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:

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.

Did you choose a car with better visibility over the front hood after that? Or is that not what you mean by something to learn from it.

[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.

Vans like his are too tall to see children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Vans like his are too tall to see children.

Why is it legal to drive vans, whose drivers are unable to see children, anywhere where there are children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Vans like his are too tall to see children.

in the crosswalk
in the crosswalk
in the crosswalk

She was in the crosswalk. If you cannot see a child in the crosswalk right before hitting and killing her then you are not driving safely.

in the crosswalk
in the crosswalk
in the crosswalk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Vans like his are too tall to see children.

I guess they are legal because you simply need to pay attention. Pedestrians need to pay attention as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I guess they are legal because you simply need to pay attention. Pedestrians need to pay attention as well.

No, "you [the driver] simply need to pay attention" is not an adequate response for dangerous vehicles that threaten public safety on public roads.

There's also the whole issue of making a five-year-old child responsible for not getting run over by a driver who can't see children.

[Anonymous]

There trucks in Europe seem to have much less hood in the way giving better visibility of low things in front of you. I'll take looking dorky over dead kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I guess they are legal because you simply need to pay attention. Pedestrians need to pay attention as well.

No, "you [the driver] simply need to pay attention" is not an adequate response for dangerous vehicles that threaten public safety on public roads.

There's also the whole issue of making a five-year-old child responsible for not getting run over by a driver who can't see children.

Why not? If you pay attention to your surroundings, you won't hit the kids. Good luck getting vans, trucks, buses, tractor trailers, and RVs banned because you are upset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Vans like his are too tall to see children.

in the crosswalk
in the crosswalk
in the crosswalk

She was in the crosswalk. If you cannot see a child in the crosswalk right before hitting and killing her then you are not driving safely.

in the crosswalk
in the crosswalk
in the crosswalk


I think what PP is trying to say is that this child was IN THE CROSSWALK and everyone needs to just slow the hell down and, you know, not run over people IN THE CROSSWALK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There trucks in Europe seem to have much less hood in the way giving better visibility of low things in front of you. I'll take looking dorky over dead kids.

Yes. Box trucks in Europe have specific requirements like this that make them far, far safer on streets. Also less trucks and more vans (which carry more stuff and are more efficient gas-wise).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I guess they are legal because you simply need to pay attention. Pedestrians need to pay attention as well.

No, "you [the driver] simply need to pay attention" is not an adequate response for dangerous vehicles that threaten public safety on public roads.

There's also the whole issue of making a five-year-old child responsible for not getting run over by a driver who can't see children.

Why not? If you pay attention to your surroundings, you won't hit the kids. Good luck getting vans, trucks, buses, tractor trailers, and RVs banned because you are upset.

Imo the council didn't go far enough on the tonnage based tag increases. Should also impose it on people coming in somehow. $ change preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I guess they are legal because you simply need to pay attention. Pedestrians need to pay attention as well.

No, "you [the driver] simply need to pay attention" is not an adequate response for dangerous vehicles that threaten public safety on public roads.

There's also the whole issue of making a five-year-old child responsible for not getting run over by a driver who can't see children.

Why not? If you pay attention to your surroundings, you won't hit the kids. Good luck getting vans, trucks, buses, tractor trailers, and RVs banned because you are upset.

And if kids are unlucky enough to be on streets with drivers who aren't paying attention to their surroundings, oh well, they should have been more careful?

Or if drivers are driving vehicles with huge blind spots?
https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/driveway-danger-kids-being-injured-and-killed-in-frontover-suv-blind-zone-incidents/3119237/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I guess they are legal because you simply need to pay attention. Pedestrians need to pay attention as well.

No, "you [the driver] simply need to pay attention" is not an adequate response for dangerous vehicles that threaten public safety on public roads.

There's also the whole issue of making a five-year-old child responsible for not getting run over by a driver who can't see children.

Why not? If you pay attention to your surroundings, you won't hit the kids. Good luck getting vans, trucks, buses, tractor trailers, and RVs banned because you are upset.

Well an immediate ban would be great but not likely because many of you don't actually care if some more kids get hit. But I think we'll eventually get to regulations to require better visibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I guess they are legal because you simply need to pay attention. Pedestrians need to pay attention as well.

No, "you [the driver] simply need to pay attention" is not an adequate response for dangerous vehicles that threaten public safety on public roads.

There's also the whole issue of making a five-year-old child responsible for not getting run over by a driver who can't see children.

Why not? If you pay attention to your surroundings, you won't hit the kids. Good luck getting vans, trucks, buses, tractor trailers, and RVs banned because you are upset.

And if kids are unlucky enough to be on streets with drivers who aren't paying attention to their surroundings, oh well, they should have been more careful?

Or if drivers are driving vehicles with huge blind spots?
https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/driveway-danger-kids-being-injured-and-killed-in-frontover-suv-blind-zone-incidents/3119237/

You're hysterical. Just admit it, you will never do anything in your life to prevent a single accident. These accidents are a fact of life, get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You're hysterical. Just admit it, you will never do anything in your life to prevent a single accident. These accidents are a fact of life, get over it.

Not in other affluent countries, they're not. What are they doing right that we are somehow unable to do, because we believe that driving is more important than safety?