Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Slick Vik

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

Recommended Posts

I think the heart of the issue is that people speed where they shouldn't be speeding like parking lots, doing 60 mph downtown with blind corners, neighborhood side streets, etc. Visibility and jaywalking are a relevant factor in many pedestrian accidents but speed is the main factor in many deaths. I also believe that younger (and poorer) drivers are more likely to be scofflaw drivers who ignore posted limits due the general convenience and thrill of speeding, the familiarity of the route taken, and a general lack of consistent law enforcement.

Edited by infinite_jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course. 

 

And City government should be doing a much better job of installing crosswalks where people are likely to cross.

Ever notice how places where there are many many pedestrians like around the downtown transit center there's only painted cross walks (faded but still visible) but around the skyline district downtown(where people are only really out around lunch time) the crosswalks all are paved with brick? Same TIRZ; but perhaps it speaks to the economic justice meted out to our lessor fortunate citizens.

But hey... What's the difference between faded white striping and rough hewn brick on driving behavior? Absolutely nothing I'm sure..

Edited by infinite_jim
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever notice how places where there are many many pedestrians like around the downtown transit center there's only painted cross walks (faded but still visible) but around the skyline district downtown(where people are only really out around lunch time) the crosswalks all are paved with brick? Same TIRZ; but perhaps it speaks to the economic justice meted out to our lessor fortunate citizens.

But hey... What's the difference between faded white striping and rough hewn brick on driving behavior? Absolutely nothing I'm sure..

 

Yep. I live near a crosswalk on Dunlavy that doesn't have a stop sign at the intersection. Motorists are supposed to yield to pedestrians in a marked crosswalk, but you should see the children and elderly trying to cross there. The pedestrian is a target in this town, even when obeying the law.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lack of infrastructure doesn't apply if people are jaywalking, unless you want to put up fences (which is what some bar districts have done). Since the data didn't mention comparisons to wealthier neighborhoods or roads with higher speeds, if it is poorer neighborhoods where jaywalking is done, it might be because people in poor neighborhoods might not have had the education to not cross the road at any time they please. However, because that runs counter-intuitive to your pre-set idea that it's always the driver's fault, that clearly can't be the solution.

Again, you have this idea that it's never the pedestrian's fault, ever, while making stuff up like jaywalking rules are bad because the auto industry pushed for it (even if that's true that doesn't make it automatically wrong), or that drivers run over pedestrians because they like it (which is false most of the time and you know it)

Let's take a look at the fallacies used by you, for instance...

Fallacy of the single cause (higher speeds only causes death)

Moral high ground fallacy (should be noted in previous posts)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that freeways caused deterioration of neighborhoods when that's not necessarily the case always--Harrisburg continued to decline, for instance)

Poisoning the well (using your hatred of the auto industry to discredit jaywalking)

It does apply if there's no crosswalk at all.

Usually higher speeds cause death. Better chance of survival if you're going 5 mph instead of 45 mph.

Again freeways caused high speed artierial roads which usually went through poor neighborhoods. Understand and absorb that.

I sent you an article with evidence about how the auto industry criminalized jaywalking.

Your argument is like saying aggie deserve to die if they have a bonfire.

If a pedestrian steps out in front of a vehicle within the distance it takes for the vehicle to stop, the pedestrian is going to be hit. I cannot stop from 30mph in 10 feet, and neither can you. If a pedestrian steps in front of me, I will do everything within my power to avoid them. However, the laws of physics cannot be overridden, and the pedestrian loses almost every time.

Ultimate straw man argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add "ad hominem attack" to list of fallacies, too!

If not an ad hominem attack, it's certainly tactless and if you want to save face in this "argument"/avoid any potential repercussions, I suggest you edit your post while you still have the chance.

Edited by IronTiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add "ad hominem attack" to list of fallacies, too!

If not an ad hominem attack, it's certainly tactless and if you want to save face in this "argument"/avoid any potential repercussions, I suggest you edit your post while you still have the chance.

Not an attack, just saying how ridiculous your idea that a pedestrian is responsible for his Own death most of the time; put in terms you can understand. Edited by Slick Vik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not an attack, just saying how ridiculous your idea that a pedestrian is responsible for his Own death most of the time; put in terms you can understand.

You know that it's an attack, don't play games with me.

As for this incredulity about death, if the data shows its 70% jaywalking, and barring some rare incidents (driver runs off the road, someone pushed onto the street) that's pretty telling. These things are a case by case basis, of course, but a lot of these things can be prevented with common sense on the pedestrian's part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know that it's an attack, don't play games with me.

As for this incredulity about death, if the data shows its 70% jaywalking, and barring some rare incidents (driver runs off the road, someone pushed onto the street) that's pretty telling. These things are a case by case basis, of course, but a lot of these things can be prevented with common sense on the pedestrian's part.

It's not an attack just giving you back your own silly argument in terms you can understand.

A lot of this can be prevented by improving infrastructure for pedestrians and lowering speeds for cars to a reasonable level like 30 mph. Look at what Sweden has done.

The issue is drivers and their convenience have been the focus of road design for so long that pedestrians and bicyclists are just now getting attention. Roads are for everyone not just cars and changing that mindset is going to take a lot of effort from the top down. So many times I see drivers literally angry at seeing a bicyclist on the road or having to wait for a pedestrian crossing the road. Get over it, it's due time.

Edited by Slick Vik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's talking about most situations, you're trying to hyperanalyze one specific situation. Most pedestrians aren't killed due to stepping out in front of a car that is 10 feet away, so it's not a good example of "most situations."

 

Unless you are trying to argue that most drivers are looking for pedestrians to kill, it's a good analog for most situations. The variables are speed and visibility. If I am legally driving 30 miles an hour and a pedestrian steps out into the moving lane of traffic in less distance than I can stop in, the pedestrian is going to get hit unless there is room to swerve.

 

Regardless of whether the situation is optimum, cars rule the road. That is not going to change., I really do not care what Sweden, a tiny country with a homogeneous population and a culture of following every little edict that comes out of government, does, it's generally not applicable here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not an attack just giving you back your own silly argument in terms you can understand.

A lot of this can be prevented by improving infrastructure for pedestrians and lowering speeds for cars to a reasonable level like 30 mph. Look at what Sweden has done.

The issue is drivers and their convenience have been the focus of road design for so long that pedestrians and bicyclists are just now getting attention. Roads are for everyone not just cars and changing that mindset is going to take a lot of effort from the top down. So many times I see drivers literally angry at seeing a bicyclist on the road or having to wait for a pedestrian crossing the road. Get over it, it's due time.

A silly argument is that jaywalking is okay because the auto industry made it a finable offense (because apparently in your mind anything the auto industry does = bad, evil), and when others point out any flaws in your arguments which you keep repeating (because that apparently makes them true) you chimp out and start making even more worthless arguments (in mocking a human tragedy, that would be like "You deserved to die if you went to work to the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001"). That was why I suggested that you delete it to save face and prevent yourself looking like a tactless buffoon, which many HAIFers have already come to accept. As for your last statement, it's difficult to gauge that since so many of your "observations" conveniently line up with your line of thinking, even if it's not true (like, "I never see anyone walking under the Pierce Elevated").

It's pretty worthless to continue this at this point, since we've already gotten to the point where your tired, pre-set arguments about how cars and freeways are the root of all evil, and gone straight into the insult territory, at least veiled insult territory.

I'll leave you alone in the echo chamber now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A silly argument is that jaywalking is okay because the auto industry made it a finable offense (because apparently in your mind anything the auto industry does = bad, evil), and when others point out any flaws in your arguments which you keep repeating (because that apparently makes them true) you chimp out and start making even more worthless arguments (in mocking a human tragedy, that would be like "You deserved to die if you went to work to the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001"). That was why I suggested that you delete it to save face and prevent yourself looking like a tactless buffoon, which many HAIFers have already come to accept. As for your last statement, it's difficult to gauge that since so many of your "observations" conveniently line up with your line of thinking, even if it's not true (like, "I never see anyone walking under the Pierce Elevated").

It's pretty worthless to continue this at this point, since we've already gotten to the point where your tired, pre-set arguments about how cars and freeways are the root of all evil, and gone straight into the insult territory, at least veiled insult territory.

I'll leave you alone in the echo chamber now.

You're not making any logical sense anymore. I send you articles you ignore them instead of opening your eyes and even trying to understand the meaning behind them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you are trying to argue that most drivers are looking for pedestrians to kill, it's a good analog for most situations. The variables are speed and visibility. If I am legally driving 30 miles an hour and a pedestrian steps out into the moving lane of traffic in less distance than I can stop in, the pedestrian is going to get hit unless there is room to swerve.

 

Once again, you've chosen to focus on one specific situation. Most people speed, so someone obeying the speed limit is not "most situations", which is what was being discussed. 

 

Motorists speed and as a result have less reaction time to avoid hitting people and vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, you've chosen to focus on one specific situation. Most people speed, so someone obeying the speed limit is not "most situations", which is what was being discussed. 

 

Motorists speed and as a result have less reaction time to avoid hitting people and vehicles.

 

OK, Mr. Pedant, I'll reword the sentence to satisfy your obsessive nature. "Drivers do not intentionally go around trying to kill pedestrians. If a pedestrian steps into a roadway within the distance it takes a vehicle to stop, the pedestrian runs a significant risk of being hit by the vehicle, with the attendant injuries that often occur in vehicle/pedestrian impacts. Pedestrians need to be aware of their surroundings, and look before stepping into the road, since some drivers exceed posted speed limits, or are otherwise not paying as much attention as they should. "

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, Mr. Pedant, I'll reword the sentence to satisfy your obsessive nature. "Drivers do not intentionally go around trying to kill pedestrians. If a pedestrian steps into a roadway within the distance it takes a vehicle to stop, the pedestrian runs a significant risk of being hit by the vehicle, with the attendant injuries that often occur in vehicle/pedestrian impacts. Pedestrians need to be aware of their surroundings, and look before stepping into the road, since some drivers exceed posted speed limits, or are otherwise not paying as much attention as they should. "

Is your last name Barnett? I love Mississippi I love my culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is your last name Barnett? I love Mississippi I love my culture.

 

Do you mean the former Mississippi governor Ross Barnett who died in 1987?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think a guy who has been dead for almost 27 years is posting from beyond the grave?

No. Just pointing out the similarities in their nature. I love my ways I'm not changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, Mr. Pedant, I'll reword the sentence to satisfy your obsessive nature. "Drivers do not intentionally go around trying to kill pedestrians. If a pedestrian steps into a roadway within the distance it takes a vehicle to stop, the pedestrian runs a significant risk of being hit by the vehicle, with the attendant injuries that often occur in vehicle/pedestrian impacts. Pedestrians need to be aware of their surroundings, and look before stepping into the road, since some drivers exceed posted speed limits, or are otherwise not paying as much attention as they should. "

 

 

Well, I never said they did go around looking for pedestrians to hit, so seems to me you're at war with a straw man. Pedestrians don't go around looking for a car to be hit by either. People get hit when either the motorist or pedestrian are negligent, generally, NOT when someone does something dumb intentionally. And speeding, which most drivers do, endangers pedestrians.

Edited by kylejack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow - this thread certainly has spun out of control - like a car driven too fast by an inattentive, homicidal maniac near a flock of terminally negligent and/or suicidal people trying to cross the road in the middle of the block, undoubtedly following the chicken they're trying to catch 'cause they can't afford to go to the store.  Let's break out the Ouija board and see what Gov. Barnett has to say.

 

OK, did I forget anybody?  :huh:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, did I forget anybody?  :huh:

You forgot to blame someone for being in someone elses way (the fully swamplot). Edited by infinite_jim
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I never said they did go around looking for pedestrians to hit, so seems to me you're at war with a straw man. Pedestrians don't go around looking for a car to be hit by either. People get hit when either the motorist or pedestrian are negligent, generally, NOT when someone does something dumb intentionally. And speeding, which most drivers do, endangers pedestrians.

 

Speeding is such an imprecise term, especially in Texas where it isn't necessarily illegal to go faster than the posted speed limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speeding is such an imprecise term, especially in Texas where it isn't necessarily illegal to go faster than the posted speed limit.

Speeding = going over the speed limit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Just pointing out the similarities in their nature. I love my ways I'm not changing.

 

I understand that you love your ways and are not changing.  I can see that in your posts.  Are you related to Ross Barnett?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speeding = going over the speed limit

 

Do you know what the term speed limit means in Texas?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that you love your ways and are not changing. I can see that in your posts. Are you related to Ross Barnett?

I wasn't talking about me. I guess you're not familiar with Ross Barnett's speech and nature. Similar to the Ross that posts here.

Do you know what the term speed limit means in Texas?

I know what the literal definition is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow - this thread certainly has spun out of control - like a car driven too fast by an inattentive, homicidal maniac near a flock of terminally negligent and/or suicidal people trying to cross the road in the middle of the block, undoubtedly following the chicken they're trying to catch 'cause they can't afford to go to the store.  Let's break out the Ouija board and see what Gov. Barnett has to say.

 

OK, did I forget anybody?  :huh:

 

http://youtu.be/6Z7I022m5GI

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't talking about me. I guess you're not familiar with Ross Barnett's speech and nature. Similar to the Ross that posts here.

I know what the literal definition is.

 

Wow, I suppose I should be insulted to be equated to a staunch segregationist, but then I consider the source and laugh.

 

The literal definition doesn't apply here. Go read the statute and give yourself an education.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I suppose I should be insulted to be equated to a staunch segregationist, but then I consider the source and laugh.

 

The literal definition doesn't apply here. Go read the statute and give yourself an education.

 

Look, I don't care how fast you go when you're out on an empty West Texas road, but when you're driving here in this city, please drive no more than the posted speed limit, especially on streets rather than highways. Your convenience is not more important than the safety of others.

Edited by kylejack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I suppose I should be insulted to be equated to a staunch segregationist, but then I consider the source and laugh.

The literal definition doesn't apply here. Go read the statute and give yourself an education.

Similar attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I don't care how fast you go when you're out on an empty West Texas road, but when you're driving here in this city, please drive no more than the posted speed limit, especially on streets rather than highways. Your convenience is not more important than the safety of others.

I actually drive at or below the posted speeds on most surface streets, and pay far more attention to my surroundings than most folks. I don't text or talk on my cell, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually drive at or below the posted speeds on most surface streets, and pay far more attention to my surroundings than most folks. I don't text or talk on my cell, either.

 

Good, thank you. Now if we could get even a majority of motorists to do the same.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we were talking about pedestrians. Maybe you could just start another thread about cyclist scofflaws to keep the discussion coherent.

Edited by kylejack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we were talking about pedestrians. Maybe you could just start another thread about cyclist scofflaws to keep the discussion coherent.

 

Many pedestrians could stand to learn the difference between red and green.

 

The past month or so has been bad in my hood for pedestrians walking in the street. We have sidewalks everywhere, but there are still people walking down the middle of the street.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a silly article, I'm depressed (not severely) that I wasn't around from the beginning.

 

The conclusions I drew:

 

1. reduce the speed limit in and around neighborhoods to 20 mph.

2. make crossing the road easier for pedestrians by adding additional crosswalks in highly trafficked areas.

 

This article makes a really great example for why we have freeways though, imagine if the freeways didn't exist, those same hundreds of thousands of cars serviced by freeways would be driving down those neighborhood streets making them even more dangerous to cross, which would likely result in more car/pedestrian fatalities.

Edited by samagon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a silly article, I'm depressed (not severely) that I wasn't around from the beginning.

 

The conclusions I drew:

 

1. reduce the speed limit in and around neighborhoods to 20 mph.

2. make crossing the road easier for pedestrians by adding additional crosswalks in highly trafficked areas.

 

This article makes a really great example for why we have freeways though, imagine if the freeways didn't exist, those same hundreds of thousands of cars serviced by freeways would be driving down those neighborhood streets making them even more dangerous to cross, which would likely result in more car/pedestrian fatalities.

 

Spot on.  Those darn unintended consequences get you every time.  There's a certain mentality out there among some who think that freeways are the one and only cause of higher traffic and that if we'd only tear them up traffic would magically melt away.  I'd be all for funnelling some of Metro's road funding to improve sidewalks around town, starting with the neighborhoods that have the worst.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on. Those darn unintended consequences get you every time. There's a certain mentality out there among some who think that freeways are the one and only cause of higher traffic and that if we'd only tear them up traffic would magically melt away. I'd be all for funnelling some of Metro's road funding to improve sidewalks around town, starting with the neighborhoods that have the worst.

That makes no sense. Sidewalk funding shouldn't be coming from an agency that needs that money to increase transit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a silly article, I'm depressed (not severely) that I wasn't around from the beginning.

The conclusions I drew:

1. reduce the speed limit in and around neighborhoods to 20 mph.

2. make crossing the road easier for pedestrians by adding additional crosswalks in highly trafficked areas.

This article makes a really great example for why we have freeways though, imagine if the freeways didn't exist, those same hundreds of thousands of cars serviced by freeways would be driving down those neighborhood streets making them even more dangerous to cross, which would likely result in more car/pedestrian fatalities.

If they drove down those streets at reasonable speeds the fatalities wouldn't be a shockingly high number. Also freeways cause a lot of high speed wrecks which are intuitively higher risk in nature.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they drove down those streets at reasonable speeds the fatalities wouldn't be a shockingly high number. Also freeways cause a lot of high speed wrecks which are intuitively higher risk in nature.

 

You're making an assumption that isn't based on anything that I see as near reality.

 

Basically, that is a huge if.

Edited by samagon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes no sense. Sidewalk funding shouldn't be coming from an agency that needs that money to increase transit.

 

It makes perfect sense.  The funding has already been set aside for road improvements until at least 2025.  Are you arguing that we should spend all road money on roads and not use any of it on sidewalks?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...