New Haven Independent

Posted by: Andrew Garrow | August 6, 2009 1:00 PM

This corner is ridiculous.
Why in the hell has it taken 3 years to fix a 75 foot bridge at one of new haven's busiest intersections?
a death was inevietable.

Posted by: anon | August 6, 2009 1:22 PM

Like many others in New Haven, this intersection fails all international design standards for pedestrian-rich, safe and walkable environments -- standards which when used can eliminate the vast majority of injuries and deaths.

Sadly, this is one more among an epidemic of hundreds of deaths in CT that you can chalk up to 1950s traffic engineering (still used today, see the city's much-loved recent projects on Whitney and upper Whalley, which will inevitably kill many more people) which prioritizes high speed car traffic over every other consideration.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | August 6, 2009 1:26 PM

Andrew Garrow
I agree!! Why?? It is taking longer than most larger bridges!! And it cuts that community off!! Time to step on it builders.

Sorry for the family of the victim and the driver who may not have seen the woman.

Posted by: Norton Street | August 6, 2009 1:38 PM

Drivers need to be more aware of their surroundings because I use this intersection at least twice a day either walking or on a bike. This is ridiculous. There are painted cross walks at this intersection and that trumps the green light.

Posted by: DingDong | August 6, 2009 1:46 PM

What does it mean to "cross against traffic"? I'm not being snide: I really don't understand. To cross the street while traffic has a green light?

[Editor's note: That's what I meant. ]

Posted by: robn | August 6, 2009 2:50 PM

NORTONSTREET,

Painted crosswalks do NOT trump traffic signals. According to state law, anytime there is a combination of the two, a green light trumps the crosswalk and a pedestrian must wait for a red light to cross.

Posted by: William Kurtz | August 6, 2009 3:09 PM

But neither does a green light relieve a driver of the responsibility for not running over people in the intersection. Having said that, drivers aren't the only ones who need to be more aware of their surroundings, Norton St. Every individual needs to take responsibility for his or her own safety as well as the obligation to not infringe on the safety of others. It sounds from the witness account that a lot of human error went into this situation; it's sad that this poor woman had to answer for it all.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | August 6, 2009 3:15 PM

Anon:

This death has nothing to either with speed or engineering nor is the intersection designed for speed. I really don't get how you arrive at that conclusion based on the facts of this story.

Norton Street:

When you walk or jogg against the light, you are taking your life in your hands. There are cross walk signs at both sides of the intersection. Sadly, this person decided to go against the light. Sorry, pedestrians do not trump green lights. I was recently making a right hand turn from Chapel by the Yale Architect building. As I started to make the turn with a green light, a no walk sign for pedestrians, two women, one pushing a stroller, the other one pregnant crossed against the light. If I had been doing more than 10 mph, we would have another accident. People have got to start using their heads for more than a hat rack or some place to stuff food. It's not always about the drivers.

Posted by: JCP | August 6, 2009 3:39 PM

This is very sad. But not the fault of the design if the pedestrian crossed against the light. The design gives the pedestrian the right to cross when the "WALK" sign is lit if the "DON'T WALK" sign is lit the pedestrian does not have the right to cross.

Posted by: Norton Street | August 6, 2009 3:43 PM

Robn,
Are you serious!? Yikes, I had no idea. Our laws need to change then, because the pedestrian is the most important part of an urban center. Without pedestrian(human)-oriented design you have a failure of design AKA most American places. For too long transportation infrastructure has been designed at some kind of cyborg scale meant to serve primarily single occupancy vehicles.

Also Robn, I know sometimes you link to or quote the law in question, could you post it here?

Posted by: Streever | August 6, 2009 4:17 PM

Anon, as usual, does not fail in using every death in New Haven to promote his personal agenda.

It's sad that this woman died, but from reading the description, you can't help but wonder what she was thinking.

The driver appeared to do everything right--was watchful, avoided hitting ANOTHER pedestrian who darted out in front, but no human can do it all. A reminder that we ALL need to pay attention & be careful.

My sympathy to the driver & the family of the pedestrian.

Posted by: jim blunt | August 6, 2009 4:45 PM

Many, many, many people in New Haven have no regard at all for traffic laws. This is true for drivers and pedestrians. I see people walk out into the middle of a busy street (cross-walk or not) ALL THE TIME! I see drivers speed, run red lights, fail to stop at stop signs or crosswalks, and/or fail to yield ALL THE TIME!

Posted by: nfjanette | August 6, 2009 5:16 PM

My thoughts and prayers go out to the people and families involved in this tragedy.

Are you serious!? Yikes, I had no idea. Our laws need to change then, because the pedestrian is the most important part of an urban center.
You can change whatever laws you want, but without pedestrian compliance and acceptance of personal responsibility these tragedies may, God forbid, continue to occur. This makes at least three avoidable deaths from similar circumstances over the past year. How many more have to occur before people are willing to take on the issue of pedestrian compliance with the law? Traffic safety is an integrated system which requires all participants to obey the law - any aspect of failure by any participant can have deadly consequences.

Posted by: Mike | August 6, 2009 6:09 PM

If the intersection has a pedestrian walking signal, that dictates when the pedestrian has a legal right in the road. If there is a crosswalk but no pedestrian signal, then state law says drivers have to stop for pedestrians. If the pedestrian signal had the red hand, then the pedestrian was in the wrong.

Posted by: Streever | August 6, 2009 7:43 PM

NFJanette:
while I typically disagree with you :D, I could not agree with the following more.
"This makes at least three avoidable deaths from similar circumstances over the past year. How many more have to occur before people are willing to take on the issue of pedestrian compliance with the law?"

All road users need to use the road with the same respect & attention that we desire out of other road users.

Unfortunately some of my fellow cyclists don't believe that--but I honestly think the majority do.

Posted by: fingers | August 6, 2009 9:20 PM

CT Laws

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=connecticut+state+pedestrian+laws

Posted by: Norton Street | August 6, 2009 10:23 PM

mike,
that sounds about right. there is one walk signal at this intersection. perhaps your supposed to walk backwards when heading north across elm at this intersection.

Posted by: observer | August 6, 2009 10:30 PM

I have complained any number of times here about the terrible habits of drivers in New Haven (especially running red lights), but today I had a different experience. I was driving down Edgewood Avenue, and a kid on a bike, maybe 15 or so, was having a wonderful time pedaling furiously and weaving all over the place, including into the lane of the opposite direction -- it was a beautiful afternoon, and, fortunately, there was little traffic on the road -- and after rather conspicuosly avoiding hitting him as I came up behind him, I started signaling to him (making sure to smile), and eventually he realized I wanted to talk to him.

I asked if he was aware of all the issues in town about cars and bicycles, and he sort of said yes, but I couldn't tell if he meant it. I said, "Drivers in New Haven are out of control!" and he said he could tell, and I said, "You have an absolute right to be on the road" but that he ought to think more about his safety. For one thing, "NEVER! cross over the double line" in the middle of the road, and I told him about the accident a few days ago in East Rock Park of a head-on collision between a bike and an SUV. I suggested he stay over to the right, and let cars pass him, and I suggested, "For your own safety, THINK!" He seemed very receptive and appreciative. I said, "OK, you ride on, and I'll pass by you," and as I did pass I waved, and he waved back.

As others have already remarked, safety is EVERYBODY"S business!

Why doesn't the mayor get out in front on this? Is he afraid of offending voters who might think he's lecturing people if he talks about safety? He is going to win any election he runs in anyway; why doesn't he take a more active role in using his prominent position to start educating EVERYBODY about safety in our streets? Why?

Posted by: JackNH | August 7, 2009 9:59 AM

Jim Blunt is right. I've lived all over the country, and nowhere has been worse than New Haven. It's close to anarchy here, and drivers and pedestrians are both to blame. I really don't know what to do-- when I obey the laws, the driver behind me tailgates or passes me illegally. How did it get this way? Probably lax/zero enforcement of the laws for decades . . .

Posted by: Norton Street | August 7, 2009 1:05 PM

JackNH,
It wasnt a lack of enforcement of the laws for several decades that has created this problem with transportation, it was a social movement to revolve everyones lives around the 'American Dream' of owning a single family home on a large plot of land surrounded by nature. This idea was mass produced across the country, creating suburbs. The only way that these places were made somewhat viable were through individual automobiles since public transportation did not make sense in these massively sprawling developments.

Posted by: Norton Street | August 7, 2009 1:12 PM

(accidentally posted too early)

...Once a large amount of the public has been convinced that this is the appropriate lifestyle, then the reconstruction of the country begins. This happened in the form of enormous Federal high way construction, which helped populate farmland and forests while destroying urban centers. For the last 60 years the policy has been to accommodate for the automobile over anything else, which is why we have street widening projects, repaving, sub-par public transportation, daily automobile accidents, and a large conflict between drivers and everyone else.

There is much much more, but I'm not going to bore everyone with it.