The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has released a report comparing the difference in pedestrian and bicycle crash rates between hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEs).
The analysis shows that HEVs are more likely to be involved in pedestrian crashes while performing certain manuevers, namely slowing or stopping, backing up, entering or leaving a parking space, and turning. The authors hypothesize the higher HEV crash rates may be due to HEVs' quiet crusing at slow speeds; when traveling straight (presumably at higher--and noiser--speeds) HEV and ICE crash rates are comparable.
The good news is that pedestrians are less likely to be injured if they are hit at slow speeds. Nonetheless, as HEVs become more prevalent we need to consider carefully how to address the problem of quiet cars. Over in Japan, Nissan has been giving this issue some serious thought, hiring a team of composers to come up with a "beautiful sound" to accompany their electric vehicle the Leaf.
For those feeling less poetic, Datasystem Co has developed a device that will emit your choice of 16 sounds, including a "boing" and a "meow"-- and for the less whimsical, a simple "Excuse me."
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
A Confession
I consider myself (this is not the confession) a pretty good driver. I hang out in the slow lane on the freeway, come to a complete stop at stop signs, have an only-normal-for-geeky-folk understanding of the California Vehicle Code, and above all I carefully yield to pedestrians in crosswalks...or do I?
After watching footage of a crosswalk sting in Sacramento (posted here on Streetsblog), I realized (this is the confession) I hadn't the slightest idea what "yielding to pedestrians" really meant. Had I been doing it wrong all these years? In an effort to alleviate my guilt--and perhaps bring a little enlightenment to others confused by this question--I did some research.
First, the law itself: California Vehicle Code 21950 states that "The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection."
People v. McLachlan (1939) clarifies that "yielding" doesn't necessarily mean stopping any time a pedestrian has a toe inside the crosswalk, "...it is clear that when a pedestrian crossing a roadway in a crosswalk is so far from the path of an approaching automobile and proceeding in such a manner that no interference between them is reasonably to be expected, the driver of the automobile need not wait for it to develop."
Moreover, once a pedestrian is walking away from a driver, the yielding point is moot, "It is equally clear that a driver, after having allowed a pedestrian to proceed undisturbed and unhurried in front of him and to reach a place safely out of the way of his automobile, with no apparent further danger of conflict between them, may proceed."
Just how far out of danger must pedestrians be before a vehicle can legally proceed through the crosswalk? People v. Hahn (1950) cautions that, "[the pedestrian's] right of way is not to be measured in fractions of an inch nor tested by split seconds. He is entitled not to just as much space as his body, clothes and buttons require, but to as much as will afford him a safe passage."
In other words, it might be okay to drive through a crosswalk if you give pedestrians ample berth--but whooshing past pedestrians so closely that their nosehairs flutter in the breeze isn't kosher. When in doubt, I suggest measuring according to this handy rule of thumb from the Hahn case, "The pedestrian's heart, as well as his body, should be free from attack."
After watching footage of a crosswalk sting in Sacramento (posted here on Streetsblog), I realized (this is the confession) I hadn't the slightest idea what "yielding to pedestrians" really meant. Had I been doing it wrong all these years? In an effort to alleviate my guilt--and perhaps bring a little enlightenment to others confused by this question--I did some research.
First, the law itself: California Vehicle Code 21950 states that "The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection."
People v. McLachlan (1939) clarifies that "yielding" doesn't necessarily mean stopping any time a pedestrian has a toe inside the crosswalk, "...it is clear that when a pedestrian crossing a roadway in a crosswalk is so far from the path of an approaching automobile and proceeding in such a manner that no interference between them is reasonably to be expected, the driver of the automobile need not wait for it to develop."
Moreover, once a pedestrian is walking away from a driver, the yielding point is moot, "It is equally clear that a driver, after having allowed a pedestrian to proceed undisturbed and unhurried in front of him and to reach a place safely out of the way of his automobile, with no apparent further danger of conflict between them, may proceed."
Just how far out of danger must pedestrians be before a vehicle can legally proceed through the crosswalk? People v. Hahn (1950) cautions that, "[the pedestrian's] right of way is not to be measured in fractions of an inch nor tested by split seconds. He is entitled not to just as much space as his body, clothes and buttons require, but to as much as will afford him a safe passage."
In other words, it might be okay to drive through a crosswalk if you give pedestrians ample berth--but whooshing past pedestrians so closely that their nosehairs flutter in the breeze isn't kosher. When in doubt, I suggest measuring according to this handy rule of thumb from the Hahn case, "The pedestrian's heart, as well as his body, should be free from attack."
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Pedestrian killed in Woodland Hills
A yet-unidentified pedestrian was killed by the suspect in a police pursuit while crossing Don Pio Drive near Topanga Canyon Boulevard last night, as described in this LA Daily News article. My first thought was that this was simply one of those sad, haphazard incidents that are impossible to prevent, but then I wondered: could there be a way to design our roads or vehicles to keep crashes like this from happening?
Turns out we already have the technology to do this. For example, the newest vehicles equipped with GM's OnStar system feature the Stolen Vehicle Slowdown option. The system gives police officers the ability to bring vehicles to a stop remotely (GPS is used to pinpoint the vehicle location), thus facilitating the capture of theives--and potentially preventing car chases like the one yesterday in Woodland Hills.
Now we just have to convince the public to turn the steering wheel over to Big Brother in an emergency...
Turns out we already have the technology to do this. For example, the newest vehicles equipped with GM's OnStar system feature the Stolen Vehicle Slowdown option. The system gives police officers the ability to bring vehicles to a stop remotely (GPS is used to pinpoint the vehicle location), thus facilitating the capture of theives--and potentially preventing car chases like the one yesterday in Woodland Hills.
Now we just have to convince the public to turn the steering wheel over to Big Brother in an emergency...
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Walkability Rocks: An Anecdote
It all started when I decided to walk to the library to return a DVD, thus killing the two proverbial piegons by exercising AND running an errand at the same time (not to mention demonstrating the link between walkable neighborhoods and lower obesity rates).
Had my house key not fallen out of my pocket somewhere along the way, this would have been a brilliant plan.
Happily I realized my key was missing in time to return to the library, where I found no key...but two helpful librarians who let me use their telephone (extra kudos to the Woodland Hills branch staff). After begging my husband to come home early from happy hour and rescue me I walked a block to the drug store to pick up a magazine, which I read contentedly at Starbucks (sorry, no hipster coffee shops--walkable or not, this is still the Valley) until it was time to walk back to my now-unlocked home.
On the way back I imagined what my evening would have been like if I lived in a less walkable neighborhood. I suspect there would have been a lot more frustration and sitting (tremendously bored) on the front step. Granted, walking to the library probably wouldn't have been an option in the first place--but since I've managed to lock myself out many occasions not involving libraries, I argue that the point still stands: walkability makes even the most irritating situations a little more bearable.
Had my house key not fallen out of my pocket somewhere along the way, this would have been a brilliant plan.
Happily I realized my key was missing in time to return to the library, where I found no key...but two helpful librarians who let me use their telephone (extra kudos to the Woodland Hills branch staff). After begging my husband to come home early from happy hour and rescue me I walked a block to the drug store to pick up a magazine, which I read contentedly at Starbucks (sorry, no hipster coffee shops--walkable or not, this is still the Valley) until it was time to walk back to my now-unlocked home.
On the way back I imagined what my evening would have been like if I lived in a less walkable neighborhood. I suspect there would have been a lot more frustration and sitting (tremendously bored) on the front step. Granted, walking to the library probably wouldn't have been an option in the first place--but since I've managed to lock myself out many occasions not involving libraries, I argue that the point still stands: walkability makes even the most irritating situations a little more bearable.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Then of course, there's this...
I'm not sure if the idea is to encourage or terrify, but at least it gets kids out on the street.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
