Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, a wide street isn't always pleasant to cross, but it's not inherently unpleasant, either.
Agreed. The streets need to strike a balance for all users. One easy start would be longer pedestrian signals - I really like the signals that count down the seconds until the light changes - coupled with traffic light delays and longer yellow lights to reduce the number of cars trying to beat the lights. Pedestrian safety would be increased, without hindering auto traffic.
I also like crosswalks that are made of different materials and color than the street - in my town, there are brick and dyed cement crosswalks that really stand out.
We have this crazy intersection near Whole Foods. It isn't very pleasant for anyone, but they did add medians and signal timers to make it easier. You can wait in the middle everywhere. The bike design is terrible though. And the other bikers don't help by riding in the crosswalk. I bike here often, and my route home is a block away. Instead of dealing with the weird intersection, I walk my bike through the light and then ride in the bike lane.
It's not about you (or your veracity). They were examples of places that someone could walk. And none of those examples have hidden amenities to support some conspiracy of the poor walkability in the US.
Yet we've been warned to be aware of the anti-Agenda 21 conspirators. Too funny!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
When I was 25 and looking for insurance, my cobra was $600 and private insurance was $400. Luckily I started a new job before I signed up for those options. I didn't have other options. Although $200 sounds cheap to you, in SF renting a room in a house/apartment is $800-$1000 and that womn was a hair stylist. No clue what her take home pay was, but she was likely barely making ends meet as is.
Oh that is really rare, if i recall only a handful of drivers have been charged in SF over the past couple years. Let me tell you the back story in this particular incident, the bicyclist was blamed for the accident initially and the police were not investigating. One of the bike coalitions started asking the nearby stores if anyone had security camera footage, and there was footage available. The footage showed the driver at fault and then the police reversed course and charged the driver with the evidence. But they did not plan to investigate and made disparaging comments about they cyclist to the media during their "investigation." SFPD had been criticized for not investigating most collisions with cyclists. If the activist guy hadn't asked around for footage, no investigation would have occurred, and the driver would have got off scot free.
This week's controversy was about the rising pedestrian deaths in SF over the past year or so, and the local news lead with pedestrians breaking the rules. But the stats they quoted said that 64% of all of the collisions with pedestrians were the drivers fault (running lights, not yielding during a turn, not stopping at crosswalks...). But the story blamed pedestrians.
There is blame to go around for everyone. But the idea pedestrians are always running around in the street not looking is false. Most of the incidents occur when cars are turning into a crosswalk.
Well, I know what my daughters paid. FWIW, hair stylists can make big money. It's probably a better living than nursing.
I'd like to see some stats about this rarity that drivers are charged. My friend's sister was recently killed in a pedestrian/car accident while she (sister) was walking home from work. There is a criminal case going on.
The stats about bike accidents say that most bikers are men (big surprise, men take more risks) and most occurred somewhere other than an intersection. Bicycle Helmet Statistics The IIHS is consistently the best source of bicycle fatality statistics on the Web. Their picture of a "typical" bicyclist killed on our roads would be a sober male over 16 not wearing a helmet riding on a major road between intersections in an urban area on a summer evening when hit by a car.
Bicyclists 15 and under killed in 2011: 85. (13%) Injured: 66,017 (23%)
Bicyclist deaths represented 2.1% of all 2011 traffic fatalities.
Average age of a bicyclist killed on US roads: 43 (36 in 2002)
Average age of a bicyclist injured on US roads: 32 (28 in 2002)
Males killed 85%. Males injured 78%.
Nearly one fourth (23%) of the cyclists killed were drunk. (Blood alcohol over .08 g/dl)
Fatal crashes typically were urban (69%) and not at intersections (59%).
...and there will always be a "you" such that it won't ever be the roads you want. All the folks like you expect all the roads nearest to them to be restricted in such fashion. It's never just a "couple of roads". No doubt there are already roads in Oakland that meet your requirements but the fact that such exist isn't good enough - you expect them to be the rule near you.
Oakland does have lots of bike lanes, and is also redesigning streets to slow the car traffic and be pedestrian friendly. Oakland also has roads that are over designed for the amount of traffic. Oakland has more transit users and bike users than most cities, so it makes sense to designate the roads that way.
My street added a sharrow recently, I didn't even know we were supposed to be a designated bike route. I think my street is too steep to ride. But it has been great actually, because now the cars are going slower and it is easier for me to back out of my garage. The speed limit on my street is 30 and cars go 40, so anything to slow down the traffic is good. Every other driveway is for a 20 unit building, there is parking on both sides of the street, it is in a curvy hill, yet people still zoom by like it is the freeway. Who knew the bike lane would help my driving.
Changes are in the works all over town and I had nothing to do with it. I live in a section that is pretty gridded, and there are alternate routes. Everywhere, so some residential streets have been converted to bike boulevards. They added speed bumps and bike symbols. It is good news for people on. The street because now the traffic in their neighborhood is slower. And there is really no good reason to use most of those streets as shortcuts because the adjacent major streets are rarely congested. Maybe a 30 minute window in the PM commute.
There is talk about redoing a major road near me with a bus lane. When they did the math, the amount of transit users in the road was really high and bike users were increasing, so it is targeted for BRT and wider sidewalks. Funnily enough, Berkeley is ruining our BRT by refusing to participate, and the transit usage was much higher than on our section. Upwards to 50%.
I support the changes because many improve traffic flow, and we have plenty of alternate routes that would absorb the congestion that are not out of the way. Evening up the road design so all users have parity is good in my book.
Yet we've been warned to be aware of the anti-Agenda 21 conspirators. Too funny!
Well, I know what my daughters paid. FWIW, hair stylists can make big money. It's probably a better living than nursing.
Mine is doing well too, but i watched her (the injured girl) video and interview. She had just finished school and was working part time so she wasn't rolling in the dough yet. She was barely hanging on with her current income.
Quote:
I'd like to see some stats about this rarity that drivers are charged. My friend's sister was recently killed in a pedestrian/car accident while she (sister) was walking home from work. There is a criminal case going on.
My condolences to you and your friend, I am happy to see the driver was charged. I heard about these stats and hopefully I can find them later, but I have been looking at all coverage of pedestrian and bike accidents locally, and each article ends with the driver was not charged (unless they were drunk or there was some other circumstance, like hit and run).
Pedestrian incidents are generally at intersections.
Pedestrian incidents are generally at intersections.
The majority of pedestrian fatalities do not occur at intersections. I don't know what your definition of "pedestrian incident" is, but your claim seems to be unsubstantiated.
From FHWA website:
Quote:
The percentage of pedestrian fatalities that occurs at intersections ranges from 22.0 percent to 24.8 percent between 1998 and 2007. The average over this 10-year period is 22.4 percent and, for the most recent five-year period, the average has increased to 23.0 percent (See Figure 1 and Table 1; all statistics based on Fatality Analysis Reporting System).
The majority of pedestrian fatalities do not occur at intersections. I don't know what your definition of of "pedestrian incident" is, but your claim seems to be unsubstantiated.
From FHWA website:
Here the vast majority are when they're walking on the shoulder. Most of those happen late at night with the pedestrian wearing dark clothing and walking with instead if facing traffic. Many are also under the influence.
I had an interesting interaction with a bicyclist a couple hours ago. He was riding the wrong way in the middle of a one way, single lane street, head down, next to the bike path we built several years ago. I was stopped at a stop sign which he rode through (the wrong way). I had to hit my horn to alert him so he wouldn't run into me. He gave me the finger.
This is a common occurrence (sans finger) and people wonder why I get pissed at all the bike riders.
The majority of pedestrian fatalities do not occur at intersections. I don't know what your definition of "pedestrian incident" is, but your claim seems to be unsubstantiated.
From FHWA website:
Where I live they happen at intersections. We don't have shoulders in that sense. We should probably break these things out by "neighborhood type." In fact most of the once in SF happen in a couple of neighborhoods on a few intersections. Like 60%.
(Listen to the news report I posted a couple of posts ago.).
Where I live they happen at intersections. We don't have shoulders in that sense. We should probably break these things out by "neighborhood type." In fact most of the once in SF happen in a couple of neighborhoods on a few intersections. Like 60%.
(Listen to the news report I posted a couple of posts ago.).
At the 2:40 mark in the video, Megan Wier from the SF Department of Public Health states that “6% of our city streets contribute to 60% of where our severe and fatal injuries happen”. Based on that statement, you feel confident to make this claim?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
In fact most of the once in SF happen in a couple of neighborhoods on a few intersections. Like 60%.
You seem to be misrepresenting the facts that Megan Wier was citing in the news report.
Walkability is the sum of several factors, not just one single factor. So, no, whether or not a place has sidewalks is not the sole determining factor in whether or not the place is walkable, but a walkable place should have places where people can walk, and places to walk to that are within walking distance of each other. Nor is walkability only found in big cities--big cities can have profoundly unwalkable places, often due to large obstacles like interstate highways, and some of the most walkable parts of big cities are generally highly regarded for their "small-town charm." Neither is whether or not a place has trendy restaurants or overpriced shops. Nor do the people have to be hip--although there is some evidence that people who live in walkable places are healthier and happier, even if their favorite gourmet meal is bacon, grits and eggs, and their favorite designer label is Carhartt.
My favorite places to walk are almost always the "small town" part of big cities. When they aren't entrenched with overpriced chic boutiques, it's a extra plus. Long-running mom/pop shops, healthy community clubs, small parks, etc. make for a wonderful environment to be in.
Here the vast majority are when they're walking on the shoulder. Most of those happen late at night with the pedestrian wearing dark clothing and walking with instead if facing traffic. Many are also under the influence.
I had an interesting interaction with a bicyclist a couple hours ago. He was riding the wrong way in the middle of a one way, single lane street, head down, next to the bike path we built several years ago. I was stopped at a stop sign which he rode through (the wrong way). I had to hit my horn to alert him so he wouldn't run into me. He gave me the finger.
This is a common occurrence (sans finger) and people wonder why I get pissed at all the bike riders.
But, as was said earlier, why not just get PO'd at the stupid bike riders, then? I don't get PO'd at all the car drivers, just the ones who do stupid things while I'm walking. (I don't own a bike)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
