The City's use of push button caution lights at crosswalks and to determine any decrease in pedestrian legal rights …

Increase Pedestrian Safety

Dear Mr. DePasquale: I write to respond to the two above referenced Council Orders, having conferred with Police Commissioner Branville Bard and Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation Joseph Barr. I. Response to Awaiting Report No. 16-52 of 6/13/16. A. Legal Analysis In Awaiting Report No. 16-52 of 6/13/16, the City Council has asked for a response to the question regarding the "City's Use of Push-Button Caution Lights at Crosswalks and to Determine any Decrease in Pedestrian Legal Rights Should they be Hit". Crosswalk signals that can be activated by pedestrians by use of a "push button" are frequently used to assist pedestrians at busy crosswalks that do not have a police officer assisting with traffic, which are known as "uncontrolled crosswalks." In Massachusetts, the Appeals Court has interpreted G. L. c. 89, § 11 to mean that crosswalks must be honored by a motorist even in the face of a traffic control signal which permits the motorist to proceed. If a pedestrian has entered an uncontrolled crosswalk, whether there is a traffic control signal indicating that the pedestrian may proceed or not, the pedestrian has the right of way on the side of the roadway the pedestrian is travelling on so long as the pedestrian provides the motorist reasonable time to stop. G. L. c. 89, § 11. Page 1 of 4 However, under the law pertaining to negligence in Massachusetts, a pedestrian injured by a motorist who brings an action against said motorist may be determined to be partially responsible by a jury if the pedestrian is found to have acted negligently. A pedestrian may be found to have been contributorily negligent if the pedestrian enters a crosswalk against a traffic control signal. When determining whether the pedestrian was negligent, if the jury determines that the pedestrian's negligence contributed to the cause of the collision or the cause of the pedestrian's injuries, the pedestrian's damages as determined by the jury may be reduced by the percentage of the pedestrian's negligence. If the pedestrian's negligence is determined to be greater than that of the motorist, the pedestrian will be precluded from collecting any damages. See G. L. c. 231, § 85, the Massachusetts comparative negligence statute, which provides for the diminution of a plaintiff's recovery by the percentage of his or her negligence, and the barring of recovering against a defendant if such a defendant's negligence is deemed to be less than the total amount of negligence attributable to the plaintiff. It is unclear whether the installation of push-button caution lights at crosswalks alone would necessarily cause a decrease in a pedestrian's legal rights in the event that the pedestrian is hit by a motorist in a crosswalk, given that there are a number of variables that will be analyzed to determine who caused the collision in whole or in part. B. Yielding Study The Traffic, Parking & Transportation Department ("T&") recently completed a study of yielding behavior at pedestrian crossings with a range of different crosswalk warning devices. The following types of warning devices were studied at the following locations: • Static Signage - Massachusetts Avenue @ Day Street: The basic form of crosswalk warning is static signage, which consists of a yellow crosswalk warning sign facing each vehicular travel direction. This style of crosswalk is the most common form of warning for drivers approaching an uncontrolled crosswalk in Cambridge, and is therefore considered the baseline condition for comparing more advanced forms of crosswalk warning and control. • Flashing Beacon - Massachusetts Avenue @ Garfield Street and Broadway @ Marriott Hotel: Flashing Beacons (FBs) are a form of activated crosswalk warnings that flash when a pedestrian crossing button located at each end of the crosswalk is pressed. These beacons consist of 12" round LED signal indications which flash for an interval that allows a pedestrian to fully cross the street, and which flash at a rate of 60 times per minute. In addition to these beacons, static signage is also present.

Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon - Portland Street @ Albany Street:

Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) provide smaller rectangular indications which flash at an irregular pattern between 140 and 240 times per minute. The pattern is similar to the strobe output pattern on an emergency vehicle and has been shown in studies conducted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to attract significantly more attention due to the fast nature of the flashing. Page 2 of 4 Table 1 shows the results of these studies, which are generally consistent with the results of similar studies conducted by the Federal Highway Administration. These larger study efforts showed an increase in yielding from a baseline of 10% to 20% prior to installation, as compared to 80% to 90% after installation of RRFBs. The results of the FHWA studies are available online: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/10043/index.cfm.

Table 1: Percentage and Number of Drivers Yielding to Pedestrians

Location % Yield Yield

No Yield

37% 32 19

Mass at Day Static)

43 13 77%

Mass at Garfield (FB)

89% 4

Broadway at Marriott Hotel (FB)

2 26 93%

Portland at Albany (RRFB)