The use of "QUOTATION MARKS" on the first paragraph, by CHPD's Chief Russo, is all a reader needs to know about what is wrong with our city's safety culture . Take note, it is important, because downplaying the intent of the installation of "bicycle lanes" reflects the values of the speaker holds towards that group of people. Safety after all, has never been about telling people to be hyper-aware, wearing bright clothing, or installing bike lanes, roundabouts, crosswalks, or speed-bumps. No! Safety is a way of thinking- a culture. It demands from civic leaders to share a greater level of responsibility for the dangerous conditions their policies creates; and to constantly fix any deficiencies.
Therefore, it is regrettable to learn that Chief Russo and our city at large does not possess a valid safety culture. Instead, they are forced to resort to shifting blame to the legislative body for their lack of awareness. When Chief Russo states that the bill "received limited scrutiny before its passage." he is blaming others rather than taking responsibility. Further, by doing so, he is also attempting to frame the problem as something that suddenly sprung on May 7th of this year. This is a false narrative. Chief Russo, as well as the city planning department (Mike Johnson), Public works & Engineering (Matt Shipp), and electeds (former and current members of the council) have been made aware repeatedly about serious safety and implementation concerns of traffic safety measures. To claim otherwise, and find fault on the consequences to their poorly thought-out policies as "unintended consequences," serves only as an admission of how poorly our city has been willing to understand the true purpose of placing bike lanes in city streets, while all along ignoring their constituents' valid concerns. In short, the conflict between parking and bike lane has been a long standing issue that was engineered by the city - not caused suddenly by a new state law.
Understanding the Legal Intent
Chief Russo and the city's sudden interest to further investigate the "legislative intent" rather than enforcing the law is not only naive, it is dangerous. Their response to this issue implies that the city is unwilling to reflect on their past behavior and instead defy state requirements. An effort that stems from their unwillingness to review current city policies and attempt to disentangle roadway conflicts. Conflicts that have created the conditions conducive to potential serious injuries or death.
What we, as residents, should be discussing is the level of risk we want to impose on ourselves and our neighbors?
This is a question about community values - not a about best practices or to be delegated to a data-driven process. As a city we are free to argue and decide if we want to grow into an extremely dangerous but highly efficient car-centric community, or; choose to live in a safe community where kids of all ages are free to walk and bike to a friend's house without the fear of death looming every time they step on the road. Only after we decide what kind of community we want to become can City Staff (Planners, Engineers, and Public Safety) begin to weigh-in and implement appropriate traffic systems that impose restrictions and inconveniences to the general public in order to protect public safety.
How does this process work?
Example
Thee chart above is sourced from the Federal Highway Administration's Safe System Approach and its purpose is to illustrate the level of risk that vehicular speed presents to all users. The red line represents a level of risk of 10% (one in ten crashes will result in a fatality or serious injury) while the three wavy lines represents three common types of user conflict typical of our city streets. Residents (You and I) through our elected officials designate what is the appropriate level of risk is. We get to select where the red line should be for our city (10%, 20% 40% 60%) It is only after we settle where that red line is, that engineers, planners, and public safety officers (like Chief Russo) may begin implementing the necessary design changes (sidewalks, bike lanes, and crosswalks) to separate vulnerable users (pedestrians & cyclists) from cars traveling at speeds above the "safe speed" or restrict the speed of cars below the red line (Enforcement).
"Our goal is to
explore best practices and advocate for a revision to the
law in a future
session."
~ Chief Russo
Setting Goals without a Vision
Can the Chief of Police set policy "goals" that determine what is safe or not? No.
For the same reason City Council members are not allowed to interfere with administrative work, administrators (Public Staff) must not allowed to interfere with legislative decisions.
Goal setting by public staff should be of great concern to any law-abiding resident of Cottonwood Heights since it demonstrates a willingness from Chief Russo to overstep his role and imposing his values on our community. His comment was not particularly comforting either, since he is implying that the city is willing to continue to operate with blatant disregard to state law and would rather spend the public's time and money to advocate and lobby the State Legislature into changing a perfectly sensible law (bike lanes are reserved for cyclists) than doing their job.
*In addition, it has been communicated to me, through reliable sources at the State Legislature, that contrary to Chief Russo assertion, Cottonwood Heights is the ONLY MUNICIPALITY in the state that has raised concerns to the Legislature with regards to this law.
Conclusion
It would be to the benefit of our city if someone may suggest to Chief Russo to try a different approach. He would best serve our great community by huddle up with the rest of city staff to find the force of character that would allow them to accept their shared responsibility rather than publicly vent his dissatisfaction. He might also become a better leader if he would recommit our city to do their best job even when faced with increasing constraints. And reduce waste of public resources and increase efficiency by redesigning the city he serves with foresight. Lastly, our city should be humbly asking from their city residents to provide them with a long-term vision- a General Plan - that defines the kind of city we all want to live in, and then employ their expertise to find creative and legal solutions that accommodate our needs; to live in a safe, healthy, and prosperous community.
Create Your Own Website With Webador