INC NEWS - [TrinityPark] RE: agenda and proposed resolutions for April 25 meeting

[Newman Aguiar]

Susan,

I agree that as a driver it is a frightening experience to have somebody run
in front of your vehicle.  This is an experience, I'm certain most drivers
can relate to.  More than street intersections, it is a common occurrence in
subdivisions all over the US where children play in front yards and in the
streets.

In recent years, increasingly cities that have attempted to address
panhandling by implementing such bans on roadside solicitations by employing
"safety" to justify such ordinances.  Many cities have been successful in
passing such ordinances using this strategy, because who in their right mind
would not want to do something to help improve the safety of our fellow
human beings.

Perhaps, someone more familiar than I, with data on this issue can help us
better understand why this "safety" argument is problematic.  As I
understand it, according to the Institute of Highway Safety intersections
are very dangerous places for pedestrians in general.  I understand that
studies are beginning to be done to compare the risk and it has been shown
that vendors, panhandlers, and other street workers, actually have a
significantly lower risk than pedestrians.  Some suggest that one reason may
be because vendors, panhandlers, etc., tend to be familiar with the
intersections where they are working and are less likely to be distracted or
otherwise occupied in thought than the average pedestrian.

Also, recent studies of drivers show that a large number of accidents are
caused by the drivers being otherwise distracted and not paying attention to
the driving.  Also note that most accidents occur within a couple of miles
of a driver's home.  As pedestrians, we are constantly at risk from such
drivers.  I won't even get into cell phone use, etc. where we have clear and
convincing evidence of the deadly danger and choose to do nothing to make
laws to prevent this significant safety hazard.

Fact is that individuals who live with poverty, addiction and mental illness
face much greater risks to their safety.  I would ask you to consider for
yourself, why this particular risk (which for all practical purposes is not
even measurable compared to the other safety risks these individuals face)
is so important to us as a community?

The most amazing evidence to me, is that even after such ordinances are put
in place, little or no reduction in panhandling results.  So that ought to
suggest to us that even if a grave safety risk exists, it would not be
mitigated by the proposed ordinance.

Newman 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Gaylord [mailto:susan_gaylord at med.unc.edu] 
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 3:26 PM
To: Newman Aguiar
Cc: inc-list at durhaminc.org; TrinityPark at yahoogroups.com;
pac2 at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TrinityPark] RE: INC NEWS - agenda and proposed resolutions
for April 25 meeting


Dear Newman and All,

Thanks for this notice.   As compassionate as it may seem (to some) to 
support roadside solicitation, my experience as a driver in Durham and 
Chapel Hill has convinced me that soliciting on foot by the side of 
roads and highways is NOT safe or helpful to drivers -- no matter what 
individual or organization is doing the soliciting.  For example, I was 
involved in a near-miss situation on Guess Road, when the driver in 
front of me stopped suddenly during a GREEN LIGHT and leaped out of the 
car to purchase a newspaper from a median-vendor. My slamming on brakes 
and swerving into the other lane prevented a possible rear-ending.  And 
multiple vendors who appear with buckets at busy intersections (e.g. New 
Hope Commons intersection) can cause multiple automotive chaos, however 
careful they try to be, with drivers slowing down, reaching into their 
pocket-books for change, and being distracted by solicitors walking into 
traffic lanes -- in my personal experience.

- Susan Gaylord
Markham Ave.





Newman Aguiar wrote:

>* Vendors in Roadside Right of Way -- FINAL VOTE
>
>"We, the membership of the Inter-neighborhood Council, support a change to 
>Durham's current solicitation ordinance that would bar solicitation from 
>rights-of-way in Durham."
>
>I hope sufficient neighborhood reps show up for the April 25 meeting to
vote
>this down.  There has been significant discussion on this issue and it
>troubles me that INC would take up a resolution in support of a change,
even
>though strong evidence has been shown, that such a change would do little
or
>nothing to address the current situation.
>
>Newman
>
>
>
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
><*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TrinityPark/
>
><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>    TrinityPark-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>
>
>
>  
>