I was nearing home from my walk this morning at about 7:45. On 6th Avenue, there were two cars which had crashed, and two more from people who stopped to help.
The easy car to explain was facing north in the northbound lane at the north part of the 119th St intersection. It was badly damaged in front, and the driver was standing outside the car, sort of walking around, on her mobile phone, and she had only a superficial laceration -- really just an abrasion -- on her left forearm. She said she also hit her head, but it wasn't bothering her much, and she seemed generally OK. While I was there, our officer, Frank Arellano, arrived, and as I was leaving, another cruiser was arriving.
The car that's hard to explain was facing north in the southbound lane of 6th Avenue, several yards north of the other car (had apparently jumped the median, but it must have been in the intersection, because there was no significant piece of landscaping that was destroyed), smashed against a power pole, and with airbag deployed. That driver was holding her mobile phone, but not using it at the moment I got there, and was physically intact, but definitely "shaken up."
So, here's our problem. If everyone driving on 6th Avenue goes 30 MPH, or even a little faster, doesn't use a mobile phone while they're driving (or uses voice-activated bluetooth only), and pays attention, we have no problem. But clearly, there's a breakdown somewhere. And for the record, neither driver today appeared intoxicated. The question, then, is what is the solution to our problem.
There's already a speed limit, and that fact, in itself, does not prevent these accidents. We can wonder what leads drivers not to pay adequate attention to what they're doing, and I will take the liberty to suggest that the overwhelming distractor is the mobile phone. The last I remember, using a mobile phone while driving can only be a "secondary offense," which means it can only be cited if there's some other reason to pull over a driver. I would suggest that it needs to be a primary offense, and that if the backward state in which we live can't pull itself together to make it one, then the Village should make it one. Even if all we did was pull over drivers using mobile phones (which they're holding in one of their hands, so that hand cannot be available for driving, and holding to their ear, so they are disinclined to turn their head to see what else is on the road), and have a safety talk with them -- even if we didn't issue a citation -- this would be very effective at getting the message across: when you get to Biscayne Park, put your phone down, or discontinue your call, because if you don't, Biscayne Park is going to aggravate you, and waste a good deal of your time.
So, maybe it was the phone(s), or maybe it was something else that distracted one or both of these two drivers. How else can we get their attention, or at least prevent them from driving onto other people's property? The state can do one or both of two things to help. One is that it can erect barriers along the side of the road. The barriers can be no more than break-away metal. But you hit one of those, and you'll know it. That will get your attention, and so will the bill for the body work on your car. If we (the state), want to be a bit more subtle, and a bit more elegant, but still be very effective, while preserving the character of 6th Avenue, it can extend the edges of the pavement about 6-12 inches, and groove that extra pavement. You drive over that, and the noise and discomfort will get your attention, or awaken you, fast.
The fact is that I don't really know what happened this morning. Frank Arellano and his partner will figure it out. Maybe the drivers were drag racing. Maybe one got mad at the other for who knows what reason, and gave her the finger. But that kind of thing can't happen often. It's a short uninterrupted (lights at the bridge at about 112th St on the south and at 123rd St on the north) stretch of 30 MPH road in a quiet neighborhood. I'm still betting on the mobile phones.
Posted for Mike, who could not get the system to accept his comment, and asked me to post it for him:
ReplyDeleteI believe we agree Fred that this road is a problem the way it is. We do disagree as you know about the solution. I (and many of the other residents of 6th ave) would like to see the road narrowed, not widened.
I would agree that additional policing would be a good band aid solution to get us started.
In my opinion the first step would be for the village to decide amongst ourselves what we want. Then engage FDOT to help execute our agreed solution.
All the best,
Mike
Thanks, Mike.
DeleteYes, we all agree 6th Avenue "is a problem." It's a little tricky to write it off that way, because it's part of Greater Miami, as is the airport, I-95, and lots of other things we all have to tolerate.
I agree with you that you and I have looked differently at how to address this problem. My approach is to try to preserve what is intended to be there, for the reasons it's intended to be there, and try to make adjustments that serve both us and those intended reasons for that problematic thing to be there.
But I certainly do not in any way disagree with you that 6th Avenue presents problems as much as it presents solutions (easy and direct north-south access for us and everyone who passes through here). In my travels north and south of BP, I have often felt there were too many red lights along 6th Avenue, so that they disrupt the flow of traffic. Some have more obvious purposes than do others. Maybe you would say there are too few red lights, and whether or not the road is narrowed, perhaps we should have one mid way between 112th St and 123rd St, to keep people less mindless.
Anyway, thanks for your comment and the reminder about other people's views of this. That was actually the reason for the title of this post.
Fred
By the way, Mike, let's imagine what happened today, and what adjustments could be made. Let's imagine either that one or both drivers were on their mobile phones, and thus not paying adequate attention, and maybe speeding, and/or that one or both drivers were intoxicated, and I just didn't recognize it in the short time I was there.
DeleteLet's consider the preference of you and a number of our neighbors who live on 6th Avenue. Suppose that the state agrees to your main preferred intervention, which is to reduce 6th Avenue in BP from two lanes each way to one lane each way. We've already in the past asked the state to lower the speed limit, which wouldn't do any good for inattentive, speeding, and/or intoxicated drivers, but they already refused to do that.
What changes if these two drivers are in the same lane on a one lane per direction road, instead of the same lane on a two lane per direction road, or in different lanes on a two lane per direction road? What do you envision is between the traffic and your house, or the house of anyone else who lives on 6th Avenue? Whatever you envision there isn't going to prevent you and your neighbors from getting home. In your fantasy, what prevents an inattentive, speeding, intoxicated person in one lane per direction from running off the road, crossing the median or not, and crashing into your house, or a power pole, or the driver in front of him or her? That's our problem. When we discussed this before, BrambleWitch said that a car had crashed into her house, having been in the far direction from her, and jumped the median to do it. What stops that from happening if the state reduces the number of lanes?
Fred
Just to be clear, the State (FDOT) is not going to reduce the lanes on 6th. After the recent debacle over the FDOT project (which cost them about %500,000.00) I really don't think they are inclined to help. Some of the local Commissioners seem to think that they can get FDOT to put in stop signs. In my opinion, that is delusional and would not help anyway.
DeleteI agree with you Fred that a partial explanation is distracted driving due to phones, but also speeding regularly. I have pointed out that if the Police were so inclined, it might be a good idea to randomly patrol and write tickets at different times of different days (for an extended period of time) so that drivers would be forced to pay more attention. It worked in the past, I don't see why it won't work now... oh yes, i do, they won't do it. Let's blame it on the road and the fact that it is too narrow, etc.
It seems to me that since most of the crashes are happening in roughly the same place (within a few houses of the intersection) someone might put together the idea that maybe something needs to be done at that place.
By the way, I got a glimpse of you this morning when I went out to see what was happening after being awakened by the big boom of the car hitting the pole across the street from me. Glad you weren't involved.
BrambleWitch,
DeleteI agree with you completely: what we need is more enforcement. It has always been true that the vast majority of speeding tickets written have been written on 6th Avenue, and we need to step it up again.
As you know much better than I do, there was a time that everyone knew of BP, because of those "Don't Even Think About Speeding" signs which we took seriously. And therefore, so did the people, our residents and our visitors, who drove here.
Thanks, but I was involved. I checked on the two drivers, to be sure they were OK. Then, I left. Frank Arellano and the cruiser that was on its way were there, and nothing further was needed from me. And you were involved, too, because it was yet another crash that happened more or less in front of your house, awakened you, got you out of your house, and left you upset and feeling vulnerable.
Fred
"Anonymous," just so you know, I automatically delete any comments from you. The small problem is that you bring nothing to the table. The big problem is that you spew idiotic nonsense, and you won't reveal yourself. If you just want to spit at people, you have to reveal who you are. Otherwise, you're uninteresting garbage. People who write posts here, or post comments, take a risk. Their risk is that someone will disagree with them, or even think they're terribly wrong. "Fred Jonas," or whoever else, is an idiot for thinking such-and-such. But that's the risk we're all willing to take. All of us except you. You clearly can't stand the heat, so you're barred from the kitchen.
ReplyDeleteFred