The death of Allie Hart and the need for safer streets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

All your ideas are great. But I was responding to the “If the vehicle had come to a full stop and then proceeded safely through the intersection, it would not have killed her” comment. There is absolutely a way he could have killed her, even following the law.

By definition in this hypothetical, if the driver had proceeded SAFELY through the intersection, then no, the driver would not have killed her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As clearly stated in DC’s pedestrian traffic regulations, “Pedestrians may cross the roadway within a marked or unmarked crosswalk. However, no pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb, safety platform, safety zone, loading platform or other designated place of safety and walk or turn into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.”

So if Allie did indeed dart out in front of the car, then yes, there is more we need to know. It’s just not as simple as you want it to be.

There is more you want to know, if you're trying to figure out whether you can blame a five-year-old for being killed by an adult licensed driver in a crosswalk at an intersection in her neighborhood.

If you're trying to figure out how to prevent this from happening, then no, there is not more "we" "need" to know. "Parents should hold on to their children at all times" and "Parents should not allow five-year-olds to ride bikes" are not effective prevention strategies, they're expressions of your opinions.

A child darting out in front of a car that cannot safely stop in time is 100% relevant. It’s not an opinion - it’s fact.

Relevant to what, though?

If you want to prevent this from happening again, here's what you focus on: making sure that drivers can safely stop in time, before hitting and killing children.

It is astounding to me that you can’t accept that there will be times that people cannot stop safely and in time, no matter what safety measures are in place. That’s why there called accidents and that’s why there are both rules for cars and rules for pedestrians.

Let’s say the driver had a medical emergency behind the wheel and passed out. And that Allie then darted out in front of that essentially driverless car. What then? How could that accident have been prevented?

The US has the highest road death rate, by far, among other wealthy countries. Maybe drivers in other wealthy countries don't have medical emergencies. Or maybe those other countries are doing things to prevent road deaths that we could also do, if we chose to, instead of trying to invent ways to blame five-year-olds.

I don’t understand why we can‘t do things to improve road safety AND supervise our kids better on the off chance those road safety measures don’t work.

Has anybody said you shouldn't supervise your children? Supervise away.

There is one poster here that is basically saying it is always 100% the drivers fault - meaning unsupervised kids darting out into traffic is a-ok. I’m glad you agree that there is some parental responsibility in these situations.

Some parents are going to find any way to shirk responsibility. It's the same thing when you talk about schools- oh my child is misbehaving? What do you want me to do about it? Clearly it's the teacher's fault. No matter what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As clearly stated in DC’s pedestrian traffic regulations, “Pedestrians may cross the roadway within a marked or unmarked crosswalk. However, no pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb, safety platform, safety zone, loading platform or other designated place of safety and walk or turn into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.”

So if Allie did indeed dart out in front of the car, then yes, there is more we need to know. It’s just not as simple as you want it to be.

There is more you want to know, if you're trying to figure out whether you can blame a five-year-old for being killed by an adult licensed driver in a crosswalk at an intersection in her neighborhood.

If you're trying to figure out how to prevent this from happening, then no, there is not more "we" "need" to know. "Parents should hold on to their children at all times" and "Parents should not allow five-year-olds to ride bikes" are not effective prevention strategies, they're expressions of your opinions.

A child darting out in front of a car that cannot safely stop in time is 100% relevant. It’s not an opinion - it’s fact.

It couldn’t safely stop in time because it blew through the stop sign and was going too fast through the intersection.

Do we know that that’s what happened?

If the vehicle had come to a full stop and then proceeded safely through the intersection, it would not have killed her.

Seriously stop with this. If she was at the opposite side of the intersection where he stopped, and was hidden by parked cars and then darted out in front of him then yes, it is entirely possible he wouldn’t have had adequate time to stop.
If you need to be deliberately obtuse to get your point across, it’s not a very strong point.

NP- If he didn't have a clear view of the intersection and the crosswalk before driving through it then he wasn't driving through it safely. It is clear to me that the PP you are arguing with is saying that the fact that he killed her in a crosswalk means he was not driving safely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As clearly stated in DC’s pedestrian traffic regulations, “Pedestrians may cross the roadway within a marked or unmarked crosswalk. However, no pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb, safety platform, safety zone, loading platform or other designated place of safety and walk or turn into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.”

So if Allie did indeed dart out in front of the car, then yes, there is more we need to know. It’s just not as simple as you want it to be.

There is more you want to know, if you're trying to figure out whether you can blame a five-year-old for being killed by an adult licensed driver in a crosswalk at an intersection in her neighborhood.

If you're trying to figure out how to prevent this from happening, then no, there is not more "we" "need" to know. "Parents should hold on to their children at all times" and "Parents should not allow five-year-olds to ride bikes" are not effective prevention strategies, they're expressions of your opinions.

A child darting out in front of a car that cannot safely stop in time is 100% relevant. It’s not an opinion - it’s fact.

It couldn’t safely stop in time because it blew through the stop sign and was going too fast through the intersection.

Do we know that that’s what happened?

If the vehicle had come to a full stop and then proceeded safely through the intersection, it would not have killed her.

Seriously stop with this. If she was at the opposite side of the intersection where he stopped, and was hidden by parked cars and then darted out in front of him then yes, it is entirely possible he wouldn’t have had adequate time to stop.
If you need to be deliberately obtuse to get your point across, it’s not a very strong point.

NP- If he didn't have a clear view of the intersection and the crosswalk before driving through it then he wasn't driving through it safely. It is clear to me that the PP you are arguing with is saying that the fact that he killed her in a crosswalk means he was not driving safely.

Citation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NP- If he didn't have a clear view of the intersection and the crosswalk before driving through it then he wasn't driving through it safely. It is clear to me that the PP you are arguing with is saying that the fact that he killed her in a crosswalk means he was not driving safely.

Citation?

Are you asking for a citation for the idea that, if you can't see where you're going while you're driving, the only safe driving behavior is to, AT MINIMUM, drive very slowly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP- If he didn't have a clear view of the intersection and the crosswalk before driving through it then he wasn't driving through it safely. It is clear to me that the PP you are arguing with is saying that the fact that he killed her in a crosswalk means he was not driving safely.

Citation?

Are you asking for a citation for the idea that, if you can't see where you're going while you're driving, the only safe driving behavior is to, AT MINIMUM, drive very slowly?

How could he not see where he was going?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP- If he didn't have a clear view of the intersection and the crosswalk before driving through it then he wasn't driving through it safely. It is clear to me that the PP you are arguing with is saying that the fact that he killed her in a crosswalk means he was not driving safely.

Citation?

Are you asking for a citation for the idea that, if you can't see where you're going while you're driving, the only safe driving behavior is to, AT MINIMUM, drive very slowly?

How could he not see where he was going?

He could see where he was going. He couldn’t see her. You’re acting like this child was just stationary in the crosswalk in he ran into her. That’s quite obviously not what happened and frankly gross that you’re suggesting it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
He could see where he was going. He couldn’t see her. You’re acting like this child was just stationary in the crosswalk in he ran into her. That’s quite obviously not what happened and frankly gross that you’re suggesting it.

Are you the one who made up the hypothetical about maybe she suddenly "darted out" on her bike from between parked cars, which in that case would be parked in and blocking the crosswalk, and that's why the driver couldn't see her?

The fact is that we know the driver's driving wasn't safe, by definition, because the child is dead. It might have been legal, I don't know, but it wasn't safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP- If he didn't have a clear view of the intersection and the crosswalk before driving through it then he wasn't driving through it safely. It is clear to me that the PP you are arguing with is saying that the fact that he killed her in a crosswalk means he was not driving safely.

Citation?

Are you asking for a citation for the idea that, if you can't see where you're going while you're driving, the only safe driving behavior is to, AT MINIMUM, drive very slowly?

How could he not see where he was going?

He could see where he was going. He couldn’t see her. You’re acting like this child was just stationary in the crosswalk in he ran into her. That’s quite obviously not what happened and frankly gross that you’re suggesting it.

I’m not suggesting that at all. I’m suggesting he could have been driving safely and following the law, and she could have darted out in front of him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
He could see where he was going. He couldn’t see her. You’re acting like this child was just stationary in the crosswalk in he ran into her. That’s quite obviously not what happened and frankly gross that you’re suggesting it.

Are you the one who made up the hypothetical about maybe she suddenly "darted out" on her bike from between parked cars, which in that case would be parked in and blocking the crosswalk, and that's why the driver couldn't see her?

The fact is that we know the driver's driving wasn't safe, by definition, because the child is dead. It might have been legal, I don't know, but it wasn't safe.

We don’t know that at all. You can think that, but that doesn’t make it fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
He could see where he was going. He couldn’t see her. You’re acting like this child was just stationary in the crosswalk in he ran into her. That’s quite obviously not what happened and frankly gross that you’re suggesting it.

Are you the one who made up the hypothetical about maybe she suddenly "darted out" on her bike from between parked cars, which in that case would be parked in and blocking the crosswalk, and that's why the driver couldn't see her?

The fact is that we know the driver's driving wasn't safe, by definition, because the child is dead. It might have been legal, I don't know, but it wasn't safe.

We don’t know that at all. You can think that, but that doesn’t make it fact.

Other than killing a child, he was driving safely...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I’m not suggesting that at all. I’m suggesting he could have been driving safely and following the law, and she could have darted out in front of him.

"Driving safely" and "following the law" are two different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As clearly stated in DC’s pedestrian traffic regulations, “Pedestrians may cross the roadway within a marked or unmarked crosswalk. However, no pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb, safety platform, safety zone, loading platform or other designated place of safety and walk or turn into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.”

So if Allie did indeed dart out in front of the car, then yes, there is more we need to know. It’s just not as simple as you want it to be.

There is more you want to know, if you're trying to figure out whether you can blame a five-year-old for being killed by an adult licensed driver in a crosswalk at an intersection in her neighborhood.

If you're trying to figure out how to prevent this from happening, then no, there is not more "we" "need" to know. "Parents should hold on to their children at all times" and "Parents should not allow five-year-olds to ride bikes" are not effective prevention strategies, they're expressions of your opinions.

A child darting out in front of a car that cannot safely stop in time is 100% relevant. It’s not an opinion - it’s fact.

It couldn’t safely stop in time because it blew through the stop sign and was going too fast through the intersection.

Do we know that that’s what happened?

If the vehicle had come to a full stop and then proceeded safely through the intersection, it would not have killed her.

My understanding is that the vehicle had already stopped and started moving again. The child, on a bike, proceeded onto the crosswalk after the vehicle had begun moving. I think it was a truck, and the driver claims he did not see child because she was below his line of sight (which makes sense if she entered the crosswalk on a bike at the last second). In my experience, there is usually a downward dip in the sidewalk before you enter a crosswalk, which can led to someone on a small bike not only being lower than the site line of a vehicle, but also entering a crosswalk at a higher rate of speed.

Your insistence that there is nothing to be learned from this tragedy is odd. We can learn things and change behavior without assigning blame to one person. I think the issue is you do not believe accidents exist, so any attempted to discuss what went wrong entails assigning blame.

I almost hit a child when I was 16. I still remember the moment clear as day. I was at a stop sign and a large SUV was parked right before the stop sign to my right. I stopped at the sign and started forward when I heard a scream and hit my breaks. It turns out a small child lost control of their ball and was running full speed into the crosswalk. I didn’t see the ball (it was too close to my car) or the kid (who was about to break into my view from behind the SUV). Only thing that alerted me was the scream, which I am so thankful for. I still think of that situation rather frequently even though nothing happened.

[Anonymous]

And before the one poster attacks me, yes, I did see around the SUV before I started moving again. The kid wasn’t in view/running to the crosswalk at that point. The entire situation change in a matter of seconds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And before the one poster attacks me, yes, I did see around the SUV before I started moving again. The kid wasn’t in view/running to the crosswalk at that point. The entire situation change in a matter of seconds.

That's why parking should be prohibited near intersections. Which, guess what, it actually is, at the actual intersection where the driver killed Allie, where there is also a church on one corner and a school on another. 14th St & Irving St NE, in Brookland.

All these people inventing hypothetical scenarios should go take a look at current and historic images of the actual intersection.