Same-Sex Marriage Bill REJECTED in New York State Senate
Video: Times Square Obama Afghanistan Protest Arrests
Catholic League Pissed at PETA
New Photo Brings Flying Overweight Debate Back
Live Video: Same-Sex Marriage Debate in State Senate
One of Gothamist's resolutions for 2005 is to try to be a little less impatient and jaywalk less at the very busy intersections (that close call at 72nd Street and Broadway did it), so we were interested in the Daily News' story about how traffic deaths has been very low this year. In fact, the article was part history lesson:
Only 286 people have been killed in traffic accidents this year, putting the city on pace to break the record low of 332 deaths set in 1910 - when horse-drawn carriages and trolleys were more common than cars.The NYPD credits better traffic enforcement as well as the use of software that tracks streets where problems are. And that's all well and good, but Gothamist wants to point out Transportation Alternatives' list of the most dangerous intersections in New York; the list is broken down by borough and has comprehensive maps of the dangerous intersections with number of fatalities (Queens Boulevard has a few intersections listed).
Here's the Department of Transportation's safety tips, plus Gothamist on Queens Boulevard, aka The Boulevard of Death, and a pedestrian death at 6th Avenue and 23rd Street. Also in 1910: The women's baseball team, the New York Bloomers, was formed.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"Fewer," not "Less"
Ah, the Brutal critics...
;)
Jen, acoording to your site Your in HK? Isn't it 4:00AM Wednesday Morning there?
Ridiculous. As in, bad enough to be the subject of ridicule. Like the headline for this piece.
"Less Traffic Deaths, But Are The Streets Safer?"
You ask the question, but never answer it, or even justify bringing it up. Based on your copy, it's not justified. There have been fewer deaths -- dramatically fewer -- so the streets must be safer. So you put a sensational headline on it that undercuts the content of the article.
You could at least have brought up one or two potential reasons for the decline in deaths, like the important fact that in the last fifty years advances in medical science have enabled us to turn a gaping chest wound, multiple contusions, compound fractures, and severe blood loss into a week's stay at the hospital, instead of prolonged agony leading to death.
Once again Gothamist demonstrates the journalism skills of a child.
Ridiculous. As in, bad enough to be the subject of ridicule. Like the headline for this piece.
"Less Traffic Deaths, But Are The Streets Safer?"
You ask the question, but never answer it, or even justify bringing it up. Based on your copy, it's not justified. There have been fewer deaths -- dramatically fewer -- so the streets must be safer. So you put a sensational headline on it that undercuts the content of the article.
You could at least have brought up one or two potential reasons for the decline in deaths, like the important fact that in the last fifty years advances in medical science have enabled us to turn a gaping chest wound, multiple contusions, compound fractures, and severe blood loss into a week's stay at the hospital, instead of prolonged agony leading to death.
Once again Gothamist demonstrates the journalism skills of a child.
Or, rather, a child with a blog, Google, and maybe Wikipedia.
...
I must confess, I Marvel at the sheer stupidness of some people such as "Nobody".
- It's a Blog, not a Newspaper
- You offer "critisim" (Loved The Double Post, Sherlock!)
- Offered a waaay Off Topic Comment
- Leave us without a Link to Your own Spectactular Blog
- And leave us with a childish comment...
Say it with me Everyone: "Oh, Come On!"..."Nobody"... What a Webel without a clue.
Geez.Oh and Merry Christmas to You too.