Originally Posted by gcottay

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.

Originally Posted by kuan

We are doomed

https://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/07/14...with-children/

Originally Posted by gmt13

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

Originally Posted by alhedges

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.

Originally Posted by degnaw

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.

Originally Posted by crhilton

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.

Originally Posted by crhilton

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.

Originally Posted by KD5NRH

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.

Originally Posted by crhilton

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.

Originally Posted by genec

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."

Originally Posted by genec

Good point... why isn't the bus stopping where the crosswalks exist...

Originally Posted by mnemia

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.

Originally Posted by JRA

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.

Originally Posted by JRA

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).

Originally Posted by genec

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?