Either the DOT is staffed with complete retards, or this is some ingeniously evil stunt designed by them to have a huge laugh at the expense of motorists and pedestrians on Frannie Lew.
Flipped over cars because they were most likely speeding. Perhaps that is part of the problem. The real problem is people don't drive safely and pay attention. I guess if that were a person or child there it would be fine if the cars plowed through them.
This video perfectly illustrates the sorry state of journalism today. Mocker dons the mantle of a populist (of course, siding with incompetent and dangerous motorists rather than pedestrians), without even bothering to look into the facts of the matter. Did he look at the pedestrian injury rate beforehand? Did he look into the program at the DOT, its motivations and the research behind these traffic calming devices (they're not traffic "control" devices; those are things like red lights). Did he bother to look into the crash reports of these cars? He might discover that these crashes (not accidents) were the result of idiotic drivers who don't know how to operate their vehicles safely.
But all these things would add up to real journalism, and the not sensationalism that Mocker is aiming for. It's a shame that this gets re-posted on Queens Crap.
"How would Mocker have determined if the crashes were accidents or done because of driver incompetence? He's an accident investigator now?"
Because there are things called "accident reports" which include the causes of crashes. Hard to get from the NYPD (for real reason other than the NYPD doesn't like releasing information), but he could at least have inquired. Seriously, he's failing Journalism 101.
City DOT gets crash data from NYPD and State DOT (which also is sourced from NYPD via DMV), so they may not have them right away either. But as I said, NYPD is very poor at sharing information that should be public. But did Mocker look into any of this? Who knows? But probably not.
What do you mean they may not have them right away? What reason did they do this safety project if there were no stats to back up what they did? You wrote: "Did he look at the pedestrian injury rate beforehand? Did he look into the program at the DOT, its motivations and the research behind these traffic calming devices."
"What do you mean they may not have them right away?" sorry, I meant the latest statistics, after the implementation of the traffic calming devices, not before.
12 comments:
Either the DOT is staffed with complete retards, or this is some ingeniously evil stunt designed by them to have a huge laugh at the expense of motorists and pedestrians on Frannie Lew.
Flipped over cars because they were most likely speeding. Perhaps that is part of the problem. The real problem is people don't drive safely and pay attention. I guess if that were a person or child there it would be fine if the cars plowed through them.
This video perfectly illustrates the sorry state of journalism today. Mocker dons the mantle of a populist (of course, siding with incompetent and dangerous motorists rather than pedestrians), without even bothering to look into the facts of the matter. Did he look at the pedestrian injury rate beforehand? Did he look into the program at the DOT, its motivations and the research behind these traffic calming devices (they're not traffic "control" devices; those are things like red lights). Did he bother to look into the crash reports of these cars? He might discover that these crashes (not accidents) were the result of idiotic drivers who don't know how to operate their vehicles safely.
But all these things would add up to real journalism, and the not sensationalism that Mocker is aiming for. It's a shame that this gets re-posted on Queens Crap.
Hey how about the other "safe streets to school" project in Maspeth that also made conditions less safe because there's no truck enforcement?
How would Mocker have determined if the crashes were accidents or done because of driver incompetence? He's an accident investigator now?
A car flipping over is a danger to pedestrians, dingbat.
"How would Mocker have determined if the crashes were accidents or done because of driver incompetence? He's an accident investigator now?"
Because there are things called "accident reports" which include the causes of crashes. Hard to get from the NYPD (for real reason other than the NYPD doesn't like releasing information), but he could at least have inquired. Seriously, he's failing Journalism 101.
Well wouldn't the DOT cite them when they were called for comment?
Crapper:
City DOT gets crash data from NYPD and State DOT (which also is sourced from NYPD via DMV), so they may not have them right away either. But as I said, NYPD is very poor at sharing information that should be public. But did Mocker look into any of this? Who knows? But probably not.
What do you mean they may not have them right away? What reason did they do this safety project if there were no stats to back up what they did? You wrote: "Did he look at the pedestrian injury rate beforehand? Did he look into the program at the DOT, its motivations and the research behind these traffic calming devices."
You're saying DOT doesn't have this data?
"What do you mean they may not have them right away?" sorry, I meant the latest statistics, after the implementation of the traffic calming devices, not before.
"How would Mocker have determined if the crashes were accidents or done because of driver incompetence? He's an accident investigator now?"
If you crash into a stationary object, that is not an accident, it is driver incompetence/carelessness.
Post a Comment