Seven years ago when I was running Calpipe Security Bollards, I struck up a casual friendship with a gentleman who wrote for Penton Media.  Riccardo Davis ended up writing a timely and very informative article about people driving into shopping malls that ran in Retail Traffic Magazine.  The title of the piece was "CURBING THE MALL DRIVE-THRU" and I am pleased that the link from 2007 is still live -- read this excellent article HERE.

That article discussed three incidents in less than a year where someone drove into malls and caused considerable damage inside to stores and merchandise, as well as to the mall structure itself.  The point was made that for anti-terrorist or anti-theft reasons alone, mall owners should make the investment to protect mall entrances -- protecting malls from malicious drivers or clueless drivers would be an added bonus.

Fast forward seven years.  2500 days later.  And drivers are STILL driving through unprotected shopping malls in the United States.  This time, an 83 year-old driver drove right up an ADA ramp, through a front door, and several hundred feet down a main aisle with people and shoppers and stores in front and on both sides.  He finally crashed into a vacant space at the end of the aisle.

Hudson Mall clearly did not anticipate that anyone would ever drive an SUV up the ADA access ramp from the parking lot, or they would have taken simple measures to prevent it.......What confuse me is how could they NOT know how often this happens?  The three malls mentioned in the article were all owned by national mall companies, and the owner of this mall is a very sophisticated real estate investor.  So WHY so much trouble learning simple lessons that others have learned so much better?

Watch this video coverage from NJ.com -- it is proof that these accidents can and will happen here, there, and every where.  And think to yourself -- what if the next driver is not an innocent and confused driver, but an angry, malicious driver intent on harming people?

There were no reports of injuries this time, but damage will be in the many tens of thousands of dollars.  And an 83 year-old may lose his license.  I hope that this time, the lesson that got swept under the rug for seven years will finally take root -- after all, an accident like that could have just as easily sent a dozen people to the hospital.  What investor or shareholder wants to have to deal with that kind of problem when solutions are so simple, so proven, and so inexpensive?

The driver of a Lexus ended up 90 feet inside of a AAA office in Fresno California this afternoon according to the Fresno Bee.  Seven people were injured, and the car traveled 90 feet inside the building before being stopped by a support column.  See the Bee's great reporting from the scene (at photo credit) HERE.

While this is reported to have been a case where the driver had the car in drive instead of reverse, and somehow panicked and pressed the accelerator all the way to the floor, the question still needs to be asked:  how do we know when a car is out of control NOT because of driver inputs, but rather my mechanical or software flaws in the vehicle itself?  Lawsuits are being fought right now, and NHTSA and other federal agencies are hard at work studying the problem.  But for the people trying to understand what happened from media reports, this is a limitation that needs further study.

The Storefront Safety Council is starting a research project on this topic of vehicle failure versus driver error.  We are doing so for a variety of reasons, the most basic of which is that it is important to be accurate about causation in order to be accurate about prevention.  In terms of preventing injuries to people on sidewalks or inside stores, the causation of a vehicle-into-building crash is less important than the means of protecting people and property against errant vehicles in the first place.  Bollards or safety barriers do not care if the vehicle has jumped the curb due to being in the wrong gear, or the driver under the influence, or a mechanical or other failure with the car -- the bollards just stops the crash from happening.  But in terms of understanding what is going on and for policy makers to make best use of information, that information and underlying data needs to be accurate.

Recent high profile accidents that have had these types of issues are many -- our resources are limited but we will do our best to find out what we can and report the results here and on the Storefront Safety Council website.

These pages have mentioned Starbucks any number of times.  Few large chains do so little to protect customers and employees from vehicle incursions -- the record of crashes and injuries and legal claims continues to pile up.  Eventually, action will be taken, but not yet apparently.

While Starbucks is only peripheral to this discussion, I want to call your attention to a recent crash at a Starbucks in Vestavia Hills, Alabama injured three people inside the store.  Nothing unique about the crash, the injuries, or the cause.  What I wanted to point out is that in this case was a very clear photo of the scene which clearly illustrates how useless wheel stops are.  Dangerous, ADA non-compliant, and useless -- why does anyone ever install wheel stops?

Wheel stops do not stop.  No car is stopped by a wheel stop.  If you are a store owner or a restaurant owner or a parking lot owner, if you think you are solving a problem by installing them you are wrong.  First of all, they are ineffective.  Second, they are dangerous and cause more trip and fall claims than anything else in a parking lot.  Third, they act as little launching pads so that if a car hits them at speed, the front of the car is lifted up and onto the sidewalk at a higher speed than if the curb was struck directly.

Thanks to WNCT 9 for their coverage.  See the coverage and additional photos HERE

So Starbucks -- and every other retail and restaurant chain -- please take a look at the facts.  Three people were injured at this store who were completely unprotected by wheel stops.

And it didn't have to be that way.

Dunkin Donuts, you have been on notice for a long time that your store designs and lack of safety barriers put your customers at risk and put employees working inside at risk.  Hundreds of accidents over the years, dozens of injuries documented, tragic fatalities, and still no action.  And now, another preventable accident, another preventable injury, and another failure to take basic safety precaution to prevent a simple vehicle incursion incident from becoming a vehicle-into-building accident.  This latest example occurred in West Bridgewater,
Massachusetts this weekend, when a Toyota jumped a curb and struck a man entering the store.

See the great coverage from Maria Papadopoulos at the West Bridgewater Enterprise HERE.  Scott Eisen gets photo credit for the photo, which in addition to showing how the car jumped the curb and how the pedestrian entering the glass door was completely unprotected, also clearly proves once again that wheel stops do not stop anything.  Dunkin Donuts, stop wasting money on ineffective concrete trip hazards and invest just a little more in an actual steel bollard that meets ASTM specifications!

The Storefront Safety Council has assembled data on more that 7,500 crashes to date and with every month we learn more about the causes of vehicle-into-building accidents and how frequently certain type of businesses are struck.  Month after month, coffee stores and restaurants are among the most often struck -- and month after month, Dunkin Donuts appears on the list, all too often involving injuries to patrons and employees.  For a link to 2012 statistics, click HERE

Dunkin Donuts, you know how often your stores and those of your franchisees are struck.  You cannot pretend that these crashes are rare and unusual.  You are on notice that this situation is a persistent unsafe and hazardous condition and you have chosen to not correct this condition.  Greater liability awards in cases just like this one in West Bridgewater will be the result.  Underwriters and insurance carriers, now you are on notice that higher judgements will result because of the failure on the part of Dunkin Donuts to spend (or specify for franchisees) just a few thousand dollars per store in needed safety equipment.  And plaintiff attorneys, you are also on notice -- plenty of admissible evidence exists that should be included in personal injury claims against Dunkin Donuts.

Yesterday I gave a deposition In a Storefront Crash case from 2012.  It was a tragic crash into a Farmers Insurance office in Renton Washington.  A woman named Kaye Hall, who was the office manager was killed.

The case is in litigation so direct comments by me would not be appropriate.  See the link to press coverage that tells you the basics of the incident HERE.  I was testifying as to the frequency of such crashes, how to prevent them, and other areas of my expertise.

For reference, here is a photo of the scene in 2012:

Fast forward to yesterday.  I was deposed in an office in a business park in Riverside California. The court reporter had arrived first and had seated herself at the end of the long conference table.  She set up her transcription gear, and she asked me what kind of case I would be giving testimony about.  I told her it was a case where a car had driven up to a building to park, but that the driver had mistakenly stepped on the gas instead of the brake, and accelerated over the wheel stop and crashed through the window of an office, killing the woman sitting right inside the window.

I then pointed out the scene directly behind where she was sitting........and that is the ironic part of my deposition.  She felt like a sitting duck the rest of the morning.

In a repeat of numerous similar accidents, a man described in press reports as “an elderly driver” accelerated over a wheel stop, through a decorative railing, and smashed into a group of people sitting in front of a Farrell’s Ice Cream Parlor in Buena Park California.   Killed was 73 year-old Marissa Malin and six others were injured, including Ms. Malin’s granddaughter. Press reports, photographs, and videos from the scene all point to another case of pedal error on the part of the driver, and a tragic case of poor planning and lack of attention on the part of parking lot designers and building owners.

To see excellent video coverage, please see the report from NBC Los Angeles HERE

SIMPLE FAILURES

Let’s clearly identify two failures of the design of this parking area:

First, the ADA accessible parking spots were pointed nose-in to the building, directly in front of benches where customers were invited to sit and wait for their turn to come inside.  The designers of the parking area needed to be aware that nose-in parking is inherently risky, and that combining outdoor customer waiting areas with ADA parking greatly increases the risks due to the frequency of pedal error accidents.

Second, knowing that large numbers of people were going to congregate a few feet in front of cars parking in these spaces, the designers of the parking area failed to offer any meaningful protection for the customers in the event of a driver error.  Photos of the scene clearly show that only a concrete wheel stop and a length of decorative fencing separated vehicles from the benches where customers waited.

Let’s be very clear about wheel stops – wheels stops do NOT stop vehicles.  Period.  If wheel stops actually stopped cars, storefront crashes would be a rare event.  If wheel stops actually stopped cars, pedestrian injuries would be way down and the more than sixty storefront crashes per day would be cut by more than half.  If wheel stops actually stopped cars, Marissa Malin would be alive today and six others would not be recovering from injuries.

Likewise, let’s be clear about decorative fencing.  It is decorative.  It is NOT a safety device, it is a decorative device.  It may have other functions, and it may help to keep customers from wandering out into the parking area, but decorative function gives an illusion of safety because while it provides a visual separation it does not provide any meaningful resistance when struck by a vehicle.  In this case, comments by police and witnesses and photos of the scene clearly show that the length of decorative fencing in front of the parking space simply became a battering ram when the front of the car struck it and propelled it into the customers sitting behind it.

THE ILLUSION OF SAFETY

The use of decorative fencing creates an illusion of safety.  If the purpose is only aesthetic and decorative, that would be one thing – but if this architectural feature is also going to be used to provide safety and security to people and property, then when it is installed it has to be combined with steal structure that will provide actual impact resistance.  In this case, for about $1000 more in building costs, the restaurant owners and the designers of the parking area could have completely prevented this type of accident.  Marissa Malin would not have been struck if ASTM-tested steel posts, properly installed and anchored, had been added when the decorative railing was installed.  Same railing, same look – just two or three added vertical members anchored behind the railing capable of withstanding a very predictable vehicle impact.

The failure in this case was two-fold – pointing cars parking in the ADA accessible parking spaces directly at waiting customers in front of the restaurant, and failing to provide any meaningful barrier between the customers and the vehicles in the event of a pedal error or other driver error.  Since this situation is repeated so frequently, I will repeat the simple solution;  if the owner’s preference or site limitations absolutely require that a given store or restaurant or office building have nose-in parking spaces, it is simple and inexpensive to install any of a variety of different protective devices that will protect customers and employees from a vehicle incursion. 

The parking industry, real estate developers, building owners, and store and restaurant owners are on notice that storefront accidents occur, that these accidents are increasing, and that these accidents are preventable.  Failure to take steps to prevent such accidents will leave owners liable for not protecting customers, pedestrians and employees in the future.

Today I had the chance to go to the Farrell's Ice Cream restaurant in Buena Park California, scene of a fatal accident which I have posted about previously.  My trip was prompted by comments from Farrel's CEO Michael Fleming, which were reported in the Orange County Register.  These remarks seemed misleading and self serving, and I wanted to go and see the situation for myself.

To see the Register's coverage and see the context of Mr. Fleming's remarks, please click HERE.

What caught my attention in the remarks was the idea that customers were unprotected because of some code requirement for ADA compliant parking.  The entire frontage of the restaurant is taken up by five parking spaces, of which four are marked ADA spaces which point directly at the building entrance and seating areas.  Here is a photo taken some time before the accident last Friday night showing the layout -- Ms. Malin was struck and killed at the bench on the far right.

As you can see, all four spaces are pointed directly at the entrance or the outdoor bench seating and waiting area.  The spaces appear to be marked and striped and signed in conformance with California ADA regulations.  There is a wheel stop in front of each of the four signposts.  You can see the decorative fence in the background of the three spaces to the right of the entrance.

The Register attributes the following remarks to Mr. Fleming:

"Fleming said a new law requires that handicapped parking spaces, located directly in front of the restaurant’s front door, be level with the building. During construction, Fleming said, a curb in front of the parking spaces was removed to comply with the law. He believes that, had the curb been there, it may have slowed the car that killed Malin. He also said he’ll be speaking with the city to see what can be done to improve safety at the restaurant."

I have two objections regarding these remarks.

First, they are inaccurate.  I checked with Mr. David Vogel of Parking Design Group about these claims, and his reply was clear:  "Accessible spaces are not required to be level with the front door.  The unloading zones of the accessible spaces need to lead to an accessible path of travel which may include a curb ramp (max. slope of 8.33% with max. 2% cross slope).  This curb ramp cannot be within the accessible space unloading zone but can be located along the accessible path of travel with detectable warning strips.  Curb ramps and detectable warning strips are covered in the Californian Building Code (CBC) Sections 11B406-2 and 11B705."

Second, if Mr. Fleming was concerned about unprotected customers, he should have put crash-resistant bollards or barriers in place to protect them instead of the ineffective wheel stop and flimsy railing that were installed.  Nothing prevented the installation of such barriers in front of the parking spaces to protect waiting customers.  I will say it again;  no ADA requirement, no building code, no architectural guideline of any kind prevented Farrell's, the parking lot designers, the building architects, or Mr. Fleming, from making sure that there was an effective barrier in place to prevent an accident exactly like this one from happening.

How do I know this?  Look again at the photo above.  Look at the entrance of the restaurant on the left side of the photo.  No flimsy little fence there -- the entrance is protected by two sturdy six inch diameter steel bollards filled with concrete.  This clearly marked and ADA compliant accessible space and unloading zone has two steel bollards in front of them, and yet are in full compliance with the "new law" that Mr. Fleming indicated as a contributing factor in the accidental death of Marisa Malin and injuries to six others.

Here is a close-up shot of the two bollards which I took this afternoon during my site visit:

So Farrell's was concerned enough about safety to install bollards at the entrance, but not concerned enough about safety to install them in front of the other ADA spaces which pointed directly at waiting customers outside the restaurant.  Why the entrance and not the outdoor seating area?  I am sure that every litigator in Southern California would like to ask Mr. Fleming that question in a deposition.  What could be the cost difference between the decorative railings installed in the space between the pillars versus the cost of two bollards installed in the space between the pillars?  I would estimate the price difference at less than $1000.  However you put a price on one dead and six injured, I have to believe that $1000 will not begin to cover the tab in anyone's calculation.

One final point:  Mr. Fleming made it very clear that he has heard about storefront crashes such as this accident, and was aware of accidents such as this one happening frequently.  Again, quoting from the Register coverage: 

“This is one of those tragedies I’ve read about over and over again,” Fleming said. “And this time I lived it. It was horrific.”   He said that all Farrell’s locations are flying flags at half-staff in memory of Malin.

I submit two things; 

First, if you feel the need to protect your entrance with steel bollards because of the hazard of a vehicle incursion accident, why would you NOT protect the customer waiting area and benches exposed to exactly the same hazard? 

Second, if you have read about these types of accidents happening over and over again, why would you NOT take basic steps to prevent a needless death at your new restaurant?

This accident will now fade from the news and results of investigations will be released.  I expect that soon the lawsuits will start to be filed.  The case will eventually wind through the courts and liability will be determined and injury claims paid out.  It is so sad -- sad for the Malin family, sad for the families of those injured, sad for the driver and his family, and especially sad because this event was entirely preventable and predictable. 

The restaurant industry is on notice:  pedal error accidents occur every day.  Join the Storefront Safety Council, take a stand for safety, and protect your customers and employees against the known and frequent hazard of vehicle incursion accidents.  This is not rocket science, and this will not cost a fortune.  Safety is the New Green, and safety is good for business.