A few weeks ago I was interviewed by CBC Radio about the frequency of pedestrians being hit by vehicles in marked crosswalks in Surrey. One case involved an entire family of walkers being hospitalized in a horrible accident. At a marked crossing, no less.
The interview is available on the Walk Metro Vancouver site. Full disclosure-I am one of the Directors of this society, along with engineers and architects from major Metro Vancouver cities, and folks from the local health authorities, and our own Metro Vancouver treasure to urbanism and transportation, Gordon Price.
If you read the material on the subject, it always states that “visibility” is the reason that pedestrians get hit, even when crossing in marked intersections. Of course most of the material on the subject is written by engineers, who are looking at how to design streets for vehicular traffic. It is their job. I believe there are other very important aspects that need to be taken in consideration, including driver behaviour and vehicular speed. Street design for all users is also critical, and I hope we are in a place supportive of creating more separated bicycle lanes protected from vehicular traffic, and intersections better designed for pedestrians too. Pedestrians and cyclists have a right to the road surface.
My behaviour as a driver changed dramatically once I became a commuter cyclist. And in terms of vehicular speed, the studies clearly indicate that the difference between a pedestrian being hit by a vehicle at 30 kmh versus 50 kmh is literally life and death.
As I said to the CBC producer, pedestrians must still think like the wild west-you must ensure you are visible and that cars see you. That is hard to do here where we have five months of not so great light, early darkness, and of course our fashion for dark coloured clothes.
Being visible whether you are a pedestrian or a bicyclist is so important, and can be so challenging. The most dangerous time for pedestrians is in the autumn and winter, with Ontario statistics showing that over 40 per cent of serious injuries and 42 per cent of pedestrian fatalities occur at that time. (2010, Ontario Road Safety Annual Report)
In Finland, every child going to school must wear three pieces of reflective items on their clothes and their backpack. The safety reflector was developed in Finland in 1960, and it is the law that pedestrians wear reflective clothing and reflectors in the dark. Indeed, wearing reflectors and reflective clothing is completely accepted as daily wear in Scandinavia. That part of the world also has the lowest incidence of pedestrian accidents.
A similar program in Great Britain reduced pedestrian deaths with children by 51 per cent. Studies show that wearing a reflector increases the visibility of pedestrians from 25-30 meters to 140 meters, increasing the reaction time from two seconds to ten seconds for a car being driven at posted municipal speeds of 50 kilometers an hour. That is eight seconds more for a driver to react, and for a pedestrian to survive.
It always seemed to me so surprising that a universal, easily worn reflective piece of clothing was not invented for the myriad of North American walkers so they could stand out in the dark months of the year.
Through my work as the City of Vancouver’s Greenways Planner, I met Peter Robinson who at the time was CEO of Mountain Equipment Co-op, locally known as “MEC”. I asked Peter whether MEC could design something that was reflective, universal, and could be worn by walkers in the cold damp winters. Peter arranged for me and two transportation engineers to meet with the MEC design team. Several very creative designers talked with us about what was needed and what we wanted to achieve. We wanted something that was easy to wear, could be worn by people in wheelchairs, walkers or bicycles, was easy to put on and off, and was reflective. The designers took notes, and in a few weeks invited us to view three prototypes.
The first was a safety belt, the kind of thing that school patrols use when you are guiding children on crosswalks. It was bulky, and hard to put on and off. The second item was a reflective poncho. It was a good piece of rain gear, but was not that practical with a lot of wind, and was bulky to carry. The third item was the winner-the Safety Sash. The sash looked just like the one that would be worn by Miss Canada except it was reflective. It was easy to put on, could be used by anyone no matter what their mobility or age, and was easy to stow and low cost. It also had space for a corporate logo to be affixed to it.
We were excited to have found the right product, and we tested the prototypes to ensure that they were easy to use by different users. MEC has introduced the Safety Sash as part of their Cactus Creek line, and the safety sash has done very well. You can view the product here: safety sash
We of course thought that ICBC would sponsor this safety sash and get it into seniors centres and schools. That has not happened, although MEC reports they have good sales of the sash to cyclists.
I am very grateful to Peter Robinson for the safety sash product development. Today Peter is the Chief Executive Officer of the David Suzuki Foundation.
I bought the safety sash from MEC a couple of years ago for walking in the dark on streets without sidewalks. It is very long, one size fits all and falls off all the time. It probably works for people with very broad shoulders. It certainly won’t stay on children unless pinned with a safety pin (making a hole in waterproof jackets).
I asked MEC why they don’t have reflectors on their non-cycling waterproof jackets. The response was that customers don’t like reflectors on jackets because they ruin photos. Perhaps a solution is to have very small reflective accents. Most running clothing and shoes have only tiny reflective areas, but they are very bright when light hits them.
Of course reflectors and flashlights don’t help if drivers don’t look when they approach crossings or drive too fast for conditions, which happens all the time on dark rainy nights. Even on bright sunny days many drivers seem to have trouble seeing pedestrians.
Reflectors don’t replace common sense and manners.
Today far too many pedestrians wander into traffic because they’re too focused on their phones. Too many drivers are similarly distracted while endeavouring to go over the speed limit by 50%.
Please slow down, look both ways, wear bright clothes and, most of all, put away your phone.
I appreciate the intent here, but I think it’s misguided.
I see two main problems:
1. It puts the responsibility of the collision on the pedestrian. After a collision, picture people asking “well, was he wearing a reflective sash?”. This is unfair (the pedestrian is not the one bringing a deadly machine to the situation).
2. It won’t work. In order for reflective sashes to compensate for poor visibility, you’ll need everyone to wear them, and you’ll need some really reflective sashes. As Adanac said (and I’m sure many of us have experienced), a person can be lit up like a Christmas tree and still have someone not see you.
If there is a problem with low visibility in the intersection, fix the intersection. You can add lights (traffic lights and/or street lights), lower the speed of vehicular travel (giving the driver more time to react), or a number of other things.
Sorry – this was not intended as a reply to David but as a standalone comment.
David,
You make it seem like the responsibility is split 50/50 between driver and walker. Why is that? Doesn’t the person who designed the road bear some responsibility? And more importantly, shouldn’t the person who has introduced a deadly machine into the mix bear much more responsibility than the person who is texting their friend?
The split certainly isn’t 50/50 just because I mentioned only two of the guilty parties. There is plenty of blame to go around and the road designers certainly deserve some, but most of the dangerous situations I’ve seen in the past few years have nothing to do with road width or geometry.
Mostly it’s people behind the wheel trying to go far too fast with seemingly no concern for anyone but themselves and a smaller number of self absorbed pedestrians either acting like they own the world or simply oblivious to the fact that wheeled vehicles cannot stop in 0.1 seconds.
“nothing to do with road width or geometry”
“people behind the wheel trying to go far too fast”
Narrower roads (and narrower lanes) reduce peak driving speeds.
How many people, exactly, do you feel get hit by cars whilst twiddling on their phone? If you think its actually a significant number I suggest you find some data to support that feeling, because I feel its at best a red-herring, and at worst it’s blaming the assaulted, not the assailant.
When driving in North Vancouver I have never (really never) seen a pedestrian wandering into a street or crosswalk without looking. At night many wear reflectors and flashlights and yet often drivers will not yield.
Just last night our group of 6 wearing reflective running clothing and flashlights was cut off by a left turning driver when we had the walk signal at Main St. My biggest issue is less that he overlooked us, but he drove very fast. It is often hard to see people in the dark, but there is absolutely no reason to drive fast through intersections across pedestrian crossings. At the same location a cyclist was hit by a left turning driver last year because according to the RCMP the driver may have had the sun in his eyes.
I don’t think some cyclist realize how absolutely invisible they are on dark, rainy nights. I see it all the time on Ontario St. No light and not much in the way of reflectors that I can see. When they do have a light, it is still difficult to distinguish when light is being reflected everywhere on the wet road. Then they shake their head at you when you come to an abrupt stop at one of the round-abouts. Completely oblivious.
I dunno, you can be lit up like a Christmas tree and still have someone not see you. I think the better solution would be to just not have so many people driving on Ontario St.
+1
+2
A pedestrian walking northbound can get hidden behind the “A pillar” (frontmost pillar beside the windshield) of a southbound car making a left hand turn. As the pedestrian walks and the car turns, the driver’s “blind spot” behind the pillar tracks the movement of the pedestrian so that it can look like there’s nobody in the crosswalk unless the driver bobs his head left and right to “see around” it. Modern cars have wide pillars for safety reasons which make this a real problem. Unfortunately that’s for the safety of the car’s occupants, not for that of the pedestrians who might get hit.
So when I’m a pedestrian I always pay special attention to left-turning cars that are traveling in the opposite direction to me and whose path will take them across my crosswalk. It literally is an accident waiting to happen.
Yes, the responsibility for such accidents is on the driver. But there’s no way I’m going to bet my life on the attentiveness of a complete stranger. Better to assume they’re liable to hit you and stay out of their way.
Yes, add vehicle design and regulatory approval to the mix of blame for pedestrians and cyclists getting hit by cars. At least two vehicle design elements are getting worse.
One is those A pillars, and the more environment-friendly the vehicle, the worse it is because the windshield is more raked for aerodynamics, hence further in front of the driver. I can lose a family of four behind my A-pillar and the blindspot is right where pedestrians are most likely to be waiting to cross relative to my car. My windshield rake is moderate; the Prius-type must be like driving in a visual tunnel.
The rear pillars – C pillars I suppose – also endanger cyclists, or pedestrians in parking lots. It’s the style to have these pillars thick, and the vehicle beltline high, so things behind you and off the wing are in a zone of complete mystery. It’s insanity that this type of car is approved for class 5 drivers.
The second issue is lights. This LED lightscape we are creating is a huge danger to cyclists and pedestrians alike. When backlighted by a posse of LED headlights, pedestrians are utterly invisible. And even when they are not, drivers are blinded by oncoming headlights or exaggerated taillights on a vehicle in front of them and if you next look at a dark area your vision is disabled. It was a huge regulatory mistake to allow LED lights on cars, and anyone concerned about pedestrian safety should be making a stink about it.
Finally, the irony of the light on the bike that is “as bright as the sun.” I don’t know why people think that shining a blinding light into the eyes of drivers is going to help them cycle safely. If nothing else it may annoy the hell out of a driver to the point they take it out on other cyclists. I think those lights were intended to be directed down, onto the street, so YOU can see where you are going. And that way, your light can be seen without damaging someone’s capacity to see at all.
As one who has nearly been hit while riding with a light which is approximately as bright as the sun, I contend that visibility is less an issue than drivers not looking in the first place… and just like when an unhelmeted cyclist breaks his leg but ‘wasn’t wearing a helmet’ and is therefore reckless and deserving of injury, whether any suggestion that everyone should be wearing a reflective sash would mean that anyone not wearing a reflective sash, when injured, is similarly ‘asking for it’.
We don’t accept ‘what were they wearing’ as an excuse for people being assaulted in a dark alleyway, why do we for whether they are assaulted by a car’s driver in the middle of the street? We also don’t require that cars be painted in all-reflective paint, or drive at 30 instead of 50 … these would be ‘easy’ fixes also … otherwise how is this different than waving little flags crossing the street in West Vancouver? Which seems to put the onus of responsibility entirely on the one who wears reflective, rather than the one who drives the weapon.
My thought for stuff like this is ‘wear it if you want’, but don’t make it a requirement or a symbol of either virtue or vice.
Michael Colville Anderson writes about the Volvo LifePaint in similar terms … as a way to blame the victim more than create any actual safety: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2015/03/car-industry-strikes-back-volvo-paints.html
There is too much of blame the victim when a motor vehicle takes out a person walking or cycling. News reports of crashes involving people cycling almost always provide helmet status. Crashes involving people walking often contain statements like speed was not a factor and that pedestrians should be more visible and pay more attention. The biggest issue is driver inattention, flagrant violation of traffic rules and driving too fast for conditions. If it is dark and raining, drivers need to slow down and pay particular attention near crosswalks. I took videos of a few attempts to cross streets at crosswalks and the my worst experience was crossing Kingsway at Perry. I was wearing bright clothes and it was a sunny day, yet 18 drivers failed to yield the right of way during the one crossing.
I Can’t wait for autonomous vehicles. People simply do not have the capacity to drive safely.
I should also mention a few other things that would help in the meantime:
– Drop the term accident when describing a collision. This is not so much an unavoidable accident as it is an avoidable collision.
– Speed reduction to 30km/hour for urban streets This makes the difference between life and death when compared to 50km/hr
– No vehicle turning movements during pedestrian or cycle phase. Also known as protected intersections.
– Improved intersection design
– Improved driver training
– Bigger consequences for killing and injuring vulnerable road users. E.g. license suspension until retraining and retesting is completed. A slap on the wrist is no longer an acceptable consequence. Injuries and deaths should not be treated as the inevitable consequence of motordom.
Can we add:
-make bike paths legally mean something (like crosswalks)
-add the dutch ‘bigger vehicle is assumed to be at fault’ … (maybe we can get the film industry to pitch in with a ‘with great power comes great responsibility’ advertisement, many drivers seem think they’re invincible anyway, might as well call them ‘super’.)
And we now know that the way crashes involving motor vehicles are covered by the media was arranged that way by the automobile industrial complex.
Media coverage of events once were damning to the early motor cars (and often rightfully so) and the industry realized this would not be good for future sales so they infiltrated the media and government to make sure that blame would always go to the victim.
Here we are years later trying to turn this around.
(Whats the code to embed video/images in a reply by the way? … I’ve tried and that didn’t work)
Sometimes by where and when you cross you make it more likely to cause an accident if someone stops for you than if they don’t. This is such a spot, and your timing, right as the cohort from the light at 25th goes by, such a time. It makes my point that people who don’t drive are the biggest danger to themselves as pedestrians because they have no concept of what they are asking of drivers. If you want to cross safely there, waiting for a gap is in everyone’s best interests, unless of course you are either trying to be a martyr or to vilify people who are generally exercising the safest driving behaviour in the circumstances.
Um, the onus is still on the driver, no matter how much is asked of them.
‘You know how hard it is not to shoot someone when I’m waving my hand around with my finger on the trigger? Do you know how much you’re asking of me?!?’
The VW post the other day was a good one, I agree that there are where and when’s which make things more difficult, this is why in, say, the netherlands, they usually separate the act of turning from the act of crossing a sidewalk/bike path, specifically because it is more difficult for drivers to look and drive when they have to look at wildly different angles which are outside the range of peripheral vision. There is also a greater degree of driver training to instill the belief that you ALWAYS have to look, and you should slow down if you know you wouldn’t be able to react to the unexpected (and you should be sufficiently self aware to know when you should know this).
The safest driving behavior is going as slowly as necessary to not injure anyone. I would doubt that most are driving on Marine Drive/etc for the first time … in general, people know where the crosswalks are, and should know that crosswalks = crossings, and the throttle should be used accordingly.
I would suggest that people who only drive are the biggest danger to pedestrians, as they don’t exercise their peripheral vision, don’t understand how fast walkers or cyclists are, and often don’t think that there is a world outside their steel box. The best drivers I know all do other things besides driving, and are better drivers because of it. The worst drivers I know don’t ever think about doing anything but driving. But of course, for either of us, the plural of anecdote still isn’t data.
New Westminster Council (of which I am a member) just passed a motion calling upon the CSA to establish a standard for reflective products sold to “non-professional road users”. This is one step in the right direction, and something I support, but I am very concerned about the victim blaming aspect of putting the onus on pedestrians and not on the people who choose to operate a 2-tonne 300-hp metal box in a pedestrian realm.
Reflectivity helps, but not as much as two other things we can do. We, as Cities, need to do better designing the pedestrian space to emphasize safety and comfort. Our senior Governments need to step up in two ways: Change automobile standards to protect pedestrians better (Federal), and change the statutory speed limits in urban areas to a demonstrably less fatal 30km/h.
https://patrickjohnstone.ca/2016/02/on-30kmh.html
And I would include the design of our cities so that people can get around without being harmed by others or harming others.
Is it selfish to wear reflective clothing? Is it a healthy kind of selfishness because there’s plenty of unhealthy selfishness on display.
Drive the speed limit and you’ll quickly acquire a parade of frustrated drivers behind you following too closely and then making unsafe passing manoeuvres. Stop to let a pedestrian cross and you can feel the rage in those behind you.
In addition to all the technical and legal hurdles, self-driving cars that never exceed the posted limit and always stop when someone else has the right of way are going to have a tough time gaining acceptance in a world populated by today’s self centred, speed obsessed drivers.
You can see a similar attitude in other road users from the cyclist drafting behind a van to the pedestrian wandering diagonally mid-block across traffic under the delusion that 4 lanes of vehicles going 70km/h are magically going to come to a complete halt.
I don’t know how to get people to slow down and notice the world around them, but it would make living in urban environments a whole lot safer and more pleasant.
“I don’t know how to get people to slow down and notice the world around them”
I think it’s mainly a matter of road design.
“self-driving cars that never exceed the posted limit” … give me the first self driving car and I give you the first car-hacker who will take off that limiter! 🙂
Sandy, I liked your blog about pedestrian conspicuity. However, I worry about the sash as it is a loop that can get hooked on door knobs or someone else’s arm, or a mirror on a passing vehicle.
I use anklets that stay loosely on my boots. I made them out of a dollar-store pet leash that has reflective material. It doesn’t get in the way of lacing/unlacing the boots, and it is on a part of my body that is always moving, which makes me even more noticeable.
Since several comments mentioned cars turning, I must mention that retro-reflectivity depends on the approaching threatening vehicle to have headlights on and that they must be aimed where the vehicle is going. But with turns, the headlights are not aimed in the right direction; they need to _lead_ the turn, although a few high-end car models are adding this feature. A cyclist too often doesn’t have any headlight or it is too weak to bounce enough light to be noticeable.
As to the matter of a driver veering away from a reflective-patch wearer and hitting another un-adorned pedestrian, I wonder why the Canadian government doesn’t require all outer wear (I also have reflective mittens) sold in Canada, especially for kids, to have integrated retroreflective material.
“I wonder why the Canadian government doesn’t require all outer wear (I also have reflective mittens) sold in Canada, especially for kids, to have integrated retroreflective material.”
Because any Canadian government that tried to legislate a dress code like that would be thrown out on its ass faster than you can say “victim blaming”.
“A cyclist too often doesn’t have any headlight or it is too weak to bounce enough light to be noticeable.”
change to:
“A cyclist too often doesn’t have any headlight [I will agree with this one, but it is pretty rare unless you’re in the Downtown East side], or the driver doesn’t take the time to look for a cyclist even if they do have a light.”
There, I fixed it for you.
In Germany they require all bikes sold new to include lights that can be ready for use at any time. So practically everybody has a dynamo lighting system.
But here they tend to just do enforcement stings periodically.
Rather than federal legislation on clothing design, it would be easier and make more sense for the BC government to change the default speed limit in cities to 30km/h. Major arterials could be posted 50km/h.
+1 … THIS
Right, because speed limits work so well as they are… like Mario Andretti who was passing me on Venables yesterday evening where the speed limit is…
speed limits work when they are adhered to … they are adhered to when they are enforced … they are enforced, um, ya, not here so much (seriously, this is where I get all Thomas Beyer’ey and say things should be monetized).
Related topic:
“it also illustrates the backwardness of our street design: pedestrians, who are supposed to have the right-of-way, are required to press a button at an intersection in order to get a walk signal, which should happen automatically”
http://gizmodo.com/why-should-pedestrians-press-beg-buttons-to-cross-the-1515091907?utm_content=bufferd25c5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
How exactly does a sash help this: http://www.nsnews.com/news/10-year-old-cyclist-on-his-way-to-school-struck-by-vehicle-1.2190712