Gothamist: Woman Run Down By, Trapped Under SUV

aed

Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:50:57 -0500

Last week a huge truck was stopped in a crosswalk which made us pedestrians cross behind it. Our choices were - go in front of the truck and out into intersection traffic or cross behind the truck while looking for traffic. Several cars and SUVs went thru the red light as we were trying to cross and even TWO POLICE CARS! I yelled at them and gave them the finger and one of them pulled over and tried to start a fight with me over my "attitude". All I kept saying was " you ran a red light - end of discussion" and he just kept trying to fight with me. Not only did they not ticket the huge truck in the crosswalk but they themselves ran a red light and almost hit us as we tried to get across the street behind the truck. So this is the law enforcement we're dealing with when it comes to pedestrian safety.

aed

Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:41:21 -0500

AGAIN!! There are never charges filed for a driver who goes against the light and kills a pedestrian! I can't believe this is the NORM in this city. You want to kill someone? Get a car and run them down. You'll get off scott free.

what?

Mon, 16 Apr 2007 01:02:10 -0500

Yet cops are happy to ticket and arrest CYCLISTS for running a red light, yet not a BIG, HEAVY, SUV THAT KILLED SOMEONE?!?!?!

Ed

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:31:26 -0500

I've taken in the last two months to waiting at some intersections for the light to turn red, then crossing the street. In other words, I won't cross the street on a green light, only a red light. Why? I've noticed that cars, particularly SUVs, are less likely to stop at red lights. I've seen at least one intersection where the traffic just continued going through the red light a couple minutes after it turned. Cross a street that cars turn into, there is a good chance on a green light that you will get blindsided by a SUV. Cross against the light, and you can look down the street to see if traffic is coming. This is obviously pretty backwards, and says something about enforcement of traffic laws under this mayor. Any time you get a situation where people tend to be more likely to be hurt by doing the right thing, something is very wrong.

Samantha T

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:30:55 -0500

#13, surely you're not equating a freak accident, which is what you posit, with the entirely expected outcome of not giving a rat's ass who gets in your path when you drive. This dude didn't have the light (which is provided for drivers and pedestrians alike to alert them what to do and when) and was willingly engaging in behavior that's known to be distracting while driving (precisely why some states have banned cell phone use while driving). I'd note, also, that several bystanders were shouting at him, which cuts against an argument that this was a millisecond of carelessness on his part. Let's hope this dude isn't judgment-proof (probably is) and that this poor woman's family can at least get some compensation for their loss. Not as satisfying as jailtime - or a prosecution, at the very least - but at least it's something.

meesalikeu

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:10:13 -0500

accidents??? #13 the law is vehicular manslaughter and its punishable by prison time. that one goes for your "whoops, i didnt mean to do it" scenario.

Joe Boy

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:09:21 -0500

2) not drive so fast that you can't quickly stop.

Joe Boy

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:05:22 -0500

[13] : the victim of this "accident" will be dead forever thanks to the drivers negligence. Driving is a privelege, not a right and all rights come with responsibility, the driver should be penalized for his negligence/idiocy/complete and total disregard for the safety of others. These "accidents" are not hard to avoid. All you have to do is: 1) Look where you are fucking driving. 2) not drive so fast that you can't quickly. 3) don't run into things that are directly in front of you. There is no reason, for this type of accident to occur with the frequency that it occurs. The driver was not driving responsibly. The driver killed someone, because he was not driving responsibly. That person is dead forever, because this idiot thinks his cellphone conversation/other distractions are more important than every pedestrians right to safety. That is totally fucking unacceptable and should be punished. At the very least, this person should have his license permanently revoked.

Tom

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:09:03 -0500

Well, thank god the driver hadn't had a glass of wine before hand... he'd be in prison for the rest of his life. And, folks, what charged do you want filed against the guy, exactly? Accidents shouldn't result in jailtime. If you want this guy in prison, then you want someone in prison who accidentally nudges something out of their 6th floor window that strikes someone on the head and kills them. Accidents happen and people die... it sucks. But it doesn't mean the guy should be in prison for a momentary lapse in attention.

Brightliner

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:49:37 -0500

"the story says that the driver was making a turn. He 'had the light' as well. Unfortunately, this is how many car vs. ped fatalities happen." Do you know anything about driving? Here, read it yourself at the DMV website: www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/chapter11-manual.htm "Remember also that pedestrians legally crossing at intersections always have the right-of-way." I don't drive and even I know that. If "this is how many fatalities happen," it's because too many idiots either don't know or don't care about the law! Apologies if this is a multiple post. I keep getting an instant response, "Apache/2.0.52 (Red Hat) Server at www.gothamist.com Port 80 Bad Gateway The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server." I can see this being a problem with new sites, but there's just no excuse with a long-established site like Gothamist that should have worked the bugs out years ago. Hey, Jake, if you can't figure out how to read the error logs and fix the problems, why don't you hire somebody who can?

Joe Boy

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:15:05 -0500

If you hit a pedestrian who has the right of way in a crosswalk while driving your vehicle, one of two situations applies: a) you did not see the pedestrian, which means you were not looking in the direction your vehicle was moving. b) you did see the pedestrian and you purposefull drove right into her. Either way, it seems to me that a crime has occurred. For situation a, it seems that, reckless endangerment, reckless drving, and criminal negligence could all fit the bill. If the victim dies as a result of your idiocy, I would imagine vehicular manslaughter would also apply. In the case of b, It seems like vehicular assault, and if the victim dies, murder or vehicular manslaughter. The fucking crime is that these people are getting off scott free. Something is seriously wrong when these "accidents" occurr over and over again without charges being brought before the driver.

Brightliner

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:07:51 -0500

"the story says that the driver was making a turn. He 'had the light' as well. Unfortunately, this is how many car vs. ped fatalities happen." Do you know anything about driving? Here, read it yourself at the DMV website: www.nydmv.state.ny.us/dmanual/chapter11-manual.htm "Remember also that pedestrians legally crossing at intersections always have the right-of-way." I don't drive and even I know that. If "this is how many fatalities happen," it's because too many idiots either don't know or don't care about the law! Apologies if this is a multiple post. I keep getting an instant response, "Apache/2.0.52 (Red Hat) Server at www.gothamist.com Port 80 Bad Gateway The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server." I can see this being a problem with new sites, but there's just no excuse with a long-established site like Gothamist. Hey, Jake, if you can't figure out how to run the software properly, why don't you hire somebody who can?

bob

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:28:30 -0500

She was in the crosswalk. The law is to yield to pedestrians. This is injustice, and as long as drivers do not get punished and follow the laws, people will continue to die and drivers will continue to ignore traffic laws.

bofug

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:18:08 -0500

You need more info on the intersection/"interaction" before judging. Ped on cellphone: bad. High SUV making (probably right-hand)turn: bad. Obstruction near intersection (SUV, van, truck, kiosk, etc.)? Higher speed lane for vehicle approaching turn? NOT BLAMING ANYONE, BUT... 1. Drivers/peds: GET OFF THE DAMNED PHONE AND GET THE IPODS OUT OF YOUR DAMNED EARS. Even just walking amongst electronically engrossed, cluless peds & drivers is a PITA. 2. Parents/nannies: at intersections, don't stick the stroller into the street, esp where right turns are possible. 3. Maintain some sit-awareness. Look around. Make eye contact. Look ahead, look R/L, & watch turn signals (but don't trust 'em) & back-up lights. If you can't make eye contact with a truck/bus/SUV driver, BACK OFF. 4. When you see a driver on the cell phone, make a hand-to-ear then thumbs-down gesture. Don't expect a polite wave, but let's try to get it into their heads. 5. It's OK when your the only person @ an intersection with an approaching turning vehicle to pause & give a polite "after-you" gesture. I wind up doing it all the time, and get the nicest smiles & waves from drivers (after surprise, and often a polite return "no, after you". 6. Oh, and sorry, never ever cross in from of a shabby van being driven by a minority, an SUV being driven by a suburban blonde on a cellphone, ANY Lexus, or ANY out-of-state vehicle. Do awareness & courtesy (drivers, bikers & peds) & we'll have less danger, injuries & bad feelings. Bofug

bklynd

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:34:45 -0500

Couple points - "The driver did not leave the scene of the accident, but that may have been because..." That implies the driver was likely to leave the scene. The accident/crash is bad enough without adding more implications about the driver. Why not add "no word on whether he was talking on a cell phone or not." It would be interesting to see some real analysis as to whether these accidents really do end up without summons, or if the summons is issued later, after the story runs. It really doesn't make any intuitive sense that a driver can fuck up like this and not get a ticket, and yet, aside from apoplectic blog commenters you hear nothing about it. So either (a) the facts are not complete as reported or (b) there is some bizarre philosophy at NYPD that nobody understands and is not being reported on. #6 - the story says that the driver was making a turn. He "had the light" as well. Unfortunately, this is how many car vs. ped fatalities happen.

robin.g

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 13:59:41 -0500

This is insane. People in cars can just ignore signals and kill people without consequence? If the woman had the WALK then he had a RED light. Just going through a red light alone is ticketable. #5 - shut up.

Still waiting....

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:31:49 -0500

Counting down until some semantic douche adds the comment "Why are you calling it an accident? It was a crash."

DaveH

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:49:11 -0500

I'm certainly not blaming the victim, but obviously pedestrian right of way isn't that sacrosanct or people wouldnt' get away with running pedestrians down without so much as a summons. I look both ways before crossing the street b/c I don't want my last words to be "But I had the right of way . . ."

.

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:48:17 -0500

The officers on scene can pat themselves on the back, knowing they earned their paycheck today. So basically I can hit anyone I please with my vehicle as long as I remain on scene? Awesome!

mike

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:34:08 -0500

No summons?!! This driver broke several laws and killed somebody and gets away scott free. And looking both ways while crossing the street doesn't help you when a car is barreling around a corner. The point is that pedestrian right of way is sacrosanct, and drivers are getting away with manslaughter, if not murder.

mike

Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:32:23 -0500