I agree: the best way to promote safety AND access is to change the geometry of the roadway, ie, traffic calming in all its various forms.

And, yes, the study authors do note some inherent problems of an observational study as opposed to a controlled study, but it’s hard to put a crosswalk/no crosswalk in a petri dish under controlled conditions and watch what happens!

The larger point is to not reflexively condemn actions that don’t square with our preconceptions, but to keep an inquisitive mind that goes where the evidence takes it. I’m gratified you did exactly that.

Thanks for the link. I read the study in full but didn’t have time to reference the older studies.

It was probably the most convoluted study report I have ever read. In the comments they even admitted that there was probably a much stronger correlation between the driver’s record and pedestrian crashes (the worst the drivers record the more likely they were to be involved in a crash with a pedestrian) and say that driver education is probably key.

Finally it seems (I’m not 100% sure, report too convoluted for the time I was will to give it) that painted crosswalks may have been more likely to be present at intersections more dangerous for pedestrians.

My conclusion from this one report is that while there may be some truth to their conclusions, I certainly wouldn’t be making policy decision from this.

I’m curious to see what other studies are out there.

Finally, traffic calmed crosswalks have a well proven record of pedestrian safety. Why not do that at these intersection instead basing decisions on reports that may not have a strong record of peer reviewed similar conclusions.

Thanks for bring this up! REALLY!

You might want to start with this study published in JAMA. It deals with older persons but references other studies done with an all-ages population.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/288/17/2136

This is the craziest thing I’ve ever heard. Funny how in two years studying urban planning strictly focusing on bicycle and pedestrian planning, I have never even heard of such a report that says removing crosswalks improves safety. I would love to see that one!

Sometimes I realize that back here in Jersey we aren’t the most backwards thinking corner of the US it come to bike/ped issues. LA continues to amaze me.

How much more could that cost?

Regarding lights – I think they are a red herring, and only lead to, “Well … the budget …” responses from city staff.

Seriously, the problem is likely money. If the data says that removing crosswalks reduces pedestrian collisions, and it costs very little to remove the paint from the street (compared to putting in a stop sign, which would greatly slow traffic along the corridor, which they probably don’t want to do for other reasons), it makes the most fiscal sense. Everyone is strapped for cash, so there you go.

The conversation ought to be focusing on how best to improve pedestrian crossings so as to make them LESS dangerous…. (scrambles, diagonals, other clever ideas brought up here and there)

Is it just me, or does this just make your brain hurt?

WTF LADOT.

WTF.