truth is, there is a breakdown on so many levels it's ridiculous. gm for designing these things. the city for not making them illegal. the fact that there is no law against killing pedestrians while at fault. this is just the beginning.

where do we start?

we are all pedestrains - cops, firefighters, bicyclists, even the asshole who killed this kid. 100% of the people that live in this city and every city in this country and elsewhere use their legs, wheelchairs, etc. to move their bodies from one place to another, but we are not all drivers. at some point drivers have to get their fat asses out of their cars and walk somewhere.

In any case, what a jerk of Senator Kruger. You must feel awful, David.

What appalling news coverage- the man was thrown 100 feet and they blame his iPod?!?

How can the driver avoid a ticket after running a stop sign? I don't think the public is as supportive of this as the people posting here believe. I think a campaign could change things- I'm sorry for the first people to be made an example of but it has to happen before people change their behavior.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/487786p-410737c.html

Note that "The driver of the Saturn that hit Weber was not charged."

This is the corner of E. 71st and Veretans:

http://www.subchat.com/otchat/read.asp?Id=185219

Note the stop signs.

Obviously, it was the iPod's fault.

Comments?

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/safety/safetips.html

And any efforts to raise driver awareness of pedestrians has been entirely negligent.

http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/08/30/signs-of-crooked-pedestrian-priorities/

The iPod issue is just a further admission of a lack of understanding of the problem and of the potential solutions.

http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/12/crack-down-on-trucks-not-ipods/

I actually don't know what I would think of an expensive civility campaign. Facing a choice, I too would much rather have traffic calming because it works better and is a sure bet.

But I also think that a civility campaign doesn't have to cost money. It could be the mayor and NYPD brass coming out and speaking publicly, telling folks if they come to our city and continue to disrespect its citizens then there will be police stings, expensive ones, tickets for failure to yield, blocking crosswalks, running red lights, and that those tickets will keep getting written until people start behaving.

I don't think that incivility should be fatal, just like I don't think that a large proportion of the population should be spending three hours a day or more performing an activity where inattention (or temporary blindness, or unconsciousness) can be fatal.

I think the cost of a civility campaign is too great, and the likelihood of failure too high. Compared with that, traffic calming or enforcing laws against failure to yield is a better strategy.

And to add the LPI at 3rd/9th: although there is much better obiedence by drivers than when it first went in, it still is jumped constantly by cars who only look for the ped signal to turn and just go right thru the red.

That's why we need real traffic calming.

But while infrastructure and design changes are necessary, we need more than that. To acheive what Clarence is seeing in SF, we need a culture change. Peds, bicyclists and motorists need to expect and respect each other. Right now, it's everyone for themselves, and that is not working for us.

David Engwicht calls it an "outbreak of civility" which is what it sounds like San Francisco is having. Of course, with that comes responsibility for all modes to behave -- we all cheat the system, by swerving between cars on our bikes, crossing recklessly as peds, etc. Of course, the stakes are so much higher w/ cars that they should be held to a higher standard--as the posts above insist correclty.

It doesn't seem right now as if motorists are even considering the risks of driving recklessly, beyond getting a ticket or a fender bender. A major campaign is needed to instill some civility and sanity into this dynamic.

While I walked around in a near-gridlocked rush hour on Market Street in downtown SF - I had to cross the street several times. There were cars all over, but most went out of their way to not invade the crosswalk. One driver did but I saw him apologize to pedestrians and he seemed very genuine about it. There was no honking, there was very little intimidation - even with all the cars around, some cars moved maybe feet per minute and still just waited it out.

I wondered: if the driver of the Hummer had the same temprament as most of the drivers I saw today and maybe cherished human life a little more, maybe, just maybe he would be looking, expecting, waiting for a 4 year old in a crosswalk.

This city has got to change. Numbers of fatalities may be lower than they were 10 years ago, but I have lived here for over 15 and the streets couldn't be meaner or more unfriendly to peds and cyclists.

Intent, even in the form of "I was just trying to beat the light" might be adequate, but the problem there is proving it is very hard (absent video or multiple witnesses, and then you get some defense atty arguing that the average pedestrian can't gauge if a car is accelerating at a 'dangerous rate'.

Hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk is easy to cite, since the evidence, very bluntly, is right there. Since you can't legally turn right on red in NY, any time a pedestrian is hit in a crosswalk, failure to yield should be a certain citation.

Should there be a mechanism for manslaughter for failure to yield? Rationally, yes. But I don't know if this creates inconsistencies with other situations where your property can present danger (pools without fences, for instance), and if that is part of the problem, or simply ingrained preferential treatment for cars over people.

If the driver really could not see, as claimed, then GM was negligent in designing the Hummer, and the victims should be able to recover damages from GM.

If the driver really could see, then he was negligent and should be charged with manslaughter.

Sage makes a good point: if the driver is telling the truth, then car companies are lying, and everyone involved in making and owning a Hummer should be punished by banning them for being roving death machines.

He is responsible. He was driving. He purchased the thing. He killed another human being with it.