jpd80 Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 Those bright lights seem to be pointed down as the dash cam showed the lady and her bike only two seconds before the crash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 Let's ignore the fact that the woman is 100% at fault for getting herself run over. The woman ignored this sign telling pedestrians not to cross Mill Avenue where she did. That action was unfortunately deadly for her. But as you mentioned, 100% her fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 The woman ignored this sign telling pedestrians not to cross Mill Avenue where she did. That action was unfortunately deadly for her. But as you mentioned, 100% her fault. If you have to put up a sign, that usually means you have a large issue with people crossing where you don't want them too. Looking at the Ariel photo you have decretive paths that cross the median that look like cross points, It is very poor road design. You have designed something that looks like a crosswalk and then go, no you shouldn't cross here. Removing the brick and making it more natural people are more apt to use the designated crosswalk at the signal. There is too little resistance when you have a design like this to discourage mid-block crossings. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Why is that sign facing the road? Wouldn't it make more sense to turn it around so that people could see it when they need to instead of after they have already crossed the road? It's quite possible she didn't even see that sign. There's the blame...whomever put that sign up facing the wrong direction. BAM! Lawsuit! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) Why is that sign facing the road? Wouldn't it make more sense to turn it around so that people could see it when they need to instead of after they have already crossed the road? It's quite possible she didn't even see that sign. There's the blame...whomever put that sign up facing the wrong direction. BAM! Lawsuit! Its on the median, facing the people that would cross, to the paved crossing with a streetlight on it. But don't cross here..... Its also the issue with HPS streetlights, they don't produce a good light to see color difference. https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4362927,-111.9424451,3a,75y,303.42h,62.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4fS1O8O3KI3F7Tw5Mip-ww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 Edited March 23, 2018 by jasonj80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Its on the median, facing the people that would cross, to the paved crossing with a streetlight on it. But don't cross here..... Its also the issue with HPS streetlights, they don't produce a good light to see color difference. https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4362927,-111.9424451,3a,75y,303.42h,62.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4fS1O8O3KI3F7Tw5Mip-ww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 That can't be seen well enough at night from across the street. Side note, ain't Google Street View awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Side note, ain't Google Street View awesome! It is Amazing, between it and Google earth has made looking at things so much easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Its on the median, facing the people that would cross, to the paved crossing with a streetlight on it. But don't cross here..... Its also the issue with HPS streetlights, they don't produce a good light to see color difference. https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4362927,-111.9424451,3a,75y,303.42h,62.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4fS1O8O3KI3F7Tw5Mip-ww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 Given the lack of lighting conditions and the blackness she was in,there's no way that she could have read the sign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Its also the issue with HPS streetlights, they don't produce a good light to see color difference. Yes sir, HPS lamps have a low color rendering index. A lot of people dislike HPS for this reason. Like many other cities, Tempe has been replacing HPS streetlights with LED and magnetic induction lamps, and will continue doing so over the next 4-5 years. http://www.tempe.gov/city-hall/public-works/transportation/energy-efficient-led-streetlights The new streetlights should improve safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, and also reduce light pollution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Given the lack of lighting conditions and the blackness she was in,there's no way that she could have read the sign. But the headlights of the car should have been visible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 But the headlights of the car should have been visible. No, no, no!!! It must be somebody else’s fault! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) But the headlights of the car should have been visible.Well heres a clue, they werent lighting up where she was crossing,maybe that threw off her judgements of the distance thinking she had more time Hell of a spot to cross and must be an issue for local authorities, maybe fences go up now Not so much about whos fault this was as much as what could have been done To prevent the tragedy 1. Dont cross there, girl makes better choice and crosses somewhere else 2. authorities put up fences and barricades to physically stop people 24/7 2. Human observer does hi job and watches the road 3. Observer switches headlights to high beam 4. On high beam observer sees girl before AV does and reacts. Edited March 23, 2018 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) not disagreeing with you Akirby, Ive seen people do the most inexplicable things And then try to blame everyone else Edited March 23, 2018 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) Im all for people taking responsibility but equally others have a duty of care to protect people from themselves and to avoid situations like this by doing more than just putting up a sign that cant be seen at night. Edited March 23, 2018 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKX1960 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 40 in a 45 was what the police report said I believe. "Police have said the Volvo had a video camera that recorded the crash. The Volvo was traveling about 40 mph and made no visible attempt to brake in the video, Elcock said. The speed limit in the area is 35 mph". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Maybe if the "driver" of the car was paying attention instead of texting he / she could have maybe swerved a bit to the left and possible missed her. Why does everybody think that texting while behind the wheel is OK? The "driver" is just as much at fault as the woman that got killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Maybe if the "driver" of the car was paying attention instead of texting he / she could have maybe swerved a bit to the left and possible missed her. Why does everybody think that texting while behind the wheel is OK? The "driver" is just as much at fault as the woman that got killed. Holy freaking $hit! So pedestrians can just step out in front of a moving vehicle and expect the driver to avoid them regardless? Seriously? Come on man, that's just idiotic thinking! Blame the headlights! Blame the driver for texting! Blame the car for going too fast! Blame the sign! Blame the engineers who designed the road! Blame the sun for going down too soon! Blame whatever the hell you feel like, but dammit, don't expect someone to look before stepping out in front of a car. Good grief people! This is a snippet of what is wrong with society today. Take responsibility for your actions! It's really sad the woman is dead, but I'm glad the cops have found no wrongdoing on the part of the driver or the car. Yes, he should have been paying more attention and maybe the woman would have lived, but she died due to her own negligence. The driver is going to have to live with this the rest of his life, too. Not only did her actions lead to her death, but now another person is going to live with those nightmares and guilt forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 LOL Texting while driving is illegal is it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harley Lover Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Regardless of the fault of the pedestrian, the technology failed completely. The Volvo didn't brake, didn't swerve, didn't react at all to the pedestrian - it just plowed right into her. And she didn't "step out in front of the car", she was already 1 1/2 lanes across the road when the Volvo struck her. The technology failed to recognize a pedestrian who was already well in the road before the arrival of the vehicle - she didn't "step out in front of the car". Thankfully we have the video that shows exactly where she was and how much progress she had made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 LOL Texting while driving is illegal is it not? I understand what you're saying about a person MAYBE being able to swerve if they were paying attention, but that's a big Maybe given how quickly the person came into view. It's not like she was 50 yards away. Even glancing down at the speedometer or at the radio display for a split second would be enough to miss her in front of the car until it was too late. We teach 5 year olds to look before crossing the street and there is no way to miss a SUV with headlights at 10 pm heading towards you. There is only so much you can do to prevent people from doing stupid things and killing themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coupe3w Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) I understand what you're saying about a person MAYBE being able to swerve if they were paying attention, but that's a big Maybe given how quickly the person came into view. It's not like she was 50 yards away. Even glancing down at the speedometer or at the radio display for a split second would be enough to miss her in front of the car until it was too late. We teach 5 year olds to look before crossing the street and there is no way to miss a SUV with headlights at 10 pm heading towards you. There is only so much you can do to prevent people from doing stupid things and killing themselves. The finding holds implications for traffic safety. Each dashed line measures 10 feet, and the empty spaces in-between measure 30 feet. So every time a car passes a new dashed line, the car has traveled 40 feet. So looking at the video again you can see the ladies shoes at about 60-80 feet away. I think that at 38 MPH you would have some time to react some what. Opinions? Edited March 23, 2018 by coupe3w Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Texting while driving is illegal is it not? Not in Arizona sir. Arizona is one of two U.S. states where texting and driving is not illegal. Montana is the other. Missouri makes it illegal only for drivers 21 years or younger. http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/cellular-phone-use-and-texting-while-driving-laws.aspx City of Tempe has an ordinance regarding distracted driving. It does not ban texting while driving, but drivers can be fined if "if police catch them swerving within their lane or displaying other types of erratic driving with a phone in their hand". https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2015/09/25/tempe-oks-toughest-texting-and-driving-law-arizona/72754156/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 The finding holds implications for traffic safety. Each dashed line measures 10 feet, and the empty spaces in-between measure 30 feet. So every time a car passes a new dashed line, the car has traveled 40 feet. So looking at the video again you can see the ladies shoes at about 60-80 feet away. I think that at 38 MPH you would have some time to react some what. Opinions? No way that's 60-80 feet. 40-50 at best. And about 1.5 seconds. IMO 90% of drivers would not have been able to avoid the collision even if they were paying attention. Had the technology worked in either a driver or driverless vehicle at least the speed would have been greatly reduced. Everybody should agree on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 LOL Texting while driving is illegal is it not? I understand what you're saying about a person MAYBE being able to swerve if they were paying attention, but that's a big Maybe given how quickly the person came into view. It's not like she was 50 yards away. Even glancing down at the speedometer or at the radio display for a split second would be enough to miss her in front of the car until it was too late. We teach 5 year olds to look before crossing the street and there is no way to miss a SUV with headlights at 10 pm heading towards you. There is only so much you can do to prevent people from doing stupid things and killing themselves. ^^^ This! Regardless of the fault of the pedestrian, the technology failed completely. The Volvo didn't brake, didn't swerve, didn't react at all to the pedestrian - it just plowed right into her. And she didn't "step out in front of the car", she was already 1 1/2 lanes across the road when the Volvo struck her. The technology failed to recognize a pedestrian who was already well in the road before the arrival of the vehicle - she didn't "step out in front of the car". Thankfully we have the video that shows exactly where she was and how much progress she had made. Yes, the technology failed, that I can agree with. I would think that the sensors should have 'seen' her and reacted, but they didn't for some reason. OK, so she didn't 'step' out in front of the car, she walked out in front of it. Is there a difference? You can say she was 1.5 lanes across the road, but you are completely neglecting the fact that a car with headlights is much easier to see than a pedestrian in the dark of night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Bike also should have had proper reflectors in the wheels.Also depended on the state and local laws Pedestrians can always have right of way. In Ann Arbor for instance you are required to stop for a pedestrian WHERE EVER they want to cross, cross walk or not. This is actually being debated currently. http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2017/09/debate_over_ann_arbors_crosswa_1.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.