Safety Through Knowledge

[XLFD]

Near the end of a recent Ludington Public Safety Committee meeting, the following issue was brought up by City Manager Mitch Foster and bantered about by the committee; as recorded in the minutes of that committee meeting in the final section:

"Mitch stated that he would like to propose a new ordinance that would require cars to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalks.  Although people think it’s a state law, Mitch reported it is not. The Committee was in favor of doing something to slow down traffic particularly along Ludington Avenue. This may require temporary signage, etc. but will need to be approved by MDOT as both Ludington Avenue and James Street are state trunk lines.  This ordinance would allow the police department to enforce yielding at crosswalks for pedestrians. Mitch will continue to work on this with Police Chief Kozal."

                How did the LPD cite a driver in 2012 for failing to yield to a pedestrian w/o a state law or local ordinance?

It should be noted that the meeting was an in-person meeting taking place at city hall with the following city officials in attendance, the first three being the committee's voting members:  Councilors Dave Bourgette, Les Johnson, and Kathy Winczewski, Mayor Steve Miller, Foster, Chief Kozal, DPW Supervisor Joe Stickney, and the recording secretary, Assistant City Manager Jackie Steckel.  Each member would have a city-supplied notebook computer and internet access from city hall.

Foster's statement that there wasn't any state law requiring cars to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks is true to a point.  It is not codified in the compiled state laws.  He and all of those other safety-oriented officials present failed to realize, however, that yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks is already part of the city code and that it would be redundant to make another law that may contradict the existing law.  

Why didn't the city manager or his assistant, the police chief, the DPW supervisor, or the three councilors specialized in the realm of public safety know that this was already the rule in Ludington?  Perhaps because it is not explicitly found in the city code, but it's not hard to figure out that it does apply.   

Back in the year 2004, the city council incorporated both the Michigan Vehicle Code (MVC) and the Uniform Traffic Code (UTC) by reference.  This allowed the City and it's police to adopt all of the sections of both codes without explicitly listing all the laws therein.  The MVC is a vast collection of laws made by state legislators to govern vehicles and traffic, while the UTC is a supplementary compilation of rules made specifically for municipalities.  Its adoption is found in section 58 of the city code:

It is not hard to find Michigan's UTC on the internet.  A little research into the sections finds the rule governing yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks, violation of which is a civil infraction.  

This means, of course, that Ludington already has in place an 'ordinance' that addresses the problem of drivers who do not respect the rights of pedestrians in crosswalks.  Another ordinance created would be unnecessary and potentially in conflict with existing law. 

It's distressing to note that eight city officials supposedly proficient in the area of public safety would not be aware of the existing laws pertaining to yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks.  I would encourage all officials in attendance at these public safety meetings and all Ludington police officers to read the UTC, as its best rules actually protect the safety of pedestrians and other vulnerable users of the roadway much better than the MVC does.  

[Freedom Seeker]

The "city" gang did a huge disservice to itself when they blocked you from city hall in a "safety" workplace scheme, and further shot their phalanges when "they" schemed to remove your political signs while running for Councilor. The biggest disservice was to gang up for years in secret meetings in person and at city council meetings to publicly ridicule you, carried out by the COP and CM and other councilors in council meetings.  You stood alone and came back. 

How these in service now do not know the pedestrian laws? Imo, they just dont have the capacity to research like you can.

The good thing now is that it seems the new city manager is not completely arrogant, will listen to you, and otherwise acts in listening to citizens in general.

[AQUAMAN]

Well said again FS, thank you for the input on this forum regularly.

[Freedom Seeker]

Likewise, Aquaman!  I always look for your down-to-earth and  honest comments, meaningful with lifelong history of Ludington.

[XLFD]

Freedom Seeker, thanks for remembering those personal travails, the difficulties presented in those times, and the resiliency within myself that I never really knew I possessed until I got bent every which way.  

This issue presented above regarding whether yielding to pedestrians is a law or not underscores my theme over this last Labor Day weekend of the T-intersection at the end of Ludington Avenue.  These same eight officials and more (not including Councilor Serna) all thought that the intersection was safe enough to add a new hazard without repairing the glaring hazard of having stop signs misplaced.  Rather than listen to the guy who would gladly show them what the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices says about the mandates for such an intersection, they have completely ignored that problem.  

If they are too irresponsible not to comply with safety protocols, it should come to no surprise that they don't even know that Ludington traffic laws protect the pedestrians in crosswalks already.  And no surprise that their mobile stop sign and mobile crosswalk envisioned for that area with tacit approval would only make matters more dangerous. 

[Freedom Seeker]

I just hope they listen.  As Teddy Roosevelt said, "Character in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike."  Keep up the good fight, X.