Tag Archives: injured pedestrians

Animal Issues

For Worcester: Zero Pedestrian Deaths!

20160902_140805-1
In Piedmont: Painting faded Worcester crosswalks guides pedestrians – and drivers! pic:R.T.

By Gordon Davis

The City of Boston has recently lowered the speed limit for streets in its “urban areas” – which include business districts and residential dwellings with less than 100 feet between dwellings for a distance of at least one-eighth of a mile. The reason for this law is to reduce accidents and pedestrian deaths.

The Boston City Council and Boston representatives in the State House were concerned about drivers using local Boston roads as short cuts around State and Federal highways.

In Massachusetts during the last three years of record keeping there have been 75 pedestrian deaths by automobiles. The issue also affects Worcester. The last pedestrian death in Worcester was Patricia LeMay who was killed on July 14, 2016.

Governor Charlie Baker signed into law an amendment to Bill H 4331 which allows cities and town to lower the default speed limit from 30 miles per hours to 25 miles per hours in urban areas.

This means that the Worcester City Council can bypass the entire Home Rule bureaucracy and by majority vote lower the speed limit for most streets in Worcester to 25 miles per hour.

Worcester too should strive to have zero pedestrian deaths or death of bicyclists or children at play. Lowering the speed limit not only reduces the number of accidents, but it also increases the likelihood of pedestrian survival.

Most pedestrians are relatively poorer people or disabled in some way – or both.

Getting the Worcester City Council to do something against drivers might be like trying to get Congress to pass gun control. No driver wants to give up the right to make pedestrians get out of his way. I am reminded of the complaint against a city of Worcester high ranking employee who was accused of using profanity and a racial slur as he was exiting the Worcesyer City Hall garage.

To some extent it is also a racial issue as even Trump acknowledges there are racial economic disparities. Besides not having cars and walking, many poorer people live within the definition of urban areas as found in the Bill H. 4331.

Given these facts on the ground, it is unlikely that the Worcester City Council will enact an emergency ordinance like they did with the dirt bikes.

I am pretty sure cars kill more people than dirt bikes. The dirt bike riders were mostly Hispanic young men.

Dirt bikes are certainly a nuisance, but the way the ordinance was enforced raises civil liberties issues.

It is also unlikely that a champion will come forward on this speed limit issue like councillor Rosen has done for the doggies’ owners.

The first step for safer reduced speed streets in Worcester is to have public hearings by the City Council. The councilor this task would naturally fall to is Councilor Kate Toomey, chair of the Public Safety Committee. However, given the social economic class of motorists as a group, no one on our City Council will most likely do anything. Many in City Council will repeat the mantra, “The City police dept. is doing a good job. We should not question what they do. Chief Sargent meets with Crime Watch groups. We are not racist.”

This is the time to lower the speed limit in urban areas and make the effort to attain the goal of zero pedestrian deaths!

InCity Voices

City Councilor Mike Gaffney Plays Roulette with Public Safety

By Gordon Davis

Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) is an engineering college here in Worcester. It is known worldwide for its engineering programs and graduates.

WPI has an urban campus (Institute Road) with public streets. Like many cities in the USA, the drivers in Worcester drive aggressively and arrogantly. Some drivers just go too fast for our streets.

In Worcester there is about one incident a week where a motorist strikes a pedestrian. Half of the incidents are hit and runs. Some result in the pedestrian’s death.

Last week a driver struck an older person on Shrewsbury Street. A long-time resident of Worcester said in a letter to the local newspaper that she was afraid to cross the streets of Worcester as some drivers go “50, 60 or 70” miles per hour.

My wife and I were almost struck by a speeding car as we entered the cross walk at the Marine Corp. League.

crosswalk signal
Crosswalk signal. photo: Gordon Davis

The cross walk signal was blinking bright yellow. It seemed that the motorist sped up!

It is my opinion that when a motorist strikes a pedestrian, he should receive an automatic $500 fine – regardless of fault. This would help remind motorists they MUST, in all cases, yield to pedestrians – or stop for pedestrians in some situations.

This issue of pedestrians and public safety is a serious one. People are dying. It should not be a political football. The crosswalk signals being requested by WPI should be built. These are public streets for which the City and the Worcester City Council are responsible.

Is money a higher priority than public safety and our lives?  

Worcester City Councilor Michael T. Gaffney, like many others, seems to think so. We have a situation where Councilor Gaffney will delay or not expedite a public safety issue that has come before the Worcester City Council because he wants WPI to pay for all the crosswalk signals.

Some people seem to believe that pedestrians have no rights – except to get out of the way of a speeding vehicle!
 
I was told that a few folks were angry that I criticized the Majority Leader of the Massachusetts State Senate, Harriet Chandler, for her proposed bill to fine pedestrians who jaywalked. They were especially irked by my suggestion that motorists be automatically fined for striking pedestrians.

A pedestrian, when struck by a car, does not harm the motorist. The pedestrian never gets up and runs away from the scene of the accident.

Councilor Gaffney has previously made statements contrary to public safety. At a mayoral debate he stated that when a motorist strikes a pedestrian, the motorist suffers emotional anguish. He said nothing about the pedestrian’s pain and suffering!

So, as stated above, we have a situation where Councilor Gaffney will delay or not expedite a public safety issue because he wants WPI to pay for it. WPI already makes payment to the City of Worcester in lieu of taxes (PILOT). If Gaffney believes that WPI should pay more in PILOT to the City of Worcester then that can be negotiated. However, to hold as hostage or leverage an issue of public safety such as cross walk signals makes no sense and is playing roulette with our lives.  

A reasonable person could conclude that Gaffney is using this issue to further his rumored career move to the State Senate. If so, shame on him for endangering the lives of Worcester residents and the public.

A reasonable person would install the cross walk signals now and negotiate a possible increase of WPI’s payment in lieu of taxes later.

Unfortunately, I do not know of many people who think Councilor Gaffney is a reasonable person.

Green Island Grrrl, Rosalie's Blog

Go, Gordon Davis, GO!!!!!

stop the war on the poor
Winter 2012

Stop the War on the Poor

By Gordon Davis
 
In November 2015 the Worcester “leaders” ‘ war on the poor was dealt a defeat. The Federal Appeals Court ruled that both of Worcester’s ordinances designed to curb panhandling were unconstitutional. 

Panhandling or the asking for help in public is a form of speech and is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The Worcester ordinances were championed by Mayor Joseph Petty and Worcester City Councilor Michael Gaffney.  

Bill Coleman, the third mayoral candidate, did not advocate the use of state power against the poor. Sorry, Bill, but you and I know that nice guys and those who speak truth to power don’t usually finish first.

This is the ruling regarding begging on a traffic island by Judge Hillman. (Federal Appeal Court):

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
 
1. the City of Worcester’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 79) is denied; and
 
2. the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 82) is granted as follows10:
 
 
a. The City of Worcester Revised Ordinances of 2008, as amended through September 1, 201511, ch. 9, § 16 (Aggressive Begging, Soliciting and Panhandling) is unconstitutional in its entirety; and
 
b. The following provision contained in City of Worcester Revised Ordinances of 2008, as amended through September 1, 2015, ch. 13, § 77(a)(Crossing Ways or Roadways) is unconstitutional:
 
“No person shall, after having been given due notice warning by a police officer, persist in walking or standing on any traffic island or upon the roadway of any street or highway, except for the purpose of crossing the roadway at an intersection or designated crosswalk or for the purpose of entering or exiting a vehicle at the curb or for some other lawful purpose. Any police officer observing any person violating this provision may request or order such person the remove themselves from such roadway or traffic island and may arrest such person if they fail to comply with such request or order.”

Judge Hillman made it plain that he did not want to rule against the City, but his bosses in Supreme Court remanded it back to him with instructions to look at the Supreme Court ruling on the Lowell anti-panhandling ordinances. The Lowell ordinances were copied from Worcester ordinances – even down to the typos.

Judge Hillman tried to give the City some wiggle room when ruling the ordinance as unconstitutional.

He said he could rule on a more restrictive prohibition of anti-handling, such as no panhandling or sign holding on the rotary (that did not have crosswalks). Newton Square and Washington Square were specifically mentioned.

Please note that connection of the free speech of panhandlers and when they could be arrested by the police is now void.

This lack of police and City authority will likely present a problem for Judge Pellegrino, District Attorney Joseph Early and City Manager Ed Augustus in the Kelly Square 4 case. (It may be time for DA Early to think about dropping the charges.)

This war on the poor in Worcester goes back at least 10 years when the Worcester City Council wanted to penalize people who helped the poor and make the beggars go somewhere else. A group called “Real Solutions,” which had Kevin Ksen as its main driving force, was formed. Its slogan of “Target Poverty and Not People” is still relevant today.  It is not a surprise that Ksen was retaliated against by the City of Worcester for his activities with BlackLives Matter.

I am sure the folks who hate the poor, the beggars and the dark-skinned people will continue with their schemes to deny us our constitutional rights using the pretext of safety or beautification or something else.

There is some talk that the Worcester City Council will go into closed session to discuss a new war on the poor. I hope this does not happen. There is no need for a closed session. Just stop this war. Stop sending us to jail for unconstitutional pretext.

**********
Drivers, Pedestrians and City Politics

By Gordon Davis
 
One of the issues debated by the Worcester mayoral candidates at Mechanics Hall during the election cycle was public safety. It came up several times in regards to crime, gangs and panhandling.

What never came up for discussion was pedestrian safety.

There has been what seems to be an increase in the number of pedestrians hit by cars and killed in Worcester. Just recently a pedestrian was killed on Chandler Street – he was hit by TWO vehicles.

We pedestrians have to worry about a lot when crossing Worcester streets. I am legally blind. I am dependent on cross walks and signaled pedestrian crossings to get around the City. Not only those with disabilities are dependent on cross walks and pedestrian crossing signals; many abled people need them to just walk from place to place.  Just look at the intersection of Foster and Front streets.

Recently, I was assaulted and battered by the occupant of a car that nearly ran me down at the intersection of Lake Ave. and Sunderland Road. I called the driver a “fucking asshole” and I continued to cross the street. A man from the car got out, followed me across the street, and hit me with a soda bottle.  There was a witness who called the police. We gave the police the license plate, but so far nothing has happened. I don’t think it is being taken seriously.

Pedestrians have become second class citizens in Worcester.

According to Massachusetts statutes drivers are required to YIELD to pedestrians, especially in cross walks and when there is a pedestrian signal activated.

It has been my experience that many drivers making turns on red do not even look for pedestrians. This is the case about half of the time at Lake Ave. and Sunderland Road. Even my sighted wife is hesitant to cross that intersection.

Some drivers do not look for pedestrians. Other drivers see pedestrians, but refuse to yield.

It is clear that City officials do not think this to be a serious issue, despite the numerous pedestrian injuries and deaths.

It seems the Worcester police will bend over backwards not to charge a driver with pedestrian accidents, instead looking to see whether the pedestrian was at fault.

I found it almost laughable, if it were not so sad, at the mayoral debate that Mayor Petty and Councilor Gaffney defended the anti panhandling ordinance based on the so called safety issue. It is especially remarkable that Councilor Gaffney had sympathy for the “mother and child” whose car strikes and kills a panhandler, as mother and child’s lives would be made miserable. Councilor Gaffney did not have the same sympathy for the panhandler. I am happy that candidate Bill Coleman did not get caught in that trap and spoke of helping homeless people.

There should be new legislation that makes it clearer that turning right on red through an activated pedestrian cross walk signal is prohibited.

Violations of this new statute would precipitate automatic tickets and at fault status. The penalties should be high enough to get the driving public to pay attention and yield to pedestrians.

To some extent there is a low-income and racial element to pedestrian deaths on Massachusetts and Worcester streets. Low-income people and a large proportion of so-called minority people do not have cars and are compelled to take buses and walk. Like with many issues in Worcester, we are not taken seriously.

This has to change. 

Green Island Grrrl, Rosalie's Blog

Go, Gordon Davis, go!!!

Drivers, Pedestrians and Worcester Politicians
 
By Gordon Davis

One of the issues debated by the mayoral candidates at Mechanics Hall recently was public safety. It came up several times in regards to crime, gangs and panhandling. What never came up for discussion was pedestrian safety. There has been what seems to be an increase in the number of pedestrians hit by cars and killed in Worcester. Just recently a pedestrian was killed on Lincoln Street by a driver charged with DUI.

However, it is not only DUI drivers we pedestrians have to worry about. I am legally blind, and I am dependent on cross walks and signaled pedestrian crossings to get around the city. Not only those with disabilities are dependent on cross walks and pedestrian crossing signals; many able people need them to just walk from place to place.  Just look at the intersection of Foster and Front streets.

Recently, I was assaulted and battered by the occupant of a car that nearly ran me down at the intersection of Lake Ave. and Sunderland Road. I called the driver a “fucking asshole” and I continued to cross the street. A man from the car got out, followed me across the street and hit me with a soda bottle.  There was a witness who called the police. We gave the police the license plate, but so far nothing has happened. I don’t think it is being taken seriously.

Pedestrians have become second-class citizens in Worcester. 
 
According to Massachusetts statutes, drivers are required to YIELD to pedestrians, especially in cross walks and when there is a pedestrian signal activated. 
 
It has been my experience that many drivers making turns on red lights do not even look for pedestrians. This is the case about half of the time at Lake Ave. and Sunderland Road. Even my sighted wife is hesitant to cross that intersection.

Some drivers do not look for pedestrians. Other drivers see pedestrians but refuse to yield. It is clear that city officials do not think this to be a serious issue, despite the numerous pedestrian injuries and deaths in Worcester. It seems that the police will bend over backwards not to charge a driver with pedestrian accidents, instead looking to see whether the pedestrian was at fault.

I found it almost laughable, if it were not so sad, at the mayoral debate that Mayor Petty and Councilor Gaffney defended Worcester’s anti-panhandling ordinance based on the so called safety issue. It’s especially remarkable that Councilor Gaffney had sympathy for the “mother and child” whose car strikes and kills a panhandler as mother and child’s lives would be made miserable. Councilor Gaffney did not have the same sympathy for the panhandler. I am happy that candidate Coleman did not get caught in that trap and spoke of helping homeless people.

There should be new legislation that makes it clearer that turning right on red through an activated pedestrian cross walk signal is prohibited. Violations of this new statute would precipitate automatic tickets and at fault status. The penalties should be high enough to get the driving public to pay attention and yield to pedestrians.
 
To some extent there is a low-income and racial element to pedestrian deaths on Massachusetts and Worcester streets. Low-income people and a large proportion of so called minority people do not have cars and are compelled to take busses and walk. Like with many issues in Worcester, we are not taken seriously. This has to change.