As of September 1, 2023, drivers have killed 33 pedestrians/cyclists in Connecticut.

Around 2 PM on August 22, 2023, an unnamed driver killed a child with a vehicle in a Danbury parking lot.

Police and news media bent over backwards to both not name those involved and to say that it was determined to be “accidental.” It is rare that someone intentionally harms or kills another with a motor vehicle, making this statement feel . . . something. It felt off.

In July, we watched the news eviscerate a Hartford mother whose toddler fell out of an apartment window to his death. By the way she was treated, you would’ve thought she pushed the kid. There was no hesitation to name her or put her photo all over the news. In between these two incidents, someone crashed their car in Wolcott. It was a single-car crash that sent one child to the hospital in critical condition. There were a total of ten vehicle occupants — in a car that only had half that number of seatbelts. While there is a possibility of criminal charges hinted at, the news did not name names here either. To be clear, I don’t think they should do this in any of these three incidents with preventable deaths and severe injuries, but we need to have some real talk about how if neglectful behavior is a factor when a car is involved, there’s more grace given than to those who had no vehicle in the mix.

It is unclear why neither the police nor the media released the make and model of the vehicle that killed the toddler in Danbury, in what one news outlet described as a condo parking lot. But, here is what we do know. From looking at details about ten pedestrian/cyclist children under 12 killed in Connecticut since 2015, the vast majority involved drivers behind the wheel of vehicles larger than sedans — two Jeeps, two other types of SUVs, two pickup trucks all larger size, two cargo vans, and then only one that involved a sole sedan. Every other time a car was responsible, it involved a collision with another car or larger vehicle. One of the deaths occurred after two sedans crashed into each other, and then one hit two children who were on the sidewalk.

Looking at information about children’s deaths is not uplifting. There’s so much denial about who and what is responsible. Articles about such things always seem to end with people being cautioned to teach children to not play around cars, but this is unrealistic. Motor vehicles have infested every space — including sidewalks and park lawns: places where cars are not supposed to or expected to be. Of those ten children killed, several were walking with others.

There’s plenty of useful steps we could be taking, from adopting speed limiters to requiring special licenses in order to drive oversized vehicles, but I think it’s worth taking another step. At point of purchase, the buyer should have to read out loud a statement that acknowledges how many people are harmed and killed by that type of vehicle (oversized pickup truck, cargo van, SUV) they are seeking to own. This would get very specific. How many Americans, injured and killed. How many children, injured and killed. How many of those victims were closely related to the vehicle owner. Make the would-be buyer read it aloud and then have a signed statement notarized. This wouldn’t be merely signing off on something printed in 6 point font.

On August 20, 2023 the intoxicated driver of a 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo (SUV) collided with a 2023 Tesla Model Y on Route 113 (Lordship Blvd) in Stratford by the I-95 NB exit 30 ramp, and then hit the pedestrian on Route 113 (Lordship Boulevard) before Logan Street, just on the Bridgeport city line around 5:35 PM. The diagram (above, from CT Crash Data Repository) indicates that the Jeep was on the sidewalk near Logan Street and it is said that the vehicle “ran off the roadway” which I find to be an interesting use of passive voice. The Jeep’s driver failed to control the vehicle. They drove it off the road. An unnamed 24-year old woman who was using the sidewalk was killed. Route 113 is a stroad, designed to move vehicles fast. Had Stratford and Bridgeport valued safety, they would have found a way to calm traffic: add a median and widen the sidewalk, while also adding a sidewalk on the side without one.

She was the third pedestrian killed in Stratford in 2023; two of these preventable deaths happened on the same side of town, and two happened on Route 113. In 2019, a driver killed a pedestrian in this area (Route 113 just west of Surf Ave). The pedestrian was reported as not being in the crosswalk, but the nearest crosswalk is unmarked and does not have a signalized pedestrian light, adding no safety for the person on foot.

In 2015, a motorist injured a pedestrian at Route 113 and the exit ramp from I-95 northbound. There is no pedestrian signal available where they were crossing, nor marked crosswalks. Also in 2015, a pedestrian was injured just south of here on Route 113 between Research Drive and Watson Boulevard. This section does have sidewalk on both sides, but still five lanes plus a paint-only median that someone might decide is a sixth lane. This road is designed to prioritize speed, not safety, yet news reports have not said if Stratford or the State of Connecticut would be help responsible for enabling a pattern of violence against pedestrians.

The glimmer of hope in the hellspace of our state’s roads is that on August 21, 2023 the CT DOT Bureau of Engineering & Construction’s chief engineer issued an engineering and construction directive for Complete Streets. What this does: provides new design criteria and associated design guidance for pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities, and transit provisions. What this does not do: provide that for every single road in Connecticut. This is for projects involving CTDOT as the project proponent, administrator, and funder, and when the CTDOT controls the affected infrastructure because the road in question is a State Highway. So, Connecticut Route 113 would qualify.

What’s the directive say?

For pedestrians, and this is big, CTDOT needs to add pedestrian facilities to both sides a roadway when it is in an area where you would expect people to be including rural town centers. While they do not editorialize on this, I will go ahead and do it because this is apparently being discussed in Tolland right now. Refusing sidewalks in a rural town center because they might not be “historic” while still allowing cars to travel — even after people have repeatedly crashed their cars into the historic Tolland Inn — there is the definition of showing your whole ass.

Anyway, a pedestrian facility is a sidewalk, shared use path, or side path, and the minimum width allowed under this new directive is 5 ft., not including curb. If there are sidewalks and a traffic control signal, then the crosswalks need to be painted on all legs of the intersection. Street lighting is required.

If you have read this site long enough, this should have you cheering. How many pedestrian fatalities have been in places with inadequate sidewalks, unmarked crosswalks, and poor lighting?! Far too many.

The photo at the top of this post shows Laurel Street in Hartford. It’s not far from where I live, and it’s a street that has had issues for years. I and others have requested all manner of street slowing and pedestrian infrastructure for the section between Park Street and Capitol Avenue, which is straight, overly wide, and with driveways for apartment buildings, including elderly housing. Residents have requested sidewalks on both sides, as there are some missing sections; speed humps; narrowing of roadway; bike lanes.

Parking is not allowed on the street, but permitting this would narrow the road in places, encouraging slower travel; residents have requested this as well.

We’ve gotten zero of those things.

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 around 1 PM — a sunny, dry, and clear day — three vehicles managed to collide on this stretch of road, sending five adults and one child to the hospital. Extrication was required from one vehicle. Two of those individuals reportedly have “serious” injuries, which always feels like such an understatement.

Every image of car crash debris in this post was taken less than 24 hours after the crash on Laurel Street. Maybe things are done differently elsewhere, but in Hartford, not much effort goes into cleaning up collision sites. It seems left up to the property owner.

The roadway, sidewalk, path where sidewalk should be, and grass is covered in debris, from huge chunks that could have been removed by responders, to smashed glass all over the place. News reports show two cars and one SUV. None have said that speeding and reckless driving were involved, but it’s obvious this was the case. Go stand on Laurel Street for ten minutes and count how many people are driving at a reasonable speed.

In October 2022 there was a fatal two-car crash at Capitol and Laurel. This is not in the CT Crash Data Repository, but it was in the news and walking through the site days after, I saw the standard memorial items displayed. That collision happened at 2:40 AM, killing the driver of the smaller vehicle.

The segment of Laurel Street in question has a high number of crashes with injuries. There was another fatality in the parking lot of the elderly housing complex. Although it has a turnaround driveway, someone driving a delivery vehicle apparently backed over one of the residents. The entrance/exit is wide, as are all the driveways on this road, enabling people to speed in and out beyond what’s safe. In May, when a surveyor was killed on the job in a Fairfield driveway, it was because the driver of an SUV made a quick left turn into that driveway, off of a road designed to maximize speed.

Laurel Street is not a state road, so the DOT’s new directive does not exactly apply in this case; however, Hartford has a Complete Streets ordinance of its own. Will Hartford bother to make any changes to Laurel Street? What are we waiting on?