Genielle Laboriel, 21, Killed by Bus Driver in the Bronx; No Charges Filed

A school bus driver struck and killed a woman who was riding a skateboard in the Melrose section of the Bronx yesterday.

Genielle Laboriel. Photo via DNAinfo

The crash occurred at around 7:15 Wednesday morning. Genielle Laboriel, 21, was crossing E. 160th Street from the Melrose Avenue sidewalk when she was hit by the bus driver, who was making a right turn, according to reports. From DNAinfo:

Witness Nelson McKinsey was nearby when he heard the crash, he said.

“I heard a shriek and when I turned around, the front tires were on top of her,” said McKinsey, who lives nearby.

Laboriel flailed her arms as a passerby waved at the bus, urging it to reverse off of her, McKinsey said.

The bus driver remained on the scene and was not immediately arrested, cops said.

“He had a look of panic on his face,” McKinsey said.

The three children on board the bus were unharmed, police said.

The intersection of Melrose and E. 160th — a two-lane street with bike lanes and a one-way, single-lane street, respectively — has traffic and pedestrian signals. If the bus driver had a green light, and the signals were functioning properly, Laboriel would have presumably had a walk signal. If the bus driver and Laboriel were traveling in the same direction, as reports indicate, Laboriel would have had the right of way.

Denis Slattery and Tina Moore of the Daily News cited a witness, Juanita Hernandez, who said Laboriel was wearing headphones and was not wearing a helmet. The Daily News and DNAinfo noted that the same witness, who saw security footage of the crash, said Laboriel was “going too fast” and “lost control” of her skateboard. “It was neither of their faults,” Hernandez said. “It was a tragic accident.”

Neither story mentions how fast the driver was going or who had the right of way. DNAinfo reporters Patrick Wall and Aidan Gardiner wrote that Laboriel “died after careening into the path of a school bus,” and that the victim “collided” with the bus, suggesting that reckless behavior by Laboriel led to her death.

On Twitter yesterday, Moore said she believes “everybody knows” pedestrians have the right of way. The quote from Hernandez indicates otherwise, as does the fact that the driver in this crash was reportedly not charged or summonsed for killing Laboriel, which should have at least resulted in a careless driving summons from NYPD.

DNAinfo spoke with acquaintances of Laboriel, who said motorists, and bus drivers in particular, “need to be more conscious of boarders.”

This fatal crash occurred in the 42nd Precinct. To voice your concerns about neighborhood traffic safety directly to Captain Steven Ortiz, the commanding officer, go to the next precinct community council meeting. The 42nd Precinct council meetings happen at 7 p.m. on the fourth Thursday of the month in the 42nd Precinct Sitting Room, 830 Washington Avenue. Call 718-402-5527 for information.

The City Council district where Genielle Laboriel was killed is represented by Maria del Carmen Arroyo. To encourage Arroyo to take action to improve street safety in her district and citywide, contact her at 718-402-6130.

  • Joe R.

    So then the solution should be obvious-don’t allow parking where it impedes visibility. We don’t have to devote every possible inch of curbside space to parking. If it were up to me, curbside parking would be banned altogether other than for delivery or emergency vehicles. It’s dangerous to all concerned. It’s also a visual blight.

  • If you’re an adult riding in a bike lane, therefore on the street, you wouldn’t dismount because you’re not using a crosswalk, but if you’re a kid who’s already riding slow and using the sidewalk/crosswalk yes of course you would dismount. 75 feet at every corner in both directions is ridiculous (if a block is 200 ft, then removing 150 of parking leaves space for maybe 3 vehicles/block), but increasing visibility at crosswalks by at least one 20 foot vehicle length would be a good thing.

  • wow some of these comments are off the chart. Why even take up space with such a comment?

  • people like you is the reason more people will die on our roads. Anyone who understands the risk and understands that even adults die when doing things like the above would never let their children run across a street but instead would keep their children in arms length in order to be able to grab them out of the way of potential danger.

    Do you even have children?

    I suspect she was traveling too fast and the bus driver, who did stop, couldn’t bring their multi-ton vehicle to a stop fast enough, because, I suspect, he/she saw her too late. I can only speculate because I wasn’t there. Now I realize that based on your ‘tone’, your divisive language, your pov, your attitude that further ‘discussion’ is useless, but if you think you’re going to change my mind to ‘blame the bus driver’ for the pedestrian’s apparently risky behavior then you too are wasting your time.

  • Guest

    If the driver’s view is obstructed, it is the driver’s responsibility to reduce speed or stop, if necessary, to allow for a safe entry into the crosswalk.

    Seriously?! You can’t just gun it and blame the parking for your negligence!

  • Guest

    I believe the reason so many people have already died, and continue to do so, is people like you who blame the victims and resist reasonable demands for honest investigations and criminal accountability (when warranted) for traffic violence.

  • Joe R.

    If you’re an adult riding in a bike lane, therefore on the street, you wouldn’t dismount because you’re not using a crosswalk, but if you’re a kid who’s already riding slow and using the sidewalk/crosswalk yes of course you would dismount.

    Good luck trying to get a kid to dismount every single block. And who cares if you’re down to 3 spots per block if it greatly improves safety. If there ends up being a parking shortage, then build off-street garages. Generally, history has shown that infrastructure changes are the most successful at improving safety, not behavioral changes like you suggest.

  • Thanks for your reply. I think there should always be investigations and criminal accountability, so I hope you’re not assuming I don’t. But to assume that it’s always the driver’s fault is naive. To assume that I don’t hold negligent drivers as accountable as negligent pedestrians is also wrong. I also hold the other factors accountable, like poor design, or distractions like someone else doing something illegal which might distract a driver. It’s a complex issue that can’t be folded up into a simple sound bite. Each case must be investigated one at a time to determine the truth and determine who’s accountable.

  • I couldn’t agree more that there needs to be built-in parking structures within NYC’s urban environment, and that smaller residential streets shouldn’t have any parking and instead of being straight be wavy in shape to discourage speeding. Anyway that is where design and like you say infrastructure comes in. There are literally hundreds of things the city can do to improve safety. If you’re a parent it’s easy to get a child to dismount every block and walk across the street… I’ve done it, it’s not that hard unless the child is perhaps out of control.

    I learned when I was 6 to use the crosswalks, walk, and also look both ways. I can’t imagine this being that big of a ‘behavioral’ change. SafeKidsUSA is already promoting pedestrian safety with their ‘walk your child to school’ week. Read their handout for parents.

  • Joe R.

    I should point out there’s a world of difference between teaching children to look before crossing versus getting them to dismount at every single crosswalk. The first is common sense, the second goes isn’t. I really don’t see why dismounting should be necessary to safely cross. If a child is taught to look before crossing, then can do so whether on foot or on a bike. They can also be taught to slow down to walking speed if the lines of sight are poor. That’s a lot less burdensome than getting off the bike, walking it, then getting back on. I personally think the whole concept of having cyclists dismount and walk bikes is silly. It’s safer to just ride at walking speed if you’re mixing with pedestrians. A bike being walked takes up twice the space, is harder to control, and the pedals can easily clip pedestrians.

  • In NYC it’s important to dismount. In Ohio perhaps less important depending on the situation. Here there are so many parked cars visibility is impeded. it’s important to walk because it increases the time that a driver can spot a pedestrian and also react (not only stopping in time but potentially swerving). And, the speed of someone riding can match the driver’s ‘turn rate’ which isn’t good… in perspective where the vertical bar of the windshield can block more out the further it is from the driver, and having a riding pedestrian moving at the same rate can put them continually in a blind spot… the rate of both the driver and pedestrian (rider) should be different in order to avoid this phenomenon, i.e. increase the contrast between moving objects. Also, when someone is running or riding they tend to fixate on the other side of the road making them less likely to spot danger, react and change direction. I see kids all the time fixate on the other side and ‘run for it.’ I have a few clips where it appears to me anyone who’s running is doing exactly this.

    I should point out that I have plenty to say about negligent and aggressive drivers, even those passive aggressive types that double park, do u-turns, etc. and how the city should aggressively fine them. And design is a big issue as well… on 4th Ave in Brooklyn I pointed out problems to DOT with the left turn lane which has resulted in some changes. And, what do you think about the new program to have delivery riders wear reflective vests? There’s a lot to be done before any of us will see real results.

  • Guest

    It is not an assumption that drivers have a greater responsibility for their conduct on the street than other street users. It is a fact attributed to the risk they pose to others.

    You expose the lie when you say “hold negligent drivers as accountable as negligent pedestrians.” Drivers must be held far more accountable. Surely somebody who is negligent in a way that threatens the lives of others is far worse than people who are negligent in a way that poses a risk only to themselves.

    I find it positively reprehensible that you continue to work so hard to try to create some sort equivalency between an adult driver, who is legally and morally responsible to avoid harming others, and children who are inherently prone to making mistakes.

    When you promote these false equivalencies, you serve to undermine efforts to reform a badly broken system that leaves innocent victims without justice while people who should be investigated and sometimes prosecuted are given a free pass to go out and continue their reckless driving.

  • Guest

    Not to mention that children are more likely to be focused on their effort to dismount, instead of actually looking out for the driver who’s about to mow them down…

  • Guest

    If the driver has maintained the same speed while entering their turn, there can’t be any question of negligence.

    Please stop trying so hard to say that drivers have no responsibility to slow down and look before speeding through crosswalks.

    It’s obvious you’re grasping at straws, and each new hypothetical you construct attempts to exculpate drivers for what is clear negligent disregard for the rights and lives of others on our city’s streets.

  • Guest

    You’re right. So please stop complaining about the dent in your car after you hit a pedestrian in the crosswalk!

  • Andrew

    I’m sorry, did you not notice that this crash took place while the bus driver was turning across an active crosswalk? Why was the driver going so fast that he or she couldn’t stop his or her bus in time to avoid killing a pedestrian?

    Motorists are required by law to yield to pedestrians crossing the street with the light. In this type of situation I would most certainly blame the driver, because it was the driver’s legal obligation to watch for approaching pedestrians and to yield to them.

  • Joe R.

    And, what do you think about the new program to have delivery riders wear reflective vests? There’s a lot to be done before any of us will see real results.

    I would hate to be a delivery person in the summer months wearing one of those. Or the helmet required for delivery people for that matter. Lots of things you can do to make bikes more visible, like requiring flashers even during the daytime, which don’t involve the rider wearing hot, bulky clothing.

  • yeah those vest are like winter vests, lol.

  • so when someone runs out in front of a vehicle the driver is responsible, thanks, now i understand.

  • you’re confusing me with a stereotype, i never said I was going around trying to convince people that drivers are never responsible. Get off my back ‘guest’. People who are biased are also hateful and will never be objective. That just about sums up who you are. Guest… wow at least I don’t hide.

  • Andrew

    No, when someone crosses the street with the light in front of a turning vehicle, the driver is responsible.

  • exactly what I meant especially with regards to this article. So what is with you, no matter what I say you will disagree with me? Andrew, do you have children?

  • Lydia Guerrero

    Genielle has been my best friend since the 6th grade and what happened to her I don’t wish it upon anyone and in all reality whether or not she was going to fast or not the bus driver should of waited for her to go by and than continue on his way….I’m not saying its all his fault because it was her action as well but I really think he should of played it off smart and waited for her to go by ad I would of had my best friend today……

  • Guest

    No confusion.

    Reading your posts, it is very clear you are working very,
    very hard to construct arguments that would lighten the inherent responsibilities of drivers.

    Feel free to explain why you keep grasping at straws to make it harder to hold drivers accountable.

  • Drivers, pedestrians, everyone is responsible for their own actions. You keep trying to put me in some simple minded category that drivers are never responsible and I’m going to argue that no matter what. I don’t feel that way, so you should direct your comments to someone who acts that way especially when the situation warrants it. It’s you who has an extremists point of view. Drivers do have great responsibility in how they drive, and there’s all too many who drive and act recklessly. Those same people, who have certain attitudes behind the wheel also have those attitudes when they act a pedestrians, or at least I venture to guess. Most drivers and pedestrians act in a responsible way, but there is a percentage of people who are ‘floating’ through life, who aren’t capable of understanding the ramifications of their actions and who’s attitude blind them to the facts of road safety. I personally never cross a street unless I make eye contact with the person who’s turning into my crosswalk, and the same goes if I’m driving, I slow down and make sure no one is running.

  • Guest

    My comments are based quite firmly in what you wrote.

    You have excused drivers based on sight lines, when you should hold them responsible for their negligence for speeding into an intersection where they can’t see.

    You have also clearly misplaced responsibility from drivers onto pedestrians by demanding that they try to anticipate drivers entering intersections without looking for the pedestrians.

    I am not stereotyping at all, but reacting directly to your own irresponsible statements.

    Drivers are responsible for their actions, which must include taking care not to harm others. Please stop it with your excuses and expectations that pedestrians should absorb some extra responsibility to anticipate the actions of irresponsible drivers. Yes, for self preservation, we must all do that, but that cannot be the basis for any policy discussion or attributions of blame when a pedestrian is struck.

    I find it very disconcerting that you endorse speeding through blind turns, blame victims, and then want to play the victim yourself when somebody objects to our explicit endorsement of reckless driving.

  • Are you the same ‘Guest’ as before or someone else?

    Pedestrians are also responsible for their actions.
    I don’t nor have ever endorsed speeding anywhere especially through intersections… that’s your own stereotype belief of who I am. I don’t endorse reckless driving, again your stereotype. Based on your own comments with regards to me, you’re biased and therefore will never see anything objectively. You seem to have the need to pigeon-hole me into your own view of the world. You will continue to believe with passion that drivers are always responsible no matter the circumstance which is counter productive to helping save lives and undermines any and all ‘other’ efforts to improve safety for everyone. You condone reckless behavior of pedestrians and act as if there is nothing we should even bother to do with regards to them acting responsible even though it is they who have the most to loose in a collision. Bluntly, you are wrong in your approach and attitude. You’re acting more like a lawyer who will fervently argue a point even if the evidence is overwhelming to the contrary. While expected in a courtroom, it is a destructive approach when examining the all the causes and effects of road safety that, if believed by some, may and will cost lives. There’s so much work to do and your artificial drama is a distraction.

    Again, I ask do you have children? Why can’t one person answer this simple question?

    Here are some safety tips for kids, that should carry through one’s adult life. Go to SafeKids (dot) org and check out their ‘Walk to School on October 9th’ initiative and click on the Tips link. (I’m not affiliated with this organization). Please read and practice these tips. It will help you and promote pedestrian safety through example. As far as exposing horrible drivers you can check out my channel if you care. Haters are not welcome unless they have constructive criticism.

  • Guest

    Two things:

    1) I confused you with Leonard Diamond (who sounds very similar on here). The blind turn was him and not you. Apologies.

    2) Pedestrians are responsible for their own actions, which only affect them. Drivers are responsible for their actions, which affect everybody else. Adults are responsible for the welfare of children. So please stop already with this false equivalency between children in a crosswalk and adults driving cars!

    Your basic position, which is clearly based on that false equivalency, is not supported by the law, common sense, or basic human decency.

  • Apology accepted.

    I agree that as adults we need to look out for children and that they rely on us to do the right thing and look out for them. I also understand that we are failing to rigorously teach our children what they can do to protect themselves. To mute such a suggestion will not help the situation. It’s becomes already too late if a child darts out from between parked cars into a street and gets hit… the opportunity to teach them how to behave has to start before they turn 6 years old. The only way to do this is to introduce it into our schools.

    I can agree and disagree with your last statement as it is for me too broad a statement and doesn’t factor in particular circumstances which the law does factor in always. This is why many cases do not become criminal or even civil. You may disagree with this and thus with me, so be it, but I will continue to approach the safety of everyone from all angles until people stop getting hit on our streets. Drivers first, design and education second, and pedestrian behavior third.

    I appreciate you acknowledging that I am not one of those hardliners who only see things in a one-dimensional way.

  • Joe R.

    Just to throw a thought out there, street design should take into account the fact that everyone (drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists) makes mistakes, and the consequences of those mistakes shouldn’t be fatal. That’s why many on this site advocate speed limits of 20 mph or thereabouts on streets with vulnerable users. You may not avoid hitting that child darting out from between parked cars, but at least you’re far less likely to kill them at 20 mph instead of 30 or 40 mph. Remember there’s a difference between legal and moral culpability. We may as a society rightly absolve a driver of blame in instances where there was little they could humanly do to avoid a collision. However, that driver is still morally responsible for death or injury if they were driving at a speed which is high enough to be statistically likely to cause death/injury. I highly doubt any driver wants to live with the emotional consequences of killing someone, even if there are no legal consequences. That’s why we need forgiving street design.

    As an aside, when you reduce speeds to 20 mph or less, it becomes possible to operate intersections without traffic controls. Because this avoids the delays associated with stop signs or traffic signals, it often turns out that overall trip times are shorter, even though peak speeds are much lower. Unfortunately, the human mind has a tendency to associate rate of progress with peak speeds, while ignoring all the time stopped at red lights, so measures to reduce travel speeds are often opposed by drivers who think this will increase their travel times. We need to better educate more drivers on the reality of the situation. As an aside, streets with no stop signs or traffic lights, where motor vehicles drive at 20 mph, are much more bike friendly, so such measures should greatly increase bike mode share as well.

  • Andrew

    I’m sorry, how did my family get involved in this discussion?

    When I learned how to drive, I was taught to assume that I will encounter pedestrians while turning, and to drive accordingly – and to proceed through the turn only once I’ve established that I won’t be interfering with any pedestrians. It appears that this bus driver was taught the opposite: to assume that he or she will not encounter pedestrians and then to panic if one should happen to appear.

    My approach is safe and legal. The bus driver’s approach is neither.

  • Andrew

    As an aside, when you reduce speeds to 20 mph or less, it becomes possible to operate intersections without traffic controls.

    Not if traffic volumes are heavy or if pedestrians cannot safely cross the street.

  • Andrew

    Again, you’re setting up a false equivalency. Turning motorists are required by law to yield to crossing pedestrians; crossing pedestrians are not required by law to yield to turning motorists.

    Of course, in the virtual absence of enforcement (between January and August 2013, this precinct has issued approximately one ticket for failure to yield to pedestrians per three days), it makes sense, practically, to make sure that you’re not going to get run over by a dangerously irresponsible motorist. If I am mugged at night in a bad neighborhood, would you argue that I am at fault, not the mugger, because I shouldn’t have been walking around a bad neighborhood at night?

  • Regarding driving speeds I agree with you completely. When I drive, which is rarely (not owning a vehicle for 30 adult years btw), I will try to recognize situations that look ‘iffy’ and slow down to ensure I navigate it safely, and this includes streets that are relatively narrow and primarily residential. What you also say regarding speed and it’s impact on fatalities is also very true, that on 4th Ave in Brooklyn for instance there are signs telling drivers to slow down for this very reason, that ‘speeds over 30 mph kill’.

    Like I had mentioned before there are literally hundreds of design solutions to improve road safety for everyone including many of the traffic calming measures already being implemented in the city. All should be ‘designed’ to make pedestrians easier to see, keep bike riders safe and to encourage safe driving speeds. But despite things we might try to design into a system, there are those, like you suggest, that are just aggressive drivers. Those types only the police can address, plus, way more stiffer penalties for that sort of reckless driving behavior. I think many of these types slow down when in police presence then speed up and push other drivers around when ‘alone.’ Speeding inside a city is just crazy behavior and those who do it should face consequences that remind them of the real potential consequences of a collision. Finger slapping fines of a hundred dollars hardly seems appropriate.

  • Joe R.

    The point is that if speeds are 20 mph a pedestrian can safely just start crossing the street and motor vehicles will be able to see him/her, and stop in time. If you have really heavy volumes of motor vehicles, I submit that’s a problem in its own right which requires measures to counteract. Either reduce the volume to something where there are plenty of natural gaps in traffic, or seriously consider using grade separation. It’s inherently dangerous for pedestrians to cross streets with heavy motor traffic regardless of whether or not traffic controls exist. Heavy motor traffic tends to result in road rage, aggressive driving, etc. That’s an inevitable result of too many vehicles in too little space, and you really can’t engineer around it (other than to grade separate out vulnerable users).

  • Joe R.

    I totally agree that fines for speeding within a city should be much higher. We have speed enforcement backwards where will set up speed traps on highways but ignore speeding vehicles on local streets. Highways are the place where speeding does the least harm. We should raise speed limits on highways in an effort to encourage those who want to drive fast to stay off local streets.

  • Jason Simpson

    When you make a right turn, you yield to pedestrians.

    However, you dont yield to a person who is walking towards the street crossing but who is, say, 20 yards away from it. You go ahead and teh person can walk thru the intersection after you pass thru it. Learning to drive means that we instantly estimate the speed of pedestrians and make a judgment call as to how fast they are approaching the street crossing and therefore do we need to stop/wait or do we go ahead and drive.

    Here’s the problem with skateboarders. It is very hard for bus/car drivers to get an accurate estimate of how fast they are moving, and therefore the judgment on whether to enter the street is often not correct. For a pedestrian who is 20 yards away from the street crossing, it is obvious that you should go ahead and drive. However, for a skateboarder its a completely different calculation, as a boarder could be 20 yards away from the crossing yet be on it within seconds if they are cruising at a high rate of speed.

    It is very likely that this skateboarder was not in the intersection when the bus decided to make the turn, however she was moving at such a high rate of speed that the bus driver didnt see her until it was too late.

  • Anonymous

    It is also very likely that a responsible driver, moving at an appropriate speed through a dense urban environment, could have seen this skateboarder even if she were moving somewhat rapidly.

    Besides, the idea that she was moving at some amazing clip seems pretty farfetched. It’s a completely flat area, and we have no reason to believe she was some kind of ultra-fast skater.

    But the main point here, something apparently lost on those desperate to ensure that the driver face not the teeny-weeniest bit of criticism, is that we’ll almost certainly never know anything more about this tragedy than the handful of reports we have now.

    Your speculation and mine are equally valid because there will never be any police followup and because of that there’s almost no chance of a meaningful civil suit.

    This person was tragically killed and . . . poof! A few news stories, a blog back and forth, and the people running the city don’t even notice.

  • Only in the presence of negligence and that means doing anything that is not considered reasonable care and outside what is expected (as would be done by a reasonable person). This is why people who run into traffic even at a crosswalk are themselves acting negligently. I think you and I will disagree with regards to this. But I agree that the police are way too lax with drivers. In my neighborhood about 2 months ago a driver backed up onto a sidewalk and hit 3 young children sending one to the hospital. She walked away with no fines which is completely ridiculous because she was obviously reckless and endangered the welfare of a child(ren). It’s the lax attitude like this situation that only encourages some aggressive drivers to continue to act recklessly towards others. There needs to be a serious reckoning with aggressive drivers in the city to have a real impact on collisions and this is the place where, if dealt with before collisions happen, will yield the greatest results regarding safety.

  • And, fine heavily reckless driving within the city, like changing lanes without a signal, passing too close to other vehicles including tail-gating, not sticking to one’s lane (straddling the line), etc. If a person can’t handle their vehicle in a responsible way within the law, they should feel the effects of their actions before they cause a collision. Hopefully enforcement like this will calm certain drivers down (by changing their attitudes) and will yield safer roads and crossings for everyone.

    The sad thing is almost all drivers act responsible when they see a police car, but then act stupid when they’re not around. I kind of hope that the police could take dash cam footage and use it to fine drivers, assuming one can see the license plate. Considering it has a time/day stamp, google map showing exact location along a route and speed driven it would seem they could use it as a source of evidence.

  • Andrew

    What if, instead of a skateboarder on the sidewalk, it had been a bicyclist in the bike lane?

  • Andrew

    We’ve been through this many times. The issue is not whether drivers are able to stop in time. Obviously, drivers making turns are almost always going slowly enough (well below 20 mph!) that they are able to stop in time.

    The issue is whether they are aware that the law requires them to yield to pedestrians and whether they care to obey the law given the virtual absence of enforcement. I would posit that far fewer drivers have any notion that they’re legally required to yield to pedestrians crossing at unsignalized intersections than that they’re legally required to yield to pedestrians while turning. In contrast, every driver knows what a red light means (OK, a few out-of-towners might not realize that they’re not allowed to turn right on red in NYC), and a very large majority actually do stop for red lights a very large majority of the time.

    Yet in response to a report of a pedestrian who was killed by a driver who did not yield while turning, you’re proposing to greatly increase the number of locations where pedestrians who need to cross the street will be at the mercy of drivers’ willingness to obey a law that is currently 100% ignored, by both the driving public and law enforcement.

    I don’t think that’s a good idea.

  • Joe R.

    The solution to the problem you mention is easy. If you hit a pedestrian because you fail to yield to them you lose your license for good. Consider one of the unintended consequences of signalized intersections-namely that if a motorist hits a pedestrian who is crossing against the light, they usually face no legal consequences. Also consider that regardless of whether or not a large majority of motorists stop at red lights, most pedestrians, and many cyclists, ignore them, pretty much negating any safety value. When pedestrians ignore red lights, you’re operationally back to uncontrolled intersections. That being the case, you may as well officially make them that way. Drivers will quickly learn to slow down and look at uncontrolled intersections simply for their own self-preservation. That also means they’re much more likely to see people crossing in time to yield to them.

  • jimmy

    Wow! Anyone that knew Genielle Knew she had the Sweetest heart. My prayers goes out to her family. We miss and love you RIP Genielle Laboriel .


Today’s Headlines

Genielle Laboriel, 21, Killed by Mini-Bus Driver While Skateboarding in Melrose (WCBS, DNA, News) MTA’s 20-Year Capital Needs Assessment Makes Some Big Asks (2nd Avenue Sagas, Next City, Post) De Blasio Brings PPW Opponent Norm Steisel on Board to Help Form Administration (Post) Cy Vance Wants NYPD to Slow Down on Charges Against Motor Bike Attackers […]