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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Speed limit is already 20mph on residential streets. I agree these posters (or poster) are living in La-La Land by placing all responsibility for keeping kids safe on drivers. If you choose to live in a city, you need to do so with the understanding that there are cars and bikes and trucks and scooters and vans and walkers and everyone has a role in keeping themselves and others safe. You can be both for traffic calming measures and personal responsibility on the part of everyone at the same time.

If you choose to drive in a city, you need to do so with the understanding that you have an obligation to not hit people, regardless of what those people might be doing. If you don't like it, you should find another way to get around. The good news is that in a city, there are plenty of ways to get around that don't involve you driving.

As for the speed limit .

“Obligation not to hit people.” You are completely delusional. There is no rational conversation to be had with this level of cluelessness.

It's literally the law. As a driver, you should be aware of the law.

Pedestrians also have a responsibility to act reasonably.

No, that is not the law.

Yes, it is. You can’t try to cross 295 and expect drivers to stop. You can’t stagger drunkenly into the street where there is no crosswalk and expect that others will be able to avoid hitting you. I urge you not to test this out.

"You can't try to cross 295 and expect drivers to stop" is not a law.

The law is that pedestrians need to act reasonably.

Pedestrians are not allowed on 295. They are allowed in crosswalk

No no no. According to one (or maybe more?) poster on this thread, pedestrians can be anywhere, anytime, and expect 100% safety. If they stumble out on 295 and get hit, it is absolutely positively the drivers fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Speed limit is already 20mph on residential streets. I agree these posters (or poster) are living in La-La Land by placing all responsibility for keeping kids safe on drivers. If you choose to live in a city, you need to do so with the understanding that there are cars and bikes and trucks and scooters and vans and walkers and everyone has a role in keeping themselves and others safe. You can be both for traffic calming measures and personal responsibility on the part of everyone at the same time.

If you choose to drive in a city, you need to do so with the understanding that you have an obligation to not hit people, regardless of what those people might be doing. If you don't like it, you should find another way to get around. The good news is that in a city, there are plenty of ways to get around that don't involve you driving.

As for the speed limit .

“Obligation not to hit people.” You are completely delusional. There is no rational conversation to be had with this level of cluelessness.

It's literally the law. As a driver, you should be aware of the law.

Pedestrians also have a responsibility to act reasonably.

No, that is not the law.

Yes, it is. You can’t try to cross 295 and expect drivers to stop. You can’t stagger drunkenly into the street where there is no crosswalk and expect that others will be able to avoid hitting you. I urge you not to test this out.

"You can't try to cross 295 and expect drivers to stop" is not a law.

The law is that pedestrians need to act reasonably.

There is no law that pedestrians must act reasonably. There is a law that pedestrians are not allowed on I-295.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Speed limit is already 20mph on residential streets. I agree these posters (or poster) are living in La-La Land by placing all responsibility for keeping kids safe on drivers. If you choose to live in a city, you need to do so with the understanding that there are cars and bikes and trucks and scooters and vans and walkers and everyone has a role in keeping themselves and others safe. You can be both for traffic calming measures and personal responsibility on the part of everyone at the same time.

If you choose to drive in a city, you need to do so with the understanding that you have an obligation to not hit people, regardless of what those people might be doing. If you don't like it, you should find another way to get around. The good news is that in a city, there are plenty of ways to get around that don't involve you driving.

As for the speed limit .

“Obligation not to hit people.” You are completely delusional. There is no rational conversation to be had with this level of cluelessness.

It's literally the law. As a driver, you should be aware of the law.

Pedestrians also have a responsibility to act reasonably.

No, that is not the law.

Yes, it is. You can’t try to cross 295 and expect drivers to stop. You can’t stagger drunkenly into the street where there is no crosswalk and expect that others will be able to avoid hitting you. I urge you not to test this out.

"You can't try to cross 295 and expect drivers to stop" is not a law.

The law is that pedestrians need to act reasonably.

There is no law that pedestrians must act reasonably. There is a law that pedestrians are not allowed on I-295.

May not be a law, but NHTSA has lots of recommendations on how pedestrians can behave safely:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/811027.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Speed limit is already 20mph on residential streets. I agree these posters (or poster) are living in La-La Land by placing all responsibility for keeping kids safe on drivers. If you choose to live in a city, you need to do so with the understanding that there are cars and bikes and trucks and scooters and vans and walkers and everyone has a role in keeping themselves and others safe. You can be both for traffic calming measures and personal responsibility on the part of everyone at the same time.

If you choose to drive in a city, you need to do so with the understanding that you have an obligation to not hit people, regardless of what those people might be doing. If you don't like it, you should find another way to get around. The good news is that in a city, there are plenty of ways to get around that don't involve you driving.

As for the speed limit .

“Obligation not to hit people.” You are completely delusional. There is no rational conversation to be had with this level of cluelessness.

It's literally the law. As a driver, you should be aware of the law.

Pedestrians also have a responsibility to act reasonably.

No, that is not the law.

Yes, it is. You can’t try to cross 295 and expect drivers to stop. You can’t stagger drunkenly into the street where there is no crosswalk and expect that others will be able to avoid hitting you. I urge you not to test this out.

"You can't try to cross 295 and expect drivers to stop" is not a law.

The law is that pedestrians need to act reasonably.

There is no law that pedestrians must act reasonably. There is a law that pedestrians are not allowed on I-295.

May not be a law, but NHTSA has lots of recommendations on how pedestrians can behave safely:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/811027.pdf

That's nice. DC has laws about drivers' obligations for driving safely.

[Anonymous]

There are pedestrian laws in DC, too. Of course there are. You can’t just cross anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are pedestrian laws in DC, too. Of course there are. You can’t just cross anywhere.

Terrific. Tell us what they are and what they say.

[Anonymous]

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/bike_ped_traffic_reg_summary_0_0.pdf
Page 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/bike_ped_traffic_reg_summary_0_0.pdf
Page 3

Oooh No Pedestrian Laws PP is going down in flames

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/bike_ped_traffic_reg_summary_0_0.pdf
Page 3

To summarize:

-Pedestrians may not cross on don't-walk (unless they're using a white cane)
-Pedestrians may not fling themselves in front of vehicles
-Pedestrians who cross between intersections must yield to drivers
-Pedestrians must walk on the sidewalk if there's a sidewalk, or facing oncoming cars if there isn't
-Pedestrians aren't allowed to cross diagonally except at intersections set up for pedestrians to cross diagonally

Also, drivers must exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrians or bicyclists, with extra precaution is required for children and any obviously confused, incapacitated or intoxicated person.

Now, what was your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/bike_ped_traffic_reg_summary_0_0.pdf
Page 3

To summarize:

-Pedestrians may not cross on don't-walk (unless they're using a white cane)
-Pedestrians may not fling themselves in front of vehicles
-Pedestrians who cross between intersections must yield to drivers
-Pedestrians must walk on the sidewalk if there's a sidewalk, or facing oncoming cars if there isn't
-Pedestrians aren't allowed to cross diagonally except at intersections set up for pedestrians to cross diagonally

Also, drivers must exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrians or bicyclists, with extra precaution is required for children and any obviously confused, incapacitated or intoxicated person.

Now, what was your point?

The point was that drivers aren’t always at fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/bike_ped_traffic_reg_summary_0_0.pdf
Page 3

To summarize:

-Pedestrians may not cross on don't-walk (unless they're using a white cane)
-Pedestrians may not fling themselves in front of vehicles
-Pedestrians who cross between intersections must yield to drivers
-Pedestrians must walk on the sidewalk if there's a sidewalk, or facing oncoming cars if there isn't
-Pedestrians aren't allowed to cross diagonally except at intersections set up for pedestrians to cross diagonally

Also, drivers must exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrians or bicyclists, with extra precaution is required for children and any obviously confused, incapacitated or intoxicated person.

Now, what was your point?

The point was that drivers aren’t always at fault.

But nobody has said that drivers are always legally at fault. In fact, drivers who kill people are almost never legally at fault. That's how we've set the system up in the US. It's one reason why the rate of road deaths is so much higher in the US than in similarly wealthy countries.

[Anonymous]

There are lots of comments about how drivers are always at fault and that children should be able to dart out into traffic without any danger. Every collision is the driver’s fault, there are no accidents, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are lots of comments about how drivers are always at fault and that children should be able to dart out into traffic without any danger. Every collision is the driver’s fault, there are no accidents, etc.

Do you think it's ok that streets are deadly for children? I don't. I think streets should be safe for children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are lots of comments about how drivers are always at fault and that children should be able to dart out into traffic without any danger. Every collision is the driver’s fault, there are no accidents, etc.

Do you think it's ok that streets are deadly for children? I don't. I think streets should be safe for children.

Were you and your child crossing T street recently? Keep a better eye on your kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what actually happened?

It seems like the dad shouldn't have let a small child bike across the crosswalk alone. But is that what happened?

The driver hit the child in a crosswalk and killed her. That's what happened.

Did she dart out on her bike or was she watching for traffic? Where was the dad? The the truck stop at the stop sign?