Comprehensive Pedestrian Enforcement

Captain Thomas C. DidoneMontgomery County, MD Police Department

1

Pedestrian Safety Initiative – Results

2

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t

Comprehensive Pedestrian Enforcement

• Problem Identification

• Engineering Concerns

• Education Programs

• Enforcement Operations

3

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t

Changing Pedestrian and

Driver Behavior

Engineering Enforcement

Three Pronged Approach Close Coordination of Engineering, Education, and Enforcement

Education

4

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t

Do You Have a Problem?

5

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t

Comprehensive Pedestrian Enforcement

• Identifying the problem•Data Driven •Statistics

• Who, How & When• Where do they occur? -High Incidence Areas, Hot Spots• Causation factors

6

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t

CountyStat

Montgomery County Pedestrian Collisions and FatalitiesWith four years of data since the launch of the Pedestrian Safety Initiative in July 2009, DOT and

MCPD looked at the change in the average number of collisions pre- and post-launch.

  2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Pre-Initiative

Average(2005-2009)

Post-Initiative Average

(2010-2013)Change

January 36 31 32 48 34 34 28 40 50 36 38 +6%February 28 28 33 30 37 39 27 36 38 31 35 +13%

March 37 28 34 37 31 33 38 27 36 33 34 +3%April 26 25 35 34 28 33 36 27 43 30 35 +17%May 27 36 34 47 46 33 28 36 40 38 35 -8%June 41 33 29 24 41 33 17 35 35 34 30 -12%July 24 29 20 37 36 33 24 23 30 29 28 -3%

August 28 37 26 36 32 26 33 31 36 32 32 0%September 39 39 38 35 30 41 32 35 41 36 37 +3%

October 48 42 37 31 41 44 43 44 56 40 47 +10%November 48 49 60 38 46 43 42 48 40 48 43 -18%December 52 52 34 47 52 44 51 41 38 47 44 -6%

Total Collisions 434 429 412 444 454 436 399 423 483 435 435 0%Per 100,000 46.7 45.9 43.8 46.6 46.8 44.9 40.5 42.8 47.5 46.0 43.9 -5%

Level 4 & 5 Collisions (% of total)

130(30%)

142(33%)

119(29%)

115(26%)

132(29%)

113(26%)

104(26%)

82(19%)

85(18%) 128 96 -25%

Per 100,000 14.0 15.2 12.7 12.1 13.6 11.6 10.6 8.6 8.4 13.5 9.8 -27%Total Fatalities* 10 18 17 19 14 13 11 6 13 16 11 -31%

Per 100,000 1.1 1.9 1.8 2 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.6 1.3 1.6 1.1 -31%

7/23/20147Pedestrian Safety Initiative

*Does not include bicycle fatalitiesSource: MCPD. Data reporting prior to 2008 may not have been consistent with present practices.

Pedestrian Collision Annual Trends

% Change

-2% -5% +6% 0% -4% -10% +6%

Total collisions per 100,000 population increased in 2012 , attributed to an increase in the number of collisions occurring in parking lots. The 2012 total remains below the pre-initiative

average (2005 – 2009.)

The number of severe collisions (level 4-5) have dropped by 21% from the pre-initiative average (2005-2009.)

% Change +9% -16% -3% +14% -14% -8% -18%

8

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t

CountyStat9Pedestrian Safety

Initiative7/23/2014

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

StateCountyMunicipalParkingOther/Unknown

Nu

mb

er

of

Co

llis

ion

sCollisions by Roadway Type

In 2013, a plurality of collisions occurred on state maintained roadways which also represented the greatest increase in pedestrian collisions. Parking lot collisions rose

sharply from 2010 to 2012 before dropping slightly in 2013. This may be an indication that the recently implemented parking lot initiative is working.

Source: MCPD

Highway Lane Miles

State County Toll Municipal Total

1,395.14 4,846.58 88.01 761.36 7,091.09

20% 68% 1% 11% 100%

CountyStat

12AM

-1AM

1AM

-2AM

2AM

-3AM

3AM

-4AM

4AM

-5AM

5AM

-6AM

6AM

-7AM

7AM

-8AM

8AM

-9AM

9AM

-10A

M

10AM

-11A

M

11AM

-12P

M

12PM

-1PM

1PM

-2PM

2PM

-3PM

3PM

-4PM

4PM

-5PM

5PM

-6PM

6PM

-7PM

7PM

-8PM

8PM

-9PM

9PM

-10P

M

10PM

-11P

M

11PM

-12A

M

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2011 2012 2013

Pe

de

str

ian

Co

llis

ion

sPedestrian Collisions: Evening Commute

In 2012 and 2013, 27% of all collisions occurred between the hours of 5-8pm, up from 23% in 2011. The overall number of collisions in this time frame continues to rise.

7/23/201410Pedestrian Safety Initiative

Source: MCPD

CountyStat

Pedestrian Collision Variables: Fault

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

41% 46% 49%56% 59% 62%

44%42%

43%40% 35% 32%

2% 1%3%

4% 5% 6%13% 11%

5%

Not De-termined

Both

Pedestrian

Driver

% o

f T

ota

l

In 2013, the percentage of collisions where the driver was at fault continued to rise. Early education and enforcement efforts focused on pedestrians, but in 2013 these

efforts began targeting drivers.

7/23/201411Pedestrian Safety Initiative

Source: MCPD

CountyStat

Pedestrian Collision Variables: Fault

There was a 5 percentage point increase in at fault pedestrians between the ages of 10 and 19 (school age children and young adults). Pedestrians at fault between the ages of 10 and 29 are over-represented compared to their share of the population as a whole. At fault drivers over age 80 appear

to be slightly over-represented.

0-9

yrs

10-1

9 yr

s20

-29

yrs

30-3

9 yr

s40

-49

yrs

50-5

9 yr

s60

-69

yrs

70-7

9 yr

s

80+

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%Age of Driver at Fault

2012 2013 % of 2012 MoCo Registered Drivers

% o

f T

ota

l

0-9

yrs

10-1

9 yr

s20

-29

yrs

30-3

9 yr

s40

-49

yrs

50-5

9 yr

s60

-69

yrs

70-7

9 yr

s

80+

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Age of Pedestrian at Fault

2012 2013 % of MoCo Population

% o

f T

ota

l

N/A

7/23/201412Pedestrian Safety Initiative

Source: MCPD; ACS 2012 5 Year Population Estimate; Maryland Highway Safety Office

High Incidence Areas (HIAs)/High Crash Locations (HCLs)(hot spots)

Areas with highest density of pedestrian crashes

High traffic volume + High pedestrian volume

HIA/HCL

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t

13

High Incidence Areas: Four CornersBackground• Intersection of Colesville Rd and

University Blvd• Safety audit conducted in January 2010• Montgomery Blair HS• Large student population• Many pedestrians cross mid-block• Lack of signal adherence by pedestrians • Numerous commercial access points• Heavy bus transit usage

Engineering, Education, and Enforcement• Pedestrian Signal Improvements• Completed MDSHA resurfacing project• Designated School Zone by MSHA• Upgraded signage and pavement

markings• Montgomery Blair HS Education &

Outreach Campaign (Fall 2011 - 2012)• Targeted Enforcement (2012 and 2013) 14

Pede

stria

n an

d Bi

cycl

e Sa

fety

Pro

gram

Rev

iew

– C

ount

y Co

unci

l

Engineering Concerns

15

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t

Engineering• Working with Local Department of Transportation• Infrastructure is critical for effective enforcement

16

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t

Audible Push Button Regulatory and Warning Signs Flashing Beacons

Curb Markers Countdown Pedestrian Indicators

Engineering

• Conduct Audits

• Perform Maintenance

• Produce Enhancements

• Traffic Calming

• Infrastructure Improvements

• Automation

• Funding17

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t

Education Programs

18

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t

Community Education• Educate the public on pedestrian traffic laws

• If public does not know the law, hard for them to follow it• Cooperative effort with Department of Transportation, Fire

& Rescue, Citizen Groups

19

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t

Officer Education• Educate officers on pedestrian traffic laws

• Officers more likely to enforce if they have knowledge• Knowledge is power

20

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t

Enforcement Operations

21

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t

Enforcement

• Team Approach• Increase citizen contacts• Officer safety

• Highly motivated officers• Identify times and locations based on crash data

• High Incidence Areas• Crosswalk stings

• Both pedestrians and drivers are charged• Tickets not warnings

22

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t

23

2011 2012 2013

Pedestrian Citations 402 1219 630

Driver Citations 23 42 651

100

300

500

700

900

1100

1300

Pedestrian and Driver Citations, 2011-2013

Pedestrian Citations Driver Citations

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

tThree-Year Citation Total:2,967

Enforcement (Continued)

• Pedestrian Violations• Midblock crossing• Crossing against the signal• Crossing unsafely

• Driver Violations• Failing to yield right of way in crosswalk• Failing to yield on left and right turns• Speed enforcement

24

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t

Crosswalk Sting

25

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t

Crosswalk “Stings”

2626

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t

• Come prepared with pictures and statistics• Articulate, Articulate, Articulate• Know the laws, Knowledge is Power!• Explain to the Court why this is being done

27

Final Phase….Courts

When this has been done in Montgomery County the District Court judges have been

fully behind our enforcement efforts Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t

Summary

• Need motivated officers• Team approach at locations• Warnings are less effective• Heavy enforcement changes behavior• Return trips keeps behavior in check

28

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t

Questions

Captain Thomas C. Didone

Officer Jeremy Smalley

Montgomery County Police

240-773-6600thomas.didone@montgomerycountymd.gov

29

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

edes

tria

n En

forc

emen

t