U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-08-2014, 10:49 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,166 posts, read 29,665,044 times
Reputation: 26651

Advertisements

This bill is making its way through Congress.

S.2004 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Safe Streets Act of 2014 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The sponsors are not who you'd think it is popular in red and blue states and the AARP is a major proponent.

More info: New Senate bill would make America

What do you think about the complete streets movement?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-08-2014, 10:56 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,561,754 times
Reputation: 4048
It's about time!

edit: Cool, my Congresswoman introduced the House version of the bill! She has always been a strong advocate of transit and complete streets, not surprised.

Last edited by wburg; 03-08-2014 at 11:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2014, 11:05 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,349,928 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
This bill is making its way through Congress.

S.2004 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Safe Streets Act of 2014 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The sponsors are not who you'd think it is popular in red and blue states and the AARP is a major proponent.

More info: New Senate bill would make America

What do you think about the complete streets movement?
In the event the bill were to become law, the first step that state/local government would take would be be to specifically exclude classes of potential users from using various streets in order to be "compliant". I see more tickets for pedestrians.

One place would be to exclude pedestrians from the street except at defined crossing points. There are already laws for this (e.g., jaywalking) but they aren't enforced very often. Other possibilities include excluding bicyclists and other pedestrians from highways and elevated roadways.

Austin, Texas actually enforced a jaywalking law against a jogger:
Jogger Arrested
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2014, 11:08 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,561,754 times
Reputation: 4048
Making streets "safer" by keeping pedestrians as far as possible from the street is very old-fashioned thinking, based on the "traffic engineer" mentality that the safest street is one with wide lanes and no obstructions so cars can drive as fast as possible. But that isn't what makes a safe street--and it's the opposite of a complete street.

Why isn't "jaydriving" a thing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2014, 11:17 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,166 posts, read 29,665,044 times
Reputation: 26651
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Making streets "safer" by keeping pedestrians as far as possible from the street is very old-fashioned thinking, based on the "traffic engineer" mentality that the safest street is one with wide lanes and no obstructions so cars can drive as fast as possible. But that isn't what makes a safe street--and it's the opposite of a complete street.

Why isn't "jaydriving" a thing?
This happened not too far from me. An elderly driver drove into the sidewalk, pinning two kids to a building wall in the collision. And he tried to blame the kids for "playing recklessly on the sidewalk."

BTW the driver faces no charges....

Case against 90-year-old whose car pinned twin boys against wall in Menlo Park takes nasty turns - San Jose Mercury News
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2014, 11:53 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,349,928 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Making streets "safer" by keeping pedestrians as far as possible from the street is very old-fashioned thinking, based on the "traffic engineer" mentality that the safest street is one with wide lanes and no obstructions so cars can drive as fast as possible. But that isn't what makes a safe street--and it's the opposite of a complete street.

Why isn't "jaydriving" a thing?
Look at the definition of "complete street" and the exemptions.

Local government already excludes classes of users. For example, it frequently excludes trucks based on size or cargo from certain thoroughfares. Not a huge leap to select other classes of potential users and exclude them from the street in order to comply with the bill should it become law.

The bill also explicitly and inherently applies only to federally-funded transportation projects. So unless the streets you are frequenting rely upon federal-funding they wouldn't be part of it anyway.

Separately from this there are already programs like Federal Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program.

Last edited by IC_deLight; 03-09-2014 at 12:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2014, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Philaburbia
32,376 posts, read 59,827,196 times
Reputation: 54019
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Why isn't "jaydriving" a thing?
It's called running red light or stop sign, exceeding the speed limit, driving recklessly, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2014, 11:20 AM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,561,754 times
Reputation: 4048
So why do we just use the term "jaywalking" for people and specific terms for cars that break various rules?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2014, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Philaburbia
32,376 posts, read 59,827,196 times
Reputation: 54019
You're argumentative this morning ...

What else would you call it? Because jaywalking is one specific violation?

Pedestrians can't commit much of a transgression on the street other than being on the street where they're not supposed to be - aka jaywalking; cars can commit a variety of them in any number of differing situations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2014, 11:45 AM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,561,754 times
Reputation: 4048
Just trying to dig deeper into the question, not fight--in case you haven't noticed, I like to challenge assumptions to see what's really behind them. The idea that pedestrians can't commit much of a transgression on the street, while cars can break rules in many ways, is fundamentally important--thank you very much for clarifying! And it's true, I have never seen a cop use a radar gun to see if joggers are breaking speed limits.

So why can cars break the rules in so many ways, and people cannot? Is there inherently more responsibility and precision needed when driving an automobile because it has the potential to cause more damage if improperly used?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top