The death of Allie Hart and the need for safer streets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes accidents happen. It’s certainly possible for there to be a pedestrian/cyclist fatality where the driver isn’t at fault. I am in favor of traffic calming measures, btw.

Which is exactly why we need to call them "crashes" or "collisions", not accidents. "Accidents happen", but crashes are preventable.

Not all “collisions” are preventable. Ask anyone who’s been in a collision with someone who had a medical emergency. Or who hit a deer or had some road debris hit their car. I once was hit by a bouncing tire on the beltway. My roommate hit a bike courier who swerved into her car when someone suddenly opened a car door. Sometimes bad things happen.

"Sometimes bad things happen" is not an attitude we take about workplace accidents, or hospital accidents, or gas explosions, or airplane accidents, or... Just road accidents. I wonder why.

By the way, dooring is 100% preventable.

Household accidents happen all the time. And while dooring is preventable, my roommate the driver who hit the cyclist had no way of preventing it. Your premise is that all drivers are always culpable.

No, my premise is that crashes are preventable.

Household accidents are also preventable. That's why we have, for example, child-resistant tops for medication bottles, GFCI outlets in kitchens and bathrooms, and water heaters that don't go hotter than 140 degrees.

You really think child resistant tops have completely eliminated medication related accidents?
Article right here says it - “child-resistant packaging is it's not childproof. It's actually intended to slow the child down."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-many-children-die-accidental-medicine-poisoning-safe-kids-worldwide-report/

You're reaching. There is not one thing that will prevent 100% of everything. But in general, we focus on prevention. We don't shrug our shoulders and say "accidents happen."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correction: it impedes flow when a motorist is stopped in THE MIDDLE OF an intersection.

Which does kind of raise the question: why is the unimpeded flow of car traffic the most important priority for road design and road laws?

I'm not sure. But, I don't think it's safe for a pedestrian to walk out into the crosswalk when I'm driving that way. So, perhaps the better question is: should that be allowed? I would think it protects the pedestrian because they may not be able to judge the speed and distance of the car. While I do think people drive dangerously, there's also a lot to keep track of in all directions.

It's safe, if you're driving slowly enough.

+1. It is only unsafe if you are diving fast enough to not be able to stop if a pedestrian walks into the crosswalk. When I drove I don’t find it remotely hard to scan the intersection to make sure no pedestrians are close by and to err on the side of caution if one might run across (or bike across). I will also drive slowly enough through a crosswalk to stop if a pedestrian decides to cross. Again that is what crosswalks are for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correction: it impedes flow when a motorist is stopped in THE MIDDLE OF an intersection.

Which does kind of raise the question: why is the unimpeded flow of car traffic the most important priority for road design and road laws?

I'm not sure. But, I don't think it's safe for a pedestrian to walk out into the crosswalk when I'm driving that way. So, perhaps the better question is: should that be allowed? I would think it protects the pedestrian because they may not be able to judge the speed and distance of the car. While I do think people drive dangerously, there's also a lot to keep track of in all directions.

It's safe, if you're driving slowly enough.

+1. It is only unsafe if you are diving fast enough to not be able to stop if a pedestrian walks into the crosswalk. When I drove I don’t find it remotely hard to scan the intersection to make sure no pedestrians are close by and to err on the side of caution if one might run across (or bike across). I will also drive slowly enough through a crosswalk to stop if a pedestrian decides to cross. Again that is what crosswalks are for.

DP. I don’t disagree with this, but pedestrians and cyclists should not be pretending like cars don’t exist. I had a child run across the street in front of me today on T Street. Her parent was across the street waiting for her by their car. She ran between two cars and into the street, not at a crosswalk. She didn’t stop or look up. Her parent had no reaction at all. I was going probably 20 mph and was able to stop, but I was doing absolutely nothing wrong in that situation and could easily have hit her if I had been closer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correction: it impedes flow when a motorist is stopped in THE MIDDLE OF an intersection.

Which does kind of raise the question: why is the unimpeded flow of car traffic the most important priority for road design and road laws?

I'm not sure. But, I don't think it's safe for a pedestrian to walk out into the crosswalk when I'm driving that way. So, perhaps the better question is: should that be allowed? I would think it protects the pedestrian because they may not be able to judge the speed and distance of the car. While I do think people drive dangerously, there's also a lot to keep track of in all directions.

It's safe, if you're driving slowly enough.

+1. It is only unsafe if you are diving fast enough to not be able to stop if a pedestrian walks into the crosswalk. When I drove I don’t find it remotely hard to scan the intersection to make sure no pedestrians are close by and to err on the side of caution if one might run across (or bike across). I will also drive slowly enough through a crosswalk to stop if a pedestrian decides to cross. Again that is what crosswalks are for.

Correct. You are in a city. In a city, people walk from place to place. Or bike. Or skateboard. In a city people use the crosswalks. I know this is hard to believe for those of you who live in suburban neighborhoods replete with big box stores whose sidewalks stop in grassy shoulders more than 10 feet from any entrance. But in the city, our pedestrian infrastructure is mostly complete and mostly used. There are very, very few areas who do not have sidewalks on both sides of the road, and even fewer who don't have it at least on one (I'm looking at you, Forest Hills).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes accidents happen. It’s certainly possible for there to be a pedestrian/cyclist fatality where the driver isn’t at fault. I am in favor of traffic calming measures, btw.

Which is exactly why we need to call them "crashes" or "collisions", not accidents. "Accidents happen", but crashes are preventable.

Not all “collisions” are preventable. Ask anyone who’s been in a collision with someone who had a medical emergency. Or who hit a deer or had some road debris hit their car. I once was hit by a bouncing tire on the beltway. My roommate hit a bike courier who swerved into her car when someone suddenly opened a car door. Sometimes bad things happen.

"Sometimes bad things happen" is not an attitude we take about workplace accidents, or hospital accidents, or gas explosions, or airplane accidents, or... Just road accidents. I wonder why.

By the way, dooring is 100% preventable.

Household accidents happen all the time. And while dooring is preventable, my roommate the driver who hit the cyclist had no way of preventing it. Your premise is that all drivers are always culpable.

No, my premise is that crashes are preventable.

Household accidents are also preventable. That's why we have, for example, child-resistant tops for medication bottles, GFCI outlets in kitchens and bathrooms, and water heaters that don't go hotter than 140 degrees.

You really think child resistant tops have completely eliminated medication related accidents?
Article right here says it - “child-resistant packaging is it's not childproof. It's actually intended to slow the child down."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-many-children-die-accidental-medicine-poisoning-safe-kids-worldwide-report/

You're reaching. There is not one thing that will prevent 100% of everything. But in general, we focus on prevention. We don't shrug our shoulders and say "accidents happen."

The point is you can do everything possible to help prevent an accident, yet ACCIDENTS STILL HAPPEN.
No one is saying shrug your shoulders. What we are saying is that we need to both make streets safer AND not put our children in dangerous situations.
Those who say accidents are preventable and it’s always the drivers fault are completely delusional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correction: it impedes flow when a motorist is stopped in THE MIDDLE OF an intersection.

Which does kind of raise the question: why is the unimpeded flow of car traffic the most important priority for road design and road laws?

I'm not sure. But, I don't think it's safe for a pedestrian to walk out into the crosswalk when I'm driving that way. So, perhaps the better question is: should that be allowed? I would think it protects the pedestrian because they may not be able to judge the speed and distance of the car. While I do think people drive dangerously, there's also a lot to keep track of in all directions.

It's safe, if you're driving slowly enough.

+1. It is only unsafe if you are diving fast enough to not be able to stop if a pedestrian walks into the crosswalk. When I drove I don’t find it remotely hard to scan the intersection to make sure no pedestrians are close by and to err on the side of caution if one might run across (or bike across). I will also drive slowly enough through a crosswalk to stop if a pedestrian decides to cross. Again that is what crosswalks are for.

DP. I don’t disagree with this, but pedestrians and cyclists should not be pretending like cars don’t exist. I had a child run across the street in front of me today on T Street. Her parent was across the street waiting for her by their car. She ran between two cars and into the street, not at a crosswalk. She didn’t stop or look up. Her parent had no reaction at all. I was going probably 20 mph and was able to stop, but I was doing absolutely nothing wrong in that situation and could easily have hit her if I had been closer.

That was an unsafe move by the parent that sounds preventable. You also make a compelling case for limiting speeds strictly to 20mph because that greatly increases the likelihood that you can and will stop on a dime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correction: it impedes flow when a motorist is stopped in THE MIDDLE OF an intersection.

Which does kind of raise the question: why is the unimpeded flow of car traffic the most important priority for road design and road laws?

I'm not sure. But, I don't think it's safe for a pedestrian to walk out into the crosswalk when I'm driving that way. So, perhaps the better question is: should that be allowed? I would think it protects the pedestrian because they may not be able to judge the speed and distance of the car. While I do think people drive dangerously, there's also a lot to keep track of in all directions.

It's safe, if you're driving slowly enough.

+1. It is only unsafe if you are diving fast enough to not be able to stop if a pedestrian walks into the crosswalk. When I drove I don’t find it remotely hard to scan the intersection to make sure no pedestrians are close by and to err on the side of caution if one might run across (or bike across). I will also drive slowly enough through a crosswalk to stop if a pedestrian decides to cross. Again that is what crosswalks are for.

DP. I don’t disagree with this, but pedestrians and cyclists should not be pretending like cars don’t exist. I had a child run across the street in front of me today on T Street. Her parent was across the street waiting for her by their car. She ran between two cars and into the street, not at a crosswalk. She didn’t stop or look up. Her parent had no reaction at all. I was going probably 20 mph and was able to stop, but I was doing absolutely nothing wrong in that situation and could easily have hit her if I had been closer.

This is my worst nightmare, both as a parent and as a driver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes accidents happen. It’s certainly possible for there to be a pedestrian/cyclist fatality where the driver isn’t at fault. I am in favor of traffic calming measures, btw.

Which is exactly why we need to call them "crashes" or "collisions", not accidents. "Accidents happen", but crashes are preventable.

Not all “collisions” are preventable. Ask anyone who’s been in a collision with someone who had a medical emergency. Or who hit a deer or had some road debris hit their car. I once was hit by a bouncing tire on the beltway. My roommate hit a bike courier who swerved into her car when someone suddenly opened a car door. Sometimes bad things happen.

"Sometimes bad things happen" is not an attitude we take about workplace accidents, or hospital accidents, or gas explosions, or airplane accidents, or... Just road accidents. I wonder why.

By the way, dooring is 100% preventable.

Household accidents happen all the time. And while dooring is preventable, my roommate the driver who hit the cyclist had no way of preventing it. Your premise is that all drivers are always culpable.

No, my premise is that crashes are preventable.

Household accidents are also preventable. That's why we have, for example, child-resistant tops for medication bottles, GFCI outlets in kitchens and bathrooms, and water heaters that don't go hotter than 140 degrees.

You really think child resistant tops have completely eliminated medication related accidents?
Article right here says it - “child-resistant packaging is it's not childproof. It's actually intended to slow the child down."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-many-children-die-accidental-medicine-poisoning-safe-kids-worldwide-report/

You're reaching. There is not one thing that will prevent 100% of everything. But in general, we focus on prevention. We don't shrug our shoulders and say "accidents happen."

The point is you can do everything possible to help prevent an accident, yet ACCIDENTS STILL HAPPEN.
No one is saying shrug your shoulders. What we are saying is that we need to both make streets safer AND not put our children in dangerous situations.
Those who say accidents are preventable and it’s always the drivers fault are completely delusional.

"Crashes are preventable" is basically the opposite of "it's always the driver's fault".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correction: it impedes flow when a motorist is stopped in THE MIDDLE OF an intersection.

Which does kind of raise the question: why is the unimpeded flow of car traffic the most important priority for road design and road laws?

I'm not sure. But, I don't think it's safe for a pedestrian to walk out into the crosswalk when I'm driving that way. So, perhaps the better question is: should that be allowed? I would think it protects the pedestrian because they may not be able to judge the speed and distance of the car. While I do think people drive dangerously, there's also a lot to keep track of in all directions.

It's safe, if you're driving slowly enough.

+1. It is only unsafe if you are diving fast enough to not be able to stop if a pedestrian walks into the crosswalk. When I drove I don’t find it remotely hard to scan the intersection to make sure no pedestrians are close by and to err on the side of caution if one might run across (or bike across). I will also drive slowly enough through a crosswalk to stop if a pedestrian decides to cross. Again that is what crosswalks are for.

DP. I don’t disagree with this, but pedestrians and cyclists should not be pretending like cars don’t exist. I had a child run across the street in front of me today on T Street. Her parent was across the street waiting for her by their car. She ran between two cars and into the street, not at a crosswalk. She didn’t stop or look up. Her parent had no reaction at all. I was going probably 20 mph and was able to stop, but I was doing absolutely nothing wrong in that situation and could easily have hit her if I had been closer.

Good thing you were only driving 20 mph and were able to stop. Children are unpredictable. Driving speeds should be slow anywhere where there are children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correction: it impedes flow when a motorist is stopped in THE MIDDLE OF an intersection.

Which does kind of raise the question: why is the unimpeded flow of car traffic the most important priority for road design and road laws?

I'm not sure. But, I don't think it's safe for a pedestrian to walk out into the crosswalk when I'm driving that way. So, perhaps the better question is: should that be allowed? I would think it protects the pedestrian because they may not be able to judge the speed and distance of the car. While I do think people drive dangerously, there's also a lot to keep track of in all directions.

It's safe, if you're driving slowly enough.

+1. It is only unsafe if you are diving fast enough to not be able to stop if a pedestrian walks into the crosswalk. When I drove I don’t find it remotely hard to scan the intersection to make sure no pedestrians are close by and to err on the side of caution if one might run across (or bike across). I will also drive slowly enough through a crosswalk to stop if a pedestrian decides to cross. Again that is what crosswalks are for.

DP. I don’t disagree with this, but pedestrians and cyclists should not be pretending like cars don’t exist. I had a child run across the street in front of me today on T Street. Her parent was across the street waiting for her by their car. She ran between two cars and into the street, not at a crosswalk. She didn’t stop or look up. Her parent had no reaction at all. I was going probably 20 mph and was able to stop, but I was doing absolutely nothing wrong in that situation and could easily have hit her if I had been closer.

It is a good thing you were driving slowly and able to stop. This makes the case for complete streets that slow cars and force them into specific movements (eg away from parking in crosswalks etc). If you had been driving 30 the girls might have been killed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes accidents happen. It’s certainly possible for there to be a pedestrian/cyclist fatality where the driver isn’t at fault. I am in favor of traffic calming measures, btw.

Which is exactly why we need to call them "crashes" or "collisions", not accidents. "Accidents happen", but crashes are preventable.

Not all “collisions” are preventable. Ask anyone who’s been in a collision with someone who had a medical emergency. Or who hit a deer or had some road debris hit their car. I once was hit by a bouncing tire on the beltway. My roommate hit a bike courier who swerved into her car when someone suddenly opened a car door. Sometimes bad things happen.

"Sometimes bad things happen" is not an attitude we take about workplace accidents, or hospital accidents, or gas explosions, or airplane accidents, or... Just road accidents. I wonder why.

By the way, dooring is 100% preventable.

Household accidents happen all the time. And while dooring is preventable, my roommate the driver who hit the cyclist had no way of preventing it. Your premise is that all drivers are always culpable.

No, my premise is that crashes are preventable.

Household accidents are also preventable. That's why we have, for example, child-resistant tops for medication bottles, GFCI outlets in kitchens and bathrooms, and water heaters that don't go hotter than 140 degrees.

You really think child resistant tops have completely eliminated medication related accidents?
Article right here says it - “child-resistant packaging is it's not childproof. It's actually intended to slow the child down."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-many-children-die-accidental-medicine-poisoning-safe-kids-worldwide-report/

You're reaching. There is not one thing that will prevent 100% of everything. But in general, we focus on prevention. We don't shrug our shoulders and say "accidents happen."

The point is you can do everything possible to help prevent an accident, yet ACCIDENTS STILL HAPPEN.
No one is saying shrug your shoulders. What we are saying is that we need to both make streets safer AND not put our children in dangerous situations.
Those who say accidents are preventable and it’s always the drivers fault are completely delusional.

Sure, but a child on a street is not inherently a dangerous situation. It is only dangerous when you add vehicles and drivers who don't pay attention or care if they hit someone. This is why so many on this thread (and the grief-stricken mother) are advocating for streets that are livable for all and not just drivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why are you so obsessed with pinning murderous action on a truck driver when the police exonerated him? It's really weird.

No one wanted Allie to die. What do we do now that can make those who have survived, like her brother, safer?

Make the streets safer, which will include redesigning them so that drivers drive more slowly. And it will also include NOT complaining about bike lanes or loss of parking or anything else that will make it more inconvenient for people in a dense city to go places fast by car.

+1

+2
We need to stop designing cities around cars. We need to design them around people. Drivers are not any more important than anyone else, and they are more likely to kill people than bikes or pedestrians. Let's act like it.

Most people in this metropolitan area of 6 million people do drive cars, or ride in them if underage. We should design so that everyone stays safe and also to facilitate, not gratuitously impede, the primary purpose of cities. Community, yes, say the bike brigade. But just as importantly, commerce.

When you choke the entire city down to 1/2 lane in each direction, you're privileging the Arts On The Right-of-Way, er, Street over the economic engine that allows you to live here in the first place. Duh.

Oh sweetie, those of us who actually live in the city would throw a huge party if suburban commuter car traffic was limited to half a lane each way. We know you would stomp your feet and tantrum about it, but you actually aren’t all that important to the city’s economy compared to the volume of people who commute in by transit. I would be so happy I could start letting my kids ride their bikes to friends houses and school, instead of driving them like I currently do, out of a very rational fear for their safety.

Oh, you “would be so happy,” would you? How very sad for you that it will never happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the police did not find fault with the driver's actions and no charges were brought, I think it's very weird that some people are in here insisting the the police report is wrong and they know better.

Accidents happen. Even tragic ones. That doesn't make the driver at fault. Wrong time, wrong place for both people.

If you really want to blame someone, blame the dad who wasn't right beside her making sure she stopped at the curb and didn't dart out into the street. I personally wouldn't but I think he is more at fault than the driver who was not charged by police.

If I have a choice between blaming the father of a dead five year old and the driver of a deadly vehicle who killed a child in the crosswalk I am going to blame the diver every time. Driving is a responsibility and I am sick of people treating it like some god-given right. If you can't operate a vehicle in a manner that allows you to NOT KILL a child in a crosswalk then you should not be driving and I think you should be arrested and thrown in jail if you kill someone. Clearly the system does not agree with me on the latter point but I am so sick of that reality. Blaming the parents does nothing because it isn't their fault- they did not choose to drive a car into a child. The driver did.

Also, if she has the right of way she isn't "darting" into the street. She legally entered a crosswalk. Darting implies she did it with no warning or in a place she should not have been. The warning to the driver is the fact that there is a crosswalk there. Pedestrians are already relegated to only being "allowed" to cross in a crosswalk and it is unconscionable that even when they DO stay in the crosswalk then can be murdered with zero repercussions to the perpetrator.

Yes, we see your bias. Luckily the police disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes accidents happen. It’s certainly possible for there to be a pedestrian/cyclist fatality where the driver isn’t at fault. I am in favor of traffic calming measures, btw.

Which is exactly why we need to call them "crashes" or "collisions", not accidents. "Accidents happen", but crashes are preventable.

Not all “collisions” are preventable. Ask anyone who’s been in a collision with someone who had a medical emergency. Or who hit a deer or had some road debris hit their car. I once was hit by a bouncing tire on the beltway. My roommate hit a bike courier who swerved into her car when someone suddenly opened a car door. Sometimes bad things happen.

"Sometimes bad things happen" is not an attitude we take about workplace accidents, or hospital accidents, or gas explosions, or airplane accidents, or... Just road accidents. I wonder why.

By the way, dooring is 100% preventable.

Household accidents happen all the time. And while dooring is preventable, my roommate the driver who hit the cyclist had no way of preventing it. Your premise is that all drivers are always culpable.

No, my premise is that crashes are preventable.

Household accidents are also preventable. That's why we have, for example, child-resistant tops for medication bottles, GFCI outlets in kitchens and bathrooms, and water heaters that don't go hotter than 140 degrees.

You really think child resistant tops have completely eliminated medication related accidents?
Article right here says it - “child-resistant packaging is it's not childproof. It's actually intended to slow the child down."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-many-children-die-accidental-medicine-poisoning-safe-kids-worldwide-report/

You're reaching. There is not one thing that will prevent 100% of everything. But in general, we focus on prevention. We don't shrug our shoulders and say "accidents happen."

The point is you can do everything possible to help prevent an accident, yet ACCIDENTS STILL HAPPEN.
No one is saying shrug your shoulders. What we are saying is that we need to both make streets safer AND not put our children in dangerous situations.
Those who say accidents are preventable and it’s always the drivers fault are completely delusional.

Sure, but a child on a street is not inherently a dangerous situation. It is only dangerous when you add vehicles and drivers who don't pay attention or care if they hit someone. This is why so many on this thread (and the grief-stricken mother) are advocating for streets that are livable for all and not just drivers.

Um, would you like to join us in reality? I, too, would love for my children to be gamboling in a meadow where the only traffic is Farmer Ted and his kindly horse, but people are living and walking around vehicles and need to act accordingly. We can advocate for 20 mph speed limits and bump outs (andI do!) and still recognize that nobody should step out between cars without looking or allow their young children to bike into crosswalks alone. This magical thinking that a child on a street is not inherently dangerous is bonkers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids do dart out into the street though. When I walk with my young kids, I hold their hand. I don't let them bike or scooter because of this very scenario.

I feel very bad for her parents but I believe it was a tragic accident and that the driver didn't do anything wrong. You need to hold your young child's hand at all times on busy roads and intersections.

People don't "dart".

Also, as you say, kids are kids. They predictably behave in unpredictable ways. Why should we have to hold our young children's hands at all times, lest they be killed? Why shouldn't it be safe for kids to bike or scooter in their own neighborhoods? Why is it acceptable for streets to be unsafe - deadly - for children?

When you’re near a busy street? Is this a serious question? Wow.

This is the father’s fault. Hold her damn hand.