3 ms·

You haven't even established the timeline here. In any case, it doesn't matter, someone decided to put a crosswalk across a four-lane 40 mph road. There is no w

You haven't even established the timeline here. In any case, it doesn't matter, someone decided to put a crosswalk across a four-lane 40 mph road. There is no world where this is acceptable design backed by evidence. And in any case, if the tradeoff you are suggesting is dead kids versus "impossible to drive on, war on cars" I'm sure where an engineers opinion will fall. But traffic engineers aren't all that.

mistermann 9y ago
Where are the bold road markings, excessive signage, radar based speed display signs, photo radar, etc? Rarely are these things difficult to mostly solve, but it requires at least some minimal effort. Sadly, that is too much to ask of most people in North America.
caminante 9y ago
FTA: >The teen was crossing from the junior high Monday about 8:30 p.m. when a southbound car struck him This didn't happen during normal business hours.
- revelation 9y ago
  I don't understand, what does that matter to safe engineering?
  - caminante 9y ago
    To answer, I need your help. What does "safe engineering" mean and how is that different than "engineering?"
maxsilver 9y ago
> if the tradeoff you are suggesting is dead kids versus "impossible to drive on, war on cars" It never was. The suggestion is "don't put kids in the few areas of the city specifically marked as dangerous". It's like building a school inside of a river, watching kids drown, and suggesting the water is at fault and should get out of the way. Or building a school on an airport runway and complaining the noise scares the children and suggesting the airplanes are at fault and should land elsewhere.
- revelation 9y ago
  We mark areas as "dangerous" and thats it? A kid is dead, but really, its noones fault? I'm afraid your thinking on this is roughly 60 years behind. Of course vehicular deaths are not "natural".
  - Spivak 9y ago
    I think there are plenty of people who can shoulder this blame, the city planners that put two schools on what is basically a highway come to mind. Look, the schools are already there, no sense tearing them down now and traffic calming is a fine solution but it shouldn't have been like this in the first place. There are plenty of areas marked as too dangerous for pedestrians when it comes to zoning decisions and this should have been one of them.
  - learc83 9y ago
    >A kid is dead, but really, its noones fault? You don't don't seem to be reading what the OP is writing. They are clearly laying the blame at the feet of the people who decided to build 2 schools on opposite sides of a dangerous street. Where are you getting "it's no ones fault"
    - revelation 9y ago
      Nobody cares there are schools there. It has no bearing on the safety of street design. There are sidewalks, the infamous crosswalk over 40 mph lanes: clearly it's a residential area. To blame the school placement (likely decided by the very same governmental body doing the street design) is the epitome of the problem here: "what are the pedestrians doing on my street".
      - learc83 9y ago
        You just completely ignored my post . You don't seem to be reading what people are writing.

mistermann 9y ago

Where are the bold road markings, excessive signage, radar based speed display signs, photo radar, etc? Rarely are these things difficult to mostly solve, but it requires at least some minimal effort. Sadly, that is too much to ask of most people in North America.

caminante 9y ago

FTA: >The teen was crossing from the junior high Monday about 8:30 p.m. when a southbound car struck him This didn't happen during normal business hours.

revelation 9y ago
I don't understand, what does that matter to safe engineering?
- caminante 9y ago
  To answer, I need your help. What does "safe engineering" mean and how is that different than "engineering?"

maxsilver 9y ago

> if the tradeoff you are suggesting is dead kids versus "impossible to drive on, war on cars" It never was. The suggestion is "don't put kids in the few areas of the city specifically marked as dangerous". It's like building a school inside of a river, watching kids drown, and suggesting the water is at fault and should get out of the way. Or building a school on an airport runway and complaining the noise scares the children and suggesting the airplanes are at fault and should land elsewhere.

revelation 9y ago
We mark areas as "dangerous" and thats it? A kid is dead, but really, its noones fault? I'm afraid your thinking on this is roughly 60 years behind. Of course vehicular deaths are not "natural".
- Spivak 9y ago
  I think there are plenty of people who can shoulder this blame, the city planners that put two schools on what is basically a highway come to mind. Look, the schools are already there, no sense tearing them down now and traffic calming is a fine solution but it shouldn't have been like this in the first place. There are plenty of areas marked as too dangerous for pedestrians when it comes to zoning decisions and this should have been one of them.
- learc83 9y ago
  >A kid is dead, but really, its noones fault? You don't don't seem to be reading what the OP is writing. They are clearly laying the blame at the feet of the people who decided to build 2 schools on opposite sides of a dangerous street. Where are you getting "it's no ones fault"
  - revelation 9y ago
    Nobody cares there are schools there. It has no bearing on the safety of street design. There are sidewalks, the infamous crosswalk over 40 mph lanes: clearly it's a residential area. To blame the school placement (likely decided by the very same governmental body doing the street design) is the epitome of the problem here: "what are the pedestrians doing on my street".
    - learc83 9y ago
      You just completely ignored my post . You don't seem to be reading what people are writing.