Downtown Pedestrian Struck, Killed

My heart goes out to the family and friends of this victim of traffic violence. I hope that with such a conspicuous vehicle, the driver will be brought to justice swiftly. No one should have to die while crossing a street. Cities need to be designed to prioritize people, not vehicles. I don't care if your commute gets lengthened by a few minutes due to safety measures in place. I would rather that my neighbors live another day.

I also wish the police department would drop the term "accident" from their vocabulary. "Accident" implies all parties are blameless and that nothing could have been done to prevent this. Crash or collision are more neutral terms to use until fault or no fault can be determined. I thank the NHI for being aware of this in their own reporting.

Chances that this was a case of distracted driving?

Pedestrian deaths are climbing to horrific levels, and there is a culprit. We need stepped up enforcement, to turn the culture from "anything goes" to one of reasonable compliance with the safety laws.

Dear AverageTaxpayer----
we don't want more policing, remember?? Police bad; bring in social workers. You can't have it both ways.
People do not want to be told what to do-- society now says anything goes and that includes mayhem on the roads and in our neighborhoods.
Watch when you cross the street and there's a pretty good chance you won't get hit. (I hope)

This sadly doesn't surprise me. Notwithstanding the abysmal behavior of many NHV drivers, at this particular intersection, people frequently run across Temple at the Green to catch a connecting bus, often running into the street against traffic signals and in front of or between buses where drivers have zero chance of seeing them. I see this every time I drive or walk or bike through this intersection and its simply a product of poorly thought out bus stops.

Appalled by the (anonymous, of course) commenters who are blaming the victim.

Study the data regarding how and where drivers strike people with vehicles, and you might change your tune. Every year motorists kill people who absolutely, 100% have the right of way and/or are going above and beyond to make themselves visible' these are people in marked crosswalks, on sidewalks, in parking lots, and while waiting at bus stops. These are people wearing reflective vests. Get yourselves some education.

Robert Moses, you are absolutely correct, our streets are designed for cars at the expense of pedestrians and bikers, and this is wrong. I've been called pollyannish for advocating for this before, but the horrible number of pedestrian deaths in the past 12 months is proof of the need for safer streets.

I was walking in downtown new haven at that time in area. It was raining and pedestrian cross lights were not working!!! Dangerous!

It's horrifying that this happened in broad daylight, in a dense urban area heavily traveled by pedestrians, across the street from a bus stop. If there's any place outside of a school zone where traffic speeds should be sharply reduced and drivers (especially professional ones) should be exercising extreme care, it's one like this.

It's also horrifying to realize that despite efforts by a variety of traffic safety advocates, the streets are only getting more dangerous for vulnerable users.

Cue the 'was she in a crosswalk was she wearing a blinking light on her head and carrying a 'courtesy flag' we don't know what the facts are yet once I saw a pedestrian on a cell phone Yale students no common sense streets are for cars' crowd.

This morning when I was walking my dog on Whitney Ave. in Hamden, just in front of Atria Larson, I saw someone in a white car cross the yellow lines to pass traffic — nearly head-on colliding with a CT Transit bus in the process. There's a painted crosswalk at Whitney and Servoss. There's another painted crosswalk at Servoss and Mather, a block away, where I also routinely walk my dog and see people floor it across the yellow lines.

I wonder, if (likely when) someone slams into and kills a pedestrian there, folks will come out of the woodwork to make sure people know it was the fault of the victim for daring to cross a street.

As it pertains to this incident — the spot is one of the most heavily trafficked pedestrian intersections in the city. The FedEx driver should have been driving slower.

Again, I was walking in downtown new haven near Yale and starbucks at 5:30pm (time of accident). Raining and pedestrian cross lights not working. (had to guess and run cross street!)

And now the word "accident" is wrong. It stems from legal definitions. It denotes that there was a lack of intent to have a collision. The laws have been studied, defined, redefined, and yet the need to "blame" someone, or make "sense" of events that happen involving humans, just reflects their imperfections, human nature, and the complications of modern life. Millions want to drive motor vehicles on roadways for business, convenience, and leisure. And millions have profited by the advent of motor vehicles, and all that is associated with humans operating them around other vehicles, and human operators. And as long as motor vehicles have been functioning, on public roads, and private spaces, accidents have occurred, and will continue. Who's to blame? Our culture, our society. I'm surprised that a boycott has not been organized against parcel delivery, for being violently delivered. Those that insinuate fault, need to make a candid inspection of their lives, their habits, which are under the full embrace of this human culture, and convenience, the money made, by pandering to the human's need for modern convenience, and the habitual use of these inventions, to make other's wealthy, by adopting the services and charges. Oh, and as in every habit, is denial. One's own participation daily, for years, in a habitual consumer culture, that created a city where people get run down, and killed, as a matter of policy misdirection, or neglect.

Mr. Kurtz, how can you say it was "broad daylight" when it was raining and the evening light was
already dim?

My condolences to the loved ones of the deceased.
How many more pedestrians and bicyclists need to die before we do something to protect them?
You can all do something about it.
Support road safety laws that protect pedestrians and bicyclists and the differently abled. https://www.ctpost.com/local/amp/Rising-CT-pedestrian-fatalities-prompt-support-15101535.php
Drive the speed limit.
Always give pedestrians the right of way when in the crosswalk.
Always anticipate the unexpected while driving.
Don't drive distracted.
Allow extra time to get to your destination.
Don't drive under the influence of any substances.
Don't drive sleep deprived.
Scan the sides of the road ahead as well as straight ahead for potential issues.
Follow the rules of the road for pedestrians, vehicles and bicyclists.
If you're biking or walking at dawn, dusk or at night wear clothing with reflective fabric or tape on your front and back. A safety vest or hat with a reflective material will make you more visible in low light.

Yes, @bassmaster, the word "accident" is wrong. A piece of history: when cars were becoming increasingly popular in this country, and more people were getting hit by drivers, sentiment towards cars was not beneficial for the auto industry. So, they created a service where reporters could send in the basic facts regarding a crash and a full story would be sent back. However, these stories ensured that blame would be put on the pedestrian for being in the road, which the industry wanted to claim for their products, and nearly always used the term "accident" to remove any blame from the consumer of their product. As we can all see, this culture is still pervasive today, that roads are meant for cars, pedestrians are wrong, they shouldn't have been in the street at the time, they should wear neon yellow from head to toe, etc.

Planes don't have accidents, they crash. Trains don't have accidents, they derail. The only time we use "accident" in the news is for cars, because we must protect the innocent drivers at all costs, because cars are so ingrained in our society that any backlash against them is an insult to society itself. I would agree that drivers, most of the time, do not intent to harm or kill people. But it's not an accident. Distraction, speeding, failure to check mirrors, drunk driving -- these are all causes of crashes. Negligence when operating a heavy vehicle is a cause. If there's a cause, it's not an "accident" in any definition of the word.

Berkeley,

I looked at the picture from the scene, included with the story. Please tell me that "well, it was raining, kind of" is not your takeaway.

It was light out so the question begs if that FedEX driver was distracted. Also others commented that the traffic lights were malfunctioning so from a logical viewpoint the driver should have been traveling slower. Hmmm.....So this victim was in the crosswalk, which all PD use as a measure for who is at fault, but that's so unfair to the victim. It seems to help mitigate for the driver and yes blame the victim, Thank You Robert Moses.

A pedestrian could still be in the crosswalk and get killed. I wonder if the NHPD accident reconstruction expert could gage the speed of the driver. This reminds me of the pedestrian fatality that occurred on Olive Street years ago. The driver was never charged. That female pedestrian was faulted by the New Haven Police department for not crossing within an unmarked crosswalk. I now recall a report by the Independent, when the outraged neighbors of the victim attended a Downtown Wooster Square Management Team meeting where the victim's family confronted the New Haven Police Department for not charging the driver and blaming the victim. Something startling about that case. The accident report only estimated the drivers minimum speed- just under the maximum. No maximum speed was reported. Isn't that what an accident reconstruction expert should be capable of determining?

How was that an incomplete report legal? I guess it depends on who is driving the car.

https://www.nhcat.org/mission

The New Haven Coalition for Active Transportation has as part of it's Mission safe walking conditions in New Haven.

Visit their website, learn about what they do and donate to this wonderful organization.

To: CherryYo: I know that case. The woman driving the car was a/ or former / City of New Haven attorney. That was a sad case. I knew the pedestrian's daughter.

Also to W. Kurtz: sorry about that, I guess it was "light out".

@CherryYo: no matter who was driving the car, the maximum speed is irrelevant once the minimum speed is proven to be legal. The minimum being established to be legal is enough reasonable doubt that a case would never hold up in court.

Even if the maximum was able to be determined, a skilled defense attorney could probably get it tossed as prejudicial and irrelevant. What the person COULD have been doing is irrelevant to the legal question of what they WERE doing

Imagine you or a loved one was charged for going over the speed limit when the police's investigation proved it was possible you weren't.

Elm City Lover thank you for your insight, however you are quite naive to believe the New Haven Police accident reconstruction expert "Proved" that the driver's minimum speed was 24.7 MPH,just under the posted 25 mph limit. If you read witness accounts stating the pedestrian vehicle collision sounded like an explosion, and noticed NO skid marks in the road revealing the driver failed to stop/slow down.

At the monthly Downtown/Wooster Square Management Team held at City Hall on March 17, 2015, Neighbors and the Victim's family voiced their collective outrage over the police department's decision not to charge the driver, but in fact to blame the victim.

Rob Rock a cycling activist said the fact that the pedestrian who was already standing in the middle of the road or on the double yellow line, "the most Visible part of the road" so how could the driver not see this woman, who the NH police calculated was driving an extremely slow 24.7 mph, unless the driver was distracted and certainly not looking at the road.

Neighbors who witnessed the victim crossing the street said she was crossing from the Southbound lane, Driver traveling North) she didn't suddenly jut into the street in the drivers lane. The driver had ample reaction time that is if the driver was looking at the road.

Berkeley correct re driver, she was a prominent New Haven attorney representing New Haven Police suing the City for various reasons. So it really does figure prominently in this vehicular pedestrian fatality and the NHPD choosing to blame the victim for crossing diagonally at an Unmarked Crosswalk. So if the victim was crossing at the corner she would still be alive? Like crossing in the crosswalk provides some force field that autos are unable to penetrate. Now that is quite a fictional narrative.

Elm City Lover-Conversely how would you like it if your friend, family member or loved one were blamed for getting themselves Killed crossing the street outside an unmarked crosswalk?

You can implement the most conservative traffic measures allowable, but if there is no enforcement and no chance drivers will be ticketed, then it doesn't matter. There is next to no traffic enforcement In New Haven. Drivers know this, and drive accordingly.

If crossing Chapel is going "northbound", then the driver couldn't have been going "eastbound" on Temple because by this writers definition, that's southbound or westbound, depending. Will we get clear follow up on what exactly happened?