Spokane7
55°
January 31, 2012 in City
Patrols emphasize crosswalk awareness
Recent crashes, 1 fatal, involved pedestrians
Crashes that hurt one man and killed another in Spokane last weekend occurred as local authorities are working to emphasize pedestrian safety to motorists.
Emphasis patrols today and next month in Cheney are part of an ongoing effort in Spokane County to reduce the number of pedestrians injured or killed by motorists each year.
A Cheney police officer in regular clothes will walk within crosswalks several times near First and D streets between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. Three other patrols are scheduled for different areas of the city next month.
“We use it as an educational opportunity to make sure people really are being careful,” said Kim Papich, spokeswoman for the Spokane Regional Heath District, which sponsors the grant-funded patrols. “In Spokane, we have a big problem with failure to yield.”
Other law enforcement agencies in Spokane County conduct occasional emphasis patrols through a $200,000 grant from the Spokane Regional Transportation Council.
Pedestrians have the right of way at all intersections in Spokane, including those with no crosswalks.
A ticket for failing to yield to a pedestrian in Spokane County is $124. Pedestrians who don’t use marked or unmarked crosswalks can be fined $56.
But police say two motorists arrested on felony charges this weekend did more than just fail to yield the right of way.
Officers believe Hannah Kay Hahn, 21, and Candice Louise Wilson, 30, were intoxicated when they struck pedestrians in separate incidents Saturday.
A third drunken crash occurred as police were investigating Wilson’s crash: A drunken driver sideswiped Spokane police Officer Paul Taylor’s patrol car near Wall Street and Buckeye Avenue. Taylor avoided injury, but the crash damaged a door of the patrol car, he said. The motorist was arrested for drunken driving and hit-and-run.
Wilson, who has no criminal history, was released from jail after appearing in Superior Court on a vehicular assault charge.
Hahn left jail on bond over the weekend on a vehicular assault charge, but she now faces a vehicular homicide charge because the man she allegedly struck with her SUV, Dennis Burgess, 47, died from injuries suffered in the crash. Hahn also faces a charge of felony hit-and-run because she left the scene of the crash at Market Street and Providence Avenue, Taylor said. Hahn failed to show up for a Monday court appearance.
The Spokane Regional Heath District said about 20 pedestrians and bicyclists are struck each month in Spokane. Of the 997 pedestrian and bicyclist collisions that occurred in Spokane County between 2006 and 2009, 3 percent resulted in death, while 11 percent resulted in serious injury. Sometimes those crashes result in only a ticket for failure to yield to a pedestrian. But if police suspect the driver was intoxicated, driving recklessly or driving with a flagrant disregard for safety, felony charges can apply.
Deputies suspected that was the case when they stopped Hahn about 2:17 a.m. Saturday as she sped in an SUV north on Market near Hawthorne Road. Hahn told deputies she thought she hit someone with her car. Deputies found “some small bottles of alcohol” on her and say she smelled of intoxicants, according to court documents. The SUV’s windshield was broken and its front end and hood were damaged.
Police found Burgess unconscious in the street near Providence and Market with severe head trauma. He was pronounced dead at a hospital. Family said Burgess was a father of three and worked as a carpenter and landscaper.
Hospital staff obtained a blood sample from Hahn, but the results are not yet known.
Also on Saturday, about 9:42 p.m., a pedestrian was crossing Buckeye at Wall while southbound at or near a crosswalk when he was struck by a car driven by Wilson, police say. Wilson stayed at the scene, and police say she admitted to having “a drink” when she finished work about 5:30 p.m. Her blood-alcohol level registered at 0.149 percent during a Breathalyzer test, according to court documents.
The pedestrian, identified in documents as a man with the last name Donelson, suffered bleeding on his brain and remained hospitalized Monday.
Two home-invasion robberies reported 
polistra on January 31 at 4:34 a.m.
“Awareness” won’t matter. The whole point of owning an SUV is to hear that delightful Thump-Thump sound when a Loser passes under your Herrenvolk SS-500 Steel Radials.
lewis8457 on January 31 at 5:15 a.m.
i think it might help if the police stop for people in crosswalks too. i have had several incidents where i thought a cop car was going to stop to let me across but he just kept right on rolling.
Jim9876 on January 31 at 5:21 a.m.
I have had many close calls. When that happens I do not know if the driver is drunk, but many of them are talking on cell phones. On dark winter evenings it is a good idea to wear a light-colored coat to help drivers see you. If you want to buy a winter coat in some color other than black, good luck in finding one.
larry_b on January 31 at 6:38 a.m.
Simple fix, CHANGE THE LAW! I remember growing up it was look both ways before crossing, then look again. The pedestrian should take responsibility for their actions. Cars cant think!
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on January 31 at 7:38 a.m.
Seems like an issue of education to me. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that when all of us 40+ year-olds learned about looking both ways before crossing the street, that it was part of some safety-awareness campaign — I remember getting told that rule over & over again in school by different teachers the principal, and crossing guards, not just my parents. Maybe we then grew up thinking that “everybody” somehow automatically knows this since we grew up knowing it. Just a thought.
Still, though — if you’ve ever gone out walking at night, you know how incredibly bright headlights seem. You feel like you’re in a spotlight and you must be lit up like in one of those prison-escape movies with the searchlights… so it may not occur to pedestrians that they’re hard to see. But if you’ve ever driven at night, you know how people can be practically invisible even when you’re straining to see if someone is there. Sometimes the only giveaway is the little reflective stripes on a pair of sneakers. Sometimes it’s not even that, it’s just a sense that the darkness ahead is being blocked by something even darker.
Now of course there’s the risk that people might not only be fiddling with the radio, which takes your eyes off the road for a second or two, but playing with their electronic gizmos. From what I’ve observed of other drivers, people doing that while driving spend most of their time with their eyes down, and glance up at the road for a second once in awhile. It’s frightening.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on January 31 at 7:40 a.m.
^ larry_b : cars can’t think; their drivers are supposed to be doing that.
avocet on January 31 at 8:10 a.m.
The law DOES need to be changed. How did the “pedestrians have the right of way at any intersection” come about in the first place, the self-esteem school of parenting? Another old fogey chiming in with “back when I was a kid we waited for traffic to clear before crossing.” Simple physics and common sense should dictate that pedestrians yield to vehicles, not the other way around.
Try driving down Third near Lewis and Clark around 11 a.m. when the kids are out for lunch. They dart out mid-block, against red lights, etc. and EXPECT drivers to screech to a halt for them. These silly “emphasis patrols” are only making the problem worse, not better.
larry_b on January 31 at 8:12 a.m.
@bruce, therefore the irony of my statement….
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on January 31 at 8:25 a.m.
^ oh, OK. Wasn’t expecting such sophisticated use of language here… :-p
tomnsahl on January 31 at 9:09 a.m.
Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way all the time … please learn and follow the law - drivers AND pedestrians! Pay close attention to the 2nd paragraph - as it applies to students around all schools (LC & Gonzaga U are still the worst offenders)
RCW 46.61.235 Crosswalks.
<> The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section “half of the roadway” means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway.
<> No pedestrian or bicycle shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or otherwise move into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to stop.
<> Whenever any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass such stopped vehicle.
Good job to the SR, SRHD and law enforcement for highlighting how important it is to SHARE THE ROAD.
monkeyman on January 31 at 10:29 a.m.
I was wondering if there is any relation of these two incidents to the sidewalk conditions due to ice/snow.
I haven’t seen any mention of it in the news, but first hand I could see that many sidewalks were non-usable in the past weeks. Even if they only have a few inches of snow/ice, some people may find it easier to walk on the road itself. Also, specially on the intersections perhaps the sidewalks get more snow accumulated, which could limit access points while crossing the road.
Shelala on January 31 at 10:55 a.m.
My heart goes out to the victims of these needless incidents and their families. Pedestrians are never a match for an inattentive or impaired driver behind the wheel, regardless of who has the right of way. I understand why the drivers are being charged, but why wasn’t the SPD officer who struck and killed a man with his patrol car at the crosswalk on Monroe Street while texting also charged? Hard to send a message with such exceptions.
de3 on January 31 at 3:05 p.m.
I just re-read this article again. The root cause problem is drunk driving which all of these drivers are alleged to have been doing.
An emphasis “pedestrian patrol” should not be the focus since drunks still won’t stop for pedestrians at night. The problem is drunk drivers.
Slightlyworried on January 31 at 4:09 p.m.
“Of the 997 pedestrian and bicyclist collisions that occurred in Spokane County between 2006 and 2009, 3 percent resulted in death”
While 100% of those struck by police cars died. And 0% of the police officers who killed pedestrians while sending text messages have been disciplined.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/jun/29/officers-text-message-ruled-a-factor-in/
misjustice on January 31 at 5:50 p.m.
Maybe these emphasis patrols need to ALSO be done at night, after the bars close?
What I don’t understand is WHY folks continue to drive drunk? This town has lots of ways to get home after a night of drinkin’. Have a designated driver, take the bus, call a sober friend to come and get you, or take a cab but for cryin’ out loud DON’T get behind the wheel of your car and drive.
PROFINTOX on February 01 at 9:42 a.m.
@Shelala — I know the case of which you are speaking. I know you will not like the answer, but basically, an officer is legally allowed to “text” in the manner he did (i.e., work-related, though his computer, basically responding like over the radio but in this manner instead). Therefore, the simple fact that he was doing this just prior to the accident cannot be used against him because it is a specific exception to the texting law. I realize that there are other variables in this case such as he was speeding to a small degree and was inattentive (although I am unsure how you cannot be regardless of who you are when not texting) — but I am just addressing why his texting cannot be used to charge him on its face while it can in the case of what we consider the common case of texting that we see civilian drivers doing.
Shelala on February 01 at 12:16 p.m.
@Prof
I understand that it is technically legal for a officer to “text” on duty. Their policy also states they have to do so safely (or words to that effect). It is obvious that Officer Ennis failed to do so and caused the death of a pedestrian. He received no discipline whatsoever.A distracted driver is an unsafe driver whether he is an officer or a member of the public. I understand that their training includes a course in pursuit driving (EVOC), but this course does not bestow superhuman abilities on the attendees or has some super secret tricks of the trade. I know,.Ennis was also slightly speeding, not using emergency lights or siren and it is interesting that the text he claims to have made is no where to be found.Why lawmakers chose to exempt LE in their texting law is unfathomable. They can be an unsafe distracted or impaired driver as anyone else. My heart goes out to all the victims and their families of these distracted or impaired drivers, but the only thing standing between in the young people being criminally charged and Officer Ennis is a badge
PROFINTOX on February 01 at 6:26 p.m.
@Shelala — the issue you and I are discussing is certainly one I do not think is easily resolved and there really is no perfect answer. You are correct in that anyone who texts while driving, LE or “civilian”, must experience a decreased level of attentiveness. And this increases the risk of accident. And while high-speed pursuit, non-use of lights/siren and increase in speed to get to a location may not decrease attentiveness, they too increase the risk of accident. However — if we address this increase in risk by making it illegal for an officer to perform these actions, there can be consequences to that as well. For instance, I am certain people who need fastest response possible would be most displeased (probably even sue given our litigious nature) if officers decided to obey speed limits when getting to a scene that needs that fastest response possible (please — no jokes about the fact that response time can often already be considered a joke — understood). So, there is some Catch-22 at play here as I see it. If the officer is performing increased risk activities in line with his/her job, risk of hurting someone goes up and everything becomes judgment-based as to the level to which to perform such actions. The only time them punishment should then enter the equation would be if the officer was deemed to have invoked such actions when they are unwarranted (and of course that involves judgement to determine that, which can be biased no matter who makes such a determination). I just do not believe there is a perfect answer here; there is a risk anyway to try to resolve this type of issue and there will always be disagreement.