Hacker News Reader

Comment by frmersdog | Hacker News Reader

These deaths largely occur on high-speed roadways where people shouldn't be walking, or where the speed should be lower. The issue in both cases is a lack of public transit density. If you're in a dense area with a ton of pedestrians, the speed should be low enough that you CAN react, and there should be transit options that lower the number of car trips. In less dense areas, where automobile speeds are higher, auto and pedestrian traffic should be segregated; again, there should be other transit options that keep pedestrians away from spaces ripe for collisions.

Essentially, build more rail/bus lanes/bike lanes and lower traffic speed. The problem isn't jaywalking and it never was.

View on HN

I live in SF. We just had an accident the other day that indisputably can be pinned on jaywalking--late at night, cross where there was an actual fence, and the car hadn't been speeding. In fact, the limit is 25 there. Jaywalking figures prominently in pedestrian deaths in this city, and it's not simply because of speeding as there simply aren't that many streets where you can go that fast, and in fact in some of the worst areas (e.g. Tenderloin) you'll find the slowest speeds. Pedestrian deaths are also often elderly, as younger victims would have been more likely to survive at the speeds they were hit.

Another major issue in this city, though, is visibility, what with all the tightly packed parallel parking, and streets (especially in the western half) just the perfectly wrong width for modern car A pillars. I would fully support shutting down dozens of streets that criss-cross the city to through traffic and dedicate them to biking and pedestrians. The bike lanes here (where people end up dying, regardless) piss me off to no end as much of time the city could have just given an entire street over to bikes a block away, rather than some of the most trafficked (by cars) thoroughfares, and everybody would be better off.

But another odd thing about SF is that pedestrians simply don't look. In every other major city I've lived or visited, in the US and around the world, the vast majority of pedestrians look before crossing a street. I've lived in SF for nearly 20 years and I can't get over how people just cross the streets--wide streets, busy streets, blind corners, etc--without a care in the world. It doesn't make it any less tragic, but... it's just so fscking bizarre. And I don't mean to excuse their deaths. Cars should be more careful, and they're definitely not--I'm wary of letting my children cross streets alone here, and I get honked regularly for not gunning it the moment a pedestrian crosses the center line when crossing. At the same time I find it very difficult to get too worked up when people blithely step in front of dump trucks (accident two weeks ago where even the city said there was absolutely nothing the city could have done to improve that intersection--the person just walked in front of the truck against every precaution).

On street parking really is the worse as a pedestrian. Yes, you can technically cross at any intersection in Seattle, but cars are parked so close that they won't see you unless you poke your head out. A lot of pedestrian problems could be solved by getting rid of or severely restricting on street parking.

Also, drugs are a huge issue. We have a lot of pedestrian/car accidents, something like 70% of them involves controlled substance abuse from either the driver or pedestrian (and much of the time, its the pedestrian). Fent really is a big problem.

technically speaking the law is that you can't park 20 feet from an intersection but in practice this is rarely enforced in Seattle. I feel like literally putting up plastic posts and paint blocking the 20 foot zone would do wonders for safety.

it also does not help that people in Seattle love a rolling California stop, which is not legal. Combine that with the baseline level of driver distraction and I have gotten almost hit by inattentive drivers way too much.

If there is an accident at the intersection and a illegally parked car was blocking visibility. Can the owner of said car be sued for accessory? Or even get majority of the blame if there was no fault found in how the pedestrian or driver acted.

> late at night, cross where there was an actual fence, and the car hadn't been speeding. In fact, the limit is 25 there

How far away was the legal crosswalk they could have used?

> I would fully support shutting down dozens of streets that cross-cross the city to through traffic and dedicate them to biking and pedestrians.

I dream of this version of SF...

Given the size of the city, and amount of pedestrians and general walkability, I'm always amazed at how hard it is to get a pedestrian street here and there.... Even the peninsula is starting to get them in a way we seem to not be able to.

and the separation has to be realistic.

if you have businesses and residences fronting onto opposite sides of a high speed road and the nearest legal crossing is a half mile away, that's not realistic. almost nobody will decide "hey let me add a whole mile of walking to my journey and a few minutes at a signal to cross safely."

> These deaths largely occur on high-speed roadways where people shouldn't be walking

Most deaths happen on non-freeway arterial roads.

Most deaths do not note the presence of a sidewalk.

You talk about "alternative transit options" but the reality is that large parts of our cities have no sidewalks or crosswalks and it is killing people.

>Most deaths happen on non-freeway arterial roads.

Pelham Parkway in the Bronx, Queens Boulevard in Queens, Linden Boulevard in Brooklyn and Hylan Boulevard on Staten Island all qualify for that designation[0], and lots of pedestrians are struck on these roads.

[0] N.B. We don't have 'freeways' in NYC. We have highways. There are also 'turnpikes' which are toll roads, but there aren't any of those within city limits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com