The death of Allie Hart and the need for safer streets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP, mother, I read a statement like this and the lack of empathy and dismissive tone just... helps reinforce that more safety precautions are needed. If that's how you talk, I shudder to think how you drive.

So, thanks for helping to reinforce the fight for safety precautions? Keep being a jerk, it only helps the cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP, mother, I read a statement like this and the lack of empathy and dismissive tone just... helps reinforce that more safety precautions are needed. If that's how you talk, I shudder to think how you drive.

So, thanks for helping to reinforce the fight for safety precautions? Keep being a jerk, it only helps the cause.

You are confusing lack of empathy with reality. You think you are so clever, yet your ideas are insane. Compulsively complaining about vans and wanting to totally reconstruct our transportation system is just absurd and not accomplishing anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP, mother, I read a statement like this and the lack of empathy and dismissive tone just... helps reinforce that more safety precautions are needed. If that's how you talk, I shudder to think how you drive.

So, thanks for helping to reinforce the fight for safety precautions? Keep being a jerk, it only helps the cause.

You are confusing lack of empathy with reality. You think you are so clever, yet your ideas are insane. Compulsively complaining about vans and wanting to totally reconstruct our transportation system is just absurd and not accomplishing anything.

That wasn't me who posted those ideas, but basic safety improvements and simple regulation for commuter van size that exists in other countries seems sensible and honestly not the biggest deal in the name of safety. None of this requires a complete overhaul of our transporation system.

My main idea is hold drivers accountable because DC's lack of enforcement is utterly negligent. Actually enforce the existing traffic laws and do everything they can to push for a reciprocity agreement with MD and VA. Stop being passive on this issue. Thatdoesn't require a major overhaul, but simply doing their damn job. I was completely shocked at the idiocy of people complaining about visibly illegal stops at that stop sign in NW. That is telling about drivers in this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP, mother, I read a statement like this and the lack of empathy and dismissive tone just... helps reinforce that more safety precautions are needed. If that's how you talk, I shudder to think how you drive.

So, thanks for helping to reinforce the fight for safety precautions? Keep being a jerk, it only helps the cause.

You are confusing lack of empathy with reality. You think you are so clever, yet your ideas are insane. Compulsively complaining about vans and wanting to totally reconstruct our transportation system is just absurd and not accomplishing anything.

When the transportation system leads to multiple children being hit and killed by drivers while they are trying to walk or bike to school then I think the hysterical person is the one who thinks the status quo is fine and doesn't need changing. There is nothing wrong with reimagining our transportation system so it works for everyone, not just for those that choose two drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK troll. PP is being alarmist while empathetic, and because empathy is a stereotyped as a female quality, you call them hysterical. How primitive. No, killing children in crosswalks cannot be accepted as a fact of life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK troll. PP is being alarmist while empathetic, and because empathy is a stereotyped as a female quality, you call them hysterical. How primitive. No, killing children in crosswalks cannot be accepted as a fact of life.

Yep, I also noted that misogynistic use of "hysterical." Thanks for pointing it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK troll. PP is being alarmist while empathetic, and because empathy is a stereotyped as a female quality, you call them hysterical. How primitive. No, killing children in crosswalks cannot be accepted as a fact of life.

Yep, I also noted that misogynistic use of "hysterical." Thanks for pointing it out.

Crazy, “there are no accidents” PP is 100% a man. I would on transportation advocacy and encountered his type quite frequently. As said in a prior post, his attitude is a detriment to real advocates and I am unsure if he is for real or a troll at this point. But he is definitely male.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK troll. PP is being alarmist while empathetic, and because empathy is a stereotyped as a female quality, you call them hysterical. How primitive. No, killing children in crosswalks cannot be accepted as a fact of life.

Yep, I also noted that misogynistic use of "hysterical." Thanks for pointing it out.

Crazy, “there are no accidents” PP is 100% a man. I would on transportation advocacy and encountered his type quite frequently. As said in a prior post, his attitude is a detriment to real advocates and I am unsure if he is for real or a troll at this point. But he is definitely male.

There is definitely more than one “there are no accidents” PP because I am one and I didn’t make all the related posts. I am a women, not sure about the other PPs. Also there is literally a book called “There Are No Accidents” about transportation policy that was written.

Sorry of it doesn’t for your narrative that women who think kids shouldn’t be killed in crosswalks are hysterical but that anyone who comes up with solutions to change that must be an obnoxious man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK troll. PP is being alarmist while empathetic, and because empathy is a stereotyped as a female quality, you call them hysterical. How primitive. No, killing children in crosswalks cannot be accepted as a fact of life.

Yep, I also noted that misogynistic use of "hysterical." Thanks for pointing it out.

Crazy, “there are no accidents” PP is 100% a man. I would on transportation advocacy and encountered his type quite frequently. As said in a prior post, his attitude is a detriment to real advocates and I am unsure if he is for real or a troll at this point. But he is definitely male.

I am another one of the "there are no accidents" PP, I am also not a man, and I also endorse the "There Are No Accidents" book. An outstanding book, written by another person who is not a man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK troll. PP is being alarmist while empathetic, and because empathy is a stereotyped as a female quality, you call them hysterical. How primitive. No, killing children in crosswalks cannot be accepted as a fact of life.

Yep, I also noted that misogynistic use of "hysterical." Thanks for pointing it out.

Crazy, “there are no accidents” PP is 100% a man. I would on transportation advocacy and encountered his type quite frequently. As said in a prior post, his attitude is a detriment to real advocates and I am unsure if he is for real or a troll at this point. But he is definitely male.

I am another one of the "there are no accidents" PP, I am also not a man, and I also endorse the "There Are No Accidents" book. An outstanding book, written by another person who is not a man.

I'm a PP who is of the "there are no accidents" and I'm a dude. And I think PP who said the hysterical comment is a giant butthole - "fact of life" Really dude? GTFO. It's a fact of life here in the States because we've been indoctinated over decades by the autolobby to consider 40k a YEAR deaths by vehicle to just be the cost of individualism and our transporation system. And yet entire continents have fewer deaths than this by a long stretch each year. Because they prioritize lives over vehicle speed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK troll. PP is being alarmist while empathetic, and because empathy is a stereotyped as a female quality, you call them hysterical. How primitive. No, killing children in crosswalks cannot be accepted as a fact of life.

Lots of smack talk/gas lighting and no substance.

It is a fact of life, unfortunately. We will always have: drunk drivers, inattentive drivers, speeders, black ice, mechanical failures, medical emergencies, low visibility, aggressive driving, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK troll. PP is being alarmist while empathetic, and because empathy is a stereotyped as a female quality, you call them hysterical. How primitive. No, killing children in crosswalks cannot be accepted as a fact of life.

Lots of smack talk/gas lighting and no substance.

It is a fact of life, unfortunately. We will always have: drunk drivers, inattentive drivers, speeders, black ice, mechanical failures, medical emergencies, low visibility, aggressive driving, etc.

Laws. Why bother? Sh*t happens. No need to enforce anything. It's the DC way!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK troll. PP is being alarmist while empathetic, and because empathy is a stereotyped as a female quality, you call them hysterical. How primitive. No, killing children in crosswalks cannot be accepted as a fact of life.

Lots of smack talk/gas lighting and no substance.

It is a fact of life, unfortunately. We will always have: drunk drivers, inattentive drivers, speeders, black ice, mechanical failures, medical emergencies, low visibility, aggressive driving, etc.

In sum: sh*t happens so we shouldn't do sh*t about sh*t

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK troll. PP is being alarmist while empathetic, and because empathy is a stereotyped as a female quality, you call them hysterical. How primitive. No, killing children in crosswalks cannot be accepted as a fact of life.

Lots of smack talk/gas lighting and no substance.

It is a fact of life, unfortunately. We will always have: drunk drivers, inattentive drivers, speeders, black ice, mechanical failures, medical emergencies, low visibility, aggressive driving, etc.

Laws. Why bother? Sh*t happens. No need to enforce anything. It's the DC way!

The laws and motor vehicle code already exists. Are taxpayers willing to double the number of cops on the street? Doubt it. You can't legislate your way out of bad behavior. I can't speak for DC, but most drivers in the US just don't care. Good luck trying to change that mentality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK troll. PP is being alarmist while empathetic, and because empathy is a stereotyped as a female quality, you call them hysterical. How primitive. No, killing children in crosswalks cannot be accepted as a fact of life.

Lots of smack talk/gas lighting and no substance.

It is a fact of life, unfortunately. We will always have: drunk drivers, inattentive drivers, speeders, black ice, mechanical failures, medical emergencies, low visibility, aggressive driving, etc.

Laws. Why bother? Sh*t happens. No need to enforce anything. It's the DC way!

The laws and motor vehicle code already exists. Are taxpayers willing to double the number of cops on the street? Doubt it. You can't legislate your way out of bad behavior. I can't speak for DC, but most drivers in the US just don't care. Good luck trying to change that mentality.

You're really invested in the idea that nothing can be done. Weird.