Jason

Thu, Nov 3, 2011 : 8:03 p.m.

One of the first things children are taught is to look both ways before crossing the street. I still can't believe an ordinance was enacted allowing pedestrians to throw safety and caution into the wind, and pinning the safety of pedestrians on the drivers. I find it difficult to imagine a time where it is easier to spot a pedestrian approaching a crosswalk by the driver of a moving vehicle, than it is for the pedestrian to spot the vehicle. The rule designed for safety makes it less safe to both drive and walk. I firmly believe this is an attempt to make some money. It's easy to give out tickets for failing to yield for an approaching pedestrian, because 99% of the time the pedestrian isn't seen.

grimmk

Thu, Nov 3, 2011 : 5:40 p.m.

I drove into Ann Arbor last night to catch the amazing Civil War concert. I was really mindful of crosswalks, slowing down, looking around to see if anyone was around. Just as I was going near one a guy on a bike came out of nowhere (a line of trees in a dark area) going for the crosswalk. There was no way in hell I could stop. It was just after dusk. They need to light these places up more. Another time was going over the Broadway Bridge and I failed to see a group of people in the dark until I was on top of the crosswalk. Non one was stopping for them. There was very inadequate light to see from a distance. Going back home, there were people in the road trying to cross instead of on the sidewalk trying to cross. What's up with that? I did manage to stop for one pedestrian, didn't get rear-ended...and the pedestrian wasn't even paying attention! He had his hack to the road!!! So I guess he was waiting for the buss because it was also a bus stop.

terry rybak

Thu, Nov 3, 2011 : 5:16 p.m.

What a poorly thought-out idea. Yellow means "Caution", not "Stop". So why not use Red like all the other traffic controls do? This has to be confusing to visitors to the city. Are we going to require visitors to each city to learn their unique traffic laws?

Rici

Thu, Nov 3, 2011 : 2:08 a.m.

I have noticed that on Plymouth Road, most of the crosswalks are contiguous with bus stops. This is stupid. The bus stops should be moved. (This is not true on Huron for the most part.) But other than that, I happen to support this law. As many others have pointed out, a rear-end collision usually means that the driver was (a) following too closely, (b) driving too fast, (c) distracted, or (d) some combination of those. Stop blaming the ordinance. I hope the people who support the ordinance ALSO contact their city council person! People griped and griped about the roundabouts when they were being installed, but now that we're used to them, do you still hear complaints?

Ann English

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 10:54 p.m.

Sounds like we may as well memorize where the crosswalks are and slow down, well before seeing any pedestrians at the crosswalks. These rear-end collisions could happen regardless of why the motorist in front of you stops or fails to go again, when you least expect it. I remember getting hit lightly from behind shortly after slamming on my brakes when a car in front of me just sat there at a newly green light; her car had stalled. It was a totally unexpected situation.

Paul Epstein

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 10:47 p.m.

Horrid, horrid, horrid ordinance.....and "I told you so". Giving pedestrians right-of-way is a blunder in physics prowess. Now I'm afraid that, due to this harebrained piece of doodly-doop, a bunch of Republicans will get voted onto council, which would be even worse than this.

coffeedrinker

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 6:50 p.m.

Stopping for a pedestrian in a cross walk is state law. A2 just added the 'approaching' language. I agree this is ill conceived but a lot of the comments here seem to be blaming the city for the state law as well.

Roaring_Chicken

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 6:41 p.m.

In fact, Ms. Briggs, I think you're wrong: <a href="http://www.boyerdawson.com/news/newsletter3/rights-and-duties-of-pedestrians/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.boyerdawson.com/news/newsletter3/rights-and-duties-of-pedestrians/</a> &quot;Although a pedestrian has the right-of-way in a crosswalk, the pedestrian may not leave the curb or sidewalk when it would be impossible for a motor vehicle driver to yield to the pedestrian. If the pedestrian leaves the curb or the sidewalk suddenly or runs or walks into the path of the motor vehicle, the pedestrian may be considered to be negligent or contributorily negligent with regard to an accident.&quot; So much for being &quot;required&quot; to step out in front of a vehicle! &quot;Even if a pedestrian has the right-of-way, the pedestrian has a duty to keep a proper lookout for his or her own safety. The pedestrian's failure to keep a proper lookout constitutes negligence on the part of the pedestrian. However, the pedestrian's failure to keep a proper lookout is only considered to be the proximate cause of an accident if the proper lookout would have given the pedestrian enough time to avoid the accident.&quot; The PEDESTRIAN has to exercise judgment in estimating whether a driver will have time to yield the right-of-way, before entering the crosswalk. Our &quot;new&quot; Ann Arbor law appears to remove that responsibility from the pedestrian and place it on the driver, to come to a stop BEFORE the pedestrian's intention of using the crosswalk is even clear. And instead of the duty to keep a &quot;proper lookout,&quot; pedestrians get to assume that all drivers will simply come to a sudden stop from 45-50 m.p.h. in all traffic conditions, to stop for them.

Roaring_Chicken

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 6:24 p.m.

Let's consider this: &quot;Our old law required people to step in front of a moving vehicle BEFORE a motorist was required to stop at a crosswalk. This was not safe. &quot; How did this differ from the existing State law? I'm curious. And &quot;... required people to step in front of moving vehicles&quot; is lurid and misleading. Can't people WAIT for traffic to clear to enter? THEN a vehicle comes along and, reasonably, stops, for a pedestrian in the crosswalk. DUH. &quot;For those of us willing to dash across the roadway, we managed. For those with a disability, children, the elderly it meant busy roads were essentially unpassable except at signalized intersections.&quot; BUSY roads ARE unpassable ... EXCEPT AT signalized intersections. Why is that a problem?

Erica Briggs

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 5:39 p.m.

The Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition 100% agrees that our crosswalks need better engineering, particularly on busy roads like Plymouth Road. Crosswalk engineering was a problem prior to the passing of the this new law and it remains a problem. However, before the passage of this law few people were aware the problem existed. Cities are for people and our cities need to be designed to allow for the safe passage of all it's citizens-- not just those in vehicles. Our old law required people to step in front of a moving vehicle BEFORE a motorist was required to stop at a crosswalk. This was not safe. For those of us willing to dash across the roadway, we managed. For those with a disability, children, the elderly it meant busy roads were essentially unpassable except at signalized intersections. This new law was the first step in making our community more accessible, livable for all our residents-- not just for those sitting in comfy cars (and yes, I use mine plenty). The next step... which people are right to be demanding is more complete engineering and better education. This story is awful. It is scary to think about how quickly an awful situation can happen because the driver of a multi-ton vehicle is not paying attention. Driving is serious business and we are all often too distracted when we are driving. But it is the the responsibility of the motorist to pay attention to what's happening in front of them. We need to crack-down on reckless, inattentive driving... we can not eliminate all reasons people may need to stop whether it's a pedestrian, someone turning, an animal in the road, a post office vehicle, etc. And we need to recognize that, sadly, rear-end collisions are one of the risks of driving... there were 1,034 rear-end collisions in A2 in 2010, 986 in 2009 and 982 in 2008. Please write city council and let them know if you support this law and efforts to make Ann Arbor more livable. ~Erica Briggs, WBWC Board Member, <a href="http://www.wbwc.org" rel='nofollow'>www.wbwc.org</a>

Roaring_Chicken

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 5:29 p.m.

I knew if I went sniffing, I'd find a smoking gun: Dated but relevant: <a href="http://techtransfer.berkeley.edu/newsletter/03-2/crosswalk.php" rel='nofollow'>http://techtransfer.berkeley.edu/newsletter/03-2/crosswalk.php</a> &quot;New Findings On Crosswalk Markings A recent, landmark study undertaken by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), yields fresh results about crosswalks and pedestrian safety at uncontrolled intersections. This study is based on 5 years of pedestrian accident data at 1,000 marked crosswalks and 1,000 matched, unmarked crossing sites. All of the sites were uncontrolled (had no traffic signal or stop sign on the approaches). &quot;According to this study, under no condition did the presence of a marked crosswalk alone at an uncontrolled location result in a significantly lower pedestrian accident rate when compared to the pedestrian accident rate of an unmarked crosswalk. Furthermore, on multi-lane roads with traffic volumes greater than 12,000 vehicles per day, having a marked crosswalk alone (without other substantial improvements) was actually associated with a higher pedestrian accident rate when compared with an unmarked crosswalk. Therefore, the addition of a marked crosswalk alone, with no engineering, enforcement, or education enhancement, did not reduce pedestrian accidents for any of the conditions included in the study. The type of crosswalk marking (e.g. parallel lines, solid bar, zebra or ladder striped) and the condition of the crosswalk marking (e.g. excellent, good, fair or poor) had no significant effect on pedestrian accident rates.&quot; It's not our imagination. The City has de-enhanced pedestrian safety. Way to go.

christopher bigge

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 3:36 p.m.

This ordinance is disastrous. The responsibility of pedestrian safety is that of the pedestrian when light signals are not present. Shifting the responsibility to drivers requires multiple people to make a correct decision and all of them do not have the same information. Pedestrians - assess situation and make a decision regarding their safety. The consequences are foreseeable and will result in injury and property damages.

David Cahill

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 1:42 p.m.

I hope AnnArbor.com keeps on this story, and provides us with running totals of the casualties. Could you include costs of car repair and nature of injuries, if available?

Bruce Madej

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.

I have had three occasions when I needed to stop for pedestrians since the new crosswalks made their debut. On all three occasions, the cars immediately behind me slowed and stopped while another car behind them swerved to the other lane and went around us almost hitting the pedestrian. I really thought the law was going to be hard to enforce in the first place. Now as I have experienced and read of others tribulations, the law needs to be changed as fast as possible before someone is seriously injured.

Roaring_Chicken

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 12:43 p.m.

I'm going to guess that a bit more digging will reveal that in some study somewhere, it has been determined that the KIND of crosswalks on Plymouth or Stadium, ie, with an island and spanning a four+ lane, over 35mph average speed (and on Stadium that's usually 40-45 even with traffic lights every block), DON'T WORK. For all the reasons given here. The cure for &quot;distracted driving&quot;? ENFORCEMENT. We have &quot;crack downs&quot; for seatbelt use ...why not for general moving violations? Punish the law breakers -- don't just pass more laws.

Brad

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 12:22 p.m.

Yo, Council! Can you please fininsh your &quot;rethinking&quot; and do something about this before someone is seriously injured or killed? Swallow your pride, admit your folly and end the ridiculousness. Oh yes - everyone remember to vote on Tuesday. I am &quot;rethinking&quot; my vote right now ...

motorcycleminer

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 12:16 p.m.

As anyone who reads this tome or it's printed sibling knows, city councils heads live in a very dark and less than pleasant enviroment...it's amazing that the &quot; sheeple ' keep putting them back in office ..for a city that can't fix it's bridges and infrastructure , but has no problem working out of a glorified fema trailer with a $ 750,000 tongue depressor in front, these chicken strips and the law that supports them is just another boondoggle from a council that hasen't got a clue and sadly doesn't care . Can't wait for Sam to put up billboards at the chicken strips and might as well do the roundabouts as well.

kathryn

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 12:13 p.m.

I think this increase in accidents is not a result of the new ordinance...it's a result of the new enforcement of a law that has always been there but we have been ignoring for year--crosswalks. Even if the city re-writes the ordinance so we don't have to stop when someone is waiting but instead makes them take the first steps into traffic, it will STILL be the law that motorists must stop and let the pedestrian cross. When some people start to obey the law to avoid a ticket, other...less attentive...people will be surprised by the change in traffic flow and will rear-end somebody. So folks, is the solution to go back to saying we just won't enforce the law and let pedestrians fight to cross the street or get run over? Or is the solution to spend thousands/millions more city dollars installing brighter signs, more paint, and stop lights everywhere because motorists cannot be expected to follow the traffic rules?

Carl

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 11:18 a.m.

No matter the new law, these people should have been stopping at crosswalks already as it is state law, correct? Or do I understand this wrong.

Tru2Blu76

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 7:54 a.m.

It's TOO HARD! It's insane to expect drivers to be aware of the new traffic signs and pedestrians AND the vehicles in front of us! It's, it's like expecting drivers to be in control of their vehicles- insane! Just because THAT IS a state law (part of the Motor Vehicle Code - for those who didn't know what that was), it's &quot;incompetent&quot; of city council to expect us to follow Michigan's Motor Vehicle Code! We must march on city hall and demand that we be allowed to return to... oblivious driving! Both rear-ended and rear-endering drivers must sue the city! Only, auto insurance rules in that realm and it's difficult to start a law suit based on: &quot;I rear-ended that vehicle because the city made me do it.&quot; Or: &quot;I was rear-ended because the city expected the other driver to be in control of their vehicle and to be aware of traffic signs and conditions.&quot; Obviously: these suits will bring a bonanza to... maybe a few shyster lawyers.

say it plain

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 4:53 a.m.

I've had the exact same experience as @A2Comments... it is very very difficult to diagnose someone's intentions as they stand at a crosswalk which is also a bus stop. The stretch of Plymouth that has seen so many accidents is particularly bad because there are numerous such crosswalks there. That we drivers find ourselves in the sudden business of mindreading brings home how silly and poorly thought out this ordinance is. The state law as written is enough...we should enforce that and add HAWK lights where they are needed, like on those stretches of Plymouth perhaps.

John

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 4:02 a.m.

I am reminded of a time in Michigan when a motorist slowed down on a major highway for ducks that were crossing. There was a resulting pileup that involved a tractor-trailer. Rather than using it as an example of why drivers should put down the phone and drive responsibly, authorities instead reminded people never to slow down for animals in the road. My guess is that the readers here that are spewing all of the vitriol are almost never pedestrians. You have never tried for 15 minutes to get across a roadway in Ann Arbor during heavy traffic. The new stop signs that have been erected at the crosswalks are easy to see by anyone that has their eyes on the road.

moodyone

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 3:55 a.m.

Some of these comments defending the ordinance are incomprehensible in their reasoning. Yes, it is the responsibility of every driver to be able to stop safely under ordinary circumstances; but the issue just isn't as simple as that. Disrupting the flow of traffic is itself dangerous and is known to increase the probability of accidents. When we make a law that we know will cause more sudden stopping in traffic, we know that there will be a corresponding increase in rear-end accidents where that law applies. It may be &quot;better&quot; in the aggregate to have two cars collide than to have one car strike a pedestrian, but this isn't really what we're talking about considering the excellent odds that a pedestrian will be in the crosswalk as a rear-ended car careens toward her (bringing the total number of those involved in the accident to 2+ cars as well as the pedestrian(s)). Traffic engineering takes into account how people and things actually are (e.g., how fast motorists travel on a particular stretch of road, how viable it is for humans to direct their attention in multiple directions at the same time) as well as how they should ideally be. Knowing that this ordinance will interfere with the flow of traffic and thus that it will cause an increase in accidents (as appears already to be the case), there needs to be a better, data-driven rationale for a community even to considering adopting it than what I interpret as &quot;our roads can't accommodate current pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle traffic and residents are too cheap to agree to HAWK signals or pedestrian bridges, so we'll just take this measure that makes us look like we give a flying fig when really we're just making things worse.&quot;

Ashok Gopalakrishnan

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 3:24 a.m.

From the article: &quot;Mayor John Hieftje brought forward a resolution unanimously approved by the City Council last week to closely examine possible pedestrian safety improvement options for crosswalks throughout the city, including on Plymouth Road.&quot; This should have been done prior to installing mid-block crosswalks, not after. One approach would have been: - Get help from engineers in Boulder (that pedestrian paradise) - Study the kind of crosswalk treatment devices they use (they have more than 10 years of experience, and they use three or four different kinds of control devices) - Establish a well-publicized pilot project or two in A2 - Collect data and analyze it, determine what signage to use, etc. - In about 6 to 8 months, pass the ordinance - Use the experience gained to add more mid-block crosswalks, with appropriate treatments But this approach requires a willingness to dedicate serious resources to ensure that the crosswalks work in a manner safe for motorists and pedestrians. As to the language of A2's ordinance, it seems to require motorists to read the pedestrian's mind. But Boulder's ordinance is almost exactly the same. <a href="http://www.colocode.com/boulder2/chapter7-4.htm#section7_4_23" rel='nofollow'>http://www.colocode.com/boulder2/chapter7-4.htm#section7_4_23</a> . So, I quite suspect that with proper signage, crosswalk treatments - HAWK lights, RRFBs, etc. - that clearly indicate to motorists a pedestrian's intent, the actual language of the ordinance will not be an issue. HAWK lights cost around $45,000. A pair of solar-powered RRFBs cost around $10,000-$15,000, according to the US FHWA. See here: <a href="http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/techsum/fhwasa09009/" rel='nofollow'>http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/techsum/fhwasa09009/</a> The question really is this: Is A2 city council willing to spend the money needed to make the crosswalks safe? I do not doubt that motorists need to change their attitude, but giving them a clear sign that a pedestrian intends to cross is a must. As a pedestrian, you should not have to strap lights on to your body to attract a motorist's attention.

snapshot

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 2:49 a.m.

Maybe the state police should be investigating the legality of this law and the mayhem it's causing. Does the city council have the right to jeopardize resident safety with &quot;personal agenda&quot; laws? This is outright negligence on the part of city council, the mayor, and other partiies involved. This law creates not only creates discomfort and worries for drivers but in now causing injuries and property damages. I consider this an illegal law and it's implementation an illegal act interfering with state law.

melissa

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 1:19 a.m.

There is a new pedestrian crosswalk on Michigan Avenue, just east of downtown and it's extremely clear that you should stop - there are lights that only blink red when a pedestrian is crossing - why can't this be put in place of the crosswalks that have confusing signage???

ToddAustin

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 12:58 a.m.

I find it strange that all these people are angry about having to stop for pedestrians, which was the existing law. They call on A2 gov't to put up more stop signs and stop lights, but they are the same people who run the stop signs and fail to stop at the lights before turning on red, threatening the lives of pedestrians every day. Yes, more signage would be helpful. The auto accidents have been unfortunate, but caused by reckless inattentive drivers. Imagine if it had been the pedestrians who had been hit by those cars. The atmosphere on the street in Ann Arbor has changed noticeably in recent weeks when it comes to walking. It feels safer. Drivers are more deferential toward pedestrians, as they should be. I cross carefully, but still felt threatened by aggressive drivers on numerous occasions in the past as they swooped through intersections and crosswalks with no regard to those on foot. That frequency has dropped. The threat of fines is doing the job it was intended to do and our streets are safer now for pedestrians. I support this law.

russellr

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 12:23 a.m.

Should I rub it in your face (city council) and say I told you this is what would happen. Every person that gets in a wreck needs to do a class action lawsuit. What a stupid ordinance.

Jerome Blue

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 10:31 p.m.

If you drivers would not tail-gate and would look out for brake light like you're required to, this wouldn't happen. It is ALWAYS the drivers fault.

UMGeorge

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 10:12 p.m.

I've been a long time AA resident, and I believe that the current dangerous crosswalk law will become much worse in winter. I worry for the safety of pedestrians as well as vehicle drivers in wintery conditions, and believe many additional accident opportunities will occur as a direct result of this law as road conditions worsen. It's encouraging that &quot;a resolution was unanimously approved&quot; to closely examine pedestrian safety options, but we must hope that action will be taken SOON, before more incremental, unnecessary accidents occur. At a minimun, reverting to prior law and practice would seem to make sense until more verified, safer pedestrian safety actions can be identified, funded and implemented.

John Spelling

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 9:51 p.m.

and who's the genius that put crosswalks at bus stops (or vice versa)? we are expected to stop for people waiting for the bus? absurd.

Carolyn

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 9:48 p.m.

In the interest of full disclosure........... On Friday, the tow company employee indicated that my car was totaled. Today, while meeting with the insurance adjuster, I was told the car was totaled. But after &quot;running the numbers&quot; my car has been deemed repairable.

DonBee

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 9:39 p.m.

My simple stupid answer - I am not driving into Ann Arbor, none of the merchants will see any money from me. I will go to Plymouth or Ypsi instead.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 9:20 p.m.

This was predictable. Good Night and Good Luck

A2comments

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 8:40 p.m.

No shortage of comments on this story... I drove Plymouth Rd today around 3:15 and saw the glass on the road from that accident. As a note, here's what I observed on the way: At the Traverwood crossing, a pedestrian was 1/2 way across and wisely waited for cars to stop, including the clueless woman driving on my right with her foot on the floor that had to stomp on the brakes. As I turned onto Miller off of Main and went a few blocks, three people were in the middle of the street as a commercial Suburban (something about concrete on it with numbers in the name) gunned it and sped past them. On the way home, I saw a young woman standing at the curb at a bus stop, which happened to be at a crosswalk, just before I got to Traverwood. Since she was already there when I saw her, I started to slow but she was looking past me like for a bus and making no indication that she was crossing. So, since no one was even slowing, I kept going and drove past her. In my mirror I saw her cross after all the cars had gone by... But she was at a bus stop and clearly seemed to be looking for the bus... Stupid ordinance. Dangerous road (Plymouth) for pedestrians regardless.

james

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 8:38 p.m.

funny..this is exactly what I said would happen...and I was right.

Wondering

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 8:30 p.m.

There are a number of very good reasons why every tiny community does make its own favorite laws. Some of those very good reasons include: (a) reinventing the wheel can often be a fatal mistake--being willing to learn from others' long history of experience is a good way to keep one's community members alive; (b) residents who travel between neighboring communities deserve to be able to have some reasonable expectation that they will not be rear-ended or run over by folks who happen to follow different traffic laws; (c) in this economy, one would think we would have many more productive things to do with our law enforcement and government officials' time.

a2gerry

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 8:21 p.m.

I can't believe so many of you are blaming the ordinance and not careless driving. Last time I looked every jurisdiction considers the person who hits the rear of a car at fault. Maybe if these people were't texting or talking on their cell phones, they would notice that the care in front of them stopped. I wait for the bus on Liberty every day and see cars swerving into the bike lane as they approach. They are always people on their phones talking or texting. The bus stop is right by a crosswalk and of course non of them bother to stop if a person is trying to cross. If someone had stopped they would plow right into them oblivious to what is happening on the road. Three states that i know of have similar laws: that cars have to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. It even works in Southern California where the traffic volume is much heavier. I say it's time to take some personal responsibility for driving and and quit blaming a reasonable ordinance.

A2Monty

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 8:14 p.m.

Please admit you were wrong and fix it. Please

Michael-David

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 8:08 p.m.

What happened to the concept of a Uniform Traffic Code? How are out of town drivers supposed to know about Ann Arbor's new (secret) traffic laws? If the Council wants to discourage out of town visitors, this is a good start.

Walid Yassir

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 8:08 p.m.

Instructions for safe driving in Ann Arbor: 1. Drive the speed limit or lower. 2. Drive with your eyes open. 3. The two red lights on the car up ahead are brake lights. If you don't stop when you see them turn on, you will hit the car in front of you. 4. If you don't think you can follow these rules, take the bus. 5. If you don't want to take the bus, walk, but watch out for drivers like yourself. This is not about the city ordinance. Ann Arbor drivers will only stop for a red light (usually). Michigan State Law says that you have to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk. They don't have to jump in front of your car for you to stop. You should stop when you see them trying to cross the street. Yes the students are behaving badly, and they don't look. So what? You still don't have the right to kill them. Ask for enforcement of jaywalking rules if they are not at a crosswalk. All this talk of lawsuits is nonsense. The only people who are going to get sued are the ones that rear end people and the ones that hit pedestrians.

KJMClark

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 8:03 p.m.

As in, incompetent drivers cause crashes. News at 11. Someone can't figure out that there are two cars stopped in front of them, and we're blaming the ordinance??? Maybe we need to end no-fault, so the insurance company of the person who caused the crash can buy the other two people new cars and the motorist who did it can never afford insurance again?

ocho

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 8:02 p.m.

Hasn't it also always been the law that you're supposed to stop for a car that's stopped in front of you (no matter why the car has stopped)?

Blue

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 8:01 p.m.

The Plymouth Road crosswalks are going to result in a dead body in the road. I have almost been rear ended twice and have witnessed several near misses since this ordinance took effect. I expressed my concern to the Police Department and was told to call my City Council Representative. There is an election next week - Vote this City Council OUT! These, who would put the rest of us at risk.

evsdad

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 7:58 p.m.

go here for crash information <a href="http://www.semcog.org/Data/Apps/crash.cfm?mcd=4005" rel='nofollow'>http://www.semcog.org/Data/Apps/crash.cfm?mcd=4005</a> at the farmers market last Saturday I watched an AATA bus driver blow cruise through the crosswalk on 5th right in front of a pedestrian who was obviously crossing. If the &quot;professionals&quot; don't do it ...

PLGreen

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 7:46 p.m.

I thought the accidents only involved out of town drivers. Yes, PLEASE name the Mayor and Council Members in your lawsuits.

David

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 7:45 p.m.

Maybe the citizens of Ann Arbor should look more closely at the motorists in California who stop ANYTIME A PEDESTRIAN WALKS IN FRONT OF THEM. These accidents are probably happening in Michigan because of following too closely...I've never seen this problem as bad as it is in Mich.

suem

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 7:45 p.m.

if people didn't tailgate they could stop in time. Unfortunately it's impossible to leave a &quot;clear safe distance&quot; in front of your vehicle because someone will fill it up.

Former A2rite

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 7:39 p.m.

I drive the A2 streets everyday and therefore, have adjusted to the crosswalks and their locations. If you are aware they exist and where, you can take the correct precautions to avoid rear end collisions by looking way ahead of you when nearing a cross walk. I must admit though, that takes a LOT of FOCUS to even remember you are approaching one (can't be sleepy or have things on your mind!) AND just because YOU slow down before making a stop, doesn't necessarily mean the one(s) behind you has a clue of what's happening. It is a risky maneuver for A2 to have such a law.

ArthGuinness

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 7:38 p.m.

I was waiting for another article on this. I either walk or bike through one of these intersections every weekday. It is now *more* dangerous in both cases, especially the bicycle case. Imagine if that Fiesta in the story had been a bicyclist instead. You may think that the bicyclist is safe off to the side, but many of these intersections have pedestrian islands which force the cars over into the bicycle lane! Furthermore, there is mass confusion when a bicyclist pulls up to the intersection. I'm not a pedestrian in that case, but roughly half the drivers act as if I am. Then they get mad at me because I won't cross while a driver opposite of them flies through the intersection, simply because I don't want to die. And finally, there's an unusual opportunity for drivers who are going in the same direction as the pedestrian to cross, taking advantage of the stopped cars. This pisses everyone off and causes more confusion. Can we please go back to the logical and orderly rules that were safe and everybody (even children) understood?

West Park

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 7:28 p.m.

When I lived in Oregon, driver's would stop for pedestrians, even on a busy road. But that's what they were used to. People are not used to that here and do not share the mindset. It's a very dangerous law. Unfortunately it's a case of &quot;Thinking Nice&quot; not &quot;Thinking Twice&quot;!

Diana

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 7:23 p.m.

I fear driving on Plymouth in the rain or after dark now. Snow and Ice will be coming soon. It will be harder to stop. Patients on their way to the hospital and eye center from out of town have no idea they need to stop or that you are likely to stop in front of them. Those tiny signs on the islands do not say approaching pedestrians have the right of way.

John Q

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 7:20 p.m.

Sure seems like a lot of people want to make excuses for people driving down the road being oblivious to what's going on around them. If the cause of the accident had been a dog or a deer running across the road, would they be here demanding we round up all the animals in town because drivers can't be expected to pay attention while they are driving and can't be expected to stop if someone in front of them suddenly stops? Not one person has given an example of a person failing to stop for a pedestrian. It's been the drivers who are not paying attention who are causing the accidents. Using Mr. Stanton's logic, we should get rid of every signalized intersection because they cause the greatest number of rear-end accidents. Don't believe it? Look up the numbers. These incidents blamed on the new ordinance pale in comparison to the total number of rear-end accidents that happen throughout the city every day of the year.

seldon

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 7:17 p.m.

Imagine how much fun this is going to be once winter starts and there's ice on those roads...

Bob

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 7:16 p.m.

Yes, it's a stupid ordinance. People should, however, slow down and pay attention.

63Townie

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 6:46 p.m.

Last week I stopped for a pedestrian at this exact crosswalk. I was eastbound in the left lane, the pedestrian went to step in the crosswalk but had to jump back as someone flew by in the right lane, oblivious to me or the pedestrian.

Ron Granger

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 6:40 p.m.

My, my. So many motorists who just can't abide by the *state* requirement to *stop for pedestrians*. So many motorists who are confused and think this is some new requirement that is unique to Ann Arbor. So many excuses for not stopping... How many of these accidents involved cellphones, eating, or reading? As another post commented, we all frequently stop to make a left turns. Where's the outrage over that?

Lola

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 6:39 p.m.

I don't feel the safe crossing a busy road anywhere but at a light. Crossing anywhere else is just &quot;playing chicken&quot; with traffic in my opinion. If it's too far to go to a light then we need more lights on those roads with the heaviest traffic. I know they cost a lot of money but it would probably be a drop in the bucket compared to the lawsuits the city could face.

Ron Granger

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 6:34 p.m.

What would it take to lower the speed limit on Plymouth? 35 mph seems almost too much, with 30 mph being more appropriate.

Carol Poling

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 6:20 p.m.

I just moved my dad into Sunrise Assisted Living. On Friday, and again on Monday, I was delayed leaving the building due to a major rear-end collision. Now I will consider getting a ticket rather than stopping and being rear-ended. EVERYONE is now at greater risk: the pedestrian assumes we are stopping, we stop, and then we are rear-ended and possibly pushed into the pedestrian crossing the street. Now multiple parties can be injured at once. CHANGE THIS LAW FOR THE SAFETY OF ALL.

AnnArborDon

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 6:17 p.m.

1) As far as I know, when you are driving a vehicle that hits the rear end of another vehicle, you are considered at fault by virtually every jurisdiction and every insurance company in the US. 2) The &quot;three second rule&quot; is a simple rule of thumb for safe following distance. At 45 miles per hour, that's about 200 feet. Another poster (gigi) said that she was following at 2 car lengths. No wonder she almost had a rear-ender. People follow WAY TOO CLOSE. When my children were learning how to drive, this was the number one thing I harped on - make sure you leave enough room in front of you for the unexpected. 3) The HAWK signal is the right answer for this situation. This makes the pedestrian crossing situation similar to a modern RR crossing. Notice that you don't see too many RR crossings without red light signals and dropping barriers any more? That's because they work. 4) As someone who lives just off of Plymouth Road and has to cross the THREE pedestrian crossings on Plymouth regularly, I can tell you that the pedestrians are most often extremely careful and the drivers are extremely negligent. I've gotten used to looking well ahead as I approach each one. The cars still zip through with very little notice, much less concern, for people standing at the edge of the road waiting to cross in such a way that there is no doubt that they want to cross. 5) The most troubling crossing for me is the one on Plymouth near the water tower. There is also a bus stop at the same location, at least on the north side (not sure about the south side). I have stopped more than once for people who turned out to be waiting for a bus. 6) Whatever happened to COMMON COURTESY?

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 6:11 p.m.

Just saw one this past weekend on Plymouth Rd. Ruined the front end of somebody's van. Totally predictable, but City Council could care less.

Bob Krzewinski

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 6:03 p.m.

If the pedestrian ordinance is so bad, should we also have a law where it is illegal to make a left turn unless there is a turn lane present. Think about it. You want to turn left, traffic is coming the other direction and you have to stop in a lane before you turn. Just like having to stop for a pedestrian, having to stop to make a left turn could result is some driver behind you, not paying attention to driving (like they should), rear ending you. My point is, when you are behind the wheel, you should be paying attention all the time to driving and possible hazards/situations, not texting, talking on the cell phone, eating, reading, etc.

the man

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 6:02 p.m.

When one complains of the 'downsides of this law' they're mixing correlation with causation (remember that 9th grade science class?). I stopped at a crosswalk on Plymouth Rd (NOT 45 mph, but 35 mph... a little faster than you should drive in a neighborhood) and there was a rear-end collision some 4-5 cars back. Was *I* the cause of that accident? I stopped at the crosswalk for the pedestrian and obeyed the law... No, it wasn't my fault, but the fault of the CARELESS DRIVER that initiated the collision 5 cars back. Careless, unsafe drivers are the problem with this law. Also, please don't road rage at me for obeying the law and letting the halloween kids pass... that was pretty rough... I don't want to fight you because I made you come to a complete stop... the feeling *should* be mutual.

grye

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 5:38 p.m.

Well intentioned law that is flawed. I was for it but now see that adjustments are needed. A flashing yellow light to warn drivers a pedestrian is at the crosswalk should be enough to have drivers slow down and stop. However even cars are rear ended at signaled intersections by drivers not paying attention. Paying attention is key to solving the problem.

GoBlue1984

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 5:36 p.m.

The people who lobbied to get this ordinance passed are having a meeting next week and I say we show up and give them a piece of our minds: &quot;WBWC's Annual Members' Meeting is on Tuesday, November 8, 2011, 7-9pm at Arbor Brewing Company, 114 E Washington Street in Ann Arbor. This event is not just a members event, it's open to anyone interested in better walking and biking.&quot; <a href="http://www.wbwc.org/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.wbwc.org/</a>

SMC

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 5:28 p.m.

The unspoken reason behind this law is quite simple: Make things more convenient for pedestrians, at the expense of motorists. Why should pedestrians be forced to walk to the corner and wait for a traffic light, when the city can just mandate that all motor vehicles on busy roadways should come to a sudden stop whenever a pedestrian &quot;approaches&quot; a crosswalk? (By the way, does this mean we have to stop for anyone walking down the sidewalk, near a crosswalk?) Let us not forget, the mayor/city admin are the same people who were in favor of closing down a large stretch of Huron River Drive (between Main and Bird Rd) a few years ago, because it would cost too much to repave the road and add bicycle lanes at the same time. Their solution was to make the entire road into a path for recreational bicyclists. Thank goodness clearer heads prevailed in that instance.

bearlab

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 5:21 p.m.

On Plymouth, just west of Green there is a cross walk that ends at a bus stop so are people waiting for the bus or waiting to cross... impossible to know , are we supposed to stop... impossible to know...... what a mess. The people who ignored common sense and voted for this should not be re-elected

Bcar

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 5:15 p.m.

Car totaled? Ahhh, no. I dont think so. front/rear bumper, hood, good to go! That was no more than a 5-10mph hit.

pbehjatnia

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 5:11 p.m.

This ordinance is a disaster and someone WILL hurt. But, you will all go and revote for Hieftje and Co again in the next elections. You always do.

Anna

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 5:04 p.m.

Is there a petition floating around anywhere in favor of repealing this law? J/W

Attempted Voice of Reason

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 5:02 p.m.

And this is why we have state and national vehicle codes and roadway design ordinances. Large groups of people, including police officers, traffic engineers, and safety experts comb through mountains of data to develop standards that best reflect and respond to how people actually DO behave, rather than how they SHOULD behave. Why? Because it saves lives. People expect traffic on major roads to behave a certain way, and we need to set up signs and traffic lights that match that. Hieftje seems to expect all roads to be side streets, which is stupid. Major roads serve a very useful purpose - moving traffic - and our mayor and council just don't seem to get that. In an ideal world, no highway would ever need shoulders, guardrails, or median barriers, because everyone would always drive safely, but that's not the case. All these things save lives, as do consistent and logical signs and traffic lights. The reason these larger codes exist is to prevent exactly this: Each little city and village making up its own set of signs, lights, rules, and ordinances. Could you imagine if Ann Arbor decided to make purple lights mean &quot;stop&quot;, and put them at the bottom of the traffic light? Exactly--it's absurd, and it would kill people. The same as this stupid law. Ann Arbor: You need to follow state law. Really, you're not exempt. It's there for a reason. Put up Stop Signs and/or HAWK signals everywhere you want people to stop. It's simple.

Stephen Landes

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:58 p.m.

Remember to vote on November 8th -- Incumbents OUT, challengers IN.

Anna

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:56 p.m.

I've been following the formulation and implementation of this ordinance from the beginning, and I still don't understand how forcing drivers to take their eyes off the road to watch for &quot;approaching&quot; pedestrians makes any sense whatsoever. And, as many others have pointed out, what exactly is the &quot;approaching&quot; distance? Five feet? Ten feet? Lastly, how does this even protect or improve safety for pedestrians? If a walker is waiting on a sidewalk outside of the road to cross, how are they in any danger? Don't they have any responsibility to patiently wait for traffic to clear, or to find a more suitable crossing location? I just think this whole law is a cluster......

shepard145

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:54 p.m.

This outcome and worse was predicted here by me and others. This ordinance strikingly negligent and those who voted for it should be held personally liable for the damage inflicted to motorists and in the near future - pedestrians. In most communities, Council's ordinances are debated subject to the advice of professionals - in this case traffic engineers. ...but not in Ann Arbor where political correct indulgence, ignorance and petulant arrogance combine to form ordinances that are not only bad public policy, but LIFE THREATENING. And what is their response to criticism of their bad decisions? …a bit of indulgent "consideration" for the "opinions" of the citizen rabble they paternally LORD OVER even as they assure us that their numb headed support for the ordinance is unwavering. After all, nobody has died yet – apparently the test for THIS Council's decisions. This is not the only example of unacceptable behavior but certainly another excellent reason COUNCIL MUST GO - VOTE FOR ANYONE BUT INCOMBANTS!!

5c0++ H4d13y

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:49 p.m.

To be clear ... the cause of the accident was an inattentive driver that didn't notice that traffic was stopped ahead of him/her. Everyone knows that traffic can stop on any road at any time for any reason ... right?

Wolf's Bane

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:47 p.m.

I will never stop again. Sorry. Ticket me if you must, but I done with this. So over.

zags

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:47 p.m.

I was just standing at Huron and Third, site of the new HAWK signal. Flashing red lights. One person stopped. Then WHAM!, they were rear ended in an explosion of plastic car parts. Thankfully, no one was hurt. Honestly, nobody knows what to do at this signal. I cross here a lot and my unofficial opinion is that the signal is great for pedestrians but I believe I have seen far more fender benders than before. Just comes down to responsible driving. Get off the cell and pay attention.

Rob T

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:39 p.m.

I blame the driver much more than the ordinance. When driving, you always need to be prepared for the vehicle in front of you to stop. This is especially true in the city. I think this crossing is one that would benefit from signals (though the existing signage has everything but a red light), but given the relatively high volume of pedestrians and cyclists in the area, I think it'd be worth considering a reduced speed limit as well.

Simon Green

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:38 p.m.

We need an ordinance banning stupid ordinances.

bunnyabbot

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:38 p.m.

crosswalks on busy streets should be complete with signals.

shitfromshinola

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:37 p.m.

Replace that Fiesta with a motorcycle and you have a fatality on your hands.

bunnyabbot

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:37 p.m.

I didn't read in the article anything about injuries to the occupents to the vehicles and I don't know if it is mentioned in the comments as I didn't read all 88 of them. Obviously a pedestrian would be most vulnerable in an accident. However, occupents of the vehicles could also be injured seriously. Whiplash, sore neck and back, broken bones are just a few, many neck and back injuries are not evident right away. Hurting either of those can cause problems for the long term. Not to mention the mental trauma of an accident, especially in children. Occupents are often children and even with seatbelts, air bags and child safety seats children are at risk to injuries from collisions, flying glass or metal. many households have only one car, a collision like this could put them in a situation where they have no car, many insurance policies do not cover rental cars. Additionally a two car family with two working adults using one car can put a finacial strain/time/hassle on them, especially if there are children that need to be shuttled around. seems to me the city just made a mess of what was working fine.

mere

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:31 p.m.

If each major crosswalk had the lights like those by the YMCA to alert drivers of a pedistrian, I think that would help to cut down on the number of accidents. The lights notify the driver in advance. Even a sensor that could light up the pedistrian sign would be helpful, especially at night.

Lovaduck

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:19 p.m.

This works just fine in California where drivers are as agressive and mean as in Michigan! It's just that they did it statewide, and trained people for sometime before it went into effect. The law IS well intentioned, but it sounds like too many things were not taken into consideration. There IS a &quot;motorists first&quot; mentality, however, in Michigan written all over these comments.

Bertha Venation

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:16 p.m.

The law is too vague. &quot;Approaching a crosswalk&quot; could mean about anything. How far from the actual crosswalk? What if they're waiting for a bus at a bus stop that is close to the crosswalk (such as Plymouth Rd). What's wrong with the State law about stopping for people who are actually IN the crosswalk? I've almost gotten rear-ended on Plymouth Rd. a few times myself.

Some Guy in A2

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:16 p.m.

Here is what I don't get: State law says vehicles must stop for pedestrians that are in crosswalks. The local ordinance more or less only tacks on a clarification for pedestrians that are approaching crosswalks. How is it that accidents will be prevented if we get rid of the local ordinance and leave only the state law? It seems like, if pedestrians assert themselves just slightly to be in the crosswalks, then traffic has to stop anyway. People are getting all up-in-arms about Ann Arbor's local ord when every safety argument made against it also applies to the currently ignored state law.

Key

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:13 p.m.

I support the concept of pedestrian safety and right of way. I'm concerned that the current situation leaves too much to chance, particularly on wide roads (Stadium and Plymouth). I do not feel that either the city law or the state version are sufficient to prevent accidents on these busy roads. A contributing factor is the fact that all crosswalks are not consistently painted and signed. I have visited towns where there is another device in use that is somewhat less than the HAWK signal. It has both a pushbutton and a beam. When the button is pushed or the beam is broken, the yellow diamond shaped pedestrian crossing sign has 3 or 4 LED lights that flash to notify drivers that there is indeed crossing taking place. This removes the possibility that a vehicle is screening the pedestrian-it makes it clear that there is the need to yield. It is rare that you receive something without there being a cost, it may be that we need to invest in a solution (HAWK or the version I have described) that provides (much) more certain results.

Jennifer Smith

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:11 p.m.

There is &quot;HAWK&quot; signal by the Y on Huron and I frequently drive through that intersection. While I will admit it was rather confusing in the beginning, I now agree that it is the best way to enforce this pedestrian law and make it safer for all drivers involved.

a2citizen

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:09 p.m.

Eventually, someone will be killed. The younger the victim is, the greater the outrage will be. Unfortunately, the outrage will not bring that person back. I have driven in cities all over the world and this law is just stupid and is asking for trouble.

Urban Sombrero

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.

How much does the average H.A.W.K. signal cost? Pedestrian bridge? I keep hearing from commentors that they're &quot;too expensive&quot;. But, as this ordinance is written, I forsee the city fending off lawsuits. Would using those other options be more fiscally sound, in the long run? (Especially in the case of busy, 4-5 lane roads, like Plymouth Rd.)

A2Woman

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:04 p.m.

Mike's idea is great, but don't leave the Mayor out! 1) Email Mayor John Hieftje JHieftje@a2gov.org 2) Make an appointment to visit with him in person. 734-794-6161 He has time set aside on Fridays to meet with residents for 15 minute appointments. Call his assistant to make an appointment. Fill his Friday schedule for him!

Alan Richardson

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:01 p.m.

I think the City of Ann Arbor needs to buy anybody that has been in a accident from this stupid ordinance.

CB

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:01 p.m.

Why not just put a crossing light there? The city council is moronic. I actually had one idiot dramatically place her foot into the intersection at State and South University, while I was in the crosswalk. I had just made a complete stop, as did the other cars in the intersection. My parents taught me to look both ways before crossing, and that is what I taught my child. I would never cross without looking and waiting for cars to clear the crosswalk. I think this is what &quot;natural selection&quot; is all about.

Mary Bilyeu

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4 p.m.

I drove by this scene yesterday afternoon, when the van was still in the road. The situation looked horrific, and I'm surprised to learn that there wasn't further catastrophe ....

EyeHeartA2

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:57 p.m.

Does this remind anybody else of the substitute teacher fiasco in AA?: Here is an article: <a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=110&dat=19950714&id=wDRQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pVUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5570,994512" rel='nofollow'>http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=110&amp;dat=19950714&amp;id=wDRQAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid=pVUDAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg=5570,994512</a> So, who wants to bet that AA sinks their feet in for fear of getting sued on the first few accidents and just makes things worse? Anybody? Anybody? Yep, that's what I think too. Toss the bums out in November.

Victor K

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:54 p.m.

I'm sorry, but what's wrong with people walking themselves down to the nearest intersection and walking across the crosswalks there, like we've done for the past several decades? Why is the convenience of having these crosswalks all over Ann Arbor worth the risk of our collective safety? Heck, people could probably use the exercise from the extra walking.

Steve

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:49 p.m.

Stopping for a pedestrian in a cross walk has always been the law. Paying attention while driving and not plowing in the car in front of you has always been the law. The majority of you here seem to want to break the law because you don't want to change your behavior. A few cars may get smashed. Someone may even get hurt or be killed. But in the long run this will result in safer streets for everyone. Typically short sited.

Iblis Jones

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:47 p.m.

...or, drivers could become alert the legal rights of pedestrians and slow down and pay attention. If you are going so fast and following so closely for this to occur you should lose your drivers license and thus become a pedestrian yourself. Whine, whine whine.

Bob

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:47 p.m.

look, just slow down when you approach a pedestrian crossing, be prepared to stop. If you can't see it - get off your stupid mobile phone and pay more attention. If you can't see the pedestrian crossing, argue for improved signs and markings, not whine about an &quot;unfair ordinance&quot;. Unbelievable. There is absolutely no difference between the requirement to stop at a stop sign, and that of a pedestrian crossing in a designated area. Would you prefer a big red stop sign at every pedestrian crossing instead? The ordinance is crediting you with common sense and reasonable driving skills, it may be overly generous.

Mike58

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:43 p.m.

Take a minute, cut and paste this link and email your council person. Repeat as needed <a href="http://www.a2gov.org/government/citycouncil/Pages/Home.aspx" rel='nofollow'>http://www.a2gov.org/government/citycouncil/Pages/Home.aspx</a> Let them know what you think of this new law. They will continue to ignore anything posted on AA.com but they can't ignore it if it's in their inbox.

caledonia

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:38 p.m.

Things enter the roadway from time to time and require drivers to stop for them. In this case, they're doing so at predictable places in a fairly predictable way. If a driver is unable to stop in time, especially with two cars in front of him already stopped or stopping, then he isn't paying enough attention to the road and is most likely driving too close to the car ahead of him. Whether or not the law is bad is beside the point ... tailgating is dangerous with or without a pedestrian crosswalk.

djm12652

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:37 p.m.

One more thing, pedestrian safety is very important. But I am not accountable for their stupid actions. This morning while traveling south on Fourth Avenue, legally with a green light, a well dressed 40ish blonde with her iphone placed firmly in her ear decided to keep walking eastbound on Liberty without ever looking up! It wasn't until she was mid road and I laid on my horn to let her know I was approaching did she look up and yep...laugh like me running her down would have been funny.

cibachrome

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:29 p.m.

This is just what we all expect from the kind of 'thinking' that goes on in A2 council chambers. That's why I am FROM ann arbor and now reside in NORMALville. BTW: I am willing to bet that the next step by City will be to order new pedestrian bridges to be installed at every and all crosswalks. Each with its own designated art form and elevation. Don't forget to make the bridges bicycle and handicapped accessable !

djm12652

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:20 p.m.

Okay, I agree...the state law is more than adequate to protect pedestrians. These accidents however, are caused by driver negligence not the stupid city ordinance!

Hmm

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:15 p.m.

I almost witnessed a pedestrian get hit by a car while she was attempting to cross Huron st the other day. An AATA bus had stopped in the right lane (whether to drop off passengers or because of this ordinance I'm not sure) and traffic continued to travel along in the left lane. The young lady began walking in the crosswalk in front of the bus which was stopped in the right lane but there was still cars driving at speed in the left lane and had she not thought to look around the bus before fully walking out would have been hit by an oncoming vehicle. My heart was in my throat watching the scene and I immediately thought that this young lady could have been killed because A2 city council thinks its a good idea for four lanes of traffic to come to a magical halt whenever someone is trying to cross the street. I hope this ordinance is repealed ASAP before someone is seriously hurt or killed

Jason Eikmeier

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:11 p.m.

With the new ordinance, do drivers get to utterly destroy all the jaywalkers that don't use crosswalks, and just wander out in to traffic? It's only fair. If drivers get to be killed by pedestrians in crosswalks, than walkers that wander across State St. and Huron by Main St. should be fair game. Bottom line is, the ordinance is BAD. And the Pedestrians need to return to common sense that has prevailed for a hundred years. PAY ATTENTION! Get your face out of your phone, and pay attention to traffic, signage, and proper cross walks.

George Garcia

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:10 p.m.

My Ford Escape was hit in the rear end on Tuesday, Sept. 11th at about 7:30 pm. the car in front of me had stopped at one of the pedestrian crosswalks on Plymouth Rd. for a pedestrian who was standing at the island in the middle of the road. I stopped behind him/her. The car behind me evidently didn't see us stopped and hit the read of my vehicle. Luckily I had my brakes on and did not hit the vehicle in front of me. About $1000 damage to my car's rear end and I am sure $1000s to the other car which had its hood smashed like an accordion. The city needs a better solution here. Either put in a pedestrian bridge over Plymouth Rd. or combine the crosswalks into one that is regulated by a traffic light.

Peter

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 3:04 p.m.

If you want drivers to stop, put a light or a stop sign up. Anything else isn't going to work well enough.

Lola

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:49 p.m.

I have found that I now spend more time glancing from side to side looking for pedestrians to cross the road than keeping my eye on the road/cars ahead of me. As a result I nearly rear ended someone who suddenly stopped for someone about to cross. I've also noticed that some roads seem to have crosswalks very close together. I don't know if they've increased in number or if I'm just noticing them more than I did before. Either way I feel paranoid driving down some of those streets, eyes quickly darting from side to side, waiting for a pedestrian to suddenly appear at a crosswalk. What's wrong with walking to a light to cross a busy road? Are people really that lazy?

grimmk

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:47 p.m.

I'm kinda wondering about the ages of the drivers. &quot;Young Drivers&quot; implies that they are bad or ignorant drivers. At least that's what I got from reading the article. I don't think there is any point as to their ages. What the mayor fails to understand is that not everyone obeys the laws. People drive too fast, tailgate and drive recklessly. Even if you are trying to drive safely, you are always keeping an eye out on the drives around you. That is a distraction from keeping an eye out for a pedestrian. The new law should if a pedestrian is at the corner and waiting to cross, then you should stop. Not walking to a cross walk, no approaching. Standing AT a crosswalk. Plain and simple. If you see someone waiting to cross, stop. A minute of waiting is worth it.

2020

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:42 p.m.

Grumpy, I don't think Hieftje and Hoenke's heads are in the sand. I think their somewhere else!

njoy1

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:40 p.m.

&quot;Ann Arbor City Council is trying to make serious traffic control changes &quot;on the cheap&quot; and without proper signs and signals.&quot; As long as traffic hasn't already stopped, on these busy roads I'll take the $100 fine instead of thousands in auto repairs, medical copays, and long term increases to my auto insurance.

Linda Peck

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:40 p.m.

Poorly thought-out ordinance aside, the bottom line is people are driving too fast, over the speed limit, and not paying attention. Drivers are in a big rush and are quite rude when they cannot be the first in line and the fastest. What is a 35 mile speed limit for if people are driving 45 and 50? How about drivers flying down Liberty Road coming into town, not paying attention to the 30 mile/hour speed limit? Now that we have fewer police, can drivers follow the rules by themselves? Can the Council pay more attention while making decisions? Stay tuned for the next dramatic installment of &quot;Life and Death on Ann Arbor Streets,&quot; or &quot;How a very sweet town can be so Naive.&quot;

gigi

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:30 p.m.

When I heard of folks having accidents, I felt that I needn't worry since I am a very careful driver. A week ago, I very nearly back ended the car in front of me at the same intersection on Plymouth - and I was going 5 mph under the speed limit. I walk 2 miles to and from work everyday and believe me, I wait until traffic clears before crossing - the new law has not changed my habits in the least. Good intentions and all that... but, please, please would someone undo this law?

jake1991

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:30 p.m.

I believe the reason these crosswalks @Plymouth were added is that there *was* a fatal accident in which pedestrians were killed at or very near this location several years ago. Given that the pedestrian was reportedly in the intersection, doesn't the existing state law require the driver to stop? So, the additional effect of the Ann Arbor law in this case is what? threat of enforcement presumably. Perhaps the AA law played a role (1st driver screeched to a halt as the pedestrian was approaching the intersection). However, the article doesn't mention anything of the sort.

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:30 p.m.

It would be safer for all if the law was scuttled. In all my adult life (I'm now 59) whenever i have been in a pedestrian mode I have always waited till traffic was clear to cross a road. I have never assumed/gambled that a car would see me and stop. As a pedestrian I will always lose in that collision.

Alan Goldsmith

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:29 p.m.

I drove by the accident scene around 4:30 and the pictures don't do this story justice. We're lucky no one was seriously injured. So &quot;increased risk for accidents is expected during the learning curve&quot;? The Mayor and Council once again how clueless they are in approving dangerous laws without doing their homework. And expect the City to release the requested FOIA information the day AFTER election day.

Urban Sombrero

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:27 p.m.

&quot;I can't believe that those that sanctimoniously support this ordinance without serious changes are willing to see this as acceptable collateral damage,&quot; Haack said, referring to comments by city officials that increased risk for accidents is expected during the learning curve. I absolutely love that quote and could not agree with it more. Sanctimonious is the perfect word here. And, if we're really going to harp on about safety, why is it acceptable to put drivers at risk? Are they not entitled to the safety like pedestrians and bikers? Putting them at risk of a collision and just blowing that risk off as &quot;acceptable&quot; isn't just sanctimonious, it's arrogant.

pbehjatnia

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:27 p.m.

I personally am very comfortable.

rs

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:26 p.m.

These concerns were well voiced before the law went into affect, and fell on the city council's deaf ears. Asking a motorists to go from 45 to 0 on a 4 lane road because somebody is approaching a crosswalk is insanely dangerous, this is why its not a state law. Ann Arbor really needs to reverse this poorly designed law before there is a severe accident that results in more than bent steel.

Greg M

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:25 p.m.

All the not-terribly-productive ranting here aside, I will be interested to hear the outcome of your FOIA request Ryan. Have accidents involving pedestrians increased or decreased since the ordinance went into effect or not? How many pedestrian / vehicle accidents does Ann Arbor have each year? My hypothesis is the answers will be &quot;neither&quot; and &quot;too many.&quot;

Grumpy

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:24 p.m.

Hieftje and Hoenke! Please remove your heads from the sand and quickly find a solution to this problem you have created!

golfer

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:24 p.m.

once again you can slove your problem. you already know the answer. you are just playing with danger and lives. you have to think do you want the crosswalks. if so ONLY answer is HAWK! HAWK! will flash and when they see both lanes fill of cars stoped. you got people driving talking on cell phones. some can not do both. a light they can see when they drive in advance. any thing else is just plan dumb. better watch it someone is gong to get killed and no one to blame than the those whom we voted for. you spend once again $750,000 3/4 of a mil on art but take weeks to stop someone from getting killed. you need to meet every day until you get is solved. this will be the issue i will use to vote for next time.

2WheelsGood

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:22 p.m.

Isn't this what our fearless mayor referred to as an &quot;adjustment period&quot;?

Tom Teague

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:22 p.m.

I'm opposed to the ordinance because I think it's vague and unenforceable, but the &quot;the car in front of me stopped short&quot; defense has never held much water in court. Aren't we supposed to leave sufficient following distance to react to the car in front of us suddenly stopping for a road hazard?

seldon

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:21 p.m.

A stupid idea with a completely predictable outcome. City Council, clean up your mess.

TrappedinMI

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:19 p.m.

This has got to be ended. It's no good! Stop the madness! We need stop lights or forget it!

Woman in Ypsilanti

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:16 p.m.

FWIW, I have started avoiding Plymouth Road since shortly after this ordinance went into effect because I was nearly rear ended while stopping for a pedestrian at a cross walk there. The really stupid thing about it was that it was a cross walk with a big lighted sign above it. I have to wonder, how much more a signaled cross walk would have cost in that location. Ann Arbor, you need to vote your council out and get some people in there willing to scrap this ordinance.

Jake

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 2:10 p.m.

LET THE LAWSUITS BEGIN!! And be sure to name the mayor and the council members who voted in this travesty!