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:

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.

Enforcement is not the only mechanism for making streets safer. Some other ideas from this very long thread:
- Physical separation (bollards etc)
- Daylighting intersections
- Raised crosswalks
- Better public transportation overall so there are fewer cars on the streets
- Speed bumps
- Chicanes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Enforcement is not the only mechanism for making streets safer. Some other ideas from this very long thread:
- Physical separation (bollards etc)
- Daylighting intersections
- Raised crosswalks
- Better public transportation overall so there are fewer cars on the streets
- Speed bumps
- Chicanes

Promote more telework. A huge percentage of commuters into DC do office work and things that do not require a physical presence. Reduce the number of commuters via more telework. Focus on supporting the people who ACTUALLY need to be physically present for their work, and focus transit options on supporting them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Enforcement is not the only mechanism for making streets safer. Some other ideas from this very long thread:
- Physical separation (bollards etc)
- Daylighting intersections
- Raised crosswalks
- Better public transportation overall so there are fewer cars on the streets
- Speed bumps
- Chicanes

And safer vehicles.

And speed governors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Enforcement is not the only mechanism for making streets safer. Some other ideas from this very long thread:
- Physical separation (bollards etc)
- Daylighting intersections
- Raised crosswalks
- Better public transportation overall so there are fewer cars on the streets
- Speed bumps
- Chicanes

Promote more telework. A huge percentage of commuters into DC do office work and things that do not require a physical presence. Reduce the number of commuters via more telework. Focus on supporting the people who ACTUALLY need to be physically present for their work, and focus transit options on supporting them.

You mean like it was back in the midst of the pandemic, right? When there were much fewer cars on the road and traffic deaths went . . . (checks notes) . . . up, actually.

If we’ve learned anything over the past 2.5 years, it’s that congestion actually makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Enforcement is not the only mechanism for making streets safer. Some other ideas from this very long thread:
- Physical separation (bollards etc)
- Daylighting intersections
- Raised crosswalks
- Better public transportation overall so there are fewer cars on the streets
- Speed bumps
- Chicanes

Promote more telework. A huge percentage of commuters into DC do office work and things that do not require a physical presence. Reduce the number of commuters via more telework. Focus on supporting the people who ACTUALLY need to be physically present for their work, and focus transit options on supporting them.

Yes absolutely but do it in conjunction with removing car lanes and using them for pedestrians, or cyclists, or buses because otherwise drivers will just drive faster on emptier 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:

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.

Enforcement is not the only mechanism for making streets safer. Some other ideas from this very long thread:
- Physical separation (bollards etc)
- Daylighting intersections
- Raised crosswalks
- Better public transportation overall so there are fewer cars on the streets
- Speed bumps
- Chicanes

Promote more telework. A huge percentage of commuters into DC do office work and things that do not require a physical presence. Reduce the number of commuters via more telework. Focus on supporting the people who ACTUALLY need to be physically present for their work, and focus transit options on supporting them.

Yes absolutely but do it in conjunction with removing car lanes and using them for pedestrians, or cyclists, or buses because otherwise drivers will just drive faster on emptier streets.

Ding ding ding... we have a winner!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We moved to a country where the law is that you must yield to pedestrians even if they don’t have the right of way. Even if they are crossing against a green light or crossing somewhere other than intersection.

It completely changes what it means to drive. You have to be constantly scanning the road for people. Constantly pausing when a light turns green to be sure no one is crossing anyway.

And honestly this is how it should be. Driving is a privilege. And cars are more powerful than people and thus should be 100% deferential to people.

I disagree with your last sentence. I live in DC and walk A LOT (12k+ steps per day) and I also drive. When I'm on foot I have just as much responsibility to not create an unsafe situation for myself or for others as I do when i am driving. Just as I shouldn't run someone over in my car in the intersection just because i have the right-of-way, I shouldn't be walking against the light and then acting like the driver that hit me is the devil incarnate. I see a lot of bad behavior on the part of both drivers and pedestrians and both need to take responsibility for their actions.

I’m working my way through this heartbreaking thread. And I have to stop it here and completely agree with us. And both a pedestrian and a driver. It is my responsibility to be safe at all times in all situations. I 100% agree with you
I also have kids, and even when we have the pedestrian walk and green light I teach them to look both ways stepping foot into the crosswalk and to continue being vigilant as we’re crossing. Likewise, when I am driving, and I have the greenlight, I am also looking out for clueless and reckless pedestrians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We moved to a country where the law is that you must yield to pedestrians even if they don’t have the right of way. Even if they are crossing against a green light or crossing somewhere other than intersection.

It completely changes what it means to drive. You have to be constantly scanning the road for people. Constantly pausing when a light turns green to be sure no one is crossing anyway.

And honestly this is how it should be. Driving is a privilege. And cars are more powerful than people and thus should be 100% deferential to people.

I disagree with your last sentence. I live in DC and walk A LOT (12k+ steps per day) and I also drive. When I'm on foot I have just as much responsibility to not create an unsafe situation for myself or for others as I do when i am driving. Just as I shouldn't run someone over in my car in the intersection just because i have the right-of-way, I shouldn't be walking against the light and then acting like the driver that hit me is the devil incarnate. I see a lot of bad behavior on the part of both drivers and pedestrians and both need to take responsibility for their actions.

I’m working my way through this heartbreaking thread. And I have to stop it here and completely agree with us. And both a pedestrian and a driver. It is my responsibility to be safe at all times in all situations. I 100% agree with you
I also have kids, and even when we have the pedestrian walk and green light I teach them to look both ways stepping foot into the crosswalk and to continue being vigilant as we’re crossing. Likewise, when I am driving, and I have the greenlight, I am also looking out for clueless and reckless pedestrians.

Really, you hold yourself and your children responsible for your children not getting hit by unsafe drivers in unsafe vehicles on unsafe streets?

"Look both ways" isn't enough, by the way. Drivers regularly hit people who looked both ways. At any given intersection, a driver can hit you while they're going straight, turning right from 2 different directions, or turning left, and that's all while you're legally crossing with the right-of-way. And then there are driveways. Do you teach your children to stop on the sidewalk and look both ways at every driveway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We moved to a country where the law is that you must yield to pedestrians even if they don’t have the right of way. Even if they are crossing against a green light or crossing somewhere other than intersection.

It completely changes what it means to drive. You have to be constantly scanning the road for people. Constantly pausing when a light turns green to be sure no one is crossing anyway.

And honestly this is how it should be. Driving is a privilege. And cars are more powerful than people and thus should be 100% deferential to people.

I disagree with your last sentence. I live in DC and walk A LOT (12k+ steps per day) and I also drive. When I'm on foot I have just as much responsibility to not create an unsafe situation for myself or for others as I do when i am driving. Just as I shouldn't run someone over in my car in the intersection just because i have the right-of-way, I shouldn't be walking against the light and then acting like the driver that hit me is the devil incarnate. I see a lot of bad behavior on the part of both drivers and pedestrians and both need to take responsibility for their actions.

I’m working my way through this heartbreaking thread. And I have to stop it here and completely agree with us. And both a pedestrian and a driver. It is my responsibility to be safe at all times in all situations. I 100% agree with you
I also have kids, and even when we have the pedestrian walk and green light I teach them to look both ways stepping foot into the crosswalk and to continue being vigilant as we’re crossing. Likewise, when I am driving, and I have the greenlight, I am also looking out for clueless and reckless pedestrians.

Really, you hold yourself and your children responsible for your children not getting hit by unsafe drivers in unsafe vehicles on unsafe streets?

"Look both ways" isn't enough, by the way. Drivers regularly hit people who looked both ways. At any given intersection, a driver can hit you while they're going straight, turning right from 2 different directions, or turning left, and that's all while you're legally crossing with the right-of-way. And then there are driveways. Do you teach your children to stop on the sidewalk and look both ways at every driveway?

NP but yes I do. If you know unsafe conditions exist, why wouldn’t you teach your kids to act accordingly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We moved to a country where the law is that you must yield to pedestrians even if they don’t have the right of way. Even if they are crossing against a green light or crossing somewhere other than intersection.

It completely changes what it means to drive. You have to be constantly scanning the road for people. Constantly pausing when a light turns green to be sure no one is crossing anyway.

And honestly this is how it should be. Driving is a privilege. And cars are more powerful than people and thus should be 100% deferential to people.

I disagree with your last sentence. I live in DC and walk A LOT (12k+ steps per day) and I also drive. When I'm on foot I have just as much responsibility to not create an unsafe situation for myself or for others as I do when i am driving. Just as I shouldn't run someone over in my car in the intersection just because i have the right-of-way, I shouldn't be walking against the light and then acting like the driver that hit me is the devil incarnate. I see a lot of bad behavior on the part of both drivers and pedestrians and both need to take responsibility for their actions.

I’m working my way through this heartbreaking thread. And I have to stop it here and completely agree with us. And both a pedestrian and a driver. It is my responsibility to be safe at all times in all situations. I 100% agree with you
I also have kids, and even when we have the pedestrian walk and green light I teach them to look both ways stepping foot into the crosswalk and to continue being vigilant as we’re crossing. Likewise, when I am driving, and I have the greenlight, I am also looking out for clueless and reckless pedestrians.

Really, you hold yourself and your children responsible for your children not getting hit by unsafe drivers in unsafe vehicles on unsafe streets?

"Look both ways" isn't enough, by the way. Drivers regularly hit people who looked both ways. At any given intersection, a driver can hit you while they're going straight, turning right from 2 different directions, or turning left, and that's all while you're legally crossing with the right-of-way. And then there are driveways. Do you teach your children to stop on the sidewalk and look both ways at every driveway?

NP but yes I do. If you know unsafe conditions exist, why wouldn’t you teach your kids to act accordingly?

There's a big difference between

-Here are things it's a good idea to do, to try to reduce the risk of a driver hitting you.

and

-If you don't do these things and a driver hits you, it's your fault.

And there's a huge difference between that and

-If a driver hits you, obviously you didn't do these things, and it's your fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We moved to a country where the law is that you must yield to pedestrians even if they don’t have the right of way. Even if they are crossing against a green light or crossing somewhere other than intersection.

It completely changes what it means to drive. You have to be constantly scanning the road for people. Constantly pausing when a light turns green to be sure no one is crossing anyway.

And honestly this is how it should be. Driving is a privilege. And cars are more powerful than people and thus should be 100% deferential to people.

I disagree with your last sentence. I live in DC and walk A LOT (12k+ steps per day) and I also drive. When I'm on foot I have just as much responsibility to not create an unsafe situation for myself or for others as I do when i am driving. Just as I shouldn't run someone over in my car in the intersection just because i have the right-of-way, I shouldn't be walking against the light and then acting like the driver that hit me is the devil incarnate. I see a lot of bad behavior on the part of both drivers and pedestrians and both need to take responsibility for their actions.

I’m working my way through this heartbreaking thread. And I have to stop it here and completely agree with us. And both a pedestrian and a driver. It is my responsibility to be safe at all times in all situations. I 100% agree with you
I also have kids, and even when we have the pedestrian walk and green light I teach them to look both ways stepping foot into the crosswalk and to continue being vigilant as we’re crossing. Likewise, when I am driving, and I have the greenlight, I am also looking out for clueless and reckless pedestrians.

Really, you hold yourself and your children responsible for your children not getting hit by unsafe drivers in unsafe vehicles on unsafe streets?

"Look both ways" isn't enough, by the way. Drivers regularly hit people who looked both ways. At any given intersection, a driver can hit you while they're going straight, turning right from 2 different directions, or turning left, and that's all while you're legally crossing with the right-of-way. And then there are driveways. Do you teach your children to stop on the sidewalk and look both ways at every driveway?

NP but yes I do. If you know unsafe conditions exist, why wouldn’t you teach your kids to act accordingly?

There's a big difference between

-Here are things it's a good idea to do, to try to reduce the risk of a driver hitting you.

and

-If you don't do these things and a driver hits you, it's your fault.

And there's a huge difference between that and

-If a driver hits you, obviously you didn't do these things, and it's your fault.

Sure. But there are a faction of posters on here that seem to thing pedestrians can do no wrong. They can.

[Anonymous]

My DH is a transportation planner. We lived in Brookland for many years. As he worked every day to plan and implement safer streets, he also grew more anxious about our kids being able to safely ride their bikes and simply walk across the street with each passing year. He drilled it into them to always look both ways and wait before crossing. But after years of witnessing cars blowing through stop signs at 40-50 mph and several near and actual collisions, he wanted to move. He believed it was only a matter of time before one of us was hit. Street safety was one of several reasons for the move but definitely a significant one.

I think it is perfectly legitimate to desire and work toward safer streets while also realizing that we aren't there yet and can't trust drivers to be cautious or to even follow basic rules. How we approach that reality is a personal choice but I hope progress is made because everyone should be able to move safely in their neighborhood (whether by bike, car, or on foot).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DH is a transportation planner. We lived in Brookland for many years. As he worked every day to plan and implement safer streets, he also grew more anxious about our kids being able to safely ride their bikes and simply walk across the street with each passing year. He drilled it into them to always look both ways and wait before crossing. But after years of witnessing cars blowing through stop signs at 40-50 mph and several near and actual collisions, he wanted to move. He believed it was only a matter of time before one of us was hit. Street safety was one of several reasons for the move but definitely a significant one.

I think it is perfectly legitimate to desire and work toward safer streets while also realizing that we aren't there yet and can't trust drivers to be cautious or to even follow basic rules. How we approach that reality is a personal choice but I hope progress is made because everyone should be able to move safely in their neighborhood (whether by bike, car, or on foot).

The most rational post on this thread. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DH is a transportation planner. We lived in Brookland for many years. As he worked every day to plan and implement safer streets, he also grew more anxious about our kids being able to safely ride their bikes and simply walk across the street with each passing year. He drilled it into them to always look both ways and wait before crossing. But after years of witnessing cars blowing through stop signs at 40-50 mph and several near and actual collisions, he wanted to move. He believed it was only a matter of time before one of us was hit. Street safety was one of several reasons for the move but definitely a significant one.

I think it is perfectly legitimate to desire and work toward safer streets while also realizing that we aren't there yet and can't trust drivers to be cautious or to even follow basic rules. How we approach that reality is a personal choice but I hope progress is made because everyone should be able to move safely in their neighborhood (whether by bike, car, or on foot).

OK, now take this whole thread, and replace pedestrians with "provocatively dressed 16 year old girls" and cars with "16 year old boys who've had a bit to drink."

Hopefully posters can see that the "while also realizing that we aren't there yet" is not actually a legitimate cop out from harsher policing of vehicular violence.

[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:

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.

Enforcement is not the only mechanism for making streets safer. Some other ideas from this very long thread:
- Physical separation (bollards etc)
- Daylighting intersections
- Raised crosswalks
- Better public transportation overall so there are fewer cars on the streets
- Speed bumps
- Chicanes

Promote more telework. A huge percentage of commuters into DC do office work and things that do not require a physical presence. Reduce the number of commuters via more telework. Focus on supporting the people who ACTUALLY need to be physically present for their work, and focus transit options on supporting them.

Yes absolutely but do it in conjunction with removing car lanes and using them for pedestrians, or cyclists, or buses because otherwise drivers will just drive faster on emptier streets.

Traffic enforcement is also easier to do on less-crowded streets