Ken Reashor: safer to jaywalk than to use a crosswalk

Halifax’s manager of transportation discusses changes in how we cross the street.

by Tim Bousquet

A week ago Tuesday night, someone tried to kill me.

I was walking across Thistle Street in Dartmouth, in the mid-block crosswalk that leads from the Sportsplex to the Common. There was a car coming down the hill, but I had plenty of time to get safely to other side. As I crossed, however, I heard the driver gun his engine, speeding up from perhaps 50kph to 80, and then to what I judged was 100. I broke into a run and was well across the double yellow line---even at his way-over-the-limit speed, the driver had the entire lane to proceed unobstructed---but my mere existence evidently pissed off the driver: as he approached the crosswalk, he swerved across the double yellow line, into the on-coming lane, missing me by about 10 centimetres.

It could've ended differently---it could've been a less-spry person crossing the street or, as was the case a few weeks ago, I could've had a leg injury preventing me from running. Quite plainly, the driver was willing to kill someone for the sin of crossing the street safely in a marked crosswalk.

How has it come to this? How is it that a driver feels he should not even have to see, much less slow down for, a pedestrian in a crosswalk?

Just a few days before I interviewed Ken Reashor, Halifax's manager of traffic, about crosswalk issues. Reashor was part of a "crosswalk safety task force" that was put together a couple of years ago in response to the death of two Dartmouth girls who were struck by cars while crossing the street in marked crosswalks.

The task force looked at, but rejected, the idea of replacing flashing yellow lights at crosswalks with flashing red lights.

"It was considered that it was not in the best interests of the pedestrians," says Reashor. "What do you do when the pedestrian's crossed and you still have the flashing red light?"

I tell him that the driver does what drivers do at every other flashing red light: stop, look around, and if it's safe, go again. Is that really such a big deal?

"It's sending the wrong message," answers Reashor.

As Reashor tells it, marked crosswalks are a problem, because pedestrians think they're safe in them.

"In fact, there are less pedestrian incidents at unmarked locations---including jaywalking or intersections that are not marked with a crosswalk, than there are at fully signalized intersections, or marked locations," he says. "The theory behind that is pedestrians are relying on those control measures to make it safe for them---and they don't."

That might be counterintuitive, but I agree with Reashor. Pedestrian safety works in an entire universe of driver and pedestrian expectations. Every time we nudge things in the direction of "protecting pedestrians" we're actually making it less safe for them. Once we start putting in crosswalks and buttons and lights and strict rules about jaywalking, the drivers expect that the rules are designed to regulate pedestrians, not drivers, and so they drive less carefully.

But adding more pedestrian rules is exactly what Reashor's task force did. The traditional system---green light, pedestrian can cross the street with the right of way---is being replaced with a new push button system---the traffic light may be green but the pedestrian can't cross the street until he or she pushes a button and gets a walk sign, which very often means waiting through an entire light cycle. Pedestrians don't like the system, so continue to cross with the green traffic light but against the don't-walk sign; drivers feel that if the don't-walk sign is up, the driver has the right of way.

Along with the change, the city began airing two TV ads, both telling pedestrians that they better watch out. There are no ads telling drivers to slow down and look out for pedestrians or to not pass in crosswalk zones.

These subtle shifts in expectations matter, such that drivers are more often claiming a right of way they used to yield and, at the extreme, thinking it's OK to simply murder pedestrians.

Comments (24) RSS

Showing 1-5 of 24

Add a comment | All comments »

I was taught, & still use the rule of, the bigger guy gets the right of way. When I'm walking & there are moving vehicles around me, I'll make sure they're not going to hit me, even if I have the right of way (aka; flashing green walk symbol) I check, because the bigger guy's ...(a car,truck, bus or train) going to mess you up, even if your in the right !

what real chance to win do you have, getting hit by a object made out of metal plastic & glass that weighs a couple of thousand pounds ?

Posted by More on April 19, 2010 at 5:43 PM | Report this comment

No, you can't be sued for stating your opinion or beliefs so everyone can just calm down and certainly don't be afraid to tell everyone what you think the bureaucrats are doing wrong. In fact, pointing out what the government is doing wrong, in your opinion, is part of good citizenship and one of the responsibilities a citizen can be proud of fulfilling even if they don't have the answers to the problems. After all, it is the bureaucrat and elected officials who are paid to solve the problems.

SPEED KILLS not cars

It is my opinion that speed kills. We've designed the streets to one purpose only - so that cars can go as fast as possible. We watch the auto commercials on TV and we accept every government decision and policy that enables cars to go faster. If the cars have to slow down because the street is narrow, or there is a corner or their is a street hockey game going on, it is considered a major issue that must be solved immediately. Maybe even call the police because, yes, it is against the law to slow down traffic.

This is the problem; this is the unreasonable bias. It's not even the cars. Compared to most cities we have lots of room for cars and could easily make more room if we wanted. It the obsession with making the cars go faster that is the problem. Where do those people have to get to so badly in those cars that 30 seconds or even five minutes makes a difference? Let's be clear what we all want here is generational change. The quick fixes are making things worse and openly dangerous. If you don't a 50 minute commute then move closer to your work, or move your work closer to you, or get different work, or move somewhere where they have things arranged better. Yes, this is all hard and drastic and takes a lot of time, but that's what it takes.

I say lets take back all the real estate that has been given over to enabling cars to go fast and do some nice stuff with it: promenades, malls, bike paths, parks, squares, fountains, gardens, shop stalls, just plain old room to breath. If the cars have to slow down all the better.

Posted by jwc on April 16, 2010 at 2:48 PM | Report this comment

@colinc2922

You can't be sued for taking a bureaucrat to task for how he does his job, unless you imply that he or she has done something illegal. Likewise you can't be sued for questioning the intellectual capacity of bureaucrats or politicians. Calling Ken Reashor an idiot or Stephen Harper a fool for the content of their public pronouncements doesn't constitute a good legal case for slander, or else the right to free speech in this country is an illusion.

Posted by Commandante Esposito on April 15, 2010 at 11:12 AM | Report this comment

the road is to be shared.if both drivers and pedestrians were to follow the law this would not be an issue.both pay taxes so both have rights to the road same with bikers.not pressing the crosswalk light tom again shows your level of arrogance.as if you are right and your position is the only one that matters.get your head out of your ass and realize that these laws are placed for the benefit and safetyof all.

Posted by Arische Kampfer on April 15, 2010 at 6:26 AM | Report this comment

I was just getting ready to comment, then I seen the news. Turns out you can be sued for this.

Posted by colinc2922 on April 14, 2010 at 6:19 PM | Report this comment