INC NEWS - Support safer streets and sidewalks by VotingYESnext month
Mike - Hotmail
mwshiflett at hotmail.com
Thu Oct 11 10:20:25 EDT 2007
The follow-up article is a very good human interest piece.
But it still DOES NOT address the problem of solicitations in streets, roadways and intersections and how it relates back to SAFETY..
Is the premise here that since people have to solicit for funds to make ends meet, then makes it ok to do it anywhere they want to (in this case Interstate 74) correct?
If so, then there's a fatal flaw in it. That being the health and safety of both parties.
Motorist lawfully using roadways are being exposed to an unsafe and dangerous situation when confronted with them.
The solicitor is putting themselves in harms way by positioning these activities in and around traffic.
Think about what happens if/when someone hits one of these solicitors?
The article http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2006/08/31/news/local/doc44f6712b1e6bf924290870.txt doesn't address these or why they don't chose to solicit in safer locations.
What about the rights of innocent people (drivers and passengers)?.
Is it fair to allow (even permit) a potential accident causing situation to exist on our roadways?
mike s.
----- Original Message -----
From: Newman Aguiar
To: TheOcean1 at aol.com ; inc-list at durhaminc.org
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - Support safer streets and sidewalks by VotingYESnext month
Here's a link to an article in the quad-city times two years after the pan handling ban.
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2006/08/31/news/local/doc44f6712b1e6bf924290870.txt
Newman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org] On Behalf Of TheOcean1 at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:22 PM
To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - Support safer streets and sidewalks by Voting YESnext month
Outstanding dialogue!
Great article Mike provides a link for below. One part sounded so familiar, so here's a little piece of it ...
"Redington said folks who give cash to those at the roadside may be doing
more harm than good.
.
"Citizens feel obligated, I think, to give money," he said. "But they
shouldn't. There are plenty of resources throughout the Quad-Cities to
assist people. In my opinion, people would be better giving money to those
social service programs rather than directly to solicitors."
"
Interesting to compare how other cities are reacting!
Bill Anderson
In a message dated 10/9/2007 2:30:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mwshiflett at hotmail.com writes:
Thanks Barry,
As usual, a wealth of information and where to find more!
Durham does have a lot of issues regarding safe passage in getting from one
place to another (either on sidewalks or at intersections).
Everyone who agrees that we need more and safer sidewalks should VOTE NEXT
MONTH YES for the only City Bond issue
http://www.ci.durham.nc.us/cip/bond2007.cfm , the panhandling ordinance
discussion aside.
For an example of a community who's enacted a ban on panhandling at highway
ramps please go to
http://projects.is.asu.edu/pipermail/hpn/2004-December/008672.html (it's
all about safety).
mike s.
ps- how many of our on/off ramps in the county?
----- Original Message -----
From: <bragin at nc.rr.com>
To: "Mike - Hotmail" <mwshiflett at hotmail.com>
Cc: <inc-list at durhaminc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - Let's talk about SAFETY only
> Pedestrian activities, including simply walking, are *not* permitted on
> controlled access highways such as NC 147 or I-85.
>
> the Durham Walks! plan can be found here:
> http://www.durhamnc.gov/durhamwalks/index.cfm
>
> a committee to expedite the implementation of the Durham Walks plan has
> been formed and has met once, with another meeting scheduled for next
> week. Members include several city employees, and other concerned
> citizens. I can't speak for everyone on the committee, but my interest in
> this issue comes from a desire to reduce the number of trips people make
> in their cars by increasing both the perceived and actual safety of
> walking throughout the city of Durham. Many streets in the city lack
> sidewalks, for example, and many of those that have sidewalks are poorly
> designed. The sidewalk on the Duke St. bridge across I-85, for example,
> violates many principles of design for pedestrian safety, which is a
> contributing factor as to why nobody uses it. Yet Northgate Mall is within
> walking distance of several neighborhoods on the other side of I-85. For
> anyone living say, south of Murray st., walking rather than driving to the
> mall should be a no-brainer.
>
> Numerous examples abound all over the city.
>
> Certain roads are and should be restricted to high speed motor vehicles.
> But the vast majority of roads belong to, and should be used by, all
> members of the community. Designing for the safety of those on foot,
> bicycles, or wheelchairs , rather than restricting people using those
> modes of transportation, is a baseline from which the city and county need
> to start, rather than a goal to which we aspire.
>
> Unless we think Atlanta and Los Angeles are good models of transportation
> for Durham.
>
> Barry Ragin
> ---- Mike - Hotmail <mwshiflett at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> =============
> Educate me, Barry.
>
> I know that you personally spent several months (more than a year?)
> working
> on Durhams Pedestrian Plan as the representative from INC. Can you
> distill
> some of it's recommendations for us? I tried to find it on the City's
> website www.ci.durham.nc.us but couldn't.
>
> I guess I'm still confused about the highway connection part of this.
> What
> pedestrian activities are permited on the Interstate Highway System (I-85)
> and local highways (like 147) that you mentioned? Aren't most of these
> 'highways' located outside of Durham's city limits? What are the specific
> regulations regarding what can and what can not be allowed on them? How
> far do these regulations relate to on and off ramps?
>
> It just doesn't make sense to me that someone (even with a permit) could
> walk out into traffic (ie 70 at the Miami 5 points intersection) for any
> reason other than to get out of the way!
>
> But I'm willing to learn.
>
> I thought that only vehicles with a minimum engine capacity were allowed
> on
> them (thus banning people crossing highways, mopeds, bicycles etc) to
> ensure
> seperate traffic flow from obstacles to it.
>
>
> mike s.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <bragin at nc.rr.com>
> To: "Mike - Hotmail" <mwshiflett at hotmail.com>
> Cc: <inc-list at durhaminc.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 10:56 AM
> Subject: Re: INC NEWS - Let's talk about SAFETY only
>
>
>> ""Do you believe it is safe to permit pedestrian activities* on roads,
>> streets and/or intersections?" "
>>
>> With all due respect, Mike, that is the wrong question. Pedestrian
>> activities are already permitted on all except controlled access roads
>> such as the Durham Freeway or I-85. And Durham already has a pedestrian
>> plan in place, approved by city Council last year, which outlines how to
>> make our roads safer for pedestrian activity, as well as how to create a
>> pedestrian travel infrastructure which uses, but is not limited to,
>> existing roadways. Pedestrian activity of any kind is a legitimate use of
>> municipal and state facilities, and the real question is what should the
>> various levels of government with responsibility in this area be doing to
>> enhance the safety of those who choose to walk from one destination to
>> another.
>>
>> Barry Ragin
>> ---- Mike - Hotmail <mwshiflett at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> =============
>> good suggestion Newman!
>>
>> Let's stick to one issue at a time.
>>
>> This listserve was established years ago to provide folks a venue to be
>> heard (as are a number of other neighborhood and community listserves
>> have).
>>
>> So I'll post this question with the hope that those people that are
>> members
>> of this listserve will 'voice' their opinion(s) regarding what they
>> believe
>> is a safe thing to allow or not.
>>
>> "Do you believe it is safe to permit pedestrian activities* on roads,
>> streets and/or intersections?"
>>
>> *Pedestrian activities include anything other than the simple crossing of
>> a
>> street by a person on foot trying to get from one side of a street, road
>> or
>> intersection to the other side.
>>
>> Listserves are also meant to educate. So................please post
>> your
>> observations, anecdotal incidents, related studies, documents or
>> ordinances
>> from other municipalities that relate to SAFETY and PEDESTRIANS to share
>> with others.
>>
>> With this background discussion we may then be able to move on to more
>> specific topics, but not until then.
>>
>> Mike Shiflett
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Newman Aguiar" <newman at nc.rr.com>
>> To: "'RW Pickle'" <randy at 27beverly.com>; <inc-list at durhaminc.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 10:09 AM
>> Subject: Re: INC NEWS - right-of-way solicitation
>>
>>
>>> RW Pickle wrote:
>>> "I don't want to hear the "cell phone issue" again because if it
>>> were that big of an issue, I'm sure the laws would change to protect us
>>> all (not just City or County laws, but at a much higher level)."
>>>
>>> Perhaps, the news links below will help.
>>>
>>> http://www.webmd.com/news/20060629/driving-cell-phones-big-road-risk
>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8545779/
>>> http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=889064&page=1
>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051209113320.htm
>>> http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201_cell_danger.html
>>> http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/08/16/cell.phone.driving/index.html
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/cellphones/
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.cellular-news.com/car_bans/
>>>
>>> It is not my intention to begin a discussion on this subject. Once
>>> again,
>>> I
>>> would simply suggest that we take the time to evaluate the veracity of
>>> the
>>> safety argument.
>>>
>>> Cheers.
>>>
>>> Newman
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> INC-list mailing list
>>> INC-list at rtpnet.org
>>> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> INC-list mailing list
>> INC-list at rtpnet.org
>> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>>
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
INC-list mailing list
INC-list at rtpnet.org
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
INC-list mailing list
INC-list at rtpnet.org
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20071011/fefc4ba3/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the INC-list
mailing list