The only safe ped is a ped in bed.
@livingstreets: This ace cartoon poking (serious) fun at “motocracy” is still poignant today – & it’s nearly 90 yo! #RoadSafetyWeek https://t.co/F8iCBbZw6s
Article Categories
Archives (2003-13)
Recent Articles
Recent Episodes
- Podcast
- Events
- Support
- About Viewpoint Vancouver
- City Elections 2022
- Climate Change
- COVID Place making
- The Livable Region
- Transportation
- Urbanism
- All The Livable Region
- Business & Economy
- Energy & Resources
- Governance & Politics
- Housing
- All Transportation
- Cycling
- Infrastructure
- Motordom
- Public Transit
- Walking & Mobility
- All Urbanism
- Architecture
- Art & Culture
- Design & Development
- History & Heritage
- Policy & Planning
- Nature & Public Spaces
- Podcast
- Events
- Support
- About Viewpoint Vancouver
- City Elections 2022
- Climate Change
- COVID Place making
- The Livable Region
- Transportation
- Urbanism
- All The Livable Region
- Business & Economy
- Energy & Resources
- Governance & Politics
- Housing
- All Transportation
- Cycling
- Infrastructure
- Motordom
- Public Transit
- Walking & Mobility
- All Urbanism
- Architecture
- Art & Culture
- Design & Development
- History & Heritage
- Policy & Planning
- Nature & Public Spaces
When a pedestrian is mowed down by a motor vehicle, the typical police response it that weather may have been a factor but speed was not a factor. Then a warning is issued that pedestrians should be more careful, should make eye contact with drivers and should wear bright clothes at night. In other words, things have not changed much since 1927. Blame the victim and let motordom thrive. Public safety campaigns run by ICBC or City of Vancouver or VPD are similar in nature. Big focus on what the pedestrian should do and little about driver responsibility.
I recently wrote an email to ICBC about their pedestrian safety campaign and urged them to ask drivers to reduce speed at night and especially when dark and rainy and that drivers should always double check for peds at intersections and never pass a stopped car at an intersection unless being positively certain that the vehicle is not stopped for a pedestrian. Also, drivers should always yield the right of way to pedestrians where required by law.
The exact opposite is happening. Irresponsible and entitled pedestrians are taking their lives in their hands more and more often but are quick to blame drivers even when statistics show the percentage of such accidents are caused by pedestrians more and more often. Drivers should not have to slow down at any time unless the conditions are not safe. Pedestrians on the other hand need to be much more vigilant when interacting with traffic. Having your head down texting while blindly crossing the road is an accident waiting to happen. I’ve seen numerous people just walk right out in front of cars expecting (demanding?) that they stop on a dime because they think they have the right of way. Sorry car haters, the laws of physics will not change because you want them to. The best thing that could happen for pedestrian safety would be to institute stiff distracted walking laws because education and common sense sure aren’t working.
As for your points in the second paragraph, I agree. Drivers should never pass a stopped vehicle at an intersection until it’s safe to do so. At the same time pedestrians should always make sure that another car isn’t coming.
Back to your first paragraph. Are you implying that making eye contact and wearing bright clothing is not necessary? Making eye contact is probably the most important thing to do. Too bad people in their 20s appear to think this is not cool or not necessary.
Corndogger said: “Drivers should not have to slow down at any time unless the conditions are not safe.”
Never has a more accurate statement of entitlement ever been made.
Operating a 2 tonne killing machine is a privilege that should only be afforded to those who take the inherent responsibilities seriously.
You should turn in your license immediately.
————-
Having said that I have seen some atrocious pedestrian behaviour lately: people quite literally asking to be maimed or killed.
There are idiots amongst us using all forms of transportation. We must all slow down and be wary of them.
LOL! Did you read all of my post? The point I’m making is that I should not have to slow down at every intersection, etc. just in case a pedestrian might be in the area. Did you read the part where I said drivers should not pass vehicles stopped at an intersection until they know it’s safe? Save your outrage and accusations for someone else. I’m a very responsible driver but I refuse to roll over and let the anti-car lobby destroy my quality of life. Driving the speed limit when safe to do so is part of the rules we all agree to when using our road network as is being alert to the surroundings for pedestrians.
Slowing down would destroy your quality of life?
Lol
Don, the speed limits are already ridiculously low. Just how slow do you want people to go? And just how much time do you have on your hands that this is not an issue for you? I’m not expecting to get from Point A to Point B in 10 minutes in all cases but I also don’t want it to take 10 to 15 minutes longer just because some lobby group has a hate on for cars.
As I wrote, blaming the victim is not going to reduce the rate of pedestrian injuries and deaths. Pedestrians are not obliged to wear bright clothing or to make eye contact with drivers. Drivers are legally obliged to stop for pedestrians at intersections and are obliged to avoid colliding with pedestrians at other locations. Drivers need to be much more attentive since they are the ones operating the killing machines and therefore owe a much higher duty of care to prevent a crash. We should have zero deaths and serious fatalities from traffic crashes and this will never happen if drivers feel entitled to travel faster than conditions allow for not killing and injuring pedestrians.
Here is a video I created during an attempt to cross Kingsway in Vancouver. 17 drivers failed to yield the right of way during this one crossing attempt:
So now tell me who is entitled?
Is that at Famous Foods on Kingsway?
Isn’t there a signalized cross walk at King Edward Ave. one block away?
I’d be more apt to walk to the signalized crosswalk than risk life and limb crossing there.
(But you’re not me and I’m not you)
Do you have videos from different parts of the city? I wonder if different roads/neighbourhoods have different attitudes. Even the same driver might react differently in a different location. Now I’m all curious.
As a society, we overrate the risk of walking and cycling and underrate the risk of driving. Everything in life has danger. Staying in bed has its own dangers, as one could die from poor health or there could be a fire etc. I accept that as a pedestrian, driver and cyclist, there is some risk from each activity, but I risk manage by being aware of my surroundings and taking appropriate action when needed.
Sounds like you’re using common sense which is sadly missing in a lot of people today. Either that or certain groups refuse to take responsibility for their actions.
…and then they go to Europe, or anywhere else and just walk off the sidewalk, expecting to be like Moses and the Nile, and they are often squashed. Bad parenting. It’s sad.
Bad parenting is definitely making the problem worse as is the anti-car lobby who is brain-washing them into thinking that they can do no wrong and that cars have to yield them everywhere. Don’t believe me? Drive by a high school sometime and you’ll see exactly what I’m talking about.
So, you believe that there exists a lobby that’s anti-car?
Are you saying there isn’t? This site with it’s near daily dose of “motordom” articles is part of that lobby.
Corndogger, I am assuming you are a conservative. So I am curious…
All municipal roads are paid for by property taxes obviously subsidizes driving and increases the size of government that is necessary to build and maintain those roads.
Are you against that and support road pricing instead of property taxes assuming it was revenue neutral?
This would reduce the size of government.
Why would you assume I’m conservative other than it’s one of the talking points progressives use when they can’t make their case?
As for roads being subsidized, virtually every product you buy is at one point shipped by truck. Our economy is dependent on a good road network which this country is sadly lacking. Also, don’t forget that transit is heavily reliant on roads. I’m fine with how we pay for our roads just not with how their designed and operated.
How about we talk about the subsidization of bike lanes, cycle tracks and transit? That’s where we could safe some real money, improve the quality of life for the vast majority of citizens, and improve our economy.
@Corndugger— Restarted the conversation about property taxes here for readability
I used the word, ‘conservative’ because I hoped you had a motivation to reduce the size of government, and I only used it in an economic sense, not social.
All forms of transport are subsidized, its just that cars are the most subsidized and the difference is very large, see page 2:
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/regional_transportation_strategy/Backgrounders/Transportation_Funding_Backgrounder.ashx
As for the buying of goods, yes we are subsidizing them through free roads, but why should we do that. The cost is born through the property tax the merchant has to pay. I would rather have the merchant pay a road toll rather than a property tax. In this case local goods would be cheaper and goods from far away would cost more. Free roads encourage us to buy more goods from China and less from Vancouver.
Also since you want to save money will you change your mind now considering the data?
Sorry, those numbers out to lunch. Transit is by far the most subsidized form of transportation. How disingenuous of TransLink to say that fares cover 52% of operating costs and conveniently forget to mention that they cover 0% of the billions spent on capital projects. I’m not going to waste my time posting links to prove transit is the most subsidized form of transportation when it’s a well-known fact.
I honestly don’t see where buying locally is going to reduce costs. You’ll still need the same level of road network because no area can produce everything it needs. Forcing merchants to pay for roads would be an attack on the poor so I can’t support that idea. It would be like saying I don’t have any kids who use the school system so why should I pay education taxes. Roads are needed and they are good. Destroying our road network through poorly thought out concepts such as road diets, cycle tracks, converting free flowing roads into urban boulevards, etc. is beyond stupid. There’s no other way of saying it. It’s why I’m an advocate for electing top city administrators. If they had to actually sell their ideas to the general public none of this nonsense would ever come to be.
If I buy locally we don’t need to build a road network to transport that good across the world. Obviously some things will be transported across the world just a lot less and then we need to spend less on roads.
Those merchants already pay for the roads through property taxes, I am trying to reduce those property taxes which by your logic would be good for the poor?
Please provide some numbers that public transit is the most subsidized? I found my numbers in 2 minutes, if your numbers are so well known it will only take you maybe one minute.
As I pointed out, those numbers ignore capital costs for transit and there’s no indication of how they derived pollution cost numbers. Don’t rely on politically-driven biased numbers when you can use common sense to arrive at the conclusion that everyone else has. Drivers pay gas taxes, registration fees, etc. What do transit users pay other than their fare? I’ve left taxes out of the equation since everyone pays them.
If you make merchants pay more for roads they’ll just pass the cost on to the consumer which will hurt poor people. Roads are a public good with great benefit. Why would you want to destroy that? Your taxes would not go down!
In 1993, the provincial government commissioned research on road and transit subsidies. They concluded that automobile transportation in the Lower Mainland was subsidized to the tune of $6.6 billion per year which represented a 42% subsidy on total costs. Transit was subsidized to the tune of $360 million per year which represented 37% of total costs. Automobile subsidy is probably much higher today given the PMH1, South Fraser Perimeter Road and Sea to Sky projects.
I don’t see why anyone would oppose road pricing if other taxes were reduced. It is like saying that a flat rate for hydro, heating gas, even automobile fuel would be good (i.e. everyone pays the same yearly rate independent of consumption)..
With respect to cycling infrastructure being bad for driving, it is the exact opposite. A given width of asphalt can carry three times as many people on bikes as in cars. More people cycling means less people driving. Cycling is a solution to many of society’s problems and motor vehicle congestion relief is one of them. Everybody – especially drivers – should advocate strongly for more cycling infrastructure so that society can gain more of the benefits that cycling affords.
@CornDugger—-Here for readability
1) I am talking about replacing property taxes with road tolls. This will stop the subsidy, then taxes can go down since we have less road subsidies.
2)Those numbers include senior government contributions IE the feds, province. If you want to complain about my numbers show some better numbers if you think trans link is biased.
Hanoi is fun. Make sure you watch the video.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/world/asia/hanoi-traffic-daunts-tourists.html?_r=0
Almost as much fun as Rome or Milan. There are pedestrian crossings but don’t believe you have the right of way.
When I was a child, some of my schoolmates played a fun game where they’d walk around swinging their fists in all directions and proclaiming that anyone who got punched had it coming because they walked in the wrong path (or didn’t get out of the way).
Corndogger, you sound like you would enjoy that game now.
To me it sounds like your case is weak so you’ve decided to resort to personal attacks which I find is very common among progressives. That along with ridiculous examples that only tangentially have anything to do with what’s being discussed and bullying.
I guess I shouldn’t have used an analogy. Let me put it in literal terms:
You bring the deadly weapon (the car), therefore it’s your responsibility to make sure you don’t hurt anyone with it. If that means slowing down, slow down. It most certainly is not the responsibility of everyone else to get out of your way because you are annoyed by slowing down.
You are the bully here, not me. You are the one who is blaming victims because they were “in the wrong place at the wrong time”. You are using the old bully tactic of “might is right”.
Where does it state that non-drivers have no responsibility when it comes to using our roads? Do you expect drivers to be mind readers? If a pedestrian jaywalks into oncoming traffic or darts out from between parked cars they’re totally responsible for any accident that might happen. Everyone has to follow the rules and use common sense. You cannot expect drivers and cars to be able to break the laws of physics.
Corndogger, all you have presented is unsubstantiated assertions and strawman arguments, sprinkled with vindictiveness for good measure.
Come back when you’ve got a real argument to support your assertion that “Drivers should not have to slow down at any time unless the conditions are not safe.”
(For extra points, you could try to support your assertion that “The best thing that could happen for pedestrian safety would be to institute stiff distracted walking laws”. But you’ve really painted yourself into a corner with that assertion, so good luck.)
Another fallback of progressives: accuse someone who disagrees with them of using a straw man argument.
I know, right? Damned progressives and our crazy demands that you bring forward a legitimate argument!
Asking pedestrians to follow the law and use common sense is not a legitimate argument? What’s not legitimate are arguments about how long it takes a car to stop (why do you want to run out into traffic in places where it’s not safe and it is illegal?!), that people were walking for millions of years before vehicles appeared (I have to admit to chuckling over that one), etc.
What was the real reason this cartoon was posted? Like a lot of things on this site it was another attack on drivers or as the site owner loves to say “motordom.” The real goal most of you have is to ban private vehicles altogether. Lowering speed limits is just a step toward that goal.
Corndogger, go back and re-read what you’ve written. I helpfully quoted some of your key phrases above. Provide a legitimate argument for those assertions and I’ll take you much more seriously.
LOL! How about you present some valid reasons for why think pedestrians are above the law? I gave a valid answer. And stop with the straw man shit. That’s what people who have no case fallback on.
I admire your perseverance, Corndogger, but you are misguided.
I never claimed that pedestrians are above the law. You’ve completely imagined that.
You, however, did make some claims which you are failing to substantiate. Like I said, go ahead and substantiate them and I’ll take you much more seriously.
All I know is, sometimes pedestrians can be just as dangerous as cars for a cyclist. At least cars are somewhat constrained about what they can do, pedestrians are not. As a cyclist, a collision with a pedestrian will mess you up just as much as the pedestrian, fatalities are not uncommon. I have nearly hit several people who have wandered out into bike lanes whilst looking at their phones. Everybody has a responsibility to make sure that the consequences of their actions are not going to (pardon the pun) negatively impact someone else.
The closest I have come to crashing badly while riding was because of a cat running in front of my bike. Cats should all wear reflective vests, only cross at crosswalks and not use phones while out and about.
There was a lady on a talk show in the US who seriously thought that wild animal crossing signs were for the animals and she was surprised to see wild animals crossing the road in other locations.
Pedestrians are just as dangerous as cars for cyclists? Based on what?
I don’t want to slow you down, I want all of us to move efficiently and safely. Cars going a little slower is not going to destroy your quality of life, the fact that you even said that makes your argument ridiculous.
Your whole ‘I don’t like the anti car people’ is just a stupid way to stereotype an argument into a narrow, extreme view and argue against that extreme view as though it is common when it’s anything but.
It’s becoming a bit silly.
You can go out on the water in a nice sailboat and you may have the right of way. So?
Are you going to go out into the a shipping channel and seriously imagine that massive ocean going shipping is going to steer around you, when a large ship could need nearly a kilometre to stop?
This extreme example does not mitigate the fact that many people drive in an extremely dangerous, unlawful and uncaring manner. Please check out my video near the top of this page. 17 drivers not yielding the right of way on my one crossing of the street.
Yeah, your one video proves that the majority of drivers are reckless assholes. Get real! As someone pointed out there’s a controlled intersection a block a way. If safety is a huge concern for you then walking a few extra blocks shouldn’t be an issue. Plus, don’t you guys always criticize drivers for being fat, lazy slobs? If you did a bit of extra walking you’d be less likely to end up looking like a hypocrite. Besides, it doesn’t look like you had to wait that long and some of those drivers couldn’t have stopped that quickly anyway. If it was me, I never would have attempted to cross at that location as it looks way too dangerous. I would have walked over a block and played it safe while getting some extra exercise in the process.
The video does not show a unique situation. I have three other ones if you are interested. In the video, only the first one or two cars may not have had time to stop, so that still leaves 15. The danger only comes from drivers not paying attention and not obeying the rules. I have often had drivers blast across my path when I was well into the street at a signalized crossing,
So to be clear, you suggest that I should go 4 blocks out of my way just so that a driver does not get slowed down by a few seconds? Is that your definition of fair? It is no wonder that we have so much death and injury on our roads since I am sure that you are not the only person that thinks this way.
It would be interesting to see what you were doing in that video for so many drivers not to stop. Something doesn’t seem right. If drivers see someone trying to cross the street they usually stop. I know I do. Is it possible the drivers in this video expected you to walk up to the lights which are just a short distance away as shown in your video? Definitely not a four block detour!
I’m not disputing that you have the right to cross at that location just that I would play it safe and walk a bit out of my way.
See what you’re doing here?
You whine that slowing down would destroy your quality of life as a driver, but then you say for pedestrians, just walk the extra block to the controlled intersection, what’s the big deal.
So, what’s the big deal about slowing down?
What am I doing? Speed limits are already artificially low and most trips are not just a few blocks away. You make it sound as if drivers never encounter detours and other roadblocks on their journeys.
If you care about your safety as a pedestrian you will not expect to have the right of way everywhere and you will cross where it’s legal and safe. I can’t believe you appear to be advocating for 0% responsibility on the part of pedestrians. And what makes you as a pedestrian more important or more entitled than me as a driver? There are rules, guidelines and common sense that we all have to follow.
Actually, a sailboat at sea must give way to a vessel restricted in its ability to maneuver, which includes ocean going shipping which often must stay in a restricted channel. This is different than in the Motor Vehicle Act where a vehicle must yield to a pedestrian crossing at an intersection or crosswalk.
“…at an intersection or crosswalk.” Yes. Both parties have responsibilities and the courts have demonstrated this and enshrined this dual responsibility into case law.
The MVA: “(2) A pedestrian must not leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close it is impracticable for the driver to yield the right of way.
When a pedestrian is crossing a highway at a point not in a crosswalk, the pedestrian must yield the right of way to a vehicle.”
A prominent lawyer, : “[But] the onus is not all on drivers, “pedestrians must not leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close it is impracticable for the driver to yield the right of way.”
Given that Arno was in a crosswalk as defined by the Motor Vehicle Act, there were a lot of drivers in that video violating the law.
Yes you’ve totally captured my point when you say I’m advocating for no responsibility for pedestrians.
Or, again, you’re taking the extreme of what I’m saying and arguing against that. Why do you do that?
Why are you asking drivers to make endless concessions? Speed limits are already ridiculously low so why should we drive slower? How about pedestrians stop walking around distracted? Distracted walking is a major problem and is the cause of an increasing number of accidents. Focusing just on drivers is not going to make pedestrians safer. When I see you advocate for a balanced, common sense approach I’ll stop assuming you’re being an extremist.
Before you jump on me, distracted driving is a problem as well but at least the laws against that are occasionally enforced. When was the last time someone was charged with distracted walking? Never? Why? Because city councils in this country believe drivers are evil and pedestrians can do no wrong? Sure seems that way.
Endless concessions? Destroy your quality of life? All because I think cars should travel at slower speeds in an urban environment?
And I’m extreme? If your quality of life rests on being able to drive faster, I just feel sorry for you.
Also, your whole thing rests on your assumption that we all agree that speed limits are already ridiculously low, I totally disagree, but that’s another argument.
I think what it comes down to is that walking is something most of us do and goes back millions of years so could be considered a birthright. Motor vehicles are very recent and can maim and kill. It’s understandable that people will want to have somewhere in the world that they can walk safely.
I think one of the good things about cities is the civility. That you have to modify your behaviour so that you’re not bothering others much.
I welcome the discussion though. Thank you for your perspective.
The attitude we’re seeing here is the same one that created the 30km speed limit on Hastings downtown, for those spaced out anarchists that just wander out into traffic.
I have had the same experience that Arno documented, trying to cross Kingsway at Perry when shopping at Famous Foods. Cars don’t stop, and they often accelerate when they see you in the crosswalk. It is a crosswalk, just not a marked crosswalk. We have crossed pushing our bikes, with the rights of pedestrians. The next block is Fleming, heading west. King Ed up has a signal, but for cars merging, not pedestrians. Then there is Dumphries, which has a pedestrian signal. A four block detour. But if you use Dumphries, you then need to go two blocks along Kingsway on a bike, against traffic. The sidewalk is the only option, but illegal to ride on.
All of this just trying to patronize local shops. None of those cars speeding down Kingsway in the video appear to be shopping there.
Corndogger: “If you care about your safety as a pedestrian you will not expect to have the right of way everywhere and you will cross where it’s legal and safe…… And what makes you as a pedestrian more important or more entitled than me as a driver? There are rules, guidelines and common sense that we all have to follow”
Absolutely. But the video Arno posted is of a crosswalk. So it is legal. Whether it is safe depends largely on the actions of the drivers, who in the video were not stopping. Once Arno waited for an opening (so as not to jump in front of a vehicle that couldn’t stop in time) and left the curb, the onus was on the drivers to stop.
From the MVA:
“crosswalk” means
(a) a portion of the roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface, or
(b) the portion of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway, or within the extension of the lateral lines of the sidewalk on one side of the highway, measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway;
There are references in this thread to lights and a crosswalk being a few blocks away (a marked crosswalk). If drivers don’t understand that this is also a crosswalk, it could explain their behaviour in not stopping.
If you read all of my response(s) I indicated that I know that was an intersection and said he had the right to cross there. I do question though if he was doing something that made those people not stop. I watched one of his other videos where it looked like he was crossing literally one lane at a time having to stop for a noticeable period before proceeding. I’ve never seen anything like it before. If he was simply trying to cross the road at that point then those drivers were in the wrong and complete jerks but I have a feeling that I’m not seeing the full story here. If this location is that bad for people not obeying the law then why are the police not enforcing it? Also, how many people cross at that point? I don’t know the area but based on the video it doesn’t look like a spot too many would feel comfortable crossing.
I wasn’t there with Arno in the video but the experience I had recently was very similar. I was trying to cross that same intersection, in the crosswalk. There where two of us. We were each pushing a bicycle. Drivers seemed determined to prevent us crossing. I don’t think this was police problem. It was drivers not following the law. We can’t afford enough police to stand at each intersection.
I’m just saying that I found that a very rare situation to watch and I believe the vast majority of people would agree with me. If that’s normal for that intersection then I would never attempt to cross there. It looks way too dangerous.
On the North Shore you will find plenty of crosswalks with people trying to cross and drivers not stopping. In West Van every year people are hit in crosswalks, sometimes resulting in death. The police uses plainclothes officers posing as pedestrians to catch drivers not yielding at crosswalks. Last year two seniors were hit in crosswalks and injured in North Van. They were not texting or using headphones. Even with activated orange flashers many drivers will not stop, such as at the zebra crosswalk across the Main on-ramp to Second Narrows bridge.
I wouldn’t blame drivers entirely. Many of the intersections and crosswalks are designed to fail pedestrians – crossings are too long, lighting is poor etc. The onus is not only on the users (drivers, pedestrians, cyclists) but also on the engineers to build streets that can be safely used by everybody. The Kingsway crossing looks awful.
As I’ve said before, everyone has to follow the rules and use common sense. That includes drivers. I totally agree with you about poor design, bad lighting, etc. Too often in Canada roads are designed on the cheap and we all suffer because of it.
When given two examples of dangerous driver behaviour, you seem to be excusing drivers and suggesting pedestrians walk somewhere else. That is what many posters have referred to as entitled behaviour. Further, why do you conclude the problem only exists at this crosswalk?
You could take 26th westbound , then Dumfries north. This is an Official bike route. Very convenient for crossing Kingsway. This would mean a two block detour, which isn’t much for safety.
Kingsway (Westminster Road) being the original diagonal road carved out of the forest in 1860 by Royal Engineers to link New Westminster to the Hastings Townsite at Burrard Inlet is littered with these awkward intersections because the Vancouver streets grid, which was set out from around Gaston in a north/south plan is counter to the direction of Kingsway. It’s an aberration of history and we just have to contend with it.
Over time these aberrations are dissolved as cities close off sections of streets that no longer make sense. For example; the Downtown grid collided with the Gaston grid, we can see it as Cordova ends up in the centre of the Woodwards complex.
Eric: “You could take 26th westbound , then Dumfries north. This is an Official bike route. Very convenient for crossing Kingsway”
Very true. And if I figured out at 26th and Perry that I couldn’t cross Kingsway at the crosswalk in front of me, I could go down 26th, north on Dumfries, east on 22nd, then south on Perry. 850 m instead of 85 m, to the front door of my destination, which was visible from the start of my detour. 10 times the distance. Quite a disincentive to frequent a favourite store on Kingsway. Businesses such as Famous Foods pay lots of property taxes so that we all have roads that their customers can use to access their business. They deserve better. So do their customers.
Time for bicycling infrastructure on Kingsway. This is a route identified by HUB Cycling as one of the priorities for the #ungapthemap campaign.
Returning now to the topic, being a safe pedestrian.
Don’t complain Jeff. Drivers have to take detours around parks that have bike paths all the time. Remember that the Koch Industries petroleum based Lycra/ Spandex clad brethren are still only around 2% of the traffic at the best of times.
Even in school we were told that to cross the street safely we should walk to the crossing at the corner. Duh!
One of the above comments states that speed limits are too low.
The purpose of speed limits is to balance the need for movement with the need for safety.
Recently we’ve seen an increase in speed limits for certain limited access highways.
The opposite is happening in urban areas where encounters between motorized vehicles and other road users are frequent.
A driver travelling roughly the speed limit in a school zone can stop in 3 car lengths and often avoid a collision.
Moving up to 50km/h doubles stopping distance to 6 car lengths.
Moving up to 64km/h increases stopping distance to 9 car lengths.
The aggressive drivers on Granville, Oak, Knight, etc. doing 80km/h will travel 3 car lengths before they even hit the brake pedal and then need a further 10 car lengths to actually stop.
Since some you seem to think I’m making up what I’m saying here’s what an insurance company has to say regarding drivers and pedestrians. They seem to be saying exactly what I’ve been saying.
Drivers and pedestrians: I’m walking here!
Data from the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec show that 3,234 pedestrians in the province were hit by vehicles in 2010. Of those, 59 were killed. Here are some safety tips for pedestrians and drivers.
Tips for pedestrians:
Stay on the sidewalk. If there’s no sidewalk, walk on the shoulder or the side of the road facing oncoming traffic.
Wearing bright colours or reflective material so you can be seen well.
Cross only at intersections or crosswalks. Never cross between two parked vehicles.
Obey traffic lights, pedestrian signals and stop signs. Even if you have priority, take the time to look left, right and left again and then cross in a straight line.
Once you’ve entered the street, don’t back up.
Make eye contact with the driver. It’s the best way to make sure you’ve been seen.
Keep the music volume on your earphones at a level that allows you to hear traffic noise.
Tips for drivers:
Obey speed limits, traffic lights and pedestrian signals. Remember you have to yield to pedestrians at stop signs and crosswalks.
Be extra cautious in school zones and residential areas and when turning corners.
Make eye contact with pedestrians and use a hand signal to indicate to them that it’s safe to cross.
Slow down in bad weather. Rain, snow and fog reduce visibility.
Avoid distractions.
Since both pedestrians and drivers can be negligent, inattentive or distracted on public roads, there’s only one way to avoid disaster: be careful.
Source: http://www.nbc-insurance.ca/en/automobile_insurance/drivers_pedestrians.jsp
A very interesting read and something we’ve been subjected to much too often.
Lower speed limits might not make Toronto streets any safer
Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/why-lower-speed-limits-wont-make-toronto-streets-safer/article25118596/
This paragraph notes an unintended consequence of lower speed limits.
At the same time, the proponents may have ignored an unintended consequence of a 30 km/hr speed limit – an increase in travel times for school and transit buses using local roads. This may require parents to have their children leave for school sooner.
Yeah, this has no impact on people’s quality of life. If people would follow the rules of the road and use common sense they would be much safer and we’d all be much happier. Except for the anti-car lobby who are hell bent on eliminating private vehicles. I have a feeling though that the owners of the 1,580,370 registered vehicles in metro Vancouver as of 1/30/2015 (Source: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/RegisteredVehicles.pdf) might be even more hell bent on protecting their rights to mobility freedom and choice.
Interesting read about Toronto.
There is no right to drive, however, nor a right to specific speeds. The Motor Vehicle Act is not set in stone but adapts over time. It comes down to society’s values and how the use of public space is governed.
Okay, so not only have you developed a belief in an anti-car lobby, you now claim that they are hell bent on eliminating private vehicles.
You know I’ve read quire a variety of opinions on the current trends in urban planning and in multimodal transportation infrastructure, and apart from on the occasional pedestrian mall, I have never heard from anyone that they wanted to eliminate private vehicles.
So, all those people you say will want to protect their right to mobility have nothing to worry about. That’s great isn’t it?
Aren’t they funny sometimes, these stories we tell ourselves?
Are you saying you’ve never heard of the “war on cars”?
Oh, I’ve heard of it but fortunately it doesn’t exist.
Your denying it is part of the war.
Um… but, isn’t it a good thing that what you’re worried about turns out to not be true?
But theoretically, if there was ever a war on cars, clearly the cars won.
Ahahahhaahaaha war on cars? You just keep getting more laughable.
What’s laughable is you passing judgment on me when you don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about. Or are you in the denier camp trying to cover up the destruction of our economy and quality of life by this ideologically-driven war?
HAHA destruction of your quality of life? Come on man, be serious for a minute.
Asking you to slow down in your car is not destroying your quality of life. That’s just so ridiculous I don’t even know where to start.
If this fictitious war of yours exists, who the hell do you think is winning?
Corndugger, I see you have made ignored me. Where is your source that car drivers are the least subsidized form of transportation?
I found this comparing subsidies of different transportation modes.
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/regional_transportation_strategy/Backgrounders/Transportation_Funding_Backgrounder.ashx
That was my original source, that corndugger thought was biased lol
Full of shit is more like it. They add in some unexplained cost for pollution to make autos look bad. Are you guys incapable of doing basic math? Transit has one revenue source from users that being fares which they claim cover 52% of OPERATING costs. Fares cover 0% of CAPITAL costs which are easily the highest for any form of transportation. Given that drivers pay gas taxes, registration fees, etc. and less is spent on roads it doesn’t take a genius to figure out roads are less subsidized than transit. Made up figures on the part of TransLink is probably one of the reasons most people appear not to trust them. People’s mistrust and ability to see thru made up figures is why this forum/site went nuts over the B.C. government holding a referendum back in the spring. You guys know that the majority of people will never buy into your anti-car policies which is why you try to silence them.
Corndugger—— You have so much anger but yet you never answer my request. Please find a source that actually shows that cars are the least subsidized form of transport? Something with real evidence.
I just cant help myself and respond to your comment. Do you not care about pollution?
Now you’re trolling me. If you can’t stick to the topic at hand then don’t say anything.
It’s Corndogger. And I never ignored you. And I gave you real evidence or are you incapable of doing the math? And I explained why your TransLink source if full of shit.
ok how about I rephrase, you show some evidence, a source that you can site and then it can be compared to my evidence. Stop complaining and produce something.
FFS dude, you provided a propaganda piece that was so one-sided that no academic journal would ever accept as evidence. The figures I’m referring to are available from government sources. I’m sticking to published quantifiable numbers not made up crap like “societal costs.” Why didn’t TransLink include “societal benefits” for roads? Is it because they’re an agenda-driven organization that couldn’t care less about what the majority wants?
Corndogger – did you see the data from a 1993 study done by the province which shows that automobile subsidy is higher than transit subsidy? And transit is really an automobile subsidy as well, since without transit, it would be impossible for people to drive in Metro Vancouver.
“I’m sticking to published quantifiable numbers”
Post the link, then
It’s almost like he doesn’t have any stats to back up his opinion!
Yesterday the Globe & Mail reported record auto sales in Canada and the US.
‘Vehicle sales rolled to another record in November and could top the 1.9 million annual level in Canada for the first time if December deliveries come close to those of a year ago.
Several auto makers reported record monthly totals, including Porsche Cars Canada Ltd. and the Infiniti luxury division of Nissan Canada Inc.”
The latest 300 horsepower Ford SUV is this years’ winner.
Notice that the rear passenger windows of SUVs are now almost all dark tinted. You can’t see inside from the outside. TransLink is going to have to find different technology than the traditional people sitting by the roadside counting passengers.
There are some delightful rural villages with only a few vehicles and some gated communities where the car has been completely curbed. Disneyland comes to mind.
The police reported last year:
VANCOUVER – Pedestrian deaths in Vancouver’s streets this year are at their lowest point since the city began tracking them in 1934, according to new police data.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Vancouver+pedestrian+deaths+lowest+level+years+police+data/10198527/story.html#ixzz3tDSz8opJ
It is very unfortunate that the 2014 reduction didn’t hold for 2015. You should also consider injury statistics for pedestrians hit by motor vehicles, not just deaths.
ICBC used to produce yearly stats on traffic crashes, however I can only find one for 2007. Some interesting facts:
The top three contributing factors assigned to pedestrians (as a
percentage of total pedestrian collisions) were, in order of
magnitude:
(1) Pedestrian error/confusion (14.4%);
(2) Alcohol involvement (4.4%);
(3) Failing to yield to right of way (1.8%);
The top three contributing factors assigned to involved drivers
(as a percentage of total pedestrian collisions) were, in order of
magnitude:
(1) Driver inattentive (30.3%);
(2) Failing to yield to right of way (15.9%);
(3) Driver error/Confusion (13.8%);
If we assume equal fault (note that I still think drivers are more often at fault), it looks like drivers and pedestrians are equally prone to error/confusion but drivers are way more inattentive and also fail to yield about 8 times more than pedestrians. So much for jaywalking and pedestrian failing to yield.
I would love to see some stats on which mode is more at fault for collisions with pedestrians. In any case a mototr vehicle operator should have a way higher duty of care to avoid a crash.
On second thought, the numbers are percentage of total collisions. So clearly drivers are at least partially at fault more than half the time, since the top three causes of crashes attributed to the driver add up to 60% of all crashes involving pedestrians.
This is interesting. These are U.S. and Minnesota figures but I doubt they’re much different in Canada.
While pedestrian distraction is a factor, alcohol also plays a significant factor in pedestrian fatalities. According to the NHTSA, 33 percent of pedestrians who were killed in 2010 had a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher-the legal definition of intoxicated in many states.
In Minnesota, 27 percent of pedestrians who were tested for alcohol consumption after being killed in a traffic accident during 2011 had blood alcohol levels of .10 and higher. Most pedestrians were killed between 9 p.m. and 3 a.m. and most were between the ages of 20 and 24.
Source: http://www.schwaylaw.com/Articles/Pedestrian-Deaths-Increase-Both-Drivers-and-Pedestrians-are-to-Blame.shtml
The more I look into this the more it seems like the biggest problem is drunk drivers and drunk pedestrians.
Drinking also is a major factor in pedestrian fatalities. Alcohol-impairment — of the driver or the pedestrian — was involved in 48% of all pedestrian fatalities in 2009, according to NHTSA; 35% of the pedestrians killed were legally drunk, as were 13% of drivers involved. In 6% of fatal pedestrian crashes, both driver and pedestrian were legally drunk.
Source: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-08/pedestrian-casualties-increase/51748592/1
If pedestrian safety is the real issue here why do we so seldom hear about intoxicated pedestrians being a major part of the problem in pedestrian injuries/deaths?
The numbers I showed from ICBC were for collisions with pedestrians which had a police presence. No specific data on contributing factors in fatal collisions with peds. However, there is data on all collisions (i.e. car-car, car-ped, etc) which result in fatality. Here the data shows a strong alcohol involvement – namely that alcohol was involved in 31% of crashes which resulted in a fatality with about 1/2 of these being impaired.
It’s no wonder roo-bars are gaining in popularity. Those animals can make a big dent.
You gotta love this.
Last week, Nov 2015, Google received patents for some features of a possible self-driving car.
One thing: “The patent also suggests some other options. A speaker on the outside of the vehicle might call out alerts, such as “coming through” or “safe to cross.””
In Canada this would, of course, have to be bilingual. I look forward to watching these cuties cruising along Hastings in the Downtown East Side as the walking wounded careen through traffic and the Google Car hollers out, “Coming Through – Attention, on Arrive”.
Maybe one could even have customizable ring tones.
This self-driving car thing just keeps getting nuttier and nuttier. Why doesn’t the auto industry accept that they had a good run of it and now the boom is over for them?