Press Release and Open Letter to City Council: Ann Arbor Crosswalk Ordinance and Misguided Enforcement Effort Endanger Children
K Griswold
Dear Mayor, Council and members of the press;
Parents are reporting to me that drivers are now stopping for children who are 2-3 feet back from the crosswalk (waiting for traffic to clear) and the drivers are signaling the children to cross the street. One such incident occurred on Beakes at Fifth Avenue. This is a very dangerous, high-speed area with restricted visibility.
Drivers may feel compelled to observe the local law, but they are endangering children who generally follow the direction of adults. I have personally observed drivers stopping and signaling my adult friends and me when we are at least three feet from the roadway. We just step back further and wait for traffic to clear, but children may not.
The enforcement effort, as described by summer intern Jordyn Hermani in this July 14 Mlive article, will exacerbate this problem. It is reported that police will issue tickets for failure to follow our local ordinance, where a driver must stop for a "pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk" even though the posted language is: "Local law STOP for pedestrian within crosswalk."
The language: "ramp leading to a crosswalk" is extremely troubling because the public's interpretation is an inconsistent measurement from the curb, ranging from two to over six feet. I do not believe this was Council's intent, but it is now the local law that the police intend to enforce beginning August 7.
Adding to the confusion, this language only applies to crosswalks where "traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation." State law covers crosswalks with operational traffic-control signals. However, pedestrians at signalized intersections downtown frequently ignore the “Walk/Don’t Walk” signals, possibly assuming the local ordinance applies.
Given the increase in pedestrian-vehicle crashes in Michigan and the unsafe conditions of many of Ann Arbor’s crosswalks, immediate action is needed to protect pedestrians, especially our children. Please delay the enforcement or limit it to the posted language: "Local law STOP for pedestrian within crosswalk."
Also, please introduce a resolution to repeal the local ordinance and revert to the Michigan UTC, or replace the local ordinance with the Traverse City ordinance. In simple terms, the Michigan UTC applies to crosswalks not at signalized intersections, requiring a driver to YIELD to a pedestrian within the crosswalk. The Traverse City ordinance, based on the Michigan UTC, adds STOP for a pedestrian within a marked crosswalk and yield for a pedestrian in an unmarked crosswalk.
The Traverse City ordinance does not contain language that a driver must stop for a "pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk.” This language differentiates the Ann Arbor ordinance from all other ordinances throughout the world. (I observed Council wordsmith it during a meeting with no recommendation from the city transportation engineer.) The Boulder ordinance uses “approaching,” which implies movement as opposed to the Ann Arbor ordinance language “stopped at,” which further adds to the confusion of whether a pedestrian is stopped for a bus or for some other reason.
Even the Sam Bernstein law office website had incorrect and misleading information about the local ordinance. If reputable lawyers cannot understand the complexities of the local ordinance, then what can we expect of the general public? I contacted the law office and corrections are being made. Two examples are that only two cities in Michigan have a local ordinance, and the Ann Arbor ordinance is not similar to the Traverse City ordinance, as explained above.
In conclusion, I strongly urge to the Mayor and his allies (supermajority of 8) to repeal the local ordinance to prevent further confusion and endangerment of our pedestrians. Council members Eaton, Lumm and Kailasapathy are strong pedestrian safety advocates who are on record supporting the repeal.
This crosswalk enforcement effort is focused on changing driver behavior, a worthy goal. However, it is only achieved in a safe manner, without dangerous, unintended consequences when enforcement is consistent with the posted language: “STOP for pedestrian within crosswalk.” The repeal of our unique, confusing and unenforceable local crosswalk ordinance is long overdue.
As always, I remain committed to working with the Ann Arbor City Council and staff on improving safety for all.
Kathy Griswold
***************************************
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION & LINKS
There are many dangerous ramifications to this local ordinance and enforcement effort, as I have described. Other salient points are:
- Tickets issued for failure to stop for a pedestrian outside the crosswalk will discriminate against the poor, who are less likely to dispute the ticket in court. Based on case law and common sense, the posted language: "Local law STOP for pedestrian within crosswalk" will override any city ordinance that is not posted, and the ticket will be dismissed.
- Many residents and visitors do not know the local crosswalk ordinance, and the city has not conducted an effective education campaign, especially for the over 70,000 daily visitors to Ann Arbor. The only known education is the "Pedestrians Rule" bookmark campaign without the words "safe or safety" and the claim, "This is another step towards making Ann Arbor the most pedestrian-friendly community in the United States." The reverse side of the bookmark lists Ann Arbor's related awards, none based solely on pedestrian safety.
- Last week I requested documentation on the details of the enforcement effort, but was instructed by a city staff member to FOIA the information. The city is going to begin ticketing drivers in one weeks, yet no written information is available?
- The enforcement effort is targeted at seven locations, which I assume are well designed, reasonably safe and have good visibility. These are not representative of the crosswalks in Ann Arbor. The Mayor and council members have admitted that many Ann Arbor crosswalks are poorly marked, and not lit or poorly lit. In addition, sight-distance is restricted due to overgrown vegetation, utility boxes and garbage containers near the crosswalk, and bus stops before, and in some cases ON, the crosswalk.
- The local ordinance is poorly written and increases ambiguity. What is the definition of an "unmarked crosswalk at an intersection?" Do unmarked crosswalks exist only at intersections with curb ramps, or at all intersections, as some pedestrian advocates maintain? This could include those without a curb ramp given that the local ordinance uses the terms “curb or curb line?”
- The city has not release an evaluation of the local ordinance by a professional engineer, as many citizens have requested.
- Michigan is the only state without a comprehensive state crosswalk law. Representative Adam Zemke has been working on this initiative. It has bi-partisan support, including Senator Rick Jones (R) and the support of the State Police and the Department of Transportation. A state law is inevitable, especially with the introduction of autonomous vehicles, which will require consistent laws across the United States.
- The University of Michigan follows state code, not local ordinances.
- After Council passed the ordinance, city staff was informed that only state-approved signage could be posted at crosswalks. The local ordinance language could not be posted. Knowing this, Council did not repeal the ordinance.
- The driver’s education curriculum is set by the state, thus the local ordinance is not part of the approved curriculum.
- As stated above, the depth of the crosswalk ramp is two to six feet, or more. I do not believe it was Council’s intent for a driver to stop for a pedestrian six feet from the curb, but that is the interpretation of the local ordinance.
- The enforcement effort was reported to be replicating a Gainesville, Florida study. Gainesville is governed by Florida State Law, which requires yielding “to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk.” Enforcing the local Ann Arbor ordinance creates very different study conditions.
**10:148. - Pedestrians crossing streets.
(a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian stopped at the curb, curb line or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian 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.
(b) 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.
(c) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
(Ord. No. 30-59, 8-10-59; Ord. No. 62-76, 12-6-76; Ord. No. 2-87, § 1, 1-20-87; Ord. No. 08-15, § 1, 5-5-08; Ord. No. 10-01, § 14, 2-1-10; Ord. No. 10-28, § 1, 7-19-10; Ord. No. 11-22, § 1, 12-19-11)
Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Code
PART 7. PEDESTRIANS' RIGHTS AND DUTIES
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.
CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF TRAVERSE CITY PART FOUR - TRAFFIC CODE
410.03 AMENDMENTS TO UNIFORM TRAFFIC CODE.
R 28.1001 Rule 1. (Amended) Words and phrases.
(f) Rule 702. Pedestrians; right-of-way in crosswalk; violation as a civil infraction. (Amended) 1. When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to every pedestrian within a marked crosswalk. 2. When traffic-control signals are not in place or 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 every pedestrian within an unmarked 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 3. A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close that it would be impossible for the driver to stop and yield. 4. Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. 5. A person who violates this rule is responsible for a civil infraction.
The 2017 Florida Statutes, STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL, Title XXIII, MOTOR VEHICLES, Chapter 316, Pedestrians; traffic regulations.
7(c) When traffic control signals are not in place or in operation and there is no signage indicating otherwise, 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 upon the half of the roadway upon 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.
Kevin McGuinness
--
Please note that WBWC google groups is an unmoderated forum. It was developed by the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition as a tool for bikers and walkers to discuss key issues and share information. However, all views expressed in this group are not the views or values of WBWC. For more information about WBWC, meetings, and projects, please visit www.wbwc.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbwc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to wb...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/wbwc.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Peter Houk
Peter Houk