Advocacy & Safety - Woman who lost child to hit and run driver convicted of vehicular homicide

We are doomed :(

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/07/14/mother-convicted-of-vehicular-homicide-for-crossing-street-with-children/

I hope the DA gets' swamped with protest for wasting the court's time by blaming the victim.

I guess that I'm just in 'denial': there has to be more to this story, like the mother was an urban ute crack ho with priors for child endangerment and her kids were running amok while she was in the bushes with a 'john'.
Otherwise I simply refuse to believe that a grieving mother would be sent to prison for a longer term than the effin' drunk who killed her kid, simply for crossing the street.

A better explanation of what happened:

http://www.grist.org/infrastructure/2011-07-20-when-design-kills-the-criminalization-of-walking

This is an epic justice fail. Yes the mother shouldn't have crossed there. But as far as Atlanta's transportation agency is concerned, pedestrians are to use crossings WHEN available. Asking her to walk an extra 3000+ feet just to cross 100 feet is unreasonable. Lol really, I don't understand how she could have been charged vehicular homicide when she wasn't driving either.

I guess that I'm just in 'denial': there has to be more to this story, like the mother was an urban ute crack ho with priors for child endangerment and her kids were running amok while she was in the bushes with a 'john'.
Otherwise I simply refuse to believe that a grieving mother would be sent to prison for a longer term than the effin' drunk who killed her kid, simply for crossing the street.

This is pretty outrageous... But remember, she wasn't generating any money for the county (unlike the drunk who was spending at a bar), she had multiple kids (cost the county more to educate her brood), she wasn't crossing at a crosswalk (clear violation of the law) and she was going to ride the bus (no car, so no local road tax income); whereas the drunken idiot was just a "good ole boy" doing what comes naturally. Gosh, can you blame the judge?

:notamused:

See one of the comments there... sounds like there's more to the story:


petition signed and the Cobb Co DA sent this (my response in the middle):
Neither I, nor this office, have been or will be involved with the case you have referenced. Unfortunately you have blindly followed what someone else has told you. That does not truly reflect intelligent thinking.

The incident occurred in April of 2010. The driver was prosecuted last year for hit and run and he received a 5 year sentence.

Perhaps you should send an email back to Eliza Harris in Orlando Florida, the person who encouraged you to sign the petition, and let her know how wrong she has been.

Have a nice day.
-----Intelligent thinking and a comprehensive understanding of the municipal / local / county court systems are two different things. Perhaps you can help this misunderstanding by sharing the Court that is involved with this case
-------
Thank you for asking. The State Court of Cobb County handles all traffic citations. The charge against Ms. Nelson was a misdemeanor traffic offense and carries the same punishment as running a stop sign. While the media like to hype events, (like 36 months in jail) it is unlikely that she will receive anything more than probation. The driver (who was not drunk as shown in the petition) was convicted in October 2010 and received a 5 year sentence for hit and run. Had he not left the scene he would probably not have been charged.

This is one of the most asinine things I've read. A mother who is crossing the street, gets hit and watches her young son also get hit and killed is charged with and convicted of vehicular homicide. What the smeg was the jury thinking of?

From reading both articles, about how this road was "designed" with just the motorist in mind, is the same mindset that I ran into when I complained about how dangerous the road that I live on is for people trying to cross. I was told that if the road was made safe for pedestrians, cyclists and anyone else who wants to cross the road that it would be to great of an inconvenience to motorists.

So instead of being able to safely cross the road in one motion, one has to start crossing the road and than stop in the center at the median and wait for the next break in traffic.

This is exactly, what we've talked about in other threads about how car centric we've become as a nation. Let's make things as easy as possible for motorists and to hell with everyone else.

And as has been asked by one of the commentators in one of the articles given that the victim in case who was for whatever insane reason charged with a crime. Is a "poor person of color," how is an all white middle class jury a jury of her peers?

There is a road named Randall Road in Lake in the Hills, IL, which is four lane road separating commercial from residential properties. I've been griping about the lack of crosswalks there for ten years now. There are no crosswalks even at traffic lights. So my SIL drives with her kids across the street to Costco.

If you think I'm kidding go streetview it.

There is a road named Randall Road in Lake in the Hills, IL, which is four lane road separating commercial from residential properties. I've been griping about the lack of crosswalks there for ten years now. There are no crosswalks even at traffic lights. So my SIL drives with her kids across the street to Costco.

If you think I'm kidding go streetview it.

We've got some similar problem areas near me. I live near an 8-lane arterial (and that's not even counting the protected turn lanes) that has no crosswalks or pedestrian signals for about 5 miles. The priority seems to be to maximize the speed of traffic at the expense of pedestrian safety, as the lights are all timed so that it's literally impossible to walk across the street during a single green light cycle on a cross street (and even then, you have to dodge all the turning traffic produce by the very pedestrian-unfriendly environment). I can barely make it across in one light cycle on my bike if I accelerate all out, so people on foot stand no chance whatsoever. And it's not like people don't try it, anyway...it's a giant gash in the middle of the community, separating where people live from places they might want to go (grocery stores, shopping areas, etc). As more high-density housing and retirement communities have gone in in the area, the level of foot traffic has increased, but nothing has been done about the horrible situation.

I've also had several email exchanges with planners about this problem, and the general attitude seems to be a) that no pedestrians would cross there because it's so dangerous (it's certainly dangerous, but sometimes people don't have a choice, and I see people running across all the time), b) that the law doesn't require them to do anything unless the pedestrian traffic is "significant" (not sure what that means, but a lot of people do cross on foot, and they get hit by cars fairly often), and c) that they plan to do something about it, but maybe 10 years from now when they can totally redesign the whole road to have more grade-separated intersections. I don't know how to respond to that kind of dismissive attitude, but it seems clear that the car is king, even at the expense of people's lives, for planners. I'm beginning to think that large-scale lawsuits or political pressure are the only thing that can change their minds.

There is a road named Randall Road in Lake in the Hills, IL, which is four lane road separating commercial from residential properties. I've been griping about the lack of crosswalks there for ten years now. There are no crosswalks even at traffic lights. So my SIL drives with her kids across the street to Costco.

If you think I'm kidding go streetview it.


But why would anyone want to ride a bike or walk to "the big box warehouse store?" Why that would just be crazy. (typical auto centric thinking...)

Yep, welcome to Cobb County Georgia. Nothing the Courts do here surprises me anymore. There are folks here who want the County to complete do away with the bus service because it isn't turning a profit. Of course, none of them ride the bus.

But why would anyone want to ride a bike or walk to "the big box warehouse store?" Why that would just be crazy. (typical auto centric thinking...)

Suppose that were justifiable. I can stretch my brain a bit to see it from another POV, but even so, this whole street is 3-4 miles of no crosswalks strip mall on one side and residential on the other. I might be spoiled living in Minneapolis but 3-4 miles of no crosswalk? That's inconceivable to me.

Suppose that were justifiable. I can stretch my brain a bit to see it from another POV, but even so, this whole street is 3-4 miles of no crosswalks strip mall on one side and residential on the other. I might be spoiled living in Minneapolis but 3-4 miles of no crosswalk? That's inconceivable to me.

I've seen this kind of sh*te, when visiting a place near Dallas (that was my first time in the USA). I was in a hotel on one side of the road, and there was a restaurant on the other side. But you couldn't fu*king cross it - no croswalks! NONE! All I could think was "And these people think they live in a 1st world country? This is the pits.".

Later I learned that the USA is not all like that, but still, I would feel sad if I had to live in a country that has places like the one I mentioned (and places others mentioned in this thread). It's like the USA allows a bit of dystopia here and there. Are there any concentration camps, for pedestrians?

Suppose that were justifiable. I can stretch my brain a bit to see it from another POV, but even so, this whole street is 3-4 miles of no crosswalks strip mall on one side and residential on the other. I might be spoiled living in Minneapolis but 3-4 miles of no crosswalk? That's inconceivable to me.

Me too frankly... but it comes from that USA brand of automobile centric thinking. I've seen loads of stuff like this in various places and it just boggles my mind. The ironic thing is that in a 3rd world country, you are actually less likely to encounter this sort of thing as "everybody" doesn't have a car.

Sherman stopped too soon.

Since it's at an intersection, in California, that might have been considered an "unmarked crosswalk".

http://kd5nrh.smugmug.com/Other/Pictures/i-zTNpkKq/1/M/map-M.png

A: My house
B: Ace Hardware, where I often need to go for a drill bit, odd nut, etc.

Green line: US377 - 2 lanes each way plus a suicide lane - fairly heavy traffic any time Ace is open
Second has a stop sign
Lillian has a light, but no pedestrian buttons, and even if a car does come along, the green for Lillian is short
Alexander Road has a light and marked crosswalks, but still no push-to-cross last time I looked

Thus, I generally drive or take the bike over to Lillian to go what would be a maybe 300 yard walk to Ace. (The bike would be useless too, but I finally figured out where the sensor is well enough to trip it most of the time.) Granted, a crosswalk at Second would be Russian Roulette considering how often I've seen people run the light at Lillian, but still, push to cross buttons at Lillian and Alexander would at least show some effort on the state's part.

http://kd5nrh.smugmug.com/Other/Pictures/i-zTNpkKq/1/M/map-M.png

A: My house
B: Ace Hardware, where I often need to go for a drill bit, odd nut, etc.

Green line: US377 - 2 lanes each way plus a suicide lane - fairly heavy traffic any time Ace is open
Second has a stop sign
Lillian has a light, but no pedestrian buttons, and even if a car does come along, the green for Lillian is short
Alexander Road has a light and marked crosswalks, but still no push-to-cross last time I looked

Thus, I generally drive or take the bike over to Lillian to go what would be a maybe 300 yard walk to Ace. (The bike would be useless too, but I finally figured out where the sensor is well enough to trip it most of the time.) Granted, a crosswalk at Second would be Russian Roulette considering how often I've seen people run the light at Lillian, but still, push to cross buttons at Lillian and Alexander would at least show some effort on the state's part.

No wonder, then, that you're so anti-CM: for you, the car is the word of god. I mean, you are conditioned to think that way. I don't blame you, considering the way you live and were brought up. The car has all the rights and all the power, pedestrians and cyclists barely exist (and if they do, they must be hobos).

There was a cross walk about1-2 blocks south of where that google map picture was taken.

There was a cross walk about1-2 blocks south of where that google map picture was taken.

Why isn't there a crosswalk at every block... a car can cross at every block.

No, I have not looked into this in depth... but consider my question for moment... if a car has access, but a walking human does not, why is it that the human in the machine has more access than the human without the machine?

I guess that I'm just in 'denial': there has to be more to this story, like the mother was an urban ute crack ho with priors for child endangerment and her kids were running amok while she was in the bushes with a 'john'.
Otherwise I simply refuse to believe that a grieving mother would be sent to prison for a longer term than the effin' drunk who killed her kid, simply for crossing the street.

One does not have to go nearly as far to find soem explaination. Here are a couple more links to stories:

http://t4america.org/blog/2011/07/18/prosecuting-the-victim-absolving-the-perpetrators/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2015008/Mother-Raquel-Nelson-faces-jail-killing-son-crossed-road-wrong-place--died-hit-run.html

As to letting the driver off with less. As far as the initial accident is concerned it seems he was not at fault at all. According to the mother someone else ran across the road and her son followed.

The first link has an overhead shot of the site of the accident. I wish I knew if any of the poles in the shot are lightposts. If one is and they crossed elsewhere then not walking an extra 20-30 feet was the difference between crossing where it was lit, vrs in darkness.

On a legalistic view it looks like they had an intersection withing 50 feet and chose to cross away from the intersection. BUT if the intersection was not lit I can see deciding to cross elsewhere, where there is a useable median strip (The intersection is a T with turn lanes, far from ideal for crossing).

One thng is very clear, ther were others who got off the buss. This is not a no witnesses incident. But I have not seen anythign from any of them or fromthe trial transcript. Only what the mother says. For me that raises teh possibility that these sources all found enough an emotional story and then stopped looking any deeper.

Why isn't there a crosswalk at every block... a car can cross at every block.

No, I have not looked into this in depth... but consider my question for moment... if a car has access, but a walking human does not, why is it that the human in the machine has more access than the human without the machine?

That IS the $64,000,000.00 question.

Why isn't there a crosswalk at every block... a car can cross at every block.

No, I have not looked into this in depth... but consider my question for moment... if a car has access, but a walking human does not, why is it that the human in the machine has more access than the human without the machine?

Especially since it's a lot more convenient to drive an extra block than to walk the same distance. I'm continually frustrated by the fact that when biking, I'm often forced to take LONGER routes in order to avoid a few problem areas on the major connecting roads. I think I could bike to work faster than driving (6 miles) if it weren't for that factor.

Especially since it's a lot more convenient to drive an extra block than to walk the same distance. I'm continually frustrated by the fact that when biking, I'm often forced to take LONGER routes in order to avoid a few problem areas on the major connecting roads. I think I could bike to work faster than driving (6 miles) if it weren't for that factor.

Agreed! Such is life in an autocentric society... not only do we give cars essentially more ROW, but we make the routes for car free humans even longer. I was quite pleased to see just the opposite in Oulu Finland... the bike paths between places there were the most direct way to get around, whereas the roadways required that you had to "go around" a bit... and what the heck, just how much effort is it anyway to push the gas pedal?

I was quite pleased to see just the opposite in Oulu Finland... the bike paths between places there were the most direct way to get around, whereas the roadways required that you had to "go around" a bit... and what the heck, just how much effort is it anyway to push the gas pedal?I was a couple of times in Oulu, and for me, used to the great cycling infrastructure of the rest of Finland, the thing that stood out the most was that Oulu is really, really flat. Flat as a pancake, and hence, I could achieve much higher speeds than, for instance, in Helsinki.
Nice town, just too bad that it's so damn high up there in the North.

When 4-year old A.J. Nelson saw one of the other adults attempt to finish her crossing, he broke away from his mother and ran into the road.I haven't seen this mentioned at all in any of the articles or in this thread (it's noted in the account in the grist article). I certainly don't agree that this warrants a vehicular homicide charge, but it is something worth mentioning. This probably contributed to the charge way more than the crosswalk aspect, IMO.

If Ms. Nelson receives jail time this is asinine beyond belief. The fact that she was prosecuted at all is bad enough.

She, apparently, has made a horrible error in judgment and has paid a terrible price. Jail can do nothing to either punish or rehabilitate her and will only require taxpayer expense to house her and foster her surviving children. Jailing this lady is not the purpose of the legal system as it will neither punish or rehabilitate nor is it likely to even deter.

Ms. Nelson has been "punished" enough. Piling on is truly offensive.

In some areas of the US we cyclists have it very easy compared with pedestrians. Some urban sprawl regions in particular seem designed to keep people from walking.

In some areas of the US we cyclists have it very easy compared with pedestrians. Some urban sprawl regions in particular seem designed to keep people from walking.almost everywhere. Pennsylvania used to have quite a few "no pedestrian" signs at rural intersections. There were some down the street from me for the longest time, they've finally come down because they were just ridiculous.

Where I live I am in a similar situation as Ms Nelson. I have a bus stop that is pretty much right across the street my complex. Although I/we have it a little easier, as here in St. Pete bus stops are about an 1/8 of a mile a part. So one can get off the bus right across the street from our complex and cross there. Which sadly does not have a painted crosswalk. Although doing that one generally has to stop and wait on the median to finish crossing the street. Or one can wait and get of of the bus at the next stop about an 1/8 of a mile south. And than cross where there is a painted crosswalk and a crosswalk light.

Given that I'd say probably the majority of tenants have children of varying ages, which option makes the most sense? Just from observing people getting off of the bus they opt to get off of the bus across the street from the complex and than cross as Ms Nelson did, and as I think that most people will do.

We are doomed :(

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/07/14/mother-convicted-of-vehicular-homicide-for-crossing-street-with-children/

here is a link to a petition started at change.org

http://www.change.org/petitions/cobb-county-ga-release-grieving-mother-of-hit-and-run-install-a-crosswalk?utm_medium=email&alert_id=wUXRhUZqNP_dhYutPrnmb&utm_source=action_alert

This case seems outrageous on the surface, but how can anyone condemn the court action without knowing any of the pertinent details. People tend to view things viscerally and develop strong opinions with few facts. Unfortunately, they tend to vote the same way.

-G

This case seems outrageous on the surface, but how can anyone condemn the court action without knowing any of the pertinent details. People tend to view things viscerally and develop strong opinions with few facts. Unfortunately, they tend to vote the same way.

-G

Do you know something we don't?

stories like these make me want to emigrate to Europe and simultaneously hope for a dystopic collapse of America because fossil fuel becomes too scarce.

Vehicular homicide does seem like a weird charge to bring. And those roads could have been designed better.

But having said that, it was the mother who decided to take her kids across a high speed divided highway at night, resulting in the death of one of the kids, and injuries to herself and the other kids. As the article noted, if the driver hadn't driven off, he probably would not have been charged all.

Jailtime is problematic for many reasons, including the question of who will take care of the other kids. But this mother took a risk with her kids' lives because she didn't want to go out of her way to cross the street legally. She is responsible for her kid's death. That isn't something that we should ignore.

But this mother took a risk with her kids' lives because she didn't want to go out of her way to cross the street legally. She is responsible for her kid's death. That isn't something that we should ignore.




There are a lot of risks people take with their kids that, in large populations, result in deaths. Crossing the street, driving, living in a rural area, feeding them, feeding them nuts and peanuts, traveling (not only can crashes kill you, you're often hours from medical care), etc. So you can't just say "she took a risk." That's not fair.

The question is of unreasonable risk. You have to argue that she took an unreasonable risk with her child's life (and I think you were trying to get there). I don't think avoiding a 20 minute walk down a narrow sidewalk with no barrier from the street by walking directly across the street is an unreasonable risk. Day or night.

I haven't seen this mentioned at all in any of the articles or in this thread (it's noted in the account in the grist article). I certainly don't agree that this warrants a vehicular homicide charge, but it is something worth mentioning. This probably contributed to the charge way more than the crosswalk aspect, IMO.

Actually what you quote is what she said, not fact. I'm just pointing that out as the most reasonable reason to prosecute is that the claim that he broke away could be a bit slanted. It could be she tried to cross with him.

There are a lot of risks people take with their kids that, in large populations, result in deaths. Crossing the street, driving, living in a rural area, feeding them, feeding them nuts and peanuts, traveling (not only can crashes kill you, you're often hours from medical care), etc. So you can't just say "she took a risk." That's not fair.

The question is of unreasonable risk. You have to argue that she took an unreasonable risk with her child's life (and I think you were trying to get there). I don't think avoiding a 20 minute walk down a narrow sidewalk with no barrier from the street by walking directly across the street is an unreasonable risk. Day or night.

I agree. The question may well be did she wait for a reasonable break in traffic. (And the possibility that she chose to not walk 50 feet to a lit area to cross. Possibility, based on what might be lights in hte overhead photo).

I don't think avoiding a 20 minute walk down a narrow sidewalk with no barrier from the street by walking directly across the street is an unreasonable risk.

The closest crosswalks on Austell that I could find were .4 miles in either direction. That's .8 miles round trip. A good bit more than 20 minutes when you're having to lead multiple small children.

The closest crosswalks on Austell that I could find were .4 miles in either direction. That's .8 miles round trip. A good bit more than 20 minutes when you're having to lead multiple small children.

I agree, but that just reinforces my point. I don't think it's an unreasonable decision on her part. I think the city puts those transit users into an unreasonable situation.

I agree, but that just reinforces my point. I don't think it's an unreasonable decision on her part. I think the city puts those transit users into an unreasonable situation.

Good point... why isn't the bus stopping where the crosswalks exist... Here they are "delivering pedestrians" and then telling the peds "you can't walk here." Rather ironic eh? Sort of like bike lanes that begin mid block... OK to use, as long as you are "beamed in."

Good point... why isn't the bus stopping where the crosswalks exist... Here they are "delivering pedestrians" and then telling the peds "you can't walk here." Rather ironic eh? Sort of like bike lanes that begin mid block... OK to use, as long as you are "beamed in."

They probably stop in front of the wal-mart because that's the point of interest. If they stopped 10 minutes away that would be silly.

I suspect that what's missing here is just a pedestrian light at the bus stop. And, if their bus system is anything like ours, a shelter at the stop.

Ga. mom gets probation in son's jaywalking death (http://news.yahoo.com/ga-mom-gets-probation-sons-jaywalking-death-152407635.html)

As you were.

Good point... why isn't the bus stopping where the crosswalks exist...
There are lots of bus stops that aren't at crosswalks. Follow a bus sometime and see how many people who get of the bus jaywalk across the street. What's a person to do when the closest crosswalk is over a quarter mile away? And, you know what? The crosswalks aren't all that safe anyway. Plenty of people get killed when crossing legally in a crosswalk.

Roads and even crosswalks are hostile to pedestrians. Having done a lot of walking, I'm sure there are times when there really isn't a decent option. Sometimes you have to either take your chances, climb over something or go back the way you came (been there, done that). You can't get there from here (at least not if you're walking).

Crossing mid-block is legal under the circumstances described in the crash (adjacent to a nonsignalized intersection). Why are so many people assuming it is not legal? The only requirement is that the pedestrian yield to vehicle traffic. Crossing to the median and waiting there until no traffic is coming on the other side is legal.


O.C.G.A. §40-6-92. Crossing roadway elsewhere than at crosswalk

Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway unless he has already, and under safe conditions, entered the roadway.

The mother was acting legally when the child broke away from her and failed to yield to vehicle traffic. She chased the child to try to rescue him; it was the child's traffic violation that resulted in the crash, not hers. The exact same thing could have happened at a signalized crosswalk while the light was still red.

I hope a better lawyer takes this case pro-bono to appeal. The existing evidence should be adequate to prove that the law was misapplied and that the charges do not fit the mother's actions. Children dart into traffic all the time. What is the usual charge against the parents? Nothing.

The news article on the sentence indicates the judge granted the mother the option of a new trial. I suspect the judge realizes they seriously screwed up.

We've got some similar problem areas near me. I live near an 8-lane arterial (and that's not even counting the protected turn lanes) that has no crosswalks or pedestrian signals for about 5 miles. The priority seems to be to maximize the speed of traffic at the expense of pedestrian safety, as the lights are all timed so that it's literally impossible to walk across the street during a single green light cycle on a cross street (and even then, you have to dodge all the turning traffic produce by the very pedestrian-unfriendly environment). I can barely make it across in one light cycle on my bike if I accelerate all out, so people on foot stand no chance whatsoever. And it's not like people don't try it, anyway...it's a giant gash in the middle of the community, separating where people live from places they might want to go (grocery stores, shopping areas, etc). As more high-density housing and retirement communities have gone in in the area, the level of foot traffic has increased, but nothing has been done about the horrible situation.

I've also had several email exchanges with planners about this problem, and the general attitude seems to be a) that no pedestrians would cross there because it's so dangerous (it's certainly dangerous, but sometimes people don't have a choice, and I see people running across all the time), b) that the law doesn't require them to do anything unless the pedestrian traffic is "significant" (not sure what that means, but a lot of people do cross on foot, and they get hit by cars fairly often), and c) that they plan to do something about it, but maybe 10 years from now when they can totally redesign the whole road to have more grade-separated intersections. I don't know how to respond to that kind of dismissive attitude, but it seems clear that the car is king, even at the expense of people's lives, for planners. I'm beginning to think that large-scale lawsuits or political pressure are the only thing that can change their minds.


http://www.baltimorecitycouncil.com/District11/default.htm

This guy.

This is my district representative.

If I had such a severe problem as that, I would call his office. Repeatedly. Once I figured out how to get a hold of him, I would be talking to him every 2-4 weeks to find out what's being done about these sorts of problems. I would find other people trying to get across **** like that, and talk to them. I would give them his number, his office location, and information on how to physically find him (show up at his office at these times...).

Eventually something would be done.

Once, the water main behind my apartment burst a day before christmas. The city department of public works sent people out to shut the water off. A section of the city didn't have water, and they planned on coming back after the New Year's holiday to resume work.

My landlord has the district representative's personal cell phone number.

He called him at his house.

Neither of them was pleased.

Water was on the next day.

Find yours.

There are lots of bus stops that aren't at crosswalks. Follow a bus sometime and see how many people who get of the bus jaywalk across the street.

I've done this on my way home in my car, and nearly flattened pedestrians that stare me down as they step out from behind the bus into a busy 4 lane main highway daring me to not produce a full NASCAR-style precision stop in minimal distance on sand and loose gravel debris that's accumulated on an ill-maintained road that hasn't seen a street sweeper in 30 years.

I hate the pedestrians here. They stare you down as they walk out in front of you, with no crosswalk, imagining that they've got some glowing field of power emanating from their bodies, commanding you to stop. They're as bad as the drivers, making turns through busy crosswalks, bulling their way through floods of pedestrians at 5mph, thinking they'll move. I want to line these people up and punch all of them--or better, complain to the cops until they start handing out tickets for actually dangerous violations.

There are lots of bus stops that aren't at crosswalks. Follow a bus sometime and see how many people who get of the bus jaywalk across the street. What's a person to do when the closest crosswalk is over a quarter mile away? And, you know what? The crosswalks aren't all that safe anyway. Plenty of people get killed when crossing legally in a crosswalk.

Roads and even crosswalks are hostile to pedestrians. Having done a lot of walking, I'm sure there are times when there really isn't a decent option. Sometimes you have to either take your chances, climb over something or go back the way you came (been there, done that). You can't get there from here (at least not if you're walking).

Oh I agree.

But if the buses are letting people off in dangerous areas, then the city (or bus company) is part of the problem. And yes this all comes back to "automobile centric society," and not planning for the one mode of transportation that we all have... walking.

Yeah I walk too... and I find it really frustrating when I discover a chunk of sidewalk that has so much junk on it that it really isn't walkable... light control boxes, power and phone boxes, benches, power and light poles, and street signs... all eat into sidewalk space. But heaven forbid that we restrict the automobile in any way. And never mind the motorists that fail to stop on red before turning right, and fail to look both ways before turning right. (I slam my hand on automobile fenders when they try that in front of me when I am walking... makes a terrible loud sound in the car.)

No, I have not looked into this in depth... but consider my question for moment... if a car has access, but a walking human does not, why is it that the human in the machine has more access than the human without the machine?

Legally, the pedestrian can cross the road at or adjacent to nonsignalized intersections; they may have difficulty crossing fast enough to yield to vehicle traffic depending on the traffic gaps, if the location requires the pedestrian to yield. A "T" intersection may or may not be considered to have "unmarked crosswalks" and unfortunately through drivers do not yield reliably at uncontrolled locations across busy high speed roads even if crosswalk markings exist. Drivers entering from side streets must yield to through traffic at such locations but have the advantages of speed, and night visibility.

I believe this is the location of the collision in the story:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33.909217,-84.559528&hl=en&sll=33.9093,-84.559458&sspn=0.001736,0.002618&num=1&t=h&z=19

OK, too many of you are overlooking the obvious.

I lived in GA for three years, ATL area, and I know this:

They don't have crosswalks because most of those rednecks down there can't walk and chew at the same time. Yet, they let 'em drive. It's dysfunctional. Foxworthy was right -- when it comes to places like "Spaghetti Junction", MERGE IS A PERSONAL CHALLENGE!