San Francisco Still Among Most Dangerous For Pedestrians 278
dkatana writes: The city of San Francisco averages 200 injuries per year and 30 deaths. This is almost double the number of Barcelona, Catalonia, which has about the same population. The city started a Vision Zero program, aimed at reducing and ultimately eliminate pedestrian deaths by 2024. But after a year-long Vision Zero education push called Safe Streets SF, whose key message is that pedestrians always have the right of way, the results have been modest. Now a series of banners on light poles in the South of Market neighborhood with the message: 'Slow down! We live here!' are trying to convince drivers to respect people on foot.
Have an awareness raising conversation (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Have an awareness raising conversation (Score:5, Insightful)
If only we force people to engage in a diverse, non-confrontational conversation
I know you are trying to be funny, but this is exactly what SF is failing to do. All of their effort is focused on changing driver behavior, when much of the effort should be on pedestrian behavior. When pedestrians step into traffic without even looking, the metal in my bumper isn't going to care that they "always have the right of way".
Another problem is that driving in SF can can very confusing, draining driver attention. Try to make a left turn onto Market Street on a busy day. Some streets should just be shut down and turn into pedestrian malls, such as Grant Street through Chinatown, since all the tourists are already oblivious to the cars.
Re:Have an awareness raising conversation (Score:5, Informative)
Another problem is that driving in SF can can very confusing, draining driver attention. Try to make a left turn onto Market Street on a busy day.
A few months ago, SF made private vehicles turning onto Market Street illegal [sfgate.com]. Today, biking home, I saw half a dozen cars flout those new laws.
As part of Vision Zero SF, the SFPD have pledged to Focus on the Five (PDF, sorry) [sf-police.org] "violations that are most frequently cited in collisions with people walking [visionzerosf.org]. These violations are"
I cannot tell you (yeah, yeah, anecdote) how many times I've encountered while riding my bike motorists speeding through the streets of SF as if they were Karl Malden in a 1970s era TV cop show.
So, I'm in perfect agreement with you, ShanghaiBill, that a number of downtown SF city blocks should be turned into pedestrian malls strictly controlled for public transportation only.
As a side note, the first week or so Market Street had SFMTA employees keeping private vehicles from turning onto Market Street was the day public transit drivers and cabbies started racing down Market at over 35 miles per hour and jockeying to beat every. Single. Light. and running them if they couldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
So why don't you do what Las Vegas did with Fremont Street and actually made it so that it's no longer a road?
It is still a road if commercial vehicles like taxis and delivery trucks are still allowed. Blocking it completely is obviously not an option.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure it is. You just give the taxis and delivery trucks special remote controls that lower the bollards [youtube.com].
Re: Have an awareness raising conversation (Score:4, Insightful)
None of the recent fatalities involved cars driving wrecklessly.
I've driven wrecklessly for many years. That's because I try not to drive recklessly.
Re: (Score:3)
I once had a conversation with someone who proclaimed that if a "pedestrian" hid behind a parked car and jumped out into the lane of traffic, then it's still the cars fault. That seems ludicrous to me, but I'm not a lawyer.
The fact that every intersection is a potential unmarked cross walk also seems a little bit insane. Suppose you have a 6 lane road and a small 2 lane street intersects with it. Now extend an cross walk from the corners of that intersection and you have a legal crosswalk. Also suppose that
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that every intersection is a potential unmarked cross walk also seems a little bit insane.
This has been Oregon law for many years. Every intersection has a crosswalk. It doesn't need to be painted to be there. Unfortunately, most people (at least "many") don't know this, and don't know how to use those crosswalks, so there is an effort now to put in even MORE crosswalks. They just put in a marked, lighted crosswalk about 30' away from two others (the two at the closest intersection) and 50' away from another pair (the second closest intersection.) If you want to turn left onto the closest street
Change mechanics, not minds. (Score:5, Interesting)
A propaganda effort to change how safe drivers are can help a little bit, but what makes cities safer is physical world changes that make it easier to drive safely and harder to hit someone. In Seattle, for example, they redesigned 75th street after an accident and saw a major reduction in the number of collisions. (Things like removing parking, adding bike lanes, etc...)
http://www.seattle.gov/transpo... [seattle.gov]
Bike lanes are actually useful in that even if not used by bikes, they ensure you can nudge out into a road slightly for better visibility when turning into it if you need to. You also are less likely to intuitively drive as close to the center line as if you are avoiding parked cars.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a saying, "You may be right, but you might be dead right." In other words, just because you have the right of way you still need to make sure it's safe. It's your ass you may save.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are confused, or your attention is diverted, SLOW DOWN.
Drivers to the left of me, drivers up my ass HERE I AM stuck in the middle of the intersection because I listened to you, so much for this comment being set to a tune. Some parts of SF seem designed to trap drivers and get them going around in circles in the hopes that they'll run out of fuel and produce more revenue before they can get out of town. Correcting that would go a long way towards a safer city. Pedestrian foot bridges for the busiest intersections have already been suggested elsewhere in this th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not saying you're wrong, but isn't "just let Google Maps figure it for you" a viable solution?
I don't have data on my cellphone because it's useless in my home county and on the highways around it and I don't go to civilized parts of the world that often. So no, it isn't. I do have a Garmin, though, and if I keep it updated it does OK. It's got primitive but extant lane cues. Still, what this suggests is that the poor are most likely to be trapped there, and they're the least useful to trap because they can drop the least money :)
Re:Have an awareness raising conversation (Score:4, Funny)
There is no part of driving that can ever be made safer by fiddling with your cell phone.
Re: (Score:3)
No, turn-by-turn actually makes things worse. Instead of knowing the entire set of directions, you know the next one. The problem is, there are all these idiotically designed roads in SF where you are making a left turn, but you have to know which road you're going to turn on next before you make the turn, because the lanes go in different directions two blocks later, and the pavement markings don't allow you to
Re: (Score:3)
No, turn-by-turn actually makes things worse. Instead of knowing the entire set of directions, you know the next one. The problem is, there are all these idiotically designed roads in SF where you are making a left turn, but you have to know which road you're going to turn on next before you make the turn
Google may not do this right, but Garmin knows which lane you want to be in quite a lot of the time, and will tell you when you make the turn. Sadly, the only way to get proper function from their software is to buy their hardware with it included. I bought Viago, it sucked and then they discontinued it. Thanks, Garmin!
I presume other GPS manufacturers also have lane selection assistance but I know nothing about that
Re:Have an awareness raising conversation (Score:4, Interesting)
>If you are confused, or your attention is diverted, SLOW DOWN. I say this as a non-commercial driver who has logged $WAY_TOO_GODDAMN_MANY miles behind the wheel.
Driving too fast isn't really a problem in traffic in downtown SF. You're not going to break the speed limit because there's CARS EVERYWHERE.
What the problem is (having lived there for four years) is the hideously bad road signage. You're expected to be able to read two paragraphs of text on a sign within two seconds, to try to figure the fuck out if you're even allowed to be where you are, since the rules change as often as Calvinball. "No left turns except on Mondays through Fridays 7AM to 9AM and 4PM to 6PM". Sign below that: "Except on holidays." Sign below that: "Except MUNI and busses" Sign below that: "Except taxis" is an example of the kind of idiotic sign they expect drivers to be able to read and process while still avoiding pedestrians sporadically jumping into the street.
You also sometimes end up on a Muni line, and you don't know if you're supposed to be there. The answer? Sometimes. Sometimes not.
Then you have the irrational geometry of the city streets themselves, leading to super awesome signs like this:
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker... [kinja-img.com]
I once got a ticket from a sign that had six negative modifiers on it, and got it overturned because the bloody cop didn't work through the logic on it correctly and I did.
Re:Have an awareness raising conversation (Score:4, Informative)
but this is exactly what SF is failing to do. All of their effort is focused on changing driver behavior, when much of the effort should be on pedestrian behavior.
You are asking the liberals who run that city to use logic and common sense. In actual fact the pedestrian does NOT always have the right of way. For example, if a pedestrian steps off the curb right into my bumper against a red light, while I have the green, I can run their ass over and have no liability whatsoever. Their death in that case, tragic though it may be, is their own stupid fault. Pedestrians are not excused from the traffic laws simply because liberals believe that walking is more noble than driving.
SF (and the US in general) may be different, but in most places I've been a green light means "proceed if it's safe to do so".
Here in the UK, if a pedestrian is crossing while your car has a green light, you do not have the right to run them over, or even try to intimidate them by revving your engine or blowing your horn.
Re: (Score:3)
You as a driver, have a responsibility to others when operating your machine in the public space...
And you, as a pedestrian, have a responsibility to obey the laws, even the laws of physics. Saying that a driver isn't liable when a pedestrian steps illegally into the street (entering a crosswalk when the controlling signal prohibits it is illegal) is not the same as saying he has carte blanche to run someone over. There is legal liability and there is, sadly, a dead pedestrian who participated in his own demise.
The statement that "pedestrians always have the right of way" is simply not true, so using i
Population/Area has to be a factor (Score:3, Informative)
People per square foot in SF is pretty dang tight. Between 8 and 10 million people live in the Bay area, depending on who's estimates you enjoy. To make it in and out of the city, you need to use Public transportation, which means lots more pedestrians than other places I have been (including DC, NYC).
Finally, we have things like the Embarcadero where cars can be stuck for a really long time because the Pedestrians have the right of way and at lunch time thousands are crossing the streets. A system like a ramp which allowed both cars and people would make a big difference in those areas.
Re: (Score:3)
There are fewer than 1 million people in SF, but it's also relatively small. I think the big problems are the very hilly streets that plateau at the intersections and cars parked end-to-end along the sidewalk. Drivers make right turns (or left turns at one-ways) from a downhill at green lights without seeing if a pedestrian is on the crosswalk (this happens especially during high traffic periods); every corner is virtually blind.
That, and the taxi drivers are some of the most aggressive I've seen.
Re: Population/Area has to be a factor (Score:2)
Another factor is the amount of people, especially around the Tenderloin, who cross the street without apparent regard for anything. Obviously I've no hard statistics on this, but people who've driven in San Francisco know what I'm talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget bikes. They'll hit pedestrians too. If they won't slow down for cars then they won't slow down for walkers either. Only making left turns is actually helpful when you can manage it (though some streets won't allow left turns).
The residents, especially those with some economic means, need to learn that it's ok to cross the border and live somewhere else rather than treat the city as a walled off commune.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Border of the city.
Re:Population/Area has to be a factor (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
San Francisco is far more dense, because even though Barcelona has a lot of people living in suburbs, the Bay Area has more than twice as many. More workers commute in from other cities than live in San Francisco itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Population/Area has to be a factor (Score:5, Informative)
That's 18,188 per square mile for San Francisco versus 41,100 per square mile for Barcelona -- less than half the density, as you'd expect. American cities are typically more sprawling, when compared to their more compact European rivals. (Other countries just can't afford the sprawl that America can. But then nor can America really, any more.)
"But they said both cities had the same population," you proclaim. Well, yes, but they were probably comparing the metro population (4.6 million for San Francisco; 5.4 million for Barcelona.) But the same holds true here -- the San Francisco metro area (San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area) has a land area of 2,474 square miles, versus just 1,648 square miles for the metropolitana de Barcelona. So once again, San Francisco has roughly half the density.
But perhaps that's the problem. San Francisco has a low-enough density that drivers can get some speed up with which to kill pedestrians, whereas in Barcelona there are just so many people that you're used to constantly watching for them and sitting on the brakes, or you couldn't get through a day without hitting one.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, and I think this would be reflected in some sort of "average speed limit per mile of city streets" metric.
I mean, 30 years ago, whenst last I drove through the downtown of actual SF, there was a 5-lane honking freeway slicing thru the heart of it. I was honestly terrified as we drove mile after mile at breakn
Re: (Score:2)
If you mean the Embarcadero Freeway, they tore that down after the Loma Prieta earthquake in '89. (And there was much rejoicing. Visit the rejuvenated Ferry Building and there are markers where the supports for the freeway once stood, and plaques gloating over its demise. The Embarcadero Freeway was widely despised.)
Park Presidio Drive is technically part of US Highway
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I was in Spain back in 1982 the rule was that roads were made for cars and people had to watch for traffic. No one ever stepped off in front of me while I was there. Never. I think maybe the rule that pedestrians always have the right of way has created a false sense of safety in pedestrians. They get so used to jumping in front of cars that always stop so that when someone isn't paying attention and they jump they get squished. I always wait, even at crosswalks, for traffic to stop before I step
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
the San Francisco metro area (San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area)
There's your problem right there. Most people that live in the SF Bay Area would include San Jose in that with more than 2m people. The US census for some weird reason divides the bay area into two pieces, San Jose and SF. No idea why and everyone here thinks that people who live in San Jose live in the "Bay Area" as do those that live in San Jose.
Re: (Score:3)
People per square foot in SF is pretty dang tight.
Coming to SF from Denmark... I would say there are 3 main issues:
1) traffic laws aren't followed,
2) drivers are poorly trained (drivers license requirements is a joke),
3) roads aren't optimized for safe high-throughput traffic
(1) is what causes danger, but (2) and (3) are the reasons for this. Compared to most European cities SF has wide street, lots of space, and yet manages to spend half the streets on parking, uses stop signs all over, this causes drivers to disgard stop signs, speed up/down like
it's that Bullitt thing (Score:2)
China (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://m.snopes.com/chinese-dr... [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
This. I was in SF a couple months ago and even coming from Portland I was pretty impressed by the sheer brazenness of the average SF pedestrian. The drivers were no better/worse as far as I could tell, but everyone was in a hustle, crossing illegally, ignoring pedestrian signals, etc. Combined with narrow downtown streets the real surprise is that it is not even worse.
Right Of Way (Score:5, Insightful)
whose key message is that pedestrians always have the right of way
What? Should that be "they always have the right of way if on a crosswalk"? Because otherwise I think I can explain your pedestrian death rate...
Re: (Score:2)
Pedestrians don't always have the right of way even in a crosswalk. It's first-come first-served.
And this brings up the catch-22: a pedestrian doesn't have the right-of-way in a crosswalk until he or she is already in the crosswalk. By that time, it may be too late.
Re: (Score:2)
Pedestrians don't always have the right of way even in a crosswalk. It's first-come first-served.
Holy. Can't they stick out their arm or something? "Point your way to safety" is what I remember from (Canadian) grade 2 class.
Re: (Score:2)
I did a little googling and apparently that program was cancelled because some people would just point and walk out into traffic (without looking) whether on a crosswalk or not.
Re: (Score:2)
In some nations the point to go was canceled because laws around crosswalks and parking changing. If I remember correctly, its because you where allowed to park at the edge of one in both directions, but regulation changed to a 6-8m ban of parking because it meant cars no longer blocked view of the pedestrians.
That said, the legality is a mess for people driving without cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh god, yes ... I once got the shit scared out of me as some kid made a 90 degree turn, extended his arm, and started walking across the street.
No stop and look. No eye contact. No making sure the driver stops.
Just turn, arm, and walk in one fluid motion.
Whatever clueless idiot taught children that had no idea what they were doing.
And I sure as shit didn't want to have to explain how the kid just turned and started walking, so he scared the life out of me.
Stupidest pedestrian training ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Right Of Way (Score:5, Insightful)
Even Missouri gets that right. ... That means that any pedestrian-involved accidents are automatically the vehicle driver's fault, including any applicable criminal charges.
The problem here is you think that's getting it "right."
Virtually everywhere else, if a pedestrian is hit on a roadway and they're NOT in the crosswalk, if they aren't killed then THEY'RE the ones getting a ticket for jay-walking.
And THAT is "right." And I say this as someone who prefers walking when possible.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The crime of jaywalking [slate.com] didn't exist until cars came along. Streets were once shared spaces for everyone. Cars were slaughtering people left and right, so to protect their own interests, the automobile lobby came up with the term "jaywalking" to ridicule the victims, and they also managed to get legislators on their side.
Meanwhile, in San Francisco, motorists violate the right-of-way of pedestrians more often than the other way around. (See the linked article above for proof.)
And are you aware that crosswal
Re:Right Of Way (Score:5, Insightful)
The crime of jaywalking [slate.com] didn't exist until cars came along. Streets were once shared spaces for everyone.
And then someone figured out that things with large amounts of momentum required long stopping distances, and that you were an idiot if you stepped out in front of them, and expected the laws of physics to bend to your whim.
And then someone else came up with traffic signals and road markings, which made it safe for pedestrians and cars to share the street again ...so long as everyone, including the pedestrians, obeyed the signals and road markings.
And then "jaywalking" ... not obeying the signals and road markings in a way dangerous to those sharing the road with you ... became a crime.
And everyone lived happily every after! Except the people who were jaywaking: they got splatted like birds flying into the path of a 747 (something that also can't stop on a dime, even if the birds happen to be members of an endangered species).
Re: (Score:2)
All things being equal, does a car have a longer stopping distance than a pedestrian?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
All things being equal, does a car have a longer stopping distance than a pedestrian?
That depends on how hard you hit the pedestrian.
Re: (Score:2)
Silly goose, thats why pedestrian heavy zones are 10-30km/h max.
And why driving without a dash car is legally unsafe for your wallet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Right Of Way (Score:5, Interesting)
Not everywhere. Maybe virtually everywhere in this US? Come to London: we don't have this nanny state concept of "jaywalking", just personal responsibility. Pedestrians do cross the roads wherever they like and whenever they think they can. It's up to the drivers to be aware of this and drive appropriately for the conditions. Trust me, as a cyclist in this city some parts of the West End are pretty scary: not because of the vehicles but because of nob-ends with their noses in mobile phones or just crowd mentality of one person's crossing so we all will.
Re: (Score:2)
Even Missouri gets that right.
Well, that's understandable in Missouri. Rural. Low traffic volumes. And the types of people that live there (watching Winter's Bone as I post this). But that just won't work in big cities. They need more control of both pedestrian and traffic flow, like Tokyo or Singapore.
Try jaywalking in Singapore.
Re: (Score:3)
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha you wish. I've read angry diatribes in the comments at sfgate.com which basically said that pedestrians not only deserve the right of way at all time, it's offensive victim-blaming to suggest that a pedestrian crossing the road ought to be pragmatic and exercise caution for the sake of avoiding serious injury or death. (The real trendy position is to advocate for banning cars in San Francisco entirely
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is that I'd actually LOVE to be able to give up my car. The problem is that, ironically for a city that claims to have a "transit first" policy, MUNI is just terrible. I mean, appallingly bad... a disgrace and an embarrassment. It's pretty much useless for anything besides commuting into downtown for work. And even then, if you live in certain neighborhoods (Basically the entire northwest quadrant of the city except for a small strip along Lonbard.) then lords of Kobol help you.
If MUNI c
Re: (Score:2)
If San Francisco laws are anything like Norwegians, pedestrians do always have right of way. No way of getting around it.
Now, the issue of the pedestrian jumping from sidewalk into traffic(and who gets blamed for what there), the logical axiom of crosswalks being used as cross points, and more, is a different issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know about SF... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the pedestrians (Score:3)
They believe their right to walk into traffic overrules the basic laws of physics. I hate driving in the city, but have to do it on a regular basis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Based on your claim, the fastest you could ever drive in San Francisco is about 5 mph, because the pedestrians are simply that stupid. They will step into fast moving traffic no where near a crosswalk and scream obscenities at you when you have to slam on your brakes and swerve around them, narrowly avoiding turning them into a stain.
If you drive just one time in San Francisco, you'd also accept the insanity or stupidity of the average San Francisco pedestrian.
It's the driver's responsibility (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pedestrians have the RoW where I currently live, and I think it's an insane policy
I remember the anti-car nutters constantly pushing for it when I was in the UK, so obviously it has to be an insane policy for them to be doing that. The goal isn't to help pedestrians, it's to penalize drivers.
I much prefer... (Score:5, Interesting)
...the way pedestrians act in Boston and New York: total chaos. People wander across the street randomly, and drivers are very aware that this is going to happen, so they slow down. It made for a much more pedestrian-friendly environment there than on the west coast, where cars travel far too fast and pedestrians are timid and restrained.
Nearly got knocked over when crossing - legally - at a pedestrian crossing in Berkeley, and a driver refused to stop and I had to jump out of the way.
Re: (Score:2)
People wander across the street randomly, and drivers are very aware that this is going to happen, so they slow down.
Yeah same in this locality, it's fine once you keep your eyes open and watch out for blind spots. As such many of the comments in this story are weird to me - people seem less worried about the fact of killing someone with their car than about the legal liability for doing so.
Re:I much prefer... (Score:4, Informative)
...the way pedestrians act in Boston and New York: total chaos. People wander across the street randomly, and drivers are very aware that this is going to happen, so they slow down.
Interestingly, Boston and New York have very different pedestrian accident rates. New York has 1.52 pedestrian deaths per 100K, not much better than San Francisco's 1.70. Boston, though, has 0.79.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811888.pdf
It's also worth pointing out that SF is actually safer for pedestrians than most big US cities. Boston appears to be the safest.
Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
pedestrian has right of way. (Score:2)
Giving pedestrians the right of way is the problem. In my state the right of way is determined by the rules of the road. If someone is in a cross walk i
or crossing corn to adjacent corner against a red light for traffic or with a lit walk light they have the right of way. If they are crossing that, its a matter of circumstances as in who was there first even though the car has a duty to not hit anything or drive faster than they can stop for their vision. Essentially the car is mostly at fault except when
Re: (Score:2)
It is as if the laws of physics don't exist in those towns because the pedestrian has the right of way.
I don't understand it - even if you have the right of way, you're still dead.
Re: (Score:2)
64%? (Score:2)
And of collisions between drivers and pedestrians, 64 percent were the driver’s fault.
Given what I've seen of how pedestrians acted when I worked in SF years ago, I'm shocked that that number isn't reversed towards pedestrians being more at fault. They routinely waited OUT IN THE STREET for the light to change, rather than stay two steps back on the nice, safe sidewalk. It was truly the most bizarre pedestrian behavior I have seen in a city. They also would start crossing a busy six lane main road when there was no chance for them to make it across before
Re: (Score:2)
Man, oh man... there's so much to what you are saying, not even all of it has to do with the issue at hand (there should be death penalty for drivers stopping past the stop line at a red light so that drivers to their right CAN'T see what's coming from the left(*)), but I have to question those statistics, too.
If the laws are favorable to pedestrians - like that they really do, literally, always have the right of way - then the "at fault" statistic is going to be skewed. The article states that pedestrians
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the specific rules but I would hazard a guess that crossing the road against the pedestrian signals is probably an at fault. As well as there is probably something on the books that specifies you must cross at a crossing if there is one within X distance.
The other where the pedestrian is likely to be at fault is when they walk into the side of a vehicle. That actually happens a lot more these days as more wankers walk around with big headphones on.
Try this... (Score:2)
Or a brick (Score:2)
When I lived in K.C. there was a crosswalk on a curved 4 lane street I had to cross. Cars rarely slowed down even though the crosswalk was larger than normal. I started carrying a brick raised high above my head. They then slowed down.
How many were drunk or drugged up (Score:2)
San Francisco has a bizarre attitude about treating its homeless drunks and drug addicts like tourist attractions. You have to see it to believe it. If a homeless person is sitting in the middle of the street, the police will not move them. They are given blankets and clothes regularly, so of course more and more make their way into the city. I'm not saying some compassion is not required to help these people, but SF's treatment of them is absurd and only compounds the problem.
Far worse elsewhere (Score:5, Informative)
See page 9:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/P... [dot.gov]
SF is 1.7 deaths per 100k residents
Dallas, Detroit, El Paso, Oklahoma City, Albequerque, and Jacksonville are all over 3 deaths per 100k residents.
Awareness only goes so far. ENFORCE! (Score:2)
Enforce the damn laws.
"Right-of-Way" Misused. (Score:4, Interesting)
The California Vehicle Code requires that all automobile drivers YIELD to pedestrians in the road, but as pedestrians do not have a permanent right-of-way, they can still be cited for jaywalking.
wow (Score:4, Insightful)
with very few exceptions every single comment in this thread blames pedestrians for jumping out in front of cars
in San Francsico, crossing a street, within the crosswalk, with the light, is a stupid act of faith that some idiot isn't going to
mow you down. bikers taking turns without looking, ubers shooting across the street looking only at their phones
some self important dickhead in a bmw blowing a red 20 seconds after its turned.
collectively - you're the worst. people who might actually want to walk 10 blocks instead of getting in their cars are effectively
disposable human trash who should really just be killed for forcing you to slow down for a few seconds.
This is complicated. (Score:2)
Here's what I suspect. San Francisco has a lot of pedestrians for an American city, but it's still proportionally lower than Barcelona. Barcelona has a lower proportion of automobile traffic and a higher proportion of pedestrian traffic. Thus, more vehicle-pedestrian accidents in San Francisco.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
More people walk to work in SF than anywhere I've ever been. I wander what the accident rates are per mile walked?
What? You want details and careful analysis? All they said was "among the most dangerous" and a one-off statistic to lead in their story about a pedestrian safety advertizing campaign. Neither the summer or the article specify what other cities was compared. As far we know Barcelona could be exceptionally safe and San Francisco could be the safest (by some metric) city in North America.
Re: (Score:2)
1. post traffic cops/cameras at bad areas 2. photograph offenders 3. Track down & levy enormous fines
That's only possible if pedestrians wear license plates on their asses, because probably a good percentage of the time it's their fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Too many hobos in SF. "Levy enormous fines". But how will you collect anything?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. I actually got into an argument with a former acquaintance regarding this point. He claimed that pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way, anywhere, anytime, in any circumstance. I then asked why people can be ticketed for jaywalking. I asked who has legal liability if the pedestrian willfully jumps in front of a car.
His inane response went along these lines: jaywalkers still have the right of way but are ticketed so as to discourage people from getting injured. The driver is always at fault b
Re: (Score:2)
I grew up in Los Angeles and have lived near San Francisco for the past 20 years. LA drivers consider running over jaywalkers a civic duty.
Re: (Score:2)
The denser parts of San Francisco tend to have pretty low speed limits, such that cars can immediately come to a stop if they need to. For example Market St around Powell is 10 mph.
If you've ever been around that area, it should be obvious that there are vastly more people on foot than in cars. It just doesn't make any sense to slow down the majority (who are on foot) and have them wait for the minority (in their cars) to go past.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why was this voted down? CA still has a very strong car culture. Just look at the traffic in San Francisco. There are a lot of people here that are very anti-pedestrian and anti-mass transit.
Re: (Score:3)
I've found the subway and bus system relatively good and the taxi fares cheaper than if I had to pay to park.
Flat-out, the city was not laid-out for daily car use by its inhabitants, and houses with soft-story first floors with garages have proven to be dangerous with the e
Re: (Score:2)
IMO just don't live in the CtPaTown and you'll be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this just part of their plan on eliminating the homeless?
Re:Punish jaywalking (Score:4, Interesting)
Getting rid of jaywalking laws so and reseting the attitudes and expectations of drivers so that they show more caution and slow down might be more effective. Allowing people on foot to reclaim their city from the motor car will make cities a better place. It would be better to lobby for better and more transportation alternatives than entrenching driving. In some congested places like London they've even talked about remove all signage and lane markings to create "naked streets", because actually this makes drivers slow down and pay more attention and care. As a visitor to San Francisco my observation is that drivers rush too much and drive too much like aresholes in their rush to get across the city.