Pocket Wifi Readings

By: Levi Villarreal


This portal is not connected to the internet. It is a tiny (274 KB) self-hosted website with texts that you'll hopefully find interesting. Take a look around and learn something new while you are here!


A pigeon. They hate us... Why do they hate us? A pigeon being shooed by a broom. To them we are nothing. A nuisance that roams the streets, But it was different back then. A pigeon delivering a message. We used to be useful. They tied scraps of paper to us, Secret messages, And we would soar the skies. A cozy pigeon. We saved lives back then, Back when they needed us. And they treated us well, For we were their heroes. A pigeon being stoned. But not anymore... Sometimes we try to ask for food. But instead we get pebbles. A crying pigeon. I'm so hungry... A dove being fed. But it's not like they hate All of us. No, they love the pure white ones, A symbol of peace and love. A white pigeon eating, and gray pigeon turning away. Oh to be beautiful like them... Instead of my dull colors. Maybe in another life... A pigeon being fed bread. And it's not like all of Them hate us; The ones who remember still care. An old woman feeding many pigeons on a park bench. They sit there on that park bench, And feed us and talk to us, Just like how they use to. Pigeons alone on a park bench. But as the days go on, They seem to stop visiting... A single feather. What a cruel fate it is, To be hated by thos who made you... I wish I could've known it, How it felt to be wanted... To be loved...

"When a pigeon no longer has a home" by PKL

"This Is What Our Ruling Class Has Decided Will Be Normal"

On Aaron Bushnell's Action in Solidarity with Gaza

Published in CrimethInc. on February 26, 2024


On Sunday, February 25, we received an email from a person who signed himself Aaron Bushnell.

It read,

Today, I am planning to engage in an extreme act of protest against the genocide of the Palestinian people. The below links should take you to a livestream and recorded footage of the event, which will be highly disturbing. I ask that you make sure that the footage is preserved and reported on.

We consulted the Twitch account. The username displayed was "LillyAnarKitty," and the user icon was a circle A, the universal signifier for anarchism - the movement against all forms of domination and oppression.

In the video, Aaron begins by introducing himself. "My name is Aaron Bushnell. I am an active-duty member of the US Air Force and I will no longer be complicit in genocide. I'm about to engage in an extreme act of protest - but compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers, it's not extreme at all. This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal."

The video shows Aaron continuing to film as he walks to the gate of the Israeli embassy in Washington, DC, puts down the phone, douses himself in a flammable liquid, and sets himself alight, shouting "Free Palestine" several times. After he collapses, police officers who had been watching the situation unfold run into the frame-one with a fire extinguisher, another with a gun. The officer continues pointing the gun at Aaron for over thirty seconds as Aaron lies on the ground, burning.

Afterwards, police announced that they had called in their Explosive Ordinance Disposal Unit, though there were no explosives on site.

We have since confirmed the identity of Aaron Bushnell. He served in the United States Air Force for almost four years. One of his loved ones described Aaron to us as "a force of joy in our community." An online post described him as "an amazingly gentle, kind, compassionate person who spends every minute and penny he has helping others. He is silly, makes anyone laugh, and wouldn't hurt a fly. He is a principled anarchist who lives out his values in everything he does."

Aaron's friends tell us that he has passed away as a consequence of his injuries.

All afternoon, while other journalists were breaking the news, we discussed how we should speak about this. Some subjects are too complex to address in a hasty social media post.

The scale of the tragedy that is taking place in Gaza is heartrending. It exceeds anything we can understand from the vantage point of the United States. Over 30,000 Palestinians have been killed, including over 12,000 children. More than half of all inhabitable buildings in all of Gaza have been destroyed, along with the majority of hospitals. The vast majority of the population are living as refugees with little access to water, food, or shelter.

The Israeli military is now planning a ground invasion of Rafah that will add untold numbers of casualties to this toll. It is not hyperbole to say that we are witnessing the deliberate commission of genocide. All available evidence indicates that the Israeli military will continue killing Palestinians by the thousand until they are forced to stop. And the longer this bloodshed goes on, the more people will die in the future, as other governments and groups imitate the precedent set by the Israeli government.

The United States government bears equal responsibility in this tragedy, having armed and financed Israel and provided it with impunity in the sphere of international relations. Within Israel, the authorities have effectively suppressed protest movements in solidarity with Gaza. If protests are going to exert leverage towards stopping the genocide, it is up to people in the United States to figure out how to accomplish that.

But what will it take? Thousands across the country have engaged in brave acts of protest without yet succeeding in putting a halt to Israel's assault.

Aaron Bushnell was one of those who empathized with the Palestinians suffering and dying in Gaza, one of those haunted by the question of what our responsibilities are when we are confronted with such a tragedy. In this regard, he was exemplary. We honor his desire not to stand by passively in the face of atrocity.

The death of a person in the United States should not be considered any more tragic - or more newsworthy - than the death of a single Palestinian. Still, there is more to say about his decision.


Aaron was the second person to self-immolate at an Israeli diplomatic institution in the United States. Another demonstrator did the same thing at the Israeli consulate in Atlanta on December 1, 2023. It is not easy for us to know how to speak about their deaths.

Some journalists see themselves as engaged in the neutral activity of spreading information as an end in itself - as if the process of selecting what to spread and how to frame it could ever be neutral. For our part, when we speak, we presume that we are speaking to people of action, people like ourselves who are aware of their agency and are in the process of deciding what to do, people who may be wrestling with heartache and despair.

Human beings influence each other both through rational argument and through the infectiousness of action. As Peter Kropotkin put it, "Courage, devotion, the spirit of sacrifice are as contagious as cowardice, submission, and panic."

Just as we have a responsibility not to show cowardice, we also have a responsibility not to promote sacrifice casually. We must not speak carelessly about taking risks, even risks that we have taken ourselves. It is one thing to expose oneself to risk; it is another thing to invite others to run risks, not knowing what the consequences might be for them.

And here, we are not speaking about a risk, but about the worst of all certainties.

Let's not glamorize the decision to end one's life, nor celebrate anything with such permanent repercussions. Rather than exalting Aaron as a martyr and encouraging others to emulate him, we honor his memory, but we exhort you to take a different path.

"This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal."

These words of Aaron's haunt us.

He is right. We are rapidly entering an era in which human life is treated as worthless. This is obvious in Gaza, but we can see it elsewhere around the world, as well. With wars proliferating around the Mideast and North Africa, we are poised on the threshold of a new age of genocides. Even inside the United States, mass casualty incidents have become routine, while an entire segment of the underclass is consigned to addiction, homelessness, and death.

As a tactic, self-immolation expresses a logic similar to the premise of the hunger strike. The protester treats himself or herself as a hostage, attempting to use his or her willingness to die to pressure the authorities. This strategy presumes that the authorities are concerned with the protester's well-being in the first place. Today, however, as we wrote in regards to the hunger strike of Alfredo Cospito,

No one should have any illusions about how governments view the sanctity of life in the age of COVID-19, when the United States government can countenance the deaths of a million people without blushing while the Russian government explicitly employs convicts as cannon fodder. The newly-elected fascist politicians who govern Italy have no scruples about consigning whole populations to death, let alone permitting a single anarchist to die.

In this case, Aaron was not an imprisoned anarchist, but an active-duty member of the US military. His linkedin profile specifies that he graduated from basic training "top of flight and top of class." Will this make any difference to the US government?

If nothing else, Aaron's action shows that genocide cannot take place overseas without collateral damage on this side of the ocean. Unfortunately, the authorities have never been especially moved by the deaths of US military personnel. Countless US veterans have struggled with addiction and homelessness since returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Veterans commit suicide at a much higher rate than all other adults. The US military continues to use weapons that expose US troops to permanent brain injuries.

Members of the military are taught to understand their willingness to die as the chief resource they have to put at the service of the things they believe in. In many cases, this way of thinking is passed down intergenerationally. At the same time, the ruling class takes the deaths of soldiers in stride. This is what they have decided will be normal.

It is not willingness to die that will sway our rulers. They really fear our lives, not our deaths - they fear our willingness to act collectively according to a different logic, actively interrupting their order.

Many things that are worth doing entail risks, but choosing to intentionally end your life means foreclosing years or decades of possibility, denying the rest of us a future with you. If such a decision is ever appropriate, it is only when every other possible course of action has been exhausted.

Uncertainty is one of the most difficult things for human beings to bear. There is a tendency to seek to resolve it as quickly as possible, even by imposing the worst-case scenario in advance - even if that means choosing death. There is a sort of relief in knowing how things will turn out. Too often, despair and self-sacrifice mingle and blur together, offering an all-too-simple escape from tragedies that appear unsolvable.

If your heart is broken by the horrors in Gaza and you are prepared to bear significant consequences to try to stop them, we urge you to do everything in your power to find comrades and make plans collectively. Lay the foundations for a full life of resistance to colonialism and all forms of oppression. Prepare to take risks as your conscience demands, but don't hurry towards self-destruction. We desperately need you alive, at our side, for all that is to come.

As we wrote in 2011 in reference to the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi,

Nothing is more terrifying than departing from what we know. It may take more courage to do this without killing oneself than it does to light oneself on fire. Such courage is easier to find in company; there is so much we can do together that we cannot do as individuals. If he had been able to participate in a powerful social movement, perhaps Bouazizi would never have committed suicide; but paradoxically, for such a thing to be possible, each of us has to take a step analogous to the one he took into the void.

Let's admit that the kind of protest activity that has taken place thus far in the United States has not served to compel the US government to compel a halt to the genocide in Gaza. It is an open question what could accomplish that. Aaron's action challenges us to answer this question - and to answer it differently than he did.

We mourn his passing.


If you or your family members are currently serving in the US military, please contact the GI Rights Hotline at 1-877-447-4487.

CrimethInc. is a rebel alliance - a decentralized network pledged to anonymous collective action - a breakout from the prisons of our age. We strive to reinvent our lives and our world according to the principles of self - determination and mutual aid.

We believe that you should be free to dispose of your limitless potential on your own terms: that no government, market, or ideology should be able to dictate what your life can be. If you agree, let's do something about it.

What if AI treats humans the way we treat animals?

The dehumanizing philosophy of AI is built on a hatred of our animal nature.

Published in Vox by Marina Bolotnikova on September 7, 2023


By now, you may have heard - possibly from the same people creating the technology - that artificial intelligence might one day kill us all. The specifics are hazy, but then, they don't really matter. Humans are very good at fantasizing about being exterminated by an alien species, because we've always been good at devising creative ways of doing it to our fellow creatures. AI could destroy humanity for something as stupid as, in philosopher Nick Bostrom's famous thought experiment, turning the world's matter into paper clips - much like humans are now wiping out our great ape cousins, orangutans, to cultivate palm oil to make junk foods like Oreos.

You might even say that the human nightmare of subjugation by machines expresses a sublimated fear of our treatment of non-human animals being turned back on us. "We know what we've done," as journalist Ezra Klein put it on a May episode of his podcast. "And we wouldn't want to be on the other side of it."

AI threatens the quality that many of us believe has made humans unique on this planet: intelligence. So, as author Meghan O'Gieblyn wrote in her book God, Human, Animal, Machine, "We quell our anxiety by insisting that what distinguishes true consciousness is emotions, perception, the ability to experience and feel: the qualities, in other words, that we share with animals." We tell ourselves, in other words, that even if AI may one day be smarter than us, unlike the machines, we have subjective experience, which makes us morally special.

The obvious problem with this, though, is that humans aren't special in this way. Non-human animals share many of our capacities for intelligence and perception, yet we've refused to extend the generosity we might expect from AI. We rationalize unmitigated cruelty toward animals - caging, commodifying, mutilating, and killing them to suit our whims - on the basis of our purportedly superior intellect. "If there were gods, they would surely be laughing their heads off at the inconsistency of our logic," O'Gieblyn continues. "We spent centuries denying consciousness in animals precisely because [we thought] they lacked reason or higher thought."

Why should we hope that AI, particularly if it's built on our own values, treats us any differently? We might struggle to justify to a future artificial "superintelligence," if such a thing could ever exist, why we're deserving of mercy when we've failed spectacularly at offering our fellow animals the same. And, worse still, the dehumanizing philosophy of AI's prophets is among the worst possible starting points to defend the value of our fleshy, living selves.

Transhumanism is built on a hatred of animality

Although modern humans defend the exploitation of non-human animals in terms of their assumed lack of intelligence, this has never been the real reason for it. If we took that argument at face value and treated animals according to their smarts, we would immediately stop factory-farming octopuses, which can use tools, recognize human faces, and figure out how to escape enclosures. We wouldn't keep elephants in solitary confinement in zoos, recognizing it as a violation of their rights and needs as smart, caring, deeply social creatures. We wouldn't psychologically torture pigs by immobilizing them in cages so small they can't turn around, condemning them to a short lifetime essentially spent in a coffin, all to turn them into cheap cuts of bacon. We would realize that it's wholly unnecessary to subject intelligent cows to the trauma of repeated, human-induced pregnancies and separation from their newborns, just so we can drink the milk meant for their calves.

In reality, we aren't cruel to animals because they're stupid; we say they're stupid because we're cruel to them, inventing fact-free mythologies about their minds to justify our dominance, as political theorist Dinesh Wadiwel lays this out in his brilliant 2015 book The War Against Animals. In a chapter called "The Violence of Stupidity," Wadiwel contends that human power over animals enables us to be willfully and unaccountably stupid about what they are really like. "How else might we describe a claimed superiority by humans over animals (whether based on intelligence, reason, communication, vocalisation, or politics) that has no consistent or verifiable 'scientific' or 'philosophical' basis?" he writes. Humans, like animals, are vulnerable, breakable creatures who can only thrive within a specific set of physical and social constraints. We can only hope that future AI, however intelligent, doesn't evince the same stupidity with respect to us.

While we can only guess whether some powerful future AI will categorize us as unintelligent, what's clear is that there is an explicit and concerning contempt for the human animal among prominent AI boosters. AI research itself has strong ties to transhumanism, a movement that aims to radically alter and augment human bodies with technology. Its most extreme aspirants hope to merge humanity with computers, excising suffering from life like a tumor from a cancer patient and living in a state of everlasting bliss, as Bostrom, one of the main proponents of transhumanism, has suggested. Elon Musk, for instance, has said that he launched Neuralink, his brain-computer interface startup, in part so that humans can remain competitive in an intelligence arms race with AI. "Even under a benign AI, we will be left behind," Musk said at a Neuralink event in 2019. "With a high bandwidth brain-machine interface, we will have the option to go along for the ride."

This aspiration can be interpreted as an implicit loathing of our animality, or at least a desire to liberate ourselves from it. "We will be the first species ever to design our own descendants," technologist Sam Altman, now the CEO of OpenAI, wrote in a 2017 blog post. "My guess is that we can either be the biological bootloader for digital intelligence" - meaning just a stepping stone for advanced AI - "and then fade into an evolutionary tree branch, or we can figure out what a successful merge looks like."

Computer scientist Danny Hillis, co-founder of the now-defunct AI company Thinking Machines, declared in the early '90s that humans are composed of two fundamentally different things: "We're the metabolic thing, which is the monkey that walks around, and we're the intelligent thing, which is a set of ideas and culture," as historian David Noble quotes in his 1997 book The Religion of Technology. "What's valuable about us," Hillis continued, "what's good about humans, is the idea thing. It's not the animal thing." Merging with computers signifies our extrication from animal biology.

This human/animal dualism posits a clean cognitive break between us and the rest of the animal evolutionary tree, when in fact no such division exists. It relies on an implausible model of human intelligence as having nothing to do with our physical, animal selves: a notion that "the mind is computation, that it does not involve the affective dimensions of the human experience, and it doesn't involve the body," Michael Sacasas, a technology critic who writes The Convivial Society, a popular Substack, told me.

The societal reckoning taking place now over where humans fit in a world of AI, might, as Sacasas hopes, prompt us to start to rethink this dualism, to recognize that the body is "not just as the firmware for the rational software, but actually an integral part of what we call 'mind.'" Breaking down that dualism ought to also mean giving up the separate status we assign ourselves as human beings. It could help us broaden the definition of intelligence itself to encompass the animal qualities described by O'Gieblyn - "emotions, perception, the ability to experience and feel." There is, after all, no single thing in our brains called "intelligence" or "thought"; it's not a body part, but an emergent property continuous with our other mental processes. Animals share these, and in some cases exceed them.

Migratory birds, for example, can famously navigate by perceiving the Earth's magnetic field. Raccoons can "see" and learn about the world with their hyper-sensitive hands (this is why they can sometimes be seen enthusiastically patting objects and other animals). Pigs are undoubtedly smart, but the widely cited idea that they're "as smart as" 3-year-old children reflects the depressing way that we've come to measure intelligence against a single-variable, anthropocentric yardstick, rather than recognizing different beings as having different minds. Yet this is dehumanizing to us, too, because it judges our cognition as though it were a computer's CPU. If we can properly value animals' capacities, then we might also see how claiming human exceptionalism through a disembodied view of our minds has done spiritual harm to ourselves.

AI criticism ought to include non-human animals

You don't have to believe that AI could become autonomous and orchestrate our extinction to see how, for example, chatbots are already blurring the line between humans and machines, creating the illusion of sentience where it doesn't exist, a critique made by linguist Emily Bender. Others, like Sacasas, point to how AI replacing humans represents the culmination of modernity's drive to eliminate inefficiency from life. "By the logic of the market and of techno-capitalism, if you like, the inefficiencies of the human being were always ultimately meant to be disposed of," he said. "AI, in a sense, just kind of furthers that logic ... and brings it to its logical conclusion, which is, you're just getting rid of people."

These kinds of critiques ring true to me - yet they also have a way of fixating on the ethical and spiritual uniqueness of human beings, to the exclusion of the other sentient, intelligent creatures with whom we've always shared the planet. "One of the anxieties generated by AI is built upon how we have sought to distinguish the human, or to elevate the human, or to find the unique thing about the human," Sacasas points out. Humans are, in important ways, obviously unique among animals. But the critical discourse about AI has shown little interest in thinking beyond ourselves, or reckoning with what implications this moment has for our undervaluing of animals.

One of the best-known critiques of AI large language models, or LLMs, for example, compares AI's lack of language understanding to that of an animal: the concept of the "stochastic parrot," which refers to how chatbots, not having minds, spit out language based on probabilistic models with no regard for meaning. "You are not a parrot," proclaimed the headline of a widely read March profile of Emily Bender in New York magazine.

I'm sure Bender has nothing against parrots - exceptionally smart animals that are thought to reproduce sounds with astonishing fidelity as part of their communication with one another and with humans. But parrots aren't machines, and imagining them as such only reinforces the human/animal dualism that gave us the disembodied view of our own minds. It's as if we have no language for affirming our worth as humans without repudiating animality.

The ascendance of AI should be a pivotal moment from which to start to come to grips with our relationship to other sentient, biological life. If AI were ever in a position to make judgments about us, we should hope that it's far more charitable than we have been, that it doesn't nitpick, mock, or nullify our capacities and needs as we've done to other animals. If we wouldn't want to be tyrannized by a more powerful intelligence, we have no credible defense for continuing to do the same.

We don't know if sentient AI is possible, but if it is, we shouldn't build it

None of this necessarily tells us whether the machines themselves could ever become sentient, or how we should proceed if they can. I used to find the idea of sentient AI risible, but now I'm not so sure. The scientific method has not figured out how to explain consciousness, as O'Gieblyn points out. Modern science, she writes, "was predicated in the first place on the exclusion of the mind."

If we don't know where consciousness comes from, we may want to be careful about assuming it can only arise from biological life, especially given our poor track record of appreciating it in animals. "Evolution was just selecting repeatedly on ability to have babies, and here we are. We have goals," as Vox's Kelsey Piper said on The Ezra Klein Show in March. "Why does that process get you things that have goals? I don't know."

We have no reason to believe any current AIs are sentient, but we also have no way of knowing whether or how that could change. "We're kind of at the point where we can make fire but do not even have the rudiments of what we'd need to understand it," my friend Luke Gessler, a computational linguist, told me.

If sentience in AI could ever emerge (a big if), I'm doubtful we'd be willing to recognize it, for the same reason that we've denied its existence in animals. Humans are very good at dismissing or lying about the interests of beings that we want to exploit (including not just animals but also, of course, enslaved humans, women, and any other class of people who have been excluded from moral consideration). Creating sentient AI would be unethical because we'd be bringing it into the world as chattel. Consigning sentient beings to property status, as we know from the experience of non-human animals, is inherently unjust because their welfare will always be subordinated to economic efficiency and the desires of their owners. "We will inevitably inflict suffering on them," science fiction author Ted Chiang said of building sentient AI in 2021. "That seems to me clearly a bad idea."

In a May essay, Columbia philosopher Dhananjay Jagannathan offered a different perspective on the AI minds question. Drawing from Aristotle, he suggests that the nature of thought isn't something that can be scientifically deduced or implanted into a computer, because it's an irreducible part of our lives as biological animals. "Thinking is life," the Aristotelian idea puts it. A raccoon who pats things to learn about her environment, for example, or a baby bird who pecks around at objects to do the same, or a human whose sense of smell vividly triggers a distant memory are all having experiences of thinking that are inextricable from the biological organs through which they're engaging with the world.

One upshot of this, Jagannathan writes, is that the transhumanist dream of digitally uploading our consciousness and splitting from our bodies, far from being any sort of liberation, amounts to "self-annihilation." The idea of thinking as inseparable from animality can be hard for modern people to comprehend because, as O'Gieblyn writes, our concept of the mind pulls so heavily from computational metaphors. Because we imagine our cognition as a computer, we start to imagine, erroneously, that computers can think.

AI evokes our anxieties about the fragility and mistreatment of animality

Jagannathan's view, that we can understand thought through our kinship with non-human animals, helps clarify what is disconcerting about the dualist, computational view of experience, taken to its logical endpoint by AI and transhumanist philosophy. The assumption that we can apprehend, measure, and perfect subjective experience, rendering life as though it were bits of information encoded on a computer, can lead to conclusions that are obviously repugnant. It has made the annihilation of biological life, both human and non-human, imaginable.

Prominent philosopher Will MacAskill, for example, proposed in his 2022 book What We Owe the Future that declining populations of wild animals (we are, if you haven't heard, in the middle of a mass extinction) may actually be desirable. Their lives might be "worse than nothing on average, which I think is plausible (though uncertain)," he writes, because they may consist more of suffering, from things like predation and disease, than of pleasure. Perhaps, then, they'd be better off if they'd never been born - an argument that springs from the same well as the transhumanist impulse to remove suffering from life and colonize the universe with beings merged with machines.

The idea of wild animal eradication represents one of the more extreme manifestations of the drive to denude life of physical content. In a similar vein, transhumanist philosopher David Pearce, who sits on the board of the organization Herbivorize Predators (it aims to do what the name implies), hopes to technologically "eliminate all forms of unpleasant experience from human and non-human life, replacing suffering with 'information-sensitive gradients of bliss.'"

In the actual world, where wild animals are often exterminated wholesale when their presence is inconvenient for us, the notion that it could actually be morally righteous to get rid of them might provide a justification for the ecocide that humans are engaged in anyway. Who's to say that an AI won't one day say the same thing about us, deciding that it's best to put us out of our misery based on its cold calculation of our pains and pleasures? That would be consistent with the transhumanist ethos of transcending the hardship of physical existence.

Yet this dim estimation of our biological selves, as well as those of animals, forecloses the possibility of valuing or interpreting life in other ways. We can hardly access an animal's interiority, much less be able to say whether they think their lives are worth living. If a utilitarian bean counter told me that the rest of my life would be 70 percent suffering, I wouldn't choose to die, even if I truly believed them; I would want to live out my life.

A very different, more integrated interpretation of animal life, one that I return to again and again, can be found in a work by the poet Alan Shapiro. His 2002 poem "Joy" gives expression to the strange entanglement of joy, fear, and tragedy that defines our lives, and, he imagines, perhaps those of wild animals also. "Joy," he writes, is the thing that is "Savagely beautiful," likening it to antelope evading a lion:

This vision doesn't, to me, suggest that the suffering of wild animals doesn't matter, but rather that the vulnerable, mysterious fullness of their lives is worth living. AI evokes our anxieties about the fragility and mistreatment of animality - our own, as well as that of nonhuman animals. It reminds us of our own vulnerability, the parts of us that are unfathomable or expendable in mechanistic terms. In a world where the ability to manipulate language is no longer a uniquely human capacity, the rationalizing impulse might ask us to co-sign our own obsolescence. We might, instead, decide that our creaturely selves are worth holding on to, and, in doing so, invite our fellow animals into our moral circle.


Marina Bolotnikova is an editor for Vox's Future Perfect section, which covers the world's big moral and technological problems, from global poverty and inequality to pandemics to factory farming. She edits staff writers and oversees Future Perfect's freelance contributions.

When Cars Kill

A boy's death launches a movement to end pedestrian and cyclist fatalities in New York City and beyond.

Published in The New Yorker by Danyoung Kim on June 2, 2022

On the afternoon of October 8, 2013, in the last moments of his life, twelve-year-old Sammy Cohen Eckstein, of Park Slope, Brooklyn, was walking to after-school soccer practice near his apartment on Prospect Park West when he lost control of his ball. It rolled into the busy southbound street, and he went after it. The driver of a car in one lane hit the brakes. The driver of a van in the next lane did not. Later, he said he'd seen only a ball, not a boy.

"Sammy didn't yet have his growth spurt," his mother, Amy Cohen, said. "He was small for his age. This is why he didn't survive." Apart from the funeral, to which nearly a thousand people came, she spent the following days under the covers, as her husband, Gary Eckstein, took the lead in caring for Sammy's devastated older sister, Tamar. Their son had been a popular figure in the neighborhood, game to debate climate change and Yankees pitching with all comers. A random accident-that's what people told them. Sleepless, Amy began to wonder how random Sammy's death really was. Not long after shiva ended, she forced herself to walk to the corner where Sammy had been killed, which had also been a corner where he'd grown up playing. Raising a radar gun borrowed from a neighbor, she aimed toward Prospect Park West.

Drivers on this street go too fast, she used to warn the children. Now, at a little past 5 p.m., the hour her son was killed, she tracked just how fast, recording her findings on a legal pad. Almost no driver kept to the thirty-mile-an-hour speed limit. Sometimes they went over forty. By chance, the City Council's transportation committee would soon be holding a hearing about a bill to cut the speed limit in residential neighborhoods to twenty miles per hour. Amy, Gary, and Tamar had decided to testify, and Amy wanted to bring hard evidence along with her grief.

At the hearing, after Amy and Gary presented data they'd gathered, Tamar, then fifteen, was the last to speak. She read a letter that she had written to her brother after his death: "At camp this summer, for the first time in our lives, we were separated for four weeks. It was really hard. I kept expecting you to be there, and you weren't." She took shallow breaths and read quickly, with little inflection. "Now I am going to have to live my whole life like that." The transportation committee tended to be skeptical of measures that inconvenienced drivers. But, when Tamar spoke, the city councilman Brad Lander, who represented the Park Slope area, recalled, "You could feel the change in that hearing." Several council members wept, among them James Vacca, the chairman of the committee, who said, "I'm going to remember this day for as long as I live." But tears didn't magically change the speed limits. The bill was tabled, representatives moved on to other topics, and the Cohen Ecksteins retreated back home.

A few days later, though, Amy's phone rang, and on the other end was Caroline Samponaro, who had heard about the family's testimonies. Samponaro was, at the time, the deputy director of a nonprofit called Transportation Alternatives, which sought to make New York City streets friendlier to non-drivers. Samponaro asked if her group could assist Amy's family, perhaps by connecting them to legal counsel. Right away, Amy grasped that what she needed instead was the company of other families who could understand what hers had lost. In the fog of the early mourning days, another mother, Amy Tam-Liao, had called her to say that, two days before Sammy's death, her three-year-old daughter, Allison, had been killed by a man driving an S.U.V. in Flushing, Queens. That weekend, Tam-Liao and her husband, Hsi-Pei, visited the Cohen Ecksteins, and the parents found comfort - small but not nothing - in telling one another that their children's deaths had not been their fault.

At Amy's suggestion, Transportation Alternatives staff members compiled a list of grieving families they had worked with in the past, and over the next three months Amy made her way down it. She talked to Mary Beth Kelly, whose husband, Henry, was killed in Chelsea by a man driving a police tow truck as they were biking home; to Dave Shephard, whose fiancée, Sonya Powell, was killed in the Bronx as they walked across the street; to the Gansons, whose lives were upended when Hutch Ganson was run over as he walked one of his daughters to the subway; to Anna Kovel and Greg Merryweather, whose nine-year-old son, Lucian, was killed by the driver of an S.U.V. in Fort Greene a month after Sammy died. In February, 2014, more than twenty people who had lost family members to traffic violence gathered for the first time at the Chelsea office of Good Shepherd Services, a nonprofit where Amy Cohen worked as an administrator.


One attendee was Dana Lerner, whose nine-year-old son, Cooper Stock, had been run over and killed four weeks earlier outside the family's apartment on the Upper West Side. "I was in a state of agony. I could barely stand up," she told me. "I went into this meeting and people started hugging me, and I realized, Oh, my God. There are other people." Debbie Kahn, whose only child, Seth, was killed while walking with the right-of-way in Hell's Kitchen, said, "It was like we found our home."

At long tables in a drab conference room, the families began to talk, and quickly they saw that what they could take from one another went beyond emotional support. Individually, several had come to a realization not unlike one Amy had after her testimony at the City Council hearing: that challenging the status quo of traffic deaths required people working in concert. At their second meeting, those whom Amy brought together would name themselves Families for Safe Streets, positioning their fledgling organization against an epidemic that most Americans don't see.

In the nineteen-tens, when cars were becoming commonplace in the United States, their right to dominate the road was fiercely contested. Newspapers ran articles denouncing drivers for hitting pedestrians, and police sometimes had to rescue such drivers from mobs baying for blood. During the following decade, the number of fatalities per year doubled, reaching thirty thousand in 1929. There were no driving tests, lane markings, traffic lights, or stop signs on streets, which had long been public spaces where children played. Drunk adults drove. Children drove, too. Cars killed thirteen hundred people in New York alone in 1929 - still a record for the city. The majority of victims in New York City, then as now, were pedestrians. Grassroots protest movements coalesced, their leaders arguing that the speed and power of cars foretold a public-health crisis - a point driven home by posters of mothers holding lifeless children. But the automotive industry had a better-funded counter-campaign to make high body counts acceptable to the public.


As the historian Peter Norton writes in his book "Fighting Traffic," starting in the nineteen-twenties, the National Automobile Chamber of Commerce, the leading lobbying group for car manufacturers, persuaded editors to publish its pseudo-statistical "news reports" on car crashes, which spread the idea that "jaywalkers" - a pejorative for people from rural areas who didn't know how to navigate city streets - were responsible for their own injuries and deaths. Auto clubs sponsored street shows in which jaywalkers were lampooned by clowns and convicted in mock trials held by children. This industry campaign helped to bring about what Norton calls a "social reconstruction of the street," in which pedestrians were taught to accommodate cars, not the other way around. A new school of urban designers, called highway engineers, refashioned cities to push pedestrians and cyclists further to the margins. Meanwhile, media coverage of car crashes grew less critical of drivers, and a sense of fatalism began to envelop the consequences of traffic collisions, which are typically called "accidents," suggesting that no one is to blame and nothing can be changed. (Plane crashes are not described in the same way.) By century's end, cars had grown progressively larger, better insulated from the feedback of the surrounding environment, and safer for the people inside them. Those on the outside were less lucky. The U.S. automotive lobby resisted regulations enacted in Europe that made cars and trucks less lethal, and, by 2018, the number of pedestrian and cyclist deaths per kilometre in the United States was more than four times higher than in the U.K., Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark. Among the most vulnerable are older adults, who in 2020 made up twenty per cent of killed pedestrians, and people who live in low-income neighborhoods where there has been little investment in safe road design.

Between 2010 and 2019, as the number of U.S. drivers or passengers who died in collisions held fairly steady, deaths of those on foot and on bikes rose by forty-six per cent and thirty-eight per cent, respectively.

More children died from traffic violence in the twenty-tens than from any other cause.

In the months after Sammy died, Amy Cohen learned that other people in her co-op could handle the recycling pickup for the building, that long walks helped, that chatter about other children's high-school-admissions anxieties didn't. She also learned the correlation between car speed and survival. The average pedestrian, if struck by a car moving at forty miles per hour, has about a fifty-per-cent chance of survival. If the car is going twenty miles per hour, the pedestrian has more than a ninety-per-cent chance. Had the van that hit Sammy been moving just a little bit more slowly, Amy believed, her son might still be alive.

In 1997, Sweden's parliament encoded this connection between speed and mortality in a groundbreaking package of legislation called Vision Zero, whose reforms promised to save lives by slowing down traffic. At the time, Sweden already had one of the world's lowest per-capita traffic death rates, but among Vision Zero's premises were that any death as a cost of transportation is unacceptable; that drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians are fallible; and that street design should lessen the consequences of human error. Before long, Sweden's traffic deaths were halved, and leaders elsewhere in the world were paying attention. As 2014 began, Amy joined other street safety advocates in lobbying to bring Vision Zero laws to New York City. That February, the newly elected mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, became one of the first U.S. municipal leaders to take what's become known as the Vision Zero pledge. The pledge commits a city's leaders to policies aimed at eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries within a certain time frame in New York City, by 2024. Fifty-one other local governments have since joined Vision Zero.

Speed limits are paramount to slowing down drivers, but road design matters, too.

Curb extensions give pedestrians more space on sidewalks and reduce the time it takes to get across the street. Rubber bollards and speed bumps slow down cars as they turn.

Letting pedestrians start crossing the street before the cars around them get a green light saves lives, too.

In 2020, despite deepening knowledge about how to build safer streets and a pandemic-related decline in car traffic, more pedestrians in the U.S. were killed than at any time since 1989. At some point, almost everyone in this country is a pedestrian.

Good road design grasps the psychology of drivers.

Straight, wide lanes encourage drivers to speed. But S curves called chicanes force drivers to decelerate in order to follow the bends.

Protected bike lanes separate cyclists from moving traffic by using barriers like a line of parked cars.

Serious street redesign is not cheap. According to the city's Independent Budget Office, the de Blasio administration, in the first six years of Vision Zero, spent an average of a hundred and ninety million dollars per year on road redesign. But the payoff was a drop in the death toll. In 2018, two hundred and six people were killed in traffic, a record low for New York City. Then de Blasio's commitment waned, covid-19 broke out, and progress stalled. In 2021, a banner year for cycling in New York City and elsewhere, two hundred and seventy-three people died - fourteen more than in the year Vision Zero was adopted.


In early meetings of Families for Safe Streets, Amy Cohen and the others recognized that their losses bestowed upon them a bleak kind of narrative power, and they thought carefully about how to use it. The prospect of performing their grief publicly was brutal. But, in similar movements - among them Amsterdam's Stop de Kindermoord (Stop Killing Children) campaign of the seventies, which turned that city into a bike idyll-mothers, bearing an anguish poignant to the public, had proved effective as victims. After some discussion, F.S.S. members decided that their first fight would be to lower New York City's default speed limit from thirty miles per hour to twenty.

Reducing that speed limit first required a change in state law-a challenge in New York, where, as in many other states, leaders have long prioritized the swift movement of cars and trucks over pedestrian and cyclist safety. In the spring of 2014, Amy and the other F.S.S. members began making trips to Albany to lobby state legislators, carrying smiling photos of their lost ones and wearing matching T-shirts with the name of their new group. Transportation Alternatives staff had trained them in public speaking, but the officials they met, some receptive and some not, cautioned that changing laws usually took years. As infuriating as Amy and her colleagues found this lack of urgency, they ultimately accepted - bitterly - that a twenty-mile-per-hour default speed limit wouldn't happen that year. A compromise of twenty-five miles per hour found a crucial ally in Sheldon Silver, then the speaker of the Assembly. In a meeting with Amy and her colleagues, he confided that he had lost his mother in a car crash. In June, four months after F.S.S. started campaigning, both chambers of the state legislature voted in favor of a bill that ultimately slowed down thousands of miles of New York City streets.


The bill-signing ceremony took place in a sparsely decorated hall in the Javits Center. Aaron Charlop-Powers, a twenty-nine-year-old who'd thrown a blazer over his F.S.S. T-shirt, spoke on the group's behalf. One reason he had been picked to be at the podium was that he could usually tell his story without breaking down. In 2010, a bus in the Bronx had hit and killed his mother, Megan Charlop, a community organizer. "Failure is waiting for someone to be killed to reduce the speed limit or redesign the intersection. Failure is my mother being run over and the bike lane being painted on the street a week after," he said, adding, "We hope you never join our group."

More members kept coming, though, among them the mother of Mathieu Lefevre, a thirty-year-old cyclist who was killed at an intersection in Williamsburg by the driver of a crane truck. An officer told the media that Lefevre had run a red light. Video that later emerged showed the driver turning into Lefevre's path without signalling, slamming into him, and dragging him across the intersection. The driver was not charged. Dan Hanegby, also in his thirties, was fatally run over on his bike by the driver of a bus running parallel to him in Chelsea in 2017. Police told reporters that he had "swerved" into the bus. Surveillance footage from a nearby store showed nothing of the kind. Amy started working with Hanegby's wife. In 2019, Mario Valenzuela, a fourteen-year-old, was killed in Long Island City when a truck driver overtook his bicycle and veered in front of him. Police inspectors obtained video showing that the boy had the right-of-way; nonetheless, they attributed the cause of the crash to "cyclist error." The Valenzuela family joined F.S.S.

Aaron Naparstek, a journalist who has meticulously investigated such wrongful deaths for Streetsblog, a transportation-focused Web site that he founded in 2006, notes a chilling consistency in New York City pedestrian and cyclist fatalities: police investigators rarely conduct interviews with anyone other than the drivers and passengers of vehicles. Victims on foot or on a bicycle are often in no condition to provide statements about what happened, and evidence that might challenge drivers' accounts goes uncollected. Steve Vaccaro, a personal-injury attorney, said, "If there's video of the crash, it gets overwritten. If there are skid marks, they're washed away. If there are eyewitnesses, they disperse and can't be found again." Many victims' families lack the resources to track down video footage, conduct their own investigations, hire lawyers, or otherwise redress the narrative asymmetry. Predictably, the dead are the ones who get blamed. "Nobody ever looks at the car as a weapon," Naparstek said. "The basic rule that I discovered over the years is if you ever want to murder someone in New York City, do it with a car."


Street-safety advocates call the tendency to sympathize with drivers "windshield bias" - a predisposition that Tara Goddard, an urban-planning professor at Texas A. & M. University, noted has deep roots in American life. "The way we've set up our society and our land use and transportation systems, it's very difficult to get by in the U.S. without a car," she said. "So, even if it's unsafe on an aggregate level, and even if you don't enjoy day-to-day travelling and being stuck in traffic, it's still the best of bad options. Subconsciously, we have to justify what we're doing to tolerate it."

Eric Gonzalez, the Brooklyn District Attorney, has long been interested in how the justice system can help prevent car fatalities. He believes that police officers are too ready to imagine that they could have been the driver in a collision with a pedestrian or cyclist. Yet, even when investigations are rigorous, less than two per cent of city crashes in which the drivers are sober result in criminal charges - despite a law on the books in New York City for the past eight years that makes killing or injuring a pedestrian or cyclist who has the right-of-way a criminal misdemeanor. Gonzalez blames a prevailing legal standard that prevents drivers who hurt or kill someone from being held criminally liable unless they've made at least two mistakes, such as being distracted and driving through a red light, or texting and speeding. And, even when this rule of two is met or exceeded, claims tend to be civil. "The way the law has developed," Gonzalez says, "even when a driver is extraordinarily reckless, the courts have said you can't attach a criminal mens rea to the conduct."

Today, fifty-five per cent of New York City pedestrians killed are hit at intersections. Amy Tam-Liao's three-year-old daughter, Allison, was one of them. After Allison died, the police secured dashcam video showing her and her grandmother stepping hand in hand into the crosswalk with the right-of-way. The police issued two traffic tickets to the driver who killed Allison, Ahmad Abu-Zayedeh, but he later contested them at the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. An administrative judge threw out the tickets in a proceeding that lasted less than a minute. Families of victims are not included in such hearings, and the fact that a girl, exuberant and beloved, had died under the tire of the driver never came up.


The single chance that most families have to participate in a government inquiry about what happened to the person they have lost comes at what is called a D.M.V. fatality hearing: a bureaucratic reckoning of the circumstances and the conduct of the driver. But many F.S.S. members say they were never notified of their family members' hearings. Amy Cohen was determined not to miss Sammy's, and, having attended other such hearings with F.S.S. colleagues, supposed she was better prepared than most for the distressing event when the day arrived, twenty months after he died. But that June morning, seated at a small table in a cramped conference room at the Manhattan D.M.V. office, she had to steel herself to look into the face of the person seated opposite her: Luis Quizhpi-Tacuri, a twenty-four-year-old construction worker and the driver who killed her son.

Luis seemed to her apathetic as he mumbled answers to the presiding judge, who grew irritated at his incomprehensibility. The judge was gentler with Amy. She'd once had a run-in with him after a hearing to which she'd accompanied another victim's mother. The judge had prevented the mother from speaking, and afterward Amy yelled at him that protecting a driver from the pain of what he'd done was "unconscionable." This time, the judge granted Amy the floor. Doing her best to stop her voice from wobbling, she told Luis that she understood that he did not intend to kill Sammy, and that she wasn't angry anymore.

After her son died, she had read a draft version of the drash that he had been writing for his upcoming bar mitzvah. Through the story of the estranged brothers Jacob and Esau, he'd decided to explore why he was readier to criticize than to understand. "I find it really hard to forgive people," he'd written. "So I decided I would look into why that might be." Amy was determined to forgive Luis, but, as she told the judge, she didn't want Luis to exit the room having faced no consequences for taking Sammy's life. In the end, the judge suspended Luis's license for six months.

Last month, in the kitchen of a Queens apartment whose bedrooms he sublets, Luis told me that, long after he knelt and held Sammy's hands while they waited for the ambulance to arrive, he kept seeing the boy's face when he rode the subway. "This boy had a future," Luis said. Sirens give him flashbacks of how he took it away. On the afternoon of Sammy's death, Luis had been driving down Prospect Park West to pick up tools for a job that started early the following day. As he approached the intersection, the light turned green and he proceeded, thinking little of a small bump he felt until he heard pedestrians screaming. "Every time I see an accident nearby or feel the car jump, I start to shake," he said, clasping his hands. "I feel like crying. I get chills." He hasn't been able to afford a therapist. His parents back in Ecuador tell him to forgive himself, but had he not started attending church, he thinks, he would never have found a way to live with his guilt. Luis was raising three children of his own when he hit Sammy. He's waiting until the younger ones are a bit older to share the full story of why he gets emotional when reminding them to take care on city streets.


Many drivers summoned to fatality hearings follow their lawyers' advice not to express the extent of their shame because apologies may be used against them in civil court. Since Amy quit her job and started volunteering full time for F.S.S., three years after Sammy's death, she has supported restorative-justice practices that would bring more honesty and accountability to the post-crash process. But she is more drawn to work that keeps people out of fatality hearings in the first place. In 1980, Candace Lightner, who lost her daughter to a drunk driver, founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving, an organization that helped to halve the number of U.S. drunk-driving fatalities by the end of the century, in part by leading a fight to raise the drinking age and lower the threshold for blood-alcohol levels. The madd model reinforces one of Amy's most closely held convictions: that improvements the public ascribes to "cultural" changes are, more often than not, created by changes in policy.

On Gerritsen Avenue, a broad thoroughfare in southern Brooklyn, culture and policy met headlong. Weekend drag races down the avenue were a neighborhood tradition, and, from 2009 to 2018, nine people died and more than two hundred were injured on the street. Nonetheless, the community board representing the surrounding area resisted safety remedies that the Department of Transportation proposed. New York City's fifty-nine community boards are its most local level of government, and, with few exceptions, the D.O.T. consults them before starting work on a redesign. Because bike lanes and projects that slow down streets or repurpose space reserved for cars often come at the cost of free neighborhood parking and a community's desire for self-control, resistance is frequent-and effective. The D.O.T. overrides community-board objections only a handful of times each year.


In the case of Gerritsen Avenue, it took two grave crashes and a civil suit against the city to get a street redesign under way. After a driver going more than fifty miles an hour hit and permanently disabled a twelve-year-old boy, his family successfully sued the city. In 2016, the New York Court of Appeals upheld a jury decision finding the city liable for failing to fix a speeding problem it had known about for years. That same year, another young cyclist was fatally wounded, and the department at last began narrowing the street by installing a turning lane and a bike lane. As city engineers started work, they found the tires of their vehicles slashed. A few months later, D.O.T. construction workers who felt threatened by residents had to request security from the local precinct. Since the safety redesign was completed, in the fall of 2018, there have been no fatalities.

Nonetheless, some of those who live nearby resent the changes to the street and complain about city leaders overengineering their behavior. This line of argument about local and personal autonomy is one that Amy and other F.S.S. members have also heard during a long campaign for more automated speed enforcement. The threat of tickets from speed cameras has been shown to reduce crashes, and having more of them in a city is the sort of policy shift that can change entrenched habits. In 2014, when the Department of Transportation began camera enforcement in select school zones as part of a pilot program that F.S.S. had backed, speeding plummeted by sixty-three per cent. Yet drivers dislike being spied on when speeding, and when the pilot program ended, in 2018, state politicians declined to continue it.

Amy was always relentless with legislators, but by that year she had learned to stay composed, having put behind her a few episodes in Albany in which she had erupted in rage. All the measured conversations weren't getting much speed enforcement, however. So, on the first day of summer, she, Amy Tam-Liao, and other F.S.S. members put on their matching T-shirts, grabbed their signs, and made a human chain at rush hour in front of Governor Andrew Cuomo's New York City office, upon which some of them were handcuffed and jailed for blocking traffic. In August, they protested for nine hours at the Bay Ridge office of a state senator who had pulled his support. At month's end, Cuomo issued an emergency order to reactivate the existing cameras. The following year, he signed a bill enabling the city to expand the program to seven hundred and fifty school zones.

When the cameras were back in operation, speeding in some school zones declined ninety per cent.

Tamar Cohen Eckstein, who graduated from Oberlin College in 2020 and is now a preschool teacher, admires her mom's advocacy. But she and her father prefer to watch the battles from a distance. "It's hard to be so vulnerable with strangers," Tamar said. When Sammy was alive, weekends had been for family bike rides and learning to ice-skate backward at the rink in Prospect Park, not four-hour bus trips upstate to lobby. She's still hurt by a memory of a day when she and her mother were snapped at by a hostile legislator. "I don't know how my mom does it, frankly," Tamar said.

Before speaking to the public or lawmakers, F.S.S. members harden themselves by reminding one another that they are "putting a face to the numbers." Amy said, "Grief experts say you have to let the pain out, and I figured that if I'm going to let it out I might as well let it go to good use." But, as adept as she has become in front of a microphone, an uncertain quality tends to come over her when she's asked to speak off script about her son.

Although demoralization is constant in this kind of advocacy, she and her colleagues-friends now, really-try to buoy themselves by remembering that the successes translate to lives saved. One victory came after they joined other advocates in an effort to improve Queens Boulevard, whose reputation as one of the deadliest streets in the U.S. had come up at the very first F.S.S. meeting. Between 1990 and 2014, a hundred and eighty-five people died on the road, among them a young assistant teacher named Asif Rahman. In 2008, he was biking to meet his mother, Lizi Rahman, after work when the driver of a freight truck ran him over. Afterward, Lizi wrote to City Council members, borough officials, and newspaper editors, pleading for a bike lane on the boulevard. She made no progress until she joined F.S.S. and met people like Mary Beth Kelly, who had her own story of fruitless advocacy for bike lanes after her husband had been killed. Before long, Lizi was no longer attending Queens Boulevard community meetings alone. Beginning in early 2015, Amy, Mary Beth, and other F.S.S. members helped Lizi galvanize support for a hundred-million-dollar proposal from the D.O.T.: a major redesign of the boulevard that included a bike lane.

Ninety-seven per cent of U.S. streets on which pedestrians are struck and killed have three or more lanes.

The greater the crossing distance, the greater the peril to pedestrians. Adding more raised safety islands to the middle of hectic arterial roads like Queens Boulevard saves lives by dividing the crossing into shorter intervals.

Adding medians and trees gives drivers a sense that they are moving down smaller, neighborhood streets - an illusion that prompts them to slow down.

The traffic lulls created by the pandemic have inspired local governments around the world to reconceive public space and reconsider the supremacy of cars. The mayors of London and Paris, for instance, dramatically reduced the number of motor vehicles in their cities' centers, and many U.S. mayors blocked cars from certain streets, giving them over to pedestrians and cyclists. In one sign that concern for non-drivers might extend beyond the pandemic, the U.S. Department of Transportation recently earmarked five billion dollars over the next five years to help states and cities redesign dangerous streets.

But much of the work ahead will depend on grassroots advocacy, some of which will be done by Families for Safe Streets, new chapters of which have begun springing up around the country. A chapter in Portland, Oregon, has been focussing on state highways, where the majority of the region's traffic fatalities occur. Nashville-based members are scrutinizing the two per cent of streets where sixty per cent of the city's pedestrian injuries and fatalities occur-arterial roads with little space for walking. Last year, a chapter in Texas successfully lobbied to require drivers to stop, not just yield, for pedestrians who are crossing with the right-of-way. Philadelphia's chapter helped bring speed cameras to a twelve-lane road where four relatives of an F.S.S. member were killed while crossing the street. And, in the Bay Area, F.S.S. members helped to persuade the state legislature to pass a speed-limit law and keep a portion of Golden Gate Park car-free. The chapter's leader, Aly Geller, said of the F.S.S. movement in California, "You can't turn away from it as a politician anymore." She added, about Amy, "She is a lot of people's hero for good reason." Amy tears up when she hears talk of herself as a national figure. This year's Seder was the first since Sammy's death that she felt like cooking for, a reminder that what she tells new members of her group - that the boulder they're carrying may lighten a little over time-might actually be true. But, she said, "I wish I didn't have to do this."

Amy is currently campaigning for the passage of the Crash Victim Rights and Safety Act, a set of eight bills in the New York State legislature that would, among other things, require drivers to leave cyclists at least three feet of space when passing them from behind, insure that family members of victims are kept better informed by the police and D.M.V., and let New York City lower its default speed limit to twenty miles an hour. The latter bill is called Sammy's Law. After four bills passed in the State Senate last year, the Assembly adjourned for the summer before bringing any of them to a vote. This session, Amy has been trying to get them across the finish line, securing the endorsement of more than a hundred organizations, including hospitals and environmental-justice groups.


Last month, she, Amy Tam-Liao, and two dozen other F.S.S. members took a bus to Albany to find additional allies at an annual conference led by state legislators of color. At the capitol that Saturday afternoon, Amy and her colleagues converged with other F.S.S. members from around the state in a brightly lit exhibit hall where hundreds of activists, union officials, corporate executives, and state bureaucrats set out brochures on folding tables and prepared to expound on the urgency of their particular cause. As veteran F.S.S. members spread out in search of support for the street-safety bills, they were trailed by new F.S.S. members, trying to learn.

In a din of overlapping voices, Amy approached a peppy woman from the Assembly speaker's office and began her pitch. "My name is Amy Cohen, and my twelve-year-old son was killed eight years ago in a car crash." She held up the photograph of Sammy that she has brought to rallies, vigils, and meetings for these past eight years: dark hair just long enough to curl at the ends, braces he'd looked forward to getting rid of. It was taken a few days before he died. As she asked for the speaker's support, the smile on the staffer's face faded, and Amy's peers grew still, allowing themselves to be observed. On the ride back to New York City, some of them were so drained that they slept.

Rentering the city, the bus driver let off a couple of people at 178th Street and Park Avenue in the Bronx, where, in the surrounding three blocks, forty-two crashes have left one person dead and sixty-three people injured in the past year. It was dark by the time the driver opened the doors at the final stop, Grand Central Station, where, in the surrounding three blocks, fifteen recent crashes have left one person dead and nineteen people injured. The members grabbed their backpacks, gathered up half-empty bags of chips and some clementine peels to use as compost, and alighted into a blare of car horns and the blithe clamor of a midtown Saturday night. They would reconvene at the station a few weeks later to embark on another day of lobbying in Albany. See you soon, they told one another, before taking the photos of their loved ones back home.