Hey, there! Log in / Register
The Yogi Berra theory of Boston pedestrian safety
By adamg on Fri, 06/10/2011 - 1:02pm
Karen Cord Taylor tries to figure out how Boston got named the safest pedestrian city in America. Her theory comes by way of Times columnist David Brooks: Basically, we assume drivers are out to kill us, so we're always on the lookout for imminent death and so more cautious - even as we jaywalk - than people in places with far stricter efforts to rein walkers in, such as California and Florida:
On Rutherford Avenue, you might be headed from Charlestown proper over to Paul Revere Park. And, while you probably wait for the light, the street is so threatening, with its cars panting at the stop light, that you’re on your guard. The intersection at Congress and State Street also tests your mettle, since the lights seem a bit arbitrary. So people dash across the streets in a seemingly willy-nilly fashion until you notice they’ve got an eagle eye out for everything from errant bicycles to charging UPS trucks about to approach them.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I disagree with her analysis
I disagree with her analysis - she says that the most dangerous cities, Orlando and Miami, along with a slew of other Florida and California cities, are planned so efficiently that they lure people into a false sense of security.
I strongly disagree. Those cities are full of four and six-lane parkways - Atlanta and Orlando's roads look a lot like Route 9's stretch in Newton. You'd have to run across two lanes of parkway, climb over a concrete barrier, then run across two more lanes in order to cross the street.
Walking around Boston, I can intuit (mostly) when a car will stop for me, if it's going to try to run a light or go the wrong way down a one-way (I live in Allston).
In addition, public transit is much less accessible in these cities, so walking trips are longer, thus increasing the risk.
Indeed -- NYC and Chicago
Are highly planned, highly regimented, with a grid and consistent, automatic pedestrian walk signals at every corner. And they do quite well. Of course, everyone jaywalks too. Or as I prefer to put it: walks freely.
Pittsburgh has twisty confusing roads, and laid back drivers. Not much of a pedestrian city, but there is a decent bus system, and many of the neighborhoods resemble Boston's inner/streetcar "suburbs".
Seattle is alright. Bellevue is awful sprawl, not sure how that evens out.
She is right.
And drivers are the same. Drivers have to be 100% alert for those pedestrian anarchists and therefore are more alert drivers and more cautious.
I agree 100% too. Where I
I agree 100% too. Where I have family in South Florida, the roads are generally wide, and driving is much easier than it is here, for example, with turning lanes and arrows at most intersections. And you would think that it is safer for pedestrians too, with most streets having sidewalks, and "Walk" signals at intersections. But, there are so few pedestrians, that drivers are not accustomed to expect them. And the roads are wide, typically at least six lanes, and long, often a half-mile or more between intersections, outside of residential developments.
Not a pedestrian-friendly environment.
True
There are actually some transportion/urban planning studies out there discussing how areas with antiquated or unusual traffic patterns tend to be safer because the people who live there are used to having to be defensive drivers/walkers.
Rutherfood Ave Surface Option
There is a group of people working to make Rutherford Ave and Sullivan Sq safer when it it redone.
http://www.surfaceoptionsupporters.com/
It seemed the surface option, the more pedestrian friendly one, was the one moving forward until Michael Capuano started making threats about his resistance, his preference being redoing the tunnel (more expensive option that carries more cars/trucks, but data shows there is not the need after the renovated 93/big dig). Anyone who has braved that area knows which is the option is safer.
This isn't exactly a
This isn't exactly a groundbreaking theory. Urban planners and traffic safety experts have been studying for a while now the idea that more traffic control devices actually make us less safe. The idea is that these devices lull people into a sense of safety and so they don't pay as much attention to their surroundings. There's some places which have taken traffic control devices out of busy intersections and discovered that it actually reduces accidents there
Pedestrians in a walking city tend to be more observant about their surroundings than other people when they're getting around and thus, presumably, safer.
When it comes to safety,
When it comes to safety, those who would regulate behavior are often wrong. When I lived in Georgia, there was no required automotive inspections. No break inspection, no light inspection. Studies done showed that there was no difference in accidents between states with and without auto inspections.
Remember when right-on-red was going to cause a massacre in Massachusetts? And self-serve gas stations were going to set up holocausts all over the state? How did that work out? Regulation and regimentation does not = safety.
Yogi-ism?
Um, "You can observe a lot by watching"?
No, that can't be right...
Paraphrasing, sideways
I was thinking of him saying a restaurant's so popular nobody ever goes there anymore: Boston's streets are so safe because they're so unsafe.
Yes, pedestrians are defensive here.
But pedestrians are defensive everywhere.
There are 2 larger elements contributing to Boston's relative pedestrian safety. One is that, in contrast to most cities, there are very few Boston streets that allow fast-moving traffic. Speed kills.
The other reason is simply that, because of its density and public transit, Bostonians walk places. People who drive in pedestrian-heavy locations are more likely to look out for pedestrians. (Similarly, stats show that bicycle safety goes up with increased rates of cycling.) The defensiveness goes both ways.