...
The pace of violations, recorded since the city restricted turns at 97 downtown intersections, amounts to an average of about seven tickets per month.
Two pedestrian advocates told Mirror Indy they would like to see more enforcement, but city officials said the number of tickets issued is only one metric — and not the most indicative of success when it comes to pedestrian safety measures.
“Their desired effect was not to increase (the) number of tickets issued by IMPD. It was to ensure the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists in the Mile Square,” Vop Osili, the Democratic president of Indianapolis City-County Council, said in an emailed statement to Mirror Indy.
...
The policy change followed a study from the Indianapolis Department of Public Works that looked at a five-year history of pedestrian-related crashes in the downtown area. It found that 57% of were the result of vehicles failing to yield to pedestrians at intersections with traffic signals.
Data also showed that downtown pedestrians were more than twice as likely to be involved in a crash compared to pedestrians in the rest of Marion County.
...
Freeman, who was a city-county councilor from 2010 to 2016, argued that the policy would “create confusion and congestion” and “won’t stop distracted, reckless or aggressive driving.”
I live downtown (a stone’s throw from the monument), and most people seem to follow the rules. But not everyone does. Pretty easy to break them down into groups.
I think all but the out-of-town folks (who aren’t used to it and don’t notice the signs due to being overwhelmed with city driving and traffic) just go ahead and do whatever they want because of a “you can’t tell me what to do” attitude. Indy cops certainly don’t enforce the signs.
The Indiana state legislature loves to dictate how Indianapolis governs itself. Refusing to comply with the signs is sort of a political statement to some, the equivalent of giving the finger to data-driven, progressive policy.
Go insights, thanks.
Ha, I'll put myself down, being guilty of 'don't tell me what to do' and driving. Not political though, I don't see driving or city policy as D/R, or at least it shouldn't be, that's dumb 😋
It wasn't until I read why the signs were there that I understood.
While walking/running, I just figured I always had to protect my self, and if people didn't pay attention, the sign wouldn't help me.
This sort of thing should not be a left-right / progressive/conservative thing at all. Data says it prevents harm. Easy.
But. When “city liberals” put policies into place, a contingent of those reactionary types feel it’s their duty to resist, no matter what. And their media engines convince their base of the same.
Big trucks turning right on red in downtown is like the least impactful result of this sort of thing, but it’s a pretty obvious one.
Where it becomes political is how the left and right approach government.
The left thinks: what can government do to help the community? Data says banning turning on red reduces harm and fatalities to pedestrians!
The right thinks: This new law is an inconvenient change for me. The government is in my way! (Although not in this case, they also tend to think: and I have to pay for it?)
Honestly, "data-driven" is not enough, and no amount of signs will substitute for physical obstacles. Signs and "enforcement" are literally the pass-the-buck option for lawmakers, particularly in a city and state where the car-centric perspective took root early and deep.
It's extra-stupid, because Indy already has a lot of skywalks. They could expand that area with more skywalks and dedicated bike lanes(those streets are extra-wide as well, so bike-lanes with a curb or sidewalk between them and cars should be an option, as well as making the remaining car lanes squiggly)(hell, remove all but handi-capped parking while at it), or they can ban motor vehicles from tragetted areas entirely. The people who can't be bothered to walk, bike or ride mass-transit in aren't the target demographic, and allowing them to speed through won't change that.
Two other less-than-full, but still more effective than signs, measures are roundabouts or implimenting a full-intersection cross-walk cycle, where all the traffic lights switch to red to allow pedestrians and bikes to cross every which way. Make the pedestrian state last as long or longer than the total of all green-light states as well. Cars are the parties violating the space of others in these places, and should be forced to realize it.
I would love it if they closed off the circle and Meridian / Market in that center block and turn it all into pedestrian space.
Then do it for the next ring of streets the year after. And another the next year. Keep going until you hit North, East, South, and West streets.
You could still drive to the hospitals or the stadium or IUPUI. But the actual downtown would be paradise.
I am going to pile on both of these comments with "heck yes"!
I love roundabouts, and I really like the skybridge network around the government and convention center. It would be cool to keep that going like crystal city in DC.
So you're saying officials making something not political into something political?
I've definitely seen people do things against common sense because of their party.
Drinking bleach is dangerous...
DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO! 😆
Conservatism is all about causing harm so this is absolutely a political issue.
I work downtown (CCB). I love these signs and that many drivers are following them. Crosswalks are safer, for sure. There are quite a few drivers who don't follow the new signs, and those people suck.