TC1

One cannot ever call the road engineer negligent due to a user crashing from speeding. Because, as I said, it is not possible or desirable to build roads that cannot be sped upon.

TC1

No, they don't -- as a number of 'experts' have observed, in this case and others.

But that said, since you so sure of your claim, what would be negligent homicide if this isn't? Where is the threshold, if -- as you claim -- it is somewhere above driving through a peloton of cyclists at 50 mph, and not even touching the brakes until a quarter-mile down the road, while dragging at least one victim most of that distance? And then lying to investigators about the circumstances? All while high.

Arizona legislators wrote that negligent homicide law for a reason, so it must apply to some situation.

Explain what situation it could possibly apply to, if not this one.

tomato coupe

The district attorney understands what legally constitutes negligence (and what it takes to convict someone), whereas you want to apply your own definition. If you're unhappy with the existing laws, lobby to have them changed -- don't criticize the prosecutors that are operating within the rules of the present system.

RCMoeur 

The West Valley Cycling Club (the club whose members were struck in this incident) were out in force at this morning's Tour De Cure held in the same area (but not using the roadway where the crash occurred). Good to see.

TC1

I specifically said that the laws are fine. The problem is that the indolent prosecutor -- a view I share with the victims and their families, by the way -- is simply too lazy to do their job.

Again, I invite you to describe a scenario that would be negligent homicide and/or exactly what required evidence you believe is unavailable to the prosecutor in this case.

And, since you are clearly unaware, it's not that hard to convict on negligent homicide in Arizona: https://tucson.com/news/local/jury-c...05af697a3.html Almost the same circumstances as the Goodyear crash, except not involving cyclists, and only one victim -- who was well-connected, and therefore, the prosecutor could be arsed to do their job.

base2 

Except for all the places globally that got safer to make driving safer on a global level. Which jives with the link you originally posted that you incorrectly used to infer that US driving had somehow become safer.


Like it or not it is the most recent data we have. You can't simply dismiss the data's existence because it doesn't fit a particular narrative. COVID happened and it affected humanity in a number of ways. Through any number of mechanisms, people's driving behaviour, evidently one of them. Your entire argument seems to be: "Only the data that I want to include is the only data that counts and that data only says what I want it to mean. Data that doesn't agree with my motivated reasoning doesn't count." Cognitive dissonance at it's finest.

You are aware that if you build a matrix with the "x" axis having 3 demarcations of severity: "insignificant," "serious," & "catastrophic" Then you demarcate the "Y" axis as levels of frequency: "Rare," "sometimes," & "common." That you have now built 9 classes that cover all possible traffic incidents, correct?

The complete and total lack of enforcement efforts has removed all consequences (outcomes) from the common/insignificant consequences block (ie: traffic tickets) and owing to excessive speed and misuse of wide flat American road design has moved the negative outcomes towards the common/catastrophic block of the outcome matrix. We see this in the American traffic fatality data.

So yeah. There can be both no consequences for bad behaviour and catastrophic consequences in the form of fatality incidents. All incidents & potential incidents fit on the same matrix. It's a matter of where. You need not be so obtuse in your intentional misreading. I gave you apparently undeserved credit for being a competent, thinking person.

And the data in the rest of the world suggests that US style infrastructure is dangerous and easily misused.

You asked me to explain why the 2017 US and België data were the same. I explained that the data was the same because at the time they used the same basic infrastructure design.

Then you link an article that explains the 20-whatever divergence:
Great. This is what I want. This style and change to actual good road and street design, urban design, these planning models. This type of design yields lower traffic deaths than the now even worse and further along the divergent path that the US models have taken.
For the record: I don't claim to go to Brussels often. I claimed to go there once in 2019 at the tail end of the data period you site and before all the current changes that made an improvement in the pedestrian and traffic deaths.

The good designs I refer to are the changes that everywhere else in the world, Belgium included has adopted to make driving and cycling and walking safer. Changes the US traffic designers and urban planners need to make. You are trying really hard to make me the enemy, here. You are coming at me as if I am some sort of establishment first, patriotic American fool. I assure you that is not the case. American road design killed the people in this peleton. Good road design would have prevented it.

If the users can misuse a product then that product is poorly designed. It's one of those first principals sort of things. A big. problem is we have streets designed as roads and roads used as streets. This needs to change if America is to change the traffic and pedestrian death trend. Streets and roads are 2 different types of product with different use criteria. But if course, you already knew that.

Except for the places outside of America that do and have. All the places that top the list in pedestrian and traffic fatality reduction. Seriously, using examples of terrorism to make a point undermines whatever point you are trying to make. What next, Hitler did/used/liked "x" like the good ol' days of AOL? Grow up.

Yep.. It was rural. The very definition of low density of land use design that requires automobile useage to function in society. It was also a road which is defined as a high speed connection between two points with limited entrance and exit opportunity. A properly designed road would have a separation barrier between uses. We can discuss easy and cheap ways to implement a separation of uses if you'd care to actually learn ways this peloton tragedy could be avoided.

And the traffic engineer and the urban planner that set the stage and the gameboard into play. Then you have the operator who operates within the confines of environment presented.


By citing terrorism: The last effort of a desperate man.

Oh, yes. I do understand your desperation to somehow be right. I'm going to leave this conversation here. I have no further inclination to discuss the matter with you further.

Have a nice day.

TC1

Again, as I already explained to you, you are the only one here misguidedly fixated on rates-of-change. I did not speak about any rate of change.

Again, learn thing-one about statistics before continuing. Pandemic data is not dismissed because it doesn't fit a narrative, it is dismissed because it is corrupted by many variables that cannot be controlled for.

No, we do not find support for your hypothesis. https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-ve.../introduction/ among others, which show the decline in motor vehicle deaths until the Pandemic -- at which time, as I've already patiently explained to you, a number of uncontrolled variables come into play, such as drastic reductions in public transport, and serious issues for first response medical care, among others.

Again, your blathering is unsupported by the facts of the situation. https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-ve...sues/speeding/



Again, no, as I already explained. The rest of the world's roads are more dangerous than the US', on average. Why are you incapable of understanding this?


Why then do these designs not accomplish that anywhere that they have been tried?

No, I am "coming at you" as if you have no idea what you are talking about -- because your comments illustrate that over and over again.

This is fantastic nonsense -- as I already explained to you. You cannot design roads to prevent a motor vehicle operator from killing others, and I provided with you a number of examples to help you understand this simple point.

A dangerous driver killed those people in Arizona. Not an engineer.

None of which matters without driver training and enforcement -- both of which are vastly cheaper than rebuilding the entire country.

There is no meaningful difference between the driver who plowed through the Arizona peloton and the many examples of drivers in Europe plowing through groups of people. Yet you continue to claim that all of those events can be prevented by design, despite the fact that your "good designs" precisely did not prevent any of those European incidents.

If you cannot understand that, you may want to discontinue here. Either way, you'll want to stop resorting to pathetic insult.

Finally, it reads.

Clearly not, since 20-odd people were happily cycling through that area on the fateful day in question.

It's a bridge.

Okay, go ahead. Explain how you are going to separate all road users by type, everywhere. This will be riot.

Explain the precise difference between the Arizona killer and any of those European terrorists.

Runaway! Better luck next time -- but do your homework first.