The subject
promised for today has been shoved aside in favor of a subject that abruptly
gained urgency.
I’ve previously written about the “Twenty is
Plenty” movement. Adherents promote the
argument that most vehicular speeds within towns should be limited to twenty
miles per hour. It’s a crusade that has
gained a foothold in Europe, with some towns fully implementing the standard.
In the U.S.,
there has been less progress, but still some notable successes. Although not all the way down to the target speed,
New York City has dropped many street speed limits to twenty-five miles per
hour in response to Twenty is Plenty supporters. (Update: Hours after publishing this post, I
came across news that Boston asked the state to allow them to
adjust to a widespread twenty miles per hours.
The state allowed them to go with twenty-five miles per hour.)
It’s easy to
think of the movement in an idealistic, bloodless way as creating better walkable
places where cars are made less threatening.
But there is a real, flesh-and-blood public safety side to the
concept. I had a front row seat to
observe that reality earlier today.
I was
returning home, still feeling good about an extended lunch during which a
companion and I hashed out strategies for the upcoming city council race. I was driving on a major arterial in my town,
at the far end of the road segment shown above.
There are two travel lanes in each direction, along with a center turn
pocket.
As I
approached a crosswalk often used by pedestrians, a long line of cars queued up
to turn left partially blocked my view.
I couldn’t see if someone might be waiting to cross the street from the
near left corner.
Consistent
with the law and with common sense, I slowed to check. Sure enough, there was a young family waiting
to cross from left to right, a mother with an infant strapped to her chest, two
toddlers being led by their hands, and a dog on a leash. One of the toddlers was a blond girl of
perhaps three.
Seeing me
stop and with no traffic in the opposing direction, the mother began to lead
her family across. As she neared my car,
I looked in my right hand mirror. A car
was quickly coming up in the right lane, above the speed limit, without visibility
of the family on foot, and with no apparent intention to stop.
My options
were limited. In the seconds that were available,
I had no way to attract the attention of the other driver. I considered waving at the mother from my
front seat, but wasn’t sure she’d see me through the windshield in the early
afternoon sun. So l defaulted to the only
remaining option and leaned on my horn.
The mother
looked up in puzzlement and pulled back slightly on her children’s hands as a
dusty blue Ford Focus sped through the crosswalk, perhaps three feet from the
little girl.
I’m not sure
my actions made the difference. It’s
possible that the child would have been still been missed, although by a lesser
margin, if I hadn’t spotted the onrushing car and hit my horn. Regardless, the situation was all too real
and I’m still shaken hours later.
At this
point, many would facilely note the need to remain alert to pedestrians and
think they’ve done all they can. That response
is useless.
To begin, the
driver probably doesn’t read this blog or any other materials promoting traffic
safety. And even in the unlikely event that
he does come across these words, I doubt he’ll see himself in the story told being
told. Based on how he continued to drive
above the speed limit as he sped away, I don’t think he ever saw the little
girl, even as she flashed by his driver’s side window.
Also,
although the actions of this particular driver were beyond the pale, we all
make mistakes. Perhaps an engrossing conversation
with a passenger keeps a driver from picking up the clues that pedestrians
might be present. And even at the posted
speed limit of twenty-five miles per hour, the results can still be disastrous.
No solution
is perfect, but the best approach is a system of changes to streets, including
narrower lane widths, bulb-outs, and other traffic calming changes, that would pull
traffic speeds down to twenty miles per hour.
Not only are pedestrians struck at lower speeds markedly more likely to
survive, but drivers have more time to react to visual clues and to avert
accidents.
Some will
note that California state law doesn’t allow arterials to have speed limits of twenty
miles per hour and that the city doesn’t have the resources to make the street
modifications to slow traffic. To which
I can only reply that they haven’t seen a smiling toddler, happily tugging at
her mother’s hand in one moment and nearly tossed into the air by a speeding
car in the next. Once that image has
been seared into memory, impediments like state law and diminished municipal
coffers seem less important.
Twenty is
Plenty may be difficult to implement, but the alternative is even harder.
P.S. Through
the vagaries of traffic flow, the blue Ford Focus was stopped by a traffic
light a few blocks further ahead.
Although I couldn’t get close enough to see the face of the driver, I
was able to get a license plate number.
I’ll forward it shortly to the local police, along with this story.
When I next
write, I’ll update my list of upcoming chances for community involvement toward
the furtherance of urbanism. Perhaps
there will be a chance to argue for Twenty is Plenty.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
Right on. People respond to road design more than they do to speed limits. It would be helpful to have automated speed cameras available.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/No-cops-needed-S-F-pushes-bid-for-automated-6628430.php