Reinstall speed cameras in Kensington now!

[Anonymous]

I live just a few blocks from where the boy was killed. I just drove down University Boulevard and see that there is a giant speed camera now near there and the crosswalk looks to have been repainted.

I’m sorry this thread has devolved into such ridiculous arguments over status of neighborhoods. To answer a poster from above, the Kensington ZIP Code does extend almost all the way to the mall. It is then Wheaton and pedestrian safety on those streets near there is also a concern in this neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From MoCo's own Vision Zero report (PDF page 18):

"Thirty-six percent of pedestrians and cyclists
were at fault in severe and fatal collisions. When
pedestrians are at fault, the top contributing
circumstances were illegally in roadway, failed to
give time and attention, clothing not visible, and
under the influence of alcohol."

Let's not blame only drivers.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/visionzero/Resources/Files/Vision_Zero_Data_Analysis.pdf

Despite the stupid concept that is contributory negligence, fault is not an “either / or”. Pedestrian may indeed have been jaywalking and the driver may be speeding. A jaywalking pedestrian may have been hit but would not have been killed without the excess speed.

[Anonymous]

No city in the country has been more aggressive with traffic cameras than DC. It has increased ticketing almost 10 fold. The city issues more than three million tickets annually. Guess what happened? Traffic deaths went up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From MoCo's own Vision Zero report (PDF page 18):

"Thirty-six percent of pedestrians and cyclists
were at fault in severe and fatal collisions. When
pedestrians are at fault, the top contributing
circumstances were illegally in roadway, failed to
give time and attention, clothing not visible, and
under the influence of alcohol."

Let's not blame only drivers.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/visionzero/Resources/Files/Vision_Zero_Data_Analysis.pdf

Despite the stupid concept that is contributory negligence, fault is not an “either / or”. Pedestrian may indeed have been jaywalking and the driver may be speeding. A jaywalking pedestrian may have been hit but would not have been killed without the excess speed.

Who says there was "excess speed"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The car may not have been speeding and missed them as there are lots of blind spots, dark. It could have just been a tragic accident.

This was a crash. An accident implies it couldn’t have been prevented. Vehicle speed, blind spots, and inadequate lighting are all things that could have been mitigated making this a preventable death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The car may not have been speeding and missed them as there are lots of blind spots, dark. It could have just been a tragic accident.

This was a crash. An accident implies it couldn’t have been prevented. Vehicle speed, blind spots, and inadequate lighting are all things that could have been mitigated making this a preventable death.

These word games re: crash and accidents are stupid and annoying. Some accidents can't be prevented, and it doesn't matter what steps the government takes. Preventing people from doing things they didn't intend to do is not a question of political will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From MoCo's own Vision Zero report (PDF page 18):

"Thirty-six percent of pedestrians and cyclists
were at fault in severe and fatal collisions. When
pedestrians are at fault, the top contributing
circumstances were illegally in roadway, failed to
give time and attention, clothing not visible, and
under the influence of alcohol."

Let's not blame only drivers.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/visionzero/Resources/Files/Vision_Zero_Data_Analysis.pdf

Despite the stupid concept that is contributory negligence, fault is not an “either / or”. Pedestrian may indeed have been jaywalking and the driver may be speeding. A jaywalking pedestrian may have been hit but would not have been killed without the excess speed.

The goal is to prevent accidents. Creating a better accident is not the solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The car may not have been speeding and missed them as there are lots of blind spots, dark. It could have just been a tragic accident.

This was a crash. An accident implies it couldn’t have been prevented. Vehicle speed, blind spots, and inadequate lighting are all things that could have been mitigated making this a preventable death.

These word games re: crash and accidents are stupid and annoying. Some accidents can't be prevented, and it doesn't matter what steps the government takes. Preventing people from doing things they didn't intend to do is not a question of political will.

Yes, that’s what I said. Accidents can’t be prevented.

PP said speed could have been a factor. Preventable.
PP said it could have been a blind spot. Preventable.
PP said it could have been dark. Preventable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From MoCo's own Vision Zero report (PDF page 18):

"Thirty-six percent of pedestrians and cyclists
were at fault in severe and fatal collisions. When
pedestrians are at fault, the top contributing
circumstances were illegally in roadway, failed to
give time and attention, clothing not visible, and
under the influence of alcohol."

Let's not blame only drivers.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/visionzero/Resources/Files/Vision_Zero_Data_Analysis.pdf

Despite the stupid concept that is contributory negligence, fault is not an “either / or”. Pedestrian may indeed have been jaywalking and the driver may be speeding. A jaywalking pedestrian may have been hit but would not have been killed without the excess speed.

The goal is to prevent accidents. Creating a better accident is not the solution.

What on earth is this false dichotomy? With a "better accident," that kid is alive today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From MoCo's own Vision Zero report (PDF page 18):

"Thirty-six percent of pedestrians and cyclists
were at fault in severe and fatal collisions. When
pedestrians are at fault, the top contributing
circumstances were illegally in roadway, failed to
give time and attention, clothing not visible, and
under the influence of alcohol."

Let's not blame only drivers.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/visionzero/Resources/Files/Vision_Zero_Data_Analysis.pdf

Despite the stupid concept that is contributory negligence, fault is not an “either / or”. Pedestrian may indeed have been jaywalking and the driver may be speeding. A jaywalking pedestrian may have been hit but would not have been killed without the excess speed.

We don’t know. Stop speculating. A life was lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The car may not have been speeding and missed them as there are lots of blind spots, dark. It could have just been a tragic accident.

This was a crash. An accident implies it couldn’t have been prevented. Vehicle speed, blind spots, and inadequate lighting are all things that could have been mitigated making this a preventable death.

We don’t know but this neighborhood has limited lights, few sidewalks and other basic safety measures. Not all street have stop signs where they should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The car may not have been speeding and missed them as there are lots of blind spots, dark. It could have just been a tragic accident.

This was a crash. An accident implies it couldn’t have been prevented. Vehicle speed, blind spots, and inadequate lighting are all things that could have been mitigated making this a preventable death.

An accident implies it wasn't intentional, not that it couldn't have been prevented. The accident may have been caused by reckless behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The car may not have been speeding and missed them as there are lots of blind spots, dark. It could have just been a tragic accident.

This was a crash. An accident implies it couldn’t have been prevented. Vehicle speed, blind spots, and inadequate lighting are all things that could have been mitigated making this a preventable death.

An accident implies it wasn't intentional, not that it couldn't have been prevented. The accident may have been caused by reckless behavior.

So someone texting while driving accidentally kills someone because they didn’t intentionally do it?

The standard language is crash. https://www.roadpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/RP_Crash_not_Accident_Briefing_Sheet.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The car may not have been speeding and missed them as there are lots of blind spots, dark. It could have just been a tragic accident.

This was a crash. An accident implies it couldn’t have been prevented. Vehicle speed, blind spots, and inadequate lighting are all things that could have been mitigated making this a preventable death.

An accident implies it wasn't intentional, not that it couldn't have been prevented. The accident may have been caused by reckless behavior.

So someone texting while driving accidentally kills someone because they didn’t intentionally do it?

The standard language is crash. https://www.roadpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/RP_Crash_not_Accident_Briefing_Sheet.pdf

Woah now. The driver in this instance stopped after the accident, called 911, and waited for the ambulance. Don't accuse her of doing something there is no indication that she did. You're a horrible human being for doing that

Especially because no one has accused the teen of doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The car may not have been speeding and missed them as there are lots of blind spots, dark. It could have just been a tragic accident.

This was a crash. An accident implies it couldn’t have been prevented. Vehicle speed, blind spots, and inadequate lighting are all things that could have been mitigated making this a preventable death.

An accident implies it wasn't intentional, not that it couldn't have been prevented. The accident may have been caused by reckless behavior.

So someone texting while driving accidentally kills someone because they didn’t intentionally do it?

The standard language is crash. https://www.roadpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/RP_Crash_not_Accident_Briefing_Sheet.pdf

This is some goofy ass propaganda.