DC Pedestrian Safety

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted earlier today about how drivers need to drive really tentatively on city streets and that drivers used to Rockville Pike/Lee Hwy need to recognize they have to employ a totally different skill set here.

I just ran errands by car that took me through many blocks in Foggy Bottom and Dupont, paying special attention to my speed and how prepared I was to stop at crosswalks. Keep in mind there are stop signs on most corners on secondary/tertiary roads in central NWDC neighborhoods.

I found the natural speed between stops was between 15 and 22 mph (yes speed limit is 20--I'm not a saint). At these speeds, with an awareness that there could be pedestrians to yield to at every corner (the awareness that I argue suburban drivers too often lack), I felt fully prepared to stop at each crosswalk and corner. The issue is really that PP's expectation she can just barrel through is unreasonable. If she's driving under 20 mph and WATCHING for pedestrians starting to cross, she will see them in time to stop. They are unlikely to sprint into the road so quickly she can't stop... unless she's not really scanning for them. That whole line of argument about the whatever-pound SUV doesn't make sense if PP is driving with the expectation that she might need to yield at every corner.

a lot of weird assumptions here to come to a very tortured conclusion.

Which assumptions do you think are weird?

and why is the conclusion tortured? all PP is saying is that when driving in an urban area you need to be looking for pedestrians at every intersection. if you find that "tortured" then maybe take metro.

You're basically arguing that it's impossible for a pedestrian to be at fault in an argument, which is so silly -- do I even have to dignify that with a response? It's like arguing that people with blue eyes cannot be at fault for a traffic accident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You're basically arguing that it's impossible for a pedestrian to be at fault in an argument, which is so silly -- do I even have to dignify that with a response? It's like arguing that people with blue eyes cannot be at fault for a traffic accident.

Actually, the PP was saying, "This is how you need to drive in DC, if you want to avoid hitting people." That's not silly. Stop worrying so much about who's at fault, and start prioritizing not hitting people when you drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Have you never driven a car in D.C. before? I don't know what happened in this incident but sometimes people are stupid or not paying attention and step into crosswalks, and in front of oncoming cars, at the last moment. My car doesnt go 30 mph to zero mph in one second. I've had to swerve into the other lane to avoid people in crosswalks being idiots.

You shouldn't be driving faster than 20 mph.

I think you're missing the point. Also, it sort of depends on the posted speed limit, doesn't it?

No, I'm not missing the point at all. It's much easier to see people and react in time when you're driving 20 mph than when you're driving 30 mph. It's also much less likely that you will injure them if you do hit them. So when there are pedestrians around, don't drive faster than 20 mph.

Also, 20 mph is the default speed limit (i.e., MAXIMUM allowable speed under ideal conditions) in DC.

If you step in front of a car going 20 mph, you are going to die. And no one is asking that car to go 20 mph when the posted speed limit is higher than that.

No, you're just plain wrong about that. If you are driving less than 20 mph and you hit someone, chances are high that the person won't be seriously injured, let alone die. The chances of serious injury and death increase with every mph over 20 mph.

https://www.propublica.org/article/unsafe-at-many-speeds

In addition, too many people unfortunately believe, while driving, that the speed limit is the target speed or the minimum expected speed. But that's wrong too. Even when the posted speed limit is 20 mph, if it's not safe to drive 20 mph, the law requires you to drive more slowly.

Laws don't mean anything if the police don't enforce them.

D.C. in a nutshell: People creating elaborate rules for everything under the sun that are never enforced by anyone so everyone just ignores them.

"Everyone" does not ignore traffic rules. MD and VA drivers do.

Oh, yes, the saintly DC drivers observe and generate even the slightest jot and tittle of the traffic laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're basically arguing that it's impossible for a pedestrian to be at fault in an argument, which is so silly -- do I even have to dignify that with a response? It's like arguing that people with blue eyes cannot be at fault for a traffic accident.

Actually, the PP was saying, "This is how you need to drive in DC, if you want to avoid hitting people." That's not silly. Stop worrying so much about who's at fault, and start prioritizing not hitting people when you drive.

Not what they actually wrote! Also, I've never been in an accident in my life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're basically arguing that it's impossible for a pedestrian to be at fault in an argument, which is so silly -- do I even have to dignify that with a response? It's like arguing that people with blue eyes cannot be at fault for a traffic accident.

Actually, the PP was saying, "This is how you need to drive in DC, if you want to avoid hitting people." That's not silly. Stop worrying so much about who's at fault, and start prioritizing not hitting people when you drive.

Not what they actually wrote! Also, I've never been in an accident in my life.

Terrific! Now, drive slowly and watch for pedestrians, when you drive in DC or anywhere else that isn't an interstate highway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're basically arguing that it's impossible for a pedestrian to be at fault in an argument, which is so silly -- do I even have to dignify that with a response? It's like arguing that people with blue eyes cannot be at fault for a traffic accident.

Actually, the PP was saying, "This is how you need to drive in DC, if you want to avoid hitting people." That's not silly. Stop worrying so much about who's at fault, and start prioritizing not hitting people when you drive.

Not what they actually wrote! Also, I've never been in an accident in my life.

Terrific! Now, drive slowly and watch for pedestrians, when you drive in DC or anywhere else that isn't an interstate highway.

I love your sanctimoniousness. It's so amusing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're basically arguing that it's impossible for a pedestrian to be at fault in an argument, which is so silly -- do I even have to dignify that with a response? It's like arguing that people with blue eyes cannot be at fault for a traffic accident.

Actually, the PP was saying, "This is how you need to drive in DC, if you want to avoid hitting people." That's not silly. Stop worrying so much about who's at fault, and start prioritizing not hitting people when you drive.

Not what they actually wrote! Also, I've never been in an accident in my life.

that’s literally what she wrote - drive 20 or under and look for pedestrians at every intersection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're basically arguing that it's impossible for a pedestrian to be at fault in an argument, which is so silly -- do I even have to dignify that with a response? It's like arguing that people with blue eyes cannot be at fault for a traffic accident.

Actually, the PP was saying, "This is how you need to drive in DC, if you want to avoid hitting people." That's not silly. Stop worrying so much about who's at fault, and start prioritizing not hitting people when you drive.

Not what they actually wrote! Also, I've never been in an accident in my life.

Terrific! Now, drive slowly and watch for pedestrians, when you drive in DC or anywhere else that isn't an interstate highway.

I love your sanctimoniousness. It's so amusing.

Whatever. I'm fine with being sanctimonious about NOT HITTING AND KILLING PEOPLE WITH YOUR CAR. I don't know why you're on Team Who's At Fault In A Crash, rather than on Team Preventing Crashes In the First Place, and I don't really care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're basically arguing that it's impossible for a pedestrian to be at fault in an argument, which is so silly -- do I even have to dignify that with a response? It's like arguing that people with blue eyes cannot be at fault for a traffic accident.

Actually, the PP was saying, "This is how you need to drive in DC, if you want to avoid hitting people." That's not silly. Stop worrying so much about who's at fault, and start prioritizing not hitting people when you drive.

Not what they actually wrote! Also, I've never been in an accident in my life.

that’s literally what she wrote - drive 20 or under and look for pedestrians at every intersection.

there's no reason for anyone to drive under 20 if the posted speed limit is higher or, for that matter, if the police aren't going to stop people for speeding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're basically arguing that it's impossible for a pedestrian to be at fault in an argument, which is so silly -- do I even have to dignify that with a response? It's like arguing that people with blue eyes cannot be at fault for a traffic accident.

Actually, the PP was saying, "This is how you need to drive in DC, if you want to avoid hitting people." That's not silly. Stop worrying so much about who's at fault, and start prioritizing not hitting people when you drive.

Not what they actually wrote! Also, I've never been in an accident in my life.

Terrific! Now, drive slowly and watch for pedestrians, when you drive in DC or anywhere else that isn't an interstate highway.

I love your sanctimoniousness. It's so amusing.

Whatever. I'm fine with being sanctimonious about NOT HITTING AND KILLING PEOPLE WITH YOUR CAR. I don't know why you're on Team Who's At Fault In A Crash, rather than on Team Preventing Crashes In the First Place, and I don't really care.

sanctimonious and self righteous! i bet you're fun at parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're basically arguing that it's impossible for a pedestrian to be at fault in an argument, which is so silly -- do I even have to dignify that with a response? It's like arguing that people with blue eyes cannot be at fault for a traffic accident.

Actually, the PP was saying, "This is how you need to drive in DC, if you want to avoid hitting people." That's not silly. Stop worrying so much about who's at fault, and start prioritizing not hitting people when you drive.

Not what they actually wrote! Also, I've never been in an accident in my life.

that’s literally what she wrote - drive 20 or under and look for pedestrians at every intersection.

there's no reason for anyone to drive under 20 if the posted speed limit is higher or, for that matter, if the police aren't going to stop people for speeding.

The reason to drive more slowly than 20 mph is to increase your chances that you won't hit anybody, let alone injury them or kill them, when you're driving. If you don't care about the people, then think about the damage it might cause to your vehicle, and how you would be delayed on your rush to get to your destination 30 seconds sooner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

sanctimonious and self righteous! i bet you're fun at parties.

Real people are dead, and you're sitting somewhere with a screen in front of you, typing the "I bet you're fun at parties" insult anonymously on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

sanctimonious and self righteous! i bet you're fun at parties.

Real people are dead, and you're sitting somewhere with a screen in front of you, typing the "I bet you're fun at parties" insult anonymously on DCUM.

touched a nerve, eh?

[Anonymous]

Well I'm the PP who said drive under 20 and expect potential pedestrians at every corner and crosswalk. The reason you might end up driving a little under 20 on these secondary or tertiary roads is that there's a stop sign on almost every block and if you're getting yourself back up to 20 mph in between them you might be accelerating really fast to go only a few feet, then have to slam on the breaks again. I suppose you could but it would be totally unproductive in terms of getting you where you're going. It also would in fact make it harder to avoid pedestrians like that.

[Anonymous]

Which is still to say... you're doing it wrong.