BMTS Article Digest

March - April 2018

BMTS Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee Members: The following is a compilation of articles that may be of interest to BMTS Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee

members. This and past digests can also be accessed in the Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee page of

www.bmtsonline.com. Scott

CenterLines is the bi-weekly electronic news bulletin of the National Center for Bicycling & Walking. CenterLines is our

way of quickly delivering news and information you can use to create more walkable and bicycle-friendly communities.

Go to www.BCWalks.com!

Check out these websites for Bike & Pedestrian Information!

https://www.facebook.com/coexistnys/ and https://www.youtube.com/user/CoexistNYS or www.capitalcoexist.org

In particular, view the interactive educational video clips.

Take a look at the National Center for Bicycling & Walking's newsletter, CenterLines . You can also arrange to have it emailed directly to you.

See http://www.bikewalk.org/newsletter.ph p .

for

Multiple people killed in pedestrian bridge collapse at university in Miami

By Dakin Andone, CNN

Updated 2:50 PM ET, Thu March 15, 2018

(CNN) Multiple people have died as a result of a pedestrian bridge collapse at Florida International University in Miami, according to a spokesman with the Florida Highway Patrol.

Multiple agencies have responded to the scene.

Lt. Alejandro Camacho, the Florida Highway Patrol spokesman, said "five to six vehicles" were crushed

underneath the bridge. A spokeswoman with Miami-Dade Fire Rescue told CNN there were multiple

injuries.

The bridge was just installed Saturday. According to a fact sheet about the bridge on FIU's website, it cost

$14.2 million to build and was funded as part of a $19.4 million grant from the US Department of

Transportation.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott is being briefed on the incident by the Miami-Dade County Police Chief Juan

Perez, according to a schedule released by his office.

Street design implications of autonomous

vehicles RYAN SNYDER MAR. 12, 2018

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) will likely be one of the most transformative and disruptive technologies ever

introduced. The technology brings the potential to make great progress in the following areas:

Providing greater access Addressing transportation equity issues Reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs) Reducing congestion and travel time Reducing the cost of travel Creating public space Improving safety Making our communities healthier and more livable.

At the same time, AV technology could also exacerbate congestion, cause suburbs to sprawl farther out,

increase GHGs, exacerbate inequities, and make communities less livable. Which of these seemingly

contradictory outcomes comes to pass will depend on public policies that are put into place. With so much at

stake, we need to prepare for this future.

Issues surrounding AV technology transcend many facets of society. They will impact not just transportation,

but also land use planning, economic welfare, health, livability, environmental sustainability, as well as other

realms. This paper focuses on how AVs will affect street design.

AVs will likely impact street design in at least the following ways:

Street cross-sections and public space Infrastructure Adjacent land uses Curb management.

This paper will examine each of these.

Street cross-sections and public space

AVs offer the possibility of freeing up a significant amount of space for higher and better public uses by

reducing the number of travel lanes, reducing the amount of on-street parking, reducing the widths of some

travel lanes and with bi-directional lanes.

Road diets

Research shows that when all vehicles are fully automated, capacity on freeways will roughly double.1While we

may not expect the exact same results on surface streets, the concept applies. This leaves open the possibility to

design many more “road diets,” where we can reduce the number of travel lanes for vehicles and use the space

for other purposes. Typically, transportation planners use 20,000 vehicles per day (Average daily traffic – ADT)

as a threshold for taking a four-lane street down to two lanes, usually with a center-turn lane. At this volume,

two lanes provide sufficient capacity. Four lanes provide enough capacity for up to around 40,000 ADT. This is

approximately the threshold for reducing six-lane streets to four. Of course, new urbanists are willing to push

these numbers higher to design road diets, making the case that the trade-off is worth it. Since AVs will safely

space themselves much closer together than human driven vehicles, and can even “connect” and form platoons,

they won’t likely need the same number of lanes that human-driven vehicles do. The threshold for designing

road diets by taking four-lane streets down to two-lane streets without impacting capacity may jump to 35,000

or 40,000 ADT. Similarly, the threshold for taking six-lane streets down to four lanes, may rise to 50,000 or

60,000 ADT. Many of our streets could become candidates for road diets.

Moreover, many AV enthusiasts believe and hope that AVs will bring attractive opportunities for most people

to give up private ownership of autos in favor of Transportation as a Service (TaaS). They also promote the idea

of trips to be shared as much as possible, like Uber Pool and Lyft Line, or in public buses. With pricing, time

advantages, and locational advantages for shared rides, maximizing sharing is central to realizing many of the

potential AV benefits. One of those benefits could be reducing the number of vehicles on our streets, further

opening opportunities for road diets.

Reducing the amount of on-street parking

Driverless options offered by Lyft, Uber and many others will become significantly more economical than

owning a car. On average, our cars are parked 95 percent of the time, so they are only in use 5 percent of the

time.2 With TaaS vehicles running on-demand 24 hours per day, their utilization rates will be much higher.

RethinkX projects that TaaS vehicles might operate 40 percent of the time.3 As people give up car ownership

for TaaS, much less parking will be needed. While the demand for on-street curb pick-up and drop-off will

grow significantly, on-street parking can be eliminated in many places, freeing up this space for other public

uses.

Reducing lane widths

As AVs will be better able to stay in lanes, those without full-size passenger buses or trucks could be reduced to

8 or 9 feet in width. This allows us to capture more space for repurposing. These lanes are also more pedestrian

friendly, as they are easier to cross.

Bi-directional lanes

Some residential streets and those with low traffic volumes may use lanes that enable cars to travel in either

direction as needed. One of the key features of AVs will be Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication so that

vehicles will talk to each other and coordinate movements. Today we use bi-directional center-turn lanes that

could be used as bi-directional travel lanes. Narrow, low-volume “yield” streets also have bi-directional lanes

currently. This concept opens up more possibilities for yet more road diets and narrow, pedestrian-friendly side-

streets.

Image source: Ryan Snyder

All of these provide the opportunity for cities to use a significant amount of public space for repurposing to

higher and better uses. On major city streets this space might be used for:

Bus lanes Protected or improved bike lanes

Wider sidewalks Street furniture Street vending Public art Fountains Streetscape and landscape Outdoor dining Jogging paths Playgrounds Other

Commercial street, before and after transformation using leftover space. Image source: Ryan Snyder

On smaller or residential streets we might be able to bring street widths down to 16-20 feet, or even as low as 8

feet where traffic is light. Many streets that have 40 feet or so of width today could see:

Wider sidewalks More landscaping Larger front yards Neighborhood gardens Outdoor picnicking Jogging paths Children’s play yards Street furniture Other

With all of this re-purposed land, we can create more social space, which is badly missing in many

communities.

Infrastructure

Well-maintained streets will be the most important infrastructure needed for AVs. Smooth pavement, well-

marked lane lines, well-maintained signs and well-defined curbs provide easy readability for AVs. Funding

needs will likely shift from new transportation infrastructure to maintenance.

Second, while AVs under development today are trained to operate in existing streets, we will maximize their

utility when we take full advantage of vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) capabilities. V2I enables vehicles to

communicate with traffic signals, transmitters, and even central computers. This communication will make AV

travel even safer. It opens up other opportunities as well:

Cities might want to prioritize the movement of certain vehicles like public buses or emergency vehicles. With what I call “lane clearance” technology, we can move non-preferred get vehicles out of the lane when a bus or fire truck approaches, then allow them back in the lane when the bus or fire truck has passed. This is like having a “virtual bus lane” without needing a full-time dedicated lane. This advantage might also be given to other high-occupancy shared vehicles.

Image source: Ryan Snyder

A central computer can maximize the flow of traffic. Once we’ve given up control of the steering wheel, we might as well let the computer pick the best route.

Computers can program streets by time of day. Perhaps a street will function as a four-lane street during peak periods, and as a two-lane street during off-peak hours. Streets can be shut down for farmer’s markets, art shows, 10k races, cyclovias or other uses as decided upon by the city or neighborhood. Some neighborhood streets may be off limits during the evenings to delivery vehicles, or low-occupancy vehicles.

Computers can program speeds. While many people complain about cars speeding through neighborhood streets, the computer can set the speed at 15 mph, for example. Or we could allow public buses to travel at 35 mph on major streets, and limit single-occupant vehicles to 25 mph.

In the long run as AV technology becomes more advanced, traffic signals may not be needed and intersections may function like virtual roundabouts. With other virtual infrastructure, we may not need striped lanes, or even bike lanes as the vehicles become reliably able to avoid hitting other vehicles and bicyclists. This remains to be seen and would be further in the future.

V2I needs communications technology along streets. This can be placed on lampposts, on traffic signals, or

affixed to other features along the street.

Third, as many more vehicles run on electricity, we will need recharging stations. Some of these could be

placed at strategic locations along our streets.

Adjacent land uses

The experience of using our streets depends much on adjacent land uses. As many surface parking lots become

unneeded, they will be replaced by other land uses. Today’s surface parking could become a large reservoir of

land for affordable housing. It could become open space or park space. Many other land uses will be provide a

better street experience than parking lots.

Some of the worst land uses for street experience may be significantly reduced. Many gasoline stations, auto

body shops and auto repair shops will likely transform to other land uses.

As more people use TaaS, driveways may be replaced with landscaping or buildings. This will enhance the

experience of pedestrians, joggers, and bicyclists as they have fewer driveways to cross.

Curb management

As significant numbers of people switch from auto ownership to TaaS, demand for pick-up and drop-off along

streets will grow. Managing curb space will present new challenges for cities. This may be relatively simple in

low-density neighborhoods. But, what happens when thousands of employees working in downtowns with 30-

story buildings all leave work between 5 and 6 pm and all need to be picked up going different directions?

Cities will need to price curb space, and prioritize curb space for buses, higher-occupancy vehicles, and for

people with disabilities in these locations.

Public policy

AVs will bring enormous opportunities to alleviate many problems, and to improve our lives. They also bring

enormous potential to induce travel and to exacerbate many problems. The difference will be in how we shape

outcomes with public policy. The key to AVs bringing a bright future, instead of an auto-centric dystopia, rests

in the degree that we encourage shared rides in TaaS vehicles and that we electrify these vehicles. Some AV

enthusiasts refer to this as the “Three Revolutions – Automated, Shared, Electric.”

Designing our streets in an AV future depends heavily on these three revolutions taking place. Many of the

possibilities described in this paper rely on this. Without public policy that ensures that automated vehicles are

shared and electric, we will be left with auto-clogged streets that are unhealthy to be near, undesirable to travel

along, and wanting for public uses. With well-conceived public policy, we can bring life, health, safety, beauty

and fun to our streets.

1.Steven Shladover, Dongyan Su, and Xiao-Yun Lu, “Impacts of Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control on Freeway Traffic

Flow,” Conference Paper, Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board, January 2012.

2.Don Shoup, The High Cost of Free Parking

3.James Arbib and Tony Seba, “Rethinking Transportation 2020-2030,” RethinkX, 2017.

TECHNOLOGY

Self-Driving Uber Car Kills Pedestrian in Arizona, Where Robots Roam

By DAISUKE WAKABAYASHI

MARCH 19, 2018

A woman crossing Mill Avenue at its intersection

with Curry Road in Tempe, Ariz., on Monday. A

pedestrian was struck and killed by a self-driving

Uber vehicle at the intersection a night

earlier.Credit Caitlin O'Hara for The New York

Times

SAN FRANCISCO — Arizona officials saw opportunity when Uber and other companies began testing driverless cars a few years ago. Promising to keep oversight light, they invited the companies to test their robotic vehicles on the state’s roads.

Then on Sunday night, an autonomous car operated by Uber — and with an

emergency backup driver behind the wheel — struck and killed a woman on a street in Tempe, Ariz. It was believed to be the first pedestrian death associated with self-driving technology. The company quickly suspended testing in Tempe as well as in Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto.

The accident was a reminder that self-driving technology is still in the experimental stage, and governments are still trying to figure out how to regulate it.

Uber, Waymo and a long list of tech companies and automakers have begun to expand testing of their self-driving vehicles in cities around the country. The companies say the cars will be safer than regular cars simply because they take easily distracted humans out of the driving equation. But the technology is still only about a decade old, and just now starting to experience the unpredictable situations that drivers can face.

It was not yet clear if the crash in Arizona will lead other companies or state regulators to slow the rollout of self-driving vehicles on public roads.

Much of the testing of autonomous cars has taken place in a piecemeal regulatory environment. Some states, like Arizona, have taken a lenient approach to regulation. Arizona officials wanted to lure companies working on self-driving technology out of neighboring California, where regulators had been less receptive.

But regulators in California and elsewhere have become more accommodating lately. In April, California is expected to follow Arizona’s lead and allow companies to test cars without a person in the driver’s seat.

Federal policymakers have also considered a lighter touch. A Senate bill, if passed, would free autonomous-car makers from some existing safety standards and pre-empt states from creating their own vehicle safety laws. Similar legislation has been passed in the House. The Senate version has passed a committee vote but hasn’t reached a full floor vote.

“This tragic incident makes clear that autonomous vehicle technology has a long way to go before it is truly safe for the passengers, pedestrians, and drivers who share America’s roads,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut.

The Uber car, a Volvo XC90 sport utility vehicle outfitted with the company’s sensing system, was in autonomous mode with a human safety driver at the wheel but carrying no passengers when it struck Elaine Herzberg, a 49-year-old woman, on Sunday around 10 p.m.

Sgt. Ronald Elcock, a Tempe police spokesman, said during a news conference that a preliminary investigation showed that the vehicle was moving around 40 miles per hour when it struck Ms. Herzberg, who was walking with her bicycle on the street. He said it did not appear as though the car had slowed down before impact and that the Uber safety driver had shown no signs of impairment. The weather was clear and dry.

Uber said it would work with the police.

“Our hearts go out to the victim’s family,” an Uber spokeswoman, Sarah Abboud, said in a statement. “We are fully cooperating with local authorities in their investigation of this incident.”

Tempe, with its dry weather and wide roads, was considered an ideal place to test autonomous vehicles. In 2015, Arizona officials declared the state a regulation-free zone in order to attract testing operations from companies like Uber, Waymo and Lyft.

“We needed our message to Uber, Lyft and other entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley to be that Arizona was open to new ideas,” Doug Ducey, Arizona’s governor, said in an interview in June 2017.

Using an executive order, Mr. Ducey opened the state to testing of autonomous vehicles that had safety drivers at the wheel, ready to take over in an emergency. He updated that mandate earlier this month to allow testing of unmanned self-driving cars, noting that a “business-friendly and low regulatory environment” had helped the state’s economy.

Even when an Uber self-driving car and another vehicle collided in Tempe in March 2017, city police and Mr. Ducey said that extra safety regulations weren’t necessary; the other driver was at fault, not the self-driving vehicle.

But on Monday, Mark Mitchell, Tempe’s mayor, called Uber’s decision to suspend autonomous vehicle testing a “responsible step” and cautioned people from drawing conclusions prematurely. Daniel Scarpinato, a spokesman for Mr. Ducey, said the updated order from the governor “provides enhanced enforcement measures and clarity on responsibility in these accidents.”

In California, where testing without a backup driver was just weeks away from being permitted, Jessica Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Motor Vehicles, said officials were in the process of gathering more information about the Tempe crash. Waymo, Lyft and Cruise, an autonomous vehicle company owned by General Motors, did not respond to requests for comment.

In a news release, the National Transportation Safety Board said it was sending a team of four investigators to examine “the vehicle’s interaction with the environment, other vehicles and vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and bicyclists.”

A self-driving Uber car at the scene of a fatal accident

in Tempe, Ariz. Credit ABC-15, via Associated Press

Since late last year, Waymo, the self-driving car unit of Google’s parent company Alphabet, has been using cars without a human in the driver’s seat to pick up and drop off passengers in Arizona.

Most testing of driverless cars occurs with a safety driver in the front seat who is available to take over if something goes wrong. It can be challenging, however, to take control of a fast-moving vehicle.

California requires companies to report the number of instances when human drivers are forced to take over for the autonomous vehicle, called “disengagements.”

Between December 2016 and November 2017, Waymo’s self-driving cars drove about 350,000 miles and human drivers retook the wheel 63 times — an average of about 5,600 miles between every disengagement. Uber has not been testing its self-driving cars long enough in California to be required to release its disengagement numbers.

Researchers working on autonomous technology have struggled with how to teach the systems to adjust for unpredictable human driving or behavior. Still, most researchers believe self-driving cars will ultimately be more safe than their human counterparts.

In 2016, 37,461 people died in traffic-related accidents in the United States, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That amounts to 1.18 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in 2016.

Waymo, which has been testing autonomous vehicles on public roads since 2009 when it was Google’s self-driving car project, has said its cars have driven more than 5 million miles while Uber’s cars have covered 3 million miles.

In 2016, a man driving his Tesla using Autopilot, the car company’s self-driving feature, died on a state highway in Florida when his car crashed into a tractor-trailer that was crossing the road. Federal regulators later ruled there were no defects in the system to cause the accident.

But the crash in Tempe will draw attention among the general public to self-driving cars, said Michael Bennett, an associate research professor at Arizona State University who has been looking into how people respond to driverless cars and artificial intelligence.

“We’ve imagined an event like this as a huge inflection point for the technology and the companies advocating for it,” he said. “They’re going to have to do a lot to prove that the technology is safe.”

Press and Sun-Bulletin | Page A10

Thursday, 22 March 2018

Can self-driving cars withstand first fatality? Tom Krisher

ASSOCIATED PRESS

DETROIT – The deadly collision between an Uber autonomous vehicle and a pedestrian near Phoenix is bringing calls for tougher self-driving regulations, but advocates for a hands-off approach say big changes aren’t needed.

Police in Tempe, Arizona, say the female pedestrian walked in front of the Uber SUV in the dark of night, and neither the automated system nor the human backup driver stopped in time. Local authorities haven’t determined fault.

Current federal regulations have few requirements specifically for self-driving vehicles, leaving it for states to handle. Many, such as Arizona, Nevada and Michigan, cede key decisions to companies as they compete for investment that will come with the technology.

No matter whether police find Uber or the pedestrian at fault in the Sunday crash, many federal and state officials say their regulations are sufficient to keep people safe while allowing the potentially life-saving technology to grow. Others, however, argue the regulations don’t go far enough.

“I don’t think we need to jump to conclusions and make changes to our business,” said Michigan state Sen. Jim Ananich, the minority leader. He and other Democrats joined Republicans to pass a bill last year that doesn’t require human backup drivers and allows companies wide latitude to conduct tests.

Ananich called the death of 49-yearold Elaine Herzberg a tragedy and said companies need to continue refining their systems. “I want that work to happen here, because we have a 100-year history of making the best cars on the planet,” he said. “It’s not perfect by any means, and we are just going to have to keep working until it is.”

Proponents of light regulations, including the Trump administration’s Transportation Department, say the technology could reduce the 40,000 traffic deaths that happen annually in the U.S. The government says 94 percent of crashes are caused by human error that automated systems can reduce because they don’t get drunk, sleepy or inattentive.

U.S. Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, chairman of a House subcommittee that passed an autonomous vehicle bill, said the measure has sufficient provisions to ensure the cars operate safely. It requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop safety standards and allows the agency update outdated regulations. It also prohibits states from regulating autonomous driving systems to avoid a patchwork of rules, Latta said. The bill has passed the House. The Senate is considering a similar measure.

About 6,000 pedestrians were killed last year in crashes that involved cars driven by humans, he said. “What we want to do is see that stop or try to get it preventable,” he said.

But safety advocates and others say companies are moving too quickly, and they fear others will die as road testing finds gaps that automated systems can’t handle.

Jason Levine, executive director for the nonprofit Center for Auto Safety, said without proper regulations, more crashes will happen. “There’s no guardrails on the technology, when it’s being tested, without any sense of how safe it is before you put it on the road,” he said.

Others say that the laser and radar sensors on the SUV involved in the Tempe accident should have spotted Herzberg in the darkness and braked or swerved to avoid her. Development should be slowed, with standards set for how far sensors must see and how quickly vehicles should react, they said.

Sam Abuelsamid, an analyst for Navigant Research, expects the Arizona crash to slow research. “Responsible companies will take this opportunity to go back and look at their test procedures,” he said.Toyota already is taking a step back, pausing its fully autonomous testing with human backups for a few days to let drivers process the Arizona crash and “help them do their jobs with less concern,” the company said. The company says it constantly refines its procedures.

Without standards for software coding quality and cybersecurity, there will be more deaths as autonomous vehicles are tested on public roads, said Lee McKnight, associate professor of information studies at Syracuse University.

“We can say eventually they’ll learn not to kill us,” McKnight said. “In the meantime they will be killing more people.”

Contributing: Reporters Mike Householder, Michael Liedtke, Felicia Fonseca and Alice Yin

Experts say self-driving Uber should've spotted pedestrian in deadly crash

March 22, 2018

Fox News

About two seconds pass before the vehicle hits Herzberg at approximately 40 mph, with no obvious signs that it applied its brakes. A shot from a camera focused on the driver shows her with her hands off the steering wheel and looking down and away from the road just before the impact, again with no clear indication that the brakes were used.

"The victim did not come out of nowhere. She's moving on a dark road, but it's an open road, so Lidar and radar should have detected and classified her" as a human, Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law professor who studies autonomous vehicles told the Associated Press.

Smith said the video may not show the complete picture, but "this is strongly suggestive of multiple failures of Uber and its system, its automated system, and its safety driver."

Sam Abuelsmaid, an analyst for Navigant Research who also follows autonomous vehicles, said laser and radar systems can see in the dark much better than humans or cameras and that Herzberg was well within the range.

"It absolutely should have been able to pick her up," he said. "From what I see in the video it sure looks like the car is at fault, not the pedestrian."

Smith said that from what he observed on the video, the Uber driver appears to be relying too much on the self-driving system by not looking up at the road.

"The safety driver is clearly relying on the fact that the car is driving itself. It's the old adage that if everyone is responsible no one is responsible," Smith said. "This is everything gone wrong that these systems, if responsibly implemented, are supposed to prevent."

The experts were unsure if the test vehicle was equipped with a video monitor that the backup driver may have been viewing.

Uber immediately suspended all road-testing of such autos in the Phoenix area, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Toronto. The National Transportation Safety Board, which makes recommendations for preventing crashes, is investigating the crash.

An Uber spokeswoman, reached Wednesday night by email, did not answer specific questions about the video or the expert observations.

"The video is disturbing and heartbreaking to watch, and our thoughts continue to be with Elaine's loved ones. Our cars remain grounded, and we're assisting local, state and federal authorities in any way we can," the company said in a statement.

Tempe police have identified the driver as 44-year-old Rafael Vasquez. Court records show someone with the same name and birthdate as Vasquez spent more than four years in prison for two felony convictions — for making false statements when obtaining unemployment benefits and attempted armed robbery — before starting work as an Uber driver.

Tempe police and the National Transportation Safety Board declined to say whether the Vasquez who was involved in the fatal crash is the same Vasquez who has two criminal convictions.

Attempts by the AP to contact Vasquez through phone numbers and social media on Wednesday afternoon weren't successful.

Local media have identified the driver as Rafaela Vasquez. Authorities would not explain the discrepancy.

The fatality has raised questions about whether Uber is doing enough to screen its drivers.

Uber said Vasquez met the company's vetting requirements.

The company bans drivers who are convicted of violent crimes or any felony within the past seven years — which Vasquez would have passed given that records show the offenses occurred in 1999 and 2000.

The company's website lists its pre-screening policies for drivers that spell out what drivers can and cannot have on their record to work for Uber.

Their driving history can't have any DUI or drug-related driving offenses within the past seven years, for instance. They also can't have more than three non-fatal accidents or moving violations within the past three years.

YOUNG GIRL INJURED WHEN HIT BY CAR IN ENDWELL

BOB JOSEPH (WNBF Radio) March 19, 2018

Authorities say an 11-year-old Endwell girl was hurt when she was struck by a vehicle while walking

with her parents near their home.

The incident happened around 6:15 p.m. Saturday near the intersection of Hooper Road and Pheasant

Lane.

The Broome County Sheriff's Office was assisted by New York State Police at the scene.

Investigators say the girl had crossed Hooper Road with one parent and suddenly darted back across

the busy street toward another parent.

The child was struck when she ran into the path of a vehicle traveling north on Hooper Road. She

sustained leg and arm injuries.

The girl was transported by a Union Volunteer Emergency Squad Ambulance to Wilson Medical

Center in Johnson City where she was treated and released.

Authorities say the driver of the vehicle - 23-year-old Jordan McGinnis of Endwell - was not at fault

and no traffic tickets were issued.

Driver turning onto Endicott street struck and killed 85-year-old woman, sheriff

says Anthony Borrell

Published 9:56 a.m. ET March 20, 2018 | Updated 9:57 a.m. ET March 20, 2018

An 85-year-old Endicott woman died after being struck by a car last week while crossing the street. No tickets were

issued to the driver, Broome County Sheriff's deputies said.

Antoinette Wenner was crossing Nebraska Avenue just north of the East Main Street intersection March 10 around

10:19 p.m., when she was struck by a vehicle turning onto Nebraska Avenue.

The sheriff's office Accident Reconstruction Unit and detective division were called to the scene.

Wenner died of her injuries March 11 at UHS Wilson Medical Center in Johnson City, deputies said.

The driver, Angela Lamonica, 30, of Vestal has not been ticketed. Deputies said they are still investigating the

crash.

WELL | FAMILY

Utah Passes ‘Free-Range’ Parenting Law

By DONNA DE LA CRUZ

MARCH 29, 2018

Lenore Skenazy, shown in 2009 with her son Izzy, then 11,

is considered the founder of the free-range parenting

movement.

Credit Tina Fineberg for The New York Times

It is not a crime for parents to let their children play unsupervised in a park or walk home from school alone under a law signed by Utah’s governor last week.

The law, which reflects a movement known as free-range parenting, goes into effect on May 8 and is the first of its kind in the nation. But its backers say lawmakers in several other states are considering introducing similar bills.

“The fact that we need legislation for what was once considered common sense parenting a generation ago and is considered normal in every other country in the world is what surprises me,” said Danielle Meitiv, the Silver Spring, Md., mother who made national headlines three years ago after she and her husband were charged with child neglect for letting their two children, ages 6 and 10, walk home from a park by themselves. “I’m glad Utah has put these protections in place after what I discovered when I tried to parent the way I was parented.”

State Senator Lincoln Fillmore, who introduced the Utah bill in January, said he was motivated by situations like Ms. Meitiv’s. The bill specifies what constitutes child neglect in the state, and what does not. Under the law, neglect does not include “permitting a child, whose basic needs are met and who is of sufficient age and maturity to avoid harm or unreasonable risk of harm, to engage in independent activities” such as going to and from school by walking, running or bicycling, going to nearby stores or recreational facilities and playing outside.

“The statutory definition of neglect in Utah was broad enough that anyone could say a child playing alone in a park was being neglected,” said Senator Fillmore, a Republican. “Neglect should not mean letting your kids play by themselves in the park or walk home from school alone.”

State Representative Brad Daw, the bill’s House sponsor, said he views the law as an “anti-nuisance” measure.

“The law says that you can’t just call authorities if you see a child playing alone in the park. It frees up authorities from investigating these nuisance calls while allowing them to focus on children who are actually being neglected,” Mr. Daw said.

In brief comments to the House Health and Human Services Committee, Diane Moore, executive director of the Utah Division of Child and Family Services, praised the legislation, saying, “we agree that kids should be kids and parents should be parents.”

Lenore Skenazy, the former New York Daily News columnist who is credited with starting the free-range parenting movement, has been advocating for such a law for four years. Ms. Skenazy was called “America’s

worst mom” after writing a column 10 years ago about why she let her 9-year-old son ride the New York City subway by himself.

“No one should have to second-guess their decision if they feel their kids are safe, the neighborhood is safe,” she said.

In the case of Ms. Meitiv and her husband, they were cleared of the charges, and she is now running for public office, seeking the county council at-large seat in Montgomery County, Md.

“It was a complete shock that I was in the situation where I had to fight back against my local government who were literally interfering with what I thought was best for my children,” Ms. Meitiv said.

Connor Boyack, president of the Libertas Institute in Utah, who worked with Senator Fillmore on the Utah bill, said his organization, a libertarian-leaning think tank that works on state policy issues including parental rights, is pushing for similar bills in other states next year. Mr. Boyack said a bill is set to be introduced in Idaho in 2019, and Libertas has reached out to officials in Arizona, Colorado and Texas.

In New York, Phillip Steck, a state assemblyman, said he was considering introducing a similar bill but needed to do further research.

Although similar legislation failed last year in Arkansas, free-range parenting advocates say the issue is embraced by many across the political spectrum.

“It appeals to conservatives who value the sanctity of family and keeping the government out of their lives, and for liberals, it means giving their children freedom to be kids,” Ms. Skenazy said.

Mica Hauley of Lehi, Utah, a mother of five children ranging in age from 3 months to 9 years, said she supports the law because she believes it encourages children to learn how to be self-sufficient and think for themselves.

“I can now make the decisions that are best for my children and not live in fear I am being judged and could be arrested,” Mrs. Hauley said. “I trust that my kids can walk a short distance home from school. I may be looking out the window for them and praying for angels to be at their sides but I have to give them the freedom that will make them confident and independent adults.”