Posted by nuggethillrd on July 24, 2008 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is wrong with a red traffic light, and a walk light to go along with it. You have green light for traffic and the light changes from green to yellow to red for traffic, then the light is a walk light for pedestrians. Also do what the Europeans do put under-pass for pedestrians. You have traffic moving and pedestrians moving. They also have shopping under ground. Do it right or don't it it half-a*s. Your going to kill more people!

Posted by Chris_Thatcher on July 24, 2008 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When I went through today, the "ambassadors" were triggering the light and then not crossing; more frustrating than educational.

Posted by boulderbikerfan1 on July 24, 2008 at 10:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The message to drivers was straightforward: Stop for pedestrians who are in crosswalks, or who are about to enter them."

The law is straightforward: Yield to Peds/Cycles IN crosswalk, not 'about to enter them'...if educating, please educate accurately.

7-5-14 Pedestrian or Bicyclist Entering Roadway.-- No pedestrian or bicyclist shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or drive into the path of a moving vehicle that is both so close as to constitute an immediate hazard and is not required to stop or yield by a traffic control sign or signal. (Ordinance No. 5241 (1989))

Posted by plstcspn6 on July 24, 2008 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve Van Zandt! Since when did Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band's guitarist start going to CU?

Posted by cgjj1 on July 25, 2008 at 1:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually it means pedestrians have the right of way after a car can safely stop at a non emergent pace, which means stay on the sidewalk until that happens dummies...

Posted by 1138 on July 25, 2008 at 4:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

that just looks annoying

Posted by seemore on July 25, 2008 at 6:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice job.. Thanks Erika and Jaime

We really need to raise pedestrian awareness a lot of people still don’t keep an eye out for pedestrians.

Posted by BDRSth on July 25, 2008 at 6:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Most annoying is pedestrians who DON'T push the buttons for the flashing lights. As we've come to expect the crosswalks to be used, it's dangerous to have them underutilized.

Next time your stopped, waiting for someone to make it through who didn't push the button, role down you window and give em a reminder...perhaps a pink wig and a sign that reads "PUSH THE BUTTON".

Posted by FrictionSoul on July 25, 2008 at 6:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

boulderbikerfan1:
Exactly what I've been yelling at peds for years. I absolutely hate that peds don't even look, they just walk into the crosswalk as if it were a right and a right of way.

Car vs. peds: car wins every time.

Posted by FrictionSoul on July 25, 2008 at 6:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

seeless:
how come pedestrians can't keep on eye out for cars?

Posted by jtmt2 on July 25, 2008 at 6:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The flashing right-of-way crosswalks are dangerous and wasteful. How much extra gas is used and polution emitted to make cars and trucks stop and go randomly at the will of enlightened Boulder population? I appears they forgot about being green in dreaming the pedestrian utopia.

Common sense is passe but when walking I always have and always will yield to a vehicle out weighing me 10 fold.

Posted by jgarcia on July 25, 2008 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

simple physics. A car approaching an intersection at 35 miles an hour the most common speed limit at broadway, canyon, etc., will need more than 5 seconds to stop. This is usually less time that the spam from touching the light's button to entering cross walk. Most pedestrians have the intuition to wait until the approaching vehicle has shown awareness, yet many think an instantaneous reaction/stop can occur.This law overides common sense

Posted by rojanko2003 on July 25, 2008 at 7:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

plstcspn6:LOL

More often than not, accidents are the fault of the pedestrians. I almost hit someone years ago on Baseline who got off a bus and ran onto the street without looking. She was behind the bus, so I couldn't see her until the last moment.

Most of the problem seems to be with the cavalier attitude people have when on foot. Instead of more jaywalking tickets and annoying people in wigs, why don't we just do what our moms told us to do - "look both ways before crossing the street"

Posted by LTB on July 25, 2008 at 7:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't cars pollute more when they are forced to stop and go, as opposed to driving at a steady state?

It seems to me that the ped crossings serve to accommodate a relative few who through arrogance or ignorance refuse to use crosswalks at intersections. Combine that with a city council who through arrogance or ignorance think they can lever people out of their cars by making it more difficult to drive in Boulder.

The net result is not less pollution, or fewer people driving. The net result is an increase in pollution, an increase in animosity between peds and drivers, and an increase in accidents between the two.

Hooray for the train wreck that occurs when rationalism and idealism meet and join forces...a.k.a. Boulder Colorado.

Posted by edwizer26 on July 25, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cars are coffins. Why do coffin drivers even live here or read this paper when they're so beligerent about their rights do drive their coffin? Instead of taking their coffin bent frustration out on this pedestrian and alternative transportation oriented community, they should move to Houston. Go away why don't you, your spew is tiresome.

Activating the flashing lights at crosswalks in traffic is my ultimate pleasure for trumping your attitude and coffin.

Posted by jstr on July 25, 2008 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm surprised more accidents don't happen at the 2 X- walks at 17th / Broadway area. There's alot to have to pay attention to : the spontaneous flashing lights, the car in front of you and behind you, the speed of the traffic, from which side the ped is crossing, motorcycle cops waiting for the smallest infraction, etc ... I think the flashing lights need to be replaced with less frequent "red" like regular intersections.

Posted by berthoudpast on July 25, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here in Chicago, an undercover cop spent an afternoon crossing a cross-walk (there aren't flashing lights here), with cops waiting about 75 feet away going in either direction. Over 200 citations were issued in just a few hours.

Cities should execute such operations frequently, as it would: (i) eventually impress upon local drivers the fact that they must stop for pedestrians in crosswalks (e.g., anyone who regularly drives through Empire, CO knows to not exceed the speed limit, and complies even when no cops are in sight); and (ii) provide additional revenue (rather than raising taxes).

It seems the incurable saftey problem with crosswalk laws is that they tend to vary throughout the country. As someone noted in the article, it's not advisable to rely on a crosswalk in Philly (nor, as mentioned above, in Chi). Boulderites are lucky to live in a republic to which people from around the country (and world) actually want to visit; the downside is that visitors' driving habits might not comport with such highly pedestrian-friendly crosswalk laws.

Posted by SCgirl on July 25, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I visited Boulder last month, and while it is one of my all time favorite places, I had a hard time getting used to the flashing crosswalks. I admit I accidentally blew through one while a cyclist was waiting to cross. I think if I got used to where the crosswalks are located I would be more aware of them as I drive. My attitude while driving around town and slamming my breaks at crosswalks: "When in Rome..."

Posted by backrange on July 25, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

edwiser - ".....this pedestrian and alternative transportation oriented community..."

Now that's funny!

A few thousand bikeys and many empty buses don't make for an alternative transportation community.

Didn't you mean to say BMW, Lexus, and Porsche oriented community?

Posted by whvacman on July 25, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Another "Boulder freak show" !!!!

Posted by edenger on July 25, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

edwizer26

I'm sorry you live in such a small and confined world that you never leave Boulder and never drive. I assume that means you never drive a coffin to experience the mountains, have never seen the other wonders Colorado, Moab, etc., and never get out of the immediate Boulder area? Oh you do? Then you should stop spewing self-rightous nonsense! If not, I seriously feel sorry for your sheltered life

Posted by oilburner on July 25, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

to those uninformed on the motor vehicle code - there are pedestrian crossings *not* at intersections all over the country and it is the LAW to stop at them. I could point out some reasons to why that is the case - bus stops, no traffic light nearby, frequent turning traffic at intersections that cause more confusion, and the risk of congestion of too many pedestrians at corners (such as at CU or in front of BHS), but I don't want to confuse anyone with facts or logic.

I have one suggestion for you - get over it. Driving is a privilege, walking is a right. Whether or not you like where pedestrian crossings that are located has nothing to do with the fact that it is the law to stop at them.

So learn the MVC, if you want to be as righteous as you think you are, then you'd be urging others to FOLLOW THE LAW rather than complain that things aren't convenient for you.

Posted by t.pull on July 25, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yay!!! peds / bikes before autos anyday!
Let's not forget who was here first.
People and BIKES. And to all of you who don't like it...get over it!

Posted by mmuir on July 25, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think I will fully understand how to operate/navigate these incredibly complex crosswalk until i rush out to buy "Boulder Crosswalks for DUMMIES."

Posted by monkeys on July 25, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

“I’m from Philadelphia, and this would just not fly there,” he said. “Where I’m from, you would be hit immediately.”

Common sense: look both ways to make sure traffic has stopped for you. Sometimes, people from other places travel to our fair city and drive through it. They may not be used to our cavalier pedestrians, especially while looking for street names in an unfamiliar area.

Two winters ago I nearly smashed an angry pedestrian, who crossed an ice-covered street while I was traveling (slowly) downhill toward her. She was mad because the few cars in front of me did not stop for her, but by the time those cars passed and I saw her, I could not stop.

When you're in your wheelchair, paralyzed for life, is it really going to make you feel better knowing that YOU had the right of way?

Posted by BoulderReader on July 25, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DC: your "effort" to educate us is exactly the problem here. In your column you write "The message to drivers was straightforward: Stop for pedestrians who are in crosswalks, or ***who are about to enter them***.

Yet copied below are the rules you posted in the left-side panel. NOWHERE DOES IT SAY yield to pedestrians ***who are about to enter*** a crosswalk, and as long as peds continue to boldly walk out without looking in this foolhardy way they will continue to get hit.

Crossing rules
Here are the three basic rules — which come from both city ordinances and state laws — for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists in crosswalks.

Motorists are required to yield to pedestrians and bicyclists in the crosswalks. Once the crosswalk is clear, motorists can continue, even if the lights are still flashing.

Cyclists have the same rights as pedestrians, but they’re required to slow to walking speed. They are not required to dismount.

Those crossing should press the button to make the lights flash, and they should make sure traffic is actually stopping before stepping out.

Source: Go Boulder

Posted by cgjj1 on July 25, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As they walk across the walks just blare your horn right as they cross your shiny emblem. Then wave as if your friend was standing on the side of the road. We just get a kick out of it every time they jump. This is hillbilly land, not futuropia. yee ha

Posted by jtmt2 on July 25, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The brake shops and gas stations I'm sure love this right-of-way fiasco in green Boulder.

Posted by Ibbits on July 25, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

...wait... WHOSE spew is tiresome?

Posted by CarlSpackler on July 25, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I will stop if there are hot chicks in pink wigs at every crosswalk. Go Boulder! Bring on the crosswalk babes! If Nitro gets shut down we can use those unemployed ladies to supervise the crosswalks.

Posted by FidelC on July 25, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The injury that occurred 2 weeks ago involved an out-of-town driver. I don't see how training locals on the use of our unusual crosswalk system will solve anything.

Why can't we simply use the standard green, yellow, and red lights instead of the confusing flashies?

Posted by UncleEthan on July 25, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Crosswalks were foisted on Boulder by the City Council and transportation dept because of two key concepts that they embrace:

1. Pedestrians & cyclists in Boulder are too stupid to figure out how to cross the street without the government nanny.

2. The government always knows best how the rest of us Proles should live our lives and will do everything possible to make said lives miserable.

Among the many annoying aspects of the crosswalks, one of my favorites is the moron who presses the button and then just stands on the curb talking on their phone as traffic screeches to a halt. On many occasions I've found myself telling these dorks to "Cross the f***(*g street already!"

Posted by rlopesino on July 25, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

By reading some of these posts you would think some people have never walked in their life and others absolutely hate cars and anything to do with them. I would love to not have to ever drive and walk or bike everywhere, but sometimes i do have to drive my car. The flashing cross walks are in theory a good idea. They provide an 'on demand' stop light that only asks you stop when someone wants to cross.And provides peds with a convenient legal crossing section when they are present. Haven't we all been frustrated when you sit at a red light at 11 at night and wait for no one to cross or the signal to change. I remember when at Broadway and pleasant there used to be a flashing light arrangement, that has been changed in the last 2 years to a full stop light. Early in the morning and late at night you are now forced to wait for a green light where before, if there were no pedestrians present you could just keep on going.
As a driver i know i will have to look out for pedestrians and as a pedestrian i expect to have to watch out for cars. Lets show a little respect for each other and realize that a selfish action on anyones part will most likely result with someone injured or killed and someone in legal trouble.
Happy Friday to all! :)

Posted by Solarslim on July 25, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Patience, cooperation...
Works every time.

Posted by Indian_Peaks on July 25, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In most jurisdictions, flashing yellow means 'caution', not 'stop'. and, the little flahies aren't very visible in bright daylight. BTW, I'm looking at the photo of the lovely young lady with the pink wig. Isn't she NOT in the crosswalk?

Posted by jgarcia on July 25, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Imagine if the traffic lights have only two colors: green and red. Same with those pedestrian lights. The idea is good, the implementation is bizarre and against the laws of physics. The pedestrian ligth at Arapahoe to cross to Naropa is you normal red-yellow-red and there is no problem there.

Posted by eadavis79 on July 25, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ack. Those yellow flashing light thingies do a good job training pedestrians to jump out in front of traffic. Don't you think?

There's an article in July's "Atlantic" about how traffic mitigation tools (extra stop signs & such) actually increase the accident rate & slow traffic flow. It's pretty interesting. I'm curious to see what the results of Bill Cowern's data turn out to be. Daily Camera -please follow up!

Distracting Miss Daisy
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807...

Posted by lasergod on July 25, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Only in Bowlduh can you "train" people like they're dogs! Is everyone here too stoned to pay attention or what?

Posted by wendy.weiss on July 25, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The message to drivers was straightforward: Stop for pedestrians who are in crosswalks, OR WHO ARE ABOUT TO ENTER THEM."

As a driver, cyclist, and ped, I find the flashing crosswalks confusing and annoying. I prefer not to use them and, instead, to take responsibility for crossing on my own at a break in traffic the way I was taught as a child and have done for my entire life. Yet when I stand back from the crosswalk to wait, some cars stop and even honk and shout angrily at me for not crossing. (See BDRSth's comment.) So now these zealous city employees are out there making it even harder for me to choose not to use the flashing lights. Thanks a lot.

Posted by westside on July 25, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From the colorado drivers handbook. Seems to suggest that you should indeed stop for peds "about to enter" the crosswalk as they have the right-of-way:

Page 15:
CROSSWALKS: Crosswalks define the area where
pedestrians are to cross the roadway. They exist whether the lines are marked or unmarked. You must stop behind the crosswalk to allow any pedestrians to cross(See right of way). Whenever you approach any vehicle from the rear that is stopped at a crosswalk, you may not pass that vehicle.

Page 16:
Pedestrians have the right-of-way at all intersections and crosswalks. Drivers must come to a complete stop and let the person pass safely.

Posted by phoenix_rises on July 25, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jgarcia, if it is simple physics, then you should at least get it right. A car travelling at 35 mph with a moderate coefficient of friction requires about 250 or just over 2 seconds.

Posted by phoenix_rises on July 25, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually UncleEthan, motorists can not figure out how to stop with the government nanny. That is why we need the educational exercise.

Posted by jgarcia on July 25, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Phoenix_rises,

You forget time for reacting plus you assume slamming of the brakes. First law of Newton (inertia) will tell you that your body will fill a negative force as you brake which must be considered as well. Let's just say my model is more complex hence. Five seconds is more comprehensive.

Posted by janabelle on July 25, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Prior to the implementation of the ped lights at 11th and Canyon it was virtualy impossible to cross the four lanes without risking life and limb. I believe this was the original test location for this type of demonstration device and they have been in place there for a number of years now.

I personally appreciate the ped lights especially at night whether on foot or in a vehicle, they lend a greater awareness to the crossings for all concerned.

Posted by annoying on July 25, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I was motorcycling through the crosswalk yesterday when some idiot hit the button (timed for the last second, of course).

I slowed down (nobody was in the walk or intending to cross) and was nearly struck by the truck behind me.

Thanks for the education, jerks.

Posted by edwizer26 on July 25, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So Surfy/Surfrider wants to assualt me now, nice. Explain your vehicular assualt charge to the police, not me.

I drive, ride, walk, and talk, but that's all besides the point. Contrary to much forum conjecture, there is value in having a city, and society, that does not place the right to drive above the ability to travel by foot or by bike. A few simple rewards are better health and well being, cleaner air, decreasing oil dependency, and more parks instead of parking lots. Argueing against these simple facts is ludicrous. A few seconds of inconvenience is a small price to pay for an infrastructer that rewards a better quality of life for all.

If you're really so bent on driving and being the king of the road, then perhaps you really are living in the wrong place. However, by the tone of many pro car rights comments, I would guess many of those posters probably don't live in Boulder.

Posted by stever23 on July 25, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Am I getting old and cynical?

Totally ignoring the whole issue of who is “right” when it comes to crosswalks, am I the only who thinks the ideas of “ambassadors” to show you how to cross a sidewalk is:
• Ridiculously stupid and Immature
• Definitely not front page news
• Makes us look like we can’t think for ourselves

Maybe we should give front page news to Pink Haired ambassadors who can show us how to:
• Look up at the sky at a single noisy airplane
• Use a doggie bag on a trail.
• How to properly let your off-leash dog say hello to another hiker
• How to stay quiet in the out-door cinema
• How to get tasered
• Etc, etc.

Posted by Flatirony on July 25, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank Surfy for breaking down stereotypes... He shows not all surf..er...riders are cool, or laid back. Must be the landlocked thing.

Posted by phoenix_rises on July 25, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jgarcia, 60% of that 256 feet stopping distance is the already factored in reaction time. Try again. There are lots of easy to use websites that will do the calculation for you.

Posted by Spudnik on July 25, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Edwizer: I hear Houston calling for you.

Posted by albanal on July 25, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Am I getting old and cynical?"

The stupidest topics always get the most and longest comments. Thank you for participating.

Posted by Ardera on July 25, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From the Colorado Driver Handbook, regarding Pedestrians:
"You (pedestrians) have the right-of-way at crosswalks and intersections, whether the crosswalks are marked or not. "
It does follow up to say:
"However, you should always watch for vehicles. If there is an accident you are the one who will suffer."

Please note, PEDESTRIANS have the right of way. The flashing lights at the crosswalks are merely a reminder to the CARS that they need to YIELD to the PEDESTRIANS. I'm frequently stopped at these lights while driving, and rather than getting pissed, I'm thankful that we have a city that cares enough to protect it's citizens (that are on foot) from careless drivers that figure "my car is bigger than you, so you need to watch out for me, I have the right of way". Most of the intersections, and crosswalks, that do not have these are damn near impossible to cross (unless there is a stop light there, and even then a lot of drivers still don't care to yield), even though, as a pedestrian, I am trying to cross at a designated "safe" zone. Now I am not one of those people that step out in front of traffic, I do wait until it is safe to pass, but I have had cars race up to me in an attempt to scare me for daring to cross the road.
I personally think we need more of these type of crosswalks in the city.

BTW, apparently buses are exempt from this, since I watched a bus yesterday almost hit a pedestrian, because they (the bus) decided not to stop at all, even though the cars in the lane next to it were stopped, as well as cars in the oncoming lanes. Way to go buses!!

Posted by FidelC on July 25, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

2 seconds at maximum braking. No system should be based on this.

Posted by rabeu on July 25, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

kg60, the right to "walk" falls under freedom of assembly (don't know the amendment of the top of my head). We have the right to go wherever we like, but how we get there is up to us. The privilege of driving comes from the fact that we are not guarantied a car in the constitution, so it isn't a "right." To own a car takes the ability to earn the money for it, and entails the responsibility of following motor vehicle laws. Including yeilding to pedestrians. Obey the law.

And for those trying to pin a "oh isn't Boulder being so anti-green stopping all these cars(!)," please see oilburners post. Boulder wasn't the first city to install crosswalks, and hopefully won't be the last. The one novel bit is the flashing lights. Even with those, the amount of time that it takes for someone to engage the flashing lights, and then cross the street (at which point any cars standing there can then proceed as long as there is not another pedestrian entering the crosswalk, even if the lights are still flashing) is still less than the normal cycle for a full blown stop light. A stop light would invariably stop more cars than the basically crosswalk.

Get a clue, obey the law.

Posted by bufffan8 on July 25, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Naked crosswalk ambassadors full time!

Posted by mocha on July 25, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The crosswalks are a joke. Most pedestrians don't even use them and have become accustomed to jaywalking wherever they like--am I supposed to yield to them when they do that?

Driving around Boulder is a nightmare, particularly around Pearl St. Boulder's lax policies on pedestrians and cyclists have created a sort of "anything goes" policy that increases the danger for everyone else. Drivers need reaction times...and we're conditioned to interpret yellow as "slow down" not slam on the breaks because some stupid bicyclist is going to race into busy traffic on Broadyway.

Posted by edwizer26 on July 25, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Houston, we have a problem..." Not gonna do it.

Check this out for a laugh,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU9YeO...

Posted by grossman on July 25, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have managed over 60 years of crossing at the street corner (mom taught me the lights, my crossing guard at school taught me how to manage crossing), so WHY is this middle of the road crossing necessary?

Seems like a lot of hassle and expense (those lights cost: operating costs, installation costs, maintenance costs, etc.) for not much benefit.

Posted by chucklehead on July 25, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

if the show isn’t going well, let’s send in the clowns... Once a Sondheim song, now a political way of operating.

Posted by berthoudpast on July 25, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

rabeu, the alleged "right to walk" does not fall under the "freedom of assembly" (the right to which I'm assuming you refer is derivative of the weakest liberty expressed in the First Amendment).

If, and it's a big IF, there is such a thing as a "right" (i.e., a liberty protected by the U.S. or Colorado Constitutions) to walk, my guess is that it would fall under one of the Privileges & Immunities clauses. But that would likely be unavailing as well, as most crosswalk laws (including Boulder's) don't inhibit the freedom of movement on any discriminatory basis (i.e., Boulder's law doesn't distinguish between how Utah and Colorado residents may cross the street). Nor does the regulation of pedestrian movement present any violation of the Commerce Clause.

Regardless of any far-fetched constitutional theories as to the right to walk (or to drive, for that matter), even assuming, arguendo, that there were a constitutional "right to walk," it could certainly be highly regulated/restricted. Our so-called "freedom of speech" is subject to numerous restrictions (e.g., fighting words, obscenity, commercial speech, copyright, etc.), and that's a right which is unequivocally expressed in the First Amendment; even the all important category of "political speech," of which we enjoy the greatest degree of freedom of any country in the world, can be regulated by valid time, place and manner restrictions. How many (and how strict) restrictions do you think the government would be able to impose on the (totally theoretical) "right to walk"?

Posted by jgarcia on July 25, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

phoenix_rise,

256* .6 = 153.6 which leaves 102.4 feet to stop. At 35 miles/hour, you are traveling at 51.333... ft/sec. One g-force is 9.8 m/sec^2 or ~32 ft/sec^2. If you assume linear deacceleration, which is not real as the true case braking is more like a exp(-x), then you are expecting to slow down at ~1.6 g-force, which is very uncomfortable unless you are a combat pilot. A more reasonable force will be .4 of gravity force. You have to go beyond high school physics to get it. No web site required by me, as my daily job is to calculate.

Posted by albanal on July 25, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Down the rabbit hole ...

Posted by memailme on July 25, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYyRR0...

"Don't cross the street in the middle, in the middle,in the middle, in the middle, in the middle of the block. Use your eyes to look up, Use your ears to her (honk honk) walk up to the corner where the coast is clear. And wait, and wait, and wait until the light turns green."

Just like that..

Posted by memailme on July 25, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

pardon the typo - "use your ears to HEAR" (not her).

Posted by MikeEllis on July 25, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Whether your stopping time is 2 seconds or 5 seconds, as a driver you have the responsibility to drive at a speed at which you can stop safely at crosswalks, intersections, etc., and to leave an adequate distance between you and the vehicle in front of you.

If it takes you 5 seconds to stop, then 5 seconds before you get to the crosswalk you need to be looking for peds and preparing to stop for them.

Posted by MikeEllis on July 25, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Many of these controversial crosswalks are at intersections. They are not just mid-block. For example, Canyon at 11th and Broadway at Norwood. The city could put a traffic light here, but it would slow you down more, as has been pointed out.

Posted by MikeEllis on July 25, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way, I was just looking at the satellite images of Broadway on Google maps. As far as I can tell, most or all of the crosswalks are at intersections. They're just minor intersections that you don't notice while driving -- like 17th St. or 18th St. Do people really want the city to put in stoplights at all of these intersections?

Posted by bringit on July 25, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When do we have crosswalks every 5 feet or so? The Boulder understanding of proper engineering and common sense is obviously a bit skewed.

If I need to drive THROUGH town to GO somewhere, that doesn't make me an evil petroleum user, simply human.

Your need to piss of car drivers IS evil.

Posted by xyz on July 25, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

berhodpast: In Chicago, peds and drivers are taken out of the gene pool by trains often. Maybe a little rail here will raise awareness about why being stupid can really hurt.

Posted by rlopesino on July 25, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mocha

your statement that driving in Boulder is a nightmare is an interesting one. Have you given thought to the possibility that Boulder may be trying to be a pedestrian and biker friendly city.
I am personally much more in favor of a human scale city designed to aide the flow of people, versus a vehicle scale city that caters to the flow of cars and motorized vehicles.
I personally live in Boulder because of this approach and the multitude of alternative transportation methods the city offers its citizens.
Coming from Madrid, Spain which has a big problem with vehicle congestion and traffic. I have observed that in the last couple of years many downtown side streets have become pedestrian only, and to be able to drive your car through them (very slowly) you must be a resident and have a magnetic fob that lowers street blocking metal posts into the ground to allow access to their homes. This has been a huge success and has increased the quality of life of the residents of downtown areas.

Posted by rabeu on July 25, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bp, there is only one Privileges and Immunities clause (in article IV), and nothing in it addresses the freedom of movement. Whenever I have come across cases in which the freedom of movement is the issue, the right of assembly (strange that you qualify that as least of the 1st amendment liberties) has been the core legal issue at stake. As to the rest, of course even the liberties in the Bill of Rights are subject to prudent regulation.

I was merely pointing out to kg60 that oilburner is closer to being correct than he is. Of course that might garner me one of his sly innuendos about his right to bear arms. Or possibly he would just run over me while on my bike.

kg, whatever.

Obey the law.

Posted by microglacoste on July 25, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I was born in Boulder 50 years ago, and it has certainly gone downhill here the entire 50 years. This issue is more proof of that. My mother taught me to WALK to the corner where the TRAFFIC LIGHT is, push the button, and wait for the walk signal. Boulder is supposed to be one of the "fittest" towns in the country, but it seems that the pedestrians here are too lazy to walk to the nearest corner and cross at the traffic light, they seem to want one of those idiotic, barely visible, undeniably deadly crosswalks every ten feet down every road in the state. Every crosswalk not at a intersection with a traffic light should be removed, and the pedestrians should walk farther, to the traffic light. Their cardiovascular systems will thank them for it. The front grill of my truck will remain undamaged as well, and Boulder will be a safer, saner place for it.

Posted by youdontknowme on July 25, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please send these ambassadors to Longmont...

Posted by t.pull on July 25, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

edWizer- i like your post, well said.
Maybe someday Amerikans will wake up and realize what a blight the automobile has become on our planet. Destroying, devaluing life.

Posted by boulderbikerfan1 on July 25, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If it is your "right" to walk and I hit you with my vehicle, which then leaves you paralyzed, will you retain a civil rights expert attorney to represent your interests in the your civil suit case against me? (And yes, we all know how litigious our society is, so we can automatically assume you are suing the insurance company for medical, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment, etc, etc...) Because we all know the BIG money is in lawsuits that attack denying someones civil liberties.... :)

Walking is not a right...

But, stupidity is.

(And, if anyone is curious, that was written "tongue-in-cheek" to make a point - people dont sue for civil liberties violations - meaning even the attorneys agree that walking is not an inherent right.)

Posted by McUMass on July 25, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANQPlG...

Posted by jadam12 on July 25, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey the Constitution doesn't specifically mention the right to breathe, use any body parts or live for that matter. How dare you move and breathe around me, you have no right to do so!

Posted by jadam12 on July 25, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Intereting how all these folks that are so against the crosswalks and complain how hard they are to see, understand what the flashing lights mean and when to stop at also seem to know where each and every crosswalk is and frequently describe all of the little details that annoy them. That they have the time to actually see and can describe when a pedestrian is pushing a tiny little button on the side of the street or when the pedestrian is looking to walk or what their facial expression or what kind of beverage they have in their hands, or that they are talking on a cell phone etc etc.

Yet they claim not to be able to see the banks of flashing yellow lights and claim not to be able to understand the really big letters that say "DRIVERS MUST YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS IN THE CROSSWALK"

Go figure.

Posted by phoenix_rises on July 25, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ok jg, Lets do the math using average coefficient of friction (.7) and thus the average g-Force of .92, and average reaction time of 1.5 seconds.
Notes 1) average assume decent tires and sliding (not anti-lock brakes or F1 cars)
2) gForce of .4 may be what one is comfortable with under normal conditions but NOT when you are about to hit someone.

Stopping distance equals velocity^2/(2*coeff_friction*g) = 58.5476 feet. Using a nonlinear model and average gForce given average tires, we require 1.9798 seconds to decelerate.
Assuming the industry acceptable unless you are 100 average reaction time of 1.5 secs, distance traveled while reacting equals 1.5* 51.33 = 77 feet.

Total stopping distance equals 135.5476 feet.
Total stopping time equals 3.4798 seconds....significantly below the "more than 5 seconds". I hope my life does not depend on your job.

Of course, all of this goes out the window when motorists see the yellow lights and accelerate like they do at normal traffic lights.

Posted by boulderbikerfan1 on July 25, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, the DOI DOES include the verbiage (as interpreted by Constitutional scholars) that guarantees your "right to breathe or use body parts" -

"...to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

So, yes, the DOI does represent YOUR freedom to breathe and move - specifically stating that no government entity can deny you the right to the laws of nature. And the laws of nature state that you CANNOT continue life without filling your lungs with oxygen.

Posted by rkeliher on July 25, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

really? crosswalk ambassadors? this has got to be the lamest cause of all time. holy smokes.

Posted by MikeEllis on July 25, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just to put to rest the Constitutional issue, the Ninth Amendment, the "you've got to be kidding, it should be obvious, we don't have to list every freaking right", protects the right to free movement.

Posted by MikeEllis on July 25, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Declaration of Independence is a statement of philosophy and an explanation of why we were separating from Mother Britain. It guarantees nothing, but does give good insight into the thinking of our founding fathers. From a legal point of view, you might say that the Declaration was superseded by the Constitution.

Posted by boulderbikerfan1 on July 25, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mike - I love your comment, and I defer to you on Constitutional issues from this point forward :)

Posted by grossman on July 25, 2008 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For most Boulderites, microglacoste has a point, an important point, about actually walking to the intersection:
"Their cardiovascular systems will thank them for it."

In medical questionnaires I've filled out in the past few years often there is a question: "Can you walk a block?" That's a new question, folks.

So what is going on here? Who thought this up? Nothing else to do? Too GD lazy to walk another 50-100ft? Next stop the doc and it won't be because you got hit. That's rare. Heart disease and diabetes on the other hand are now "not rare" but used to be.

I'm boycotting the damn things and will cross at the intersection as I have for decades. I may even wear a dayglo wig and nothing else so I won't get arrested.

Waste of time, effort, and my tax money.

Posted by grandjacques on July 25, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's the three-part rule that I follow whether biking, walking, or driving, and I follow it regardless of who, technically speaking, has the right of way: (1) If required by law or common sense, slow down or stop. (2) Before proceeding, look both ways, look behind you, and listen. (3) Never do anything aggressive. The "look behind you" part is especially important as bikers often tailgate people, cars, and other bikers and often pass with no warning, sometimes passing on the right side with no warning. I'd say this three-part rule is good practice everywhere, including flashing-light crosswalks. So far, it has kept me safe.

Posted by dks on July 25, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WOHA! Stop all the criticism of how this went down.

First, drivers, you are in 6 tons of metal with several hundred horsepower, sitting on your tush in a cushy seat with airbags, A/C, radio and cup holders. Regardless of what the law states about when you are "supposed" to yield for pedestrians, the bottom line is that the law of human decency and respect for life should always prevail, and if moving your foot to the break peddle is really THAT difficult and prevents harming someone who accidentally stumbles into the road without a signal, then you should not be driving a motorized vehicle, and you are a threat to the 5 billion pedestrians worldwide. Yes, drivers you are a minority, (I know it may not seem that way in your bubble of the USA), and driving is a privilege not a right. Walking is a basic human right and you must yield to peds no matter what national, municipal law or bill or rights you decide to live by.

Second, I live car free in Boulder by choice and it is a daily challenge not to get run over by insane drivers at crosswalks, driveways and parking lots, even when I have the clear right of passage. I have been hit twice in the last 3 years, (luckily nothing life threatening). I have been sprayed with soda and hot coffee. I have been verbally abused several times just waiting on the corner for a light to change, and I have been hit with a variety of objects from passing cars for no reason. Worst of all are the drivers on cell phones who intimidate pedestrians because of their inability to focus.

For anyone who has a complaint about these seemingly ridiculous crosswalk ambassadors, I encourage you to spend a week as a pedestrian in Boulder, where we have the highest number of SUV's per capita in the US, and to examine the larger implications of how our hurry-up and go auto-addiction has adversely affected our humanity.

Yes, peds and cyclists need to be careful... but the bottom line is, drivers need to slow down, calm down, pay attention and hang up the phone. You have no idea what pedestrians have to deal with while you sit in your comfy 6-ton status symbol, sipping a starbucks latte while yacking on the phone.

Driving is not a RIGHT, walking is, and you need to respect human life over your time crunch in traffic.

Posted by MikeEllis on July 25, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I pointed out above, most if not all of the crosswalks are at intersections. There is already a legal crosswalk at every intersection, whether marked or not. You are already obligated to stop for pedestrians at legal intersections. The flashing lights are just to help get your attention away from your cell phone. They do not make it more confusing, they make it less confusing. So get over yourself and stop for pedestrians at legal crosswalks.

Posted by ImInBoulder on July 25, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dks: Most cars are under 4,000 pounds, so that would be less than two tons.

Second: Have you considered why you have been abused drivers and HIT by cars? Perhaps you are darting out into traffic and not looking to see if the cars see you first? I've never been hit by a car because I look both ways several times *and* I look behind me to the left to make sure nobody is making a right-hand turn into my path.

I would submit that YOU are doing something that you shouldn't be doing.

By the way, your attempt at martyrdom didn't go over very well. Be safe. And don't expect your rights to soften the impact.

Posted by jadam12 on July 25, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No one has yet to show a crosswalk that is not at an intersection of streets. No crosswalk is in the middle of a block.

Posted by JakPott on July 25, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Im with grossman...I cross at intersections. Walking half a block is no big deal.

Posted by jadam12 on July 25, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tucson has the same pedestrian laws as Boulder and they have been in place since before 1990-94 when I lived there.

Posted by jadam12 on July 25, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JackPott: it's nice to know that you don't J-walk, however, every crosswalk is at a legal intersection and every intersection is a legal crosswalk that requires cars to stop for pedestrians, whether it's marked with lights, signs and painted lines or not.

Posted by ImInBoulder on July 25, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jadam12: "No one has yet to show a crosswalk that is not at an intersection of streets."

There's one on Pearl, between 28th and 30th... Does 29th Street exist there (serious question)?

Posted by boulderbikerfan1 on July 25, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Isnt there one on Iris near the 16th Street intersection, but not AT the intersection?

Posted by FidelC on July 25, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Apparently, the only difference between a third grade safety lesson and front-page news is a pink wig.

How it COULD be:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmRA0I...

From NTSA:
Step1: Choose a corner where cars tend to slow down the most when crossing the street.
Step2: Look to your left, then your right, and to your left again before crossing the street.
Step3: Continue looking to the sides as you proceed once you have determined that you can cross the street safely.
Step4: Understand and obey crossing signals. Do not start to cross the street until the Walk sign appears, but if you have already started to cross the street, get to the other side as quickly as possible.
Step5: Remain alert to drivers, lights, engine noises and other indications of oncoming cars both before and as you cross the street.

Posted by jadam12 on July 25, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The crosswalk runs between the entrances for both malls which is where 29th St would be located, which is most likely construed as an intersection by the city.

It is also the most direct path for pedestrians between both malls that is at an intersection.

Next.

Posted by jadam12 on July 25, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by boulderbikerfan1: "Isnt there one on Iris near the 16th Street intersection, but not AT the intersection?"

According to google satelite imagery, the crosswalk is at the intersection of 15th and Iris, also part of a bike route.

Next

Posted by jadam12 on July 25, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The crosswalk on Pearl between 28th and 30th connects 2 bus stops.

Posted by jadam12 on July 25, 2008 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Still haven't heard of a crosswalk not being located at a legal intersection.

Posted by eadavis79 on July 25, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dks -

Right. But...

Evidence shows that excess signs (like our yellow flashies) actually result in MORE accidents, not fewer.

Read about it here:
Distracting Miss Daisy
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807...

Here's a brief excerpt:

"I grew up in Great Britain, and over the past five years I’ve split my time between England and the United States. I’ve long found driving in the U.S. to be both annoying and boring... Often when I return to the U.S..., I see a fender bender or two within a few days. Yet I almost never see accidents in the U.K

This surprised me, since the roads I drive here are generally wider, better marked, and less crowded than in the parts of England that I know best....

And I began to think that the American system of traffic control, with its many signs and stops, and with its specific rules tailored to every bend in the road, has had the unintended consequence of causing more accidents than it prevents..."

Posted by ImInBoulder on July 25, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jadam12: "Next."

Well you didn't have to be a snot about it.

Posted by nuggethillrd on July 25, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I used to walk all over Boulder in the seventies when going to Boulder high and C U, and found it far safer with its conventional crossing lights and intersection crosswalks. Now 'pedestrian friendly' Boulder has its yellow disco lights and islands removed from the actual traffic light post by right turn lanes with drivers concentrating on whether they are going to get hit by a car in the through lane than a ped on the island. To compare walking in 'ped friendly' Boulder to walking in Longmont, which has not adopted all of these supposedly ped friendly experiments, I feel much safer walking in Longmont!

Posted by bringit on July 25, 2008 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The arrogance of pedestrians with their "right to walk" is sad.

Look...there is no good reason for the number of crosswalks between Broadway and 9th on Canyon. I think one would do fine. Heck...I'd walk to either intersection if I had to cross. For a bunch of folks so sanctimonious about their pedestrian lifestyle, you sure are lazy. All of us could not live your carless lifestyle even if we wanted to. Grow up...do as your Mom taught you and look both ways.

These endless traffic delays are absolutely counter intuitive from an engineering standpoint... Total waste of resources.

Posted by oilburner on July 25, 2008 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"the arrogance of pedestrians"

Listen to yourself. Pedestrians do look both ways, of course, and 99.9% of them pay attention to traffic - the point is that many of the drivers are violating THE LAW.

The arrogance of bringit and the other posters here who somehow think that because they drive a road 2x a day they somehow understand people, traffic and safety flows such that they know which pedestrian crossing make sense, and hence, which ones they will obey.

I wish each of you $100 in fines and 4 points for your stupidity.

@kg60sd,

As for walking being a right...really? You're seriously challenging that as an inalienable right? I think you know the freedom to go where you want when you want is implicitly enumerated as a founding tenant in the Constitution, or do you need a quick (maybe lengthy) civics lesson? Even in prison, you still have personal sovreignty to walk, albeit within the confines of that environment. I guess the founding fathers felt that some things didn't need explaining, but you proved them wrong.

And as my post stated, as long as those "walkers" are following the MVC at posted pedestrian crossings, it is OUR obligation as drivers to obey those crossings, otherwise we lose our PRIVILEGE for a drivers license. Seriously, was it really that hard to understand? Are you sincerely challenging whether we have a right to walk? Really?

Maybe there is a Dora the Explorer Constitution book or something that can help you out?

Posted by MikeEllis on July 25, 2008 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bringit, that is just sad. You don't think there should be a crosswalk at 11th Street across Canyon. Just so you don't have to slow down or stop for a moment while driving on Canyon, you think it is acceptable to make every pedestrian walk up to Broadway or 9th Street to cross. The most obvious connection between the Downtown Mall and the library and the Boulder Creek Path.

You really need to get out (of your car) more often. Then you might figure out what it feels like to have people tell you that you should go several blocks out of your way so that you don't inconvenience a driver or two by a handful of seconds.

Posted by jgarcia on July 25, 2008 at 11:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can see that you refined your math from 2 to ~3.5 seconds. You talk about reaction when you are about to hit someone, I am talking about the "normal" process to yield. In any case, my point was, before we got all pedantic about the math, that a touch and go light is not reasonable. We can argue until the cows come home about the model yet the point will always be the same, a pedestrian should be expected to wait a bit before the light allows him/her top cross.

Posted by MikeEllis on July 26, 2008 at 12:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jg, I don't see what the argument is. Nobody here has suggested that a pedestrian should push the button and walk out into the street without looking. That would be stupid. The ped should push the button and look to make sure the oncoming cars are stopping before entering the crosswalk. Drivers need to stop for the pedestrian if they can. Both of these are the law, and common sense.

Posted by RoadTrippin on July 26, 2008 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey jadam12:

So you "Still haven't heard of a crosswalk not being located at a legal intersection."

How about the latest waste of taxpayer dollars that was used to put in a flashing crosswalk on 28th Street just south of Iris/Diagonal Highway?

There is absolutely NO intersection there!

They put this latest crosswalk in just to make it more convenient to get across the street from one bus stop to another.

And the really ridiculous part about this latest 28th Street crosswalk is that a major traffic light -- with brand new pedestrian islands and raised crosswalks -- is less than 200 feet away at the Iris/Diagonal intersection.

There is NO logical reason that I can see for this latest 28th Street crosswalk -- except that we're catering to a handful of whiners who are just too damn lazy to walk a couple hundred feet further north to a perfectly good lighted, legal intersection.

Whoever came up with the brilliant idea for that new crosswalk shouldn't just be fired -- they should be tarred and feathered and run out of town just like back in the old frontier days!

Posted by MikeEllis on July 26, 2008 at 7:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And another handful of whiners who are too damn lazy to slow down or stop for a couple seconds for a person scrambling to make a bus connection.

Posted by dks on July 27, 2008 at 1:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As this thread reveals, there is a lot of arrogance and ignorance from drivers who feel entitled and only view this issue from the seat of their own car and engineering principles.

As for the person who thinks that I am doing something "really wrong" to have encountered so many incidents with drivers and their vehicles in the last few years. For you information.
1) I only cross on signals, or where peds have the right of way.
2) I am a very alert and defensive pedestrian. (If I were not I would be dead by now).
3) Yes, I look both ways.
Get out of your car and stop being so condescending. You obviously have never had to walk more than a few blocks in Boulder. Try walking a minimum of 20 blocks per day in this town and you change your tune real fast. You have NO IDEA how many drivers intimidate pedestrians and drive with little regard for human life. Especially if you cross Canyon, 29th st, Broadway or Arapahoe.

As far as the weight of a car goes, I don't really care if a car weighs 2 tons or 6 tons. Because both weights will kill me when a driver is on a cellphone, and suddenly jumps their car from a stop, rounding the corner at high speeds just as I step off the curb. No amount of "looking twice" will help a pedestrian with idiots like that, only fast reflexes.

Great, "excessive signs are proven to cause more accidents." Whatever, and next week a study will prove that walking causes cancer. I have lived in European countries with more confusing signs, (UK excluded), than the US and their drivers are far more respectful with fewer pedestrian accidents.

In fact the London Times did a great report on this in Nov. 2007. Not to mention nation wide in the US, the elderly can represent more than 60% of the fatalities between pedestrians and motor vehicles. Again slow reflexes are likely to blame.

Maybe we should just fine elderly pedestrians with slow reflexes and jay walkers so they will stay out of the way of drivers who think they have a constitutional and scientific right to plow down anyone in their way.