What I mean is that this careness driver and city agent shall both be penalice.

What does this tragedy has anything to do with TAX???? Are we not paying enough taxes ??? We paid taxes in everything already. Is paying more taxes would really protect us or just matter of people care will able to give us some protection. This tragedy shall not be even happening if City agent give enough ro attention care to the pedestrian and kids in school need. This tragedy is indirectly cause by our government who we have paid our taxes to. Look at that intersection... its four (4) ways street (big wide street) but only a stop signs to stop for two (2) ways. Why not Stop Sign for all four (4) ways or even a traffic lights? Local residents have made the request for many many years but nothing happened. Why????? Especially school is on the same block and right at the corner!!!! This old man and government have put this poor little boy in the tragedy and live without loving mother. She is only 37 years old and her son only 5 years old. Any justice or fair in this case?????

I agree with the discussion as to the headline, but with a different slant.

"Mother Mowed Down By Driver in Bayside"

Mother? Why not "Mother-in-Law" or "Sister" or "Aunt" or "Lady Next Door" or "The Woman Who Lives Down the Street".

If you are going to use "Mother" to make it sound bad, why don't you go for the heartstrings? "Mother of Four Beautiful, Productive, Little Angels Mowed Down By Driver in Bayside"?

You sound like The Post.

My point was that it's not that easy to see people in the street, especially if you aren't used to having to stop there normally. That is the whole purpose of a flashing red/yellow, which they had outside of my elementary school 20 years ago in addition to a crossing guard.

With your logic, you don't need crossing guards anyway, because "if you see a person crossing the street, you should proceed with caution".

I wish they would fix this commenting system. The above was in response to laisla.

Taxing private vehicles is the right answer. A good start would also be to tax gas much much more. This country pays the cheapest gas in the world. Between BP oil leaks and out of control drivers running people down, if we taxed dat shit it would happen less, save lives, save the planet, force us to find alternatives, etc etc. But then i guess the italians would be forced to walk a few blocks to the bakery.

Am I the only one who thinks it's kind of ridiculous that a crossing guard is the only thing expected to stop traffic on a busy avenue where there is normally no legal need for a driver to stop? I don't mean to imply that this irresponsible driver is completely responsible for this tragedy, but something like this was an accident waiting to happen. They should have had a flashing light at this intersection (red during school hours or maybe initiated by the crossing guard, and yellow at other times).

I think it's safe to assume if you see a crossing guard, you should proceed with caution. It seems like a pretty obvious sign to me.

typo above.. I meant to say "I don't mean to imply that this irresponsible driver is NOT completely responsible for this tragedy"

Headline should be modified to something more to the point like:

Mother Struck and Critically Injured By Driver In Bayside

Using terms like "mowed down" or "cut down" or "plowed" trivializes or softens what is in reality a horrible act of negligence and/or carelessness.

that's what i say about 'friendly fire'.

there's nothing 'friendly' about friendly fire.

no one's smiling or happy when there's friendly fire.

it's not like one with a happy face goes to the other with a smiley face, "hey bob, i'm gonna shoot you now, ok? make sure you dodge. ok, here i go!" "sure thing john. ACK! YOU GOT ME! HAHAHAHA. NOW THAT, IS FRIENDLY FIRE! HAHAHAHA."

Gothamist specializes in snarky and misleading headlines. It's that whole tragically hip/cynical thing they are trying to foster. Real newspaper-style heading writing seems to be a lost art.

another *illegal driver giving a bad name to all the other illegal drivers. blech.

*let me clarify myself here before i get verbally beat up for no reason. what i mean by "illegal drivers" are those drivers without a license or with a suspended license.

Here are some numbers for all to ponder: From 1998 to 2008, New York State has recorded a 46 percent decline in traffic fatalities from 2,263 to 1,224, according to New York’s 2009 Highway Safety Annual Report. In 2008, there were 278 fatal vehicle accidents in New York City (according to NYS DMV). Out of a population of over 8 million, and with over 1.8 million licenses registered in the city, 278 persons died (this includes all accidents: car, bus, truck, ambulance, motorcycle, etc). Multiply the number of licenses by the number of daily trips and we're talking hundreds of thousands of vehicle trips every day in NYC.

In 2008, there were 523 murders in the five boroughs, or slightly less than double the number of vehicle related deaths for the same year. So statistically speaking, you're almost twice as likely to be murdered by your neighbor than get killed by a car. Maybe we should start heavily taxing your murderous neighbor.

My (allegedly) murderous neighbor aside, your comparison is disingenuous. The sad fact remains that the penalties for dangerous drivers are entirely too lenient. Fatalities have decreased? Why is that? Because motorists were suddenly inspired to drive more carefully? I doubt it. (Many authorities believe that more than anything, the increased price of gasoline has encouraged less driving and therefore less accidents.) Your statistics only address the *fatalities*, but how many innocent people were seriously injured or maimed? At the very least--dangerous drivers need to be taken off the road.

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

(quote variously attributed to either Mark Twain or Benjamin Disraeli)

"The sad fact remains that the penalties for dangerous drivers are entirely too lenient."

Completely and totally agree, as my earlier postings clearly state. Instead of levying huge taxes on ALL drivers, increase the penalties for the BAD ones. And if you read the stats, the decline in fatalities took place over a 10 year span (1998-2008) when the price of gas was static and barely increased except for spikes in '04 and '08. My guess is that increased enforcement of drunk-driving laws was a big help in getting these figures down. Maybe the police and judicial system should treat bad, unlicensed drivers with the same urgency as they do with drunk drivers.

I used statistics because a previous posting suggested that ALL drivers are likely to get into an accident. Clearly, even the number of non-fatal accidents in NYC (51,000 in 2008) is low compared to the millions of vehicle trips each day in NYC.

nice not only does this comment make a point - you have numbers to back you up.

well done. and thanks for the research.

Thanks JoJo. Believe me, my heart goes out to this lady and other victims of truly bad drivers like this man in Bayside. I drive a lot, mostly in Staten Island and Brooklyn, and I've seen some really bad drivers. Anyone with a suspended license should not be on the road; they've already broken the law and the NYPD should deal with them accoringly. But to lump all drivers, and cars in general, as insane menaces to society that must either be removed from the road, or taxed so heavily as to be extrememly burdensome, is plain silly.

The people who don't want cars on NYC streets are those who choose not, or can not afford, to own one. If you're single, are able to commute to Manhattan by bike, and/or don't have elderly parents living in NYC, God bless you. But a huge swath of us who've lived here our whole lives sometimes need a car. Trust me, I don't go around NYC taking joy rides and whooping it up just to waste gas. I only drive when I really need to, and to Manhattan only if late-night public transit is just not a viable alternative.

Long story short, if I'm going to be punitively taxed for driving my parents to the doctor or going to the supermarket, it will make me strongly consider moving out of NYC, and taking with me lots of tax dollars in a state that is losing population with every cencus.

Seriously? I have a car, and I drive it very limitedly. But I don't mind being taxed for that privilege. It's not my right or anything.

Hey ferryboi, your logic is sound, but glosses over a big issue: independently-operated cars have huge potential for damage. I do believe that you are a very good driver, but statistically speaking you will be involved in a collision at some point. It probably won't be your fault, but the fact is that by operating a vehicle in a dense metropolitan area, you are a serious threat to the community. If we heavily taxed privately-operated vehicles, the benefits to the community would far exceed the detriments.

I'm sorry; that's not what anyone wants to hear, but it's how it should be.