According to this news story (heard it on the news last night, too.)
http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=us&cat=highway_safety
I’ve lived in the metro Boston area for years, and the only way this can be true is if they’re talking about the Boston in England, or maybe in a parallel universe. Boston safe for pedestrians??? The city where people are creative in interpreting the meaning of “road”? The city where pedestrians will blithely step off the curb and cross the street in the middle of a block while the lights are all green and not even make a token gesture of looking for traffic? The city where PepperMill was routinely almost run down in the North End?
If Orlando is really worse than Boston, I’d better steer clear of Disney World, because the only way it could be is if they’re driving the wrong way on the sidewalks.
I saw yesterday where Jacksonville is 5th on the list. I don’t entirely understand this because I so rarely see anyone walking around here. Then again, I don’t spend a lot of time downtown… I find walking in Baltimore scarier.
I’m leaning to the parallel universe theory.
Wow, Boston’s safe for pedestrians? Well, get me off the subway, man - I’m walkin’ to work!
Riiiight. The only reason Boston, MASSACHUSETTS could be considered safe for pedestrians is if everybody’s too freaking scared to walk anywhere, so there are simply less pedestrians to get run down in the first place.
Maybe that’s Boston, Greenland (pop: 24), they were talking about?
I read the article in the USA Today, one of the big contentions was that the dangerous cities were building lots of strip malls/shops/restarantes/etc near high traffic density roads. (FairyChatMom–think the new renovations to San Jose Blvd.)
I can definately see several areas like that around Jax, but that seems somewhere subjective. I wonder if they based this on pedestrian accidents per hour walked, or per capita, or per mile of road, or exactly where their data comes from.