Ann Arbor motorists asked to take survey that tests knowledge of crosswalks
Motorists are being asked to take a quick survey to help the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition learn more about driver behavior at crosswalks in Ann Arbor.
Do you know what to do when you see a sign like this in Ann Arbor?
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
The WBWC, city of Ann Arbor, Downtown Development Authority, Thomson Reuters and Washtenaw County Public Health are working together to improve safety at crosswalks throughout the city.
Using the online survey, the group is gathering data on local behaviors and knowledge about crosswalks. Survey data will be used to assess the progress of a communitywide education campaign surrounding the city's new pedestrian safety ordinance now in effect.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's e-mail newsletters.
Comments
Paul Epstein
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 8:41 a.m.
Yes, there needed to be some action taken for ensuring better pedestrian safety. But, regrettably, this was definitely not the one. The parameters of what constitute crosswalks, as well as how far from entering the street a pedestrian need be (a few inches? two feet? seventy-five feet? sixteen miles?) are not spelled out. Also not spelled out is when a motorist is allowed to proceed. What if there are a series of "parades" of walkers? Must you wait till four am when it's all cleared out? In a traffic engineering class I took long ago, it was imparted upon us that it is foolish to give pedestrians right-of-way, due to dangerous presumptions that cars will stop. Besides, it takes far longer for a car to get out of a pedestrian's way than it does for a ped to clear the car's path. Worse yet is flipping backwards the right-of-way, like when it's required that a motorist must stop on his/her own flashing yellow. And it seems to me the emphasis is more on cars stopping than it is on peds getting to a chance to cross and nobody getting hit. A bad idea this ordinance is considering the control issues some people have (like the lady at Packard and Easy who, on the first day, waited, and then gave a victorious thumbs-up when I stopped). Perhaps time of day ought to be considered, too. At 1 a m someone on Plymouth Road can probably find a break in traffic. I think pedestrian-activated devices (like the Hawk at Huron and Third) are the best way to go when there is a need to hold traffic for someone trying to cross. this ordinance is pure nonsense and will play out very badly, I am sure.
Marilyn Wilkie
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 3:29 a.m.
So today I'm driving through downtown Dexter. I see a young man to my left on the north side of Main Street waiting to cross. I stop, while watching the large white pickup behind me. I'm hoping he is alert. He is. Whew! The kid just stands there looking at me while numerous cars stream by him going in the opposite direction. Finally I go, worried the whole time that I won't be ticketed for going. I hope the kid got across finally. Dexter is under the State Law. They have signs that they seem to only post on weekends in the middle of Main Street. Not sure why. That is confusing. Still avoiding driving or Patronizing any businesses in Ann Arbor. Too worried about getting a ticket and points on my clean driving record.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 9:41 p.m.
So who is going to do the actual work to repeal this ordinance? I would but I am not a resident of Ann Arbor. However, I hope that any Ypsilanti city council members reading this know that if they try to pass a similar ordinance in Ypsilanti, I will do whatever it takes to make sure that the are not elected again.
BWSanderson
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 3:20 p.m.
People have expressed concern over the fact that Ann Arbor gets many visiting motorists who cannot be expected to read annarbor.com and be aware of all our unusual laws, thereby putting trusting pedestrians at risk. I would like to suggest a concern the other way around. Suppose this law remains for years, local drivers become aware of it, our children become used to it, and all is fine in AA. What happens when our children go to some OTHER city and step into the street? They think that cars are supposed to stop for them, but there may be no such law or expectation for drivers in Detroit, Lansing, New York, etc. The idea of setting such expectations via local city law is absurd and dangerous.
Macabre Sunset
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 8:39 a.m.
I watch for unmarked cops now, rather than pedestrians. Hope I don't hit any of either variety. But there's no way in the world I'm stopping for the Plymouth or Washtenaw crosswalks.
snapshot
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 2:57 a.m.
I am trying to learn the locations of these crosswalks and now slow down significantly to ensure I will be able to stop without thecar behind me crashing into me. I can't afford to pay 100 dollar fine or take the physical damage to my body caused by a rear end collission. This law is scary wrong on so many levels. One level not mentioned is the fact that Ann Arbor is host to public institutions that attract drivers from all over the states who would have no reason to think those crosswalk signs are a safety reminder to stop after the pedestrian has entered the crosswalk.
Peter Baker
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 3:25 a.m.
"I am trying to learn the locations of these crosswalks and now slow down significantly to ensure I will be able to stop without the car behind me crashing into me." Sounds good, thanks!
Carolyn
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 11:50 p.m.
The crosswalk sign at the intersection of Huron Parkway and Glazier Way is a COMPLETE FAIL. Unless you travel this road on a regular basis, you will totally and completely miss it. TEENY TINY and on the median amongst the weeds.
Are you serious?
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 10:08 p.m.
I predict that very soon we will see our first court case challenging this ordinance. Can't wait to see how the prosecutor attempts to "prove" what the pedestrian was thinking. A challenge to all aa.com commentators. What will be the next ordinance like this cross walk one? My two answers: 1. The next ordinance should be making it a crime to think about speeding. "Your honor I was patrolling on W. Huron and I saw a vehicle that was traveling under the speed limit. However it was clear she was intending to speed so I pulled her over and wrote her a ticket under the new ordinance." 2. How about one under which the meter police can give you a ticket. "Your honor even though there was time left on the meter, it was clear the motorist had no intention of coming back to pay for parking so I wrote the ticket." Any other ideas?
Megan
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 8:23 p.m.
I ride a motorcycle and the possibility of being rear-ended is not simply a matter of vehicle damage; it is a matter of life and death. The pedestrian waiting on the side of the road or on a pedestrian island is in a far safer (less life threatening) position than I. Please repeal this short-sighted law before someone is seriously injured or killed.
Marilyn Wilkie
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 3:20 a.m.
Megan, I ride a motorcycle too and it didn't occur to me that I would be in a much more vulnerable stance until you posted this. You are absolutely right. I avoid riding in Ann Arbor now due to the crazy traffic, but this will ensure that I never do again. Thanks!
Holy Cow
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 8:12 p.m.
Let's see, what do I know about crosswalks? I know that they are dangerous for both motorists and pedestrians. Every time I have stopped I have felt that the person behind me was very close to rear ending me. Have also held my breath hoping that the car going in the opposite direction is going to stop. There have been a few close calls until the driver going in the opposite direction realizes what is going on and stops at the last second. All I can say is that this whole situation is very scary for me - often have children in my back seat who would be the most impacted if a car rear ends me. Also, a car rear ending me could possibly push my car into the pedestrian who is trying to cross the street.
Marilyn Wilkie
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 7:53 p.m.
Does anyone else feel like they are in First Grade again? The whole tone of this survey reeks of talking down to drivers. I have driven in Ann Arbor for almost 50 years now and I resent this. By the way, I've never come close to hitting a pedestrian, though sometimes they were mighty close to being run over from jumping in front of my car.
B2Pilot
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 7:33 p.m.
I am starting a coalition to discuss new traffic rules for cars concerning other possible scenarios that happens within the city limits , I am looking for Any bike riders and non-drivers to be on the panel so as to get satisfactory input. ha ha ha
momzilla
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 7:33 p.m.
I was driving on Stadium this weekend coming home from Plum Market (during the game at the big house..so high noon) and heading East...I was in the left lane and saw movement in one of the cross walk areas in the center. I could not see the pedestrian straight away as he was hiding behind the sign and the grasses are so tall.....I DID stop....only to have the driver in the right lane come to a very sudden stop (almost hit him) because the driver did not see him....because MY car was blocking the view. Something else needs to be done to see the pedestrians that are in the middle of the road on Stadium. What if it was raining or snowing???.....my visibility won't be so good. The pedestrian was also dressed in a light gray -shirt and really blended in with the surroundings! We need a blinking light activiation system for this heavy traffic area...and high enough that ALL lanes affected will SEE IT!!
gofigure
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 7:18 p.m.
I'm curious to know how many tickets were written this past weekend--- home game and all ya know.
Roll My Eyes
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 6:31 p.m.
Go back to the standard law of pedestrians IN crosswalk, you stop. Go back to enforcing jaywalking, speeding, coming to a full stop at signs & lights. A no righthand turn within the downtown area would be a good thought. Drivers, slow down (and stop trying to lane split with my motorbike) pedestrians, understand that it's worth the extra walk to cross at a light/corner where drivers are extra cautious. That's how thing were growing up for me. And everyone, stop expecting the world to acquiesce to every little whim that impedes your supposed *rights*. We all live in a big world, and must take responsibility for our own actions. Walkers, not everyone is as lucky to be able to commute that way, enjoy your walk, and look out for yourself ; Drivers, please leave a little early so you're not in such a rush. And bicyclists, if you want to be respected on the road, follow the rules as such.
Olive
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 5:07 a.m.
I meant...great post, Roll My Eyes.
KJMClark
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 1:25 a.m.
But I do follow the laws on the road when I'm biking, and I still have motorists treating me like dirt. And I'm not jaywalking, I'm crossing in a marked crosswalk, and I still have motorists ignoring the law and not yielding. For that matter, I'm driving the speed limit and I still get some nimrod riding my bumper because he wants to go faster. We really need people to remember that driving is a privilege, and you have no right to go ten over, and lots of responsibilities that go with the privilege. Just about every group that uses the roads in Michigan breaks the laws a good part of the time. It would be great if everyone remembered that the laws are there to allow all of us to get where we're going safely, and remember you have a responsibility to obey those laws.
gofigure
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 7:13 p.m.
Amen. Am I still allowed to say that?
this guy
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 6:20 p.m.
What about the intersection of S. State and South University? What about the intersection of South University and East University? What about the intersection of South University and Church? You'll be waiting for half an hour if you wait for all the pedestrians who are "approaching" the crosswalk at these intersections. Answers please!
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 1:17 a.m.
Under the law as written no vehicle could ever enter either intersection without potentially being ticketed. GN&GL
KJMClark
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 1:15 a.m.
Those have always been stop controlled intersections with lots of pedestrian traffic. People seem to have figured them out just fine. Next question?
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 8:11 p.m.
Absolutely. And there could be no better examples of the utter stupidity of this law. Good Night and Good Luck
Ron Granger
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 6:01 p.m.
If you are worried about getting rear-ended, you are already driving too fast for conditions.
Ron Granger
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 1:48 a.m.
RME, if you need to stop so SUDDENLY then it suggests you were driving too fast as you approached the crosswalk. Speed limits are a maximum, not a minimum. You make it sound as though stopping for pedestrians in crosswalks is some new legal concept being introduced in Ann Arbor. It is an existing state law. The difference in Ann Arbor is that pedestrians no longer must step dangerously into the street in order for cars to stop.
KJMClark
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 1:14 a.m.
If you're paying the attention to the roadway and upcoming crossings that we're all supposed to, you won't have to stop suddenly. OTOH, a2 and Murrow are right, it's the tailgating, law-breaking jerk behind you who's responsible for any rear-end crash. Why have so few people in Michigan heard about the three second rule?
Roll My Eyes
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 11:20 p.m.
Ron. Do you even drive? The point, of which you missed, is that to stop SUDDENLY for a pedestrian that might not be visible to EVERYONE on the road is unsafe for all concerned. This law, is what is absurd.
Ron Granger
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 10:38 p.m.
My point is that many commenters have suggested they cannot possible stop for pedestrians because they will be rear-ended. The claim is absurd.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 8:10 p.m.
Nope. A rear-end collision is ALWAYS the fault of the second driver who BY DEFINITION was too close to the lead car given the speed both were travelling. Good Night and Good Luck
a2girl
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 6:16 p.m.
You are kidding, right? If not you need to rethink your statement. I've been rear-ended a couple of times -- while stopped in traffic. It is the driver that hits the stopped car that is at fault and is usually speeding, distracted, and or not following at a safe distance.
Joe Kidd
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 5:36 p.m.
Of note in the survey is that the photos show none of these streets are so heavily traveled that a pedestrian need wait only a very short time before traffic clears in order to proceed. That is what they are supposed to do and should do regardless of this nonsense of an ordinance. Supposedly heavy traffic causing long delays to cross a street was behind this. With over 30 years of walking A2, I have never had to wait any amount of time that made me think the street was busy. As an avid bicyclist, I do not want to be affiliated in any manner with an organization like the WBWC that would promote this type of oddball law. Their credibility is suffering from this. Has any union official of the A2PD come out with a comment on this? Enforcing this is not winning any support in my opinion. Officers know traffic safety better than council members and should have spoken out against this.
KJMClark
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 1:12 a.m.
Um, they took the pictures when there wasn't much traffic so you could see the crosswalks.
slave2work
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 5:22 p.m.
where does the responsiblity of the pedestrian come in? why is it that it's always the cars that have to change to them. I sure hope ypsilanti doesn't do this.. and no.. NOT everybody knows about this law.. and we live close by. This is why i hate ann arbor so much, even though i was born and raised there..
KJMClark
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 3:10 p.m.
The responsibility of the pedestrian is in the ordinance too. They can't leave a place of safety and walk in front of a motorist who wouldn't have time to stop safely. There are other ordinances that make it illegal to jaywalk. So, they have to use a crosswalk, they can't walk out in front of traffic that wouldn't be able to safely stop, and if the motorist can safely stop they have to. That's two to one against the pedestrians, but the motorists are whinging about it.
racerx
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 3:58 p.m.
Really? And A2.Com is supporting this by having the survey printed in their paper? Why doesn't the WBWC find another way to spread their single minded goals? With those other organizations, couldn't they afford to mail out surveys themselves? This method is very questionable for a news organizations. Unless of course I've missed something in assuming that A2.Com is a news organization. Have to agree with others. Not going to support this methodology.
racerx
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 3:33 p.m.
@Joe Kidd-tru dat!
Joe Kidd
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 5:43 p.m.
It's a possible source of great news. You can insert comments and that could lead to some interesting opinions. It makes no sense as an "educational" tool. I think the vast numbers who will take it are those of use who read this and we all know the parameters of the new law. Therefore, if this survey comes out showing that A2.com readers are very informed in re to the new law, it really means only that; the readers know it. It says nothing about non readers. Thus it is not a valid survey for all of the city. I am kind of surprised the article does not state that. Surveys are no good if they are not valid.
Ming Bucibei
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 3:51 p.m.
AA city council hates cars and does everything they can to discourage driving of cars!! They are a pack of (to misquote lenin) useless idiots!! AA is gerrymanadered to the max in favor of the progressives!! Ming Bucibei
GoBlue2009
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 3:35 p.m.
Ann Arbor must be the only city in the world where its residents, as well as new ones (students), were never taught to look both ways before crossing. As a driver, I know you have the right-of-way, but a simple acknowledgement on your part goes a long way towards being helpful to me. I agree with the commenters who are angry about students darting out from nowhere. And if they're looking at their phones instead of paying attention to traffic, that certainly gives me more incentive to not avoid them. The infrastructure of the city is awful--it was not built as a driving town. To be fair to pedestrians, Ann Arbor's biggest problems are congestion, lack of parking, traffic lights not timed properly, and people not using their turn siignal. As a student, I never darted out in front of traffic, but it seems like it's become a very bad habit only a few years later. I thought we were supposed to have a bunch of smart people here?
a2roots
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 3:25 p.m.
Anyone that has been in Ann Arbor for more than a day knows that in the campus and downtown area there are not any rules about crossing the street. The ridiculous thing of this ordinance is where they have placed most of the cross walks. Why on Liberty is there one only a short distance from a street corner? How about looking both ways and crossing when clear. The one on Washtenaw near Platt has accident written all over it as does the one on Plymouth RD. On Stadium I nearly got rear ended Saturday morning. I fortunately saw in the fog 2 people crossing from north to south by the church. I did stop but the truck behind me was clueless. For the umpteenth time, a small under the radar coalition has the ears of council and will continue to press their agenda on the rest of us. Some day the voters in Ann Arbor will wake up and demand change.
bunnyabbot
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 3:05 p.m.
I meant jaywalking enforcement
Joe Kidd
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 5:47 p.m.
What jaywalking law?
bunnyabbot
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 3:05 p.m.
if everyone just answered the questions incorrectly than maybe they would make a real effort to educate the bulk of people (and the bulk of people is who know nothing about the ordinance) before they start to ticket. enforce the pedestrian law enforce the panhandling law
Marilyn Wilkie
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 8:01 p.m.
again, great minds think alike....
golfer
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 3:04 p.m.
i changed my mind and took it. now i can REALLY see why aa made this law. to confuse people so they can ticket them. no more police parking at the stadium or side streets. watch them at the crossings. i am so so sure older people getting ticketed. they are going to be the prime targets. they can not figure out the law. how can they if a younger person is confused. PUT up lights so people can push a button when they want to cross. i am sure the michigan union will have no cars going that way. people will not stop they just keep walking. stadium makings are small signs nother running across the street like plymouth road. have to many different signs etc. take the ART money and put up blinking push buttons so it will give us some notice.. take the survery results and give it to the city council and mayor. they will look at it and say ok. next issue of business.
hmsp
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 12:11 a.m.
Gee, Mort, Funny how different folks see things differently: "i am so so sure older people getting ticketed." (Oops, Mort, you missed the shift key that time!) "they can not figure out the law." (Oops, missed it again, Mort!) "how can they if a younger person is confused." (Oops, Mort, missed it again -- and you also forgot the question mark!) But all of the above underscores the basic problem: If an "old" guy like me who, 1) Has been around the block a few times and has come back to tell about it, 2) Knows how to pay attention to detail, and, 3) Still has trouble figuring this ordinance out, How in the world, then, do you suppose young guys like Mort are going to do?
hepcat
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 2:59 p.m.
Hey WBWC , the online survey takers have access to Ann Arbor.com and know the law. The majority of drivers do not. This is not a good cross section of motorists.
golfer
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 2:40 p.m.
sorry not thanks. a little to late. just keep handing out tickets and pay for the art.
grye
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 2:34 p.m.
I had ian nstance where an individual was waiting to cross the street on Plymouth Road near Kroger/North Campus housing and there was plenty of time for me to stop. I began to slow down and all traffic behind me also slowed down. After the pedestrians crossed we proceeded down the road, however one jerk that was several cars behind me sped up to over 50 mph and passed giving me ugly looks. The lack of understanding and courtesy is way beyond my comprehension. It's as if driving your car is above all with no consideration for anything else going on on the roadway. If you know that a cross walk is coming up, as a good driver, you should be looking ahead to see if someone is waiting to cross. This will provide enough time to slow down and stop without causing any accidents.
KJMClark
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 3:16 p.m.
Besides, state law allows for different jurisdictions to have different ordinances, particularly when there is not state law covering the situation, which there isn't for this situation.
KJMClark
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 3:14 p.m.
Yes, Jack, it is slightly different than the ordinances for crosswalks in the rest of the state, but perfectly in keeping with the "Yield" law in the rest of the state. When you're approaching a yield sign, you have to slow and stop if necessary for anyone approaching the intersection. Some people think there's a world of difference between someone on a bike approaching at 10mph and a pedestrian approaching at 3mph, but they don't look that much different to me.
Jack
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 3:52 a.m.
So what you are saying then, KJM, is that it is different than the laws for thr rest of the state, right?
KJMClark
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 1:07 a.m.
But it *isn't* contrary to the rest of the state. The only thing different from the ordinance everyone else is passing is that ours says in the crosswalk or 'approaching' the crosswalk. Everyone is passing the "stop and remain stop" bit for a pedestrian in the crosswalk. It's part of Michigan UTC. Just because motorists all over the state are ignoring crosswalks, that doesn't mean there's something wrong with enforcing the law here. They just haven't gotten around to enforcing it in all the other places with basically the same ordinance. The guy was a jerk. No need to say any more than that.
Joe Kidd
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 5:55 p.m.
The problem is that when a municipality puts a law in place that is contrary to the rest of the state, as here, you get conflict with other laws and that driver may have felt you committed a violation. The driver who sped by perhaps was upset with your obstructing traffic. In another city that is possible you could get an obstructing ticket for stopping in traffic that is supposed to be flowing. You are not supposed to stop traffic flow for an oddball reason, which this ordinance requires. I will admit he may have been a jerk, but his response may be due to a silly town passing a silly law that makes people do what can be a violation in the rest of the state. I used to write cites for obstructing for stuff like this all the time. It's a silly ordinance. No street in A2 takes long for traffic to clear for a pedestrian.
KJMClark
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 4:11 p.m.
Kind of frustrating to realize how resistant people are around here to being 'good drivers', huh? Can't say I'm surprised. I grew up in Michigan, and this kind of fight was inevitable if you ever want to make things safe for people walking.
golfer
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 2:42 p.m.
put a blinking light up and that will tell people they need to look. we already have one huron street. they push a button a light starts blinking. better than what you have not cement and lines in the street.
A2comments
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 2:31 p.m.
Survey is poorly written. Yes, I do stop for crosswalks, BUT I wouldn't have stopped if someone was past the middle, on the other side of the road, headed away from me, UNTIL I read about this stupid new law. And it also doesn't ask me about stopping "if it's safe to do so". I'm not going to risk an accident when I see someone on the other side of Plymouth turn towards the walkway IF I see the car behind me not stopping. I'm going to slow down, turn on hazards, but if he/she isn't slowing down then I will go through the walk, and if I get stopped by an officer I will explain to him that it was unsafe, and if necessary fight it in court.
Doug
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 2:29 p.m.
Now that I've seen the poll, the law is even dumber than I realized. Both pedestrians and drivers are in more danger now. It looks like we need brighter minds making decisions in Ann Arbor.
shepard145
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 2:17 p.m.
How about instead of a survey of our competence, we use the next Council ELECTION as a survey to show how disgusted Ann Arbor Voters are with a clueless, out of touch Council that is compelled to dabble in traffic engineering and who's only solutions are to inflict punitive cash penalties on those who vote for them. This is nothing more than ANOTHER CASH GRAB FOR A CITY THAT CAN'T STOP SPENDING!! TIME TO CLEAN HOUSE AT COUNCIL!!!
KJMClark
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 12:57 a.m.
Oh, and now that you mention it, this is a good time to write those checks to incumbent council members' campaigns. Thanks for the reminder!
KJMClark
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 12:56 a.m.
I don't think they'll need to write too many tickets. Twice on Plymouth Rd. today I saw traffic come to a stop, just like it was supposed to, for pedestrians in the crosswalks. No crashes, no squealing tires, just people doing their part to let someone cross the street. The last two times I crossed Pontiac Trail, people stopped properly as well. I think most people are getting the word and starting to drive like we were all supposed to all along.
Joe Kidd
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 5:58 p.m.
I think $800 in fines given to drivers who did nothing wrong is a great haul. This is going to be like shooting fish in a barrel. My hope is that most police officers are not going to embarrass themselves by issuing these cites and that is why there are only eight.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 4:13 p.m.
" . . . and who's [sic] only solutions are to inflict punitive cash penalties on those who vote for them. " Examples, please. And this is not one. Eight tickets issued in the nearly one year this has been law can hardly be seen as a "cash grab." Dumb law? Absolutely. Cash Grab? Not if one uses logic and facts to assess its enforcement. Good Night and Good Luck
B2Pilot
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 2:11 p.m.
A coalition group has to meet to decide how the city should address pedestrian crossings?? really? Next Coalition developed to determine how to change driving habits around city Take a drive up to Brighton's downtown area and see how other communities have been doing it for over 10 years. Round-abouts lighted cross walks, no special coalition they just used common sense. .
KJMClark
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 12:48 a.m.
No, that's not what happened. City Council made the change to the ordinance in part because WBWC made a video showing motorists ignoring crosswalks. Then after a year, with motorists *still* ignoring crosswalks, they decided they should try enforcement.
Carole
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 1:37 p.m.
As a driver, I stop when I'm supposed to stop. Wave pedestrians on, if it is a stop sign. Stop light, wait until I have a green and go. As a pedestrian, I stop and wait to cross the street when it is clear. I do have some concerns with bicyclist who dart out of no where especially when wishing to make a right turn -- what it all boils down to is common sense, respect, and being responsible. What I have observed especially on campus, is folks walk out from everywhere--between parked cars, and having to suddenly brake. Not very responsible.
A2G
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 2:13 p.m.
And it would be nice if they were paying attention and not texting or talking on the phone. I had a walker who stopped in the middle of the intersection to text while cars were waiting and then got upset when someone honked a horn.
hmsp
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 1:36 p.m.
One tricky crosswalk is located on Washtenaw near Platt. The 45mph speed limit means that traffic is moving at over 50mph -- AAPD rarely stops anyone for driving less than 10 over. Also, westbound drivers can't tell the difference between pedestrians waiting to cross and people waiting for the AATA -- the bus stop is just a few feet from the crosswalk, and, as every bus rider knows, the bus will arrive sooner if you stand on the curb looking for it, thus doing a perfect impression of a pedestrian waiting to cross the street.
L. C. Burgundy
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 5:11 p.m.
Another tricky crosswalk is on Ellsworth east of Stone School. This road is signed at 45 MPH and there's a bus stop on I believe both sides of the crosswalk. It's impossible to figure out if you're supposed to stop or not if people are there!
Beth
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 2:01 p.m.
Yes - that drives me crazy that so many bus stops are at crosswalks! I do understand why they are - people need to be able to get to and from the bus - but it makes it so difficult to tell if people are waiting to cross the road or not. I have stopped for what I thought were pedestrians on Packard many times, only to have them just stare at me and keep standing at the bus stop.
james
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 1:25 p.m.
I wish pedestrians could take a poll, but the problem is, the police in Ann Arbor just allow them to break the law and make it unsafe for anyone.
Joe Kidd
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 6:04 p.m.
What law are pedestrians breaking? There is no jaywalking law. A city could pass one but the results would be the same. How are you supposed to know its illegal?
a2roots
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 1:14 p.m.
The WBWC I am pretty sure is the group that championed the nob-motorized transportation plan. Their agenda basically is to force their views on the rest of us. Build bike liane and paths and everyone will ride bikes...wrong. Problem for the rest of us is that their is an inept council that this group has under their wing. All one has to do is look at the road reconfigurations we have to deal with. This crosswalk issue is nonsense. I truly hope someone opens their eyes prior to someone getting killed. How the nmtp got passed is beyond me. They all say the public was aware of it. Quite apparent the public was not aware of it. They get credit for staying well below any radar. Time to go back and fix the plan.
Jack
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 3:47 a.m.
KMJ says: "The problem is that people around here have gotten used to the idea that a crosswalk means pedestrians are only allowed to cross there.. ." As opposed to walking whereever they please, KMJ? Which is exactly what they do and exactly what people are complaining about here. Many pedestrians (but few bicyclists) are courteous, as are many drivers. But your attitude of entitlement I find disturbing. And, yes, I stop. And yes, I find the law dangerous.
KJMClark
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 12:46 a.m.
Actually, the non-motorized plan calls for us to look into signals that don't need to meet warrants, like the new HAWK signals. There are other designs that would be less expensive, but might also get the job done. The problem is that people around here have gotten used to the idea that a crosswalk means pedestrians are only allowed to cross there, and motorists have no responsibility to do anything other than avoid hitting the pedestrians - all pedestrian burden with no rights, and no motorist responsibility that doesn't exist anyway. We can't really pretend to be a pedestrian-friendly community when motorists routinely ignore the crosswalk laws like that. Besides, now kids are having to walk farther to catch buses, and cross roads in crosswalks. It's a good time to work on all the law breaking. A2r - the law was passed a year ago and covered in AA.com. All of this was done in the open. Joe - it's funny because WBWC has mostly worked on biking issues until they did the video showing motorist after motorist blatantly ignoring the crosswalk.
Joe Kidd
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 6:06 p.m.
Actually, there is a lot of research that proves the old, "if you build it they will come," a phrase commonly used in bicycle planning. It actually works. Works better if you add some promotion and do it well. Based on this ordinance, I do wish the WBWC dropped bicycling and focused on walking cause their rep is going down.
joe.blow
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 12:56 p.m.
I would argue that most people know the crosswalk laws. The problem is traffic flow in AA. I don't think a single light is traffic planned to accommodate flow, and for most lights there is little sense to the no turn on red, or no left turn yield on green. So what ends up happening is, there is great reward for speeding and running stale yellow lights, also making stopping for a pedestrian painful, as making a light has too great a reward. Traffic flow needs to improve before motorists will care about looking for those without 1 ton of steel around them.
Gordon
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 12:31 p.m.
thorj97 has nailed the problem. It's a revenue raiser. I live 90 miles from A2 have grand kids in the area of A2 If not for the A2 on-line news I would not know about it the new law. Talk about an insuler attitude.
a2girl
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 12:27 p.m.
Will Ann Arbor police officers be asked to complete this survey? I hope the officer that didn't stop for my family on Packard on Saturday after the game becomes educated about this ordinance. Perhaps he was testing his ability to determine whether or not a group of people, including small children, intended to cross. I will cut him some slack as long as he is planning on extending the same courtesy to other drivers. By the way, no one else stopped for us either.
Silly Sally
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 2:51 p.m.
I tested this silly, silly "law" a month ago, crossing State Street at North U. I was almost hit by a UM Police car. I yielded. To be fair, the officer couldn't read my mind. A silly law
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 12:24 p.m.
I think the majority agree that the sticking point is where we have to determine the intentions of the pedestrians. Okay - it's not reasonable to expect drivers in the real world to stop unless a pedestrian is AT a crosswalk. Everyone UNDERSTANDS that is the "signal" of the pedestrian's desire / intention. This ordinance should only require that: a waiting pedestrian needs to cross. An "approaching pedestrian" is just a background figure and NOT a natural focus for drivers - here or anywhere on this planet!
Joe Kidd
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 6:08 p.m.
That's why the state law works perfectly. You see the pedestrian in the cross walk and you know his/her intentions.
Wolf's Bane
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 12:04 p.m.
Thanks for the test. I'd like to add a general comment regarding the test. If you scan the images very carefully, you'll note that the city has no clear uniform standards for denoting a crosswalk to motorists or pedestrians. Therefore, the logic of the test fails because you cannot ask motorists to identify crosswalks without employing standard signage and cross walk stripes (which clearly missing in some examples).
KJMClark
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 3:17 p.m.
The signs and pavement markings they've used are consistent with the options in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices. They're all by the book, whether or not you personally think they're consistent enough.
MyOpinion
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 1:06 a.m.
Agree. I assumed a crosswalk was marked by parallel white lines. Having a blinking light helps highlight them. The city has helpful (albeit misworded) signs at some of them
Brad
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 11:50 a.m.
Hey WBWC - I'm "approaching" your survey - can't you just tell from that what my responses are going to be? Poorly conceived law pushed by a vocal minority to a council that eats up anything that is anti-automobile.
racerx
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 4:02 p.m.
@Brad-took the words right out of my mouth! And couldn't agree more, that this vocal minority shouts in the way it has and successfully created a law just for this area and they expect all motorist (some 24K commutes into the city) to know this. This from a city that is building a 600 space parking garage in the middle of downtown. Right.
Smart Logic
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 3:34 p.m.
Well stated, Brad. The vocal minority that currently jaywalks and ignores traffic laws while on bicycles should be the last group to own this survey.
Janet Neary
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 11:21 a.m.
A particularly difficult part of the ordinance is the requirement that motorists STOP and yield the right of way, which means that drivers have to come to a complete stop even if the pedestrian is on the far side of a four-lane street. Interestingly, although a number of commenters on earlier stories have noted that this works in Boulder, which was held up as an example when the ordinance was passed, in fact Boulder's ordinance only says that drivers should yield the right of way, which is defined as "right of one user of a street to proceed unimpeded in a lawful manner in preference to another person who is approaching under such circumstances of direction, speed, and proximity as to give rise to danger of collision unless one grants precedence to the other." Perhaps the supporters of the ordinance weren't as educated as they needed to be. I support almost all of the criticisms I've seen so far. This ordinance asks me to choose between getting two points on my license and doing what I believe to be safe for me and others.
Ricardo Queso
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 2:10 a.m.
Ann Arbor has "crosswalk envy" to Boulder.
KJMClark
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 11:47 a.m.
You know, Ann Arbor's old ordinance, from about 10 years ago, was written like that. But people in Boulder take the ordinance seriously, and motorists around here have always ignored it. Enforce either ordinance here and motorists would be up in arms.
HeavyMental
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 11:08 a.m.
What costs more the ticket or getting my car repaired after being rear-ended? LOGIC WHERE ARE YOU?? I think banning cell phone use while driving makes more sense.
Roll My Eyes
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 6:19 p.m.
Ban cell phones as well for walkers & bikers. Peds wandering around with their faces glued to a cell phone, bicyclists riding one handed with a cell stuck to their ear in the other. I'm guilty of texting and walking, but I look up all the time to make sure I'm not running into anything. This is a illogical law designed by a few utopian green people.
golfer
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 2:45 p.m.
law plus cell phones will cause rear ends with this law. need blinking light they can push to cross
KJMClark
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 10:57 a.m.
The problem is that motorists in SE Michigan 'learned' when they were young that the right answer to these questions is "It is not my responsibility to stop; pedestrians should wait to cross until traffic clears." It makes some sense to teach young kids that, but we were all supposed to learn in driver's ed that no, the motorist is supposed to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. I know I learned that in driver's ed, but like the 'come to a complete stop at stop signs' and 'it's illegal to drive even 1mph over the posted speed limit' parts, those were taught, but people laughed about it afterward. It's like biking in the road; adult cyclists were always supposed to use the road, and motorists were supposed to expect them to be using the road and drive safely around them. It's been that way in the law for a century or so. But in 'the car is king' Michigan, it requires a major education effort, and a lot of acrimony, to get people's attitudes back to how it's all supposed to work, and how it works in most of the rest of the country. It's been funny to read how many motorists think pedestrians aimlessly wander around in circles, while motorists are utterly predictable.
Jamie Riddle
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 6:29 a.m.
Jamie and Jamie Riddle are the same person, I have no idea who James is. I didn't realize that when you sign in using facebook that it came up different. My safe speed is with the flow of traffic except on the highway, because the speed limit is 10mph slower for trucks on the highway.
KJMClark
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 1:34 a.m.
Whew! Jamie, Jamie Riddle, James - these aren't all the same person are they? Whoever you are, let's just say I think your arguments suggest you may need to reconsider what a safe speed for conditions is. That says nothing about your driving history or my respect for delivery drivers. I can't see any reason to think any of your points absolve you of driving at a safe speed for conditions.
Jamie
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 8:23 p.m.
KJM- Just a reminder of some of the things that we deal with delivering goods that you use. <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/news/car-strikes-kills-truck-driver-making-deliveries-in-york-township/?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:c652bf66-071d-4076-a1a0-20dfa31b58fb">http://www.annarbor.com/news/car-strikes-kills-truck-driver-making-deliveries-in-york-township/?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:c652bf66-071d-4076-a1a0-20dfa31b58fb</a> Here's an example for you on what we deal with automobiles: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp-ufLTrQ3A" rel='nofollow'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp-ufLTrQ3A</a> An example for you of how a pedestrian causes truck accidents or incidents: <a href="http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/09/26/pedestrian-killed-by-garbage-truck-in-the-colony/" rel='nofollow'>http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/09/26/pedestrian-killed-by-garbage-truck-in-the-colony/</a> I can get more for you if I need to prove my point further.
Jamie Riddle
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 8:04 p.m.
KJM- As far as it goes, if I slow down to a speed lower than that of the traffic around me then I am posing a hazard or in the eyes of police writing tickets I am impeding traffic. Also on that note if I do slow down to a "safe speed" in your eyes, then I have to deal with motorists cutting in front of me and slamming on their brakes. As I stated earlier, I am a very safe but yet defensive driver who has never had any accidents. How many times have you driven a car or been into accidents? Try driving a truck and dealing with people like this that have no regard for the person who risks his life for 11 to 14 hours a day to make sure you have what you need. It is a lot to deal with. I shouldn't have to defend myself or my safe driving practices to you. In turn instead of criticizing me or any other professional driver, you should be thanking us for everything we do and contend with to make sure everything you want or have is available for you.
KJMClark
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 2:33 p.m.
"Even at 40 mph it takes a distance greater than 2 football fields to stop a fully loaded truck. I know on Plymouth Rd. (which is a truck route) the speed limit is 40." Come to think of it, there's a somewhat blind curve on EB Plymouth at Traverwood. The speed limit is 35mph. If it takes you almost two football fields to stop your fully loaded truck, you'd better be going a lot slower or you're just going to plow through a red light there. That's what driving at a safe speed for conditions is all about.
KJMClark
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 2:27 p.m.
"Well, I had the displeasure of driving through downtown the other day and there are crosswalks in 40-45 MPH zones and in spots where you are coming around a turn or up a small hill. I see them, but there is no way I could stop in time without causing an accident." You do know you're supposed to slow down when going over hills and around corners where you can't see, right? My point is that they don't put crosswalks like this on 55mph roads in Ann Arbor, and we don't have any roads I know of in city limits that are 55mph. And the speed limit on Plymouth varies from 30mph up to a small section that's 45. The section with most of the crosswalks is 35. It would help if you stuck with real-world examples. And as I said, the ordinance already says if you can't stop safely, you don't have to. But you sound like you need to realize that the expressway is the expressway, and local streets are *not* expressways.
Jamie Riddle
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 2 p.m.
KIM- I was using 55 as an example. Even at 40 mph it takes a distance greater than 2 football fields to stop a fully loaded truck. I know on Plymouth Rd. (which is a truck route) the speed limit is 40. To answer your question, if I were driving down a road such as Michigan Ave which has a speed limit of 55 and someone pulled out of a driveway in front of me, yes I would smash into them if I could not safely bring the truck to a stop or there were no other options. I have been driving a truck for a long time and logged a lot of miles in every one of the lower 48 states and have never had any type of accident. I would like to see some of these pedestrians who think it's okay to dart in and out of traffic safely drive a truck and have to avoid people like them in the cities.
james
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 1:39 p.m.
Well, I had the displeasure of driving through downtown the other day and there are crosswalks in 40-45 MPH zones and in spots where you are coming around a turn or up a small hill. I see them, but there is no way I could stop in time without causing an accident. Also, right near campus, there are so many people walking in the middle of the day and at night (especially on the weekends), if you don't go past when there are people waiting to cross, you will literally stay there for hours. This, combined with the multitudes of people jaywalking and walking in-between the cars, makes this law a joke. The culture of the people from Ann Arbor is that the pedestrians always have the right-of-way. I've seen SO many people cross when it says "do not walk" that it's not even funny. The cops should be giving out tickets for these offenses. It's funny to to read that pedestrians somehow think this is a safe law. I'm not going to risk my life because you seem to think this law is safer. If I do get a ticket, The city of Ann Arbor is going to have to waste some money on a lawsuit.
KJMClark
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 12:05 p.m.
And just to clarify, which crosswalk, within Ann Arbor city limits, are you doing 55mph through?
KJMClark
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 11:57 a.m.
Jamie, if you're approaching a marked crosswalk at 55mph, you're almost certainly breaking several laws. You have to drive at a safe speed for conditions, which probably means you need to slow down to a speed where you could stop. If some muckluck pulls out of a driveway in front of you, are you OK with smashing into them? Besides, if you can't stop safely, you aren't required to. The first vehicle that *can* stop safely *is* required to. And if a pedestrian is walking toward a crosswalk - toward the street - it's a pretty safe bet that they aren't going to turn right or left and walk down the road. A motorist going straight across the street isn't going to signal either.
Jamie Riddle
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 11:23 a.m.
Let's think about something... I drive an 80,000 pound semi truck, I am approaching a crosswalk and a pedestrian is walking down the sidewalk towards a crosswalk, I am supposed to know that they are going to crew that crosswalk? Or they think that I know they are going to cross and expect me to stop and dart out in front of me. Can I stop that truck in time? No!!! It takes the length of over 3 football fields to stop a fully loaded semi at 55 mph. Another thing cars have turn signals (even though a lot of people don't use them), and are more predictable at an intersection than a pedestrian who has no kind of signal at all.
Alan Goldsmith
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 10:44 a.m.
Some comments from the survey site: 7. It is almost impossible at night to see pedestrians! Crosswalks are very dangerous for the walkers and cars. Especially when you mix out of town cars. 8 I feel the rules are unclear and on certain roads where the speed limit is over 25 I have a fear of being rear ended. Who will pay to have my car fixed? 9 Hopefully you're also administering a survey to pedestrians and bike riders in Ann Arbor regarding their familiarity with applicable laws....crossing only at crosswalks, bikes abiding by the same traffic laws as cars (stop signs etc..). 10 dumb dumb dumb 11 Dangerous law! Pedestrians should NOT assume that all drivers are from Ann Arbor and are trained to stop. We have many drivers who are from other places. 12 It is very difficult for drivers to manage multiple lanes of fast traffic AND continuously monitor for pedestrians where there is no stop light. As a walker, even with a baby stroller I would not cross at the crosswalks you have listed. It isn't safe. 13 Survey is flawed as it doesn't include things like "if it is safe to do so" or specify if the person is on the other side of the road on a road with a center island. 14 Pedestrian's should safely cross at intersections with crosswalk lights when cars stop; Not in the middle of a road where traffic can't see them and cars will be rear-ended with unexpected stops. 15 This law is overkill. No wonder the backlash and laughing stock its made our City. 16 What about out of town people who don't know the law? It could be a dangerous situation.
Marilyn Wilkie
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 10:37 a.m.
They are asking if motorists "know the rules of the road" according to the article. Perhaps they should be asking the bicyclists who ignore all rules (stop signs, lights, dodging in and out of traffic) and pedestrians on campus (jaywalking) if they know the rules of the road. Playing chicken with cars can be fatal.
KJMClark
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 11:04 a.m.
Actually, it *would* be useful for MDOT to do that kind of survey periodically. You're right, most motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians break lots of laws most of the time. It really is about equal though - motorists speed, tailgate, often pass cyclists too closely, drive in bike lanes, and ignore crosswalks. Cyclists often treat stop lights as stop signs and stop signs as yields, ignore crosswalks, and drive too fast on sidewalks. Pedestrians jaywalk when they think crosswalks are too far apart or the lights take too long. They'd have the problem that people would lie on the survey and give the 'correct' answer more than they actually do in reality, but still, it would give MDOT a good idea where to focus education/enforcement efforts, and consider better engineering treatments.
thorj97
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 10:34 a.m.
The problem is not "education" (re-education?). I love to walk and bike in AA, and I also drive (like most walkers/bikers!). This law is impractical and unsafe for both pedestrians and motorists. Its only "redeeming" features are economic: it is "cheap" (no signals required - money can be saved for spending on folly) and a money raiser. Most pedestrians and motorists have a really simple goal when they travel; they don't want to be hit, and they don't want to hit anyone. Give them a clear signal that shows who has the right of way, and they will follow it. City Council's law does not just require motorists to stop for pedestrians within the crosswalk (which any courteous and safe motorist will do.) The law requires motorists to read the minds of pedestrians well outside of the road, and correctly determine if they intend to cross. If they do, will they arrive in the crosswalk before the car arrives? If they would, will they wave the motorist through or will they want to gamble on all the traffic seeing them and stopping? If I do stop, will the driver behind me be able to stop? Anyone who drives understands that for many pedestrian crossings, this is impractical to do before you arrive at the intersection. Add to that the fact that (mainly due to the University and Hospital) people from all over the state, nation, and world come to Ann Arbor. In all other places, "within" the crosswalk would mean "inside of". Only in Ann Arbor does it mean within AND outside of. Sorry Ann Arbor, but the entire rest of the world cannot be re-educated to City Council's desired reinterpretation of the word. For what its worth, I stop for pedestrians whenever I safely can, silly/unsafe law or not.
Mark
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 6:58 p.m.
I think you nailed it perfectly.
John A2
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 3:48 p.m.
%100 agreed, and I propose a vote to get rid of this deadly law before something happens to our dear residents.
ktalley
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 2:13 p.m.
"The law requires motorists to read the minds of pedestrians...[]Only in Ann Arbor does it mean within AND outside of. Sorry Ann Arbor, but the entire rest of the world cannot be re-educated to City Council's desired reinterpretation of the word." Actually, this kind of law is common in other parts of the country, including the west coast, Boulder, and Connecticut. I've heard from many former Californians how shocked they were when they first tried to use a crosswalk here and no cars stopped to let them cross. They rightfully wondered what the purpose of crosswalks here were. If drivers in other parts of the country can figure this out, we should be able to.
RunsWithScissors
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 1:50 p.m.
Well said and presented in a thoughtful manner. This law has troubled me from the beginning. There is a crosswalk at Washtenaw & Arlington that is highly dangerous. It's a 5-lane road with a speed limit of 45 mph. Eastbound drivers have great difficulty seeing the crosswalk sign at the side of the road or any pedestrian brave enough to play Frogger. IF drivers in both lanes are aware enough to stop, then the pedestrian can safely cross to the center lane. There's no island in that center lane and no guarantee that westbound traffic will also come to a stop. I've witnessed this on a couple of occasions and very nearly became part of a vehicular pileup both times. The survey is silly. City council could read the many hundreds of postings commenting on this situation for a clear understanding of how citizens feel.
CommonThought
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 12:31 p.m.
agree
Marilyn Wilkie
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 10:39 a.m.
Well said.
Alan Goldsmith
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 10:32 a.m.
"Motorists are being asked to take a quick survey to help the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition learn more about driver behavior at crosswalks in Ann Arbor." No thanks. A lobbying group that supported this moronic new law wants my views now? Funny. "Community education?" Lol.