Case Study: Starbucks

When Storefront Safety Council co-founder Rob Reiter did a scan of storefront crashes over the last year (identified via online media accounts), he discovered that Starbucks consistently had the second or third highest number of crashes in the US—trading places with 7-Eleven here and there for the number two and number three spot. (Who was number one? Read to the end for that tidbit!) Here’s a Q&A with Rob on what he found (all Starbucks images sourced from Rob).

Rob: Starbucks recently had four accidents in four weeks around the US. I believe there were more incidents than these four, since we’re only capturing these through online media searches. Also, companies with the largest number of storefronts would be expected to have the largest number of incidents, just as a reflection of the greater number of locations and the greater number of times per day that cars drive into their parking lots and pull into their parking spaces.

Mark: Let’s just look at these four. What can you tell us about them?

Rob: In June, there were crashes in Sheridan, Wyoming, and Milpitas, California; and so far in July there were crashes in Neenah, Wisconsin, and Havertown, Pennsylvania. Two of these crashes resulted in injuries, and all of them were documented in press reports with photos of the scene and damage.

Mark: What happened at each location?

Rob: One was the result of a drunk driver, one was the result of a medical episode, and two were the result of pedal error by the driver. In three of these crashes, vehicles were pointed right at the building while they were parking, with no barrier between the parking spaces and the storefront. All of them impacted the building at or near a point where people would be entering or leaving the store, or standing or sitting enjoying their coffee or tea.

Mark: I remember you contacted the Starbucks media department to get their comment or see if they would connect you with someone for an interview. What was their response?

Rob: I tried twice. The first time was July 2012, after I discovered a media account of an injury crash in the Seattle area. The Seattle Times reported that Starbucks spokesman Jim Olson said the three injured were customers, adding: “We have over 10,000 stores in the US, and it does occur, but it’s very rare.”

Mark: Did Starbucks respond when you reached out that time?

Rob: Yes, with an email that said “timing and availability” prevented them from being able to provide me with an interview. The email did include a statement they said I could attribute to a Starbucks spokesperson.

Mark: What did that statement say?

Rob: Here it is, verbatim: “The safety and security of our customers and partners (employees) is our top priority — and we want every customer to have a positive experience each time they visit one of our stores. In order to provide a safe environment, we have security measures in place and we work closely with local authorities. Whether in our stores or in other public places, we encourage our customers to be aware of their surroundings to help keep themselves and people around them safe. With over 10,000 stores in the United States, these incidents are very rare at our locations.”

Mark: Interesting. Do you agree that these incidents are “rare” from what you’ve seen?

Rob: At each location, yes. But taken as a whole, a company with that many locations around the US is likely experiencing these accidents on an almost daily or at least weekly basis somewhere in the country, based on crash patterns I’ve seen for retail businesses with similarly high numbers of locations, like Dunkin Donuts and 7-Eleven. That doesn’t add up to be “rare” in my book. Witness the four latest Starbucks crashes in four weeks I just listed.

Mark: And the second contact with Starbucks?

Rob: After the Milpitas crash, a Starbucks regional manager told KGO-TV that this was the fourth car to crash into one of the stores in Milpitas and Fremont in the past three years. When I contacted Starbucks following that media account, and again requested an interview, I got a brief apologetically-phrased reply thanking me for “reaching out to the Starbucks press line” and saying, as before, time and availability prevented an interview.

Mark: It’s unfortunate, but not surprising. I’ve noticed even companies that typically do use bollards or other barriers to protect people have been extremely reluctant to talk about this subject. One of our Storefront Safety Council colleagues suggested to me that this reticence is probably due to liability concerns, as well as fear that a plaintiff’s lawyer might twist their words or actions in court.

Rob: Having been an expert witness in a number of trials, I know the stakes are high for companies. But the stakes are even higher for people — be they customers, employees, or bystanders — who get injured, or worse, in these crashes. Plus, the property damage and lost business experienced by a company means that company was a victim, too.

Mark: So you have some sympathy for Starbucks and other storefront businesses?

Rob: Sure. I don’t think they’re deliberately trying to get hit. They’re in business to offer a great product, and I suspect that — to the extent they even have any internal awareness of this problem — they probably just wish it would go away.

Mark: Wishing isn’t working. What do you think it will take to educate companies about the need to be proactive?

Rob: More work. More documentation. ASTM is putting the finishing touches on a testing standard for all types of barriers that have application for retail locations, pedestrian areas, and the like. That will lead to standards that architects and engineers and lawyers can look to when they are developing or upgrading properties, and could lead to local codes and ordinances that will require protection for pedestrians, patrons, and store workers.

Mark: So, you said Starbucks and 7-Eleven had the second-to-third highest number of crashes in the past year from your review of media accounts. Who was number one?

Image: peninsuladailynews.com

Rob: That distinction belongs to the US Postal Service.

Mark: Wow, interesting. Any contacts with them yet?

Rob: Stay tuned.

Editorial Note: Be part of the discussion via the Storefront Safety Council LinkedIn group.

A Near Miss: Eyewitness's First-hand Account

Convenience store crash in Chula Vista, California
(Source: Ricardo Sarmiento)

When Ricardo Sarmiento emailed me yesterday about a storefront crash near San Diego, California, I asked him if I could post his story. Here it is, in his own words:

Earlier this week, I went to my local convenience store with my cousin to buy a coffee. While standing at the register a car crashed through the window. It was a terrifying experience.

Only moments before that happened I was going to walk through the area where the car smashed through the glass. However, my attention had been diverted and I chose to walk the long way around the counter to look at a product my cousin wanted to show me.

Fortunately, I was not struck by the vehicle, but was hit by flying glass and debris. While waiting for the police and fire department to arrive, I was speaking with the staff and owner of the store. What I found shocking was that the owner told me "this has happened before."

Over the last several days, his comment has stuck with me. If he was able to reasonably foresee that this could happen, why hasn't he installed vertical barriers?

Source: Ricardo Sarmiento

While we were lucky to walk out of the store and return home to our families, this could have been a tragic event.

The more I think about what happened—and believe me it has popped into my head quite a few times this past week—the more outraged I am that there were not vertical barriers installed or some type of pedestrian protection barrier on the property.

I am sure many people have seen the videos of cars crashing into stores. Usually, they show these on "Caught on Camera," but I don't think anyone can truly appreciate how quickly the things happen.

There was no warning, it happened so fast. I keep playing the event back in my mind and I cannot believe how quickly it all happened.

It was a miracle I walked out of that store.

Many thanks to Ricardo for contacting StorefrontCrashes.com and writing about his experience.

Beware Protection Gaps

A cursory glance around this shopping area gave me an initial impression of safety—until I took a closer look.

Some sections have bollards. Great. Other sections have a stone planter barrier. Great again.

But—hey, wait a minute. Why the big gap right in front of the nice glass entry to this store pictured above?

And how come this other store (photo below) has nothing at all in front? The brick pillars are spaced so far apart as to be virtually useless as vehicle barriers—which I'm guessing was not their intended purpose anyway.

Those invitingly wide windows and glass doors are sitting ducks—as are any people standing behind them. The products displayed in the windows wouldn't fare well were a vehicle to crash through them, either.

Worse yet, vehicles approaching this T-intersection (above) are pointed straight at those gaps. At least there's a stop sign. But Heaven forbid a driver mistakenly hits his gas pedal instead of his brakes.

Other sections of this large shopping center have more bollards, as in the photo below. When standing up close and personal with those bollards, however, the space between them looked wide enough to leave me feeling uncomfortably vulnerable.

The developer of this shopping center obviously uses some helpful safety features. Unfortunately, the gaps in those safety features leave a lot of people at risk.

Photos by Mark Wright

Pointing Vehicles Away from Storefronts

This parking lot on Lee Highway in Fairfax, Virginia, caught my eye one recent Saturday. It's at the far corner of a large development called The Shops at Fairfax.

At the time, I had two-legged and four-legged passengers on board eager to reach their particular destination, so I didn't slam on the brakes and jump out with my camera. But I did immediately exclaim, "Now THAT is what a parking lot should look like in strip shopping centers!"

I finally made it back there a few days ago with camera in hand. No parking lot is accident proof, but as you can see in these photos, this design at least points vehicles away from the storefronts.

Arranging the spaces so cars pull in toward a berm planted with bushes—rather than pulling up to windows and doorways—reduces the odds that a driver would injure someone or seriously damage property if he lost control.

A driver backing out of one of these spaces could still crash backward into a storefront, of course. And with no bollards or other barriers protecting those stores, the results wouldn't be pretty.

Still, kudos to Bethesda, Maryland-based Saul Centers, Inc., for using a parking design for this little retail strip that at least lowers the odds of a storefront crash.

Photos by Mark Wright