Pedestrian Safety in the Era of Electric Mobility Devices
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 2018-2019 CIVIL GRAND JURY PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IN THE ERA OF ELECTRIC MOBILITY DEVICES CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 2018-2019 CIVIL GRAND JURY THE CIVIL GRAND JURY AND ITS OPERATIONS California state law requires that all 58 counties impanel a Grand Jury to serve during each fiscal year. California Penal Code Section 905; California Constitution, Article I, Section 23 The Civil Grand Jury investigates and reports on one or more aspects of the County’s departments, operations, or functions. California Penal Code Sections 925, 933(a) Reports of the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed by name. California Penal Code Section 929 The Civil Grand Jury issues reports with findings and recommendations resulting from its investigations to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. California Penal Code Section 933(a) Each published report includes a list of those elected officials or departments that are required to respond to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court within 60 or 90 days as specified. California Penal Code Section 933 California Penal Code Section 933.05 is very specific with respect to the content of the required responses. Under Section 933.05(a), for each finding, the response must: 1) Agree with the finding, or 2) Disagree with it, wholly or partially, and explain why. Similarly, under Penal Code Section 933.05(b), for each recommendation, the responding party must report that: 1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the implemented action; or 2) The recommendation has not been implemented but will be within a set timeframe; or 3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of what additional study is needed, and the timeframe for conducting that additional study and the preparation of suitable material for discussion. This timeframe may not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Civil Grand Jury’s report; or 4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation. Any San Francisco resident who is a US citizen and is interested in volunteering to serve on the Civil Grand Jury for the City and County of San Francisco is urged to apply. Additional information about the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury, including past reports, can be found online at http://civilgrandjury.sfgov.org/index.html . CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 2018-2019 CIVIL GRAND JURY MEMBERSHIP ROSTER RASHA HARVEY (Foreperson) JANET ANDREWS HOWES (Parliamentarian) LINDA BADGER ANDREW BENJAMIN GORDON CRESPO KRISTINE EQUIHUA (Technology Secretary) STEPHEN GARBER JONATHAN HILL LEONARD KULLY (Correspondence Secretary) WILLIAM LEE (Foreperson Pro Tem) FRANK NETTLETON NONA RUSSELL RANDALL SMITH (Recording Secretary) KAAREN STRAUCH BROWN RUSH STURGES MARTHA SUTHERLIN JASON TAM MICHAEL WIXTED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY All trips within San Francisco begin and end with walking. For 17% of the population, walking is the primary mode of all trips. 1 San Francisco pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users – accounting for half of all San Francisco traffic fatalities. On May 11, 2019, the death of another pedestrian marked the eighth death so far in 2019 – four times the number that occurred by the same time in 2018. 2 The arrival in 2017 of shared motorized personal mobility devices – primarily electric scooters (e-scooters), but also electric bicycles and various types of motorized skateboards – quickly generated conflicts with pedestrians, as some under-informed users of these devices used sidewalks as their preferred travel lanes to minimize their own risk of collisions with cars. The expectation of pedestrian safety is eroded when pedestrian rights-of-way are ignored on sidewalks as well as in intersections. In addition to the conflicts generated by active use of the new devices, e-scooters were being left in the middle of sidewalks, and walkers complained the scooters were tripping hazards. Starting in April 2018, complaints regarding electric scooters surged into the City’s primary customer service center ( SF311), by telephone and through the SF311 smartphone app. 3 For example, on April 13, 2018, there were 32 requests to remove motorized, dockless scooters. The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) responded quickly to the need for structure, cooperation, and data-driven actions. It first banned shared-ride e-scooters from City streets and confiscated the devices left on sidewalks. During this ban, it developed and then launched a twelve-month Powered Scooter Share Permit and Pilot program (the “Pilot”) that officially began in October 2018. The San Francisco Civil Grand Jury (SFCGJ) commends SFMTA and other involved organizations for their actions and planning. This SFCGJ investigation reviewed the status and progress of San Francisco’s efforts with regard to pedestrian safety and emerging mobility options. These efforts improve pedestrian safety and support policies and procedures suitable for the personal mobility advancements yet to arrive on San Francisco’s sidewalks, bike lanes, and streets. The key Findings and Recommendations presented in this report focus on ways to improve: Education and outreach for pedestrians and motorized device users; Enforcement of existing ordinances and laws to help reduce injuries; Injury data capture to better identify root causes; and 1 WalkFirst San Francisco Pedestrian Safety Capital Improvement Program: A step towards Vision Zero, page 3, accessed May 3, 2019. 2 https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Fatal-fall-involving-bus-marks-SF-s-eighth- 13841137.php?psid=3pqQ1 , accessed June 7, 2019. 3 https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/scooter-complaints-to-sfs-311-surge/ , accessed May 31, 20 SFCGJ2018-2019_PedestrianSafety-06.29 - 1 - Contractual terms regarding liability and responsibility for injuries, device maintenance, and repair. Specific Findings and Recommendations are presented in separate sections of this report and in a summary table as Appendix A . San Francisco has always been, and will likely remain, a forward-looking City and an incubator for innovation. Future social and technical innovations will challenge existing conditions upon arrival. Personal mobility devices are expected to evolve rapidly and to test the City’s commitment to “. create a transportation system that is among the best in the world.” 4 4 San Francisco Charter Article VIIIA, The Municipal Transportation Agency, Section 8.A.100 Preamble,http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/charter_sf/charter?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$ vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca$anc=JD_ Charter, accessed April 19, 2019. SFCGJ2018-2019_PedestrianSafety-06.29 - 2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................1 Table of Contents .................................................................................................................3 Background and Problem Statement ....................................................................................4 Background ....................................................................................................................4 Problem Statement .........................................................................................................7 Methodology ........................................................................................................................8 Discussion ..........................................................................................................................10 Education .....................................................................................................................10 Engineering ..................................................................................................................12 Enforcement ................................................................................................................16 Injury Data ..................................................................................................................18 Liability Issues and e-scooter-Related Agreements ....................................................20 SF Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee .................................................................26 Findings..............................................................................................................................28 Recommendations ..............................................................................................................29 Required Responses ...........................................................................................................30 Glossary .............................................................................................................................31 Appendices .........................................................................................................................32 Appendix A: Table of Findings and Recommendations .............................................33 Appendix B: Table of Findings with Required Responses ..........................................36 Appendix C: Table of Recommendations with Required Responses .........................38 Appendix D: Assembly Bill AB2989: Motorized scooter: use of helmet: maximum speed....................................................................................40 Appendix E: e-scooter-Related Injury Data ................................................................42