[Vision2020] Mountain View/D St. Crossing: Warnings & Surveillance?

[Ted Moffett]

All-

Of course a dedicated crosswalk monitor is a solution, but I assume this is
too expensive to pay someone for any large number of weekly hours,
especially when school is not in session?

Did I miss the suggestion of more enforcement?  Moscow pedestrians for their
own safety have to assume drivers will not stop at many crosswalks.
Crossing at several of the crosswalks on Washington and Jackson Streets
downtown is a sport for the very fit and fast.

If it was publicised that numerous warnings or tickets are occurring for
crosswalk violations, the news gets around.  If the problem is as serious as
some say it is, it should be easy for the police to find violators and warn
or ticket with a few hours of duty at the high use times at Mountain View/D
St.

Even red/yellow/green stop lights don't stop some from running red lights,
as we all know:

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/transportation/0700trnrv.htm

"According to the institute, the fear of a ticket and not the fear of a
crash is what prevents people from speeding or running red lights."
-------------------
Maybe law enforcement has other more important priorities than crosswalks.
Their time is expensive.  And stop signs and stop lights are sometimes not
obeyed.  Given the quote from the link above, other solutions might be
considered.

This might be a cheap and even more effective approach, that could be
combined with stop signs or stop lights:

Prominently displayed surveillance has a deterrent effect.  Mount
conspicuous cameras aimed at the crosswalks, and prominently mark that the
intersection is monitored for crosswalk violations to issue warnings or
tickets, even if the cameras are not really on most of the time, to save
money.

Or for a more costly approach, more regularly monitor crosswalk video as a
basis for at least issuing warnings:

Have an automated video system to track vehicles (and their license plate
numbers) entering the crosswalk while it is occupied, or a human monitor
could be paid to survey the crosswalk video.  With high speed video playback
of the crosswalks at Mountain View/D St. intersection from high use times, a
human monitor could quickly identify those vehicles not stopping for
pedestrians, that could then be sent a least a warning notice via tracking
their license plate number.  This is far cheaper than a policeman watching
the intersection in real time giving warnings or tickets. Recording can be
set to be triggered only when a vehicle nears or enters the crosswalk.

Cameras could be placed at all high use crosswalks, with random actual
enforcement via issuing warnings or tickets to save money.  If Wal-Mart can
have a gazillion cameras watching every shopper and their parking lot, why
can't high use city crosswalks be video monitored for safety?  What's more
important, shoplifting, or a child being run down by a careless driver?

I'm glad that the Bush Administration's illegal secret spy program that
bypassed the FISA court was recently struck down (though still in place
while on appeal) by a federal court, but out in the open public video
surveillance of crosswalks for enforcement and safety, with full public
access to the video on request, seems reasonable.   Heck, if a citizen is
that worried about crosswalk safety, I think it would be legal to stand off
the road with a video camera and catch drivers jeopardizing pedestrians,
then turn the video over to the police, with license numbers clearly
displayed in the video, would it not?

Ted Moffett

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/transportation/0700trnrv.htm
 Evidence of Effectiveness

Red light cameras have been shown to reduce red light violations as well as
crashes. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recently conducted a
study in Oxnard, Calif., which showed that red light violations dropped 42
percent after the installation of cameras. Oxnard also witnessed a reduction
in violations at intersections without cameras. According to the institute,
the fear of a ticket and not the fear of a crash is what prevents people
from speeding or running red lights. However, a 1996 study conducted in
Richmond, Va., by the Survey Research Laboratory and Center for Urban
Development found that 60 percent of people surveyed felt that less than 10
percent of red light runners would be stopped or ticketed.

In New York City, after one year of the photo red light camera project,
175,000 violations were processed. And, in a before-after analysis of one
intersection, crashes due to red light running had decreased by
approximately 70 percent. In Howard County, Md., red light crashes at one
intersection were reduced by almost 50 percent in one year. An analysis in
Fairfax, Va., calculated the reduction in red light running violations.
After three months of using the cameras a 7 percent reduction in violations
was reported. After a year this figure jumped to 44 percent.

Scottsdale, Arizona began issuing tickets in January 1997 for speeding.
Collisions at locations with speed cameras decreased 20 percent from
1996-97. During this time period, total collisions in Scottsdale decreased
by only 3 percent. In the District of Columbia, the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety measured travel speeds on 7 neighborhood streets before photo
radar was deployed and again at the same sites 6 months after deployment. At
all of the sites, the proportion of motorists going fast enough to warrant a
ticket went down. The reductions ranged from 38 to 89 percent. At the same
time, the proportion of motorists going more than 10 mph faster than the
speed limit in Baltimore, Maryland-where photo radar is not being
used-stayed the same or increased slightly.

Although these statistics are very impressive, some individuals and
organizations feel that the use of automated enforcement is a violation of
privacy. For example, the National Motorist Association (NMA) has many
concerns regarding the use of this technology. The NMA feels that the
notification of defendants via first class mail is inadequate since there is
no "reasonable guarantee that the person whom the letter is addressed will
actually get the letter." Further some feel that it is difficult, if not
impossible, to positively identify the driver of the motor vehicle in
question. The NMA is concerned with what it sees as an abuse of power and
what some refer to as "big brother."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060820/d06717b8/attachment.htm