4 ms·

> 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 area

> 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.

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.