Shocked, Shattered, But Not Surprised

“Shocked.” “Stunned.” “Shattered.”  That’s a representative sample of the expressions of collective horror, grief and anger that rang through Lancaster’s West End following the hit-and-run vehicular killing of longtime neighbor Chuck Leayman at the intersection of  W. Lemon and N. Mary streets last Sunday evening.

What no one said was “Surprised.”

Chuck Leayman - quiet, literate, gently smiling

That’s because Lancastrians know all too well that crossing any intersection of a major thoroughfare in this city is part a game of chicken and part Russian roulette.

This is a moment for outrage.  Not only because the victim was a beloved friend and neighbor of so many -- a quiet, literate soul who wanted no more than to live among his books and gently smile at his many acquaintances.  The loss of one such as Chuck only makes the tragedy that much more painful and, one hopes, consequential.

Chuck was killed by more than a random act of criminally reckless driving.  He is dead because there is a fundamental failure of vehicular law enforcement by the City of Lancaster.

Just to review, under Title 75, Sec. 3542 (a) of the Pennsylvania Code, vehicles must yield to pedestrians crossing in an intersection.  The intersection does NOT have to be marked by a pedestrian crosswalk (though the one in which Chuck Leayman was killed was marked); nor must it display a “Yield to Pedestrians Crossing” sign.

Failure to yield is punishable by a $50 fine and a two-point license penalty;  admittedly, not great in deterrence value, but with the force of the law behind it, nonetheless.

Yet what use is a law that routinely goes unenforced?  Many will say that law or not, this is Lancaster and speedway driving is a part of a culture that can’t be fixed, so pedestrians beware.

Wrong.

The data are overwhelming that well-planned, well-publicized and consistently applied enforcement changes driver behavior almost completely in a very short time.

The proof is everywhere.

·      In 2006 in North Jersey, where aggressive driving is a blood-sport worthy of Olympic status, the town  of Montclair initiated several months of publicity and issuance of warnings to drivers pushing through crosswalks with pedestrians in them.  They followed with intensive enforcement including plain-clothes decoy pedestrians.  Driver adherence became almost complete in Montclair in a matter of weeks after full enforcement commenced. (New Jersey law requires a full stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk, and backs it up with two license points, $200 in fine, and 15-days of community service.)

·      In Lisbon, Portugal, a country which embraces roadway anarchy as enthusiastically as any Southern European society, your correspondent during a visit earlier this month watched in awe as motorists from every direction stopped promptly and politely at the first sign of a pedestrian entering a marked crossing.

·      In New York City, the world’s jaywalking capital, nearly half of all pedestrian injuries occur to those lawfully within the crosswalks.  NYC Transportation Commissioner Polly Trottenberg describes pedestrian safety as a public health issue of “epidemic” scope.  Lately NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton has the force cracking down on failure-to-yield violations in some of the most dangerous intersections and corridors, such as Sunset Park in Brooklyn.

·      In nearby Bethlehem, the police got the memo last summer, instituting a program of decoy pedestrians and formal warnings to motorists failing to yield.

·      The Federal Highway Administration’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center website has links to program reports of successful enforcement initiatives and changes in motorist behavior in Amherst, Massachusetts, San Jose, Gainesville, Florida, and elsewhere throughout the county.

Yes, it can be done and Lancaster must begin to do it.  The city’s vaunted “Walkability” study may be a spearhead for progress, although at a recent public session, Jeff Speck, the planning consultant in charge of the study, was peculiarly dismissive of pedestrian crosswalk law as an effective tool to promote walkability.

Rather, Speck’s declared focus is to revert one-way “drag-strip” corridors to two-way traffic in the expectation that two single opposing lanes will promote more attentive motoring.

Speck’s strategy may work, but it wouldn’t have helped poor Chuck Leayman, who was killed by a car barreling through the intersection of a two-way thoroughfare.

A deadly corner

Chuck’s death was a crime, to be sure, and we can only hope and demand that justice be done.  But let there be justice not solely for the perpetrator, because this is a crime that also lands at the doorstep of the city.

Justice for Chuck Leayman – and the most fitting memorial – would be a full-out enforcement campaign to change driver habits so they begin to obey the law of Pennsylvania and observe the right of pedestrians to cross the street in safety.