My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - 25F
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2015
>
02/17/2015
>
CORRESPONDENCE - 25F
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/3/2015 3:24:22 PM
Creation date
2/17/2015 4:06:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Agency
Police
Item #
25F
Date
2/17/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA <br />3.) There was an overhead tri -phase signal or a marked crosswalk with sufficient street <br />signage: this assumes that streets are 100% safe if there is a traffic signal and well -marked <br />crosswalk. Crossing guards provide an extra layer of protection often needed to signal to drivers <br />that children are crossing the street. <br />4.) The collision data involving pedestrians at most locations was relatively low, or the <br />data did not support collisions were occurring during school hours: the lack of collisions <br />does not mean a collision will never occur, and mischaracterizes the role of a crossing guard in <br />ensuring safety. Also, many collisions with pedestrians and people biking go unreported if there <br />is not a serious injury. <br />5.) Some crossing guards interviewed indicated pedestrian traffic was minimal: the lack of <br />demand at a particular intersection should not in itself disqualify it from having a crossing guard. <br />There should be other factors considered where traffic is minimal, especially the safety of the <br />surrounding neighborhood, socioeconomic status of the students, etc. <br />6.) Children were crossing major streets to attend school despite the fact there was <br />another school in closer proximity or in the same residential tract: the presence of <br />schoolchildren at these busy intersections suggests that crossing guards are needed to protect <br />their safety, even if there are schools closer to where they live and theoretically there are safer <br />streets they could cross to get there. <br />We acknowledge school budget issues necessitate cuts to certain programs, and this was not <br />an easy decision to make. But the elimination of almost half (46.3%) of the existing crossing <br />guards is a significant cut, and sets a bad precedent when future cuts are necessary. It also has <br />the potential of creating more physical harm than fiscal savings in the event an accident takes <br />place. We urge the City of Santa Ana to reconsider its decision and revise its analysis to <br />address equity issues and our other concerns. <br />Further Reading: <br />Adult Crossing Guard Guidelines: http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/crossing guard/ <br />California Adult Crossing Guard Guidelines: http://www.casaferoutestoschool.org/wp- <br />content/uploads/2014/04/CA-School-Crossing-Guard-Training-Guidelines april-14.pdf <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.