Streets are only for cars, says Texas police officer speaking for his city

[Dan]

The rapidly growing community where i used to work outside of Austin once promoted some very progressive planing practice. (My apologies sfor the alliteration.) It adopted the SmartCode, out of a strong desire to maintain a distinct sense of place, avoid a monoculture of commercial and residential development, make the community attractive to broad range of prospective residents, and create neighborhoods that will age gracefully. Unlike other parts of suburban Austin, streets were envisioned not solely as the conduit to get a motor vehicle from Point A to Point B, but as a commons; a place where residents can interact with each other.

Unfortunately, one of the police officers speaking for the city disagrees, in a recently published editorial in that city's newspaper titled "Streets are not for child’s play"

Citizens frequently file traffic complaints with the [city] Police Department about traffic problems where they live.

Most traffic complaints revolve around traffic going too fast in a residential area. Sometimes complaints include the fact that traffic is going too fast for children to play in the street.

In suburban America, many people think that playing in the street is almost a birthright. Many of us used the street growing up to play ball, roller skate, ride a bike off a ramp, etc.

The fact of the matter is that streets are primarily for the movement of vehicles. Pedestrians are allowed to cross the street at an intersection or crosswalk when they have right of way, or walk along the left side of the street if there is no sidewalk.

Any other pedestrian traffic on a street is illegal and unsafe, including children playing in the street. Such activity should be discouraged by parents.

A police officer may issue a citation to a pedestrian for illegally being in the roadway. Most children who play in the roadway are too young to be criminally responsible for their own behavior, so it falls on parents to be sure to keep their children off the road.

The prima facie (presumed) speed limit in a residential area inside the city limits has been determined by the state to be 30 mph. The state has determined that speed is generally a safe speed for most conditions.

Of course, that speed is no longer safe if there are people in the roadway. That is especially true of children who are not as experienced as adults at traffic safety. This issue usually does not come to the public’s attention until after a tragedy occurs, but the hope of the police department is for public awareness without a tragedy.

Basically, he says:

1) Residents believe their streets are more than just roadways, but a common gathering area.
2) That's not true. Streets are only for cars. Pedestrians do not have the right-of-way.
3) Pedestrians don't belong in streets, unless they're crossing them at designated areas.
4) Pedestrians in streets are illegal, unless there's no sidewalk, in which case, they better stay on the margins.
5) Playing in the street is illegal.
6) We'll issue citations to people who use streets illegally.
7) The safety of cars, and their right to travel at the 30 mph (45 km/h) speed limit, is more important than the safety of people in the street and their right to assemble.

[Hink]

The rapidly growing community where i used to work outside of Austin once promoted some very progressive planing practice. (My apologies sfor the alliteration.) It adopted the SmartCode, out of a strong desire to maintain a distinct sense of place, avoid a monoculture of commercial and residential development, make the community attractive to broad range of prospective residents, and create neighborhoods that will age gracefully. Unlike other parts of suburban Austin, streets were envisioned not solely as the conduit to get a motor vehicle from Point A to Point B, but as a commons; a place where residents can interact with each other.

Unfortunately, one of the police officers speaking for the city disagrees, in a recently published editorial in that city's newspaper titled "Streets are not for child’s play"



Basically, he says:

1) Residents believe their streets are more than just roadways, but a common gathering area.
2) That's not true. Streets are only for cars. Pedestrians do not have the right-of-way.
3) Pedestrians don't belong in streets, unless they're crossing them at designated areas.
4) Pedestrians in streets are illegal, unless there's no sidewalk, in which case, they better stay on the margins.
5) Playing in the street is illegal.
6) We'll issue citations to people who use streets illegally.
7) The safety of cars, and their right to travel at the 30 mph (45 km/h) speed limit, is more important than the safety of people in the street and their right to assemble.

I look at the same as when engineer's think that roads should be 2 miles wide with no obstructions. They view the world in a really stupid light. Kinda like wearing blinders in a race where no one else is even racing.

Instead of worrying about the people who interact with the environment, they are worried about 1% chance of something occurring. They want people to change their environment to make their lives easier....

[rcgplanner]

Friendly neighborhood police officer doesn't seem to understand the concept of street classification. Nobody is advocating that pedestrians and kids should be playing in the middle of I-35, but what is wrong with allowing people to walk and play on Wooded Hills Drive or some other palatial suburban nirvana. God forbid that the residents actually get to know their neighbors and are active on the street instead of holed up in their backyards. Screw those residents, it is more important not to inconvienence a driver who would have to slow down from 30 mph (more like 45 mph) to 15 or 20 mph.

The ironic thing is that discouraging people to stay off the street and keeping them holed up inside or in their backyard is a perfect recipe for neighborhood crime. Most neighborhoods look like a scene from a ghost town because of the lack of activity on the street.

[OfficialPlanner]

When I was a kid I use to play street hockey with other kids from the neighborhood. I lived on a quiet residential street. As soon as someone spotted a car coming, they would yell "CAR!" and we'd move all the equipment to the side as the car approached. The driver would slow down, usually waive, and go on their way. There was never any accidents and no one seemed to mind.

Then I moved to Florida and that was the end of that.

[HomerJ]

Basically, he says:

1) Residents believe their streets are more than just roadways, but a common gathering area.
2) That's not true. Streets are only for cars. Pedestrians do not have the right-of-way.
3) Pedestrians don't belong in streets, unless they're crossing them at designated areas.
4) Pedestrians in streets are illegal, unless there's no sidewalk, in which case, they better stay on the margins.
5) Playing in the street is illegal.
6) We'll issue citations to people who use streets illegally.
7) The safety of cars, and their right to travel at the 30 mph (45 km/h) speed limit, is more important than the safety of people in the street and their right to assemble.

A common feature of so many great neighborhoods is narrow streets with lower speeds. The point being, the street design is focused on the local residents rather than the cars passing through.

His argument may be functional, but he presents it in the form of an opinion on how we should look at residential streets. People aren't robots, just because a particular street was originally designed for a car doesn't mean that particular street must always be used solely for a car.

[ColoGI]

We're talking about how well a Texas cop understands a complex subject for which he likely has no training, and commenting on how smart his statement was? Is that what is happening here? Srsly? A TX cop?

[Hink]

When I was a kid I use to play street hockey with other kids from the neighborhood. I lived on a quiet residential street. As soon as someone spotted a car coming, they would yell "CAR!" and we'd move all the equipment to the side as the car approached. The driver would slow down, usually waive, and go on their way. There was never any accidents and no one seemed to mind.

Then I moved to Florida and that was the end of that.

Wayne's World style? Nice!

[Suburb Repairman]

We're talking about how well a Texas cop understands a complex subject for which he likely has no training, and commenting on how smart his statement was? Is that what is happening here? Srsly? A TX cop?

Our City Engineer and Police Chief (in a Texas town) would have dressed down that officer in a pretty hardcore manner for writing that editorial for precisely that reason--he is not qualified to discuss roadway design and use. My City Engineer happens to like narrow streets--mainly because then he doesn't have to deal with people whining for speed humps and because it allows much of the underground infrastructure to be placed so that street cuts are not necessary to repair underground infrastructure, better preserving the integrity of the pavement. Likewise, having people in & near the street slows traffic down.

Our Police Chief likes narrow roads because it cuts down on speeding and gets more pedestrians (and specifically their eyes) on the street. He likes seeing lots of pedestrians around in neighborhoods becuase it discourages property crime. He's really big on the CPTED stuff, especially natural surveillance, as a crime deterrent.

Only problem we've been having is with on-street parking causing some line-of-sight issues because of the curvilinear street pattern. We had a light push from a councilmember to widen the street, but I was able to show that it was cost-prohibitive to retrofit and would unnecessarily inflate the cost of new development (marks the first time I've ever used that argument).

[JusticeZero]

Well, if one untrained cop wants to argue with the Supreme Court of the United States, that doesn't seem like it's particularly newsworthy. This doesn't even move the needle compared to things like people being acquitted of driving over and killing people on the shoulder of an empty four lane highway with perfect visibility because driving along the shoulder and not changing lanes is "just my driving style".