"Stop for Pedestrians" alive in VA Senate, lost House by 1 vote

wrote:
On Feb 13, 10:22 pm, Matt O'Toole wrote:


To me Northampton is a model town. My brother has lived in the area for
several years. I visit for a few weeks every year, with my bike of
course.

There's good reason why it continually gets voted onto "best towns" lists.
It's a small town as cosmopolitan as any big city, like a big city
neighborhood transplanted into the country. Neato.

I think the main reason it has preserved its character is that they never
allowed the automobile to take completely over.

Nearby Amherst is a nice place too, but not nearly as nice as Northampton.
The difference is that Amherst is a typical car-town, where pedestrians
can go, while Northampton is a pedestrian town where cars can go -- like a
European city -- the kind of place Americans pay thousands of dollars for
the privilege of visiting, and dream of living in, but don't believe they
can.

I'd probably move there if the climate were more agreeable!

In any case, the rest of the US could learn a lot from Northampton. But a
lot of people won't acknowledge they could learn anything from anyone, or
that anyone else might be doing a better job.

I assume you're talking about the towns in Massachusetts, right?

So how does Northampton do it? Do you know what makes the
difference? What can be tried elsewhere?

Well I personally don't find too much difference between
Northampton and Amherst (MA). I think both towns are "car societies"
like most everywhere else in the US, but of course they are both
"college towns" which give them a bit more tranquility of life
style (except on Saturday nights when some students negatively
interact with alcohol).

Also, we're not quite so urban/suburban out here in western MA.
Towns are smaller in population and physical size. We still have
corn and potato fields and large tracks of woodland. And of course
roads that are commensurate with such a lower populated area.

I think that may be the most important component of "civility" on
the local roads. People in cars get quite rude and aggressive as
traffic congestion increases. There's really only Rt 9 between
"Noho" and Amherst that get congested.

Northampton has some very active "alternative transport" types
that participate in various committees to get bicycle/pedestrian
support from town and state. Bike lanes, bike paths, bike crossings
pedestrian crosswalks complete with peninsulas that jut out into
the road to "calm" traffic and the like.

We also now have sympathetic leaders of state and local DPWs that
don't seem adverse to maintaining alternative transport
infrastructure. This wasn't always the case.

But perhaps it's just the environment in general. More relaxed,
somewhat intellectual/green as one would expect of a college
town (and indeed area: Smith, Amherst, UMass, Mt Holyoke and
Hampshire all within perhaps 8 miles radius of one another).

I might add the police *enforce* downtown crosswalk activity.
People will stop for pedestrians in crosswalks downtown where
they will not do so further up the road!

But it's definitely a bicycling paradise, both in the general
respect you get from motorists, and the very broad range of
bicycle riding offered, on or off road.


SMH

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:16:47 -0800, wrote:

So because your friend knows that this happens to people busses, that
means it can't happen to people driving cars?

It all comes through the same courtroom, and/or the same attorneys who are
there day after day.

Even here in VA most people are for this legislation, but it's a party
line vote based on something else -- maybe another bill by this one's
patron that the Rs didn't like. That's politics. But constituent
interest can easily sway a delegate from their default party line
position.

No chance it's got something to do with some of the politicians not
liking zero-tolerance style laws, or being concerned about abuse, huh?
When did you get a chance to speak with them all about this?

Last night. My colleague from VBF has been on the floor and in committee
meetings every week since the session began.

Matt O.

wrote:
On 14 Feb, 19:16, " wrote:

Do you really think that there are drivers saying to themselves:
"Well, I'm aware of laws against motor-vehicular homicide, attempted
murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. However, I'm really in a
rush and/or feeling impatient so I'll just run over the little old
lady and child in this crosswalk. After all, there isn't a law in
place saying I specifically must stop for anyone in a crosswalk!

This is an interesting point. As I noted previously about bikes being
required to dismount at crosswalks in Norway, and some motorists
extreme adherence to that law, some people are amazingly pre-occupied
with who is legally at fault in a given situation, not what is right.

In Norway it is not a custom to shovel snow. So all areas that have
any amount of pedestrian traffic become treacherous lumpy icefields
quickly. When I discuss this with Norwegian people, and tell them that
in the US people shovel the sidewalk, they invariably claim it is only
because they will be sued otherwise. I have not come across ONE who
belives Americans shovel snow because they don't want people to get
hurt. I have asked several of my American friends why they shovel
snow, and they all say, "So an old lady won't break her hip." They
don't say, "So I don't get sued by an old lady who broke her hip."

So around here at least, some people would take a mroe cavalier
attitude to driving and hitting pedestrians were the laws less severe.

Joseph
Around here it is because the city fines you if you don't. I've never
heard the 'getting sued' argument by houseowners. I do now at least one
case where a pedestrian tried to sue the city ( justifiably I thought).

--
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada