Seth Kahn, pictured here with late TV pitchman Billy Mays. Photo via Facebook

Inevitably, some media reports portray Kahn, who was in the crosswalk, as trying to beat the light, while making less of the fact that the bus driver, turning left from 53rd, must have also rushed into the intersection. The driver was not charged.

Despite the constant presence of pedestrians, Ninth Avenue is a notoriously dangerous place for people to walk. The quotes have been removed from the story now, but a local resident told NY1 (via Gothamist): "That particular corner always has some accidents. All the cars travel very fast and there's too many buses using 53rd Street and they don't even look for pedestrians."

Kahn was the fourth known pedestrian to die in the city in less than a week. On Tuesday a corrections officer with a suspended license hit Dorothea Wallace of Prospect Heights as she walked to work. Luis Rivera of the Bronx was struck and killed by a city bus driver on Halloween after he reportedly threw something at the bus' windshield. And last Friday, off-duty NYPD detective Kevin Spellman ran down 67-year-old Drana Nikac as she crossed a street in Kingsbridge.

A Parks Department sanitation truck struck a 78-year-old woman using a motor-assisted wheelchair in the Eighth Avenue bike lane this morning shortly before 10 a.m., just north of Bleecker Street. The victim suffered head trauma and was taken to St. Vincent's Hospital, where she is in serious condition, a police spokesman said. No further details on the collision are available at this time. NYPD said the investigation is ongoing.

The driver was heard repeating that he "didn't see" the victim, according to Michelle Ernst of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, who passed the scene of the crash this morning and sent in this picture.

Streetsblog has requests in with DOT and the Parks Department to determine if a policy is in place governing the use of protected bike paths by city vehicles. We'll post more information as it becomes available.

When will pedestrians and cyclists be able to feel safe and secure on New York City streets? Photo: Bryan Goebel.

In a recent interview with Streetsblog, Tompkins evokes "Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs," a traditional marketing and psychology concept, to explain why ensuring public safety was the crucial first step in the renaissance of Times Square, and a pre-requisite for reclaiming sections of Broadway for pedestrians and public space.

You need to take care of the basics of comfort and security first before you can even think about anything else. That played out with respect to nature and parks, but wasn't really playing out in the streets and sidewalks. I think not only in Times Square and in New York City, but in a bunch of places... we've been paying attention to that. And that's been the paradigm shift that's driving a lot of this.

Tompkins' assessment has important implications for the movement to tame the streets. If establishing basic security is a fundamental prerequisite for widespread public use of any space, what about creating order and safety on our streets?

Crime and the perception of disorder have plummeted in public spaces like parks, squares, and sidewalks. But it is abundantly clear to anyone who bicycles, walks or drives in New York City that this isn’t true in the streets. Speeding and dangerous driving are epidemic. This perception is backed by study after study and by the reality that thousands of cyclists and pedestrians are struck every year. The dangerous chaos on the streets also means very few children or older people feel comfortable bicycling, and only a small portion of people who consider cycling actually ride regularly.

It will take decades before the Department of Transportation can re-engineer most of the city's big streets for cyclists and pedestrians. Even then, laws must be enforced. New York City has changed the equation in parks and on the sidewalks. What about the streets?

Via TreeHugger, Copenhagenize reports that Volvo is in the final stages of testing technology to improve safety for people outside its products -- a "pedestrian detection" system available in S60 models next year:

It is meant to spot all pedestrians in front of the car as well as off to the sides in a 60 degree angle. It will warn the driver with a red flashing light on the windshield if the car is on a collision course with a pedestrian.

If the driver doesn't react quick enough it will brake automatically up to 25 km/h and stop by itself if the car is traveling under 25 km/h.

The system cannot recognize bicyclists yet, but engineers are working on it.

At first blush, a car on the lookout for pedestrians seems like a can't-lose safety measure. But a lot depends on how drivers compensate, knowing that their vehicles can mitigate their own lapses in judgment and attention. Might a safer, smarter car lead people to take more risks and exercise less care behind the wheel?

Since this is exactly the sort of question that comes up again and again in Traffic (recipient of the 2008 Streetsie for best book), I emailed author Tom Vanderbilt to get his take on the merits and drawbacks of Volvo's new tech. Here's what he wrote back:

It's hard not to be of two minds about this. On the one hand, I'm all for personal responsibility and putting the driver in charge. On the other hand, there are certain times when even the most cautious driver might be plagued by some shortcoming in perception or attention -- e.g., a few months ago I almost hit a cyclist because I did not see them in my right-rear blind spot, and I wasn't expecting a cyclist to be there. It's unfortunate that it doesn't work at night, given the overrepresentation of pedestrian fatalities at that time, partially having to do with visibility. But in any case the real question is whether even with negative behavioral adaptation there's still a net safety gain. And the other bright spot is at least someone besides Honda is actually thinking about pedestrians from the car's point of view.

Interestingly, I've heard that some of the settings at which auto engineers place these systems for activation are much more stringent than what drivers themselves seem to desire -- so maybe the car really would know best in this situation.

And of course there's other things we could do, vis a vis technology, to improve urban traffic safety, "Intelligent Speed Adaptation" being top of the agenda here. This too is a form of "collision avoidance," as obviously the slower you're going, the more time to avoid a crash.

I should note that the pedestrian detection system will be optional on those new Volvos, part of a $3,500 premium package. So for now, this potentially life-saving tech remains a luxury item.

"This past month at CB 8 has really been all about neighbors convincing neighbors," Samponaro says. "Residents of all stripes came out to support protected lanes at the last committee meeting, and it made a big impression on the board."

Turnout will be crucial for tomorrow night's meeting, when board members should be reminded of the benefits of protected bike lanes for all street users, including reduced crossing distances for pedestrians and fewer conflicts between sidewalk users and cyclists who don't feel safe riding in street traffic. Longtime UES advocate Glenn posted salient talking points earlier today.

If you've ever made the case for safer streets to Community Board 8, or if you've been waiting for an opportune moment, now's the time to follow up or follow through.

WHAT: Community Board 8 Full Board Meeting
WHEN: Wednesday, October 21, 6:30 p.m.
WHERE: Ramaz School Auditorium, 125 E. 85th St.

In August, 8-year-old Axel Pablo was killed by a cab driver in Harlem. Witnesses say the cabbie was on his cell phone. Though police cleared him of wrongdoing, the TLC has since revoked his hack license. Photo via Daily News

According to the News, keeping cab drivers off the phone should only be required when passengers are present -- apparently because News editors believe distracted driving is a mere annoyance, rather than a well-documented threat to public safety:

The present TLC rules forbid cell chatting while cabbies are driving. That's reasonable; you shouldn't have to listen to your hack yack while you're paying $2 per mile, no more than you should be forced to listen to the radio at full blast.

But when drivers are alone, using their cabs as cars -- just like millions do -- they should live by the same rules as the rest of the population.

So instead of advocating for more stringent distracted driving laws for everyone who gets behind the wheel, the editors of the Daily News would prefer that we "cut some slack" to thousands of professional drivers who patrol streets teeming with vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists 24/7/365. Never mind that cell-phone-using drivers, hands-free or no, are four times more likely to be involved in a crash. And remember that national summit a couple of weeks ago, when the U.S. secretary of transportation declared distracted driving a "deadly epidemic"? Honestly, people: Where have you been?

For the record, the Post is in favor of the new TLC rules. And no wonder. It's hard to believe a position so ill-informed as that of the Daily News editorial board could be held by anyone who reads a newspaper on a daily basis, much less publishes one.

Can't make the light in time? In the eyes of the Post, you're a scofflaw.

If only New Yorkers stopped jaywalking, the Post posits, we wouldn't suffer so much needless death and destruction. Adding to a news-ish feature on reckless pedestrians published yesterday, the paper bemoans "jaywalking's steep toll" but says nothing about the rampant speeding and lawless driving that make the simple act of crossing the street so risky. No mention of the fact that many city streets are so wide that elderly New Yorkers can't get across during the allotted time. No indication that the Post editors have the slightest clue about engineering and enforcement improvements like leading pedestrian intervals, red light and speeding cameras, and, most obvious of all, wider sidewalks, which hold the most promise for improving street safety.

It takes a special kind of windshield perspective to look around at the vehicular carnage in New York City -- the hundreds of lives lost and thousands of injuries suffered every year -- and point fingers at the most vulnerable people on the street. You'd think real New Yorkers would recognize that the only way to make our streets safer is to embrace our inherent strength as a walking city. So, I'm curious: Do any Post editors actually live here?

Cars blocking crosswalks, drivers failing to yield to pedestrians, unnecessary honking -- New Yorkers have to contend with these violations every day on nearly every corner in the city.

As Streetsblog publisher Mark Gorton says in this Streetfilm, most drivers are not bad or mean people, but few seem to realize how their conduct behind the wheel inconveniences and endangers pedestrians. It's a level of rudeness and carelessness that we tend not to tolerate in other spheres of life, especially when you consider the risks involved in piloting a multi-ton vehicle. New Yorkers can get brusque or nasty on the subway, but you rarely see straphangers engage in behavior that poses an immediate danger to the people around them. So what is it about driving a car that lets people disregard the safety of others?

WHEREAS, Manhattan Community Board 8 is concerned about the safety of all people who use our streets and sidewalks,

WHEREAS, protected bike lanes have brought measurable safety improvements to other neighborhoods in Manhattan,

WHEREAS, many members of the Upper East Side public, business community, and elected officials have all expressed support for protected bike lanes in petitions, surveys, letters, and public testimony,

WHEREAS, Manhattan Community Board 8 wishes to encourage safe, responsible cycling in, to, and from this district,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that CB8 supports the DOT's initiative to create protected bike lanes and requests that DOT prepare a study for a neighborhood bicycle network that includes Class 1 protected bike lanes (including information on projected impacts on pedestrian safety, bike safety, parking, truck traffic, and neighborhood business) that would be subject to review and comment by Community Board 8.

The resolution passed unanimously.

Though there were glimmers of hope at CB 8 forum last week, given the board's history when it comes to bike infrastructure, this is an amazing development. We'll have more coverage later, but for now cycling and pedestrian advocates, and anyone interested in safer Upper East Side streets, should mark their calendars for the big day: October 21, when the resolution is scheduled to be taken up by the full board.

In the meantime, congratulations to everyone who made this happen.

Newly digitized AAA mag: crazy for cars, mad about pedestrian streets.

The “test project,” now four months old, has been criticized by some as both tacky and ill-suited to the location. While we tend to agree, we are more concerned with serious safety issues created by mixing cross-town traffic and pedestrians, particularly where many of them are vacationing tourists. We also have yet to see the environmental and congestion benefits to justify the experiment’s costs.

The pedestrian plaza concept was the brainchild of city transportation officials intrigued with the idea of importing the pedestrian zones common in Europe to New York City. But so far, the project appears to be an unnatural fit for the heart of America’s biggest city. After all, Times Square is not Rome, Paris or Barcelona, where piazzas and squares lined with cafes and restaurants evolved naturally in the urban landscape.

Yep, all of a sudden pedestrians are mixing with crosstown traffic. Remember back when that never happened? Me neither.

Have fun picking this apart, Streetsbloggers. I'll just go out on a limb here and wager that the editorialists at AAA, headquartered out in Nassau, don't represent the views of real New Yorkers and probably never walked around with all those "vacationing tourists" squeezed into traffic by the sidewalk crunch at the old Times Square.

After the jump, a nice rejoinder from genuine city dwellers, courtesy of City Room, about the pleasures of having places to socialize in public.

On busy evening in Times Square, at the pedestrian mall on Broadway, E. J. Bonilla and Melissa Oyola found an empty table and two chairs, content among the seas of calm and waves of chaos surrounding them.

This is date night.

“Ever since they hooked this place up, it’s like a lifesaver,” Mr. Bonilla, 21, said. “If you’re with somebody, you’re with them because you like each other. You shouldn’t necessarily need something else to help you guys along.”

Here's another installment in what could ideally become a series on how police departments are doing right by pedestrians and cyclists. We posted the Chicago bike video a couple of weeks back. We now present the Sacramento crosswalk sting. (Warning: Insufferable Geico commercial may precede video.)

Back in April, TV station KCRA filmed a plainclothes Sacramento officer busting motorists who couldn't be bothered to yield the right of way. Notice how, though they cite the potential amount of the fine, neither the anchor nor the reporter ever intimate that the operation is a money-making scheme? Instead of sticking a mic in a driver's face for a quick-and-dirty accusation of extortion -- a near-must in most any mainstream media story about traffic enforcement -- the reporter is completely sympathetic to the pedestrians in harm's way, and rightly credits the officer for putting his life on the line.

Ben wrote earlier this year how similar measures could be effective here in New York. Wouldn't it be great if we could all point to a law-breaking vehicle and have NYPD swoop in?

Thompson tells NY1 he'll "review" recent safe street projects.

• After the Ninth Avenue protected bike lane was installed in 2007, injuries among all users dropped 56 percent.
  
• The protected Broadway bike lane between 42nd and 35th Streets brought a 50 percent drop in injuries.

Given quality of life improvements like these, it would make sense for mayoral challenger Bill Thompson to promise to at least stay the course, if not to one-up the incumbent. And in his responses to the Transportation Alternatives Candidate Survey, Thompson comes across as a big believer in the benefits of livable streets. New MTA revenue streams, expanded BRT service, ramped-up traffic enforcement, on-street parking reform -- when playing to the TA crowd, the candidate is nearly pitch perfect.

But depending on whom he's talking to, Thompson is either eager to expand on the safe streets initiatives of the past few years or eradicate them on day one -- starting with a shake up at DOT and removal of the Grand Street lane.

If increased safety and community board approval wouldn't be enough for a project to be judged a success by Mayor Thompson, what criteria would he use? Though we were assured several times that the candidate supports bike lanes, our conversation with a Team Thompson spokesperson did little to clear things up.

"It's a wide range of factors," said the spokesperson. "It's not just the small businesses in the area, it's also the community. I can't comment on something in the future. I mean, obviously you have to look at each bike lane separately, right?"

Despite a lot of talk about "community," the spokesperson did not mention health or safety as factors in determining worthy projects.

"We've heard from the community. Not just the community board, but from small business community members, neighbors in the area that felt like the bike lane has actually hurt business in the area. Obviously with the economy the way it is, you want to do all you can to help the small businesses of New York. Again, I just want to make it clear that he does support bike lanes. He's said it over and over again."

So when it comes to livable streets initiatives under the Thompson administration, the litmus test won't be public health, or even environmental impact, but feelings and anecdotes. When you single out one of the city's most effective cyclist safety improvements for immediate demolition based on who's screaming loudest, a promise of theoretical support simply doesn't hold water. No matter how many times you say it.

Photo: artgyrl/Flickr

Though it isn't spelled out in the bill, Int. 836 is ostensibly intended in part to minimize bus traffic on narrow residential streets, increasing pedestrian safety and, like Int. 742, reducing the buses' negative impact on neighborhoods.

Both bills are supported by the group Our Streets Our Lives (formerly Tour Buses No -- Tourists Yes), which worked last year to prod the Department of Environmental Protection to enforce tour bus emission standards. Group member Barbara Backer says most licensed tour buses are now in compliance with those rules. Of the new proposed regs, Backer says: "With re-routing no one will lose one job, tourists will still be able to visit the same businesses, and the re-routing will mean less disruption for local residents. Buses can use their hop-on-hop-off feature on major thoroughfares and still convey the same number of people to the same areas they do now."

Monday's hearing, a joint session of the council's consumer affairs and transportation committees, gets underway at 10 a.m.

As of this writing, the Committee on Environmental Protection is considering Int. 622, which would require school buses to be fitted with filters to reduce kids' exposure to diesel exhaust, and would mandate that buses be retired after 16 years. The Natural Resources Defense Council has been tracking the measure, and has background here.

Although there is undoubtedly an amazing streets renaissance going on in NYC, there still remain places in dire need of improvement. Every workday, heavily-used areas like the blocks surrounding Penn Station are overwhelmed with pedestrians making their way home via buses, subways, the Long Island Railroad and Amtrak. The sidewalks are so clogged by this "crush of humanity" that people are forced to walk in the streets. If you've never seen it, or if you're claustrophobic, get ready.

Open Planning Project Executive Director Mark Gorton recently went out to sample the atmosphere on a typical weekday evening and posits that we can do much better in how we choose to allocate street space. His words sum it up nicely:

The reason it's so crowded here is not because there's not enough space. It's because we give all of our space to the least spatially-efficient form of transportation available. 

Of course he is referring to the automobile -- especially the single-occupant vehicle. Oddly enough, I did a PSA over three years ago which aired during our New York City Streets Renaissance campaign launch. I filmed most of it in the same location. It still looks much the same, perhaps worse.

A reader sends this view of Pike Street, taken from the Manhattan Bridge bike path late last week. You'll notice the square of light pavement connecting two mall segments. That's the intersection with Monroe Street, one of four locations slated for pedestrian plazas in DOT's most recent plan for Pike and Allen Streets [PDF]. A center median protected bike path running from Houston Street down to the water -- the first of its kind in New York City, I believe, depending on how you categorize the Sands Street bike path -- is also in the works. DOT's project presentation characterizes these changes as interim improvements that can help generate support for further funding and more permanent construction.

The pedestrian and bike improvements on this corridor are the result of a painstaking bottom-up process that Sarah wrote about last September. Residents have been clamoring for safer walking, safer biking, and more welcoming public spaces on Allen and Pike for a long time. Soon, they'll be able to enjoy the benefits of more humane streets. (We have a request in with DOT to find out when the project will wrap up.)

Since the spring, DOT construction crews have been building out traffic calming improvements all over the neighborhoods near downtown Brooklyn. When the years-in-the-making Downtown Brooklyn Traffic Calming Project wraps up, pedestrians will have safer crossings at dozens of intersections. The sidewalk extension at the northwest corner of Smith and Bergen, shown here, is especially impressive. Several hundred square feet of street space now belong to pedestrians instead of cars.

I popped up from my subway ride home yesterday to take some pictures, and in the five minutes I spent there, it was plainly obvious that people feel more comfortable and at ease on the sidewalk with all that extra room. First, to give a sense of the extension's size, check out what this corner used to look like (you can use the green "Smith's Grocery" awning to orient yourself).

After the jump, more traffic-calmed goodness.

This is the view from the southwest corner, with the big extension on the far side of the street. I'm not the best at eyeball measurements, but the crossing distance on Bergen has got to be less than 20 feet now.

If you're on foot, you feel like you're in charge. You can run into a friend, catch up for a minute, and, yeah, stand nonchalantly by the curb without worrying about getting run over or obstructing someone else's way. If you're biking by, you might have to adjust your path a little...

...but that's okay. A place that feels safe to walk feels safe to bike, too. (This is the view from the northeast corner.)

Speaking of which, a rumor is circulating that DOT might install some bike parking here. The DOT press office told us the agency is "investigating the placement of racks in the vicinity of the sidewalk extension." I think there's enough room to go around.

City Council member Alan Gerson didn't have much new to say at his sidewalk protest of the Grand Street bike lane. But a handful of reporters and a few cyclists pressed him to defend the idea that projects designed to improve street safety should be subject to greater City Council review.

Gerson's assertion of "dangerous conditions" on Grand Street basically amounted to this: The row of parked cars on the south side used to protect only pedestrians; now it protects pedestrians and cyclists, so there's a perception among some of the older residents that they're at greater risk because cyclists are riding next to the curb.

But do the data back up the perception? In a word, No. According to DOT's study of Grand Street, injuries are down 28.8 percent since the protected lane was installed nine months ago. Which only makes sense, because the parking-protected bike path has narrowed the traffic lane, sending cues for drivers to slow down and making a safer environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

Gerson was not swayed by statistical evidence. "Sometimes anecdotal testimony reflects the reality," he said. For bike lane opponents, however, reality intruded rather inconveniently this afternoon.

A couple of speakers employed the time-honored "no one uses the bike lane" argument. Since they were standing right next to the bike lane in question, it was plain to see the dozens of people riding by during the course of the event. (A DOT traffic count last month tallied 990 cyclists in one 12-hour span.) Other well-worn assertions -- that the bike lane has hurt business and worsened congestion -- were similarly offered without supporting facts.

All the while, Gerson attempted to portray himself as an advocate for street safety who just wants to get everyone on the same page, by taking into account such factors as "the needs of traffic flow." When a reporter suggested that this was a recipe for inaction, Gerson argued that it is ultimately futile "to pit local neighborhoods against cyclists."

Set aside, for the moment, that the Grand Street bike lane is probably quite well-used by neighborhood residents (Gerson's district is nearly 80 percent car-free). Who's doing the "pitting" here? Fewer people are getting hurt on Grand Street now than before the protected bike path was installed. Wouldn't a public servant committed to safer streets try to preserve those gains? If there's some tension between pedestrians and cyclists, Alan Gerson could use his "town halls" to get people talking about how they can get the most out of a much-needed safety enhancement. Instead, he's simply escalating the conflict.

Video: Elizabeth Press

Center Boulevard and 48th Avenue, the Long Island City intersection where Max Kim-Bee was nearly mowed down by an erratic and angry driver. Locations approximate. Image: Google Maps/Carly Clark

On the morning of May 6, Max Kim-Bee was walking his two dogs on 48th Avenue in Long Island City, en route to Gantry Plaza State Park. When he reached Center Boulevard, which borders the park, Kim-Bee checked for oncoming traffic. Seeing only a black car to his left some distance away and moving slowly (Kim-Bee assumed the driver was looking for a parking spot), he started to cross. As he approached the middle of the street, Kim-Bee checked to his right for traffic that is obscured by a grassy median (pictured here). At that point, the car he had seen to his left barreled past -- on the wrong side of the street and, by Kim-Bee's estimate, traveling at 40 to 50 mph -- missing Kim-Bee by three feet, and nearly running over his dogs, who were in front of him. After passing Kim-Bee, the driver hit a piece of trash in the street, presumably an empty can or bottle, which issued a loud report.

Here's what happened next, in Kim-Bee's own words:

As soon as the black car stopped, I walked the approximately 30 feet from the pedestrian crossing to where the driver was sitting -- almost alongside the south facing parked cars -- but pointing the wrong way.

I was in a state of mild shock. I had almost watched my dogs run over right in front of me and I felt sickened. It must have taken me about 15-20 seconds to walk with my two dogs to the black car and when I reached it, I leaned toward the open passenger side window and shouted, "Hey buddy, where's the fire? You almost killed me and my dogs!"

The driver looked startled and disoriented. He also appeared to be holding a cell phone and in the middle of a conversation. Sounding confused, he asked, "Did you hit me?" It was apparent he had not seen me at all and had no idea I was in the crosswalk 30 feet behind him -- or that there was a crosswalk or an intersection.

I was taken aback and replied sharply, "Do you see me driving a car? I was on the crosswalk back there when you almost killed us!" I told him he should get out and check he hadn't run anyone over, because he had nearly taken me and my dogs out when he blew through the crosswalk, speeding the wrong way up the street, not looking where he was going. I told him I was lucky he hadn't killed my dogs and me. "You're reckless and dangerous. Get a grip!"

With that exchange, which lasted less than a minute, Kim-Bee walked away. But the driver then made a U-turn, Kim-Bee says, and drove straight toward him. Kim-Bee ran for the curb, dragging his dogs by their leashes. The driver stopped in a crosswalk and, remaining in his car, began shouting.

The driver appeared enraged and very hostile because I had criticized his driving and called him reckless and dangerous. He had no interest in apologizing for almost running me and my dogs over in the first place -– or chasing us to the curb soon after.

Kim-Bee says he repeated himself to the driver -- that he was driving carelessly on a residential street with many pedestrians and school kids -- until it became apparent that he was wasting his time. Anxious to get the incident behind him, Kim-Bee, who had been standing with his hands on his knees so as to address the driver, still in his car, stood upright. Shaking, dizzy and nauseous, Kim-Bee says he steadied himself by putting his elbow against the roof of the car. He then "staggered" away, and had to squat to keep from falling. For the first time, the driver got out of the car. He stood in front of it as Kim-Bee gathered himself, his dogs, and the newspaper he had planned to read -- he had lost the cup of coffee he'd been holding -- and headed toward the park. Some 10 minutes later, as he exited the park, Kim-Bee saw the driver, still parked in the crosswalk, leaning against his car and talking on his cell phone. According to Kim-Bee, he "appeared to be laughing." Kim-Bee says the driver called out to him, but that he "had no interest in any further interaction," and continued on his way home.

Though his route took him past the 108th Precinct, based on previous experience, and because he was not actually hit, Kim-Bee felt sure that going to the police would be an exercise in futility. So he went on with his day, commuting to work in Manhattan, then returning home to take his dogs for their afternoon walk. As he stood talking to neighbors, Kim-Bee was approached by two police officers -- an Officer Sorrentino and Officer O'Brien. Sorrentino asked Kim-Bee if he had been in an "altercation" earlier that day. As he told his story, Kim-Bee saw that the same black car was parked a short distance away, with two other police officers nearby. Not long after, Officer Sorrentino interrupted Kim-Bee and walked to the car, conferred with one of the officers, and returned.

I tried to continue with my account but Officer Sorrentino interrupted me and asked me if I had "any contact with the car." I tried to finish my account by way of explanation but Officer Sorrentino insisted -- repeating several times more and more insistently: "Did you have any contact with the car?" I replied, "He almost ran me over -- but missed -- me by three feet, my dogs by a foot." Again Officer Sorrentino demanded: "Did you have any contact with the car?"

Kim-Bee recounted the moment when he had leaned against the car for support, at which point Sorrentino returned to the black car. The driver was walking around it, pointing to its sides. Sorrentino again conferred with the other officers -- one of whom Kim-Bee assumed was his sergeant -- before returning to inform Kim-Bee that there were "dents, scratches and scuffs" on the car. Incredulous, Kim-Bee replied that it was impossible that any of the marks could be attributed to him, that he had not touched the side of the car, and that he had seen the driver himself leaning against the car after almost running him down. Officer Sorrentino replied that the car "looked pretty new to have any damage," Kim-Bee recalls. When Kim-Bee asked for proof that he had harmed the vehicle -- photos or fingerprints, for example -- Kim-Bee says Sorrentino responded that he had "been watching way too much TV."

Sorrentino asked Kim-Bee to come down to the precinct to give his story. Kim-Bee said he would be happy to, and asked if they could walk the short distance to the precinct house. Sorrentino said no -- they had to ride in a squad car. Kim-Bee was under arrest.

Kim-Bee stresses that Sorrentino was apologetic, though he was unable to "explain or decide" what exactly Kim-Bee -- who has never received as much as a speeding ticket -- was being charged with, only that it was "very minor" and that it should be over in a couple of hours, assuming Kim-Bee "checked out." Officers drove Kim-Bee to the station, dropping off his dogs at his apartment along the way.

At the precinct, where Kim-Bee was held for almost five hours, Kim-Bee says Sorrentino and another officer scolded him for not "clearing up" the matter that morning. As Kim-Bee sat in a holding cell, an officer who was not present during the arrest, laughing, told him: "You just don't kick a man's car." Kim-Bee replied that he had done no such thing, and that the officer was the first person to suggest he had.

Like Ray Bengen -- assaulted by a driver who almost ran him over with his SUV, then charged by Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau's office for slapping the vehicle in an attempt to save his own life -- Kim-Bee was charged with criminal mischief, a Class A misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty of 12 months in prison.

Streetsblog has a message in with the 108th Precinct for the officers' account of what happened on May 6. A spokesperson for Queens DA Richard A. Brown's office said that a prosecutor has not yet been assigned to Kim-Bee's case, as he was given a desk appearance ticket.

Kim-Bee's attorney, Frank Perrone, is a former Queens prosecutor. He believes that when the driver ran over the can or bottle in the street, he thought he had hit Kim-Bee. "And I think that, almost in a preemptive need to protect himself, he went and filed this completely bogus and erroneous complaint," says Perrone. "The police department, unfortunately here -- as long as the complaining witness is willing to swear to a supporting deposition, they have to file the complaint."

The driver's name, however, isn't on the desk appearance ticket. To this day, Kim-Bee does not know the identity of his accuser (believing the incident was over that morning, he did not note the license plate number). As of now, no deposition has been filed, according to Perrone. "All we have is a statement of the charge. So the assumption is that he [the driver] went into the police department and said that my client either hit, or bumped into, or did something to his car."

Perrone is confident that the charge against Kim-Bee will eventually be dismissed. "It really seems like this guy was just a lunatic," he says.

Investigation continues after another recent pedestrian death in Ocean City, NJ, where locals say they are accustomed to reckless drivers and crashes. Photo: pressofAtanticCity.com

Though he somehow got a job delivering pizzas, police discovered that Maguino did not have a drivers license. Despite the brazen recklessness and flouting of the law that led to Alice Myers' death, prosecutors and a judge agreed last week to let Maguino off with three years of probation and a $500 fine, plus 75 hours of community service and $162 in "penalties." Explains the Star-Ledger:

[T]here was no recklessness by Maguino, who was driving under the 35 mph speed limit. He was not intoxicated, and there were no mechanical problems with the car, Morris County Assistant Prosecutor Kelley Lavery told Judge Thomas Manahan.

Myers was dressed in dark clothing when she entered the street as the northbound Maguino had a green light. A nearby street light also was burned out and a crosswalk signal did not work, Lavery said.

"This was an accident," Lavery said. "All indications are he was not operating his vehicle recklessly. The state decided that ethically it could not pursue a death-by-auto charge."

As a result, prosecutors ruled out more-serious death-by-auto or manslaughter charges, and Maguino pleaded guilty to third-degree leaving the scene of an accident, which has no presumption of jail time, and to a traffic summons of driving without a license.

Judge Manahan agreed to the plea deal for Maguino in spite of protests from Myers' husband and son.

If New Jersey authorities are serious about reducing the number of pedestrian deaths by auto, they would do well to examine what's happening in their courtrooms along with conditions on their streets. Not that New Yorkers have room to chide, but in any state where an unlicensed driver can take a life and remain immune even to charges of recklessness -- and in cases where the victim is left to die in the street, no less -- it's practically guaranteed that motorists will feel free to endanger pedestrians at will.

For further proof of the mindset engendered by such cavalier attitudes toward street safety, check out the comment sections of the Maguino stories. Notice how many readers are far more distressed by Maguino's immigration status -- he's a Peruvian reportedly in the US illegally -- than the fact that he killed an innocent human being.

A 17-year-old boy was struck by this car while walking near the corner of Fulton Street and Hudson Avenue today at around 10 a.m. The victim is in stable condition at Kings County Hospital, said the NYPD. The driver was seen traveling west on Fulton Street at a high rate of speed, according to the reader who sent us this photo. Witnesses at the scene said the driver may have been trying to make the light at the nearby intersection with Flatbush Avenue.

The NYPD says the investigation is ongoing. Here's another angle of the car involved in the crash: