Crime In The Heights

[heights_yankee]

I was thinking about this today and wondering: while I don't blame the driver in this case, how fast was that person going to cause this accident to be a fatality? Cars drive way too fast on 11th. I have been guilty of it myself and have pledged to watch my speed on both 11th and Studewood.

[RedScare]

30 mph can easily kill a pedestrian. If the driver was going too fast, he likely would have been charged with negligent homicide. Given the size of the gutter swales on either side of this intersection, I don't see cars drive through it that fast, as doing so would cause the suspension to bottom out. The straighaways on either side are where people speed up.

EDIT: There were also several witnesses to the accident.

FWIW, last night, I watched a woman run between cars on 11th that had the green light. Apparently, even a dead body is not enough to get some people to use common sense.

Edited October 14, 2011 by RedScare

[ricco67]

30 mph can easily kill a pedestrian. If the driver was going too fast, he likely would have been charged with negligent homicide. Given the size of the gutter swales on either side of this intersection, I don't see cars drive through it that fast, as doing so would cause the suspension to bottom out. The straighaways on either side are where people speed up.

EDIT: There were also several witnesses to the accident.

FWIW, last night, I watched a woman run between cars on 11th that had the green light. Apparently, even a dead body is not enough to get some people to use common sense.

Don't forget they can be killed by a low speed if there is just the right amount of damage, like a head injury. Hell, I've heard of people tripping and dying because they tripped and hit their head on the curb.

[heights_yankee]

Don't forget they can be killed by a low speed if there is just the right amount of damage, like a head injury. Hell, I've heard of people tripping and dying because they tripped and hit their head on the curb.

Yeah, point taken.

[kylejack]

30 mph can easily kill a pedestrian. If the driver was going too fast, he likely would have been charged with negligent homicide.

Extremely unlikely. Drivers who aren't drunk and kill a pedestrian almost never get charged with negligent homicide in Texas. The worst they ever get in most cases is a traffic ticket. One exception is street racers. They throw the book at them.

[Marksmu]

I think there is a relatively easy fix for this. It might run up against some TxDOT reg, but I will leave that for the traffic engineers.

Control the Heights north bound turn lane with a left turn signal and create a crosswalk directly across 11th. People will be able to cross when Heights has the green light, but will have a do not walk sign when the turn lane has a green light. Placing a walk/do not walk signal and cross walk directly across 11th will help keep people from walking into traffic on 11th from the trail and will sort out pedestrians and left turning vehicles from Heights. You would have to move the two lane split further back down Heights to give the left turn lane some more capacity.

We found something we can agree on completely! Heights at 11th needs a protected left turn. It would also double as a safe crossing period. Yale is even worse for needing a protected left, though it does not have the same problems as heights with pedestrians.

[kylejack]

For the most part, I consider Heights Blvd an excellent road that allows all users (cars, bikes, pedestrians) to share it. This is the only road I am aware of in Houston that has on-street paring AND a bike lane (instead of combining the two). If they could just fix this jogging path issue, it could be a model for shared usage.

[OutfieldDan]

We found something we can agree on completely! Heights at 11th needs a protected left turn. It would also double as a safe crossing period. Yale is even worse for needing a protected left, though it does not have the same problems as heights with pedestrians.

How about simply putting a stop sign on 11th at Heights? Take down the traffic light and make every car on 11th stop at Heights. Blasting through the intersection at 35-40 mph is dangerous considering all the local stuff on Heights - Dogs, pedestrians, bicycles, runners, busses, cars, squirrels, skaters, funerals, - you name it. Besides, the left turn lane at 11th St. is unnecessary. It takes space away from the bike lane and parking, and worse, it forces most cars to change lanes - dangerous in itself.

Putting up pedestrian barriers, walk signs, etc. will be simply ignored by most joggers. I always run across streets that I see have no traffic, just like most other runners. Ditto for bicycles (despite it being illegal).

[RedScare]

Extremely unlikely. Drivers who aren't drunk and kill a pedestrian almost never get charged with negligent homicide in Texas. The worst they ever get in most cases is a traffic ticket. One exception is street racers. They throw the book at them.

So much misinformation in this post. To begin with, drunk drivers who kill pedestrians due to their intoxication are charged with Intoxication Manslaughter, not Criminally Negligent Homicide. Negligent Homicide is a lower class of offense used in those cases where a person runs a stoplight, is talking on a cell phone, or some other act that can be proven to be extremely negligent. It is a higher standard of negligence than civil negligence. There are a couple of reasons why speeding drivers might not be charged with negligent homicide. One is that in the overwhelming majority of cases where the driver is not intoxicated, and the driver did not run a stop light or sign, the pedestrian has been found to be at fault. This includes crossing against the light, walking in the roadway at night without lights or reflectors, and crossing in the middle of the block or running across a freeway. Second, while speeding is illegal, and may be civilly negligent, it is not per se criminally negligent, a higher standard than civil negligence. 35 mph in a 30 mph zone is illegal, but it is unlikely to be criminally negligent.

My point to heights yankee inferred that the pedestrian would have been able to avoid a slightly speeding driver. A speed high enough to hit an attentive pedestrian (for instance, 60 or 70 in a 30 mph zone) would have resulted in a charge of negligent homicide.

[kylejack]

So much misinformation in this post. To begin with, drunk drivers who kill pedestrians due to their intoxication are charged with Intoxication Manslaughter, not Criminally Negligent Homicide.

I did not say what drunk drivers were charged with when killing someone. I know that those crimes are taken seriously, so it wasn't relevant to my point, which is that Texas does not take seriously "honest mistake" accidents on the roads. It took over a year (and a lot of raging cyclists calling and writing letters) before the man who killed the Bruehlers was indicted. They initially weren't even going to ticket him. In that case, the man swerved off the road and killed a couple that were riding a tandem on the shoulder.

[heights_yankee]

We found something we can agree on completely! Heights at 11th needs a protected left turn. It would also double as a safe crossing period. Yale is even worse for needing a protected left, though it does not have the same problems as heights with pedestrians.

Yale doesn't have as many pedestrians because people are scared to death to try and cross it unless they have to!

[JJxvi]

I think most joggers are more alert at 11th street than any other on the trail.

Most issues I have seen with dangerous (although probably not life threatening) car vs ped action is cars stopped in the median at the smaller streets with stop signs. Ive seen joggers foolishly just assume that a car stopped there sees them when they are approaching from the drivers left and cross in front of the driver, and the driver foolishly only looks to the right for oncoming car traffic and not left for any pedestrians.

[J008]

We found something we can agree on completely! Heights at 11th needs a protected left turn. It would also double as a safe crossing period. Yale is even worse for needing a protected left, though it does not have the same problems as heights with pedestrians.

I drove through this intersection Sunday night, and noticed that it is particularly dark. Then this morning I went down the trail from 12th to I-10 and back. Heights @ 11th has no street lights from about 3/4 to Harvard to about 3/4 to Yale. I don't know if the reconctruction omitted a street lamp or it was just forgotten, but this intersection is the darkest one on Heights at least from 12th to I-10. 10th and Heights is much more well lit than 11th is.

Of course more lights cannot prevent someone from darting into traffic, but I am curious why this intersection probably the busiest along the trail is also the least well lit.

[kylejack]

Uhhh, the sun was in my eyes.

Bexar County sheriff's Sgt. E.M. Conger said the crash appeared to have been an accident. No criminal charges had been filed. “The driver said the sun was in his eyes, and he just didn't see” McGee, Conger said. “There's no negligence or anything like that that we can tell, and it's one of those unfortunate accidents.”

No one else was injured in the crash.

The motorist, 41, from Houston, was driving with three others to Wilson County, where they were going to work, Conger said. All four gave deputies their statements and were released, officials said.

http://www.mysananto...p#ixzz1b3vP86W6

Google Streetview

Edited October 17, 2011 by kylejack

[OutfieldDan]

Of course more lights cannot prevent someone from darting into traffic, but I am curious why this intersection probably the busiest along the trail is also the least well lit.

The city is probably looking for historically accurate lights. Or, maybe being dark is more historical because back in 1916 street lighting was poor.

Possiblty the HAHC hasn't met yet to approve the lighting.

[ricco67]

Uhhh, the sun was in my eyes.

http://www.mysananto...p#ixzz1b3vP86W6

Google Streetview

What's your point? You calling this kind of defense "BS"?

I can't tell you how many times i've almost hit quite a few pedestrians and other vehicles (and in turn, almost got hit by many others...including peds) because of the "sun of in my eyes".

[RedScare]

Uhhh, the sun was in my eyes.

Hmm, I see your point. A driver heading east from San Antonio on an east/west FM road toward Wilson County in the early morning couldn't possibly have sun shining towards him. And, we all know how the police love to screw over their own. This is clearly a cover up.

Look, you can go back through the archives and find where I very strongly stick up for the rights of cyclists. I am one. But, if you are suggesting that every time a cyclist or pedestrian is hurt that it must be the motorist's fault, I will show you to be the fool, just as I just did. If you want to at least have a chance at making your point, don't pick the retired homicide detective riding eastbound in the early morning as your cause.

[kylejack]

People who can't see a bicycle coming up in the mile it takes to reach the bicycle due to sunlight need to stop driving during those hours. Clearly they're not capable of driving safely in these conditions and are endangering other users of the road.

Edited October 17, 2011 by kylejack

[kylejack]

Cyclists are gambling with their lives every day because there are no consequences for a sober driver who kills a cyclist.

[kylejack]

Look, you can go back through the archives and find where I very strongly stick up for the rights of cyclists. I am one. But, if you are suggesting that every time a cyclist or pedestrian is hurt that it must be the motorist's fault, I will show you to be the fool, just as I just did.

This accident was the motorist's fault. Not all are. Sometimes the cyclist is at fault.

[RedScare]

Cyclists are gambling with their lives every day because there are no consequences for a sober driver who kills a cyclist.

There are civil consequences for the negligence in this case. Your inability to comprehend the difference between civil negligence and criminal negligence is not my problem nor the motorist's.

Here, I'll do your work for you. Here is the list of culpable mental states constituting a criminal act in Texas. Pick the one you think applies and actually justify it, as opposed to your sweeping and unsubstantiated generalizations. Make sure you provide legal support for your position, since in our country, we don't convict people just because we want to. We have to follow actual laws.

Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES.

(a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.

(B ) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

(c ) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

[RedScare]

Oh, looky here. People in San Antonio DO get indicted when their actions constitute criminal negligence...

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Local-driver-is-indicted-in-cycle-deaths-682407.php

The couple were riding a tandem bicycle about three miles north of Helotes the morning of Oct. 1, 2009, when authorities say Sullaway veered off the highway and hit them.

Sullaway didn't appear to be intoxicated and was driving about 70 mph in a 65-mph zone, Sheriff's Office officials said at the time. No traffic citations were issued, and the case was handed to the district attorney's office in November without a recommendation about whether to pursue it.

Since then, prosecutors hired an independent accident reconstructionist and conducted their own investigation, First Assistant District Attorney Cliff Herberg said.

This is criminal negligence. But, note that it took an accident reconstructionist to determine that the motorist grossly deviated from the ordinary standard of care, that is, that an ordinary motorist would keep his vehicle within his lane.

And, here is another, where the driver was speeding and driving on the wrong side of the road...

http://austinist.com/2009/02/18/reckless_driver_kills_biker_gets_pr.php

Here is a local motorist driving recklessly who was indicted for his acts...

http://www.vbattorneys.com/news/19-year-old-reckless-driver-accused-of-killing-cyclist-in-sw-houston20100820.cfm

And, here we have a case where my above-noted criminal negligence when distracted by use of a cell phone gets a man indicted. Note that initially, law enforcement did not have evidence of the cell phone use. Only after the civil suit exposed it, could an indictment be returned.

http://www.umtsworld.com/lastword/lw0112.htm

We can't just assume criminal negligence. It must be proven. Sometimes it can be shown during accident reconstruction. Other times, statements by the driver or witnesses may help. But, in a case where none of that can be proven, we don't simply indict "because kylejack thinks the motorist is always at fault".

Edited October 17, 2011 by RedScare

[kylejack]

Oh, looky here. People in San Antonio DO get indicted when their actions constitute criminal negligence...

http://www.mysananto...aths-682407.php

Looky here, I already brought that case up a few posts back.

I did not say what drunk drivers were charged with when killing someone. I know that those crimes are taken seriously, so it wasn't relevant to my point, which is that Texas does not take seriously "honest mistake" accidents on the roads. It took over a year (and a lot of raging cyclists calling and writing letters) before the man who killed the Bruehlers was indicted. They initially weren't even going to ticket him. In that case, the man swerved off the road and killed a couple that were riding a tandem on the shoulder.

Even in the initial reports after the accident, they knew that he was speeding and that he swerved off the road. Of course he was negligent. And short of any negligence charges, they had no intention of even writing him a citation.

It was only a year of rage from the cyclist community that changed the DA's mind.

Anyway, I've been looking for a while for a followup on that case. I don't know if it's still pending trial or if they cut a deal. I'd be interested to learn.

Edited October 18, 2011 by kylejack

[OutfieldDan]

Looky here, I already brought that case up a few posts back.

Anyway, I've been looking for a while for a followup on that case. I don't know if it's still pending trial or if they cut a deal. I'd be interested to learn.

Getting back on topic, why isn't there a blinking 4-way stop for 20th, 14th, 11th, and 6th Streets at Heights? Heights has too much local, pedestrian traffic (including wheelchairs, middle school students, etc.) and the risk to the neighborhood should trump speeding E-W on these streets across Heights. 11th Street is the worst because of the wideness and new pavement. Houston traffic engineers are trying to make 11th St a major thoroughfare directly through the heart of our neighborhood. I don't think it would be too much of an inconvenience for traffic to stop and look before blasting across Heights and running over someone else. Another incident was a huge fatal accident at 20th and Heights about a year ago, right in front of Hamilton Middle School caused by a speeding motorist on 20th.

I'm not convinced that the driver that ran over and killed the woman jogger isn't at fault, despite stopping after the accident. A good driver watches out for bad situations and takes precautions. If traffic were forced to stop, then the accident would probably not have happened.

[heights_yankee]

As I mentioned, I emailed both Jessica Farrar and Ed Gonzales's offices about the issue of safety on the trail. Laura Thorpe with CM Gonzales looked in to the issue and this was her response to me:

I did receive a response on your request. The city does not encourage pedestrians crossing median ends due to constant signal rotation thru the intersection. This is why the intersection at 11th has pedestrians crossing Heights Blvd. then 11th and back across Heights Blvd. This is the safest route. The only option is education or some type of warning signs. I will suggest this to the Houston Heights Association since they work with the City Parks Department to help maintain the esplanade.

Thanks for your concerns.

I emailed back and said we need something there to at least signify a trail crosses. I told her that I believe most people are aware of how the lights work but that asking people to cross the street three times is just not going to happen. My suggestion was to at least install those reflective bumps and designate for drivers where the path is. At night, there is little to know light at that crossing and this would at least show unfamiliar drivers that there is something to watch out for there.

[OutfieldDan]

As I mentioned, I emailed both Jessica Farrar and Ed Gonzales's offices about the issue of safety on the trail. Laura Thorpe with CM Gonzales looked in to the issue and this was her response to me:

I emailed back and said we need something there to at least signify a trail crosses. I told her that I believe most people are aware of how the lights work but that asking people to cross the street three times is just not going to happen. My suggestion was to at least install those reflective bumps and designate for drivers where the path is. At night, there is little to know light at that crossing and this would at least show unfamiliar drivers that there is something to watch out for there.

The Gonzalez reply by Thorpe is typical ho hum, let's just do nothing for Heights residents. His office has demonstrated a complete lack of interest in the welfare of our neighborhood, and all he cares about is his political career. The idea of joggers crossing three streets at 11th is simply stupid and reflects on his office. Gonzalez could care less about the Heights. He never represented us and was promised a sweet Hispanic re-district to not stand up for us on city council on ALL major issues.

I hope so bad he loses in November.

Edited October 19, 2011 by OutfieldDan

[west20th]

Just another note to joggers on this trail. TWICE on the the way home last night I had to brake to avoid darkly dressed joggers running out in front of me. One wasn't even at an intersection.

[kylejack]

I don't like Gonzalez since he worked to pass the East Downtown civility ordinance.

[s3mh]

Gonzalez could care less about the Heights. He never represented us and was promised a sweet Hispanic re-district to not stand up for us on city council on ALL major issues.

I hope so bad he loses in November.

The new district H will take Gonzalez out of the Heights, except for Woodland Heights. This issue will be for District C (Derr, Cohen, Cweren, Verde, Locke, Terwilliger, Bouvier, Terwilliger)

[OutfieldDan]

Just another note to joggers on this trail. TWICE on the the way home last night I had to brake to avoid darkly dressed joggers running out in front of me. One wasn't even at an intersection.

You know what? I think you're driviing recklessly on Heights. If you had to brake twice to avoid joggers in a single evening, you're probably driving too fast and pedestrians don't see you comming. My experience on Heights doesn't come close to yours, and maybe it's because I drive carefully, expecting that neighborhood hazards might present themselves to me.