Ann Arbor crosswalk where bicyclist was hit will be moved, have signals installed
A map showing the location of all bicycle and pedestrian crashes involving cars in 2011 in Ann Arbor. Bicycle crashes are marked in blue, pedestrian crashes are marked in green.
Courtesy of WATS
This story has been corrected to show that the intersection of Washtenaw Avenue and Platt Road was not in the area where the speed limits were increased in 2008. The area extended from Hill Street to East Stadium Boulevard.
The crosswalk where an Ann Arbor woman was struck and seriously injured last week is scheduled to be moved and have pedestrian traffic signals installed as part of the Arbor Hills Crossing retail development now under construction on Washtenaw Avenue.
Plans call for the installation of a traffic light at Platt Road and Washtenaw Avenue, said Eli Cooper, Ann Arbor’s transportation program manager. The crosswalk, now located west of the intersection, will be moved to the intersection, Cooper said. It’s unknown when that project, a private development, will be completed but a finishing date sometime next fall is expected.
The 55-year-old woman was riding a bike in the crosswalk Monday when a sport utility vehicle driven by a 25-year-old Ann Arbor man hit her, sending her flying about 7 feet into the air before she landed on her side. Police said on Wednesday the woman, whose name has not been released, was in critical condition with broken bones and a head injury. Ann Arbor police Lt. Renee Bush could not be reached Friday to get a new condition update or release the names of the bicyclist and driver.
Although the plan to move the crosswalk was developed long before Monday's accident, the incident has thrown a spotlight on safety at the crosswalk, which is in one of the most heavily traveled corridors in Washtenaw County.
According to statistics from the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), Washtenaw Avenue east of Huron Parkway, which is just east of the crosswalk, is the busiest stretch of non-freeway road in the city. That congestion leads to more accidents in that particular area, said Terri Blackmore, executive director of WATS.
“The Washtenaw corridor has some of the highest (traffic) volume in the county and the highest crashes in the county,” she said. “More exposure means more crashes.”
Speaking about the Platt Road intersection, she added, “This is a challenging location and you have a huge draw with the county park.”
One of the city’s 59 crashes involving bicycles and cars in 2011 happened at the Washtenaw and Platt Road intersection. It was was one of just two such crashes on Washtenaw Avenue outside of downtown Ann Arbor during the whole year.
Maps from WATS show that many of the bicycle and pedestrian crashes that occurred within the city in 2011 took place in the downtown area. Data on crashes involving bicycles in crosswalks from 2012 wasn’t immediately available from the city of Ann Arbor and should be ready next week, officials said.
A zoomed-in look at the bicycle and pedestrian crash locations in downtown Ann Arbor in 2011.
Courtesy of WATS
The crosswalk where the woman was hit is situated west of Platt Road in order to give both motorists driving on Washtenaw and non-motorists crossing the five-lane road a better view of each other, Cooper said.
The crosswalk was placed at the top of the hill for sightline reasons, he said. The city installed crosswalk signs on either side of the road and an overhead crosswalk sign to alert drivers to the fact that pedestrians would be in the area, but no light was installed because “it has the attributes of a crosswalk and should allow for safe interaction between respectful pedestrians and motorists,” he said.
He added that, given the alternative of placing the crossing at the intersection with Platt, where pedestrians would be crossing below the crest of the hill, the crosswalk is in the safest location in the corridor that it can be in the current configuration with no traffic light.
“We’re aware that a non-signal controlled intersection on a multi-lane highway is not the safest situation,” he said, adding that crash statistics show the city still has a safe transportation system.
Part of the issue with the area near the crash is the 45 miles per hour speed limit that was established by the Michigan Department of Transportation in 2008, Cooper said.
Before the April 2008 change, the speed limit from Hill Street to East Stadium Boulevard i was either 30 miles per hour or 35 miles per hour. In the ensuing years, city officials have noticed an increase in crashes in that area, which has caused alarm. However, Cooper said it’s out of their hands to change speed limits on Washtenaw Avenue because it is a state highway.
“With increased crashes, we have sent a request to MDOT to re-evaluate the speed limits, but it’s their call,” he said.
A call to an MDOT media representative seeking a request for comment on the area was not returned Friday.
Ann Arbor Mayor John Hieftje said he was unable to remember any specific complaints about the intersection that have reached the City Council.
There has been confusion about whether the 25-year-old driver of the 1999 Ford sport utility vehicle that hit the woman violated the city’s pedestrian crosswalk ordinance. The man got out of his car and tended to the woman along with other passers-by who stopped.
Police actively are investigating the crash and any charges will come from the Washtenaw County Prosecutor’s Office when the investigation is complete
The Ann Arbor city ordinance, which requires motorists to stop for pedestrians approaching crosswalks, does not mention bicyclists.
Hieftje said once a person enters a crosswalk, he or she is protected by state law. According to the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code, a bicyclist legally in a pedestrian crosswalk is given all the same rights as a pedestrian. Also, Hieftje said any differences between laws are superseded by simple responsibility.
“Everyone is responsible for not hitting someone in a crosswalk,” he said.
Kyle Feldscher covers cops and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at kylefeldscher@annarbor.com or you can follow him on Twitter.
Comments
ldwc
Sat, Aug 25, 2012 : 9:06 a.m.
I was driving the car just behind the vehicle that hit the cyclist and would like to comment. Two points have been left out of all of these articles about the chain of events that occurred. Because of traffic stopped in the right lane due to that rush hour traffic backup, the cyclist could not be seen waiting to cross. And, according to the woman driving the car in the right lane that was stopped in the traffic backup, just before the crosswalk, thought there was no traffic coming in the left lane and waived to the biker that it was clear to cross. We both were required to stay to speak to the investigating officers and this is what she told me herself. This is a tragic from all angles. Obviously, my utmost concern and prayers go out to the cyclist and her recovery. And also for the woman who waived her on. She was visibly upset and shaken. And also for the driver in this accident, whom I sat with for some time and was hysterical at times and extremely distraught. Since I was driving the car directly behind this accident in the left lane, I feel I have a perspective as close as may be possible, as we were going about the same speed as well. There was no view of the woman on the bicycle, as she was in front of a stopped car and the side of the road/in front of the car was not visible. In an instant she was coming into the left lane while on her bike and there was no possible way for the driver to have time to react, as both reached practically the same point at the same time. There was no "lead time" for the driver to be able to swerve. I believe had I been in that position, I would not have been able to either. My prayers continue for the cyclist and all involved.
Jim Walker
Mon, Aug 20, 2012 : 4:41 p.m.
Ann Arbor adopted the Uniform Traffic Code in 2010. Here are two key provisions that apply to pedestrians. R 28.1702 Rule 702. Pedestrians; right-of-way in crosswalk; violation as civil infraction. (1) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger, but a pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. (2) A person who violates this rule is responsible for a civil infraction. R 28.1706 Rule 706. Pedestrians; yielding right-of-way; violation as civil infraction. (1) Every pedestrian who crosses a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway. (2) A person who violates this rule is responsible for a civil infraction. In the Motor Vehicle Code which Ann Arbor has also adopted, a cyclist riding legally on a sidewalk or crosswalk has all the rights and duties of a pedestrian, MCL 257.660c. Ann Arbor's pedestrian ordinance conflicts with the UTC in that it requires vehicles to stop for a person who is just waiting at the curb to cross, but who has not yet entered the roadway. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI
Richard Carter
Tue, Sep 11, 2012 : 5:49 p.m.
This is really helpful... and I'm glad to see that MOST of what was adopted was not created out of whole cloth by the City.
Ron Granger
Mon, Aug 20, 2012 : 1:11 p.m.
Not everyone drives, but most everyone walks. And walking means crossing streets. The thing about those streets is that people pay for them, not cars. The crosswalk laws are there to protect pedestrians. There are some drivers who will make any excuse or outlandish claim that they don't need to stop or can't stop, but those are just excuses. Yelling about how much you don't like it won't change anything. Being in a car does not make anyone more important than anyone else, no matter how entitled some may feel.
swcornell
Mon, Aug 20, 2012 : 12:59 p.m.
I have many years of driving that section of Washtenaw (Arborland to Platt). My experience is there are too many who do not cross at crosswalks. Especially now that Arborland has kicked the buses out of the special bus stop they have. Plymouth Rd. has the same problem.
pbehjatnia
Mon, Aug 20, 2012 : 12:52 p.m.
I would love to know WHAT about my comment yesterday here was offensive to the aa.com guidelines? Serioulsy. She walked out into FIVE lanes of traffic in rush hour on the assumption that the cars would all miraculously stop. The city is responsible for her unreasonable expectation that traffic would halt. Sue the city.
Joe_Citizen
Mon, Aug 20, 2012 : 7:03 a.m.
I saw a car almost hit a firetruck just the other day, and traffic was thick, but all cars were pulled or stopped at the light. The car came out of the traffic and ran threw the intersection where the fire trucks were turning right. The driver of the firetruck was waving at his while the horns and sirens and lights were going off, but it still ran past the firetrucks, and kept going the fire truck had to slam on its brakes. I would have never believed it if I didn't see it. They may have been going to the house the the driver of the car. It came within a foot I would say, but if the firetruck didn't stop he would have hit that car and killed the driver.
LXIX
Mon, Aug 20, 2012 : 12:24 a.m.
What about all the fender benders? Police are still confused as to who is at fault? The City Council members who voted for this pedestrian law are clearly the ones at fault, and will probably be sued for their negligent public stance until the law is repealed. Unlike one councilwomans's passage declaration as to how much safer this will be for little children, parents should continue to ignore City Council's dark assurances and brainwash their kids into strictly excercising only the tried and true defensive pedestrian tactics - before school starts if the law hasn't left. The mayor says that state law protects everyone in crosswalks yet fails to mention that is a conditional security (like can you legally walk 'against the lights' into oncoming traffic?). If the state law works then why in the heck is there a City Law piled on top? When the majority public seems to know the optimal crosswalk solution while being on the lookout for that single cell-minded driver, all that is required from the City are pedestrian activated red stop lights or tunnels or overpasses. No archaic law. Any local ordinance requiring the public to obey unnatural traffic behavior and observe an overload of signage while trying to navigate builder's paradise is wholly unconscianable. Get rid of the inhumane A2 pedestrian law.
Basic Bob
Mon, Aug 20, 2012 : 2:58 a.m.
The state law works. It is the city ordinance that does not.
Jim Walker
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 11:16 p.m.
Mr. Cooper is factually wrong that the posted speed limit on Washtenaw from Stadium to Huron Parkway was changed from 35 to 45 mph in 2008. That segment, including the crosswalk near Platt, was already posted at 45 mph under Traffic Control Order 81072 dated April 1983. The segment that was changed from 35 to 45 mph in 2008 is the segment from Brockman to Stadium, along with the segment from Hill to Brockman that was changed to 40 mph from the former 30 mph. These changes matched the safety-optimum 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic under good condition. Also in error is the comment about the accident numbers. On May 18, 2011, Wendy Ramirez of MDOT emailed me the accident data for the 3 years before and after the Washtenaw speed limit changes. The data is for Traffic Control Order area 81072 for Business Loop I-94 from Main Street to US-23 which includes the two Washtenaw Avenue segments from Hill St. to Stadium where the speed limits were changed. Total accidents went DOWN from 825 to 741. Fatals went down from 1 to 0. A-category (very serious) injuries went down from 9 to 7. Total injuries went down from 274 to 203. I agree that this crosswalk is very challenging due to the high traffic volume, the width, the hill to the east, and the prevailing speeds of traffic of 40-45 mph, but the speed limit has NOT changed in that area since at least April 1983. And Ann Arbor's pedestrian ordinance does NOT fully conform to the Michigan Uniform Traffic Code which the city adopted in 2010. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI
Jim Walker
Mon, Aug 20, 2012 : 4:53 p.m.
For leaguebus: See new post below from me.
leaguebus
Mon, Aug 20, 2012 : 3:41 a.m.
Is there a pedestrian statute in the vehicle code?
Frustrated in A2
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 10:44 p.m.
If they plan on putting up a light at Washtenaw and Platt I hope they hang it high enough so that you can see it over the hill just west of that intersection. I can only imagine bad things happening when you crest a hill going 45 to 50 mph and suddenly you're faced with a red light or worse yet traffic backed up 100 or more feet from that light and you're forced to try to stop suddenly, especially during the winter months or on rainy days when it takes longer to bring a vehicle to a stop. I am no traffic engineer but I hope a good one is on the case.
Basic Bob
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 11:10 p.m.
It's not a big hill. If it's taller than a truck you can see it.
Paul Epstein
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 8:26 p.m.
A--The speed limit at Washtenaw-Platt was 45. The former 35 mph limit was further northwest. B--When signals are installed in instances like this, the proper solution would be either a pedestrian-actuated device or a signal that only cycles during heavy or moderate volume periods. But, instead, we end up with a 24/7 cycling signal that is ALWAYS red, and red for minutes and--due to the complete idiocy of our current traffic engineer, sets up--and is set up by--the next signal to turn red on approach.
Gardener1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 7:46 p.m.
Bicycles should be considered moving vehicles and following those rules. If a bicyclist is off the bike and walking the bike, then he/she should be considered a pedestrian. I have seen bicyclists riding in the direction of a car then suddenly turn in front of the forward moving car to ride across the street in a crosswalk. Please do not consider a bicyclist a pedestrian when riding in a crosswalk. That is an accident waiting to happen.
Basic Bob
Mon, Aug 20, 2012 : 2:55 a.m.
I agree, a cyclist mounted in the crosswalk or riding facing traffic is not obeying the rules of traffic. If an accident occurs, he or she should be cited for improper lane use. If the cyclist wishes to be treated as a pedestrian, he or she should walk the bike or stick to the sidewalk.
Cendra Lynn
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 7:36 p.m.
Words of wisdom? "Everyone is responsible for not hitting someone in a crosswalk," Hieftje said. OK, but who is responsible for placing crosswalks? "We're aware that a non-signal controlled intersection on a multi-lane highway is not the safest situation," said Eli Cooper. No duh! Just keeping clear of other cars takes up most of a driver's attention in that area. I've been through there hundreds of times and never have noticed a crosswalk, though I consider myself attentive. "Crash statistics show the city still has a safe transportation system." Eli Cooper. Sir, statistics mean nothing when considering an n of one. I visualize that woman 7' in the air and find all your comments uncaring and irrelevant. How about: "We should never have had a crosswalk there." Afraid of lawsuits? Admitting that you did what you did that everyone knows you did does not make a difference in a lawsuit. It takes a big person to say, "I am so sorry this happened."
oyxclean
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 9:33 p.m.
"We should never have had a crosswalk there." Wouldn't that be a refreshing admission? Never happen with the current incompetent mayor.
Holmes1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 7:32 p.m.
Indeed, the city ordinance HIEFTJE introduced and so evidently cherishes and insists upon, no matter what, may well violate STATE law, as well as present tremendous danger to pedestrians (motorists, too). As he and his ordinance, in effect, have thrown pedestrians to the mercy and reaction of motor vehicles, which Sgt. Church stated, "of course … should yield to a pedestrian regardless of a statutory obligation to do so." "Should," NOT "required"! There is NO state-law protection for pedestrians "illegally in a crosswalk." Which is precisely where Mr. Hieftje's "ordinance" places pedestrians -- "illegally in a crosswalk"! Oyxclean evidently was spot on with, "Hieftje is both arrogant AND ignorant. Heck of a combination for a mayor." Repeal Hieftje's Folly! Or recall him! Otherwise, as Wondering suggests, sue the city!
oyxclean
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 9:31 p.m.
Holmes, I will vote for Albert Howard as I cannot tolerate the current mayor. Hieftje needs to go.
Wondering
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 6:30 p.m.
This tragedy did indeed NOT need to happen........and it was NOT the fault of EITHER of the victims of this tragedy that it did happen. It is indeed the CLEAR fault of those who enacted thoughtlessly a law that puts pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers at grave risk, and the CLEAR fault of those same folks who chose not to do anything when serious earlier accidents showed the folly of their ways. I am NOT one to recommend law suits. But sometimes the ONLY way to get someone to listen in really life-threatening situations is to make them pay dearly for not doing so.
Wondering
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 6:28 p.m.
This seems clearly to be an issue with the City of Ann Arbor's new pedestrian law. Either or both the tragic bicycle victim and her family or the devastated young man who hit her should sue the City for VERY big bucks. It is my understanding that the circumstances of this crash were that there was an auto stopped in the outside lane and the bicyclist started across and was hit by a vehicle coming up in the inside lane. I have been in that situation MANY times, both as a pedestrian and as a motorist. Neither the pedestrian nor the motorist can see around the stopped vehicle and neither knows the other is coming--of course, add the speed of a bicycle and the speed of traffic on Washtenaw and the hill at that crosswalk to the mix and it is a disaster waiting to happen. We OUGHT to use our common sense, folks! No matter how conscientious drivers may be, and no matter how careful bicylists/pedestrians may be, when you have blocked visibility, rush hour traffic, and lots of vehicles moving past each other at fast speeds, there are going to be crashes, and sometimes REALLY serious ones, if you choose to rely on drivers being able to see pedestrians and bicyclists trying to cross 5 lanes of traffic. I am a data analyst by profession. I would LOVE to see a similar map of crashes at pedestrian crosswalks from 2008-2010 BEFORE this "local law" went into effect. Although I agree that we in Ann Arbor are TONS smarter than everybody else, there MAY indeed be a reason why the rest of the state (and the country) does not choose to enact such a law. And after enacting such a law, when we have compiled SO much data regarding how dangerous it actually is once implemented, it is very sad indeed that we continue to insist on doing it OUR way. That, too, is one of our endearing Ann Arbor characteristics, I think.
Ron Granger
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 8:53 p.m.
"Neither the pedestrian nor the motorist can see around the stopped vehicle and neither knows the other is coming" And above it all hangs a crosswalk sign that is unobstructd in each direction for miles. On either side of the crosswalk are crosswalk signs. That is the sign that tells you that it is essential to watch for pedestrians and be prepared to stop. And if a car is stopped under that sign, the reason should be fairly obvious. So the suggestion that motorists cannot see is not accurate.
snark12
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 8:41 p.m.
This was clearly an accident in every sense of the word --- and the cyclist needs to play a role in her own safety --- but if the circumstances were as you describe them, then I think the driver should receive a citation. How can you approach a well-marked crosswalk, see a car going in your same direction in the adjoining lane stop and then not stop yourself until you understand what made the first car stop? To do otherwise means the driver was not paying attention to his environment or was driving too fast.
Billy Bob Schwartz
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 4:44 p.m.
...and everyone is responsible for doing whatever it takes to stay alive and well. Look before you cross.
Michigan Man
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 4:40 p.m.
As a result of the poor thinking and negligence of the City of Ann Arbor Administration I suspect the lawsuit from this very unfortunate event will cost the fine taxpayors of Ann Arbor millions.
Basic Bob
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 11:07 p.m.
Doubtful, the 25-year-old driver's insurance company is on the hook. Because bicyclists are not required to have no-fault insurance.
Holmes1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 11:02 p.m.
And the "fine taxpayers" will deserve EVERY penny of their loss! After all, they voted the clowns in and FAILED to oversee the clowns' performance and to throw them out when reality appeared. The serious problems of AA, especially regarding roads and "transportation," are NOT new!
annarboral
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 4:15 p.m.
This is classic bureauacracy in action. First establish bad laws on pedestrian crossings that encourages accidents. Then set up cross walks in dangerous places. Then (surprise, surprise) when an accident occurs blame everyone but the bureauacracy that created the problem. Finally, look responsive by correcting the problem (after the fact) one serious and preventable accident at a time.
Holmes1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 4:40 p.m.
Ditto!
Anna
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 4:24 p.m.
Hear, hear.
bunnyabbot
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 3:51 p.m.
hmm, the map is quite colorful, but do you have such maps for previous years? has there been more accidents since the change in pedestrian law? how many pedestrians were jaywalking? yesterday, as I waited at a crosswalk downtown, a zebra crossing, ten cars passed, NO one stopped or slowed down, so it was much easier for me to wait until the traffic cleared than risk someone having to slam on their breaks. You know, I waited a whole two minutes and managed to survive!
Katherine Griswold
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 3:21 p.m.
"The crosswalk where the woman was hit is situated west of Platt Road in order to give both motorists driving on Washtenaw and non-motorists crossing the five-lane road a better view of each other, Cooper said." What are Eli Coopers transportation engineering credentials? Has a professional transportation engineer provided a written statement of support for the local crosswalk ordinance? The development and implementation of this ordinance resembles social policy more than traffic engineering. We are empowering pedestrians without the engineering infrastructure and driver education to achieve safe crosswalks. Kyle -- Please continue to research the crosswalk issue and consider a back-to-school article. 1. How is the City informing drivers, especially visitors, of the crosswalk ordinance? Given that the signage states "within the crosswalk" and the ordinance includes pedestrians on the curb, how will visitors know the local law? 2. Why is the City continuing to distribute the "Pedestrians Rule!" bookmark ruler with the outdated "approaching" language? A new supply was in the lobby of City Hall on Friday. And did the City recall the posters with the same outdated language from our schools? 3. Students will be walking and biking to school soon. Has the City made any improvements at school crosswalks to ensure that students can safety cross without waiting for a "gap" in vehicular traffic, as they are taught in the AAA school safety patrol program? 4. Per City staff, the ordinance for sight-distance at intersections only applies to vehicular traffic. Is the City planning to update it for pedestrians and cyclists? 5. Why does Ann Arbor need a local ordinance given the Michigan code? Does the local ordinance just create a false sense of safety for the pedestrian at a crosswalk, especially when only the pedestrian is aware of the local ordinance? Thanks.
Holmes1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 5:32 p.m.
What are Eli Coopers transportation engineering credentials? ... The development and implementation of this ordinance resembles social policy more than traffic engineering. We are empowering pedestrians without the engineering infrastructure and driver education to achieve safe crosswalks." Exactly. And as Mr. Osborn has shown, Mr. Cooper got his facts re dates and speed limits on that stretch of highway totally wrong. And Cooper apparently has no idea why or how the speed limit he mentioned was changed -- a lawsuit over who, the city or state, has authority to set such limit, an issue raised by a2citizen, but not Mr. Cooper or this news article. Then there is: "No light was installed because 'it has the attributes of a crosswalk and should allow for safe interaction between respectful pedestrians and motorists,' [Mr. Cooper] said." Huh?!!! The crosswalk itself was supposed to protect pedestrians? FACTS have proven otherwise, yet this is Mr. Cooper's only response? It isn't just his "engineering credentials" that are seriously suspect! WHO hired this guy as "transportation program manager"? WHY? Because he tells city officials what they want to hear? And vets all their screwball agendas, no matter what? Further investigation is indicated!
pat thehandyman
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 4:19 p.m.
My Take ...if on the road , in or on a vehicle , bicycle ,moped etc . Get Insurance . Or who pays for this poor woman's medical. Motorcycles must have insurance , lights front back and side . I have all this insurance In Ann Arbor your must be using or smoking fairy dust to keep yourself safe...but it doesn't seem to work .... Cars and Bikes do not mix ...cars will always win in any collision . Bikes and foot traffic should do as the mayor says " Everyone is responsible for not hitting someone in a crosswalk," he said." Number one culprit in these accidents ...it's not the car ! It's the other than a car person . 59 accidents tells me the law puts everyone in danger and the city will get sued at some point for making the roads hazardous .... and when he woke in the hospital one bike rider said , " This is the 3 rd time I have been hit " hey ,wake up ! 3 times ? and the state law has allowed more than 100 people go to an early grave as cars win against bikes nuff said
Tesla
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 3:20 p.m.
I'm fine with the crosswalks in general, after initially rebuffing them as a pain but they seem like a manageable good idea. However. Has anyone noticed that most of these walks are right next to bus stops? I always see people milling about and I have to determine whether they are crossing or waiting for a bus. It's really confusing and a bad plan. I see the reasoning behind having them "In Proximity" of bus stops but not right next to them.
Brad
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 3:20 p.m.
So "plans call for" a signal to be installed there? Do those plans have a date attached to them? I know the article said that "It's unknown when that project, a private development, will be completed", but since it isn't the private developer putting up the signal then it would seem they might have SOME idea of when that might be. I guess we'll just have to wait for the next installment of the continuing pedestrian crossing miniseries.
justcurious
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 3:15 p.m.
So, the crosswalk will remain exactly as it is for the next year or until fall of 2013. Great reaction to a woman being this severely injured due to city policy.
Holmes1
Mon, Aug 20, 2012 : 7:07 a.m.
So it appears
Basic Bob
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 11:04 p.m.
The city doesn't intend to act at all. They will be happy to take credit.
Holmes1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 3:40 p.m.
As it's the private developer who evidently is fixing the city's mess.
Ron Granger
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 2:57 p.m.
@jns131: "How do you stop at 45 MPH with other cars tail gating you?" You hit the brakes. Just like we all must regularly do whenever another vehicle unsafely pulls out in front of us. Some drivers try and pretend they cannot possibly hit their brakes for a pedestrian because they insist it will cause a crash, yet they do it every day for other cars. I believe it is mostly just drivers who just do not want to yield, as required by law.
Holmes1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 3:50 p.m.
"Hit the brakes!" A great solution to ensure pedestrian, not to mention vehicular traffic safety! "As required by law." City ordinance, NOT State law, which you keep misrepresenting. Apparently you missed (or chose to ignore) KJMClark's post (as well as the Michigan Vehicle Code and policies on pedestrian safety at the Secretary of State and State Police websites): "state law doesn't say you have to stop for pedestrians in mid-block crosswalks .... It's the city ordinance 10:148 that says motorists have to yield to pedestrians in mid-block crosswalks, and it only talks about pedestrians." From the State Police website on pedestrian safety: • Obey traffic signals. • NEVER CROSS MIDBLOCK • Cross streets at a corner, using traffic signals and crosswalks whenever possible. • Always stop at the edge of a parked car, curb, or vehicle BEFORE walking out into traffic. • Look left-right-left BEFORE crossing a street and continue looking while crossing. • Make eye contact with drivers PRIOR to crossing in front of them. • Never assume the vehicle driver can see you. • Allow for enough time to safely cross the street
Holmes1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 2:55 p.m.
Once the again the attitude behind the city's misguided ordinance is clearly displayed: "Everyone is responsible for not hitting someone in a crosswalk." So throw pedestrians into middle of busy streets and leave it to motorists to save the day. That certainly shows no concern for pedestrian safety, still less convenience. Which leaves, once again, bias against motor vehicles as the true motive for the "ordinance."
Holmes1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 4:06 p.m.
NO, biased against motor vehicles! To the extent that you put pedestrians, for whose safety you evidently care nothing, at risk. You are NOT "biased against drivers hitting pedestrians," any more than you accurately represent law.
Ron Granger
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 3:02 p.m.
"leave it to motorists to save the day." Leave it to motorists to pay attention to their driving, obey the laws, and not be distracted. Crosswalks for pedestrians are a universal concept in this country. Drivers must yield, even if they do not wish to. "Which leaves, once again, bias against motor vehicles as the true motive for the "ordinance."" Yes, it is a fact - many of us are biased against drivers hitting pedestrians.
1bit
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 2:51 p.m.
Kyle, this is a great follow-up article. The figures are a bit hard to see, even zoomed. Doing a little searching, I found the WATS website (www.miwats.org) which is a really valuable resource. Thanks for bringing this onto my radar screen.
Nora S.
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 2:27 p.m.
Many years ago there was a pedestrian bridge over Plymouth at Barton Dr. and Jones St. This allowed children safe crossing to get to Northside school. I'd like to suggest a similar bridge, ADA compliant, that could cross at or near Platt and Washtenaw. Traffic in this area between 5:15 and 5:45 pm backs up to Stadium. Adding yet another light in this corridor, in my opinion, could cause more rear-end crashes.
Widow Wadman
Tue, Aug 21, 2012 : 11:20 a.m.
I hate crossings Washtenaw whether by foot or by bicycle. I would use such a bridge if one were installed.
Ann English
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 7:29 p.m.
I used that bridge myself, from Leaird Street, not Jones Drive, to get to Barton Drive on my way to Northside School. Today Leaird Street does not end at Plymouth Road, but dead-ends very near it. I, too, don't want to see another traffic light on Washtenaw Avenue, so near Platt Road. It isn't difficult to make safe left turns today onto Washtenaw from Arlington Boulevard, and I like being able to make right turns onto Glenwood from Washtenaw without having to wait for a traffic light change any closer than Huron Parkway.
Holmes1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 2:31 p.m.
Exactly! I see disaster coming with the new construction on the south side of the road.
RUKiddingMe
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 1:53 p.m.
No crosswalk or speed limit change in the worls is going to protect pedestrians from drivers who don't pay attention to the road.
Holmes1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 2:33 p.m.
Or pedestrians who don't pay attention or abide by the law.
Brad
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 1:41 p.m.
The map shows that most of these accidents occur downtown. That's the area that has the highest density of light-controlled crosswalks already. So evidently there's more to it than that.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Mon, Aug 20, 2012 : 3:37 p.m.
Yes, many drivers violate the law while turning. I have a lot of near misses as a pedestrian downtown at signaled crosswalks because people turning aren't in the habit of looking out for pedestrians in the crosswalk. My guess is that the reason there are more pedestrian/bike accidents downtown though is that there are more pedestrians and bikes downtown.
rougehuron
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 1:31 p.m.
If our city wants to be considered walkable it needs to consider more effective solutions such as building pedestrian tunnels or bridges in high foot traffic areas. This is one location which could be perfect for that.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Mon, Aug 20, 2012 : 3:35 p.m.
I love the idea of tunnels and bridges but they are very expensive. It seems like moving the crossing over a bit to where they are putting in a traffic light is a good solution too.
Holmes1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 3:09 p.m.
Great idea! But, unfortunately, that would take the Booty from city bureaucrats' pockets and ain't gonna happen. Even at the cost of a human being's safety.
Ron Granger
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 2:58 p.m.
More enforcement.
jns131
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 1:30 p.m.
This part of Washtenaw has been the busiest since I have lived here since the 70's. There have been accidents in that area but yet it took a law about pedestrians and this accident to finally get MDOT to see the lite? This was the switch to turn it on? How sad to see our government get a lite finally installed there when it should have been there all along. Good to both driver and biker. What a sad set of coincidence to make a lite happen now.
Ron Granger
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 1:23 p.m.
It should not require much law enforcement resource for the city to conduct more crosswalk strings. Ticket drivers who do not stop. Similarly, enforcement of crosswalk blocking by cars that stop in crosswalks downtown should be a higher priority.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Mon, Aug 20, 2012 : 3:33 p.m.
I would love it if Ann Arbor started enforcing the existing crosswalk laws in downtown Ann Arbor. It seems like once a week or so, I am nearly run over by someone making a turn across whatever crosswalk I am walking in. I have learned to pay attention to cars turning and to yell at them if they start to turn while I am in the crosswalk but I would like it if drivers had more a sense that they are sharing the road with pedestrians.
oyxclean
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 3:30 p.m.
Yes, and ticket idiotic jay walkers and bikers who blast through red lights and stop signs. Can't have it both ways Ron. And I will not be stopping on Washtenaw until a light is in place.
Holmes1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 3:06 p.m.
"You impede traffic by slowing down to let a pedestrian cross. Half the time if you stop" That is precisely Mr. Granger's evident agenda. a2cents even opined "remove the vehicles." From a STATE HIGHWAY, which evidently is in "the way" of SOME pedestrians, who REFUSE to walk to traffic lights or to wait for traffic to clear! And Mr. Hieftje blithely concluded, "Everyone is responsible for not hitting someone in a crosswalk." "Damn the motor vehicles, full speed ahead (with his cherished anti-auto ordinance)!"
jns131
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 1:34 p.m.
How do you stop at 45 MPH with other cars tail gating you? You impede traffic by slowing down to let a pedestrian cross. Half the time if you stop? Someone else is not paying attention and the pedestrian stills gets hit or you do. People do not slow down on Washtenaw for nothing unless it is a traffic lite. Good luck with that one. Cross at the lite otherwise, don't cross during rush hour.
MRunner73
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 1:11 p.m.
Using the helpful map as a trend guide, the number of incidents increase closer to the heart of the city. Higher population density means a better chance of having one of these incidents. The city has done all it can in awareness, marking crosswalks, installing safer cross areas and more. As previous posts state, people much take their own responsibility. Trying to cross a busy avenue between 5:30 and 6 PM is hazardous to both foot and cycle traffic. The city need not spend money it doesn't have on further prevention of such incidents. The last sentence in the story only goes half way; it should add the everyone entering a crosswalk should yield to traffic if it appears the driver is unwilling to slow or stop. I still hope the women involved in the recent crash will be able to make a full recovery.
Ron Granger
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 2:53 p.m.
"everyone entering a crosswalk should yield to traffic if it appears the driver is unwilling to slow or stop." Those are the people who need tickets, with steeply rising fine amounts for subsequent offenses.
a2cents
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 1:31 p.m.
novel, suggesting ped & cycle hours-of-operation. Let's try it for motorists first for proof-of-principal.
Ron Granger
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 1:08 p.m.
This crosswalk is at the crest of the hill. The sign that hangs above it is unobstructed for miles and is visible as far as the eye can see - if drivers bother to look. @a2grateful: " To Hieftje: You are responsible for installing crosswalks in places of visibility, whereby The mayor did not install this crosswalk. He does not make those decisions. This particular crosswalk has been in place a very long time. @a2grateful: 1) Drivers can actually see the pedestrians" The location at the crest allows drivers to see people crossing - if they look. A driver approaching a crosswalk has a responsibility to scan the area for anyone crossing, and to be prepared to stop. In this forum we hear countless excuses and rationalizations of why that isn't possible - excuses like I'm going too fast, I don't want to stop for a single person, I am in a car and more important than someone on foot, I need to get somewhere, etc. @a2grateful: "2) Drivers have enough time to stop once they see the pedestrians. Time means reaction time from foot to brake once pedestrians are recognized to be in the crosswalk. Time means the elapsed interval related to stopping distance once recognition occurs." It is critical that operators of heavy equipment - like cars - pay attention to their environment, especially when traveling at high speeds. If your full attention to the safe operation of your car is compromised, it may be necessary to SLOW DOWN. When approaching a crosswalk it is the driver's responsibility to maintain the ability to safely stop. The rest of your political rant ignores that this crosswalk was in place long before the ann arbor crosswalk law was passed. And it is also covered by state law that requires motorists to stop for anyone in the crosswalk.
BobbyJohn
Tue, Aug 21, 2012 : 2:34 a.m.
The problem is that pedestrians have to look out for themselves. You or I are foolhardy if we cross a street, especially the busiest section of roadway in the county, without stopping, looking and listening first. One can be in the right, dead right. It is the reality. By putting the crosswalk in that dangerous location, it increased the chance of serious injury or death as some people will rely on the crosswalk to their own detriment.
Mark Law
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 10:21 p.m.
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/reactiontime.html discusses minimum stopping distance for a vehicle based on reaction time, braking time, etc. Given the speed limit at the accident site, this makes for a zone nearly the length of a football field where drivers, even if they are paying attention, would be unable to stop. I agree with others calling for clearly marked and regulated intersections, with green/yellow/red lights.
Holmes1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 8:03 p.m.
"You cannot cite something that does not exist." Exactly. And MVC Section 257.612.(ii) is about motor vehicles turning on Red Lights AT INTERSECTIONS and even then requires that pedestrians be "lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk" -- a crosswalk adjacent to the intersection, not hundreds of yards or more away in the middle of a block, with no yield sign, stop sign, or traffic light. If pedestrians are in crosswalks illegally, motor vehicles, according to State law, are NOT required to yield to them -- it's the other way around: Pedestrians must yield to MVs. Ann Arbor's stupid crosswalk ordinance may well be illegal under State law! It's certainly sown chaos, misinformation, and danger to everyone, especially pedestrians. And turned everything upside down!
jcj
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 6:12 p.m.
It is more critical that pedestrians and cyclist PAY ATTENTION to what is around and approaching them!
a2citizen
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 5:30 p.m.
League, the title of the section you reference is "Traffic Control Signals; Location..." That crosswalk is not controlled by a traffic control signal.
leaguebus
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 5:17 p.m.
Section 257.612.(ii): "The vehicular traffic shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection."
Billy Bob Schwartz
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 5:06 p.m.
Ron...". In this forum we hear countless excuses and rationalizations of why that isn't possible - excuses like I'm going too fast, I don't want to stop for a single person, I am in a car and more important than someone on foot, I need to get somewhere, etc." Sorry, Ron, but I think I have read every comment in the past few months on this and related questions, and I don't remember reading these comments you mention. I think you miust be interpreting things blatantly from your own personal view. The most common type of comment has been "people on bikes or walking should be very careful not to get hit by a car, as it could kill them." There is a place for walkers and a place for cyclists and a place for drivers, and we all need to work together to tty not to hurt each other.
a2citizen
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 4:54 p.m.
"...Once again, CITE YOUR SOURCE..." @Holmes1: You cannot cite something that does not exist.
Holmes1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 3:36 p.m.
"Political rant," indeed! "State law ... requires motorists to stop for anyone in the crosswalk." Once again, CITE YOUR SOURCE. Where does State law say ANY SUCH THING? WHY does the Michigan State Police website on pedestrian safety state the following? • Obey traffic signals. • NEVER CROSS MIDBLOCK • Cross streets at a corner, using traffic signals and crosswalks whenever possible. • Look left-right-left BEFORE crossing a street and continue looking while crossing. • Make eye contact with drivers PRIOR to crossing in front of them. • NEVER assume the vehicle driver can see you. • ALLOW FOR ENOUGH TIME to safely cross the street. WHERE does state law say ANYTHING like your unsupported claim?
BPinAA
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 3:03 p.m.
1stho, I agree with you...it can be difficult to see crossing pedestrians or cyclists because of cars or trucks in adjacent lanes. Plus, any pedestrian/cyclist crossing should use the cross-walk light if it's available...several times on Plymouth Rd. I've come up to crosswalks where a person is crossing and has NOT activated the light. They are put there for your safety...please use them!
Brad
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 1:33 p.m.
OK, so it's a poorly designed crosswalk that's been there a long time. So what? Of the 100s of comments on this topic, you seem to be the only one that thinks the design is OK. Even the city's spokesperson said "We're aware that a non-signal controlled intersection on a multi-lane highway is not the safest situation".
1stho
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 1:25 p.m.
Politics aside, I'm still not convinced that having cross walks with no signals are a good idea on roads with speeds greater than say 30mph. Some other examples: There are various places on Eisenhower Parkway where due to curves in the road or trees and bushes by the side of the road it is quite difficult to see if anyone is about to step into the road at a crosswalk. Not to mention that on a 2-lane road (e.g. 2 lanes on each side) it is quite easy for a car in the outside lane to block the line of sight of a car on the inside lane such that the latter can't see the cross walk and any pedestrians that might be allowed to cross. Slowing down is ideally what would happen when a driver sees a cross-walk sign, but on a 45mph road is it really likely that all drivers are going to chose to slow down to say 30mph every time they see a cross-walk sign? A better option I've seen in the UK is simply to have a standard traffic light at pedestrian crossings - the pedestrian presses the button, a few seconds later the light turns red, traffic stops. This way there is no question about the pedestrians intentions and the driver doesn't have to learn a new behavior as this is just the same as stopping at stop light at a street intersection.
a2citizen
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 1:01 p.m.
Did the City of Ann Arbor get permission from the state to put the crosswalk in that location? From the Michigan Vehicle Code: "Sec 609.(b) No local authority shall place or maintain any traffic-control device upon any trunk line highway under the jurisdiction of the state highway commissioner "except by the latter's permission."
oyxclean
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 3:25 p.m.
Great question. Maybe a traffic study in this area first before putting in the x-walk of death would have been a good idea.
leezee
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 12:58 p.m.
The mayor really has no idea that police park at the Platt and Washtenaw intersection to give out tickets to those making illegal and dangerous left turns onto and from Platt? I think the fact that they have to do this makes it obvious it's a dangerous spot. Also, although there is quite a bit of traffic due to the rec center and the park in that area, Summers-Knoll school has moved into the former Gift of Life building and that will really increase traffic.....and kids will be involved. The light there is long overdue.
Joel A. Levitt
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 12:55 p.m.
A better and less expensive solution -- remove the crosswalk.
Billy Bob Schwartz
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 4:58 p.m.
twocents...a bicycle is a vehicle, too. I agree. Let's just have everyone in SE Michgian walk everywhere. We can have dirt paths all over the place, we will all get in great shape (or have heart attacks), and all the businesses can go to a town that likes things on wheels. LOL.
Holmes1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 2:43 p.m.
Thanks, a2cents! You have laid bare your true motivations! Total bias against motor vehicles!
a2cents
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 1:23 p.m.
-or- remove the vehicles
Walid Yassir
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 12:01 p.m.
Kyle - I get the sense that the plan to move the crosswalk and place a light was in place before this accident. Am I correct? A lot of the commenters seem to think this a reaction to the incident.
YpsiGreen
Mon, Aug 20, 2012 : 1:42 a.m.
"Although the plan to move the crosswalk was developed long before Monday's accident, the incident has thrown a spotlight on safety at the crosswalk, which is in one of the most heavily traveled corridors in Washtenaw County." Q.E.D.
Holmes1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 2:40 p.m.
Both observations seem to be correct. The story ITSELF was reaction to the incident.
Napalm.Morning
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 1:01 p.m.
Bob, I'm sure your question is somewhat rhetorical/sarcastic, but, for those who don't "get it". The City's leadership generally believes, as demonstrated by their actions, that more government is the answer to all of real or perceived problems in the city. This is generally a small issue, here, but each governmental "solution" effectively uses up the jurisdiction's budget--hence more government equals more/higher taxes. . . the "hand-wringers" will then chime in to the effect that "if only one life is saved, its worth it. . ."
Basic Bob
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 12:46 p.m.
This is a bizarre section of roadway, with no left turn onto Platt or Washtenaw, no light, no crosswalk at the intersection (but there is one midblock). Too bad it takes a developer's cash to fix the city's long-term problem. Otherwise we can be sure that their response would have been as sluggish as the notorious Plymouth Road crosswalk. I don't think it's a coincidence that we have had serious injuries and death at these midblock crosswalks on major entrances to the city. Now the city is adding pedestrian "refuges" midblock on other busy roads. Why does the city still think these are a good idea?
thorj97
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 11:52 a.m.
Unfortunate that it takes a near fatality to get the city to move on proper traffic signaling. Any information on when the signals will be installed? Is the city waiting until the retail project is completed? The project does not look that far along, so I'm not sure if "next fall" means October/November or not until fall next year. If next year, that seems to long to wait to make this crossing safe.
Jim Osborn
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 11:37 a.m.
Lets get our facts correct: Washtenaw's speed limit has been 45 MPH from US-23 until the Stadium Blvd split since before 1998. That was the date of my last ticket ever, when I was new to Ann Arbor and caught in a speed trap just west of the split at night where it drops to 35 MPH. Welcome to Ann Arbor! I never or rarely see any pedestrians crossing at this location near Platt. A flashing light would alert all drivers that the unusual is happening and to look for a crossing pedestrians. Michigan would be better served if bicyclists were required to behave as either motorists or pedestrians. If a bicyclist enters a crosswalk at 15 MPH from a direction opposite that of normal traffic, drivers are not expecting to see such a sudden change. A vehicle moving at a legal 45 MPH cannot stop if a bicycle that was 20 feet away suddenly turns and enters the crosswalk. All in a matter of 1 or 2 seconds. When I've crossed Washentaw, I've either waited fro a big gap in traffic, or used the traffic light at Huron. The one thing that I would never do is rely on the silly Ann Arbor law and just enter the crosswalk and hope that people see me and stop for me.
Jim Walker
Mon, Aug 20, 2012 : 4:44 p.m.
The posted limit there has been 45 mph since at least April 1983. I have a copy of the Traffic Control Order #81072. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor, MI
Holmes1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 10:04 p.m.
Mr. Osborn and 751 are correct. The speed-limit change that occurred several years ago (2008, the year mentioned by Cooper?) was on that stretch north of the split with East Stadium, and that occurred, I understand, as result of a lawsuit that challenged the city's authority to change speed limits on a state highway without state approval, an issue referred to (nebulously as a result of Cooper's account) in the above article.
leaguebus
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 4:32 p.m.
Ho cyclist could enter that crosswalk without almost stopping,
751
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 2:04 p.m.
Mr. Osborn is correct. The stretch of Washtenaw that he refers to has been posted at 45MPH for as long as I can remember. At least the late 80's.
a2cents
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 1:27 p.m.
fact check: I believe the speed for part of that distance was elevated to 45 mph just a couple of years ago.
Napalm.Morning
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 11:37 a.m.
If only the world's issues could be dealt with as quickly as our city's leader jumped on this one. . .The knee jerk reaction to a single incident, here, was predictable given the Council's proclivity for protecting us from ourselves. The timing is truly astounding, though. . . Bravo, King John and your court of jesters! We bow down before your unfathomable intellect for we are not worthy of your gracious concern for our well-being (in the cross walks of our fair city). As noted herein, stuff happens, life is generally fraught with peril. . . I, for one, accept some degree of responsibility for my actions and the consequences thereof.
craigjjs
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 10:45 a.m.
Movement of the crosswalk is reasonable, given the danger and the increased pedestrian traffic expected near Platt due to development. It is not clear from the article whether this was plan before this accident. The comparison of movement of this dangerous crosswalk to building a "multi-millioin dollar dear crossing bridge" or "stalls at all parking lots" is absurd and small minded. There is nothing in any of the coverage to indicate that the driver was inattentive or the woman was challenging the cars.
YpsiGreen
Mon, Aug 20, 2012 : 1:40 a.m.
"Although the plan to move the crosswalk was developed long before Monday's accident, the incident has thrown a spotlight on safety at the crosswalk, which is in one of the most heavily traveled corridors in Washtenaw County." Q.E.D.
a2grateful
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 10:39 a.m.
To Hieftje: You are responsible for installing crosswalks in places of visibility, whereby 1) Drivers can actually see the pedestrians 2) Drivers have enough time to stop once they see the pedestrians. Time means reaction time from foot to brake once pedestrians are recognized to be in the crosswalk. Time means the elapsed interval related to stopping distance once recognition occurs. So, while we are certainly responsible for NOT hitting someone in a crosswalk, you ARE responsible for designing and placing crosswalks that disallow this safety for our pedestrians and drivers. Rescind your stupid political traffic laws and remove the stupid, dangerous, invisible crosswalks that you have installed throughout our town. Your political arrogance for traffic law design needs to be replaced by sound traffic engineering and pedestrian safety practices. Existing Michigan law allows for great pedestrian safety. Enforce the existing law! Yes. . . this requires employees called police officers to write tickets during traffic stops. This activity falls inside your"bucket" of public safety. Restore and maintain our public safety. That is your responsibility. Replace the folly art and thinking at our city hall "Justice Center" with actual justice for our community. Condolences to the injured woman and her family, as well as the driver of the vehicle that did not see her in time.
Widow Wadman
Tue, Aug 21, 2012 : 12:33 p.m.
It always seemed like a bad choice of a place to put a crosswalk -- too dangerous given the speed limit and the amount of traffic. I think that the mayor and City Council should be held responsible for the placement of this dangerous crosswalk. Its existence encourages people, including children, to put themselves at risk rather than to cross the street at a signaled intersection where cars are forced to stop. Somebody should force the mayor and City Council to to remove this crosswalk now. Also, what is wrong with pedestrian overpasses? Detroit has them. Plymouth has them. They protect people from getting hit.
Holmes1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 9:50 p.m.
No, pedestrians are NOT necessarily visible. Even if YOU see and stop for them, what about drivers who can't and/or don't? How does it do ANY pedestrian ANY good to be right but dead? Does it bring him/her any solace that the driver who struck him/her MIGHT get a $100 fine and two points on his/her driving record? As a pedestrian and cyclist, I will stick with State law, NOT city nonsense, and wait until traffic clears. If motor vehicles stop, I am NOT moving -- until they clear away! As that is THE LAW -- and ensures my safety. Nothing ELSE does. And that (last I looked) was what the AA.com poll clearly shows: The vast majority of respondents stated that they would abide by common sense, which just happens to be what is recommended by the State Police on the issue of pedestrian safety: • Obey traffic signals. • NEVER CROSS MIDBLOCK • Cross streets at a corner, using traffic signals and crosswalks whenever possible. • Look left-right-left BEFORE crossing a street and continue looking while crossing. • Make eye contact with drivers PRIOR to crossing in front of them. • NEVER assume the vehicle driver can see you. • Allow for ENOUGH TIME to safely cross the street HOW can pedestrians crossing at the Washtenaw-Platt site possibly "make eye contract" with vehicles traveling at 45 mph across FIVE LANES of traffic? The only safe way to cross is to wait until the road is completely clear -- which isn't going to happen 3-6:30 pm on that stretch of highway! Anyone who expects city ordinance to protect him/her then is utter fool! AND has anyone noticed extra police vigilance there as a result of the tragic accident? Doesn't that suggest (once again!) how dedicated the police are to enforcing the city's crosswalk ordinance? Could it be that they, too, think it's Hieftje's Folly?! However one slices matters, this comment CLEARLY is in NO WAY interested in pedestrian convenience, still less safety.
leaguebus
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 4:27 p.m.
Pedestrians in That crosswalk are visible to all who are paying attention. It is at the top of the hill. If I am driving/looking ahead as one in a car should be, I can see the crosswalk from quite a ways back. I will slow down and prePare to stop if I see anyone waiting to cross.
Albert Howard
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 4:21 p.m.
@a2grateful Yes, indeed. Hope for speedy recovery to 55-year-young woman. Insensitivity to the needs of the people always overrides blueprints. Mayor John Hieftje, a hospital visit would be thoughtful. The family might appreciate it.
Holmes1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 3:21 p.m.
Here-here!
oyxclean
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 3:18 p.m.
Well said, a2grateful! Hieftje is both arrogant AND ignorant. Heck of a combination for a mayor.
mkm17
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 3:04 p.m.
Great post, a2grateful.
joe.blow
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 10:37 a.m.
Reactionary changes in laws and procedures are usually fraught with failure. I once hit a deer on the highway in the middle of nowhere, should be put up a multi-million dollar deer crossing bridge? Someone once hit my car in a parking lot, should we require individual stalls at all parking lots in this city? The truth is, bad things happen, which sucks. But, sometimes we have no control over it and no amount of change will improve it. When you have either a non-attentive driver, or a 150lb biker with an attitude that they have equal rights as a 2400lb car, but things will happen and now amount of spending will improve outcomes.
Holmes1
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 8:19 p.m.
@jcj: See Walid Yassir's comment below. He noted what you have.
jcj
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 6:07 p.m.
amlive Do you not find it curious that with all the comments on the original article, there was NEVER any mention of this being "in the works"
amlive
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 3:18 p.m.
Reactionary laws can indeed be misguided and problematic. I fail to see what that has to do with this however, as the issue of improving of pedestrian crossings and bike accommodations has been a process ongoing for some time in this community. Regarding this specific case, it is clearly stated in the article - "Although the plan to move the crosswalk was developed long before Monday's accident, the incident has thrown a spotlight on safety at the crosswalk"
1bit
Sun, Aug 19, 2012 : 2:45 p.m.
Not sure why so many downvotes, but your point about not making reactionary laws is very true.