A status message by a friend on Facebook has had me thinking for many weeks now. He wrote:
Ranchi is an amazing city. In my first 30 minutes there, two schoolchildren, one bike rider and a goat tried to kill themselves in front of my car.
I have given this a great deal of thought, and I have had to come to the conclusion that my friend’s language is disingenuous. He speaks as if the schoolchildren and the goat were actually going to commit the act that would result in death, but he’s wrong. When a car hits a pedestrian and the pedestrian dies, the car kills the pedestrian.
By no means does this automatically imply that the driver is at fault. The task of assigning fault is normative, and we as a society devise norms to assign fault when collisions occur. But that does not take anything away from the fact that the car kills the pedestrian. In such cases, the pedestrians themselves possess neither the speed nor the force to maim and kill. Only the motor vehicle has any such ability.
In my friend’s case, I can safely assume that he was not over-speeding, and that he was sufficiently in control of his vehicle. We may also assume that the pedestrians were violating traffic rules at the time. But before we dispose of the matter by placing the blame on the pedestrians, we need to look more closely into the rules themselves. Do they distribute responsibility for safety in a fair manner?
In the Indian context, pedestrians have right of way only at marked crossings but most intersections in India do not have painted crossings. Where zebra crossings exist, the pedestrian’s right-of-way is not enforced. Sometimes cities create “signal-free corridors” so that one could go miles without seeing a pedestrian crossing. Most streets have no sidewalks. In short, pedestrians are left to fend for themselves, and are responsible for their own safety. When motor vehicles bring in the risk of death, why are pedestrians given most of the responsibility of preventing it?
The first motor car arrived at the turn of the 20th century. Almost immediately, traffic deaths started creating an uproar in the cities of America and Europe. Peter Norton gives a detailed account of the politics of traffic management that followed the growth of the automobile industry in the United States. (Here’s my review of Norton’s book) Norton writes that “before the city could be physically reconstructed for the sake of motorists, its streets had to be socially reconstructed as places where automobiles unquestionably belong”. In short, the rules of the game had to be changed in order to make way for automobiles on city streets.
Norton writes about how the automobile lobby promoted rules that favoured motorists. The term “jaywalking” was introduced at this time, and pedestrians who cross mid-block were caricatured as being unsophistacted and boorish. Children were taught in school to cross only at marked crossings, and they were told that they had equal responsibility in preventing accidents.
It occurs to me that such propaganda bears remarkable similarity to the notion of the “white man’s burden” that European colonizers used to justify their tyranny. The caricatures of jaywalking pedestrians correspond to early European prejudices about oriental people. In the meanwhile, streets that were used for several millennia by pedestrians and other street people (street vendors, for instance) were effectively invaded by automobiles. Rules advantageous to the colonizers were then enforced as a way of “civilizing” the “uncivilized”.
My friend’s comment wouldn’t bother me as much, if it wasn’t representative of official government policy in India. For instance, I have previously written that the skywalks in Mumbai’s railway stations were built not to provide safe walking conditions for pedestrians – that is not possible unless there are skywalks on every street – but to make space for motor vehicles on the busiest pedestrian corridors. These skywalks are not convenient for most pedestrians – as convincingly demonstrated by Vig Krishnamurthy of MIT in this report. Studying the Bandra skywalk, he shows that most pedestrians would suffer a time penalty by using the skywalk. As a result, only 32% of the commuters using the Bandra station use the skywalk to access it. Further, it is found that the shorter arm of the skywalk, where no major highway crossing is involved, is used the most.
The latest survey of skywalk usage commissioned by the MMRDA in response to the Chief Minister’s criticism confirms the previous study. MMRDA found that 1.2 million trips were made on the skywalks each day. However, considering that 7 million trips are made in the Mumbai suburban rail system (which would result in 14 million walk trips entering and leaving railway stations), it would be fair to conclude that not one of the 35 skywalks contributes significantly to the safety and comfort of pedestrians.
And yet, MMRDA’s Additional Commissioner Ashwini Bhide told reporters that “the numbers (of pedestrians) were bound to increase as more civic sense prevailed.” In other words, pedestrians, by asserting their right to use streets and by denying motorists speedy passage, are violating their civic duties. “Civilization”, according to Bhide, consists of submitting to demands that pedestrians get out of the way.
The analogy between the tactics adopted by European colonizers and the tactics of motordom can be extended even further. One of the ways by which the colonizers gain power over the colonized is by using divisive tactics. For example, The skywalk lobby led by Ms. Bhide tried to sell the skywalks as an effort to create space in lieu of encroachments by street vendors, thereby pitting street vendors against pedestrians. Street vendors are service-providers and share a strong symbiotic relationship with pedestrians, but many pedestrian advocates fall right into the trap by demanding relocation of street vendors instead. Ashok Datar, ostensibly furthering the cause of pedestrian comfort, argues in favour of a “hawker Plaza to resite existing hawkers in a compulsory manner … thus freeing the valuable road space for traffic purposes”.
Alternatives exist to accommodate the needs of both hawkers and walkers, but they involve taking on the might of motordom. In my post on skywalks, I had suggested that the area around the Mulund station be closed for personal vehicles and space be created at-grade for pedestrians, street vendors, paratransit and buses. Vig Krishnamurthy offers a similar proposal for the Bandra station. These solutions restore the street’s primary function as a public space, while also making sufficient allowances for efficient and safe public transport.
The Indian National Movement fought British colonialism by instilling pride in our common heritage. In the face of motordom’s invasion of Indian streets, street people – pedestrians, street vendors, pavement dwellers, and lovers of gully cricket – need to unite to do the same. A fitting response would be to assert that street people do not need lessons in civilization from people who bring killer machines into our public spaces.
I am a lapsed engineer from 
“It occurs to me that such propaganda bears remarkable similarity to the notion of the “white man’s burden” that European colonizers used to justify their tyranny. The caricatures of jaywalking pedestrians correspond to early European prejudices about oriental people. In the meanwhile, streets that were used for several millennia by pedestrians and other street people (street vendors, for instance) were effectively invaded by automobiles. Rules advantageous to the colonizers were then enforced as a way of “civilizing” the “uncivilized”.”
While I agree with your argument that it’s pedestrians who are inconvenienced the most if a choice is to be made between motorists and pedestrians, I am not sure it’s as clear cut as you argue it to be. Isn’t it easier to divert/maneuvre foot traffic compared to automobiles? Isn’t it also a safety issue where automobiles cannot stop instantaneously like people on foot and hence are expected to stop only where there is a crosswalk/signal?
But some European countries are indulging in reverse discrimination, to continue with your analogy, to correct historic wrongs: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/science/earth/27traffic.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
Very interesting blog, by the way!
Thanks Arvind. I wouldn’t call Europe’s policy reverse discrimination or correction of historic wrongs. All it does is restore the balance between cars and other street users by making it easier to cross streets, giving pedestrians and cyclists more space, and increasing the efficiency of transit. That is not quite reverse discrimination. That said, not everything that makes it easier to drive is bad. For instance, an iPhone app to find available parking not only makes life easier for drivers, but also removes the need for drivers to cruise for parking on the streets.
As for your objections, it is true that it is easier for the traffic police to divert pedestrians than automobiles but it doesn’t follow that it is easier for pedestrians to bear the inconvenience. Automobiles could stop much more quickly if they were going slower, which is why projects made to increase speed invariably end up resulting in injuries and fatalities. Indeed, the NYT article on Europe speaks of the shared streets concept, where there are no dedicated rights of way but everyone is safer because everyone is more careful. Pedestrians get priority but that is exactly how it ought to be.
Yeah, I absolutely loathe to wait to cross the road, as dozens of cars, scooters, autos and buses cross MY way!
Pingback: Taming street-people: India’s grand civilizational project « The Streets of India
Excellent analysis. It is obviously more inconvenient for a pedestrian who (not necessarily but most of the times) cannot afford the comforts of a car to have to take detours and climb skywalks or dark subways. I’m completely dependent on my car since the past few years, and the main reason for that is that our cities are not pedestrian friendly. Of course there’s the additional “safety for women” angle involved.
I’ve never travelled out of India but have heard how cars give right of way to pedestrians at the pedestrian crossings even when their signals show green. I try to do that in areas where it is possible to stop without creating a jam. As a pedestrian, I did believe in my safety being in my own hands, while I see some pedestrians not careful enough.. in that they don’t even look in the direction of traffic. The driver ought to have his/her eye on the road, but the pedestrian also needs to develop eye contact to confirm that the driver can see and is in a position to stop the vehicle.
But we wouldn’t have to think about these things if the state took it’s responsibilities seriously.
I think that some of the duties you force on the pedestrian shouldn’t be his/hers. For instance, developing eye contact is tough when the driver is safely ensconced in his metal box and the pedestrian is out there in the open. And why should the pedestrian _try_ to make himself/herself visible? He is out there, easily capable of being seen. The driver should be anticipating the presence of pedestrians and drive accordingly. Of course, design also matters. Some intersections make the pedestrian invisible to turning vehicles, which is neither party’s fault.
Awesome!
I’m a convert!
Let’s reclaim the streets!!
Here in Goa, try slowing down to let a pedestrian cross (even at a crossing) and you get honking and near-bumper hits. Who cares. We do it anyway.
Came here via Annie’s blog.
“However, considering that 7 million trips are made in the Mumbai suburban rail system (which would result in 14 million walk trips entering and leaving railway stations), it would be fair to conclude that not one of the 35 skywalks contributes significantly to the safety and comfort of pedestrians.”
Really! There are 117 sub urban stations in Mumbai and considering each has at least two exits (except the terminus) there are over 200 exit points. In comparison, Mumbai has 36 skywalks. Skywalks might be inconvenient, but drawing your conclusion that “not one of the skywalks contributes significantly to the safety” from this piece of data, to put it mildly, is a huge leap of faith.
Trains too came after pedestrians and let them also give preference to pedestrians. Why not do away with foot over bridges in railway stations?
Your counter-point is disingenuous. The 30-odd skywalks have been located at the busiest stations, which cater to a large percentage of the trips made by the local train system – I don’t know the exact percentage, but I suspect that at least 70-80% of the 14 million access and egress trips are in the 36 major stations with skywalks. We also have the actual data from the Bandra skywalk, and only 32% of the commuters use the skywalks – most of them who do use it exit at the closest arm of the sidewalk. My analysis of the Mulund proposal that never got built also showed that most people were unlikely to use it. And in any case, I argue that even if they did use it, that wouldn’t quite contribute to their safety and comfort in comparison to efforts to make streets pedestrian-friendly at-grade.
Lastly, one could argue that the burden of proof should be on MMRDA, which built the skywalks. If the skywalks are doing any good, certainly the data does not demonstrate it.
Considering that there are no skywalks at Churchgate, CST, Dadar and Kurla 70 -80% accesses to the 30 odd skywalks seem unlikely to say the least. Moreover, is it fair to assume that all the people who use sub urban railways would come walking to the station?
Regarding usage as a metric of soundness, in Mumbai a large number of people do not use foot over bridges at the station. Does it make foot over bridge a bad idea? No, it is an extremely good idea for the people who understand the risk.
In a city susceptible to floods in Monsoon, isn’t skywalk better than sidewalks?
The burden of proof might be MMRDA’s responsibility, but using 1.2 million footfall “to conclude that not one of the 35 skywalks contributes significantly to the safety and comfort of pedestrians” is untenable. You are using aggregated data (1.2 million users) to pronounce ineffectiveness of individual cases (not one of the skywalks).
You may be right that the 70-80% figure is inflated – I was just guessing a number. (I was under the impression that Kurla was to have a skywalk – I’m not sure if that got built.) But the question is whether the number is closer to 10% rather than 70%, and even if it were somewhere in between (say 40%), you would still conclude that only one in four persons accessing or exiting a train station with a skywalk uses it.
How many people access train stations by walk? I would argue that this is not such a great problem to my analysis because even those who use buses and autos to get to stations generally get down a little ahead of the station and walk – and the notable point is that they choose to walk at-grade rather than climb a skywalk.
Is usage a sound metric? Yes, if you assume that pedestrians make reasoned choices regarding where they walk. If the skywalk adds several minutes to a short trip, that is inconvenient, and people choose not to use it.
I need to disaggregate two arguments I am making here: a) skywalks are inconvenient because they add to the travel time; b) skywalks do not contribute to the safety of pedestrians. Most of the usage data I show is in support of the first argument – that they are inconvenient. The second argument relies on a different set of arguments – pedestrians are safest in busy streets where pedestrian density is high and traffic is slow (such as many streets right in front of train stations in Mumbai). One would build skywalks here only if one is concerned with improving traffic flow and vehicle speed rather than pedestrian safety (the net effect on safety might very well be negative). If one were concerned with safety, one would build foot-overbridges on the major highways of Mumbai, because that is where vehicle speeding is greatest. (I have not kept in touch with Mumbai in recent months, but I recently read a report that a great many pedestrian fatalities in Bangalore happen in the new airport highway where traffic speeds are very high) Finally, if skywalks were the answer to traffic fatalities, one would have replace all sidewalks with skywalks. (You seem to think that this is a good idea, but it would bankrupt the government)
Bombay might have heavy monsoons, but flooding wouldn’t be as bad if we cared about building stormwater drainage systems while also repairing (or creating) footpaths at the same time.
The comparison with railway overbridges is again disingenuous. One needs to be very clear that skywalks are different because they replace sidewalks, not crossings. At the most dangerous crossings (as railway crossings can be), overbridges can be welcome relief. That is not an argument in support of skywalks, because they are not crossings in the traditional sense, nor are they located at the most dangerous places to walk.
A last point: you seem to have caught me at a place where I might be falling victim to the ecological fallacy. Yes, the aggregate statistics by itself tells us nothing about individual skywalks. The report I cite, however, has usage statistics for individual sidewalks. But I didn’t have the numbers of total trips at these particular stations to compare with, so I used aggregate numbers. Technically, I shouldn’t be doing that. I apologize. As a general conclusion for all the 35 skywalks taken together, I think it still holds.