Background
News Reporting:
Pedestrian killed in Waldorf collision, police suspect pedestrian intoxicated – The Southern Maryland Chronicle
Police Identify 35-Year-Old Man Struck And Killed By Vehicle In Waldorf – The BayNet
- Crash occurred around 8:36PM
- New reporting (and apparently police report) highlights that the pedestrian was intoxicated at the time of the crash and driver remained at the scene
Context per MDOT SHA’s map: Suburban (D)
Infrastructure Report
Infrastructure Report: Link
- 20230403-3271
- Report completed on _____ (blank, this field is not filled in)
Google Streetview (my link is slightly closer based on measuring distance to intersection): https://maps.app.goo.gl/Vj2aLrJ3FYo6GopE6
Deficiency found? No
Findings: The Fatality Infrastructure Review and site investigation indicate the pavement markings did not contribute to the crash, however after a field review there is an opportunity to enhance pavement marking visibility by refreshing the paint. Short Term Improvement: Replace faded right turn only pavement markings on SB US 301.
Additional information relevant to this review. The police report deems the pedestrian to have been improperly in the roadway, wearing dark clothing and under the influence of alcohol. BAC was found to be 0.29.
My Opinion
I’ll admit, I’m not sure I understand how / why the pedestrian ended up in the roadway prior to the crash. Certainly, I understand that the police determined that the pedestrian was at fault in the crash because their blood alcohol content was above the legal limit for driving. However, I’d like to make the case that this information has nothing to do with an infrastructure review – or more accurately – if that information has a place in the review, it’s very different from how this reviewer uses it.
First, I’d like to point out that it is not illegal for a pedestrian to have a BAC of 0.29. In fact, convincing people with a BAC of 0.29 to remain pedestrians (and not become drunk drivers) is a key part of Maryland’s Vision Zero campaign! Now 0.29 is quite drunk indeed, so this is not necessarily the perfect case for my argument, but my point is that human beings are going to consume legal intoxicants and are going to become intoxicated (in Maryland that now means marijuana as well as alcohol). They may even consume illegal intoxicating substances. But that doesn’t matter, because becoming intoxicated does not disqualify someone from deserving a safe walking environment!
Becoming intoxicated does not disqualify someone from deserving a safe walking environment.
Intoxicated pedestrians are going to make more errors than sober pedestrians, but all pedestrians are going to make mistakes or errors in judgment. What these infrastructure reviews should be doing, even in cases where pedestrian error is a contributing factor, is asking the question “What characteristics of this infrastructure design could be changed to make the design more resilient to minor human error?”
In this instance, this stretch of suburban highway has no sidewalk. It was dark (per news reporting of crash time) and there are no street lights or other sources of light present (per the infrastructure report). So any pedestrian has to weigh the risk of stumbling and injuring themselves on the dark, uneven grass against the risk of being hit while walking in the roadway. An intoxicated person has the increased risk of stumbling due to their impaired state and a diminished capacity for risk assessment related to walking in the roadway. Additionally, their reaction speed to seeing a vehicle approaching and possibly also their visual perception of where headlights are in the multi-lane roadway may be impaired. Walking in a busy roadway is certainly a pedestrian error of judgment, but could we reduce the likelihood of this error by building a sidewalk?
Walking in a busy roadway is certainly a pedestrian error of judgment, but could we reduce the likelihood of this error by building a sidewalk?
Here’s another, simple example of reducing the impact of human error – does the travel lane of the road end at the curb (without shoulder) and the sidewalk abut the curb directly or is there a planting strip or setback between the sidewalk and the curb?
Which of these two sidewalks is more forgiving to a misstep or stumble? Adding a small set-back from the roadway, even just a couple feet, provides some resilience against common human errors.
Secondly, the infrastructure review points out that the pedestrian was wearing dark clothing. This is such common victim blaming. Was the driver wearing driving gloves to ensure they had the safest possible grip on the steering wheel? That information was not recorded for some reason.
“Pedestrian” is the default mode of human beings – what clothing are you wearing right now? Would it be considered “dark clothing”? Have you ever in your life gotten dressed in the morning and thought “I must wear brightly colored clothing as I may wish to cross one of Maryland’s highways this evening?” Or consider this, at 8pm on 3/4/2023, it was around 44F in Waldorf; pretty chilly, what color is your winter coat? Do you consider nighttime walking visibility when you purchase all your outerwear? It is ridiculous to consider pedestrian clothing in an infrastructure review.
Have you ever in your life gotten dressed in the morning and thought “I must wear brightly colored clothing as I may wish to cross one of Maryland’s highways this evening?”
In summary, I don’t care if the pedestrian was drunk or high or wearing polka dot pajamas. Is the infrastructure on this highway and in this context safe for pedestrians? Could context-appropriate countermeasures be implemented to make it safer and reduce the likelihood of a crash (fatal or otherwise) in the future? This is a suburban context and as I’ve established before (1/11/2023 crash review), all of MDOT SHA’s Context Driven countermeasures seem to assume that a sidewalk is already present. Definitely need to understand why MDOT SHA would not recommend a sidewalk on a suburban commercial corridor such as this.
Maryland's Lethal Highways 