May 30, 2007
MCPS student hit by teacher-driven car while jaywalking on Route 29
At 6:15 p.m. today, a female MCPS student crossing Route 29 (Colesville Road) was hit by a car driven by a Blair teacher. The student, who was not using the crosswalk, faces no life-threatening injuries, according to Assistant Principal James Short.
"The early prognosis was that it wasn't life threatening," Short said. An ambulance transported the student to an area hospital 15 minutes after she was hit and Blair administrators immediately notified her parents.
The teacher was turning north onto Colesville Road at the intersection of Colesville Road and University Boulevard next to the Woodmoor shopping plaza. The student ran east across the street about 25 feet from the crosswalk and was hit by the car, according to Short.
The student, whose name Short would not release, citing her minor status, earlier had been at Blair to attend night school. Although Blair night school is a closed campus, she and other students apparently left during the break between first and second period. No other students were hurt.
Short was not able to release the name of the Blair teacher whose car hit the student. Principal Gainous, the only administrator allowed to release the teacher's name, was unavailable to comment on the incident.
According to Short, a nighttime building services worker witnessed the accident when he was on his evening lunch break. He reported the incident to main office secretary Carrie Addison, who said she ran to the intersection and immediately called Short and the student's parents.
Short stressed the importance of using crosswalks to cross University Boulevard and Route 29. "It's one more incident that tells you that students should cross on the crosswalk," he said.
"The early prognosis was that it wasn't life threatening," Short said. An ambulance transported the student to an area hospital 15 minutes after she was hit and Blair administrators immediately notified her parents.
The teacher was turning north onto Colesville Road at the intersection of Colesville Road and University Boulevard next to the Woodmoor shopping plaza. The student ran east across the street about 25 feet from the crosswalk and was hit by the car, according to Short.
The accident occurred across the Woodmoor shopping plaza during a break in night school.
The student, whose name Short would not release, citing her minor status, earlier had been at Blair to attend night school. Although Blair night school is a closed campus, she and other students apparently left during the break between first and second period. No other students were hurt.
Short was not able to release the name of the Blair teacher whose car hit the student. Principal Gainous, the only administrator allowed to release the teacher's name, was unavailable to comment on the incident.
According to Short, a nighttime building services worker witnessed the accident when he was on his evening lunch break. He reported the incident to main office secretary Carrie Addison, who said she ran to the intersection and immediately called Short and the student's parents.
Short stressed the importance of using crosswalks to cross University Boulevard and Route 29. "It's one more incident that tells you that students should cross on the crosswalk," he said.
Discuss this Article
While I'm sure this sounds unsympathetic at best (elitist and inhumane at worst), the theory is that the root of our problems is really that same sympathy. Evolution occurs through survival of the fittest. Just like in other species, if we weren't always trying to help people, the inferior traits (stupidity, genetic disease and disability, etc.) would dissapear in a surprisingly short amount of time (relatively).
Now I'm not saying don't help anyone. If someone gets hit by a drunk driver and dies, that's not natural selection. I'm merely saying that if someone's negative situation is caused by one of their own traits, they should not be spoon-fed everything in life.
If we continue on our path of interference with the course of natural selection, our species will surely be stuck as we are until we evenutally die out. Evolution is not only necessary for our eventual survival, but is entirely desirable. Improvement and revision is a good thing.
It is unfortunate that the path to something so necessary must be paved with [what some my view as] a lack of compassion for other human beings, but the longer we continue this way, the further we will deviate from the right course- the course that will save us as a species (and would also help put a stop to other major problems like environmental health).
the world is getting overpopulated, but human emotion stops us from doing anything about it. natural selection is really becoming less and less present in human life. it may sound offensive, but we really do need less disabled, retarded, and otherwise impaired people reproducing. it may be a moot point now, what with genetic engineering and whatnot, but it is undeniably true that people who, as darwinist said, need to be "spoon-fed" their entire lives (Teri Schiavo, anyone?) take up great amounts of resources better spent elsewhere, such as on education.
also, if you going to reply to me, please dont just write "omg ur insensitive i cant believe u sed dat," write something that makes you look like you don't deserve to be naturally selected.
~the capn
at the other end of your so-called belief, why don't you just weed out the problems yourself? Go and create your Aryan race.
I don't know about you but most people are humane enough to think of the human population as people and not just a simulation game.
Or lesser people would jaywalk.u think theyr
Under you? i cant believe u would honestly,
Really try to push a darwinian theory here.
Even if it was a stupid move it doesnt
Actually have anything to do with someone
Dying in the name of genetic advancement.
Is it possible youve not seen a car
Coming towards you?
Krusty the clown is cool.
and human is quite idiotic, the aryan race was not survival of the fittest, it was killing everyone that wasn't pretty...
go learn some history or bio, or whatever you're lacking
either way if someone doesn't care about his life enough to take a crosswalk, their fault
i agree with the darwin guy
a bit extreme tho
I recently stated in history class that I do not believe severely mentally challenged people should have kids. That resulted in me being called a nazi, among other things.
The truth is that if we do not reduce the rate at which we have kids, we will run out of resources. The doubling time for world population is around 60 years. If china alone reaches first world consumption rates the world's resource use will double. If all countries reach first would consumption rates the world's resource use will increase by a factor of fourteen. Yep. Fourteen times.
We are already halfway to the photosynthetic ceiling (the point where we run out of useable farmland) and we are running out of resources such as oil. We cannot support our current society as it is, and if trends continue, we most definitely will not be able to support our society 50 years from now.
And, unfortunately, given the fact that the number of people born has to reduce, if i could choose between stupid people or smart people, i would choose smart people. Call me a nazi, call me elitist, but it's true.
And to Human, while people like darwinist look at the world how it is: humans are not above their environment, you can go in your world and take no heed to the obvious signs that something needs to change.
You are not applying evolution theory correctly. You have vastly oversimplified a complex set of connected ideas to make far-fetched conclusions.
First, read up on the latest studies about brain scans and altruism. These studies suggest that humans have evolved a pleasurable emotional response related to helping each other out. How would that fit in with your world-view? Why would this trait have evolved?
Second, what would you say about contact lenses and glasses? Poor eye-sight is certaintly a disability, but somehow humans have decided to "care" about alleviating this one. Wouldn't it make more sense in your world view to just let those who can't see well fail out of school (since they can't read) and let their kind die out?
Third, any biology teacher would explain to you that species do not control their history of natural selection. Although humans think of themselves as existing outside of evolution, in a strictly Darwinian world view, we are just another animal like all other animals. We try to account for weaknesses through technology, but over 10,000 years, you would just be guessing to predict which traits will have survived as dominant. So what if we kill off multiple species? Our current generation is enjoying the cleared forests and large houses and conveniences of life...we are successful. So what if we kill off ourselves eventually? Life will continue on earth. The earth doesn't care. Other animal species will come and go.
In fact, you're the one making a humanist argument of "Oh, we have to save ourselves!" Once you die, you will never see future generations. Your body will just become worm-food. Your little blip on planet earth will have been done and you can't even care about how well your species is doing because-- oh wait-- you're dead.
Even within the framework of evolution, these traits of altruism and empathy and sympathy could have evolved for the SUCCESS of our species. From other world-views, such as religious and humanist ones, they are essential to our identity as humans. So, you're the one not making any sense.
to What?:
the feel-good do-good phenomenon and other such altruism studies do not relate to this issue at all. while it does makes us happier to help others, this hardly means spending our time and tax dollars to support people with conditions that require almost constant care is necessary to keep us "happy." My world view is not to kill off everyone who is below average in certain traits. i simply think the efforts people undertake to try to pass on genes -- especially severely damaged genes -- is a waste and creates far more problems than it solves.
secondly, your point about glasses and contacts is somewhat valid. however, bad eyesight, especially if it is minor, does not detract from someone's ability to reproduce well. large numbers of vision-impaired parents have 20/20 children. the survival and breadth of bad eyesight is a testament to this, as a very significant portion of the population of the population has it. although it is not desirable, it is a minor obstacle. cerebral palsy, however is not. I think it's important to draw that distinction between severity, and although there may no be a clear-cut line defining what is and isn't manageable in terms of hoping for healthy offspring, i think we are playing too much with nature.
third, i don't really see where you tried to go with this point. technology aside, it's rather clear what traits would survive over 10,000 years. strength, good immune traits, and any abnormalities that turned out to be beneficial. and I am making a humanistic point -- we need to save our damn species as a whole, not worry about individuals nearly as much as we do. if i'm wrong that the humanistic view is geared towards the success and survival or our species, correct me, but saving the weak and the sick from nature hardly makes our species better as a whole. on an individual level, it's great that people are glad to help others who are worse off than themselves. but when retarded parents have retarded kids, its not doing anyone a favor, and i'm not even sure the hassle of dealing with said kid is worth the joys of parenthood and reproduction and whatever else.
nice try.
to eli barnett:
i agree. and about the nazi comments, i agree that severely mentally retarded people should not have kids. nazi-ism or however it's spelled entails not only an anti-Semitic lifestyle but also the political and economic systems they believed in, so thats hardly a good insult.
to meee:
your comment is exactly the type i said i didn't want to hear. yes, we do contend (or I do at least, I don't want to speak for anyone else) that stupid people or "lesser" people would jaywalk and get hit. and yes, it is possible to not see a car coming towards you, but i think its rather hard to do that when you're crossing a one-way street in good visibility without as astounding lack of common sense. read the darwin awards, their criteria is the point behind my argument completely. the point is that when people display traits or qualities which do not promote their survival -- not looking when jaywalking, for example, especially when the crosswalk is 25 feet away. this is EXACTLY the idea behind natural selection -- should the reason behind that move be genetic, those genes are eliminated from the gene pool, which is good for the species as a whole.
to everyone else:
don't call me a nazi or communist or racist, i'm not one. i'd also like to apologize to whoever did get hit if you're reading this, because you've become the scapegoat of this argument. also, i'm not saying jaywalking is bad or "below" me, i jaywalk all the time around blair. but the important part about jaywalking is doing it intelligently, which isnt hard given the one-way nature of the roads around us. (i'm considering them one-way because of the medians and the size of each side). just look down the street for cars (coming and turning towards you) and wait for an opening. it's really not that hard.
"the feel-good do-good phenomenon and other such altruism studies do not relate to this issue at all.....My world view is not to kill off everyone who is below average in certain traits. i simply think the efforts people undertake to try to pass on genes -- especially severely damaged genes -- is a waste and creates far more problems than it solves."
How does your point relate any better to "this issue" than anyone else's point? I believe that you are overshooting this debate. Nowhere on here did anyone say or imply "I believe people should try hard to pass on severely damaged genes."
"nice try."
"your comment is exactly the type i said i didn't want to hear"
"don't call me a nazi or communist or racist, i'm not one"
"i'd also like to apologize to whoever did get hit if you're reading this, because you've become the scapegoat of this argument."
The three preceding statements make the last statement seem insincere. Are you actually apologizing or being facetious?
I would be interested in having a discussion with you, Darwinist, Eli Barnett, the Pooka, and Calard face to face. This topic interests me personally. You can find me in the science office-- Room 341-- if you would like. If you can come during 7th period, Ms. Van would like to get in on the discussion as well. We would like to talk about some of the science, and maybe some of the philosophical issues you've brought up.
simply put, if you're too stupid to avoid cars in such a situation or too lazy to go to the crosswalk, you deserve to get hit by a car, but not because your genes are intellectually inferior or whatever.
ive jaywalked since i can remember and ive never been hit. ive saved a few lives along the way though. not even kidding.
but to be iconoclastic as one said, which i think is completely logical in such a case, your own damn fault for getting hit, especially if you're breaking the law, which jaywalking is.
first, i simply was trying to relate to the debate darwinist started, and i failed to see how altruism really fits in to that. i think, at least, that my ideas relate more the the issue of evolution.
and in regards to the "preceding three" comments, i suppose i was just trying to avoid baseless responses -- such as calling me names (nazi, racist, etc.) or thoughts without any reasoning behind them. if someone's going to debunk my theories, more power to them, but not if its simply "you're wrong" without any support.
and i was genuinely apologizing, as it seems a central theme of these comments is how she's so stupid she deserves to have her genes removed from the gene pool, which is not what im saying. i think the point darwinist and i are trying to make is that when someone does something without using their common sense, it might end up hurting or killing them, and that is natural selection at work, it seems.
i'll stop trying to defend myself though, i didn't edit what i wrote and i'll just have to deal with whatever ideas i misconstrued.
since no one has made this point yet, im just going to put it out there that natural selection, in the broad sense, isn't even that relevant here, since the amount of time it takes for a new species to develop, especially given the size of the human population, is immense. additionally, i think that natural selection in humans now simply gets rid of bad traits when they appear due to mutation in gametes, not because of intact alleles passed down through generations. that's the only way i feel it really applies to us anymore, by eliminating the unfavorable mutations which happen to afflict people.
also, im busy 7th period, but i'll see if darwinist wants to stop by some other time and discuss it
I'm sorry, i didn't see your post untill i got home, or i would have come. Yes, it is an interesting argument, and i rarely ever get to actually talk to someone seriously about it.
THE best jaywalker: Crossing the street when there is no sign of oncoming traffic and no nearby crosswalks is completely different than crossing the street into oncoming traffic when you are 25 feet away from a crosswalk. The former is somewhat careless, but I have to admit, even I have crossed the street when the closest crosswalk is a long way away and there is no oncoming traffic. The latter is just plain stupid.
Someone told me today when i was talking about this that "stupidity is culture, not genetic." Even if this is true, culture is passed on in a similar fasion to genetics, and if stupidity is culture, similar rules apply to it.
And overall, as I said before, it's somewhat of a pity that there is so little pressure on people to be intelligent, due to the fact that the consequences for being stupid given our current situation, for the most part, do not directly effect the people being stupid.
Eli Barnett, I believe you are incorrect when you claim that we are above survival of the fittest. We've just redefined what fittest means. At this point in our evolution, humans don't need to be able to fight a bear, so fittest doesn't have anything to do with physical strength. The definition of survival of the fittest is that in the long run those most able to pass on their genes will be the ones who reproduce and those traits will show up in their children. In the environment of most animals, that means escaping predators, eating, and mating. In the human race it really just means not getting killed and then reproducing.
I would also like to point out that "saving" an endangered species is undermining social Darwinism as well.
On mentally retarded people not reproducing. You're about to tell these people that they cannot reproduce? I won't call you a Nazi, but if you really support this I will call you a facist. You are going to tell people what they can (or in this case can't) do with their own bodies? How do you plan to accomplish this? Or are you just saying if you had a choice and these disabled people asked you if they should have kids you'd tell them not to? If that is the case I withdraw my facist comment.
Back to the actual article. It is possible to jaywalk safely. If you get hit you were not doing it safely. I hope this person gets better although if you're going to cross the street where there is no crosswalk or light, maybe you should make sure there are no cars coming first.
Zach Hall
eli, com'mon. what if you were deemed unviable to reproduce?
And by the way, I think the word you are looking for is not "nazi," the word is "eugenecist."
Well, actually, I think the word he was looking for was not "eugenecist," it was "eugenicist."
But your point is a good one.
Well, I think the pain and hospital bills is good punishment, maybe next time she'll have the brains enough to either jaywalk safely or not at all. I find it funny that she was also cutting class - not a very bright child at all.
By the way, don't worry all you Darwinists (I am somewhat of a darwinist myself but not exactly the same as you) - in 20 or 30 years, natural selection will be back at its best when governments collapse and and WWIII begins because of the people are trashing this world. When resources and land become scarce, and when we've completely destroyed the environment and don't have enough water - that's when we'll see natural selection. Best live our lives well now, because it's really not that far away.
Anyways, getting hit by a car does not mean anything about the person. It was not stupidity that caused her to get hit by the car; most people do not need to think too much to walk across a street. It was not stupidity that she chose to jaywalk and “break the law”; many people, smart and dumb, jaywalk and “break the law.” The only inference you can make about getting hit by a car is that the person was most likely not paying attention. Unless the gene you are talking about is a constant twitching of the neck, I do not believe there is any way the gene pool would get better if all the jaywalkers get hit by cars.
Also, it would really suck if the worlds some of these people are painting actually exist. These people need to remember back to the days when their parents told them that they were special, and realize that everyone’s parents may have said the same thing to their children. Everyone is special in their own ways. It is horrible to say that one person should die or be punished because the dice did not spin up a 6. This is why elitists are bad and why some of these people are wrong.
Maybe I am not egotistical enough to see the brilliance in seeing “dumb” people die, but whatever values you are raised with, I sure do hope that you realize that this is completely unfair.
In the amazing culture that humans created, we managed to overcome the false values that nature instilled in us. When we judge other people, we like people for who they are: their personality, their friendliness, etc. Gone are the days when we valued people for their ability to reproduce and kill animals for food.
Intelligence should be on this list as well because merely understanding a difficult concept does not make friends. Intelligence means nothing about a person, only that the person has the ability to understand more than someone else. It may just be so that an intelligent person may offer witty comments but that is just as desirable as compassion from a not as intelligent person.
Nature may have told us that smart people, strong people, and beautiful people are better than the others. But our morals and values should allow us to overcome this short-sightedness. Mankind has gone far beyond nature’s values and it is horrible that we use a theory that describes nature to describe humans. It may make sense the first time you read it but think again and it becomes contrary to our culture.
There is a difference between being knowledgeable about many topics and being intelligent. Knowing many topics will help you become succesful in life, but you can know all those topics and still be utterly stupid in your actions. This person fits the latter catagory. "Nature may have told us that smart people, strong people, and beautiful people are better than the others. But our morals and values should allow us to overcome this short-sightedness." After reading this comment, i must say, that was an idiotic statement. So, our stupidly self-imposed "morals" should allow us to overcome what evolved out of necesity? Just because the consequences of our actions are no longer in the short term, but in the long term, doesn't mean that being smart is short-sighted. Hell, let's all be stupid, because obviously it's not bad because our "morals and values" say that it's not.
Andy: It would require a very, very good test to deem someone unfit to reproduce, but if we had a perfect test, and I was deemed unfit to reproduce, then it would have been for good reason, no doubt.
And I lol at the "everyone is special" argument. Well guess what, even if everyone is special, maybe being special in one way (being stupid when it comes to using a crosswalk) isn't a good thing.
Libertarian: So, let's take the exact opposite. Everyone reproduces because they want to, we overpopulate the planet and die. Wonderful, obviously, because at least everyone was "equal." Survival of the human race comes before morals. Survival of the human race is not, as you put it, "social darwinism," it's normal darwinism. If we make stupid choices as a species, we will die out. And if the people who make those stupid choices reproduce as much as the people who make the idiotic ones, then their children will most likely make the same stupid choices. The consequences we face for making bad choices is not contained within our society anymore, we are in a worse situation than many people would like to believe.
--Has night school start time changed 4 her 2 be on break @ 6:15p?
3) Main Office is still open @ 6pm?
If u or some1 u love is hit, what will u say?
U dont know if the girl did look b4 she crossed.
U dont know of the teacher gunned it bc s/he was thinking of all the Blair students they s/he hates.
___
weak and disabled should be the first thing to go.
Jay Walking :: 6/1/2007, 12:08 AM
In Maryland, jay walking is a misdemeanor, just like not stopping at a red light or speeding. Just to point something out. Therefore, I have no more sympathy for the student than if he or she was driving recklessly and got into a serious accident. However, I do sympathize with the teacher, who shouldn't have to deal with this unfortunate situation.