The city is failing to protect vulnerable road users

A stencil for a slain cyclist in 2005. Photo by Peter Meitzler, Time’s Up! volunteer

BY KEEGAN STEPHAN  |      On Mon., Aug. 27, Jessica Dworkin was hit by a tractor-trailer while crossing Sixth Ave. at Houston St. and killed. In a letter to The Villager, Carl Rosenstein (“The Angry Buddhist”) charged that, from the sound of it, the tractor-trailer must have been more than 55 feet long, and thus not permitted to drive in the city. Eyewitnesses say she was crossing with the light. To date, the New York Police Department has issued only two summonses: failure to yield to a pedestrian, and failure to drive with due care — both violations, not crimes. And if history is any indication, no citizen will ever see the N.Y.P.D. Accident Investigation Squad (A.I.S.) report that could give the public the facts to prevent this type of tragedy.

This and every incident in which someone is killed by an automobile on our streets highlights our failure to protect vulnerable citizens, which our society prioritizes in most other spheres. From immigrant laborers to minors, we have infrastructure and laws to protect vulnerable citizens, proper enforcement of those laws, and thorough investigations of abuses. Yet when it comes to creating safe streets, we have nothing similar to protect vulnerable road users. Vulnerable road users are all of us who don’t drive cars, because cars protect their drivers and potentially harm others.

Jessica Dworkin was a vulnerable road user. We should not view her death as an “accident,” or claim she was at partial fault for putting herself in a dangerous situation, as we do all too often. Her death should be taken as seriously as the death of a child at the hands of an adult. We should proactively address all the failures that led to it: enforcement failures, infrastructure failures, legal failures and failures to provide the information needed to prevent future deaths.

Our law enforcement failed Dworkin. The trucker that killed her felt safe driving in our city without proper permits. I am not saying the N.Y.P.D. should stop every truck that enters the city. But I think it would be hard to argue that New York City does not have a culture where automobiles feel safe breaking traffic laws, even when doing so makes vulnerable road users feel unsafe.

Our infrastructure failed Jessica Dworkin. She was crossing with the light. We all know the scene far too well: Crossing as a pedestrian in a crosswalk or cycling in a bike lane when an automobile turns in front of you, nearly misses you, or worse, all because the automobile also has a green light and is not respecting your right of way. Residents near that intersection have proposed changes that might have prevented Dworkin’s death, such as pedestrian-only traffic lights. Imagine how much safer our streets would feel (and be) if cars had to stop, not just yield, as you crossed the street.

Our laws failed Dworkin. Despite teeming with pedestrians and cyclists, New York City lacks the laws that vulnerable road users enjoy in other places as diverse as Holland and Texas, both of which require automobiles to give 3 feet of space at all times.

And these pieces of infrastructure and laws are only the most basic. Many bike lanes in Washington, D.C., are in the middle of two-way streets, protected by concrete dividers on both sides, so neither pedestrians nor cars drift into them. In many European countries, when a collision occurs between an automobile and a vulnerable road user, the burden of proof is automatically on the automobile.

In New York City, the opposite appears to be true. When vulnerable road users are killed by automobiles, drivers are rarely charged with a crime, their testimony is often taken as fact without further investigation, and their reasons are all too familiar: The cyclist swerved unexpectedly; the pedestrian fell in front of me. These should not be excuses. No one should die because they swerve to avoid a pothole or trip on a crack in the pavement. I am not blaming drivers. Neither drivers nor  vulnerable road users should be in a situation where they might take a life or lose their own.

A primary reason New York City lacks the laws and infrastructure to protect vulnerable road users is that our public is not given the facts about these deaths. Families of victims and concerned citizens routinely attempt to use a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request to obtain N.Y.P.D. A.I.S. reports, yet few are successful. As transportation expert Charles Komanoff puts it, “Whatever the police think they’re protecting, the loser is the citizenry, which is being denied a potential gold mine of understanding past crashes and preventing future ones.”

In short, we need to know if the cyclist didn’t swerve, if the pedestrian didn’t fall, in order to have the facts to demand better infrastructure and laws.

We as a public — pedestrians, cyclists and drivers — need to unify around the issue of protecting vulnerable road users. We need to know exactly what happened to Jessica Dworkin so that we can attempt to prevent it from happening to anyone else.

Stephan is a member of Time’s Up!, a New York City-based cycling advocacy and environmental organization.

The Villager encourages readers to share articles:

Comments are often moderated.

We appreciate your comments and ask that you keep to the subject at hand, refrain from use of profanity and maintain a respectful tone to both the subject at hand and other readers who also post here. We reserve the right to delete your comment.

9 Responses to The city is failing to protect vulnerable road users

  1. Look at the position of the right turn lane from West Houston onto Sixth Avenue. Shouldn't it be up against the curb, like right turn lanes usually are?

  2. bicyclerootsbklyn

    That's why Bicycle Roots is working to hold the NYPD and AIS accountable. Join our campaign to protect pedestrians, cyclists, and other users of alternative transit using Twitter. We'll be using the combined powers of social media and critical mass to let elected officials, advocacy organizations, and media outlets know that vulnerable road users must be protected! Get involved at the link: http://bit.ly/P4KWIU

  3. Actually, studies have shown that motorists are the most vulnerable of all road users. In terms of lifetime risk, they are twice as likely as cyclists and around five times more likely than pedestrians to die on the road. They're basically only safer than cyclists when freeway travel is taken into account (because cyclists cannot use freeways and so incur higher risk on longer journeys).

    Not that I think that cyclists and pedestrians shouldn't be more protected. In my view, speed limit reductions would greatly reduce pedestrian and cyclist injuries and deaths. Cycling infrastructure has a safety record that is spotty at best, with most studies reporting problems with safety, because of visibility problems inherent in such facilities.

    • Good point, IBC;
      Walking and biking are much safer forms of transportation than driving, for oneself and others. Every time people get behind the wheel, they put themselves and others at risk. I believe likelihood of injury and vulnerability are different. Drivers are more likely to incur injury because of the risk they pose themselves and others by traveling recklessly and at high speeds, which is why highway travel is a crucial part of the equation. It is also important to note that most road usage and accidents nationwide are between cars, and do not involve other types of road users. The reality in NYC is very different, where nearly twice as many pedestrians and cyclists are injured than drivers: http://transalt.org/newsroom/releases/6428 And those drivers that were injured, were injured by other drivers, not pedestrians or cyclists. That is what I mean by vulnerability: when accidents occur between drivers and other types of road users, the other types of road user are always more vulnerable than the drivers, and should be protected as such.

  4. It's a little bizarre to hear the group behind Critical Mass lecture New Yorkers about the sanctity of traffic laws and the importace of pedestrian safety. Only after advocates like Keegan begin to acknowledge the harm that his own Premium Rush compatriots impose on us, perhaps he can think about pedaling up to that moral high ground he so desperately seeks.

  5. I should probably point out that Texas does not have a 3-foot law in spite of a near unanimous vote in favor in the legislature. Gov. "Goodhair" Perry vetoed the bill in 2009.

  6. Masini distrugatoare

    such a sad story..

  7. Drivers of these very large vehicles with trailer would have to be very careful when they enter the city are, so that the tragedy of Jessica Dworkin, never happens again!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


4 + = thirteen

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>