30 for Sunnyside?

[speedog]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Yeah, sadly this is how things used to work in many jurisdictions. It becomes a bit tricky on the enforcement side (what defines "close by", etc). And it relies on the concept of "common sense", which of course if it was common, we wouldn't need these rules.

So I don't really know what the answer is. What I do know is that children can be taught much better traffic awareness than we teach today. At least, if children are being mowed down in the numbers people seem to think warrant all of these 30 zones. People keep repeating that a 30 collision is so much safer than a 50 - which is obviously true - but no one seems to ask *why* we're seeing so many collisions in the first place. What's changed that kids are routinely coming into contact with vehicles in recent years?

Simply put - lazy parenting.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Radley77

I'd say that the cost to have a police officer at every schoolyard ticketing is astronomical. Unfortunately, sometimes it has taken a child's death like the three year old that was killed at the C-train state before some of the new safety signage was put up.

I like the education approach. The four e's of transportation safety are: education, enforcement, engineering (infrastructure) and evaluation (review process). I get the sense that the education and evaluation process are so dysfunctional in Calgary now that some community groups are resorting to the dark side of social engineering (for instance like the over regulated 30 kmphr in Sunnyside proposal).

And some of the complaints that pedestrians have are legitimate including the fatal hit and run earlier this year, or the major hit and run incident that happened on 17 Ave last night. There are about 100 hit and runs that happen annually in Calgary (most of which aren't reported in the media), and you can't create safer conditions for pedestrians always through more enforcement or engineering stupidly slow road speeds.

Agreed that pedestrians do put themselves at risk throughout the city. However there are plenty of times where they have to otherwise cars will not stop. I have seen 4 rear-ending accidents on 5th street because a car stopped suddenly at the flashing-ped crossing on 5th street and 22nd Ave SW. In 1.5 years. All these were caused by a pedestrian who had right-of way and time to cross starting to cross but the first car did not slow down until the last second. The second car assumes the first is going through the flashing lights and slams into him. Thank goodness the pedestrians in all cases weren't involved otherwise they would have been killed.

That is a situation that is dangerous even though pedestrians are following all the rules and have designated infrastructure and good visibility. The only thing in this case would be to slow down traffic.

But not a 30km/h zone. Just formalize the idea that traffic should be slower in the area, put a stop sign or a traffic light. Or two. 50km/h isn't inherrently dangerous, but it becomes so when the driving culture of a particular road assumes 50km/h and no stops, which isn't aligned with reality.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by MasterG

50km/h isn't inherrently dangerous, but it becomes so when the driving culture of a particular road assumes 50km/h and no stops, which isn't aligned with reality.

Yup.

And ticket the hell out of rear-enders. Some "accidents" are worse than others - rear-ending people is one of the few inexcusable ones. There really is no way to justify not stopping for a stopped object.

[Cage]

The pedestrain activated lights are probably something that requires a major (ie university study) on their effectiveness althouigh the smae signs have been up for over 30 years.

Pedestrian crossing lights that need to be considered:
- These lights are the only traffic signals that immediately activate without warning. Consequently even cars doing 50kph or even 30kph have very difficult to impossible task of stopping before the intersection.
- More recently (like in the last 5 or so years) I have witnessed numerous instances where the pedestrian activates the lights and immediately proceeds into traffic without checking for oncomming traffic. The pedestrian is so fast at activating the light they do not even slow down their jog/walk.
- For light emmission reasons, the yellow lights are directed at a specific street, however the cross street does not have any indication the pedestrian crossing lights have been activated. For the motorist executing a right hand turn from cross street onto mainstreet, there is a good likelihood the crossing lights were activiated by the pedestrian in the motorists blind spot. Result is an accident with a pedestrian who assumes they have the right of way .01 seconds after activating the lights.
- At some intersections, the crossing lights stay on well past the pedestrian's requirement to cross the street. I'm talking about instances where the pedestrian corss the road and 1/2 block away by the time the motorist comes to the intersection.

[freeweed]

Excellent points. And touches on something that fascinates me:

We all like to talk about who has the "right of way". Who is "right" and who is "wrong" when it comes to accidents. And I think that in general, we all agree that the vehicle operator should shoulder the majority of the responsibility, because after all, they're operating the multi-ton speeding death machine.

But I think we've also completely lost sight of reality: in a pedestrian-vehicle collision, THE PEDESTRIAN LOSES. Every last time. Doesn't matter who was at fault. Doesn't matter how things "should work".

When I learned to drive, I was taught "defensive driving". You drive as if every other car out there is about to collide with you. You always assume "the other guy" is a dangerous driver and might cause an accident at any time. You leave space, you never assume anything, you constantly check your blind spots, etc.

I wonder why we've lost the ability to teach "defensive walking". Because the exact same attitude could save lives. Hell, moreso than in driving situations. Because again - the pedestrian ALWAYS loses. Regardless of what the HTA or the courts say. We used to teach kids to "look both ways" - not "only look where you think a car could be coming from", or "don't worry about looking if you've got the right of way".

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by freeweed

We used to teach kids to "look both ways" - not "only look where you think a car could be coming from", or "don't worry about looking if you've got the right of way".

Sorry...what? They don't teach kids to look both ways anymore?

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Excellent points. And touches on something that fascinates me:

We all like to talk about who has the "right of way". Who is "right" and who is "wrong" when it comes to accidents. And I think that in general, we all agree that the vehicle operator should shoulder the majority of the responsibility, because after all, they're operating the multi-ton speeding death machine.

But I think we've also completely lost sight of reality: in a pedestrian-vehicle collision, THE PEDESTRIAN LOSES. Every last time. Doesn't matter who was at fault. Doesn't matter how things "should work".

When I learned to drive, I was taught "defensive driving". You drive as if every other car out there is about to collide with you. You always assume "the other guy" is a dangerous driver and might cause an accident at any time. You leave space, you never assume anything, you constantly check your blind spots, etc.

I wonder why we've lost the ability to teach "defensive walking". Because the exact same attitude could save lives. Hell, moreso than in driving situations. Because again - the pedestrian ALWAYS loses. Regardless of what the HTA or the courts say. We used to teach kids to "look both ways" - not "only look where you think a car could be coming from", or "don't worry about looking if you've got the right of way".

How does someone cross a road that requires the pedestrian to enter the roadway because traffic will never stop unless they do? They are not only right, but are forced to put themselves in a dangerous position just to cross the road. Should they always have to walk to the nearest controlled intersection?


This is a huge accessibility issue. Young, able-bodied people may not have an issue with the extra distance, but older seniors and those with disabilities this can be a huge mobility issue that doesn't need to exist.

I am not talking about jay-walking either, most intersections that have this problem are legal crossings with or without a cross-walk on busier roads of the inner city.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by MasterG

How does someone cross a road that requires the pedestrian to enter the roadway because traffic will never stop unless they do? They are not only right, but are forced to put themselves in a dangerous position just to cross the road. Should they always have to walk to the nearest controlled intersection?


This is a huge accessibility issue. Young, able-bodied people may not have an issue with the extra distance, but older seniors and those with disabilities this can be a huge mobility issue that doesn't need to exist.

I am not talking about jay-walking either, most intersections that have this problem are legal crossings with or without a cross-walk on busier roads of the inner city.

I can think of Edmonton Trail being another spot where there are issues with crossings.

The following is a hyperlapse of Edmonton Trail NE northbound. Note that:
- the lanes squeeze from four to two lanes
- not a lot of vehicle traffic
- cyclist number one tries to cross Edmonton Trail after turning off a side street from the far left lane to the far right lane, does a bad job of it, risks being hit by Google Streetview camera vehicle
- cyclist number two illegally biking on sidewalk and rides bike through sidewalk
- several intersections don't have crosswalks and are frequently jaywalked

http://hyperlapse.tllabs.io/#51.0508...0000015,113.75

I think this corridor would work a lot better if there was one lane converted to car parking, another lane converted to a bike lane and one additional pedestrian crossing added. Also, complicating cycling in this area is that the nearest bike lane is one kilometre east.

Would be interesting if could compile a list of these bad corridors for feedback to the city...

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by MasterG

How does someone cross a road that requires the pedestrian to enter the roadway because traffic will never stop unless they do? They are not only right, but are forced to put themselves in a dangerous position just to cross the road. Should they always have to walk to the nearest controlled intersection?

I don't have all the answers, but walking in front of a fast-moving multi-ton hunk of metal that shows zero indication of stopping is a stupid idea. Every. Single. Time. I don't care what argument a person can come up with, it's still suicidal.

Flashing pedestrian crossings. Full-blown stoplights just for pedestrians (like on Memorial). Overhead bridges. Under-road tunnels. Far more "this is a pedestrian crossing, asshole" signage and road painting. On every bloody intersection if we must. And yes, sometimes walking to the nearest controlled intersection. I'm sorry, but there just aren't that many places where you absolutely MUST cross RIGHT NOW. If there are, perhaps we've done a piss-poor job of organizing the buildings. Most people are going to walk a ways down the street anyway, cross there.

And for situations not covered by that? Maybe I'm just extremely old fashioned. But I was taught to never walk in front of a moving vehicle unless it's clearly going to stop. Because guess what? I CAN NEVER WIN THIS ONE. Doesn't matter who's right. Doesn't matter how inconvenient the alternative is. Doesn't matter how abled or not I may be. Doesn't matter how fair it is. Doesn't matter that society is too car-centric and should change things so that pedestrians own the roads and cars are secondary. None of this matters, because I'll still lose.

In the old days, it used to be considered a pedestrian courtesy to extend your arm to indicate you wanted to cross. And drivers were expected to respect that. The former has pretty much disappeared, and I'm not sure I'd put stock in the latter. Although... if these 30 km/h zones are enforceable and actually work, I'm not sure why we can't get people to stop for pedestrians either - if it's obvious that they're crossing.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I don't have all the answers, but walking in front of a fast-moving multi-ton hunk of metal that shows zero indication of stopping is a stupid idea. Every. Single. Time. I don't care what argument a person can come up with, it's still suicidal.

Flashing pedestrian crossings. Full-blown stoplights just for pedestrians (like on Memorial). Overhead bridges. Under-road tunnels. Far more "this is a pedestrian crossing, asshole" signage and road painting. On every bloody intersection if we must. And yes, sometimes walking to the nearest controlled intersection. I'm sorry, but there just aren't that many places where you absolutely MUST cross RIGHT NOW. If there are, perhaps we've done a piss-poor job of organizing the buildings. Most people are going to walk a ways down the street anyway, cross there.

And for situations not covered by that? Maybe I'm just extremely old fashioned. But I was taught to never walk in front of a moving vehicle unless it's clearly going to stop. Because guess what? I CAN NEVER WIN THIS ONE. Doesn't matter who's right. Doesn't matter how inconvenient the alternative is. Doesn't matter how abled or not I may be. Doesn't matter how fair it is. Doesn't matter that society is too car-centric and should change things so that pedestrians own the roads and cars are secondary. None of this matters, because I'll still lose.

In the old days, it used to be considered a pedestrian courtesy to extend your arm to indicate you wanted to cross. And drivers were expected to respect that. The former has pretty much disappeared, and I'm not sure I'd put stock in the latter. Although... if these 30 km/h zones are enforceable and actually work, I'm not sure why we can't get people to stop for pedestrians either - if it's obvious that they're crossing.

This is why I always say that a pedestrian should make eye contact with the driver before crossing, make sure they know you are there and have time to slow down before you cross. If you aren't paying attention to what you are doing and whats around you, pedestrian or driver, you're going to get in trouble. To what extent do we need to go to protect people from their own stupidity?

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

This is why I always say that a pedestrian should make eye contact with the driver before crossing, make sure they know you are there and have time to slow down before you cross. If you aren't paying attention to what you are doing and whats around you, pedestrian or driver, you're going to get in trouble. To what extent do we need to go to protect people from their own stupidity?

Yeah. I guess I should also add that I believe in defensive driving when it comes to pedestrians - you always have to expect some jackass to walk in front of your car. Because you could kill him if you don't react in time. Doesn't matter who's at fault.

The onus isn't totally on the pedestrian here, I hope I don't come across like that. Drivers should also be paying attention and hoping to make eye contact, etc.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I don't have all the answers, but walking in front of a fast-moving multi-ton hunk of metal that shows zero indication of stopping is a stupid idea. Every. Single. Time. I don't care what argument a person can come up with, it's still suicidal.

Flashing pedestrian crossings. Full-blown stoplights just for pedestrians (like on Memorial). Overhead bridges. Under-road tunnels. Far more "this is a pedestrian crossing, asshole" signage and road painting. On every bloody intersection if we must. And yes, sometimes walking to the nearest controlled intersection. I'm sorry, but there just aren't that many places where you absolutely MUST cross RIGHT NOW. If there are, perhaps we've done a piss-poor job of organizing the buildings. Most people are going to walk a ways down the street anyway, cross there.

And for situations not covered by that? Maybe I'm just extremely old fashioned. But I was taught to never walk in front of a moving vehicle unless it's clearly going to stop. Because guess what? I CAN NEVER WIN THIS ONE. Doesn't matter who's right. Doesn't matter how inconvenient the alternative is. Doesn't matter how abled or not I may be. Doesn't matter how fair it is. Doesn't matter that society is too car-centric and should change things so that pedestrians own the roads and cars are secondary. None of this matters, because I'll still lose.

In the old days, it used to be considered a pedestrian courtesy to extend your arm to indicate you wanted to cross. And drivers were expected to respect that. The former has pretty much disappeared, and I'm not sure I'd put stock in the latter. Although... if these 30 km/h zones are enforceable and actually work, I'm not sure why we can't get people to stop for pedestrians either - if it's obvious that they're crossing.

I do agree that trucks that don't stop + pedestrians that don't stop = Truck winning. Thats not debatable. However, responsibility should be on all users of the road, drivers and pedestrians. As pedestrians are the vulnerable users, extra care should be taken in all situations to protect them while maximizing mobility.

As it is unlikely that the culture of driving will change quickly to respect pedestrians, steps can be taken to facilitate that. For starters the city could paint cross-walks on every intersection that has a crossing. A least bring the visibility up so that drivers can't differentiate between an unmarked crossing and a marked one. That would help making them subconsciously aware of the possibility of a pedestrian. The worst is streets that have both; marked and unmarked. Cars naturally assume that pedestrians will only cross on the marked ones and speed past the unmarked ones creating more danger than if no crossings were marked at all.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

This is why I always say that a pedestrian should make eye contact with the driver before crossing, make sure they know you are there and have time to slow down before you cross. If you aren't paying attention to what you are doing and whats around you, pedestrian or driver, you're going to get in trouble. To what extent do we need to go to protect people from their own stupidity?

Its not about full separation and controlled infrastructure. A few small changes make all the difference. Focus should be placed on areas where design itself can lead to all users paying more attention.

Ideas like moving parked cars farther back from intersections to increase visibility. Painting cross-walks that are faded. Adding a stop sign here or there to get drivers used to the idea that they need to slow down.

Its not about protecting the stupid, its about protecting the vulnerable. The elderly that drivers don't see because they are forced to walk an extra 2 blocks to get to a signalized light because they can't cross at the intersection in front of their house safely as traffic never stops. This is a serious impairment on their mobility and happens all the time.

Elderly, school aged kids and others without cars (or just not driving them) make up a huge population vulnerable population that must be respected.

[Calgarian]

I think Calgary should paint that cross hatch pattern NYC uses in most intersections. Painting it every spring would be a bitch though...

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I think Calgary should paint that cross hatch pattern NYC uses in most intersections. Painting it every spring would be a bitch though...

The new standard of painted solid stripes between the two sides is a huge improvement in visibility. Last longer too, as it takes more paint to fall off before you forget its a crosswalk.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I think Calgary should paint that cross hatch pattern NYC uses in most intersections. Painting it every spring would be a bitch though...

Do they actually paint it or is it a plastic that is melted?

This is from the 7 St SW bike lane installation where some sort of blow torch is being used and the markings are being moved about:

https://vine.co/v/hBtu3XmAtI2

This looks more like paint:

https://vine.co/v/hBtA5W5nqJF

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by MasterG

The worst is streets that have both; marked and unmarked. Cars naturally assume that pedestrians will only cross on the marked ones and speed past the unmarked ones creating more danger than if no crossings were marked at all.

Can't argue with you here. In fact I'd bet that the majority of drivers believe that only marked crossings are legal, because of this very situation.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Radley77

Do they actually paint it or is it a plastic that is melted?

This is from the 7 St SW bike lane installation where some sort of blow torch is being used and the markings are being moved about:

https://vine.co/v/hBtu3XmAtI2

This looks more like paint:

https://vine.co/v/hBtA5W5nqJF

Depends on the intersection. They've used a variety of methods, including a colored concrete (they scraped about an inch off the asphalt and then filled it, or a similar system where they applied a quarter inch or so thick layer on top), numerous paint formuations, and the one in the top video which I'd heard about but never seen them actually use before.

Edit: and of course the rubber brick style they used up in Varsity

[93JC]

Bump.

Originally Posted by 93JC

Oh lord...

Someone in my neighbourhood, North Glenmore Park, floated the same idea last year. They suggested that a blanket 30 km/h speed limit be introduced over the entire area south of Glenmore and east of Crowchild. The reasoning was to "enhance the safety of our residents and neighbours and their families and the children attending the Calgary Girls School and/or using our Community Hall". Of course the road in front of the school and the community hall are ALREADY 30 km/h school and playground zones...

They also suggested that "users of our pathway systems in this area" would be 'safer' with a blanket 30 km/h zone throughout the neighbourhood, which was silly considering that of the three spots where the pathway system intersects the roads two of them already fell within a playground zone and the third, a mid-block crossing, would probably be better served by having the crosswalk itself being marked better and if necessary perhaps mid-block bulbs added to the sidewalk. I even sent them the standard detail for a mid-block crossing from the Roads Dept.

The following month's newsletter made mention of having received 'feedback', and that they welcome any other feedback the residents have. The blanket speed limit idea hasn't resurfaced since.

From the latest (and coincidentally first) North Glenmore Park Connector newsletter (bolded for my emphasis):

Having realized that there was far more traffic and noise of hte streets of the South-East quadrant of the North Glenmore Park Community, the Traffic Committee went out to determine the cause. The alderman's office was contacted for help and support. Roads Calgary was dispatched but was unable to determine an accurate count with it's [sic] automated road counters. The city was unable to place road strips at strategic points to get a proper count. An actual manual count had to be done and accurate numbers were then calculated.

In addition to the regular and daily count of Resident's cars coming and going, the following locations use were counted: The Calgary Girls School, North Glenmore Park Community Hall, Earl Grey Golf and Country Club and the Professional Centre at the entrance to the community. Per calendar year, the combined totals of the mentioned were added up. It was assessed that there were an additional 245,000 vehicles entering the community at the entrance on Longridge Drive off Crowchild Trail. An absolute staggering number when you consider that all of the vehicles that enter the community have to egress as well.

The yellow school busses were gunning their engines while cornering their way in and out of the community. Golfers were seen speeding on the way to the course in order to meet their T times. Vehicles leaving the golf course late in the evening were observed to be speeding as well as weaving side to side on the streets. Cars were observed rushing to get out of the community in order to beat the traffic coming from the community hall. It is not unusual to see more than twelve vehicles lined up waiting to turn onto Crowchild from Longridge Drive.

With all of that information on hand, it was determined that traffic calming was in need and the committee went about for recourse. It was determined that if the speed limit was reduced to 30 KMS/HR, the traffic would be calmed and the noise reduced. Of course, if the speed limit was reduced, all streets would be safer as they already are in the School Zones and Play Ground Zones. The community was polled for input via this publication. Three times over three months the residents were asked for their opinion to be submitted to the email account, traffic4ngp.ca. The results, with a handful of exceptions were over the top for a reduction of speed in the entire community. It was then time to take the information to the community to report the results and ask for action.

At the Annual General Meeting of the NGPCA on September 23rd, 2013, a motion to reduce the speed to 30 KMS/HR was made, seconded and unanimously passed. A full quorum as well as both the MLA and Councilman for the area were in attendance.

It is now time to advise Roads Calgary to put up new street signs in the entire community advising that the new speed limit is 30 KMS/HR as by the democratic choice of the residents. We will soon start advertising and alerting residents and visitors to NGP of the change.

*sigh*

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by 93JC

Bump.




From the latest (and coincidentally first) North Glenmore Park Connector newsletter (bolded for my emphasis):

Having realized that there was far more traffic and noise of hte streets of the South-East quadrant of the North Glenmore Park Community, the Traffic Committee went out to determine the cause. The alderman's office was contacted for help and support. Roads Calgary was dispatched but was unable to determine an accurate count with it's [sic] automated road counters. The city was unable to place road strips at strategic points to get a proper count. An actual manual count had to be done and accurate numbers were then calculated.

In addition to the regular and daily count of Resident's cars coming and going, the following locations use were counted: The Calgary Girls School, North Glenmore Park Community Hall, Earl Grey Golf and Country Club and the Professional Centre at the entrance to the community. Per calendar year, the combined totals of the mentioned were added up. It was assessed that there were an additional 245,000 vehicles entering the community at the entrance on Longridge Drive off Crowchild Trail. An absolute staggering number when you consider that all of the vehicles that enter the community have to egress as well.

The yellow school busses were gunning their engines while cornering their way in and out of the community. Golfers were seen speeding on the way to the course in order to meet their T times. Vehicles leaving the golf course late in the evening were observed to be speeding as well as weaving side to side on the streets. Cars were observed rushing to get out of the community in order to beat the traffic coming from the community hall. It is not unusual to see more than twelve vehicles lined up waiting to turn onto Crowchild from Longridge Drive.

With all of that information on hand, it was determined that traffic calming was in need and the committee went about for recourse. It was determined that if the speed limit was reduced to 30 KMS/HR, the traffic would be calmed and the noise reduced. Of course, if the speed limit was reduced, all streets would be safer as they already are in the School Zones and Play Ground Zones. The community was polled for input via this publication. Three times over three months the residents were asked for their opinion to be submitted to the email account, traffic4ngp.ca. The results, with a handful of exceptions were over the top for a reduction of speed in the entire community. It was then time to take the information to the community to report the results and ask for action.

At the Annual General Meeting of the NGPCA on September 23rd, 2013, a motion to reduce the speed to 30 KMS/HR was made, seconded and unanimously passed. A full quorum as well as both the MLA and Councilman for the area were in attendance.

It is now time to advise Roads Calgary to put up new street signs in the entire community advising that the new speed limit is 30 KMS/HR as by the democratic choice of the residents. We will soon start advertising and alerting residents and visitors to NGP of the change.

*sigh*

God forbid putting 30km/hour on streets with 5,000x the pedestrians in the inner city where it would statistically make a difference on lives saved and collisions avoided. And my comment is not referring to Sunnyside which doesn't need a speed reduction. just everywhere else where people have been killed by traffic this year (Centre, 5 Street etc.)

I am 100% for street safety and lower speed is crucial to that safety and ability to respond to road conditions and other users. But this is another Lakeview-Exceptionalism case where loud mouths go before actual need or data.

The hatred for traffic in this statement is laughable... the same person that doesn't want even the slightest bit of traffic on their street in the middle of nowhere will more than happily speed on Crowchild, 17th Ave and the inner city actually risking 100x more people than any 50 km/hr traffic in their own community ever will. NIMBYism at its finest.

Why didn't they just buy the neighbourhood and plow the ring-road through there and be done with it ? And this is coming from a SW Ring Road hater.