The War on Walking: Nova Scotia's ludicrous pedestrian fines

Nova Scotia's crosswalks and intersections are once again in the limelight, once again for all the wrong reasons.

Last week, the Nova Scotia legislature passed Bill 133, which, passed a series of changes to the Motor Vehicle Act. Among other things, it increased the fines in Nova Scotia for breaking the rules related to crosswalks and pedestrian signals to almost $700 (and higher for subsequent offences).

On the face of it, this might seem reasonable. Halifax in particular has been suffering from what seems like an epidemic of crosswalk accidents and other car-pedestrian collisions, with advocates calling for better enforcement of the law. Education campaigns don't seem to have worked. Surely increasing the fines will help with enforcement?

Indeed, that's what the Minister of Transportation seems to think. He says the increased fines are "not about punishment ... , it's about deterring these actions" and that the changes are about shared responsibility and are designed to "save lives". All of which seems reasonable on it's face.

But once you start to dig down, the law looks less reasonable, and less likely to be effective at saving lives.

Bill 133 increased certain fines by making all violations of s. 125 and certain violations of s. 93 of the Motor Vehicle Act into Category G offences, which carry fines of $697.50 for a first offence, $1,272.50 for a second offence, and $2,422.50 for a third offence.

As I've explained elsewhere, Section 125 contains a broad range of rules relating to whether cars or pedestrians have the rights of way in crosswalks and elsewhere. Section 93 deals with the rules for traffic signals, including pedestrian lights. Any violation of the right of way rules in section 125, or a violation of section 93 where a person fails to yield the right of way or, as a pedestrian, proceeds other than when authorized to do so, now carries the nearly $700 fine.

The problem is that these sections include a wide range of offences, some of which are much more dangerous than others. The pedestrian who enters the crosswalk a second or two late (on a flashing hand), even if there is no traffic coming, gets the same fine as the pedestrian who carelessly steps off the curb directly in front of a car. The car that fails to stop at an unmarked crosswalk because they didn't see the person waiting gets the same $700 fine as a car that turns on a red light into a pedestrian-filled crosswalk. The fine is in no way proportional to how dangerous the activity is, or whether or not someone gets hurt.


It's particularly problematic when you start to compare the new fine to other violations of the Motor Vehicle Act, as this table does:

Blowing through a red light or a stop sign will only cost you $180. Texting while driving is $237.50. Speeding by any amount more than 30 km/h, or passing a schoolbus that is unloading is only $410. The "jaywalking" fine of $700 is now comparable to the minimum fine for drunk driving. These are some of the most dangerous driving behaviours, but somehow, the law treats them as less bad than the pedestrian that forgets to push the crosswalk button, even if there is no traffic.

Reality is that the increased fine is not going to deter bad behaviour.  Nova Scotia already had some of the highest fines in the country for intersection violations at $180 and crosswalk violations at $410, compared to fines ranging from $110 to $172.50 in Toronto, Calgary and Moncton. Yet we still had an abysmal rate of crosswalk safety. If the risk of someone getting killed isn't deterrent enough, an increased fine isn't going to change things.


This also ignores research which suggests that the certainty of punishment, and not the severity of punishment, is more likely to deter people. In other words, a lower fine can be just as effective if not more so, as long as you enforce it more often. The more likely people are to get caught, the more likely they are to change their behaviour. Increasing the punishment without changing enforcement does little to nothing.

Yet, if anything, increasing the fine means the law is actually less likely to be enforced. Police were already reluctant to fine drivers or pedestrians for intersection or crosswalk violations when the fines were $180 and $410 respectively, except when someone got hurt. Police will be understandably even more reluctant to administer a $700 fine to people who have committed relatively minor infractions

As I've said before, what's needed isn't increased fines, it's better enforcement of more reasonable fines. Police in Nova Scotia should be instructed to carry out a series of high-profile crosswalk and intersection enforcement blitzes, similar to those used for drunk driving. Fines should be handed out to both pedestrians and drivers that flout the law.

We also need to take a hard look at how we design and maintain our roads, intersections, sidewalks and crosswalks in Nova Scotia. Poor visibility, signals that aren't synchronized or don't work properly, faded lines, poor clearing in winter, and arbitrary and dangerous sidewalk and road closures cause unnecessary delay and frustration for drivers and pedestrians alike, and contribute to some of the "bad behaviour" that we see on our streets. Higher fines don't solve these problems, they are just one more barrier to walking.

As for the changes to the Motor Vehicle Act, these were done with with very little public consultation.  The government should go back to the drawing board, and consult with the public and safety advocates, and come back with suggested changes to address safety issues in a fair and balanced way that is based on a real assessment of the danger that different pedestrian and driving behaviours cause, and an assessment of the actual effectiveness of safety measures. There's no question the current law isn't working. We need to dig a little more deeply to find out why, instead of papering over the problem with more bad laws.

Crosswalk Safety: Better Enforcement

Given some of my posts on the need for improved crosswalk safety, I was concerned to hear the recent statement by the Halifax Regional police that, despite a spate of recent crosswalk fatalities and injuries, they do not plan to increase enforcement of crosswalk violations, but will focus instead on educating the public.  It was even more concerned by the statement by Toronto police that the answer to crosswalk accidents is for pedestrians to wear lighter clothes.  This was recently echoed by one Chronicle Herald columnist.

Public education must go hand in hand with enforcement. In order to be effective, laws must be both well understood and well enforced.  The two are mutually reinforcing.  Enforcement without education is unfair, because people cannot reasonably be expected to follow laws they are not aware of or do not understand.   And education without enforcement is somewhat toothless: some people will ignore laws unless they are held to account for breaking them.

I've had more than one person suggest to me that crosswalk safety is merely a matter of common sense and personal responsibility.  Pedestrians know they are at risk, and so they should take every precaution, including wearing lighter clothes.  That certainly seems to be the view of some people within the police department.

I agree that common sense should prevail, and that all users of the road should act with a regard for their safety and that of others.  Pedestrians should look both ways before crossing the road, and should make sure drivers see them and have time to stop.  The fact you had the right of way will matter very little if you are seriously hurt or even killed.

Similarly, drivers need to be exercise caution when approaching all intersections, and be on the lookout for pedestrians waiting to cross as well as those already in the crosswalk.  It is sometimes difficult for pedestrians to tell whether drivers have seen them and intend to stop, so it helps if drivers make eye contact with pedestrians and make clear they have seen them.

A little courtesy doesn't hurt either.  As a pedestrian, I always try and acknowledge drivers that do stop with a friendly wave.

So I agree that Crosswalk safety starts with personal responsibility.  However, as recent events demonstrate, when people are breaking the law and endangering public safety, it doesn't end with personal responsibility.  All the common sense in the world won't save you from other people's lack thereof.  That is why we have laws. 

To that point, I was recently out for a walk with my one year old son, pushing him in his stroller.  We came to a marked crosswalk across a two-lane street near our house.  I looked both ways, and there was no traffic coming in either direction, so we started across the crosswalk.  We were almost halfway across, about to enter the far lane, when a car came speeding around the nearest corner, headed towards us on the far side of the road.  I could see the driver was not going to stop, so I did.  She flew past us about a foot away without even a glance in our direction.  We had been well into the crosswalk when she turned the corner, so I don't know if she simply didn't see us (I'm a big guy, and the weather was good) or if she simply didn't care.  I'm not sure which is more frightening.  I was a little shaken up and didn't get the woman's plates to report her.  I should have.

Had we been a foot further into the road, she would have hit my son in his stroller.  And although I'd exercised common sense and personal responsibility, that would not have mattered had by son been run over.

Where other people fail to exercise common sense and personal responsibility, we need laws to hold them accountable.  But laws only work if they are enforced.

Yet it seems that in Halifax and elsewhere, crosswalk laws are rarely enforced unless someone gets hurt or killed.  It is apparently uncommon for police to ticket either pedestrians or drivers for crosswalk violations unless someone gets hit. And the police seem to have little appetite for an actual enforcement campaign.

Of course, laws can't be enforced unless the police know they are being broken.  I'd encourage users of the road to report crosswalk violations when they see them.  I've certainly heard stories of the police citing people for crosswalk violations based on citizen reports.

Reporting more incidents will also give police more accurate info on just how serious the crosswalk safety problem is.  To that end, I am glad to hear that Halifax police may be getting a traffic accident mapping tool that enables them to identify hot spots.  Of course, the tool will only be truly effective if they then take out their ticket pads and target those hot spots with targeted enforcement campaigns.

At the end of the day, while education is important, better enforcement can serve an educational function as well, a high profile campaign of enforcement can itself be a very effective form of education, reminding both motorists and pedestrians of their responsibilities to themselves and to each other.

Crosswalk Safety: Part 3: Community Crosswalks

I was pleased to learn this weekend that the traffic authority has made the decision re-install a crosswalk they had recently removed at Prince Albert Road in Dartmouth.  This is actually the crosswalk that originally brought the issue of crosswalk removals to my attention.  It is in my neighbourhood, and I learned the hard way it had been removed while out for a walk with my one year old son a few weeks ago.  We arrived at the crosswalk to discover that while the sign was still there, the lights and markings were gone.  It left an extremely precarious situation.  The sidewalk ends abruptly at this location, and the closest marked crosswalk is three blocks away.   The crosswalk is frequently used by the nearby MicMac Aquatic Club, and during events at Lake Banook.  Cars often park on the shoulder here and cross the road to get to events.

Apparently the authority had underestimated the amount of pedestrian traffic at the intersection, a fact that was brought to their attention by the Club, and by councillor Gloria McCluskey.

As suggested in my last post, this raises a question about whether the traffic authority may have got their pedestrian counts wrong at other removed crosswalks as well.

It also points to the need for more community involvement in decisions regarding placement of crosswalks, for at least a couple of reasons.

First of all, the community will be in a better position than HRM staff to observe the level of pedestrian traffic, and identify the peak crossing times that have to be measured in order for the authority to apply their standard of twenty crossings an hour at peak hours.  The community can actually assist the traffic authority in doing their job.  In this case, had the traffic authority consulted with the community before removing this crosswalk, they would have avoided the cost of removing the crosswalk, and the added cost of having to re-install it.

Second, the community will also be aware of other factors that the traffic authority may want to consider, such as high numbers of seniors or children in the area, large distances to other crosswalks, and other considerations that may make the removal particularly dangerous, as it was in this case.

At the end of the day, the current process gives the community too little input into where crosswalks should be placed and removed.  This has created the current conflict, and led to a number of dangerous situations where crosswalks have been improperly removed.  The traffic authority needs to find a way to involve the community in its decision-making process regarding placement of marked crosswalks.  This way we can all ensure that safety is being put first.

Crosswalk Safety: Part 2: Taking Charge

I woke to the sad news this morning that yet another pedestrian was killed in an accident in a marked crosswalk last night.  It's another reminder of why better education and enforcement is needed.

In my last blog post, I talked about some of the other recent crosswalk accidents in Halifax, some of the legal responsibilities of drivers and pedestrians, and made a few suggestion as to what could be done to improve crosswalk safety from a legal standpoint.

In this post, I talk about the government officials in charge of crosswalks.  They have been back in the news due to the recent decision by the traffic authority to remove a number of marked crosswalks in the HRM.   The removals, and the lack of notice to the public prior to removal, have resulted in a backlash in the community.  This raises questions about who is responsible for crosswalks, and how they make their decisions.

Why are marked crosswalks important?

As stated in my last post, the Motor Vehicle Act ("MVA") provides for both marked and unmarked crosswalks, and provides that basically every intersection has a crosswalk, whether it is marked or not. 

There is some debate over whether marked crosswalks improve pedestrian safety.  A controversial 1972 study suggested that marked crosswalks actually increased the likelihood of accidents.    However, a more recent study suggests that while marked crosswalks alone may not improve safety, when combined with better engineering, enforcement, education and other improvements, they can enhance safety.  They can also assist in channeling pedestrians to safer crossing locations.

Personally, I can say from experience that while most drivers will stop for pedestrians at a marked crosswalk, far fewer stop for pedestrians at unmarked crosswalks.  Thus, marked crosswalks are essential in providing safe and convenient places for pedestrians to cross the road.

Who is in charge of creating marked crosswalks?

Under section 90 of the MVA, the "traffic authority" has the power to establish crosswalks with markings and other devices at intersections "where, in his opinion, there is a particular danger to pedestrians ... and at such other places as he may deem necessary."  In other words, the traffic authority has broad and pretty much unfettered discretion as to where to establish marked or signalled crosswalks, although danger to pedestrians appears to be the overriding concern.  

Who is the traffic authority and who does he report to?

While there is both a municipal and a provincial traffic authority, under s. 86 of the MVA, it is the municipal traffic authority who has primary responsibility for most roads in the HRM.  Regional council appoints a municipal official as the municipal traffic authority, in this case Ken Reashor, who is also HRM Director of Transportation and Public Works.  The regional council also has the power to remove him (implied by s. 18 of the Interpretation Act).

However, the provincial Minister of Transportation has the power to remove the municipal traffic authority and appoint a replacement if it appears to the Minister that the traffic authority is not carrying out it's duties.   

The fact that different levels of government can appoint and remove the traffic authority creates slightly convoluted lines of authority for the traffic authority, described in more detail here.  This has created confusion about who the traffic authority reports to, to the point where I have had regional councillors assure me (with honest belief, but incorrectly it seems) that the HRM traffic authority is actually accountable to the Province, not to regional council.

The traffic authority is supposedly meant to enforce the MVA without "political interference" from regional council.  However, as mentioned above, the traffic authority has broad discretion in some areas, including crosswalks.  This combination of broad authority, lack of political interference and unclear lines of authority means the traffic authority has a great deal of power with very little accountability to the community he serves.

In this case, The Minister of Transportation, Maurice Smith, has made clear that he considers decisions regarding crosswalks to be a municipal matter and will not interfere.  However, MLA and former councillor Andrew Younger makes the point that the province is certainly able to amend the MVA to create a process that allows for more citizen input.  I would point out that the province could also amend the MVA to limit the traffic authority's discretion, and make clearer what factors he should consider in deciding where to place crosswalks.  I would argue it would also be open for regional council to set guidelines, factors to consider or criteria for the traffic authority to apply when appointing the traffic authority. 

How does the traffic authority make decisions about where to place marked crosswalks?

Residents have been critical of the decision to remove crosswalks without community input, and without regard to the needs of the community, notably in neighbourhoods with many children or seniors.  In response to the criticism, Ken Reashor, the traffic authority, suggested that decisions regarding placement of crosswalks is based on "what is safe", and not political pressure.  Indeed, safety is the only consideration the MVA requires him to consider. The authority claims he is only having crosswalks removed where they fail to meet the national standards of the Transportation Association of Canada: 20 crossings per peak hour.

The application of this standard is the result of the 2007 final report of the crosswalk safety task force, which recommended that municipalities should use a consistent approach in the installation of crosswalks "based on technical merit".  The task force also recommended that existing crosswalks be re-assessed when roads are re-furbished, and that "where existing marked crosswalks are not warranted, they must be removed due to potential safety hazards".

Obviously safety is not the only consideration.  In an interview, the HRM's deputy traffic authority, Taso Koutroulakis talks about the removals, and makes clear that not delaying vehicle traffic is an important consideration as well.

While it is possible he was selectively quoted, I notice that nowhere does Mr. Koutroulakis mention the importance of pedestrian traffic flow.  Nor does he mention the large inconvenience that may result to pedestrians by having to walk farther to crosswalks, which may prove to be an obstacle for people with mobility issues, not to mention children and seniors.  While marked crosswalks should not necessarily be placed too close to intersections, they also shouldn't be placed too far apart.

The application of the standard raises some questions about how and when crossing are being measured.  How often are HRM staff going out to take measurements, and are they catching peak crossing times, which vary from location to location?

It also raises a more fundamental question about the appropriateness of the standards themselves.  As this article by a recovering engineer suggests, standards reflect the priorities of traffic engineers, and may not reflect the priorities of the community.  Standards like the one being applied here are guidelines that are meant to enable us to achieve our priorities.  It's important we discuss those priorities, what relative weighting they be given, and not mistake the standards themselves for priorities. If 20 crossings per hour becomes the goal, instead of safety, convenience, and so forth, then we have misplaced our priorities.

It's also a reminder that traffic engineering is more art than science.  More than almost any branch of engineering, it requires engineers to make decisions based on assumptions about human behaviour, rather than scientific properties and principles.  Human behaviour is inherently unpredictable, and the law of unintended consequences applies.  We should constantly be reviewing our standards to make sure they are actually promoting the kind of safe behaviours we desire.

Where does that leave us?

I'd close with a few recommendations.  First of all, I think the lines of authority for the traffic authority need to be clarified.  Regional council needs to be given the power to remove the traffic authority as well as to appoint.  Second, either province or the council needs to set some clearer criteria or guidelines around how the authority's power over crosswalks should be exercised.  While the decision should not be political, elected representatives should be able to identify the community's priorities, and make sure those are taken into account in how the authority makes decisions.  Third, when removals are being made, notice should be given to the community, and an opportunity to present reasons why the crosswalk should be maintained.  Fourth, where crosswalks are deemed to be unsafe, enhancing safety through signals and other engineering measures should be considered instead of just removal.  Finally, as I stated in my last post, better education and enforcement is needed to make all crosswalks, marked and unmarked, safer for all users of the road.

Crosswalk Safety: Part 1: When Everyone's Responsible, No-One's Responsible

Crosswalk safety has been back in the news  recently for a couple of reasons.  First, the last year in Halifax has seen a number of accidents involving pedestrians that have resulted in serious injury and even death.  A few examples include:

• In December 2011, one night saw three seperate vehicle pedestrian crashes which resulted in one fatality.  The driver in that case was charged for failing to yield.
• May 2012 a pedestrian was struck in a hit and run. 
• June 2012, a 60 year old man was killed in crosswalk in Albro Lake.  The driver was ticketed for failure to yield.  The community has since expressed concern about the safety of this crosswalk, which to date has not been addressed.
• In September 2012, A pedestrian struck in a crosswalk on Pleasant Street in Dartmouth later died of his injuries.  It was the second incident in that crosswalk that month.  The driver was ticketed for failure to yield.
• In October 2012, a senior was struck crossing the road in Lower Sackville.  The driver was not charged as the man was not at a crosswalk.
• On November 14, 2012, pedestrians were injured in two separate car/pedestrian collisions.  In both cases, the driver was charged with failure to yield.
• On November 21, 2012,  another pedestrian was killed in a collision in a marked crosswalk. 
• And on December 18/19, 2012, three pedestrians were struck in a 24 hour period in marked crosswalks.

The second reason crosswalk safety has been in the news is the recent decision by the Traffic Authority to remove a number of marked crosswalks in the HRM.  (I will address this in more detail in my next blog post.)

Although the two are not directly connected, they do seem to illustrate a larger disconnect between decisions regarding crosswalks and the on-the-ground reality that drivers and pedestrians are facing.  We are repeatedly told that crosswalk safety is everyone's responsibility: drivers, pedestrians and all users of the road alike.  Yet at the end of the day, who is really responsible?

What is a crosswalk?

A crosswalk is defined in section 2(h) of the Motor Vehicle Act (the "MVA") as: "that portion of a roadway ordinarily included within the prolongation or connection of curb lines and property lines at intersections or any other portion of a roadway clearly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface".  In other words, crosswalks can be marked or unmarked.  And since most intersections in HRM have some gap between curb and property lines, and its not possible to tell where there is one, it is safe to assume that basically every intersection is a crosswalk whether it is marked or not.  

An intersection is anyplace where two roads (be they highways, alleys, or anything in between) join each other at an angle, whether or not one highway crosses the other.   So this applies at T-junctions as well as four (or more) way intersections.

Who has to stop for whom at crosswalks?

The MVA has a number of rules around crosswalks, including at intersections with traffic signals (see s. 93).  Section 125 of the MVA deals with intersections where there are no traffic signals, and states "the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian lawfully within a crosswalk or stopped facing a crosswalk".  In other words, as a driver, you are not only expected to stop for pedestrians already in a crosswalk, but also where a pedestrian is stopped and waiting to cross.  Remember, that responsibility applies whether at a marked crosswalk, or at any intersection without signals.

This section of the MVA goes on to place some responsibility on pedestrians as well, stating that "A pedestrian shall not leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so closely approaching that it is impractical for the driver of the vehicle to stop."  So as a pedestrian, while cars should be stopping for you at crosswalks, that doesn't mean you should be running out in front of them.  The section goes on to say that at crosswalks with pedestrian beacons, the pedestrian shall not leave the curb until the beacon is activated, and that a pedestrian crossing a road other than in a crosswalk has to yield to vehicles.  The Act also provides that none of the above relieves either drivers or pedestrians from exercising "due care".  

What are the penalties?

Failure to obey this section of the MVA can have very serious consequences for both drivers and pedestrians, including a fine of $687.41 on conviction.  Of course failure to obey these laws often results in serious injury or death for the pedestrian, regardless of who is at fault.  As such, it is incumbent on both pedestrians and drivers to be extremely careful at crosswalks, whether marked or unmarked.  

So what's the problem?

In spite of the penalties and the obviously serious consequences, the number of serious accidents above would suggest that many Haligonians (pedestrians and drivers alike) are not taking crosswalk safety seriously enough.  

I use many crosswalks daily, and while most drivers are respectful of marked crosswalks, more days than not I see someone ignore a marked crosswalk altogether.  Most of the accidents described above took place at marked crosswalks.  Further, most drivers seem to be completely unfamiliar with the obligation to stop at an unmarked crosswalk.  Not infrequently, I also see pedestrians entering crosswalks in an unsafe manner.  

Better public education is needed to clarify the rules of crosswalks.  In particular, people need to be made clear on the fact that every intersection is a crosswalk, and that drivers do need to yield to pedestrians, whether they are in the road, or waiting to cross.  However, pedestrians need to be reminded that having the right of way does not mean they should enter the road in an unsafe manner, and they should not be doing so where it is impractical for a driver to stop.

One could also argue that stiffer penalties might be needed.  While a $650 ticket seems like a hefty price for a moment's inattention, it remains a relatively small price compared to a human life, which is often the cost of inattention.

However, laws are only effective if enforced, and I think there has been a lack of attention to enforcement of crosswalk rules.   We should not have to wait for someone to get hit in order for someone to be ticketed, and if someone is hit, other charges beyond failure to yield should be seriously considered.  At the end of the day, clear rules, properly and consistently enforced, are the only way to make the roads safe for all users.

(In my next post, I will talk about the government's role in crosswalk safety, and in particular, the recent decision by the traffic authority to remove several crosswalks in the HRM.)