<div>All-</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Even red/yellow/green stop lights don't stop some from running red lights, as we all know:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.ncsl.org/programs/transportation/0700trnrv.htm">http://www.ncsl.org/programs/transportation/0700trnrv.htm</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>"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." </div>
<div>-------------------</div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This might be a cheap and even more effective approach, that could be combined with stop signs or stop lights:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Or for a more costly approach, more regularly monitor crosswalk video as a basis for at least issuing warnings:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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?
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.ncsl.org/programs/transportation/0700trnrv.htm">http://www.ncsl.org/programs/transportation/0700trnrv.htm</a></div>
<div>
<h3>Evidence of Effectiveness</h3>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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.
</p>
<p>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."
</p><br> </div>