West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Open Discussion

(25 posts)

Crosswalk sting today

Started 12 months ago by HelperMonkey
Latest reply from Cait

HelperMonkey
Member Profile

I was driving NB on California Ave this afternoon when I noted 3 cars pulled over by motorcycle cops. I assumed they had been speeding and continued on my merry way. As I get to the crosswalk at the Rite Aid, there is a car waiting to turn left onto Dawson, a car waiting to turn right onto California, people milling about - and then I noticed 6-7 motorcycle cops as I went past. Only as I went past did I see a pedestrian cross in my rearview mirror and I figured out what was going on...and waited for the inevitable.

I did not get pulled over, but plenty of people did. As I was coming back down California, aware of what was going on, I stopped for the same pedestrian - BUT HE DIDN'T CROSS. He looked at me, looked across the street at the moto cops and waved me thru. All the SPD managed to do there today was create a major distraction and generate some revenue.

Posted 12 months ago #
cjboffoli
Member Profile

Sounds to me like what they were doing is enforcing the law that cars must stop for pedestrians that way too many people ignore. Their focus on this will probably save lives. I say kudos.

Posted 12 months ago #
HelperMonkey
Member Profile

I have no problem with it as a general rule. There was just way too much going on there all at once, and they themselves were a major part of the distraction.

Posted 12 months ago #
flowerpetal
Member Profile

Do you remember that an elderly woman was killed at that crosswalk? To me, a small distraction like this is welcomed.

Posted 12 months ago #
HelperMonkey
Member Profile

yes, I do remember that. I also remember when I almost got mowed down in a crosswalk not far from there by a Seattle Police officer. Today it did not seem like education - something about it just seemed off. I knew if I got on here people would ream me about it.

Posted 12 months ago #
The Velvet Bulldog
Member Profile

Negative reinforcement: don't stop for ped, get a ticket.

Better--positive reinforcement: stop for ped, get candy.

Posted 12 months ago #
Genesee Hill
Member Profile

If this type of activity on an arterial is too much for one's brain to "digest", then perhaps one should not be operating a motor vehicle. Unbelievable!

Posted 12 months ago #
SarahScoot
Member Profile

Ok, I love you TVB, but I'm going to be a behavioral psychology pedant. Your first example is actually positive punishment: something negative is being added to discourage the behavior from occurring in the future.
Your second example is right on: positive reinforcement (something good is being added to encourage the continuing behavior of stopping for pedestrians).
And yeah, I still support the sting, because that's exactly the kind of scenario in which pedestrians get killed: driver is too distracted by other stimuli to notice a pedestrian. Good for SPD.

Posted 12 months ago #
anonyme
Member Profile

Hooray, SPD! This is a serious problem too often ignored.

Posted 12 months ago #
flowerpetal
Member Profile

HM, I never thought of you as being thin skinned. Did you really feel "reamed?" I'm glad your prediction didnt deter you from posting.

Posted 12 months ago #
Genesee Hill
Member Profile

Two-lane arterial, center turn lane, 30 MPH speed limit. Oh no, there is police enforcement. OMG, a cross walk! With someone ready to use it! I cannot handle it. Oh no!

Posted 12 months ago #
JimmyG
Member Profile

I'm so glad to hear they were doing a sting there.

My dream is that SPD would do crosswalk enforcement at the California intersections where there AREN'T marked crosswalks.
I don't even want tickets written. I want SPD to stop and educate the drivers who honestly don't know the law requires them to stop for peds at all crosswalks (even the secret magical unmarked ones).

Posted 12 months ago #
ghar72
Member Profile

So a few months back I was driving down I think it was California and noticed that a crosswalk marking had been removed, the actual paint. Sorry I can't remember if it was Cali or not...meant to post when I noticed and obviously it didn't happen. Anyway, I'm wondering if anyone knows why this happens. About 10 years ago I lived in Fremont and there was a major crosswalk there that was removed, and wondered then what the reasoning for it was. It seems that the crossings make it safer for peds b/c drivers tend to be more likely to stop for a person in an actual designated crosswalk as opposed to just a cross street. Because like JimmyG mentioned, many don't realize that's the law.

And I agree that crosswalk stings are a great thing, but I also see where HM is coming from. I HATE that crosswalk when I'm driving. I'm always super careful there. The trees are low, the light changes right there (when we have SUN) and I feel like the line of sight for peds there is difficult. You often can't see them until you're right up at the crossing. Add to that a bunch of cops on motorcycles and drivers are going to be more distracted than normal. Of course it's our responsibility as drivers to know how to react to and deal with that distraction. But I get it Helper Monkey. And glad you stopped!

Posted 12 months ago #
flowerpetal
Member Profile

I agree, it is a visually awkward place. Not sure what makes it such. Its why I'm more vigilant when passing through there.

Posted 12 months ago #
DP
Member Profile

Yes, Mon Petal, it is a "visually awkward place," and there are at least three reasons for this:

1) The apartment building looming on the east side of the street has the effect of pulling the driver's eye away from the crosswalk.

2) In summer, trees on both sides of the street shade the crosswalk area considerably, making it hard to see street crossers even under the best conditions.

3) I believe that cars can park within a short distance of the crosswalk, and this further obscures sightlines. (This is also a problem with crosswalks near the Junction. Even when people are carefully venturing out on the Junction crossings, they appear to be darting from behind cars.)

Here's a birds-eye view of the problem at the SW Dawson crossing:

The safest crosswalks are those with the clearest, longest sightlines and best signage. At the very least, the city should ban parking with 20 to 30 feet of all crosswalks. The next best thing would be to clear the trees out of the same space (sorry Lorax).

Beyond that, SDOT could embed flashers in the pavement or install an island and/or manual stoplight.

Here's what they did at Fauntleroy and 40th, for example:

Any of these changes would be more constructive, IMHO, than repeated sting operations that burn drivers but don't necessarily help pedestrians.

I'm not defending careless drivers, but I'm with HelperMonkey, who is only questioning the wisdom of this type of crosswalk sting. Anyway, I would hope it's still allowed to question something the cops do in this city without automatically being considered a scofflaw.

Posted 12 months ago #
JimmyG
Member Profile

It already is state law that you can't park within 20 feet of a crosswalk.
If you see this violation call Seattle Parking Enforcement, they're pretty good about ticketing the too close to crosswalk(20 feet), fire hydrant (15 feet), driveway (5 feet), and stop sign (30 feet) violations.

Posted 12 months ago #
WSB
Member Profile

Ghar - the crosswalk removals have happened at various spots in WS over the years. Back when we started covering news in earnest, four years ago, there was quite the campaign over the one by Java Bean/Luna Park Café:

http://westseattleblog.com/2007/07/crosswalk-campaign
http://westseattleblog.com/2007/07/follow-up-on-the-crossed-out-crosswalk

I wish I had more specifics handy, but in a nutshell: There are guidelines/rules somewhere for crosswalks. And if a spot doesn't meet those requirements - and if improvements such as overhead lights or even a signal are not in the cards for whatever reason - the city is more liable if the crosswalk stays in place, than if it is taken away. (Having run across Avalon a couple times recently without benefit of the marked crosswalk, the logic there still is boggling, but there it is.) - TR

Posted 12 months ago #
hooper1961
Member Profile

paint does not stop cars, marked crosswalks create a false sense of security that reduces safety in many cases!

Posted 12 months ago #
metrognome
Member Profile

oh, where to start ...

as a ped, the only way to be safe is to cross at a marked Xwalk or at the corner. Clearly indicate your desire to cross the street (i.e. don't dither and confuse the oncoming drivers) but DO NOT step into a car's path of travel until the car is stopped and you have made eye contact with the driver. This applies separately to each lane. It also applies to crossing driveways and to crossing residential streets where they connect to arterials.

DP -- nice analysis. The one other confusing factor is this is a 'T' intersection with another T just north of there. Plus, drivers are just accelerating out of the Junction from the north and from the south have typically had a non-interrupted straightaway since Morgan/Fauntleroy.

TR: you're spot on; the same liability analysis applies to bus stop locations as well, which is one reason the bus stop was also moved. The legal 'theory' is that government have a higher duty to 'protect' citizens when providing services or locating facilities; if someone is injured due to the gov'ts 'negligence' the awards can be staggering, even if a 'reasonable person' would feel that the plaintiff's behavior contributed to the accident. WA is a 'deep pocket' state as here is no cap on awards, so many personal injury suits get settled out of court because of the potential for huge payouts, esp with a sympathetic plaintiff.

SDOT's current policy for locating crosswalks is based on a 2002 Federal Highway Admin. study. However, they don't go back and change installed Xwalks unless there is a request or an accident, etc.

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/pedpolicy_markedcw.htm

see also http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/rowmanual/manual/4_12.asp

There are conflicting studies about overhead flashers; they work best when activated by the ped rather than when flashing all the time. As hoop noted, they create a false sense of security for the ped. Probably as many lawsuits have been filed alleging the lights shouldn't have been there as vice versa. The new runway lights show some promise but are not a panacea (they work well in Europe, but that is a different driving culture.)

Finally, there is also the practical issue that we no longer test drivers as often as we used to; over time, people get into bad habits or forget the law. We may 'save' money in the short term, but the long-term consequences are huge.

Posted 12 months ago #
ghar72
Member Profile

Thanks TR and metrognome for the explanation.

Posted 12 months ago #
Cait
Member Profile

I think they key here was the person wasn't crossing. I'm sorry if I see the car in front of me stop for you and you don't cross, I probably won't stop for you either. And I'm sorry but multiple police cars in one place are always distracting. Enough to not stop for someone? Probably not. But it's a valid point - it's a strange thing to see and coupled with some person who isn't crossing the street for the cars in front of you who stop... I'm gonna keep right on moving.

Posted 12 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Cait...

how do you propose that the police do sidewalk stings without a designated walker and motorized patrol officers to catch the drivers who didn't bother to stop?

education is most effective when people are literally caught in the act.

How do you think people would you react if they did the sting with cameras and sent you a photo of your transgression along with your ticket?

if the continued running of red lights at the Thistle 35th intersection is any indication... getting t'd off because you got caught doesn't seem to teach much of a lesson

Posted 12 months ago #
Cait
Member Profile

JoB, it can be the right thing to do and still be distracting. The distraction part is inevitable... the guy just standing on one side of the street and not crossing however, is misleading.

Posted 12 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Cait..

i agree.. crosswalk stings are distracting...

but more so for people who don't automatically stop when they see someone waiting to cross the street..

Posted 12 months ago #
Cait
Member Profile

...I'm not following. In this situation it seems like the factor keeping this person from stopping for the pedestrian was that he's wasn't crossing, not that they were distracted?

Posted 12 months ago #