Other than the military personnel who are armed to the teeth with coffee and junkfood from Dunkin Donuts, I rarely see significant foot traffic near the Legislative Office Building. Mostly, people drive to the parking garage and enter the building through the pedestrian entrance, never needing to come into contact with sunlight. Yet, there are large, well-marked warnings painted on the driveway, warning motorists to slow down. There are stop signs posted in places that make them more noticeable. There are even neon yellow signs telling motorists to stop for pedestrians — the signs are posted right in the crosswalks. I do appreciate this, as I use the area as a safer passage to downtown, given that the alternative of continuing along Capitol Avenue means having to cross the I-84 on/off ramp. Even with the stoplights all working and with the pedestrian walk signal on, the cars do not stop. Last week I saw a noticeably pregnant woman pushing a stroller across and the cars were not even obeying the law for her. It seems strange that few such safety features exist along a major street, but within a parking lot, traffic is managed quite well.

Sunday morning, when I read about the volunteer crossing guard who was threatened with arrest for keeping children safe, my heart sank. I read the article a few more times, trying to find a hidden clue that would make this story make sense. In a nutshell, a grandfather, who happens to be a disabled Vietnam Vet, decided to contribute to society by helping children safely get across the street to the Achievement First Academy in the Blue Hills neighborhood. He began this back in September. He had been honored by the school in the school newsletter and by being given a vest and stop sign. That sounds like his actions had been more than merely approved of by those he was interacting with directly.

Why threaten a man with arrest for helping society? The article explains:

Jay Mihalko, the school’s dean of students, also intervened when a few parents complained about what Vail was doing or got into disagreements with him.

Little imagination is needed to read between the lines on this one. Who would be angry about what a crossing guard was doing? My guess, from what I have witnessed in several school zones, is that self-centered people who are either in a rush, completely apathetic about safety, or both, got annoyed because someone dared to tell them (or signal to them) to change their reckless behavior. I have heard that on a street near me, the crossing guard at one end is a bit lax, and sometimes will not argue with drivers to not enter (it becomes a one-way street during arrival and departure hours); they are greeted by a guard down the block who is more hardcore about following rules, who will refuse to let them continue on the wrong way. Again, it takes little imagination to hear the whining that must have been going on to trigger an intervention by the law. It probably sounds something like this: “There’s this rude man who made me stop. I was already late for work/hair appointment/going to the gym and he had no right to hold me up like that. None of the other guards do this. I want him fired.” Throw a few expletives in. If it were not a weak school official and weak police department caving in to the bullying by a group of loudmouthed parents, then what cause existed? The article indicates that Raymond Vail, the unpaid crossing guard, had been previously applauded for his efforts by the school and the police. Why so fickle?

Here are my observations:

  • school crossing guards risk their lives
  • some have gotten hit by vehicles
  • some have saved children’s lives
  • some are on their cell phones or preoccupied in other ways, not helping kids cross the street
  • a caring grandfather volunteers his time as a crossing guard. since he’s under no obligation to be there, it is safe to assume that he is doing this out of love, not financial necessity.
  • someone who serving our community is punished for doing so
  • the police have time to threaten a volunteer with arrest
  • the police have been notably unresponsive to actual crimes and quality of life issues
  • case in point: not long after the shiny new noise ordinance was unveiled, we had to make a complaint about a neighbor’s brain-melting music wafting from their car which they were using as an outside boombox. Between noon and midnight, the police were called five or six times. The music only stopped in the early morning after the neighbors began to pass out. Others in the neighborhood had called to complain. One officer came out, early into this. The music dipped (still too loud per the ordinance) and then went right back up to bone-shattering volume once the cop had rolled along. No tickets issued. Nothing.
  • residents around various elementary schools have been complaining about the dangerous streets. Crosswalk stripes are often faded or non-existent. School zone signs are covered in graffiti or faded. Motorists speed through school zones and sometimes drive the wrong way down the street.
  • the area by the State Armory and Legislative Office Building, where most pedestrians are adults, contains an almost excessive amount of signage. The crosswalks are clearly marked. The speed limit is a reasonable 10 mph. A parking lot is given more consideration for safety features than most city streets are.

    • Are lawmakers’ lives more valuable than children’s lives? Are frantic parents with the inability to manage their time and leave early for work/whatever more important than enforcing common sense rules? Will we let our fear of lawsuits interfere with our will to do what is right?

    Suggestion: leave Vail alone. Use law enforcement to go after people who are creating clear safety hazards, like those who speed through school zones, ride dirtbikes down sidewalks, and fail to stop at red lights.