for their deaths last year, calendar 2014.
]If you say, well any struck pedestrian was “in the crosswalk,” well that’s pretty much useless as you’re not giving enough information to determine fault and, in fact, a pedestrian can be outside of a crosswalk, let’s say just outside, you know, close enough, and still be held not at fault for a collision, in California anyway. (This isn’t really a written-down law, it’s more of a case of judges following how other judges have ruled in the past.)
OTOH, you can be in the absolute middle of a crosswalk, as Brocephus was, and be held at fault for your death / injury.
It all depends…
Work with me here, people.
“Focus on the Five – Using multi-year collision data, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is focusing on enforcing the five violations that are most frequently cited in collisions with people walking. The goal is to have half their traffic citations be for these five violations.”
And then let’s extract all the five-digit CVC section numbers cited in the official SFPD report, plus let’s also throw in a CVC number for the pedestrian who died last year after getting hit by a MUNI bus on Geary around Baker.
(And let’s ignore all the the lower-case subsections like 21950(b) and the like, treating 21950(a) and 21950(b) as the same violation, for example.)
And then lets throw all the extracted numbers into Excel for a Sorting.
And then let’s eyeball the numbers to separate them out:
So those are your top “five violations that are most frequently cited in collisions with people walking (and bicycle riding, but I don’t think that affects the numbers too much.)
Here they are, in order of frequency:
So how does that compare with this list from politicians?
“Focus on the 23 Five” campaign to target the top five causal factors of pedestrian crashes – running red lights 24 (California Vehicle Code 21453(a)), running stop signs (California Vehicle Code 22450(a)), violating pedestrian right-of-way (California Vehicle Code 21950(a)), failing to yield while 2 turning (California Vehicle Code 21801 (a), and speeding (California Vehicle Code 22350)…
See how that works? 21950 and 22350 are in there, but CVC violations on the part of pedestrians, like 21456, 21954, and 21955 have been omitted from the list.
Is the official “Focus on the Five” about pedestrian safety or “pedestrian rights?”
I’m thinking it’s about pedestrian rights, like the right to jaywalk, that kind of thing.
Is SFGov serious about SF Vision Zero 2024, a “program” that has the goal of ending all transportation deaths in San Francisco long after all the pols who voted for it have termed out?
Well, how can it be if it’s afraid to enforce traffic laws for political reasons?
If you want safety for pedestrians, wouldn’t you want them to be afraid of getting cited for jaywalking?
No? All right, well then keep on doing what you’re doing, but you’ll never ever achieve Vision Zero 2024 the way you’re going about it, SFGov.