- - - Scott Persons wrote (excerpt) - - - I guess I've seen too many Chicken Little posts from Ken talking about the sky falling about traffic issues when this very well could be a case of someone not paying close enough attention. By the way, if the access project which Ken loves to rail about becomes a reality many of those cars will be passing on 38th and Grand which is a commercial node on all 4 corners where drivers expect to see a traffic light. (oh, the irony) - - - end excerpt - - -
"when this very well could be a case of someone not paying close enough attention" Which should be a criminal offense. If someone gets in an "accident" because they weren't paying enough attention, it isn't an accident, it is criminal negligence. The next time I get hit by a car, if it should happen to kill me, I hope there is a criminal investigation. If I did not do something stupid/illegal to get hit and it wasn't a true accident, I want the driver to be charged with manslaughter, criminal negligence, and any other appropriate charges as well as appropriate civil prosecution. If they intentionally tried to hit or "buzz" me, I want it to be charged as murder (or criminal endangerment/manslaughter for a "buzz" gone bad). If, of course, I was doing something stupid (like crossing against the light without looking or something), then it is at least partially my fault and not the driver's A heart attack while driving, a blow out - these are accidents. Not paying attention as you're operating a 2,000+ lb vehicle at lethal speeds is NOT an accident. Not paying attention while operating this device, or operating it in a fashion that puts others at risk, in an area that has pedestrians is no different than dropping ball bearings off a skyscraper to see what happens when they hit the cement - if it pegs someone, you just killed them. . . . As a side note, there's been some conversation re: separating traffic, encouraging bicycles/peds, etc. When driving, 26th and 28th are nice "car corridors" since they are one way, they seem wider, traffic seems smoother, lights are timed better, etc. Why not intersperse bike/ped only streets with the high traffic auto corridors - make every few blocks around the city grid non-motorized traffic. Maybe let "local motorized traffic only" use the streets for a block or two (at really low speed limit) for parking purposes, but other than that, no cars, no trucks, no motorcycles (although there would need to be discussion around motorized bicycles and scooters). A lot of money could be saved in paving/repaving as the types of surfaces required for bicyclist and pedestrians is less expensive and (I believe) easier and cheaper to maintain and repair. I believe that it doesn't tend to wear out as quickly either. There would still be interaction at intersections, and obviously, cars are going to lose the use some of the roads, but they tend to use certain streets as main transit roads and the others are mainly local traffic, so how much would really be lost?. In uptown, you probably wouldn't want to change Lyndale, but what about Aldrich, Garfield, or Harriet? In Northeast, University is going to stay full access, but what about 4th or 5th? Man, it'd be nice not to have to directly suck in fumes from everyone's exhaust when riding around - it's bad enough during rush hour that I'm tempted to wear a gas mask. Especially the busses and trucks. I love the idea of people using buses instead of driving lots of cars, but it SUCKS being caught behind one on a bike or motorcycle. Yechh. I wonder if property value along these non-motorized streets would go up or down? I'm guessing up, but I'm not sure - I'd certainly vote to volunteer my street for a trial run! . . . Hey, as long as I'm thinking wishfully, how about a change that would require quite a bit less logistics. Change the law so that traffic control signs/signals are fundamentally "yield" signs for bicyclists - and possibly any other vehicles that could see very well, react/stop very quickly and will be unlikely to hurt someone if they do cause an accident (I can't think of any offhand, but there are probably some). Obviously, if you went through a red light and got hit by cross traffic, you were violating the right of way, but if there is no cross traffic, why wait? I can see the point with cars. Due to driver position and the nature of the vehicle, a car is going to be more likely to be "committed" to going through and the implications of going through are more severe. Even with a motorcycle, the riding position, weight of the vehicle and greater degree of separation between the rider and the control/power significantly increases the chance of trouble and the implications of a motorcycle blowing an intersection is more severe to cross traffic than a bike. On a bike, the bulk of the risk is to the bicyclist and the great degree of control over the vehicle gives a lot of ability to slow/speed/watch/respond/stop/etc. This would not make bicyclists any less responsible for traffic conduct - if they violate someone's right of way, it's still their fault, it would just allow them to judge when they could cross an intersection safely. Lights were designed because motorized traffic sometimes needs them - if there were no cars, there wouldn't be street lights (although, right of way laws and markings would still be necessary), so why burden bicycle operators with a construct that isn't designed for them and they don't need? It also would allow me to legally get out of that awful choking mass of fumes that happens when all the motor vehicles start moving as a light turns green. - Jason Goray, Sheridan, NE (bicyclist, motorcyclist, pedestrian) Rules to delay the time between getting hit by cars: * When you're walking, assume that cars can't see you. * When you're driving a motorcycle, assume the other driver can't see you. * When you're riding a bicycle, assume the driver can see you and that they're trying to kill you. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
