Dear Councilmembers and City Staff
Three questions to test whether the current criteria capture the highest
risk:
1) When sidewalks are missing, and people must walk in the roadway, where
is that risk scored?
On segments like College Ave, pedestrians, seniors, and cyclists are
routinely in the lane. If that condition receives no points, should those
streets be deprioritized—even when exposure is constant?
2) Does the 85th-percentile metric capture the drivers who determine injury
severity?
By design, it excludes the fastest 15%. Yet those outliers dominate
outcomes.
- 25 mph ≈ ~100 ft stopping distance
- 35 mph ≈ ~160 ft — about 60% more
When a person is already in the lane, is it reasonable to rely on a
metric that filters out the highest-risk speeds?
3) Once the City is aware that pedestrians are forced into the travel lane,
is that a known dangerous condition that requires a timely response?
If so, shouldn’t the criteria recognize that condition and allow a
quick-build remedy before a collision occurs?
If the answer to any of these is “yes,” two targeted adjustments follow:
- Add a Pedestrian-in-Roadway Exposure factor, e.g., ≥50% sidewalk gaps
or documented in-lane walking.
- Include a tail-risk check — 95th/max speed — alongside the 85th
percentile.
Given that, a 90-day, no-speed-bump pilot on College Ave (and similar
streets with missing sidewalks) with signs, flexible delineators, painted
walking zones, and before/after data seems like the responsible next step.
Respectfully,
Ken
--
*Ken Kershner | Co-Founder & CEO*
Cell 650-248-9059 | Email k en@triomotors.co
Trio Motors | Menlo Park
