New Haven Independent

Posted by: anon | June 17, 2009 11:36 AM

Fair warning to the drivers, I suppose. Speeding may seem like a minor offense, but in reality, it causes massive long-term psychological and physiological stress to the people who live in the homes next to these roads. The drivers should have to pay for the damages they have caused. I suggest civil lawsuits as well.

Enforcement and education can help, but ultimately the roads must be designed in a way that will prevent people from driving above a certain speed -- just like they are in "high rent" places such as Darien, Greenwich, Cambridge, Boulder, West Hartford and in front of the State Capitol in Hartford. Yes, New Haven is cash-strapped: but people are going to continue to flee the city and the tax base will decline until we can get a handle on making our neighborhoods more livable. And New Haveners' lives are just as important as those of hedge fund billionaires or Jodi Rell.

Posted by: K | June 17, 2009 11:43 AM

1st Student buses FLY up and down 1st Ave and Quinnipiac in the Heights every day, w/ students on board, ranging from about 35 - even 45 in a 25 zone. I stopped reporting it lately, because I just got tired of feeling like I'm yelling at a brick wall...

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | June 17, 2009 11:46 AM

And those bicyclists riding far under the speed limit during the rush-hour on major thoroughfares! Ticket them, too!

Posted by: Bob | June 17, 2009 11:51 AM

It didn't appear that Brian tang was crossing the street at a crosswalk. I'm curious isn't that jaywalking?

Posted by: anon | June 17, 2009 12:14 PM

Bob, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Please refer to Connecticut General Statutes Chapter 249. Every corner is a crosswalk, whether or not one is striped. The video on this page may be of interest: http://animatedtrafficlaw.org/atlc/

Posted by: Streever | June 17, 2009 12:19 PM

Bob: For once I agree with Anon. Every corner is a crosswalk.

Alphonse: Ignorance is no excuse. "speed limit" is exactly the term. You may not EXCEED the speed limit, but you may certainly go UNDER it.

It's these types of comments that remind me we have a long way to go in educating people.

Posted by: DingDong | June 17, 2009 12:19 PM

"Piscitelli said the crosswalk hasn't been installed because in order to do so, the city would have to install a handicapped-accessible ramp."

Is this really true? This seems like an unintended effect of the Americans with Disabilities Act? If you can't build it handicap-accessible, then you don't get one at all? How much more does the ramp cost?

Posted by: laststraw | June 17, 2009 1:30 PM

Where's the neighborhood activism?! Couple o' cans of white paint, a roller, and a buddy to watch for cops at 3 in the morning. Heck, get a few sheets of plywood and you've got the handicap ramp, too.

Posted by: Bob | June 17, 2009 1:39 PM

Anon, thanks your comment, not. I don't think the law as written "connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks at intersections" is clear that there is a crosswalk at a T intersection, but I'll take you word for it since you are an expert. In any case this guy was baiting the drivers and had plenty of time to cross the street if he wanted to. Waving to drivers only means hello, not "I want to cross the street".

Posted by: anon | June 17, 2009 1:58 PM

It's definitely time for neighborhood activism. How about giant cans filled with sand? Berkeley and hundreds of European towns did it; we can too.

Posted by: anon | June 17, 2009 1:59 PM

Bob, how are you so sure the pedestrian(s) here had "plenty of time"? Have you ever felt what it is like to be elderly, crippled, or very young?

Posted by: ctscoots | June 17, 2009 2:20 PM

I have to agree with Bob. Standing on the corner waving at drivers does not indicate (to me anyhow) that you are attempting to cross the street. Not looking both ways, or proceeding during the lull between 2nd & 3rd cars, or 3rd and 4th cars is more suggestive that he wasn't trying to cross the street. And while I try to be conscientious about allowing pedestrians to cross whenever and wherever they enter the street, someone waving their arms and acting unusually makes me want to speed up and get away, not stop and chat.

Posted by: DEZ | June 17, 2009 2:24 PM

I never want to appear rude, so thank you to all those who made the signs possible. They were installed today and are really pretty. I'm sure if Dan Burden is reading this he is politely chuckling at the knee jerk reaction instead of some long term solution. And now our historic 18C oyster village has an industrial "guiderail" to look forward to in front of the Waucoma? ARE YOU INSANE? Are you just cleaning out the Traffic and Parking garage and figure prices at Alderman and Dow for scrap are too low, so put it on Front Street? Unreal. My early 19C house has 800 square feet of livable, taxed space which do not sit on a foundation. When this addition was put on, it was placed on support columns which now sit 6 feet from the travel lane of Front Street. I would not have built it this way, but I'm sure when it was built a kick from a horse or scuff of an oyster cart would have done little to destroy the property. The last accident here, had the uninsured motorist not veered into the Waucoma gate, would have taken down at least the corner posts of our home. I've got another good knee-jerk reaction. I want Jersey barriers installed around the front of my home. Please paint them that pleasing yellow color and add some reflective strips. I'm sure traffic and parking has GALLONS and ROLLS of the stuff and is just itching to improve our streets. Once done, prospective buyers and my real-estate agent will feel safe from the speeding traffic when we go to sell our house. GET A CLUE! THIS IS NOT SOME JOKE! These are tax-paying, involved citizens you are dealing with. In a city that is home to Yale we still have an uninspired idea of walkable, safe neighborhoods. Unreal. Sad. Pathetic!

Posted by: Beansie's Mom | June 17, 2009 2:33 PM

Thanks, now I have a contact name for DATTCO. Speeding, making up driving rules, hiring the wrong people, can't stand those people on Hemmingway. You're lucky to have a job, remember a lot of people would drive our children in a safer manner.
Great job with the videos.

Posted by: Peace Frog | June 17, 2009 2:34 PM

Anon, I'm pretty certain that Bob has been very young before in his life--not sure about crippled or old, but then again, neither are you, so do you really want to go there?

Secondly, the pedestrian in question is a Yale student, meaning he is between 18 and 23, and is quite obviously not crippled. There is a very generous time gap between the cars that pass by--between 10 and 15 seconds each. On crosswalk lights, ten seconds is the threshold for a "walk" signal for ANYONE, including the sick, elderly and very young, and most people can cross a street in approximately five seconds. Finally, the cars seem to be going at a reasonable pace. None are "zipping" by, and his waving gets the attention of one driver, who pulls over to talk to him.

I'll agree that speeding is a problem, and that there are very serious trouble spots. Front St. is one of them. This video, however, does a really terrible job of showing this.

Posted by: Streever | June 17, 2009 2:40 PM

DingDong:

not unintended at all. It's actually crucial that ALL sidewalks be handicap accessible.

Bob:
It is indeed a CT law. You can look it up in state statutes.

In fact, a pedestrian extending a foot into the crosswalk requires the drivers to stop--and if they won't stop, they are violating the law.

Posted by: DEZ | June 17, 2009 2:41 PM

...and another thing, Ding Dong, you're correct. The City installed a crosswalk at Lewis Street Park, crossing Front Street in front of Oyster Cove which does not have an ADA cut. Why not? There simply is no room because this is a HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD where homes sit cheek to jowl with each other. It was done there without regard (I'll close out the SeeClickFix Clicket on the subject) to ADA accessibility so why is this different? That whole intersection is another Hell story! Why are we so perplexed? Because Dick Miller walked this neighborhood before they redid the street and NOTHING CHANGED but a BRIGHTER, double yellow line!

Posted by: anon | June 17, 2009 3:21 PM

Peace Frog, you're missing the point of the discussion, which is what Brian was obviously trying to start with this little performance.

Whether anyone posting here is crippled or has been in the past, or you have, is completely beside the point.

Bob, it is amazing when people won't admit their error. Hope you watched that video and will yield the next time you see a person trying to cross the street.

Or is it just that your 1-2 seconds is more important than someone's life?

Posted by: DingDong | June 17, 2009 4:13 PM

Streever - I'm not questioning the ADA. I think it's a great piece of legislation. But if Piscitelli is right about this, it seems to mean if you can't get a full improvement (crosswalk with a ramp), the ADA says you can't get a partial improvement (crosswalk with no ramp), so you get nothing (no crosswalk, no ramp).

I think we'd all agree that a partial improvement (cross walk with no ramp) is better for everyone, disabled included, than no improvement at all. That's what I was saying the unintended consequence is: city is saying it's either all or nothing and all is too expensive, so we get nothing. I'm not convinced the city is right about this, though, it might just be another canned "we can't do it because X".

Posted by: William Kurtz | June 17, 2009 4:25 PM

No excuses for the bus driver, but I definitely hope that any 'discipline' meted out by Dattco to make themselves look good in the press is accompanied by a sweeping review and reform of their policies and the execution of those policies. I worked for Dattco briefly during graduate school, and at the time, drivers were told during training that school buses needed to stay 5 miles below the posted speed limit. The drivers were then given routes which were impossible (not just difficult) to complete within the assigned time limits even by staying within the speed limit.

This problem begins at the top, not the bottom.

Posted by: anon | June 17, 2009 5:37 PM

I agree with WilliamKurtz. Corporate accountability is essential: if the company is pushing the drivers to speed, and the drivers kill someone, the company can be held liable. Any lawyers out there who have analyzed the stats that WilliamKurtz mentioned? But just as importantly, the public entity that hires the company is equally responsible for setting and monitoring the benchmarks. What exactly does the BOE do to monitor DATTCO? And do they communicate that to the public? Does anyone know?

Posted by: No Name | June 17, 2009 11:02 PM

Step 1: Find a way to mount a digital camera to my car's dashboard, and do it.

Step 2: Continue to drive the speed limit every day.

Step 3: Record video of people who pass me illegally (crossing over the double-yellow line) in 30 mph zones in residential neighborhoods.

Step 4: ???

Step 5: PROFIT!!!

Posted by: Streever | June 18, 2009 7:28 AM

DingDong:
I don't think that people in wheelchairs would agree. How can they access a crosswalk with no curb cut? I'm pretty solidly in the "do it right the first time" mindset--which means when they built this sidewalk they should have done a curb cut. The failure to do that is what led to this current problem.

No Name:
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=window+camera+mount&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=3771454197&ref=pd_sl_40mievmd83_b

you are in luck. Amazon sells window mounts for cameras for 20 bucks!

Posted by: Bob | June 18, 2009 12:18 PM

Anon,
I don't see someone trying to cross the street in the video. I just see cars going by.

If the law really does make every street corner a crosswalk requiring cars to stop whenever a pedestrian is standing there, it's a ridiculous law and ridiculous laws are never obeyed. Good luck.

Posted by: anon | June 18, 2009 2:14 PM

I see you're still confused about what the law is, Bob.

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | June 18, 2009 4:28 PM

Today while lunching across from the movie theater at Katz Deli, I witnessed a CT Transit bus, #473, doing at least 40MPH barreling down George Street to make a light. (probably more like 45MPH).

What gives?

You'd think that after a pedestrian death earlier in the year, buses in the downtown area would be dotting their "i"'s and crossing their "t"'s when it comes to traffic regulations.

What are the powers that be waiting for? Where is the enforcement, and where are the calming measures?

Posted by: anon | June 18, 2009 4:57 PM

Do you have the time ? I suggest you report the specifics of that violation to all authorities, local and state elected officials and congresspersons. CT Transit must be held accountable to our community. The speeding and deaths must end.

Posted by: Slow Children | June 18, 2009 5:33 PM

Just saw a Channel 3 truck camped in front of a NH digital speedometer sign. Watch the news tonight and see if you're on it.

My prize for going 25 MPH is peace of mind that I could stop WHEN that ball rolls in the street or that cyclist hits a road hazard and goes down in front of me...plus NO TICKET!

Posted by: Norton Street | June 18, 2009 5:41 PM

truebluect,
the bus was most likely speeding because it was behind on its schedule, due partly by the rain, but mostly because there are simply too many cars on the road and the buses get stuck in traffic and behind on the schedule. like today, the Q bus was 10 minutes late and my shoes and lower pants got soaked because of it. i think the drivers realize how terrible it is to be outside on a day like today and wait for a late bus so they sometimes speed, run yellows/reds to cater to their customers. in large part, we wouldnt have this problem if people actually took the bus instead of drove their own cars. buses would then become much more efficient, as far as time goes, and it would be packed for every trip. just to be clear, i'm also not excusing what you saw today.

Posted by: anon | June 19, 2009 1:00 PM

I agree, Slow Children! Driving 15 or 20 MPH gives you a much longer reaction time, and is a good way to avoid hitting the 9-year-old kids biking downtown or the 90-year-old ladies who need twice as much time to cross the street as our crosswalk signals currently allow.

Unfortunately, most people aren't conscientious enough to do that. So if we want to end the hundreds of serious injuries on our streets every year, all of our busier streets must be redesigned and posted with that consideration specifically in mind (as they are in Greenwich, Darien, residential areas in hundreds of cities in Europe, in front of the State Capitol in Hartford, etc.).

Talking to the bus drivers would help too.

Posted by: nfjanette | June 19, 2009 1:16 PM

The speeding and deaths must end.

This is obviously a sensitive subject, because the loss of life is involved. However, it has been stated publicly that at least some of the pedestrian deaths over the past year were the result of crossing against the light. It's possible that they all involved that action - note the NHI link today in which the police now admit a driver had a green light and a boy on a bike blew the red.

I do believe in improving the design of roads (not to the radical extent often proposed here) and in better police enforcement of existing traffic laws. I think traffic light cameras would be a powerful weapon in the battle. But let's be clear: without significant efforts to educate pedestrians and efforce laws on them, there will still be a constant danger of injury or death. The dangerous behavior has been, unfortunately, proven to exist in cyclists and pedestrians as well as motorists.

Posted by: anon | June 19, 2009 4:21 PM

NFJ: I agree with your point about "educating" people, but why do you consider road designs used in thousands of other cities and countries around the world "radical," when they are so widely used and so dramatically effective at eliminating injuries?

In fact, being stuck with government policies that date from the early atomic age is what I would consider "radical."

And the speeding that directly results from that "radicalism" (whether the drivers are technically going above the official posted limit or not) is just as much the cause of death as the poor 9 year old girl or 90-year-old grandmother trying to cross a bustling street. Let's be culturally sensitive and not assume that a 9-year old or a 90-year old looks at the street in the same way that a middle aged high school graduate does. Put yourself in their shoes and share.

Posted by: nfjanette | June 19, 2009 4:54 PM

And the speeding that directly results from that "radicalism" (whether the drivers are technically going above the official posted limit or not) is just as much the cause of death as the poor 9 year old girl or 90-year-old grandmother trying to cross a bustling street.

Let's review the facts, not the opinions. There has been no fault whatsoever assigned to the drivers involved in the two pedestrian deaths near Yale New Haven hospital. The fault was assigned to the bike rider in Fair Haven in this week's news.

As for the tragic death of the little girl on Whalley Avenue, this is a quote from the NHI article:

The intersection where she was hit is notorious for cars zooming down Whalley blowing the red light, Witkowski said. He did not have any information as to whether the driver who hit Gabrielle was speeding, or whether the light was green or red.

It was a hit and run accident, and the driver fled the scene, but that's all we know (publicly). I agree cars speed on that section, and that may have contributed to the tradjedy.

That would be one possible assignment of blame to the drivers out of four situations. Those are the facts, and we should learn the lessons from them and act accordingly, which is why I advocate targeting pedestrian and cyclist compliance with safety laws. Please note I didn't suggest that course of action in lieu of increasing enforcement on motorists.

Posted by: anon | June 20, 2009 12:47 AM

NFJ, there have been more than 4 situations - perhaps you should review the stats on how many injuries there have been just so far this year (New Haven is on track to have over 100 for the year just among pedestrians), and how many had drivers at fault. Talk to the NHPD and ask what factors they think are behind the worst crashes and injuries, like the 12 people killed last year on our city's streets.

I'm glad you ducked my question about why you thought that progressive safety measures used in thousands of other cities in the U.S. and around the world are "radical." Maybe that means you're reconsidering your support for our current, 1950s-era policies.

Instead of rushing to blame someone for the tragedies in our city or have cops ticket more 9 year olds in my neighborhood, why not consider the bigger social picture for a second. Speeding, crushing, permanently injuring and killing other people with your car is socially irresponsible and unacceptable, whether it is "legal" or not. If the laws were working, we wouldn't have hundreds of people (disproportionately children, minorities and elderly) being injured every year in car crashes in our city. And if you are really concerned with people following the law, consider that radar surveys from cities similar to New Haven have shown that at least 40% of vehicles are traveling in excess of the legal speed limit. Besides the expensive death and destruction caused by this constant speeding (ever wonder why health care costs are so high?), how about considering people's sense of security, comfort with using the front part of their homes, ability to live in a pleasant, walkable neighborhood, and interest in driving downtown for a concert without worrying about getting killed on their drive back?

Our laws and policies are currently doing a very poor job in terms of promoting the general public health, welfare, environmental, accessibility, socioeconomic equity, and job-growth prospects of our city. They must be changed immediately.

Posted by: William Kurtz | June 20, 2009 6:04 PM

Maybe workplace ergonomics is a useful analogy. For how many years were occupational injuries considered to be just part of the cost of doing business? Human beings were expected to adapt to the demands of the job, the workplace, the control panel, the assembly line, with 'efficiency,' as measured in the terms of the system, (how many pieces are produced and how quickly) the primary goal. Gradually we came to recognize the need to adapt the system to the user and not always expect the user to change.

The same idea is at work here on city streets. Since the 50s and the car boom, urban design has prioritized the movement of automobiles, with the expectation that individual human beings will just watch out for themselves. Of course we proved to be less-than-proficient at this. It's time for the overall systems to adapt.

The issues of 'fault' and 'blame' are often simplistic and useless ones--well, they're useful in determining whose insurance company pays for the scraped paint on the SUV when the driver hits someone.

It's true that all individuals, whether behind the wheel, or on foot or bicycle must assume the responsibility for assuring their own safety and the safety of those they are in a position to injure. But the young medical who was killed on Frontage Road was, by all account, an intelligent and capable young woman. Do we just throw up our hands and say, "well it was her fault she got hit?" Are we okay with the idea that a moment's carelessness is capital offense? Do we give people more tickets for jaywalking? More tickets for speeding? Or do we assign the 'fault' where it really lies, which is with the decision to put what is for all intents and purposes a high-speed interstate highway on-ramp next door to a hospital, and right through a pedestrian-heavy intersection? As a bonus, of course, said on-ramp has recently been divided into two lanes from one, so as to keep drivers from being inconvenienced from having to slow down as they fight to merge ahead of that @%#$$&-ing slowpoke.

Posted by: iwasthere | June 21, 2009 9:58 AM

How do we know that this radar gun was fairly adjusted before using. Because the radar gun may be uncalibrated just creating a false reading. Can I see this before accusing the bus driver for speeding. This may lead to false charges against the driver with his employeer.

Posted by: Wow | June 21, 2009 4:38 PM

IWASTHERE:
Why don't you try driving your car toward the sign?

Radar gun calibration is a red herring that is too often used. I pass these signs frequently & have yet to see one give an inaccurate reading. On my bike, in a car, it's always matchng what I'm showing within 1-2 mph.

Posted by: anon | June 21, 2009 9:49 PM

"Are we okay with the idea that a moment's carelessness is capital offense?"

I'm not OK with that. Good way of framing it.

New Haven had a dozen deaths and a few hundred serious injuries last year due to traffic crashes, but the overall economic and health costs of this were of an even greater magnitude. I'm guessing that home prices in the center city would be higher if drivers weren't crashing into houses or each other on a regular basis, and that more people (especially families and older residents) would get exercise walking to locally-owned stores if they didn't feel like they were under constant assault and had some amenities.

Posted by: piehole slapper | June 22, 2009 1:57 PM

It never cease to amaze me how you people whine like babies...If you were later for work and following behind a bus going 25 mph you would be cursing the driver out...You all need to shut your piehole up and stop thying to get someone fired...PS The loser videoing the crosswalk should do something constructive and get a life...

Posted by: Streever | June 22, 2009 5:09 PM

Piehole:
How do you know? None of us commenting would be upset that the bus was going 25 mph, and the sheer quantity & level of complaint should make that clear.

Posted by: Piehole | June 22, 2009 6:01 PM

I know because I see it all the time. You people need to concern yourself with the idiots speeding past the buses when they are letting the precious children off. You guy move your pieholes for some of the dumbest reasons..

Posted by: William Kurtz | June 22, 2009 8:20 PM

Sounds like someone has just learned a fun new word! One of the other kids use it in study hall? Say it again! Say it again! 'Piehole.' It never stops being funny! Boy, I miss George Carlin.

Anyway, I think you'll find that many of the people posting here who think school buses shouldn't be speeding would also be the first ones to notice--and call for action about--someone speeding past a bus with its stop lights on. The general theme is 'dangerous drivers.'

Posted by: anon | June 23, 2009 12:47 AM

Most cops don't give out tickets if someone blows by a bus that has stopped to drop off a kid. They will pull over the driver and give a talk occasionally, but decide not to give a ticket because they want to keep up the good will (the fine for failing to stop for a school bus is much higher than for speeding or running reds in many cases).

Posted by: Josh Smith | June 23, 2009 1:01 AM

Piehole,

If I was late to work and a bus was driving 25 in front of me on a road with a speed limit of 25, I wouldn't complain at all. I'd be a mixture of surprised and happy that the driver was driving the bus carefully, as he or she should. The only person I'd be cursing at would be myself, for leaving home too late for whatever reason. Well, okay, I'd also be cursing at people who are speeding and/or tailgating me. I guess they figure they have a right to make their own speed limit up when they're late to work, but that's okay, cause they'll be a lot later to work when they get into an accident on the way there, and maybe they'll have learned a lesson. It's just sad that it takes a car accident to make the light go on in their head, and some people never figure it out.

Posted by: bukannan | August 19, 2009 5:02 AM

tel:
mobil:009664433331