IronTiger

A silly argument is that jaywalking is okay because the auto industry made it a finable offense (because apparently in your mind anything the auto industry does = bad, evil), and when others point out any flaws in your arguments which you keep repeating (because that apparently makes them true) you chimp out and start making even more worthless arguments (in mocking a human tragedy, that would be like "You deserved to die if you went to work to the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001"). That was why I suggested that you delete it to save face and prevent yourself looking like a tactless buffoon, which many HAIFers have already come to accept. As for your last statement, it's difficult to gauge that since so many of your "observations" conveniently line up with your line of thinking, even if it's not true (like, "I never see anyone walking under the Pierce Elevated"). It's pretty worthless to continue this at this point, since we've already gotten to the point where your tired, pre-set arguments about how cars and freeways are the root of all evil, and gone straight into the insult territory, at least veiled insult territory. I'll leave you alone in the echo chamber now.

You know that it's an attack, don't play games with me. As for this incredulity about death, if the data shows its 70% jaywalking, and barring some rare incidents (driver runs off the road, someone pushed onto the street) that's pretty telling. These things are a case by case basis, of course, but a lot of these things can be prevented with common sense on the pedestrian's part.

Add "ad hominem attack" to list of fallacies, too! If not an ad hominem attack, it's certainly tactless and if you want to save face in this "argument"/avoid any potential repercussions, I suggest you edit your post while you still have the chance.

Lack of infrastructure doesn't apply if people are jaywalking, unless you want to put up fences (which is what some bar districts have done). Since the data didn't mention comparisons to wealthier neighborhoods or roads with higher speeds, if it is poorer neighborhoods where jaywalking is done, it might be because people in poor neighborhoods might not have had the education to not cross the road at any time they please. However, because that runs counter-intuitive to your pre-set idea that it's always the driver's fault, that clearly can't be the solution. Again, you have this idea that it's never the pedestrian's fault, ever, while making stuff up like jaywalking rules are bad because the auto industry pushed for it (even if that's true that doesn't make it automatically wrong), or that drivers run over pedestrians because they like it (which is false most of the time and you know it) Let's take a look at the fallacies used by you, for instance... Fallacy of the single cause (higher speeds only causes death) Moral high ground fallacy (should be noted in previous posts) Post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that freeways caused deterioration of neighborhoods when that's not necessarily the case always--Harrisburg continued to decline, for instance) Poisoning the well (using your hatred of the auto industry to discredit jaywalking)

The facts are that most of the deaths are jaywalking related, and you've given excuses how there should be no personal responsibility involved and instead try to use extremism and fallacies to argue this.

Please don't take the high ground again and tell me I'm ignorant and need to "accept reality". Everything you've said concerns more of punishing drivers than actually stopping pedestrian deaths, and when anyone tries to talk about jaywalking, you've given nonsense rhetoric like "You're just brainwashed by the auto industry" or "You want to run down and kill people".

That movie was profiled on CinemaSins yesterday, actually.

Yes, chili is bastardized outside of Texas. I am mostly a purist, I like beans, but anything with corn in it is already too far away. The Feb/2011 issue of Bon Appetit, "The United States of Chili" opens with a horrifying greenish mixtures with potatoes and pork with a dark purplish blob on top of it. I was revolted by what those heathens in say, Ohio, considered "chili".

The report says that the ped/driver fatalities involved 15,232 deaths at non-intersection points. At intersections or intersection-related, that's around 5,000. As for the "arterials through poor neighborhoods because FREEWAYS", the data doesn't actually mention that, it was some irrelevant (and incorrect) anti-freeway bit that was added onto the article (not the report) because there are people that think the same way you do.

Yeah, but the vast majority weren't hit at intersections, which wouldn't have had crosswalks anyway.

Fiesta makes these great loaves that are larger than a bolilo but smaller than a regular loaf of bread which I if I recall correctly was their torta bread. Very very good. Between that and their cheap apple fritters, I fell in love with Fiesta last spring. Unfortunately, Fiesta isn't around up here in the northwestern wastelands.

Yeah, except Culberson was a few decades away from holding office and DeLay was beginning his career. To blame something from the mid-80s on lack of rail, much less politicians from years later, is laughable.

In lots of areas in America, jaywalking laws aren't enforced, but that still doesn't say anything about personal responsibility.

The term has been in use since the 1800s before cars (and you'd read about people being hit by horses). And even if it wasn't illegal, it would still be an issue of personal responsibility.

Yup. So, according to the data, 69% of the deaths were at non-intersections, and on the front, we have a few people jaywalking. Jaywalking is, of course, not a misdemeanor but can be penalized at a fine not more than $200. If we could prevent jaywalking (in which it is the pedestrian's fault), we could prevent nearly 70% of pedestrian/vehicular deaths! The question would be then, why is jaywalking more prominent in poorer areas?

Buddy...when you post an article on any forum, you're essentially opening it for the debate. There are some forums, where you can post or say something, and you'll get "Hear hear! That's right!" but that's not gonna work in an Internet forum elsewhere. Did you expect us to instantly convert? And when someone questions the logic and reasoning enough you just give up and tell me figuratively to go to hell? Why? And if your answer and logic is the pre-determined "freeways are evil and I must find articles that back this up", why bring up the article at all if you're just going to shut down any opposition?

Ah, no. You went to college, right? Did you take a statistics class? If not (or if you slept through it), you should know about Confounding variables.

Higher speed arterials literally exist everywhere in cities, even in cities with less reliance on freeways. Nowhere in that article does it suggest that. Actually, it does say that, but it's not a "consequence" that higher speed arterials run near freeways, they're everywhere, even in better neighborhoods.

OK, I read it instead of glancing over it. • It actually doesn't claim to be an "exhaustive report", those were your words. So I was right, but it wasn't the magazine's fault. • Quote: "“Practically every day,” says a clerk at the Victory Foodmart across the street, “you hear horns beeping and tires screeching.”": that indicates that people actually are paying attention and trying to stop, but it's hard to stop when someone steps out right in front of you. This seems to indicate that the roads have a problem with jaywalking. • "On top of that, Miami’s large immigrant population includes many newer arrivals who may not be accustomed to the norms of walking or driving the streets of a large American city." - another one that indicates that pedestrians need to be more careful, lack of some sort of education • "Historically, many could not fend off construction of highways and major arterial roadways the way wealthier communities did. “Low-income neighborhoods either do not have the political clout or are not galvanized to do it,” says Joshua Schank, who heads the Eno Center for Transportation. “You don’t see highways running through the Upper East Side of Manhattan.” Consequently, heavily trafficked arterial roadways with higher speed limits may run right through these poorer neighborhoods. It is along those routes where many pedestrians are hit, with slightly more than half (52 percent) of deaths occurring on arterial streets for the five years reviewed." See, here's where it gets to be irrelevant and they're dragging the anti-freeway argument here again. Most of the incidents involve surface streets which they're talking about, but freeways don't actually provide a way to get hit as they tend to elevated or depressed. • "In high-income areas, 89 percent of streets had sidewalks, while only 49 percent did in low-income areas. Marked crosswalks were found in 13 percent of high-income areas, compared to just 7 percent of streets in low-income communities. The study found similar disparities for street lighting and traffic calming devices." I would like to say that I don't think it's necessarily poorer areas, it's older areas. You see, older areas tend to be poorer, and in older areas, there's simply less pedestrian accommodations. Back when I went to Blinn College, I drove through areas that didn't have the hand/walk symbols, just a simple button to turn the light red (they were on a simple timer, and that led to abrupt stops and bad traffic jams). The curbs had a sharp drop-off which were not at all friendly to bicyclists and those with disabilities. The sidewalks were narrow. The City of Bryan has made efforts to fix it, but cities, especially larger ones, cannot fix all these problems instantly. • "Brookhaven Police Chief Gary Yandura says much of the area’s problems stem from intoxicated drivers and pedestrians leaving bars and liquor stores lining the corridor. In late June, a Hispanic man was killed and another suffered injuries in an accident after police say they left a nearby nightclub." Yup. See? It's not a "foolish counterpoint", the article actually says so!

I did. And pointing out another correlation isn't a "lowbrow tactic", and in no way did I "essentially blame them for getting mowed down", so don't put words in my mouth. What is a "hilarious but expected response" is how all this links back to your "evil freeways" schtick, because the only time you post articles is about how bad freeways are and/or how good rail is, and when someone points out a flaw in the article's reasoning you immediately switch to the moral high ground and try to shame them into agreeing with you. Furthermore, it's no an "exhaustive report" when a magazine simply points out correlations.

What about other factors? For example, poverty and alcoholism are linked--and both of those (drunk pedestrians + drunk drivers) of course cause death. Poverty and lack of education are linked as well--what if people weren't properly trained to look both ways before crossing the street? Finally, as much as your anti-freeway shtick wants to say so, freeways are designed to keep people off of them (hence why they're sunken or elevated), and thus pedestrian deaths and freeways aren't linked.

That's not too bad, I was imagining worse, like "Grover" or something. Maybe it just sounds more normal to me since I drive on (or at least cross) "Harvey Mitchell Parkway" nearly every single time I go somewhere (it is like a REAL parkway in some parts, admittedly, but only some parts)

There was one building on the way to the tunnels that as you entered, there was a wall from the original building that the newer building replaced on the wall. It would be also interesting if the 1111 Travis building did that as well, but I think that it's a bit late for that to happen at this point.

OK, now I know Editor's first name (relatively uncommon but shares it with one of the greats of hockey) but know I'm really curious of yours, like if he named you after a character on Sesame Street or something.

...OK, but how is the building doing? I want to see something better replace Macy's...and maybe have an attractive area underneath for the tunnels, too. You know, I've seen in the tunnels (somewhere) a large picture of downtown as it used to be (can't tell you where), but I'm thinking that maybe in the tunnels if they themed it with historic Foley's pictures and the like, that would be pretty cool.