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

[Slick Vik]

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.

[kylejack]

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.

[Ross]

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. "

 

[Slick Vik]

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.

[august948]

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?

 

[Slick Vik]

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

Yes

[august948]

Yes

 

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

[Slick Vik]

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.

[kylejack]

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.

[mollusk]

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? 

[infinite_jim]

OK, did I forget anybody? 

You forgot to blame someone for being in someone elses way (the fully swamplot).

[Ross]

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.

[Slick Vik]

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

[august948]

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?

 

[Ross]

Speeding = going over the speed limit

 

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

 

[Slick Vik]

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.

[mkultra25]

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? 

 

http://youtu.be/6Z7I022m5GI

[Ross]

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.

 

[kylejack]

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.

[infinite_jim]

You don't get it KyleJack; drivers are just more important than pedestrians, because PHYSICS.

[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.

[Ross]

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.

[kylejack]

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.

[TGM]

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

Speed is a factor when one comes into contact with people on the road ignoring traffic rules.

http://youtu.be/Yiu1uLgwF1E

[kylejack]

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

[Ross]

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.

 

[samagon]

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.

[august948]

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.

 

[Slick Vik]

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.

[Slick Vik]

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.