1 Cooperative Agreement for Pedestrian Enforcement Programs Pro Bike/Pro Walk Conference Madison, Wisconsin September 6, 2006 Cooperative Agreement for Pedestrian Enforcement Programs Pro Bike/Pro Walk Conference Madison, Wisconsin September 6, 2006 Sergeant David A. Black University of Massachusetts Police Department (413)

2 Project Management University of Massachusetts Police Department The University of Massachusetts Traffic Safety Research Program (UMassSAFE) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

3

4 The University of Massachusetts Traffic Safety Research Program (UMassSAFE) is a multidisciplinary traffic safety research program housed in the University of Massachusetts Transportation Center at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. At UMassSAFE, we seek to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes through the rigorous examination of safety-related data – both traditional and nontraditional - to better understand crashes, driver behavior, and related factors.

5 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Our mission: Save lives, prevent injuries, reduce vehicle-related crashes Save lives, prevent injuries, reduce vehicle-related crashes

6 University of Massachusetts Pedestrian Problem One pedestrian injury every four months of academic year 2 recent fatal 2 recent near fatal Many “near misses”

7 University of Massachusetts Demonstration Project Plan 4 E’s of Pedestrian Safety  Education,  Enforcement,  Engineering and  Evaluation

8 University of Massachusetts Police Department Focus Area  Education (10/05) and Enforcement (11/05) Decoy Program  Judicial Review Meet with Clerk Magistrates and Judges for input on violation  Creation of Training model for Colleges and Universities

9 UMPD Funding OT funding for Education and Enforcement Patrol Equipment Printing: Flyers, Posters and Bus Cards

10

11 MassSAFE Focus Areas Data Collection/Analysis Engineering Improvements Evaluation Approaches –Roadway Inventory –Crash Data –Citation Data –Observations –Impaired Pedestrian Observations

12 Massachusetts Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries, 2004  82 pedestrian fatalities  17% of MA traffic fatalities  268 non fatal incapacitating injuries

13 Program Goals Increase citations for motorist violations of crosswalk laws by 15% (Goal met) Increase motorists and pedestrians complying with laws by 15% (Goal met) Implement policy for violators of pedestrian crosswalk violations (Not yet)

14 University of Massachusetts The Amherst campus: has a residential population of 13,000 students A total of over 24,000 students A daytime high of over 30,000 people

15 UMass Amherst Population High use of walking/bicycling/skate- boards as transportation means Concentrated population with high alcohol use Well-suited for addressing pedestrian safety

16 University of Massachusetts Pedestrian Problem Walking campus High pedestrian/ vehicle interaction 14,000 vehicles registered to park Visitors to large audience venues Parking on perimeter, buildings in center

17 Recent Pedestrian Issues Fall 2005: Education and Enforcement Period Spring 2006 –6 pedestrian/vehicular accidents on campus in 3 month period –A total of 11 pedestrians injured

18 Motorist Violations M.G.L. Chapter 89 Section 11 Motorists must yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk Passing a vehicle stopped for a pedestrian in the roadway $200 fine MGL Chapter 75 Section 32A UMass Article 4 Section 24 Motorists must yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk $35 fine

19 Pedestrian Violation MGL Chapter 90 Section 18A Pedestrians, use of ways; rules and regulations; violations; notice 1 st, 2 nd and 3 rd violations-$ th and subsequent violations- $2.00 UMass Article and Section Not applicable

20 Achieving Program Goals Program will highlight: –Need for data –Multi-disciplinary approach –Introduce enforcement concepts outlined in “Law Enforcement Pedestrian Safety”

21 Program Results The initial results are encouraging with increases in the percentage of yielding vehicles at both experimental locations for both the before- during and before-after comparisons. The initial results are encouraging with increases in the percentage of yielding vehicles at both experimental locations for both the before- during and before-after comparisons. By comparison, the control locations had mixed results with an overall decrease in the percentage of yielding vehicles. Full evaluation is still underway. Full evaluation is still underway.