New Haven Independent

Posted by: Norton Street | July 14, 2009 4:20 PM

right, but when whalley is widened cars will slow down, won't they? with more lanes and more room to drive faster, cars will go slower and be able to avoid things like this, is what logic is telling me. I think we should even decrease bus service along whalley to ensure that everyone who can drive, is driving, that way we'll be getting our money's worth with the road.

Posted by: anon | July 14, 2009 4:33 PM

Norton Street, when Whalley is widened, there won't be any pedestrians walking down the street to worry about.

Posted by: nfjanette | July 14, 2009 11:33 PM

It's difficult to fathom how anyone would use this incident to promote their radical anti-motorist agenda - but it's not surprising given the history of such comments on NHI stories, just kinda sad. This story has absolutely nothing to do with illegal speeding, number of lanes, or bus service, and you folks know it.

Posted by: William Kurtz | July 15, 2009 8:53 AM

Maybe not, Mr. Janette, but the issues are related in that, as Norton St. and the several Anons have argued so frequently, more walkable neighborhoods, with readier access to smaller businesses and local services and better pedestrian infrastructure, would reduce the need to drive just about everywhere and therefore not make it necessary for an elderly man who continue driving in order to preserve his independence. Also, the question of speed remains. Was the driver feeling pressured by tailgaters and other aggressive drivers into exceeding a speed at which he felt comfortable controlling his vehicle?

I suppose you could argue that it's an opportunistic comment to make, but not a hypocritical or irrelevant one.

Posted by: anon | July 15, 2009 9:31 AM

How are you so sure this collision, involving numerous serious injuries, has nothing to do with speeding or road design, NFJ? It sounds here more like you are trying to promote your own "pro-motorist" agenda than anything else.

Even "minor" speeding reduces reaction time and exponentially increases the risk of jumping a curb -- which is one reason why, in thousands of cities worldwide, speed limits are lower in areas with high pedestrian concentrations. In the UK, government guidelines now call for urban speed limits of around 20mph rather than 25 or 30 -- how is saving lives "radical"?

Unfortunately, there's almost no question that the widening of Whalley Avenue in this area will result in speeds around where they are now -- 35 to 40 -- or higher. That means more curbs jumped, more drivers injuried in crashes, and more pedestrians mowed down.

It is a simple equation: you may not be able to draw conclusions from one crash (even though I know that you would like to, NFJ), but you certainly can from a pattern of death.

Posted by: Streever | July 15, 2009 9:46 AM

Unfortunately, Janette, the dynamic duo above is so militant & zealous that they have no grasp on reality.

I hope all parties involved are okay--what an awful accident!

Posted by: Jack | July 16, 2009 9:10 AM

Accidents happen,whether it's cars,bikes,or horse drawn carriage.But they really should have a mandatory physical exam for a drivers license renewal every 5 to 10 years. Advancing age and physical impairment dose make some people unfit to operate a car safely.They already do it for people who drive taxi,truck,bus,ect.They also need to set up some kind of system to make sure anyone operating a vehicle on the road knows about any new traffic laws enacted,the bicycle 3ft clearance law for example.

Posted by: Walt | July 19, 2009 9:51 AM

Although I would be affected, I support the idea of testing those over x age.

Those whose driving is impaired are often the last to recognize that fact.