Prince Avenue's back
This has to be the weakest and, quite frankly, most shamelessly misleading argument for renovations to Prince Avenue I have ever seen.
Ted Hafer, the owner of The Grit, was struck by a car while leaving the Daily Co-Op grocery store. It's an awful story, and fortunately Hafer was not seriously hurt and is recovering from the accident. We all wish him well.
Julie Darnell uses this accident to chastise motorists for, well, apparently obeying the existing traffic laws. A glance at the actual story reveals that witnessess said Hafer was jaywalking and, if so, was in violation of the law, meaning he was not taking advantage of the existing sidewalks or crosswalks.
I'm not quite sure of Darnell's contention that not enough stoplights exist on that road, as there two within two blocks of each other as you creep closer to downtown, and both of those locations offer safe passage for pedestrians. There are also two additional pedestrian crosswalks and the speed limit for that stretch is a reasonable 35 miles per hour (though I am willing to concede to her that it could be slowed down to, say, 25 miles per hour for the final block or two where commercial development is more bunched up).
Furthermore, what exactly does this instance prove? Not that we need additional crosswalks, particularly if Hafer, as he says, was simply trying to get into his car. If anything, this would reinforce my belief that eliminating the parking spots on the street and replacing them with bicycle lanes and multi-use pathways appears to be the most sound choice to creating an environment conducive to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.
Make no mistake, I am a strong advocate of the Complete Streets initiative, but I want to argue for it in a honest and rational manner ... not by taking advantage of the misfortunes of another individual and contorting the facts of the case to suit my needs.
Ted Hafer, the owner of The Grit, was struck by a car while leaving the Daily Co-Op grocery store. It's an awful story, and fortunately Hafer was not seriously hurt and is recovering from the accident. We all wish him well.
Julie Darnell uses this accident to chastise motorists for, well, apparently obeying the existing traffic laws. A glance at the actual story reveals that witnessess said Hafer was jaywalking and, if so, was in violation of the law, meaning he was not taking advantage of the existing sidewalks or crosswalks.
I'm not quite sure of Darnell's contention that not enough stoplights exist on that road, as there two within two blocks of each other as you creep closer to downtown, and both of those locations offer safe passage for pedestrians. There are also two additional pedestrian crosswalks and the speed limit for that stretch is a reasonable 35 miles per hour (though I am willing to concede to her that it could be slowed down to, say, 25 miles per hour for the final block or two where commercial development is more bunched up).
Furthermore, what exactly does this instance prove? Not that we need additional crosswalks, particularly if Hafer, as he says, was simply trying to get into his car. If anything, this would reinforce my belief that eliminating the parking spots on the street and replacing them with bicycle lanes and multi-use pathways appears to be the most sound choice to creating an environment conducive to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.
Make no mistake, I am a strong advocate of the Complete Streets initiative, but I want to argue for it in a honest and rational manner ... not by taking advantage of the misfortunes of another individual and contorting the facts of the case to suit my needs.
posted by Jmac at 8:10 AM
11 Comments:
Have to think more about what I think would make Prince safer, but I'd like to point out that the "jaywalking" comment and trying to get to his car aren't exclusive. It appears he was clipped while trying to get into his car by a motorist who was going too fast.
What would make that particular location safer? Probably a light at the next cross-street (the diagonal across from the water business office). The problem on that block is that there is a lengthy stretch of pavement without interruptions which allows a good number of motorists to build up significant speed.
The problems with eliminating parking are this: 1. it would speed traffic on prince avenue. 2. it would be disastrous for the businesses who rely on their parking.
I work on Prince. I love the road.
I actually find it pretty easy to cross and to walk up and down (and to run on, and to drive on, and to cycle on) -- it actually does a nice job of accomodating lots of needs without ruling out any of them. If you just wait until there are no cars coming, the crosswalks work well. Its folks trying to make a point by crossing and demanding that cars stop who get in trouble.
I have also been waiting for Hafer's accident to be used by the slow traffic on Prince crowd, given the undue attention it was given.
BB
I understand Nicki's point but I have to say it sucks to be riding into town, seeing the bike lanes but not being able to use them because people are parked in them.
jms
I don't want to say that his accident got undue attention as a prominent businessman was unfortunately injured along a busy thoroughfare, but I do fear that it will be dredged up as a reason to three-lane Prince Avenue (though Darnell's doesn't implicitly state that).
Nicki, we have no proof the motorist was going too fast. Had he been doing so, there's good reason to believe he would have been cited by the responding officer. Hafer was clipped because the street narrows a bit there, something whic his exacerbated by the parking spots on the street.
Eliminating the parking spots would only increase the speed of traffic if it was done without the addition of mulit-use pathways/bicycle lanes and lax enforcement of the speed limit. Periods of focus and enforcement can deter speeding, as well as - shudder - possibly additional traffic-calming measures.
I'm open to say that eliminating parking could affect some businesses, but disastrous? I don't buy that. We're talking about, honestly, a handful of spots for a handful of stores. Do the businesses on Prince Avenue need some additional parking? Of course, but removing eight or nine spots won't deter business there.
And I agree with BB in that Prince Avenue actually features strong options for pedestrians who are patient and cautious enough to use them.
I also live near Prince, and use it for foot, bike, and car traffic -- I like it, though I was nearly killed there a few years ago. I'm pretty happy with it as is...with the caveat that I'm not happy with some issues that are primarily behavioral.
Nicki, we have no proof the motorist was going too fast.
We don't, but that is what happens at that point in the road routinely. The traffic flow is such that traffic is at one of its fastest points in the block that ends at Hill.
Had he been doing so, there's good reason to believe he would have been cited by the responding officer.
Nope, not true. The responding officer is unlikely to cite for something he cannot verify. And he would likely have no way to measure the motorist's speed. Furthermore, "too fast" in this case is relative, and I'm defining it as "too fast to act responsibly with regard to all traffic."
Eliminating the parking spots would only increase the speed of traffic if it was done without the addition of mulit-use pathways/bicycle lanes and lax enforcement of the speed limit.
Yeah, but...I'm a cynic. and I know that bike lanes aren't meaningful to a lot of motorists unless someone is actually in them. And we always have lax enforcement -- that's not going to magically become better.
I'm open to say that eliminating parking could affect some businesses, but disastrous?
Disastrous for the frame shop, which is a significant distance from Hill Street parking. Also, there's an issue of capacity -- and Hill Street is being tested now by the addition of Piedmont College.
I'm pretty happy with it as is...with the caveat that I'm not happy with some issues that are primarily behavioral.
I can see that, and I agree. Most of the disagreements between these two crowds stem from overreactions and false perceptions based on the actions of a few who act irresponsibly.
Prince Avenue, particularly near downtown, is in desperate need of additional parking. I had hoped the parking at The Bottleworks would help, and it has to some extent, but another lot like that would really alleviate a lot of the stress (and further open the door for sustainable commercial business in that particular development). That's actually one of my pet peeves regarding that area.
... I know that bike lanes aren't meaningful to a lot of motorists unless someone is actually in them. And we always have lax enforcement -- that's not going to magically become better.
But arguably the former isn't a valid reason to not explore them, while the latter is something which can be readily addressed with some prodding. I drive down Prince Avenue every day and, to be sure, there are plenty of folks who drive too fast there (though I'd argue it's further up the road between Hawthorne Ave. and Athens Regional), and an increased presence there would do wonders to deter that.
Various thoughts, somewhat in response...
I had hoped the parking at The Bottleworks would help, and it has to some extent, but another lot like that would really alleviate a lot of the stress.
I'm not sure it doesn't have an adequate amount of parking -- it simply doesn't necessarily have an adequate amount of parking in a form that is useful. During the CAPPA process, for example, it was suggested that Prince would benefit from some sort of effort to allow businesses to pool parking -- because we have what would seem to be numerically-sufficient parking, but it's designated to specific businesses or uses and therefore is underutilized at some times, while parking is needed for other adjacent businesses, and badly.
One example of a place where this works is Emmanuel/Huddle House/Potter's House -- Emmanuel shares parking with the businesses, which is pretty effective because the businesses requiring the most parking aren't open on Sunday, when the church requires its highest level of parking.
But arguably the former isn't a valid reason to not explore them, while the latter is something which can be readily addressed with some prodding.
Again, I remain cynical about the latter. I can't get enforcement of our vice laws, and that's with an egregious series of easily identifiable activities that are having a weekly and completely demonstrable effect on our quality of life -- what makes you think we could get enforcement in a volume sufficient to effect a change? We don't have the manpower for it. I must also admit that I don't care for bike lanes. I prefer streets without them.
I drive down Prince Avenue every day and, to be sure, there are plenty of folks who drive too fast there (though I'd argue it's further up the road between Hawthorne Ave. and Athens Regional).
It is the case in both places. In fact, the DOT treats the further out areas differently, and there it is evidently and scarily dangerous to ride a bike. (The DOT didn't help by erecting concrete walls and treating the areas closest to the loop as a mini-highway.) But traffic is still too damn fast in town, in places where there are no incentives to slow other than pedestrians.
It's fairly common and probably universal to not cite while on scene anyone in an accident that results in serious injuries, in order to wait for the outcome of the hospitalization or treatment in case serious charges need to be made.
Also, if Hafer rolled onto the windshield of the car as he was struck and then was deposited thirty feet from the estimated point of collision, one can use that distance and the mass of the vehicle and the coefficient of friction for that vehicle and that road to determine, approximately, how fast the truck was going.
"Too fast for conditions" (40-6-180) and "speed in excess of maximum limits" (40-6-181) are different charges in relation to the speed of the vehicle. The first is contingent and dependent upon the changing circumstances of the road and the environment, while the second is defined with respect to posted speed limits and requires corroboration of the officer's speed estimation by some form of measuring device (radar, laser, pacing, &tc).
Polus,
I love it when you talk five-o.
jms
There doesn't appear to be any evidence to back up the claim that the motorist in question was speeding.
http://onlineathens.com/stories/090707/news_20070907044.shtml
""We had a witness who said (Hafer) was crossing the road, but obviously, we want to give a chance for him to tell his side of the story," Coker said.
"The investigation is still ongoing," and Hafer still may be cited, he added.
The Colbert man who was driving the pickup was not speeding and will not be cited, police said."
http://flagpole.com/News/PubNotes/2007-09-12?PHPSESSID=d7831647b1164af62297e6206f3025f3
"This story is still developing dependent on police reports, but here are some basics available at press time: Athens resident Ted Hafer spent a night at Athens Regional Medical Center after being struck by a pickup truck around 9 a.m. on the morning of Sept. 5 while getting back into his van. The van was parallel-parked on Prince Avenue in front of the Daily Groceries Co-op. Hafer, who owns The Grit, stepped off the curb to get back into his van when the pickup, which witnesses tell him was not speeding, hit him. He suffered a concussion and a broken rib, among other injuries, but says he is “relatively unscathed, for the impact."
10-4. Just for your 10-43, I love the Signal 35, 10-96 folk.
Post a Comment
<< Home