A recent ITE Connect newsletter issue reported that ITE had signed a letter of support as a member of the Steering Committee on the National Complete Streets Coalition for the Safe Streets Amendment currently being considered by the U.S. Congress.
This raises a concern that I have had relative to the use of the word “safe.” Definitions of safe include out of danger, reliable, involving no risk, giving protection, and incapable of doing harm. There is no street or highway that can satisfy that definition. An incident can occur on any facility no matter what the design.
The problem arises when there is an incident on a “safe” street or “safe route to school.” A plaintiff’s attorney only has to tell the jury that the jurisdiction said the street was safe. The jurisdiction can then only get out its checkbook. This has occurred in several cases in California. In one case, the city had applied for Safe Routes to School funding. The attorney stated that the city knew it was dangerous as they applied for the funding. This was partly the basis for the plaintiff receiving an award in excess of $30 million. Wording of applications can misfire.
The use of “safer” in place of “safe” is a potential solution. I am aware that the use of “safe” is a result of legislative action. My hope is that ITE would recognize the problem and make others and members aware of the concern. While the use of “safe” may be politically correct, we must consider the impact on communities.
Respectfully submitted,
Weston S. Pringle Jr., P.E., PTOE
Honorary Member of ITE
Laguna Niguel, CA, USA