INC NEWS - Support safer streets and sidewalks by VotingYESnextmonth
Reyn Bowman
Reyn at Durham-cvb.com
Thu Oct 11 14:27:57 EDT 2007
Illinois puts prohibition in their motor vehicle code.
From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org]
On Behalf Of Mike - Hotmail
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:20 AM
To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - Support safer streets and sidewalks by
VotingYESnextmonth
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/doc44f6712b1e6bf92
4290870.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 <mailto:newman at nc.rr.com>
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/doc44f6712b1e6bf92
4290870.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
<http://www.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170> and Make AOL Your
Homepage <http://www.aol.com/mksplash.adp?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001169> .
________________________________
_______________________________________________
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/20071011/08b9585f/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the INC-list
mailing list