When God gave humanoids ownership of his lands
History: For over 400,000 years, humanoids roamed our Earth. And long before cars, trains, even before horses, humans managed to find their way into the weirdest, most inhospitable places on Earth. All they had were their own two feet and stuff that floats. And somehow, they still made it to all continents, islands, high mountain tops, deserts, and even the Arctic Circle. The first horse-powers (Equus ferus) were domesticated maybe some 6,000 years ago. For almost 400,000 years, no humanoid needed horsepower, traffic lights, crosswalks or All-Way Stops.
Present: But then Karl Benz and Gottlieb Daimler invented the car some 100 years ago. Since then, GM, Ford, and FIA have managed to take ownership away from humans and have given land through various land-use policies almost exclusively to cars. Since then, humanity has grown weak and addicted. And danger followed soon after. When humanoids now try to cross the roads and trails, faster and more dangerous automobiles might threaten their lives.
And if you don’t believe cars are causing addiction, just see how quickly driving made rats way too happy.
The Law of Deodands
History: This is an old English common law, whereas the thing, the animal, the item, or the tool that killed a person was then forfeited by its owner. “Deo dandum” is Latin for “be given to God,” meaning the item would then go to the king or the church. And they might be using it to benefit the family of the deceased. If the owner couldn’t pay the deodand to the Crown, the township was held responsible instead.
Present: If this law was still in place today, any driver that kills another person, the car would become the deodand and would be forfeited. Basically, the driver would lose their vehicle or a comparable value to that of the federal or state government. The money could go to the deceased’s family or pay for the funeral. If the car was too damaged and the driver couldn’t pay its value to the state, the city would have to pay instead. Interestingly enough, in civil court, victims of car violence still can get money from the perpetrator and the city – if they can afford a good lawyer.
If this law were still in the books, do you think infrastructure for people walking or biking would be better or worse than today?
Historical Shared Spaces
History: A famous film about San Francisco’s Market Street from 1906 shows people on foot, people on bikes, and people going in and out of moving streetcars and trolleys; there are a number of horse carriages as well. There don’t seem to be any traffic rules, there are no crosswalks, there are no traffic lights or STOP signs. They are all traveling at similar speeds of anywhere between 3 and 10 mph. Everything looks reasonably safe, and no lane markings are needed at that speed. There also doesn’t seem to be street parking other than loading and unloading. The capacity for moving people is very high, and the usage level of the street is outstanding. But there is also a new type of vehicle on the road, the “devil’s own invention, the motorcar.”
Present: Because of capacity issues, the old Market Street scenario is currently replicated in Shared Spaces in many European cities. But achieving high capacity and safety simultaneously requires so much planning, effort and money they might not be worth it. And they are very much known to be unsuitable for people with disabilities or children, even if speeds can be reduced to 5 mph for all.
Warning: Just like the US hijacked the Swedish “Vision Zero” philosophy and turned it on its head, these Shared Spaces from Europe have absolutely nothing to do with “Sharing the Road” environments in the US. These US abominations with names like “Class 3 Bikeway”, “Bike Routes”, “Bicycle Boulevards”, “Slow Streets” are not the same as the European counterparts with similar names.
Can’t we all just get along?
History: Back to our peaceful looking Market Street – just a few days before the 1906 earthquake. So we see pedestrians, cyclists, and horsewagons getting along just fine. Still, we see quite a number of behaviors of drivers of automobiles that foreshadow what the future would hold for Market Street. We see a few very typical behaviors from these motorcar drivers, which look awfully familiar.
Present: In the historic film we can recognize behavior that we are very accustomed to today:
- Motorcars are noisy.
- They pollute the most.
- They don’t want to go slow.
- They push their way around others.
- They even cut right in front of people and animals.
- Some even veer into oncoming traffic, exchanging safety with speed.
Or in short, affluent owners of motorcars behave like entitled bullies then and now.
The Bullies have won
History: Unfortunately, the British Law of Deodand was replaced with a more lenient Fatal Accidents Act of 1846 because of railway accidents. The victim’s family wouldn’t get the deodand but instead would have to go to court, which might be too expensive for many. The owners of carts, carriages, and later cars saw that leniency as a victory, proving that they owned the whole street now. Pedestrians became second-class citizens, preferably relegated to the sidewalks.
In the Market Street film of 1906, we can see what speed and horsepower did to people driving motor cars. In a 1930s film, Market Street looks very different. In 1906, there were two lanes for street cars and two for moving traffic in both directions. Not that they really had lanes, but there were 6-8 travel lanes in 1906 and lots of transportation capacity, which was then reduced to 4 lanes by 1930. The overall capacity of the street was reduced and sacrificed for the speed and convenience of a few Squatters, Rankers and Dead Parkers. The motorcar bullies have given themselves a parking lane right at the curb. There are no horse carriages anymore. There are no pedestrians on the street.
Present: The goal of the car-centric infrastructure is to scare pedestrians away and give more speed and space to motor vehicles. This is also what the GM-sponsored US Vision Zero Network and The League of American Bicyclists (LAB) have been helping with. If there are no pedestrians and cyclists, then there have to be fewer pedestrian and cycling fatalities; that is the simple math used in car-centric cities.
These Puffins stole our Right-of-Way
History: In theory, pedestrians have the right-of-way at any intersection, but animals like the zebra, the pelican, the puffin, the hawk, or the toucan have taken that right away. Instead of walking across Market Street like it’s 1906, pedestrians might have to take an extra 5 minutes to be herded toward the intersections where those cute animals make you wait. With each animal crossing, the traffic engineers replaced one safety issue for pedestrians with another. Essentially, it’s about ensuring car drivers aren’t “bothered” to pay attention at every intersection – only at the important ones.
Present: Imagine a long street with 10 unmarked and uncontrolled intersections. One resident gets the city to install a zebra crossing in front of their house. Now, you have nine unmarked intersections and one with stripes. The city will make it sound like they upgraded that one intersection, but in reality, they downgraded nine others. To a speeding driver, this looks like only one intersection really matters. But are they safer? Apparently, in Poland, 30% of pedestrian accidents occur at these zebra crossings. Numbers coming from the rest of Europe, Africa, and Asia don’t look much more favorable for the humble zebra crossing.
But flashing beacons must help, right? The UK Pelican Crossing and the US Hawk Beacon aren’t much safer, either. They have the problem that the driver can already start driving while pedestrians might still be crossing the road. Traffic people don’t want to bog down drivers for too long, so they give them the option to go earlier. And since today’s automobiles have faster acceleration than ever, this leads to more pedestrian fatalities and not fewer. And while the UK is phasing out the hapless pelican, US traffic engineers are just starting to use the dangerous hawk more and more.
The puffin crossing might come with more bells and whistles in the form of sensors and additional features, but just giving these intersections more and more cute bird names won’t make them automatically safer.
The only real safety improvements
Putting birds in charge of dangerous intersections clearly doesn’t do the trick. Bird for bird, they were used to herding humanoids in one direction, making them wait a little longer so that driving humanoids could be faster. Walking humanoids can be inconvenienced by walking the extra mile or staying an additional five min, but imagine doing that to people in cars. These drivers would give traffic engineers the bird – and it wouldn’t be one of the cute ones.
The only thing that works is the absolute Separation of Speed and Power. That separation can happen either through grade separation like tunnels or bridges or be time-based. Dangerous machinery and vulnerable road users can’t be moving simultaneously. Manufacturing and machine builders have acknowledged that through their workplace safety programs if somebody is near a dangerous machine, the machine won’t start. It is time city planners and traffic engineers get rid of situations where cars have the option to drive while pedestrians are told they would be safe to walk.
Two of the worst ones are left-turns when pedestrians have a walk signal or the notorious Right-Turn-On-Red (RTOR). It’s high time to outlaw both and replace them with some sort of the Pedestrian Scramble.
More Information:
- 60 Minutes: Historic Film: Market Street 1906
- Miles Studio: Market Street 1906 – colorized
- Historic Film: Market Street 1930
- Research Gate: Keeping Pedestrians Out of the Way
Editor’s Note: The views and opinions expressed in all blog posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Redwood City Pulse or its staff.
