News stories can't draw any conclusions or place blame without a police report or an interview with someone admitting to being the driver. To blame the driver without such evidence would potentially invite a libel suit. Unless the reporter witnessed the accident first hand and could accurately describe the driver's actions.

by Nathan on Jun 1, 2009 4:51 pm • link • report

Aside from the ongoing debate of the language used, I think the bigger point of this piece is that traffic safety is often seen as a budgetary end-note.

Yes, yes, we know it's dangerous, we will plan to organize a committee to start studying possible implementations, that can then be presented to DDOT, which can subsequently consider the proposal, hold public events for citizen input, who will NIMBY most elements, only to find out that budgetary constraints have pushed this intersections below the priority of a new multibillion football stadium, sponsored by a corporation that will go bankrupt due to unforeseen circumstances, etc etc etc.

In the mean time, real people die, just because pencil pushers can not get their act together. This is where the government directly fails it's citizens.

by Jasper on Jun 1, 2009 5:00 pm • link • report

It's assigning blame to acknowledge a vehicle doesn't drive itself? The person who was in the operators position steered the vehicle around the corner at such speed as to be unable to stop in time to avoid the collision and/or at such speed that the collision was lethal to the pedestrian. That's what happened.

Statistcal evidence suggests this vehicle was not travelling 20 mph or less as the driver was well into the turn. If it had been the pedestrian would have had a 95% chance of surviving the impact. The speed limit there is 25. Most drivers slow down before making a turn, especially a sharp one like from 15th to W. This suggests the operator of the vehicle was causing the vehicle to go too fast, above 25 before making the turn and above 20 as the turn was being completed. Yes of course its an individual case and may be deviant from the preponderance of statistical evidence. However we expect a pedestrian struck at 20 mph or less to survive 95% of the time. This woman was just an unlucky rare case or the driver was going too fast? Which is more likely, more common?

by Bianchi on Jun 1, 2009 5:40 pm • link • report

Every incident like this has paperwork. At the bare minimum you can probably go down to 300 Indiana Avenue and get the PD-251 associated with the incident to at least get the bare bones narrative that the responding officer filled out. If an arrest was made, that could show up in the narrative.

by Boomhauer on Jun 1, 2009 9:23 pm • link • report

A pedestrian always has the right of way and anyone making a turn is required to slow down and to look for others. If the victim had been jay-walking mid-block maybe she could have walked into a car, but not at an intersection.

These SUV's that cruise the U Street area at night are problems.

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 1, 2009 9:44 pm • link • report

The police that write the reports are not immune to the car-centric sense of entitlement pervasive in our culture. They are just as likely as anyone else who hasn't honestly looked at their car-centric biases to be more lenient and sympathetic to the drivers perspective of go-go-go. Just because a report is written w/o mention of driver culpability does not mean there wasn't any. I'm not saying cops would do anything intentionally negligent. I'm saying they express bias the same way everyone else does-without knowing they're doing it.

by Bianchi on Jun 2, 2009 12:49 am • link • report

and a pedestrian is not supposed to know a car is turning while a driver is obligated to look for pedestrians when turning.

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 2, 2009 1:14 am • link • report

and what Tom said.

by Bianchi on Jun 2, 2009 7:59 am • link • report

My partner and I were just discussing this story and GGW post. If, by way of example, one of us had died in an incident within our home, would the DCMPD's released information or news reports only mention the deceased? Even if the incident were unclear in terms of fault, we can be assured that initial reports would simply state the primary actors. Why not when a person is killed by a vehicle?

When someone is killed in our city by an object under the control of another individual, good God, we should hear names, and obviously tough questions should be asked. Every time.

by Joel Lawson on Jun 2, 2009 8:22 am • link • report

I'm pretty sure I saw Gabe Klein at the intersection this morning. Hopefully DDOT will be making improvements soon.

by Jon on Jun 2, 2009 9:53 am • link • report

Circus! Roundabout! Intersections like that scream for traffic circles or modern directed roundabouts with striped pedestrian paths, entry/double lanes, yields. They slow down traffic to a safer speed and give pedestrians a safer path. Drivers will learn how to use them if they don't already know.

by Betty on Jun 2, 2009 10:40 am • link • report

@ Betty: Hear hear, we need more roundabouts. They work! The slow down traffic, they assign the right of way unambiguously, they treat pedestrians, bikers and cars equally, and best of all they are green. Why? Well, because they allow traffic to move faster through the intersection (as you only wait for traffic on the roundabout, and never wait for a red light on an empty intersection), and because they don't require power for traffic lights. Last, often, they get a little bit of greenery on them.

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=roundabouts+image&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=uUAlSoysDJPUlQeEzLzuBw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title

@ a lot of folks: Yes, the reports are car-centric, that's a bad thing. But factually, it was the car that struck the pedestrian. Not the driver. The driver was *in* the car that struck the pedestrian.

by Jasper on Jun 2, 2009 11:10 am • link • report

Disagree with the roundabouts and the language issue being irrelevant. I think changing the language as these deaths are reported will change the way people think and then the way they drive. Jasper's point reminds me of the NRA's rebuttle: guns don't kill people, people kill people.

by KC on Jun 2, 2009 11:26 am • link • report

"Guns don't kill people, bullets do".

I agree w/ KC. The language is not trivial and does shape thinking. The driver was operating the vehicle that struck the pedestrian the same as a person operates any tool that causes a fatality. The vehicle would not have struck the woman without the actions of the driver. It's a ridiculous fantasy to cleve the driver's actions from what the vehicle was observed doing. We hope the driver did not intend to kill someone. The driver killed someone intentionally or not.

by Bianchi on Jun 2, 2009 11:51 am • link • report

KC (and Bianchi by extension, based on his agreeing with KC): why do you disagree with a roundabout as an option at this intersection?

by Froggie on Jun 2, 2009 12:44 pm • link • report

Real, physical traffic circles and roundabouts are very effective in Europe where traffic is usually too congested AND too fast. We noticed the use of "virtual" circles in France, where a picture of a circle was drawn on the road, along with arrows directing people around the circle instead of straight through. Obviously this only works when 5 or 6 narrow roads converge where there's no visibility around corners. Real circles work with wider roads. In several towns in the Algarve, Portugal, they displayed a different, distinctive sculpture in each huge circle, making it easier to find the way around without getting lost. In Greece where many drivers completely ignore traffic lights and pedestrians, circles quite literally save lives.

by Betty on Jun 2, 2009 1:04 pm • link • report

round-about's a-ok by me. Agreed with importance of language use.

by Bianchi on Jun 2, 2009 1:11 pm • link • report

Bianchi: that's what I figured, but just wanted to make sure, since you didn't split the two subjects (roundabout and language) in your earlier post.

by Froggie on Jun 2, 2009 1:17 pm • link • report

@ KC etc: You are misunderstanding me. I agree that language is important. However, I am also arguing that the factually, the pedestrian got struck by the car. You can not deny that. Yes, the car was driven by a driver. But that does not mean the pedestrian was hit by the driver.

You have to differentiate between a factual description of what happened and the causality of the actions that led to the accident/crash.

Using your NRA example. A pathologist a hospital will state that the victim died because of a bullet in the heart. He will not at all talk about who shot the bullet. That is to be determined by the police and then a judge is to determine the guilt of the shooter.

Aside of the language issue, the question is what role to assign the journalist. I think most journalists stick to the few facts they know, and prefer it to stay. They do not want to be sued for defamation.

So now the question becomes how we can get journalists to write in a less car-centric way *without* them getting uncomfortable and liable.

Last, I want to repeat me earlier statement, that the important part of this story is not that journalists use poor language, but that someone died because her government failed to make a safe intersection.

by Jasper on Jun 2, 2009 5:18 pm • link • report

Jasper: isn't it a little early to be blaming the government for "failing to make a safe intersection"? Last I checked, there's still this thing called personal responsibility...on the part of both the driver and the pedestrian. And at this stage in the game, we just don't have enough information to jump straight to a conclusion (poor intersection design, bad driver, bad pedestrian, or even some combination thereof).

by Froggie on Jun 2, 2009 5:59 pm • link • report

@ Froggie: Last I checked, there's still this thing called personal responsibility...on the part of both the driver and the pedestrian.

Your argument is an argument against any (traffic) rule, in fact against virtually any rule. You could easily use that argument against the (trivial) rule that we drive on the right side of the road, by claiming that it's everyone's personal responsibility to avoid other traffic. Personal responsibility right? That's not how it works.

The failing government comes in here:

This intersection is a well-known danger zone. Via email, Councilmember Jim Graham said, "This has been one of those intersections where we need serious re-engineering and design." It's been the subject of fantasy proposals to reduce speeds and improve safety.

The government knows about the problem, but is too busy studying it's own belly button to get a simple problem fixed. Yes, that is a government failing its citizens. We, the people, have given the government the job to implement our infrastructure. With that comes the responsibility to make sure that things are safe. The government admits knowing the intersection is unsafe, and hasn't fixed the problem. Now someone died. How is that not failing that citizen? By the people, for the people?

by Jasper on Jun 2, 2009 7:53 pm • link • report

I agree that the intersection needs some re-engineering, but you're still jumping to a conclusion as to why this fatality occurred.

by Froggie on Jun 2, 2009 8:36 pm • link • report

There's no circumstance under which a driver making a turn doesn't have an obligation to look for pedestrians.

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 2, 2009 10:15 pm • link • report

Drivers in many states are required by law to stop for pedestrian in striped crosswalks, especially ones with flashing lights, no matter what the traffic signal shows. Absent a circle or roundabout, zebra crosswalks are a good beginning toward safer intersections. Is that the case in DC? If so, then it's always the driver's fault when a pedestrian in the crosswalk is hit.

However, first reports will be only an account of what happened, not who is at fault. A reporter's job is to observe, not to judge.

by Betty on Jun 2, 2009 10:33 pm • link • report

"A pedestrian always has the right of way and anyone making a turn is required to slow down and to look for others. If the victim had been jay-walking mid-block maybe she could have walked into a car, but not at an intersection."

Say what now? Last time I checked DCMR, cars were to "due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrians" (DCMR 2300.02) and that "No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb, safety platform, safety zone, loading platform, or other designated place of safety and walk or turn into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield." (DCMR 2303.02)

Now I'll agree that morally drivers need to be more forgiving to pedestrians, but there's nothing in the DCMR to my knowledge that says drivers must 100% of the time yield to pedestrians other than the general rule of thumb that you hitting someone at 25 MPH might get you a a few months in DC jail.

Now as for this case, there's a lot of investigation that still needs to be done before any conclusions are made.

by Boomhauer on Jun 2, 2009 10:34 pm • link • report

The difference with the zebra crosswalks is that the pedestrian is not required to do anything but walk. As soon as the walker steps onto the stripes, traffic must stop. It's the driver's responsibility to be watchful, not the pedestrian. Odd, and it takes a while to get drivers to comply, but a few carefully distributed tickets for violations are effective in getting compliance.

by Betty on Jun 2, 2009 11:04 pm • link • report

Betty: if it's a signalized intersection and the pedestrian faces a WALK signal, then what you said is true. However, if the ped is facing a DON'T WALK signal, then they are required to wait, and can't just go walking willy-nilly into the intersection.

Whichever is the case here isn't clear...just not enough information to go on.

by Froggie on Jun 3, 2009 6:41 am • link • report

If the pedestrian were facing a "Don't Walk" light that means the driver was turning right on red. In that case the driver is required to come to a stop and look for both other vehicles and pedestrians.

If the driver had a green light the pedestrian had a "walk" sign most likely and the driver could see that and should look for pedestrians and if that isn't the law we're in bad shape.

Truly confusing is the arrangement like Pennsylvania Ave. There I constantly complained that the green left turn arrow for traffic southbound from 11th St. came on at exactly the time the "walk" sign came on for pedestrians. 2 people were killed by a Metro bus eventually after many near misses including myself.

Treatment of pedestrians is almost an after-thought in DC traffic planning.

This complacency with drivers doing rolling "stops" when turning right on red is dangerous and I agree with Betty some tickets would stop it.

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 3, 2009 9:47 am • link • report

Betty -- This is the general DC statute on pedestrian right-of way at crosswalks -- it's Title 50, Section 2201.28 of the DC code:

50-2201.28. Right-of-way at crosswalks.

(a) When official traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop and give the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

(b) A who has begun crossing on the "WALK" signal shall be given the right-of-way by the driver of any vehicle to continue to the opposite sidewalk or safety island, whichever is nearest.

(c) Any person convicted of failure to stop and give the right-of-way to a pedestrian or of colliding with a pedestrian shall be subject to a fine of not more than $500, or imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or both. Any person convicted of a violation of this section may be sentenced to perform community service as an alternative to, but not in addition to, any term of imprisonment authorized by this section.

(c-1) Civil fines, penalties, and fees may be imposed as alternative sanctions for any infraction of the provisions of this section, or the rules or regulations issued under the authority of this section, pursuant to Chapter 18 of Title 2. Adjudication of any infractions shall be pursuant to Chapter 18 of Title 2.

***

In addition, blind and deaf pedestrians with a cane or dog always have right of way, wherever and whenever, under DC Code Section 7-1004.

Those are just the statutes. The regs are more complex, but I don't think either the statute or regs has special provision for zebra crosswalks equaling right of way for pedestrians at all times.

by Eileen on Jun 3, 2009 10:19 am • link • report

Tom: there are cases where pedestrians face either a flashing or continuous DON'T WALK signal, but vehicle traffic still has a green. Not sure if that's the situation in this specific case, but even in the District, cases exist where the vehicle would have right-of-way but the pedestrian wouldn't.

by Froggie on Jun 3, 2009 12:28 pm • link • report

I walked over to look at the intersection this morning and it has one of the notorious turn arrows of death. Same turn arrow that killed pedestrians at 11th and Penn. Also there is no walk/don't walk sign.

Of course normal people assume that when a green turn arrow comes on DOT has done it's minimum job and assured that no pedestrians may be crossing via a don't walk sign. (On Pa. Ave. the walk signs would come on at the same time a green turn arrow would come on instructing drivers to plow into them).

Realizing this requires an IQ north of 80, I'm still hopeful that after so many deaths DOT will do something about these deadly turn arrows.

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 3, 2009 2:08 pm • link • report

Flashing red arrow means to stop before turning. Green arrow means keep going. Changing arrow to red is a start. Green turn arrow along with Walk sign is incompetent design.

by Betty on Jun 3, 2009 2:35 pm • link • report