Slick Vik

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.

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.

Rail to downtown and med center would get heavy ridership

It would be cool if there was a stop off 288 with a one stop train into medical center kind of like grand central to penn station shuttle also.

Rail down the middle to 518 or so. And then with leftover space feeder or shoulder, I'm not sure what's more important out of those two though. Shoulder is probably easier.

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

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.

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

Yes

TXDOT doesn't have money they wanted to hand over maintenance of many roads to localities and turn others to gravel but that was shot down

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.

What a joke

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.

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.

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.

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

Has anyone argued that cars have the right to kill pedestrians? How is it my fault if an idiot pedestrian steps in front of my car when I am following the rules and do not have time to stop (this can happen at 5mph too)? Car drivers do not typically speed up to hit jay walkers, the pedestrians do something stupid and get themselves killed. I don't really care if jay walking is criminalized or not, but pedestrians need to have some amount of common sense and avoid walking across streets without looking. That applied in horse drawn carriage days as much as it does now.

Again you're blaming pedestrians for deaths instead of the person driving a machine while possibly distracted. Brakes are powerful in most situations you could avoid hitting a pedestrian. Your sad analogy is stating people knowingly try to put their life at risk.

The facts are that most of the deaths are jaywalking related, and you've given excuses how there should be no personal responsibility involved and instead try to use extremism and fallacies to argue this.

And the fact is lack of infrastructure and higher speed roads in poor areas leads to more pedestrians deaths. Again you're blaming people for dying instead of looking at WHY.

Let's do that, then. And for the roads that currently have speed limits greater than 30mph, lets...convert them into freeways!

Yes to the first part, no to the second part.

Please don't take the high ground again and tell me I'm ignorant and need to "accept reality". Everything you've said concerns more of punishing drivers than actually stopping pedestrian deaths, and when anyone tries to talk about jaywalking, you've given nonsense rhetoric like "You're just brainwashed by the auto industry" or "You want to run down and kill people".

The facts are the facts. Because you don't like them you call them irrelevant.

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.

It was irrelevant only in your own mind. If you choose to ignore it because you don't like it that's on you. Accept reality and find a way to move forward. I suggest lowering all speed limits to 30 mph except freeways.

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.

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

Maybe because there weren't crosswalks at the intersections

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.

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.

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

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