slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Cooperative Agreement for Pedestrian Enforcement Programs Pro Bike/Pro Walk Conference Madison, Wisconsin September 6, 2 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Cooperative Agreement for Pedestrian Enforcement Programs Pro Bike/Pro Walk Conference Madison, Wisconsin September 6, 2

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 21

Cooperative Agreement for Pedestrian Enforcement Programs Pro Bike/Pro Walk Conference Madison, Wisconsin September 6, 2 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 205 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Cooperative Agreement for Pedestrian Enforcement Programs Pro Bike/Pro Walk Conference Madison, Wisconsin September 6, 2' - Antony


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Cooperative Agreement for Pedestrian Enforcement ProgramsPro Bike/Pro Walk ConferenceMadison, WisconsinSeptember 6, 2006

Sergeant David A. Black

University of Massachusetts

Police Department

dblack@admin.umass.edu http://www.umass.edu/umpd

(413) 545-2121

project management
Project Management
  • University of Massachusetts Police Department
  • The University of Massachusetts Traffic Safety Research Program (UMassSAFE)
  • The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
slide4
The University of Massachusetts Traffic Safety Research Program(UMassSAFE)  is a multidisciplinary traffic safety research programhoused 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, driverbehavior, and related factors.
national highway traffic safety administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
  • Our mission:

Save lives, prevent injuries, reduce vehicle-related crashes

university of massachusetts pedestrian problem
University of Massachusetts Pedestrian Problem
  • One pedestrian injury every four months of academic year
  • 2 recent fatal
  • 2 recent near fatal
  • Many “near misses”
university of massachusetts demonstration project plan
University of Massachusetts Demonstration Project Plan

4 E’s of Pedestrian Safety

  • Education,
  • Enforcement,
  • Engineering and
  • Evaluation
university of massachusetts police department focus area
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
umpd funding
OT funding for Education and Enforcement Patrol

Equipment

Printing: Flyers, Posters and Bus Cards

UMPD Funding
masssafe focus areas
MassSAFE Focus Areas
  • Data Collection/Analysis
  • Engineering Improvements
  • Evaluation Approaches
    • Roadway Inventory
    • Crash Data
    • Citation Data
    • Observations
    • Impaired Pedestrian Observations
massachusetts pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries 2004
Massachusetts Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious Injuries, 2004
  • 82 pedestrian fatalities
  • 17% of MA traffic fatalities
  • 268 non fatal incapacitating injuries
program goals
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)
university of massachusetts
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
umass amherst population
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
university of massachusetts pedestrian problem1
Walking campus

High pedestrian/ vehicle interaction

14,000 vehicles registered to park

Visitors to large audience venues

Parking on perimeter, buildings in center

University of Massachusetts Pedestrian Problem
recent pedestrian issues
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
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

Motorist Violations
pedestrian violation
Pedestrian Violation

MGL Chapter 90 Section 18A

Pedestrians, use of ways; rules and regulations; violations; notice

  • 1st, 2nd and 3rd violations-$1.00
  • 4th and subsequent violations-$2.00

UMass Article and Section

  • Not applicable
achieving program goals
Achieving Program Goals
  • Program will highlight:
    • Need for data
    • Multi-disciplinary approach
    • Introduce enforcement concepts outlined in “Law Enforcement Pedestrian Safety”
program results
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.  
  • By comparison, the control locations had mixed results with an overall decrease in the percentage of yielding vehicles.
  • Full evaluation is still underway.