Did the victim start crossing against an unblinking red light? That's jaywalking. But...

Did the victim start crossing against a blinking red light that later stopped blinking?

Did the victim start crossing with a green light that later turned to blinking red?

Did the victim start crossing with a green light that later turned to blinking red and then to steady red? This is possible with some older folks or the disabled, especially if the traffic light's pedestrian interval is too brief.

Did the victim start crossing with either a green or blinking red light, only to find himself stranded by turning cars that failed to yield as required by law? And by the way, isn't this a daily occurrence for pretty much every pedestrian in New York City?

We don't really know, do we? The witness was not specific enough. But we are pretty positive that a person was killed, that the SUV overturned, and that it hit three parked cars. And all of this would be far less likely to happen if the driver hadn't been speeding.

We need a comprehensive system of traffic cameras at every intersection to record these "accidents," arrive at the real truth, and ensure that drivers who flout the law -- and kill in the process -- are finally identified, prosecuted, jailed, and their licensed permanently revoked.

We also need to ensure that the pedestrian interval is long enough to ensure that people, including slow moving people, can cross the street safely.

Cars are a necessary and proper component of modern life, and time-division of rights of way on city streets is wholly warranted. Plenty of reasonable people will disagree that jaywalking should always be A-OK. They're right.

No reasonable person will disagree that the driver in this case should have been charged with a crime; and most will be appalled if it's the case that he actually can't be, or /isn't/ in violation of some existing law.

Stay on target.

while i do know -that- drivers will not be charged, i don't know -why- they are never charged. is it unrealistic to think that someone who kills someone with their car at least be charged with criminal negligence? isn't that what they charge people who leave their kids in their cars while they run errands get charged with?

I said I'm just being realistic. In a driver vs. jaywalker collision, the driver is simply not going to be charged and you know that. I agree that he will likely be punished heavily in civil court (and by his insurance company) and the media should emphasize that fact.

Dramatically cutting allowable speeds would have very little impact on people's travel time to work; it might actually shorten them if the lower urban speeds helped create a mode shift away from the automobile.

This could be done through better enforcement and traffic calming, or through regulators on vehicles - take your pick.

Either we lower urban speeds, or we accept continuing carnage for years to come.

but that probably doesn't make as good copy as an arrest and actual criminal charges.

That's fine except there is nothing to indicate that the driver broke any laws except an eyewitness who claims that the driver made a turn onto 14th street doing 60mph. Except of course, it's physically impossible for a Range Rover to make that type of turn, in fact trying to make a turn like that at any speed over over 30 is asking for trouble.

Um, the fact that the SUV hit several parked cars and ended up on its side would indicate that "trouble" is exactly what it found. As for eyewitnesses, I believe only one was quoted saying the victim was jaywalking.

The bottom line is that people drive way too fast in this city. The speed limit should be 20 mph in densely populated or residential neighborhoods. Yes, if someone steps from between cars directly into the path of a car, something bad is going to ensue, but when I drive, or bike, I try to do so with the idea in the back of my head that just such a thing might occur -- and I wouldn't want it on my conscience that I might have been able to avoid someone if I'd just been going a little slower or paying a little more attention.

You mean, "The out-of-control DRIVER of an SUV..."

No, instead the streets are turned over to the richer and more wasteful fraction of society. They get to park their cars at curbside free and they get many lanes to fill with their SUVs and Minis, with help from their driving friends from outside the city.

Meanwhile the majority of our citizens are forced to walk on crowded sidewalks and get called names if they dare to step into the drivers' turf.

I don't want congestion pricing. I want cars banned from Manhattan! Take them back to Jersey where they belong.

What's more incredible for me even than the fact that the driver was not charged is that his insurance is likely to go up dramatically unless he can explain his actions as being outside of his control. So he is guilty as far as his insurance company is concerned.

There is a general lack of common sense in evidence in our city. Too many folks feel that they have a right to dash out into traffic against the green or in the middle of the block. And let's not get started on the optimistic fools who step off of the curb before the walk sign changes (Baby carriage lady on Houston and Broadway comes to mind - oh, that's right she stayed on the curb while her infant dared the cars!).

Then there are those who run red lights; speed up to beat an amber light; and those who think that NASCAR has finally gotten their New York area venue.

There is a general disregard for others by both entities, a lack of respect if you will. But it is part and parcel with the overall unraveling of the city's fabric of life. "It doesn't matter that it is not right, what matters is that I don't give a damn." A very sad indictment against all of us who live within the 5 boros.

Unless there is a cap lodged in your posterior, or you have vacate like nobody's business, then what is the rush? Slow down; cross at the green (and to you bikers out there) ride the correct way on the bike path!

I happen to drive a car, ride a 10-speed and yes wear out the soles of my shoes. I engage in all sorts of transport. In fact, if I had my druthers, the dang streets would belong to just me! So, get out of my way whether walking, talking or just plain stalking.

Not that I'm advocating any of this, I just think it's the only realistic way to solve the problem.

http://emergenturbanism.com/the-geometry-of-nowhere/

That's fine except there is nothing to indicate that the driver broke any laws except an eyewitness who claims that the driver made a turn onto 14th street doing 60mph. Except of course, it's physically impossible for a Range Rover to make that type of turn, in fact trying to make a turn like that at any speed over over 30 is asking for trouble.

I would be surprised to see a news report write this. Unless they were drunk, drivers usually go unmentioned in the headlines, and are treated like shocked bystanders. In the Daily News headline above, the man crossing the street was hit by an "SUV"--an inanimate object, as though there were no human being who decided to drive 60 miles per hour on an urban street, and is now responsible for someone's death.