Jump to content

Exhaustive report: The poorer the neighborhood, higher the likelihood of pedestrian fatalities (thanks to freeways and high speed roads)


Slick Vik

Recommended Posts

An exhaustive report in Governing Magazine is making the rounds because it identifies, in chilling detail, what a lot of people have long believed to be the case: the poorer the neighborhood, the more likely residents are to be hit and killed by an automobile.

 


Poverty does not cause pedestrian deaths, of course. But many aspects of low-income neighborhoods make those streets particularly prone to pedestrian accidents. Most notably, their residents are at greater risk since they are more likely to be out walking. Census data showed greater shares of commuters walk or take public transportation to work in lower-income tracts. Poorer communities also develop differently. Historically, many could not fend off construction of highways and major arterial roadways the way wealthier communities did.

 

“Low-income neighborhoods either do not have the political clout or are not galvanized to do it,” says Joshua Schank, who heads the Eno Center for Transportation. “You don’t see highways running through the Upper East Side of Manhattan.”

 

Consequently, heavily trafficked arterial roadways with higher speed limits may run right through these poorer neighborhoods. It is along those routes where many pedestrians are hit, with slightly more than half (52 percent) of deaths occurring on arterial streets for the five years reviewed.

 

During the first decade of Interstate highway construction, 335,000 homes were razed, forcing families to look elsewhere for housing…  In many cases, the ‘urban blight’ targeted by the new road construction simply meant African-American communities—often thriving ones. A great body of work shows that urban freeways destroyed the hearts of African-American communities in the South Bronx, Nashville, Austin, Los Angeles, Durham, and nearly every medium to large American city.

 

 

http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-pedestrian-deaths-analysis.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Although pedestrians are frequently found at fault in accidents, it’s the poor suburban street design that’s often conducive to dangerous behavior, says David Goldberg with Transportation for America, which advocates infrastructure investments. Crossings in suburbs are often far apart, leading some people to put themselves at risk and walk across unmarked areas between intersections.

 

Faster-moving cars along suburban streets are another crucial factor. About nine out of 10 pedestrians survive crashes with vehicles traveling at 20 mph, while nearly all suffer fatal injuries when hit by cars traveling 40 mph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about other factors? For example, poverty and alcoholism are linked--and both of those (drunk pedestrians + drunk drivers) of course cause death. Poverty and lack of education are linked as well--what if people weren't properly trained to look both ways before crossing the street? Finally, as much as your anti-freeway shtick wants to say so, freeways are designed to keep people off of them (hence why they're sunken or elevated), and thus pedestrian deaths and freeways aren't linked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about other factors? For example, poverty and alcoholism are linked--and both of those (drunk pedestrians + drunk drivers) of course cause death. Poverty and lack of education are linked as well--what if people weren't properly trained to look both ways before crossing the street? Finally, as much as your anti-freeway shtick wants to say so, freeways are designed to keep people off of them (hence why they're sunken or elevated), and thus pedestrian deaths and freeways aren't linked.

Read the article about lack of lighting, crosswalks, and signage, and the part about freeways leading to higher speed arterial roadways.

And not surprised to see you link poverty with alcoholism, essentially blaming them for getting mowed down, typical lowbrow tactic.

Hilarious but expected response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the article about lack of lighting, crosswalks, and signage, and the part about freeways leading to higher speed arterial roadways.

And not surprised to see you link poverty with alcoholism, essentially blaming them for getting mowed down, typical lowbrow tactic.

Hilarious but expected response.

I did. And pointing out another correlation isn't a "lowbrow tactic", and in no way did I "essentially blame them for getting mowed down", so don't put words in my mouth.

What is a "hilarious but expected response" is how all this links back to your "evil freeways" schtick, because the only time you post articles is about how bad freeways are and/or how good rail is, and when someone points out a flaw in the article's reasoning you immediately switch to the moral high ground and try to shame them into agreeing with you.

Furthermore, it's no an "exhaustive report" when a magazine simply points out correlations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did. And pointing out another correlation isn't a "lowbrow tactic", and in no way did I "essentially blame them for getting mowed down", so don't put words in my mouth.

What is a "hilarious but expected response" is how all this links back to your "evil freeways" schtick, because the only time you post articles is about how bad freeways are and/or how good rail is, and when someone points out a flaw in the article's reasoning you immediately switch to the moral high ground and try to shame them into agreeing with you.

Furthermore, it's no an "exhaustive report" when a magazine simply points out correlations.

It actually is an exhaustive report. I would suggest you read. Making foolish counterpoints does nothing to help your argument. Neither does missing one point completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It actually is an exhaustive report. I would suggest you read. Making foolish counterpoints does nothing to help your argument. Neither does missing one point completely.

OK, I read it instead of glancing over it.

• It actually doesn't claim to be an "exhaustive report", those were your words. So I was right, but it wasn't the magazine's fault.

• Quote: "“Practically every day,” says a clerk at the Victory Foodmart across the street, “you hear horns beeping and tires screeching.”": that indicates that people actually are paying attention and trying to stop, but it's hard to stop when someone steps out right in front of you. This seems to indicate that the roads have a problem with jaywalking.

• "On top of that, Miami’s large immigrant population includes many newer arrivals who may not be accustomed to the norms of walking or driving the streets of a large American city." - another one that indicates that pedestrians need to be more careful, lack of some sort of education

• "Historically, many could not fend off construction of highways and major arterial roadways the way wealthier communities did. “Low-income neighborhoods either do not have the political clout or are not galvanized to do it,” says Joshua Schank, who heads the Eno Center for Transportation. “You don’t see highways running through the Upper East Side of Manhattan.” Consequently, heavily trafficked arterial roadways with higher speed limits may run right through these poorer neighborhoods. It is along those routes where many pedestrians are hit, with slightly more than half (52 percent) of deaths occurring on arterial streets for the five years reviewed."

See, here's where it gets to be irrelevant and they're dragging the anti-freeway argument here again. Most of the incidents involve surface streets which they're talking about, but freeways don't actually provide a way to get hit as they tend to elevated or depressed.

• "In high-income areas, 89 percent of streets had sidewalks, while only 49 percent did in low-income areas. Marked crosswalks were found in 13 percent of high-income areas, compared to just 7 percent of streets in low-income communities. The study found similar disparities for street lighting and traffic calming devices."

I would like to say that I don't think it's necessarily poorer areas, it's older areas. You see, older areas tend to be poorer, and in older areas, there's simply less pedestrian accommodations. Back when I went to Blinn College, I drove through areas that didn't have the hand/walk symbols, just a simple button to turn the light red (they were on a simple timer, and that led to abrupt stops and bad traffic jams). The curbs had a sharp drop-off which were not at all friendly to bicyclists and those with disabilities. The sidewalks were narrow. The City of Bryan has made efforts to fix it, but cities, especially larger ones, cannot fix all these problems instantly.

• "Brookhaven Police Chief Gary Yandura says much of the area’s problems stem from intoxicated drivers and pedestrians leaving bars and liquor stores lining the corridor. In late June, a Hispanic man was killed and another suffered injuries in an accident after police say they left a nearby nightclub."

Yup. See? It's not a "foolish counterpoint", the article actually says so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to say that I don't think it's necessarily poorer areas, it's older areas. You see, older areas tend to be poorer, and in older areas, there's simply less pedestrian accommodations. Back when I went to Blinn College, I drove through areas that didn't have the hand/walk symbols, just a simple button to turn the light red (they were on a simple timer, and that led to abrupt stops and bad traffic jams). The curbs had a sharp drop-off which were not at all friendly to bicyclists and those with disabilities. The sidewalks were narrow. The City of Bryan has made efforts to fix it, but cities, especially larger ones, cannot fix all these problems instantly.

 

TIRZ tax zones mean that wealthy areas can afford to spend more on infrastructure. This is why Upper Kirby has nice sidewalks, fancy red phone booth decorations, smooth roads, etc.  Fifth Ward has a TIRZ too, but it has a lot less money, so the infra suffers as do the victims of traffic accidents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I read it instead of glancing over it.

• It actually doesn't claim to be an "exhaustive report", those were your words. So I was right, but it wasn't the magazine's fault.

• Quote: "“Practically every day,” says a clerk at the Victory Foodmart across the street, “you hear horns beeping and tires screeching.”": that indicates that people actually are paying attention and trying to stop, but it's hard to stop when someone steps out right in front of you. This seems to indicate that the roads have a problem with jaywalking.

• "On top of that, Miami’s large immigrant population includes many newer arrivals who may not be accustomed to the norms of walking or driving the streets of a large American city." - another one that indicates that pedestrians need to be more careful, lack of some sort of education

• "Historically, many could not fend off construction of highways and major arterial roadways the way wealthier communities did. “Low-income neighborhoods either do not have the political clout or are not galvanized to do it,” says Joshua Schank, who heads the Eno Center for Transportation. “You don’t see highways running through the Upper East Side of Manhattan.” Consequently, heavily trafficked arterial roadways with higher speed limits may run right through these poorer neighborhoods. It is along those routes where many pedestrians are hit, with slightly more than half (52 percent) of deaths occurring on arterial streets for the five years reviewed."

See, here's where it gets to be irrelevant and they're dragging the anti-freeway argument here again. Most of the incidents involve surface streets which they're talking about, but freeways don't actually provide a way to get hit as they tend to elevated or depressed.

• "In high-income areas, 89 percent of streets had sidewalks, while only 49 percent did in low-income areas. Marked crosswalks were found in 13 percent of high-income areas, compared to just 7 percent of streets in low-income communities. The study found similar disparities for street lighting and traffic calming devices."

I would like to say that I don't think it's necessarily poorer areas, it's older areas. You see, older areas tend to be poorer, and in older areas, there's simply less pedestrian accommodations. Back when I went to Blinn College, I drove through areas that didn't have the hand/walk symbols, just a simple button to turn the light red (they were on a simple timer, and that led to abrupt stops and bad traffic jams). The curbs had a sharp drop-off which were not at all friendly to bicyclists and those with disabilities. The sidewalks were narrow. The City of Bryan has made efforts to fix it, but cities, especially larger ones, cannot fix all these problems instantly.

• "Brookhaven Police Chief Gary Yandura says much of the area’s problems stem from intoxicated drivers and pedestrians leaving bars and liquor stores lining the corridor. In late June, a Hispanic man was killed and another suffered injuries in an accident after police say they left a nearby nightclub."

Yup. See? It's not a "foolish counterpoint", the article actually says so!

The freeways created high speed arterial roadways.

I think one solution could be lower all roads to 35 mph except freeways.

If the drivers are drinking too the blame has to be shared equally. But it's not equal because a car can kill a pedestrian rarely do pedestrians kill drivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The freeways created high speed arterial roadways.

I think one solution could be lower all roads to 35 mph except freeways.

Higher speed arterials literally exist everywhere in cities, even in cities with less reliance on freeways. Nowhere in that article does it suggest that.

Actually, it does say that, but it's not a "consequence" that higher speed arterials run near freeways, they're everywhere, even in better neighborhoods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Higher speed arterials literally exist everywhere in cities, even in cities with less reliance on freeways. Nowhere in that article does it suggest that.

Actually, it does say that, but it's not a "consequence" that higher speed arterials run near freeways, they're everywhere, even in better neighborhoods.

But if they're always near freeways that's a consequence of freeways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol get out of here. If you're not going to admit that freeways barreled through minority neighborhoods and have created havoc in many ways as a result, exit stage left.

Buddy...when you post an article on any forum, you're essentially opening it for the debate. There are some forums, where you can post or say something, and you'll get "Hear hear! That's right!" but that's not gonna work in an Internet forum elsewhere.

Did you expect us to instantly convert? And when someone questions the logic and reasoning enough you just give up and tell me figuratively to go to hell? Why? And if your answer and logic is the pre-determined "freeways are evil and I must find articles that back this up", why bring up the article at all if you're just going to shut down any opposition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I read it instead of glancing over it.

• It actually doesn't claim to be an "exhaustive report", those were your words. So I was right, but it wasn't the magazine's fault.

• Quote: "“Practically every day,” says a clerk at the Victory Foodmart across the street, “you hear horns beeping and tires screeching.”": that indicates that people actually are paying attention and trying to stop, but it's hard to stop when someone steps out right in front of you. This seems to indicate that the roads have a problem with jaywalking.

• "On top of that, Miami’s large immigrant population includes many newer arrivals who may not be accustomed to the norms of walking or driving the streets of a large American city." - another one that indicates that pedestrians need to be more careful, lack of some sort of education

• "Historically, many could not fend off construction of highways and major arterial roadways the way wealthier communities did. “Low-income neighborhoods either do not have the political clout or are not galvanized to do it,” says Joshua Schank, who heads the Eno Center for Transportation. “You don’t see highways running through the Upper East Side of Manhattan.” Consequently, heavily trafficked arterial roadways with higher speed limits may run right through these poorer neighborhoods. It is along those routes where many pedestrians are hit, with slightly more than half (52 percent) of deaths occurring on arterial streets for the five years reviewed."

See, here's where it gets to be irrelevant and they're dragging the anti-freeway argument here again. Most of the incidents involve surface streets which they're talking about, but freeways don't actually provide a way to get hit as they tend to elevated or depressed.

• "In high-income areas, 89 percent of streets had sidewalks, while only 49 percent did in low-income areas. Marked crosswalks were found in 13 percent of high-income areas, compared to just 7 percent of streets in low-income communities. The study found similar disparities for street lighting and traffic calming devices."

I would like to say that I don't think it's necessarily poorer areas, it's older areas. You see, older areas tend to be poorer, and in older areas, there's simply less pedestrian accommodations. Back when I went to Blinn College, I drove through areas that didn't have the hand/walk symbols, just a simple button to turn the light red (they were on a simple timer, and that led to abrupt stops and bad traffic jams). The curbs had a sharp drop-off which were not at all friendly to bicyclists and those with disabilities. The sidewalks were narrow. The City of Bryan has made efforts to fix it, but cities, especially larger ones, cannot fix all these problems instantly.

• "Brookhaven Police Chief Gary Yandura says much of the area’s problems stem from intoxicated drivers and pedestrians leaving bars and liquor stores lining the corridor. In late June, a Hispanic man was killed and another suffered injuries in an accident after police say they left a nearby nightclub."

Yup. See? It's not a "foolish counterpoint", the article actually says so!

 

You read this entire report?

 

http://media.navigatored.com/documents/Governing_Pedestrian_Fatalities_Report.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. So, according to the data, 69% of the deaths were at non-intersections, and on the front, we have a few people jaywalking. Jaywalking is, of course, not a misdemeanor but can be penalized at a fine not more than $200. If we could prevent jaywalking (in which it is the pedestrian's fault), we could prevent nearly 70% of pedestrian/vehicular deaths! The question would be then, why is jaywalking more prominent in poorer areas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. So, according to the data, 69% of the deaths were at non-intersections, and on the front, we have a few people jaywalking. Jaywalking is, of course, not a misdemeanor but can be penalized at a fine not more than $200. If we could prevent jaywalking (in which it is the pedestrian's fault), we could prevent nearly 70% of pedestrian/vehicular deaths! The question would be then, why is jaywalking more prominent in poorer areas?

 

Pedestrians share part of the blame for jaywalking. Sometimes infrastructure or the lack of is also to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. So, according to the data, 69% of the deaths were at non-intersections, and on the front, we have a few people jaywalking. Jaywalking is, of course, not a misdemeanor but can be penalized at a fine not more than $200. If we could prevent jaywalking (in which it is the pedestrian's fault), we could prevent nearly 70% of pedestrian/vehicular deaths! The question would be then, why is jaywalking more prominent in poorer areas?

You have really fallen for the car industry hook line and sinker. There was nothing wrong with jaywalking until the car industry pushed that idea into people's minds.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26073797

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have really fallen for the car industry hook line and sinker. There was nothing wrong with jaywalking until the car industry pushed that idea into people's minds.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26073797

The term has been in use since the 1800s before cars (and you'd read about people being hit by horses). And even if it wasn't illegal, it would still be an issue of personal responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term has been in use since the 1800s before cars (and you'd read about people being hit by horses). And even if it wasn't illegal, it would still be an issue of personal responsibility.

And enforcement started in 1913, because of car industry propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In lots of areas in America, jaywalking laws aren't enforced, but that still doesn't say anything about personal responsibility.

If there aren't marked crosswalks what are you supposed to do? Even if you are jaywalking cars shouldn't be going at such speeds that they would mow you down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there aren't marked crosswalks what are you supposed to do? Even if you are jaywalking cars shouldn't be going at such speeds that they would mow you down.

Yeah, but the vast majority weren't hit at intersections, which wouldn't have had crosswalks anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have really fallen for the car industry hook line and sinker. There was nothing wrong with jaywalking until the car industry pushed that idea into people's minds.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26073797

 

Are you really going to argue that after over 100 years of automobile usage, pedestrians ought to be able to wander wily nilly across streets wherever they feel like it, without looking for vehicles? If a jaywalker was killed by a horse drawn carriage because they didn't look before crossing, would you blame the carriage? If a pedestrian tries to cross a freeway, do you think the cars are responsible if the pedestrian dies?

 

Can you name a major street in Houston, other than a freeway service road where speed limits are set by state law, where the speed limit is over 35mph? Whst roads were built in Houston as a result of freeways?

 

Were the major streets in LA built before the freeways? How about in Bakersfield, where the major streets are 8 lanes wide (this is true in much of California) and there is one freeway passing through the main part of the city? How many arterials were built in Manhattan to service freeways?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll admit I did not read the report. Did it discuss the predilection for certain demographics to walk in the street, regardless of the existence of sidewalks?

I see it every day and it never ceases to confound and amaze me.

While I agree that car drivers are often at fault, you can't ignore the fact that sometimes pedestrians are just idiots. For instance, I have no sympathy for those that try and cross a freeway. They're idiots, no two ways about it.

I feel the same about the parents of a family walking three wide in a narrow street that's barely wide enough for a truck and a bus to pass, when there's a perfectly good sidewalk parallel to the road. Especially considering the history in our neighborhood...the neighborhood demanded sidewalks about 20-30 years ago after a child was killed in the street. Now they're ignored by these idiots. The parents are idiots. I do try to educate the kids when I see them out by themselves, they might listen. A 40 year old should know better.

You can't justify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you really going to argue that after over 100 years of automobile usage, pedestrians ought to be able to wander wily nilly across streets wherever they feel like it, without looking for vehicles? If a jaywalker was killed by a horse drawn carriage because they didn't look before crossing, would you blame the carriage? If a pedestrian tries to cross a freeway, do you think the cars are responsible if the pedestrian dies?

Can you name a major street in Houston, other than a freeway service road where speed limits are set by state law, where the speed limit is over 35mph? Whst roads were built in Houston as a result of freeways?

Were the major streets in LA built before the freeways? How about in Bakersfield, where the major streets are 8 lanes wide (this is true in much of California) and there is one freeway passing through the main part of the city? How many arterials were built in Manhattan to service freeways?

I can name four off the top off my head: 35, 2351, 1959, and old galveston road which have 50 mph speed limits.

According to the researchers many arterials were built as a result of freeways which usually went through poor neighborhoods.

And if pedestrians are crossing, that doesn't give you the right to kill them.

You are another sucker that has fallen for the criminalizing of jaywalking as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe because there weren't crosswalks at the intersections

The report says that the ped/driver fatalities involved 15,232 deaths at non-intersection points. At intersections or intersection-related, that's around 5,000.

As for the "arterials through poor neighborhoods because FREEWAYS", the data doesn't actually mention that, it was some irrelevant (and incorrect) anti-freeway bit that was added onto the article (not the report) because there are people that think the same way you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...