New Haven Independent

Posted by: DR | August 26, 2009 4:06 PM

I just got back from a trip to Peru. Lima, Cusco, and numerous small towns we went through had speed bumps at just about every intersection. There were also speed bumps at schools. Residential area frequently had speed bumps placed mid-block.

I saw no cars or trucks fail to slow down to a crawl at the speed bumps.

Posted by: anon | August 26, 2009 4:09 PM

Like many in our city, these intersections should have been rebuilt many decades ago, using the same progressive urban design guidelines that, because of their widely-proven ability to reduce the frequency of serious traffic injuries by an order of magnitude or more, have been adopted by any number of other cities.

Unfortunately, the decades of delays in fixing what is clearly broken all over our city, are paid for every year with many lost and diminished lives.

New Haven is behind the curve, and we can't hold anyone accountable for this other than ourselves.

Let's all pray that this child recovers.

Posted by: L | August 26, 2009 4:52 PM

We sorely need a speedbump at the bottom of Clifton, because these kids will fly down this street, no matter what, not to mention drivers, on this steep, dangerous hill. A cross walk on Q Ave. would also help Q Ave drivers to be more vigilant. We have a good, neighborhood restaurant here, Martin's, that people do not feel safe walking to. A cross walk now, not when the road gets redone, is necessary. I posted these suggestions to seeclickfix.com, title is "bike accident - need speedbump and crosswalk" - please click on it and add your name to the list of supporters for this idea. Thx!

Posted by: anon | August 26, 2009 5:04 PM

Thanks, L - here's the link to that issue: http://www.seeclickfix.com/issues/7799.

Posted by: Norton Street | August 26, 2009 5:38 PM

In America, the street is the public realm, there for everyone to enjoy. America was built up rather quickly around the idea of connectivity over vast distances. We had so much land to build on with a relatively small population, so attention to transportation infrastructure has always been at the forefront of any design here. it is, unfortunately, to our detriment that the United States occupied so much land, because in years of enormous growth, we figured out how to spread the population out rather than focus on efficient and livable density like many European countries did during their growth periods. In Italy, for example, there are grand plazas enjoyed by local (and more recently global) people for thousands of years and these places are surrounded by immensely dense human habitats. These plazas act as the public realm in other countries; places largely absent of individual automobiles and asphalt. In America, the roads serve a dual purpose of serving the general population as the public realm and serving the various transportation needs of the area or region. However, since individual automobiles have completely taken over our roads, Quinnipiac Avenue especially, these streets are no longer serving the public, they are only serving cars. In old cities, children have a right to play in the street where parks are not close (or close enough to go without a parent/gaurdian if they work long hours). The street needs to serve all populations equally, and to continue our car-centric American lifestyle makes it impossible for this to happen because by definition personalized cars are too plentiful. When a car drives by on Quinnipiac Avenue minimally every 20 seconds during the day, that does not give anyone time to enjoy the street who is not in a car. If there were a trolley line here that ran efficiently say every 20 minutes, and only a few vehicles used to road to bring in produce to the central city, then that leaves plenty of time to use the street as a shopper, a person taking a stroll, a child running around, etc.

Hopefully this kid makes a full recovery and I'm sure he's learned not to mess with the automobile's realm again, which is unfortunate because it is actually just as much his right to be in the street as it is anyone else.

Posted by: s | August 26, 2009 5:38 PM

where are these children's parents while they are riding there bikes onto these dangerous roads?

Posted by: WIMBY! | August 26, 2009 5:44 PM

I was riding in a car going down Quinnipiac Avenue one time. It felt like we were going kind of fast, so I looked over at the dashboard and we were going about forty.

"Isn't this a 25 mph zone?" I asked the driver.

"I don't see any speed limit signs."

I looked for a speed limit sign and didn't see any.

"If they wanted me to drive 25 mph they would have put more signs up."

When we finally passed a speed limit sign near Grand it was all beat up and hardly visible.

Posted by: streever | August 26, 2009 6:31 PM

Wimby!--let that driver know the speed limit city-wide is 25!

Hope this kid recovers--and this road is improved. It's a hard job to repair every intersection & street in New Haven...

Posted by: robn | August 26, 2009 6:38 PM

The kid's parents didn't teach him that its dangerous to speed your bike into a busy intersection? The problem here is NOT an unsafe road.

Posted by: b | August 26, 2009 7:04 PM

S - The child's parent's may have been at work or resting from their jobs. At fourteen years old, it would be inappropriate for him to be followed around by them. He may have a curfew that he disobeyed, or staying at a friend's whose parents are more lax. 10pm is kind of late for 14 to be out, but "where are the parents?" is just lame. I'm damn sure you are childless.

Posted by: Westie | August 26, 2009 7:09 PM

NHI readers blame the motor vehicle again, I see. The lady in the parked car arguing with the jeep driver, she probably blamed the motor vehicle operator. We saw how well that worked with the van driver in Newhallville! Painted crosswalks... how would that have changed circumstances today? Speedbumps on the downhill? Oh, whoopie, the City will provide knucklehead bikers with small jumps! Today's accident would have been prevented by the adult who gave the kid the bike pounding into him a sense of responsibility for self preservation and for accounting for his own actions. More importantly, if wreckless behavior was observed in the past, take away the bike.

Posted by: William Kurtz | August 26, 2009 8:05 PM

Norton St:

The fact remains that this kid would not have been hit had he been riding his bicycle in a safe and responsible manner. Dollars to donuts says he didn't have any brakes. The right to use the street goes hand in hand with the obligation to use it responsibly.

I agree completely with you that citizens need to reclaim the streets as a viable public space, but until that happens, the rules of the game are the rules of the game and everyone needs to abide by them to ensure their own safety and the safety of other road users. When someone else (a speeding driver, for example, but the story doesn't indicate whether the police believe the driver to have been speeding) fails to follow the rules, more often than not, the potential victim (a kid on a bike recklessly descending a steep hill into an intersection) has an opportunity to avoid disaster.

Posted by: V | August 26, 2009 9:08 PM

I saw three kids racing down Edgewood St (down the hill from Forest Rd) today. No helmets, wrong side of a the street. 5pm (rush hour).

Mix stupid kids with terrible drivers and you get bad results.

Posted by: streever | August 26, 2009 11:36 PM

Yea--William Kurtz and I have personally put in probably 60+ hours of actually working with kids on bikes (unlike Matisse & Norton Street) and he's absolutely right--it's likely this kid didn't have brakes & if he simply obeyed the law he'd be safe.

But hey, Norton Street doesn't care about 14-16 year olds who don't have the same educational advantages as she & I do, because she advocates (along with Mattise) locking them in prison for 35+years for minor crimes & killing them with baseball bats.

As always, appreciate the mature & realistic commentary.

Posted by: Norton Street | August 26, 2009 11:47 PM

William Kurtz,
I completely agree with your comment. The kid was not using the road responsibly, while the driver was, at least by today's views on acceptable road usage. I think the story makes that much fairly clear. I feel that the comments should therefore focus on what should be done in the future and where we go from here, which the bulk of the comments do.

Posted by: Bob | August 27, 2009 1:07 AM

Seeing the numerous incidents of motor vehicle accidents involving bicyclists, one cant help but notice that many of the accidents involve juvenile bike riders. And many times they are the ones at fault. Yes they're supposed to follow the rules of the road, but at 15 years old, I can remember riding my bike, thinking the cars had to yield to me. Do the public schools teach bicycle safety to these kids? If not, why not incorporate such a subject into phys ed, if it still exists...

Posted by: ctscoots | August 27, 2009 1:17 AM

A speed bump is the worst possible idea for that hill. Kids have been coasting down that hill for years (see A. Rhodeen's comment). A speed bump would make it even more of a draw and even more dangerous. Just look at the Oxford Intersection a few blocks away. The natural bump caused where Oxford intersects Quinnipiac is a draw for speeders who want to see how much air they can get. While I agree something needs to be done, in this case it seems like the Q-Ave redo is covering it.

Posted by: anon | August 27, 2009 1:33 AM

I agree with Norton Street. The civic community should be debating and focusing on what to do to stop these preventable injuries and deaths from happening in the future. This means, for example:

1) debating exactly what travel speeds are likely to cause which types of injuries due to differences in impact force and response times,

2) discussing what types of policies have worked to modify road behavior and eliminate the majority of road injuries in other urban areas, like the rumble strips used in Ghana,

3) debating whether or not drivers (who tend to be more privileged folk) have a responsibility not to kill/injure kids from disadvantaged backgrounds and/or are disabled, like some of the children who live in Fair Haven (these are known as "vulnerable user" laws and widely used outside of Connecticut),

4) encouraging the entire community (particularly disadvantaged residents) to participate in evaluating the social impact of current and proposed policies, including measures intended to change attitudes on #3, and

5) measuring the broader economic, social and public health impact of these policies.

Parallel to the vibrant civic community of New Haven conducting its ongoing evaluation of these issues -- which it already has been doing for decades -- it must work harder to communicate its desires to the government. When years and decades keep passing and no actions are taken, our government must be held more accountable.

To go one step farther, many other areas have adopted "Vision Zero" policies -- community leaders Tom Harned, Hunter Smith and Erica Mintzer wrote an excellent op-ed in the Hartford Courant about this last year -- which seek to totally eliminate these types of preventable injuries. Not to do so is unethical in many people's opinion, which is why you currently see many countries and cities around the United States developing complete overhauls to their road design and road use guidelines and laws.

Due to the leadership of our elected officials, CT and New Haven have begun to make some encouraging progress on the issue, but our policies are still far from adequate. Do the math: the current rate of change will do nothing to end the epidemic of deaths and injuries on our roads, or make our streets more equitable and livable, anytime within the next generation. In fact, many current projects, like the widening of Whalley Avenue in an section of New Haven where at least five pedestrians have been run down and seriously injured or killed just within the past year, are making things worse.

Citizens are not empowered or encouraged to make broader, more rapid changes within their own neighborhoods. Even when changes are requested by our neighborhoods, the city and state often shoot then down. Almost inevitably, the neighborhood representatives requesting the changes are minorities, disadvantaged residents and women (like the youth who requested bike lanes in Newhallville years ago) and the people shouting them down (on this message board, at public meetings, or elsewhere) are privileged, white men, some of whom think they are doing a great service to the city by "volunteering" their time.

Of course, making personal attacks (e.g., "Norton Street doesn't care about 14-16 year olds") or bragging about the 60+ hours you have spent "working with kids" compared to how much time you think other people have spent, doesn't seem to be very helpful towards establishing this type of civic dialogue.

Let's debate the issues instead, and make our community's and youth's vision for progress a reality sooner rather than later.

Posted by: Jon Doe | August 27, 2009 5:57 AM

I Live on Atwater Street and on Monday afternoon around 1:20 - 2pm a young boy about 9 years old on a bike was in a accident with a SUV at the intersection of Atwater St and Pine St. I didn't see the accident happend but it appeared that the Boy rode into the side of the SUV hitting the passinger side door. I agree that People drive like nuts in New Haven but that just means people walking or on bikes need to be extra careful.

Sure we could spend large sum of money on putting speed bumps at every intersection but when the snow plows come during the winter they will be distroyed. Painting lines in all the crosswalks in the city, but let's be real is that going to slow down these guys driven like nuts. I dont think so the only way to stop this is to inforce the laws we have already and when the word gets out that the NHPD is going to get you. Once the word is out I think some of them will stop . Up to this point people know that the Police dont try to hard to stop these guys.

Posted by: fedupwithliberals | August 27, 2009 7:32 AM

We should start handing out Darwin awards in this city.

Posted by: Bill | August 27, 2009 8:58 AM

I see many kids, riding without helmets, riding on the wrong side of the road, etc. I have also seen police cars pass this kids without stopping. If the police are responsible for public safety, why is it they never stop these kids and explain to them what they are doing wrong?

Posted by: mike | August 27, 2009 9:23 AM

Alex Rohdeen is 100% correct, it is the parenting that causes these accidents and its parenting that can fix these problems. my parents taught me not to go speeding on my bike out into a busy street. they also taught me to look both ways before crossing a street. my parents also taught me to use sidewalks and not walk down the middle of the street like many of New Havens youth think is "cool" to do.

children having children, its simple really.

Posted by: Jack | August 27, 2009 9:33 AM

I see this every day. Kids 12yrs. and up,riding against traffic on the wrong side of the road,ignoring traffic signals and signs,flying down steep grades with little or no control.I'm amazed we don't see a story like this at least twice a week. I was on the bus a few months back. The bus stopped to let a passenger off on East Grand Ave., and a kid slammed into the front of the bus. Emergency did take him away,and it was obvious he had lost some teeth. I know that when something like this is reported, people like to use it as an opportunity to advocate for Complete Streets, something I totally agree with. But it doesn't address the real problem.

Posted by: Q | August 27, 2009 9:55 AM

I have to agree with Mike. Yes, Norton Street and Anon, your views and (clearly laid out) positions have some merit and speak to a broader dialog on how to make this city a better place, but in this particular case, you had irresponsable kids riding down a steep hill right into a currently highly traveled and speedy road.

Yes, perhaps street design can be changed to discourage such use of that particular street, but the issue here is that there needs to be a broader push in the community to discourage that BEHAVIOR.

Kids acting like idiots are going to get hurt. This isn't rocket science. There is no section of any city, town or village that can be "kid proofed" to the point that no irresponsible person is going to gravely injure themselves or others by acting recklessly.

Posted by: JZ | August 27, 2009 11:19 AM

I see kids riding crazy frequently too. I also see many, many adults, some leading children by the hand and others pushing strollers, crossing busy streets like Dixwell and Whalley with no regard to crosswalks or lights. They often cross half the street and then stand and wait in the middle until there's an opening.

I hope I never hit anyone. I wish they had the same fear I do.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | August 27, 2009 12:03 PM

I was just wondering where Lt. Hassett and his bike enforcement team were, when I witnessed a pack of no fewer than twenty bicycles, all piloted by urban teenagers, screaming up Chapel Street mid-day, the wrong way.

They then all took a right turn and headed the wrong way down York St.

In my opinion, for riding against traffic, the fines for bicyclists should be very punitive ($300?)-- there is no excuse for this behavior.

Though there are a couple of calls for better enforcement of the helmet law (which only applies to riders fifteen years of younger), be informed that the CT Statute has no real teeth. It is unenforceable, as the final caveat reads:

Failure to comply with this section shall not be a violation or an offense. Failure to wear protective headgear as required by this subsection shall not be considered to be contributory negligence on the part of the parent or the child nor shall such failure be admissible in any civil action.

Posted by: anon | August 27, 2009 12:06 PM

"But it doesn't address the real problem."

Yes we can take some steps to improve education among children, but the "problem" of disadvantaged, discriminated-against youth is not going to go away anytime in the near future, if ever.

In other words, you are always going to have 12-year olds from immigrant, foster care, poor, or broken families who did not have the same advantages or education that most of our city's drivers, commissioners, elected officials and commenters on this site had.

Some of the comments here make me wonder: Have you ever spent time with these kids? Have you ever spent time with someone who just moved to the U.S. from another country?

Many other progressive communities have recognized that only changes in policies -- like vulnerable user laws and slightly slower speeds which allow drivers time to react -- can reduce these constant deaths and injuries (aside from all the other clear benefits that have been documented). When will New Haven wake up and stop advocating for policies that directly cause so many deaths and injuries each year?

Posted by: robn | August 27, 2009 1:07 PM

BS,

I saw the EXACT same thing last Friday at Chapel and College...only in my case there was a police officer sitting in a car parked on the Green 25 feet away who looked right at them and did nothing. Disgraceful...for the police and for the parents who allow their children to behave this way.

Posted by: James | August 27, 2009 1:10 PM

ANON

Are you suggesting that you need the advantages of an upper-middle class eduction not to ride your bicycle recklessly into oncoming traffic? Does discrimination cause people to cross busy streets without regard for their safety despite there being a signalized crosswalk just a 20 feet up the road?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | August 27, 2009 1:53 PM

I almost died on that street one winter driving down it!! I was lost looking for a friends house and my car took off on the snow...a sign got stuck on the under carriage of my car and it took the town truck driver some time to get it off! I thought I was sliddin straight to my death thank god for the sign!!

Posted by: branfordrules | August 27, 2009 2:17 PM

"I was just wondering where Lt. Hassett and his bike enforcement team were, when I witnessed a pack of no fewer than twenty bicycles, all piloted by urban teenagers, screaming up Chapel Street mid-day, the wrong way."

Well, Bill, you might rest easier knowing that just after the incident you mentioned, a student got a ticket for riding his bike to a meter in front of the Art School. Phew!

Posted by: Jon Doe | August 27, 2009 2:24 PM

When my grandparents came here after WWII they didn't speak english they had to adopt to there new country. Why is it now we have to make changes for spanish speaking people some who already broke the law coming into the country illegal. So now we should change traffic laws to suit them.

Both of my grandparent went on to become U.S citizens the legal way. These people need to respect all of our laws.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | August 27, 2009 2:47 PM

Branford Rules,

ding ding ding -- +10 on my Quality of Life Meter.

Since we are in such a budget crunch, I think New Haven should start a new program to ticket nuisance pedestrians who aid and abet renegade sidewalk bikers by politely letting them pass.

$25 seems like a fair fine to fee.

Posted by: anon | August 27, 2009 2:58 PM

"These people need to respect all of our laws."

And if they don't, or are having a bad day, make a small mistake or are temporarily blinded by the sun, you're saying that they deserve an automatic death sentence? Even if they are 12 years old?

Are you a lobbyist? This plan is a great recipe for continued high health care costs.

Posted by: DingDong | August 27, 2009 4:03 PM

"twenty bicycles, all piloted by urban teenagers"

hmm, wonder what the word "urban" is code for here.

Posted by: JackNH | August 27, 2009 4:31 PM

Darwin Awards. I love it! Gotta say he has a point. I thought self-preservation was a strong human instinct-- not on Clinton St., I guess.

Posted by: streever | August 27, 2009 5:17 PM

Don't advocate hitting people with bats if you don't want people to remember what you said. Not a personal attack at all, but simply holding NS up for advocating something dangerous & inappropriate.

Posted by: streever | August 27, 2009 5:18 PM

I'm personally bothered by the extremely out of control advice I've seen this individual give in dealing with 14-16 year olds before--and yes, hitting them with baseball bats is included in that.

Posted by: William Kurtz | August 27, 2009 5:21 PM

Complete Streets may not address the entire problem, but it does address a substantial piece of the real problem which is engineering that not only allows but promotes dangerous behavior by more powerful road users (i.e. drivers), the cost of which is often paid for by the more vulnerable ones (i.e. cyclists, pedestrians and children). 'Vulnerable user' laws are on the books in (can you guess?) Europe and it would be fantastic to see them gain traction in the U.S. as well--and all transportation policies should acknowledge that elimination of traffic deaths and injuries is a goal, even if I'm not romantic enough to think that any system can be completely foolproofed. However, as has been pointed out before, carelessness shouldn't be a capital offense. We build all kinds of protective devices into motor vehicles, raise them two feet off the ground, armor them (I've seen two tractor-trailer cabs this week with actual spikes on the wheels, ala Ben-Hur) and then buy them because the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety calls them 'safe' regardless of their potential to cause damage. This is a ridiculous way to think. Norton St. may think people should be able to cross the street with their eyes closed and their headphones in at rush hour (I'm kidding), but he or she is right that inattention or playing in the street shouldn't be a death sentence.

What the real problem is not is 'disadvantaged, discriminated-againt youth' who are as capable as anyone of understanding the simple physics of a car crash--that is to say, they're as capable as any youth, which is to say not very.

In my younger, care-free, less-responsible days, playing with the other over-privileged white children of American-born parents, I would sometimes (okay, often) engage in this kind of childish derring-do, crossing the street on my bike at the last minute, riding down hills with ineffective brakes, or no brakes at all (I did most of my own bike maintenance, even then--I've gotten better at it now, though) and so forth. My inattentive parents were typically on their yacht, or at the country club, or otherwise too busy working overtime at the steel warehouse, or at graveyard shift second jobs, or studying at evening classes, to bother to follow me around and make sure I wasn't making the kinds of foolish choices that children have made probably since time began. They certainly should have had time to do so, given that they weren't even making an attempt to study English in 'there' country. Ah, the good old days.

Posted by: 021984455001 | August 27, 2009 5:56 PM

Instead of spending 60 hrs with kids on bikes, perhaps a certain regular in the comments section should spend 60 hrs with a psychiatrist. His comments are becoming as bizarre as my own. And I am not referring to William "Exterminate the Brutes" Kurtz.

Posted by: Norton Street | August 27, 2009 6:17 PM

Streever,
You need to learn how to read, bro. This is what I suggested the photographer do to the kids:

"Just yell out your window "Hey you kids, stop that or I'm callin' the cops!" Or grab a bat and walk outside and stare at them; there, problem solved."

Stare at them....stare, not hit, not chase, stare. I even clarified this in a later comment in that same post. You keep convincing yourself that I'm saying things I've never said; this is turning into your "death panels". And I'm glad to hear you are investing so much time in the community; I only wish East Rock were as trendy when I was growing up as it is now. Then maybe a super cool intellectual could have come to my neighborhood and provided me with bike riding tips and then a sweet high five. Oh well, my fault for being born during the coke epidemic.

The problem I see here goes back much further than a few years of a couple decades. The role of the city has changed enormously since the turn of the 20th century. It is unfair that children who live around Quinnipiac Avenue cannot enjoy their neighborhood in the same way that generations before did. These children don't need to be educated in how to live in their city, outsiders need to be educated of their role in relation to the city. Commuters have a responsibility not to disrupt the city neighborhood. Our priorities in this country are all out of wack. It is not a little kids fault that cities are no longer a place for centered development and civic life, it is the ones who made our environment this way and who continue to keep it this way. I merely try to bring awareness to people who are not educated in this city's history. In large part, children do everything correctly; they live their lives based on mom, then home and family, then block, then neighborhood, then city and beyond. The process of becoming engulfed in ones environment requires exploring and curiosity. When this is not possible, at a certain age, children will reach the point of acting out.
Alright Im just gunna stop now because this is far too long and yet not nearly explained enough. The issues here are far more complex than ignorant children and inadequate infrastructure.

Posted by: anon | August 27, 2009 7:39 PM

Many medical experts and historians would agree with Norton Street's points about child development.

Posted by: robn | August 27, 2009 10:04 PM

sorry guys,

A bike is a vehicle and not a toy. You can have fun with it, but you have to use it responsibly. If a kid is too young to know better than to ride into traffic, then he/she should be closely supervised by parents. If the kid is old enough to know better then the parents should bear the responsibility for not teaching their child how to use their vehicle. Socio-economics are not an excuse. This accident is sad because its so completely unnecessary.

Posted by: steve ross, human | August 28, 2009 8:59 AM

These arguments about who or what is responsible for an accident are ludicrous. The kid made a mistake and is hurt and that's terribly unfortunate.

Blame, here, is simplistic an gratuitous.

"This accident is sad because its so completely unnecessary."

Sorry Robn, but accidents are by nature unnecessary.

Posted by: stopthelibs | August 28, 2009 10:25 AM

Whether you want to admit it or not, this issue should be considered from the point of view of Darwinism. Thousands of years ago, children who were not taught safety by their parents or failed to heed those lessons would go out act in an unsafe manner. But, these kids would be eaten by tigers. The result is that the smartest and most disciplined families would survive to procreate and build a stronger gene pool and create a stronger species.

Fast forward to modern times and those families who don't teach their offspring safety not only see those kids survive, but socieity pays their hospital bills then encourages them to grow up, live on public assistance, have 8 children that they can't support, which then creates 8 new families in the next generation that are a drain on society's gene pool and finances.

Although this model works great to grow the number of voters who pull the 'D' lever in November, it is a dangerous death spiral for our species as a whole....not to mention the costs involved (see bankrput social security, medicare, and the upcoming trillion dollar debt from public health care)

Come on people....

Posted by: anon | August 28, 2009 1:57 PM

Good point, Steve.

Posted by: fedupwithliberals | August 28, 2009 2:31 PM

And they call ME extreme!

Posted by: yikes! | August 28, 2009 8:17 PM

I thought the whole reason we fought the Nazis six and a half decades ago was because we--as a society--had decided that social darwinism and eugenics, as philosophies and as drivers of public policy, were morally unacceptable.

Were the Nazis correct in their belief that some humans are genetically superior to others?

Posted by: Jack | August 29, 2009 11:14 AM

Simply amazing. Instead of talking about what can done about kids endangering themselves in busy city traffic,people choose to spout off about crack-pot social engineering schemes,and give revisionist history lessons. No wonder things are the way they are.

Posted by: anon | August 30, 2009 12:35 PM

Jack: Given that road injuries cost our country hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives each year, I think we can agree on this: Inexpensive road design and education campaigns that have been proven a thousand times over to reduce injuries (in some cases, by an order of magnitude, everywhere from the rumble strips of Ghana to the bollards at the corner of Frontage and Boulevard) are "social engineering lite" when compared to the hundreds of billions of "social engineering" dollars the government spends each year on air traffic control, anti-terrorism airport bag screening, FDA drug evaluation, the Coast Guard, hurricane tracking, food labeling, food safety inspections, Amtrak safety, prevention work and research to combat various diseases, and other campaigns which supposedly improve our safety.

The only difference is that the latter campaigns disproportionately benefit wealthy corporations, property owners or middle-class white people, whereas safer roads and public spaces in our towns and cities would disproportionately benefit the poor, elderly, children and minorities, who are too often the victims of preventable traffic collisions.

Is that why you are against them?

Posted by: 0075541229993 | August 30, 2009 12:54 PM

Stopthelibs is a latter-day William Graham Sumner. It's kind of nice to see someone keeping Yale's ideological roots alive.

Posted by: Bill | August 31, 2009 8:40 AM

It's really liberals who believe that the poor are somehow inferior and incapable of taking care of themselves, therefore they need a nanny state to care for their needs.

Posted by: Jack | August 31, 2009 9:19 AM

Once again,I completely support Complete Streets.But if it were all done today,and plated in gold,it still would not address the problem.The solution,apparent to any one with at least one foot in reality,is law enforcement,and holding parents responsible for the conduct of their minor children.But Anon thinks this is racist,Hope you get back on your meds soon.

Posted by: William Kurtz | August 31, 2009 10:05 AM

Complex events have complex causes. Talking about "the" problem is not as productive as talking about the myriad factors that contribute to youth behavior, if we're going to see that behavior as "the" problem. And Steve Ross made a good point about blame being simplistic. Better to think about the objective causes without worrying about passing judgment.

One of the problems, I think, is that cycling is not taken seriously as a viable transportation choice by many people, primarily motorists, and even, self-defeatingly, by some riders (whose horn-blows and admonitions to "get off the road" are followed up when you catch them at the next stop light with "well, I ride a bike too, but . . . "). If it were, kids would see adults riding responsibly; their parents would likely know the rules of the road and how to cycle safely. The proverbial village that it takes to raise a child would find it easier to collectively address renegade behavior (i.e. riding against traffic) when not sealed up in a car behind closed windows.

This is where Complete Streets comes in, as an attempt to promote more efficient, less dangerous and lower-impact means of transportation like cycling and walking and what I understand to be a large part of the point Anon and Norton St. are making.

Posted by: Fairhaven Dave | August 31, 2009 10:30 AM

The New Haven Indepenent once again turns the simple tale of a child crashing his bike into a car into a cry for help from a dying city. Kids learn from mistakes. This was a rough lesson for him, but I doubt he will make it again.

That said, I would argue this situation is Darwinism at it's finest. The kid who loses his finger to a crocodile almost never loses anything else to one.

Posted by: Norton Street | August 31, 2009 11:10 AM

Jack,
Complete Streets is the beginning to something, not a solution that is made successful through enforcement and responsible parents. This is a necessary step towards weening people off of our automobile dependence. If Complete Streets were meant to be a permanent solution, then all it would manage to do is allow more diverse traffic onto the street, not alleviate the traffic problems entirely. In Downtown areas, it makes sense to have rigid, straight forward and uniform streets that carry the various transportation needs to the city. But outside the core, in neighborhoods, there is generally only 1 or 2 and maybe 3 main thoroughfares that move through the it; other than those there is a complex grid of connecting streets, and on these streets heavy automobile usage and mass transit is unnecessary. In this story, it is made clear the kid rode out into Quinnipiac Avenue, which is a main thoroughfare for the area. Like I said in an earlier post, this kid was being irresponsible. However, the explosion of individual automobile usage for the last 50 or so years has blurred the lines between main thoroughfares and neighborhood streets. Instead of being a largely pedestrian based community with a couple busy roads, our neighborhoods have become shortcuts and detours for far too many people using far too many cars.

Here is a picture showing an extremely dense downtown New Haven street with tons of activity yet pedestrians are still able to walk leisurely around:
http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs135.snc1/5780_1128319323274_1085910074_30336592_1679074_n.jpg

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs135.snc1/5780_1128319363275_1085910074_30336593_6722180_n.jpg

These scenes are happening at the core! People can't even do this in neighborhoods today.

A trolley could hold a large amount of commuters, and only came around every 20 minutes or so. Today, that same number of commuters come in the form of an endless stream of automobiles, never giving relief to the street just because of the amount of space they take up. We need to change how we move about and inhabit the city, because this bike accident was entirely avoidable, from both ends. Where many people differ here, I say this is about this city's kids being able to grow up and enjoy their neighborhood and put commuters or people using cars instead of mass transit second, at least (especially if we're talking about neighborhoods, downtown is different). For this particular incident, I accept that the kid probably needs some common sense explained to him.

Posted by: anon | August 31, 2009 2:05 PM

"I say this is about this city's kids being able to grow up and enjoy their neighborhood"

Agreed. From both a health and city economic development perspective, this should be the number one priority. Neighborhoods and streets for residents first, not speeding commuters first. All other considerations should come second. A little 25 mile per hour speed limit sign and a big wide road (most commonly driven at 35) just doesn't cut it.

Let's get over our 1950s traffic policies and follow the models from any number of other Connecticut towns, or other cities in the world (even large cities like London) which have designed their streets to have speeds of 15-20 miles per hour or less. A good example right here is Orange Street in downtown - there's no speed signs posted but very few people drive it at more than 20 miles per hour, and it is now considered among the most desirable streets in the city for residents and businesses.

We're definitely not going to rebuild New Haven's economy by guzzling more gas.

Posted by: Bill | September 1, 2009 2:16 PM

I don't see how this is a traffic issue. These kids were not traveling somewhere, they were using the street as a play ground for exactly the reason mention previously by ROBN, "A bike is a vehicle and not a toy". For these kids the bike is a toy to be played with, not to be used for transportation. If they were riding a scooter or roller skating in the street it would be the same thing. Playing in the street which they shouldn't be doing. So get off the soap box about safe streets, it's irrelevant in this case.

Posted by: steve ross, human | September 2, 2009 1:17 PM

"...Playing in the street which they shouldn't be doing. So get off the soap box about safe streets, it's irrelevant in this case."

Pabon is fourteen, Bill. Should he be riding his bike in the driveway? Digging holes in the back lawn? Perhaps you should check the stability of your own soapbox before admonishing others for getting on theirs.

Posted by: fedupwithliberals | September 3, 2009 5:16 AM

STEVE ROSS, HUMAN

Maybe Pabon could have mowed the grass, painted the porch, played board games, read a book, done chores for an elderly neighbor, played baseball, surfed internet porn sites, joined the Boy's Club or visited one of our fine cultural institutions downtown instead of playing in the streets?

Posted by: Jack | September 3, 2009 5:42 PM

No Mr. Ross, but he should be obeying the traffic laws.Maybe someone should have called DCF,when they saw that his parents didn't care what he was doing.Something tells me that the rest of us are going to get the bill for this.