A pediatric doctor on a bike died

https://slrpnk.net/post/11540942

A pediatric doctor on a bike died - SLRPNK

A pediatric doctor at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia was killed while riding her bike in Center City on Wednesday night. https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/deadly-3-car-crash-rittenhouse-philadelphia/3915690/ [https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/deadly-3-car-crash-rittenhouse-philadelphia/3915690/] The original post on the Philadelphia subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/philadelphia/comments/1e5wkv0/insane_accident_on_18th_and_spruce/ [https://www.reddit.com/r/philadelphia/comments/1e5wkv0/insane_accident_on_18th_and_spruce/]

Damn that’s horrible to see. Spruce Street is so nice too. There is no point to speeding in Philly. There are stop signs or lights every block so you have to come to stop frequently, speeding won’t save you any time.

So many people just can’t understand this. In dense city streets your journey times are usually decided by how long you spend waiting in queues and barely affected at all by your top speed. Which is why you can get around a city by bike faster than by car, even though few transportation riders cruise at much more than ~16mph/25kph on the flat.

I used to think that people just hadn’t thought this through and realized it, but I’ve had a few online discussions where it’s clear some people are just flat out incapable of understanding that when there’s congestion, speeding to a traffic queue most often just means a longer wait in the queue, not a shorter journey time.

“speeding to a traffic queue most often just means a longer wait in the queue, not a shorter journey time.”

Total agree this this statement. I personally drive near the absolute posted limit, or below. I also don’t gun it to the next red light to wait in queue.

Once you shift your driving style to minimise waiting at the next light (which usually means driving the posted limit) you will find the light turns green just before you arrive at the intersection. Traffic engineers usually time traffic signal this way as well.

This means your commute will feel less congested, you will still arrive at your end destination at the same time, and personally feel a little more calm and relaxed.

Though I do have to say if people are speeding behind you and being aggressive, let them pass you (don’t speed-up). They will just get stuck at the next red, and you will just roll up right behind them with no extra time added to your arrival. Them having saved no time all well.

Once you shift your driving style to minimise waiting at the next light (which usually means driving the posted limit) you will find the light turns green just before you arrive at the intersection. Traffic engineers usually time traffic signal this way as well.

There’s a street in my town where the lights are timed such that if you drive the 25mph speed limit you don’t have to stop.

That is unless there’s a bunch of idiots who insist on speeding to a red light, only to stop for five seconds. Then you have get stuck behind them and you also have to stop.

I wish there was some way to communicate to people that they’re on a stretch of road like that so they know that going the speed limit is actually faster and easier than gunning it only to stop again a quarter mile ahead.

The. Problem is too many streets where the lights are not synchronized, or even synchronized well above the speed limit

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

George Carlin said it, but this is a great example of it in practice.

I love the quote. Unfortunately that’s not how averages work.

Every major US city I have ever been in is full of dumb idiot assholes with cars that cost twice what I have ever managed to make in a year, racing from stop light to stop light as fast as possible, braking at the last minute.

There are days I have wished I could get away with making an Ocean’s 11 style EMP, purely to disable every car in a 2 mile radius.

There’s plenty to show that tailgating is the entire reason for “rush hour” traffic. Not allowing others to merge safely means you end up with people being cut off or slowed down constantly. Everyone wants to be going the fastest but no one wants to go the quickest.

I leave a huge amount of space on the highway and cruise at a more constant speed to avoid this issue. It always helps traffic behind me flow better. My favourite was a guy behind me who was super pissed off and ran into the on-ramp lane to pass me, honked a bunch, floored it, and then had to slam on the brakes to avoid absolutely obliterating the car in front of me. My car is 50in tall, it’s not hard to see around but people just don’t get it. I figured it out by myself the very first time I went on the highway and yet…

It’s different at lights and stuff, of course, but only a little. Regardless it just goes to show that people have no idea what they’re doing and a whole lot of pent up rage to really make it “fun”.

A pediatric doctor at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia was killed while riding her bike in Center City on Wednesday night.

The use of passive voice in the first sentence does a lot of work shifting blame away from the driver and the car centric systems in an “objective” effort.

How about:

Cyclist Barbara Friedes died when a the driver of a car hit her in the bike lane.

@apfelwoiSchoppen @ByteOnBikes Active voice would be, “A driver killed…”
They’re both active voice, they just have different verbs.
Yep, high school grammar 101. It isn’t that journalists don’t know this, it is how they are trained. Shift obvious blame away from parties for objectivity of the status quo.
“was killed” is passive.
Yes, we all agree on that fact. The discussion progressed to two different commentors’ active voice re-writes of the original sentence.

I would argue the first isn’t active voice

“died when a driver killed” seems passive to me. It’s more accurate, but still passive.

Both killed and died are active voice.
@apfelwoiSchoppen But functionally, the victim didn’t die on her own, she died as the direct result of the driver hitting her. For the purpose of accurately portraying who took an action and who was acted upon, it should emphasize the driving, not the dying.
The discussion was active voice vs passive voice, not functionality of active voice vs functionality of differently-worded active voice. They’re both still active voice.
@PapaStevesy IMO active voice includes focusing the sentence on the subject that did the action, not the one that was acted upon but by all means let’s argue about grammatical definitions instead of the problem of motorists killing people and journalists normalizing it. 🙄
You’re the one doing that.
I mean, you’re literally the one who started the argument, being dismissive and condescending about it now just makes you look like a sore loser.
“was killed” is passive.
Correct. I said killed.
Very interesting, thank you. I was wondering if that also happens in other countries. It is sadly the norm in Germany when reporting car accidents.

Ärztin wurde von Auto erfasst und erlag ihren Verletzungen.

Upvote for a better headline and for n-browser translation
I suspect the tone is used so they aren’t sued for stuff. I understand it but I disagree on their usage of it.
Even the word “accident” is part of that downplaying.
Somebody told me that at her hospital they don’t say “accident” since it’s always preventable. They say “collision”
“Negligence” works too.

The army shifted to this verbiage as well from “accidental discharge” to “negligent discharge” when at the clearing barrels or while on patrol.

Also increased the punishment, and it helped quite a bit in reducing the knuckleheads. No longer a “whoops! Mah bad”

As an old and retired medic, I’ve done my share of “accidents”. There wasn’t a single time that I stepped out of my amp-a-lamps and surveyed a scene that I couldn’t see the point where someone(s) got stupid. And then things went sidways after that. There is lots of stupid in this world.

There are no accidents. Just people doing stupid things.

Definitely normal here in the US, too. Unfortunately.

Used to subversively reinforce power or the status quo:

“Police killed/murdered by man.” “Man was killed in police raid.”

“Israeli killed/murdered by Palestinians.” “Palestians were killed in airstrike on hospital targeting Hamas.”

“Car driver kills doctor on bicycle”
Works too, though more specific on assignment of judgment.
We can make that point in the article, the headline is for drawing attention
I’m not critiquing the headline, I’m critiquing the first sentence.
Oh true. I was writing a headline lol
“Car driver kills children’s’ doctor on bicycle”
While I agree with the car centric aspect of this, you should read the article. The top bullets are more specific, and the driver may have had a medical condition.
Thanks, I did. Then I posted a comment. It is the first sentence of the article.
That’s a because there is no speculation that she was murdered. If the driver had a stroke, or some other medical incident, it would not be murder.
Yes. That’s what I said.
Well, sort of. You edited your response to add a lot more context.
An hour before you commented.
Sounds like lemmy.world was behind on federation again. Booo

The bullets don’t say that now, but it’s possible they changed the article (they should indicate the changes made, but I don’t see any notes, so who knows). Currently the bullets say:

  • Barbara Friedes, a 30-year-old pediatric doctor, was killed on Wednesday when she was hit by a car while riding a bike near Rittenhouse Square.

  • Friedes was recently named a chief resident at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

  • At the time of the deadly crash, police say, Friedes was wearing a helmet and was riding in a protected bike lane. The driver of the vehicle that struck Friedes has not yet been charged.

There’s a comment in the article that says they don’t know if there was a medical issue:

Police said they do not know at this time if the driver had a medical condition or was intoxicated at the time of the crash.

My frustration here is that “medical issue” is ALWAYS the conclusion people jump to when a driver hits a cyclist, as if there’s no possible way a driver could do anything wrong - despite all evidence to the contrary. “Medical issue” almost never turns out to be the actual reason. It’s almost always drunk, distracted, just hates cyclists so much that they attack them, or some combination of the three. (There are also instances of cyclists being at fault, for example pulling out in front of a car. Those are rare, too, but they do happen.)

I recognize that a sudden, previously unknown medical condition could strike a driver, causing the driver to lose control and inflict damage and injuries. But it’s an extremely rare event.

They would probably need a conviction before they could publish that.
What that she died? Absolutely not.
My idea to address unfit elderly drivers is once you start claiming SS you have to take the physical driving test every 2 years then every year once you turn 80. 69 might not be old for some people but could be debilitating for others.
@MacGuffin94 @ByteOnBikes Drivers can be unfit &/or negligent at any age. The focus should be on a safe system: streets that naturally limit speed so that crashes that do happen are less severe, vehicles that are appropriately sized and simple to operate, required features like automatic braking and speed limiters, and attractive options like walkable destinations and efficient transit.

Can be, yes.

But are at a statistically significant rate above & below a certain threshold.

Young kids and old folks cause a significant portion of all fatal accidents yet our society provides them no alternatives.

@huginn The alternatives are key. The US places a lot of its seniors in a terrible bind: prioritize safety by giving up driving even though your community is completely designed around cars, or give up on life, groceries, health care, social activities. Fixing the cities & providing stopgap transportation like shuttle services are more effective and humane than age-based driving bans.
Honestly, every licensed driver should have to retake a test every ~5 years.
And the DMV should charge an arm and a leg for it, because they otherwise can’t handle the traffic
There’s certainly be less people passing if those were missing!
But the ones that didn’t pass or take it at all would still be driving.
And the test needs to be way, way harder than it is now. In my state you just drive around the block and then parallel park. No highway driving requirement, no emergency maneuvers, no reaction time test.