Road Safety & Vision Zero Plan

[PinkLucy]

Phones are a major example of why pedestrians are often distracted and aren't paying attention while crossing a road. I mean seriously if a person is alert and looking around constantly while crossing the street, then how can a several thousand plus pound vehicle ever be able to sneak up on a pedestrian to hit them? Its literally impossible unless something out of the ordinary happens.

Shall we talk about texting and driving? Just stand at an intersection and take a look at the number of drivers on their phones.

As for sneaking up on a pedestrian, how about barrelling down at speed on a pedestrian?

 

[vic]

I also wonder about the height and proximity of the railing... it's fine for pedestrians but may be too low if you hypothesize a cyclist wiping out on the sidewalk.

This unfortunately happened on Burnhamthorpe Rd. over the Credit River in Mississauga in March 2006. Cyclist hit the railing and tumbled over. I think it took a (long) while, but they eventually actually replaced that railing and separated the sidwalk/trail from the road with a concrete barrier too.

 

[tiffer24]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1226639009155289088

 

[W. K. Lis]

Only the large school bus driver is required to have a seat belt. Same as in Ontario.

From link.

The Northern Local Schools bus struck a 1996 Ford Mustang, whose driver failed to stop at a red light at an intersection in Perry County on Dec. 19, according to KRON 4.

Danny Hupp, 74, the driver, remained calm throughout the ordeal and told the students to get out through the windows and the emergency exit if they could.

Eight students and Hupp were taken to Licking Memorial Hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, the news outlet reported.

The driver of the Mustang, Joseph Thornton, 42, who was driving with a suspended license at the time of the crash, was taken to Mount Carmel East Hospital with serious injuries, police said.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Another City Eliminated Non-Driver Deaths In 2019

From link.

Another world-class city has proven that Vision Zero isn’t just wishful thinking — and its example puts the pressure on American communities to stop street carnage now.

City leaders in Helsinki, Finland, recently announced that they’ve achieved the seemingly impossible (to car-loving Americans, at least): zero pedestrian and cyclist fatalities on its streets in an entire calendar year. That makes them the second Scandinavian capital to eliminate walking and biking deaths lately — Oslo, Norway, announced last month that no one died on its roads in 2019 either, save a single driver who crashed into a fence (three motorists died in Helsinki, according to the city’s urban environment division, which is what forward-thinking cities call their “traffic department.”)

It’s a remarkable achievement, given that Helsinki is home to 631,695 people. Meanwhile, back in auto-centric America, the U.S, city with the most closely comparable number of residents, Louisville, was a scene of typical U.S. carnage: 63 non-interstate roadway deaths in 2018, the last year for which fatality totals are available. Pedestrians accounted for 23 of those deaths, and six were cyclists. And for all three data points, that’s a five-year low.

We got a curious about what we could learn from Helsinki’s success. Here are several takeaways:

Slow down cars

Of all the steps Helsinki leaders have taken to curb roadway deaths, the most impactful one has also been the most obvious: they slowed cars way, way down.

The map below shows speed limits in the city for the past five decades. If you don’t speak metric system, we’ll save you some googling: 30 kilometers per hour (that’s the speed limit in all those soothing green parts of the map) is about 18.6 miles per hour; 40 kilometers (yellow) is about 25 miles; 50 kilometers (red) is 31 miles, and 60 kilometers (the black lines representing major arterials) is about 37 miles.

Here’s a nifty interactive map of Louisville’s speed limit landscape right now. On this map, red indicates a blistering 65 mile per hour limit — and don’t bother trying to find a road with a speed limit of 20 miles per hour or less. There aren’t any.

It’s street safety 101: speed kills. If a pedestrian is hit by the driver of an average-sized car traveling at 20 miles per hour, the walker will have a 95 percent chance of surviving the crash. If that same car speeds up to just 30 miles per hour, though, the same pedestrian’s odds drop to somewhere between 55 and 63 percent. And if the driver nudges the gas pedal a little further and hits 40 miles per hour? The pedestrian’s only walking away from that crash alive 15 to 17 percent of the time.

But here’s what’s really radical about what Helsinki did (though it certainly shouldn’t be): leaders looked at the probability of pedestrian death even in the slowest collisions on their streets, and said that a 5-percent fatality rate was was still too high. And so they cut the average speed limit more.

Not too long ago in Louisville, a driver got caught doing 93 on the state freeway, fought the citation on the grounds that the 55 mile per hour road sign he blew past was “unconstitutional and vague,” and he won. Kentucky and Finland might as well be on different planets, for all the two cities have in common when it comes to taking action to slow down cars.

Human-centered street design

Of course, no city can slow down car traffic just by putting up signs. It’s been proven countless times that using human-scale road design to functionally force drivers to lay off the gas is far more effective than simply putting up a slow speed limit sign on a roomy, freeway-style road.

Helsinki certainly didn’t slow its traffic through the fear of enforcement alone. It also invested heavily in the kind of infrastructure that makes biking, walking and transit truly attractive — and driving a downright inconvenience.

A cyclist in Helsinki can enjoy over 745 miles of protected bike paths, a major amenity that’s usable year-round even in the blizzard-prone Nordic North, thanks to an impressive winter snow clearance program. (We won’t bore the non-bike-nerds in the audience, but let’s just say that if the words “gritted lanes rather than bike-corroding salt” get you salivating, the Guardian has a really great recent article about the Finns’ winter cycling culture for you.)

Even the architecture of the downtown streets that are shared with cars prioritize non-car travel to an astonishing degree. Seriously, this photo is like an I Spy puzzle for good road design:

Metal bollards, beefed-up sidewalks, narrow lanes and more, via Creative Commons.

And look — that delivery truck on the right still got to its destination without completely designing the entire street around the comfort and convenience of the truck driver! Imagine that!

That comprehensive focus on human-scaled design has paid big time dividends for the city’s pedestrians and cyclists. For trips under four miles, the quickest way to get around Helsinki is by foot or bike.

That’s not true in sprawling Louisville, which spreads its comparably sized population across 398 square miles, compared to Helsinki’s 82.5-square-mile footprint. (And by the way: that’s still not particularly dense by European standards. It doesn’t even make the “densest European cities” Wikipedia page.) The Derby City has 85 miles of bike lanes, few of which are actually protected — Helsinki has about nine times as many miles of protected paths, if you’re counting — and we probably don’t need to tell you much about how dismal things are for pedestrians in autocentric towns like Louisville. If you’ve spent any time anywhere in America, this typical street probably looks pretty familiar to you:

Seven lanes of high-speed auto traffic and a crosswalk, via Broken Sidewalk.

Louisville’s most recent budget set aside a negligible $400,000 for on-street bike improvements. Hundreds of Kentuckians told their local newspaper that they wanted to see that funding cut … to solve the $35-million budget shortfall. Good luck with that math, guys.

Transform transit

OK, we know we’re not blowing anyone’s mind with the revelation that cosmopolitan European cities have trains. But what’s interesting about Helsinki’s approach to public transportation is its refreshingly modern approach to public transportation tech.

Helsinki is home to the headquarters of MaaS Global, a mobility firm whose name acronyms out to “mobility as a service.” MaaS grabbed a lot of headlines a few years ago for the launch of its innovative Whim app, which allows Helsinkians (and citizens of a handful of other lucky pilot cities) to compare and purchase trips on public transportation, ride-sharing services (including a cutting-edge Uber/bus hybrid), and micromobility services like e-scooters — all on one app. City transportation officials credited Whim with a rise in bike share usage and portrays it as an integral part of the city’s strategy to make shared mobility solutions so convenient that individual car ownership is rendered obsolete.

Between Whim and the convenience and reliability of the public transportation system itself, Helsinkians take an impressive 504,000 transit trips every day between its metro and tram systems. Louisville has a bus network, and no trains at all. It boards just 41,000 daily riders.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Have our poor driver licensing standards come up at all in all this noise?

Or how about our oversigned roads which lead our incompetent drivers to get distracted and are caused by our unnecessarily over-regulated roads?

Asking for a friend.

 

[Northern Light]

Have our poor driver licensing standards come up at all in all this noise?

Or how about our oversigned roads which lead our incompetent drivers to get distracted and are caused by our unnecessarily over-regulated roads?

Asking for a friend.

Are you suggesting that those 'Senior Safety Zone' signs which have no lo legal force or effect are superfluous? ?

 

[SunriseChampion]

Are you suggesting that those 'Senior Safety Zone' signs which have no lo legal force or effect are superfluous? ?

Not just that.....how about all way stops when clearly there should be in all instances a through road that doesn't require cars to stop. Especially at 3 way intersections. Wtf is that?!?!

Do you guys know how much extra pollution this nonsense causes? We're worried about pedestrians....how about worrying about what they breathe?

 

[Max Sterling]

The issue though is, is the allocation of width even reasonable to begin with? Right now, the bike lane is pretty much single file, because veering into the auto lane is pretty suicidal. If you shift it to the pedestrian plane, do you create the temptation to overtake? How will that impact pedestrians? (Don't underestimate the potential for cyclist-pedestrian competition for space to get ugly.... drivers aren't the only ones with attitude).

I think the problem is that outside of the downtown core and a few other select parts of the GTA, people GROSSLY overestimate the amount of pedestrian traffic on sidewalks. I drive around alot in the GTA and even in perfect summer weather you'll see few if any people walking in Toronto once you leave the downtown core or Yonge street north of Sheppard. You could walk just a couple of blocks east or west of those areas and pedestrian traffic drops to almost nothing and its even worse in the suburbs.

This is why moving all bike traffic to the sidewalks would be perfect because again you make things instantly much safer for cyclists and you get more use out of completely wasted infrastructure. Take the complete makeover of Highway 7 where they created bus only lanes and redid so much there and yet it was all a wasted effort because all those brand new lovely sidewalks are empty almost 100% of the time. It would've been better just to make them dual use and get bikes off the road away from vehicles and at least make it safer so that people might use that infrastructure instead of leaving it to waste. And the chances of a bike/pedestrian collision in these areas are almost zero when there's almost no pedestrian traffic to begin with.

To my mind, the solution ought to be four lanes of auto space, and not six. Then do a really good job of separating all three modes. And/or, measures to limit vehicle speed. The current bridge like many major roads encourages drivers to speed up.

I think that would be a bad idea and mostly unnecessary outside of a few high pedestrian traffic areas. In the suburbs where no one walks, it wouldn't make sense to take away road infrastructure and give it to non-existent pedestrian traffic.

 

[PinkLucy]

Biking on sidewalks isn't all that safe, particularly when crossing over driveways or entryways.

 

[Max Sterling]

Shall we talk about texting and driving? Just stand at an intersection and take a look at the number of drivers on their phones.

Absolutely we should talk about things like texting/talking while driving and I HATE seeing so many people doing that. Like I said all along drivers can definitely be better and likewise so can pedestrians who can and SHOULD do everything in their power to keep themselves safe. I don't know why its so controversial to simply ask pedestrian to do their part which would probably reduce pedestrian/car accidents by like 99%.

As for sneaking up on a pedestrian, how about barrelling down at speed on a pedestrian?

If you can't see a fast moving car coming towards you and not move into its path, then you have to either be legally blind or be not very bright. I mean seriously you look all around you and you see vehicles moving towards you and you can't judge if whether they're far away enough for you to safely cross without getting hit? That's basic stuff that everyone should know with perhaps the exception of children who are still learning, but if you're a teen and above and you can't figure that out and you don't have any mental impairments, then that means you're just very bright then.

 

[Max Sterling]

Biking on sidewalks isn't all that safe, particularly when crossing over driveways or entryways.

If you're paying attention, that shouldn't be a problem at all. And how is that any different from biking on the road where you also have to pay attention to driveways and entryways?

 

[Northern Light]

If you're paying attention, that shouldn't be a problem at all. And how is that any different from biking on the road where you also have to pay attention to driveways and entryways?

Two differences:

1) Curb cuts where the sidewalk@driveway is sloping towards the road, and not level w/the surface you were just on.

2)Timing and other danger of reversing movements by motorists. On a road, you're moving w/the traffic, you can see brake lights or reverse lights ahead of you. When on a sidewalk, drivers backing out of a driveway (or about to do so) are perpendicular to you; and much closer physically, giving you and them much less reaction time in the event of a potential conflict.

 

[tiffer24]

You sound like a danger on the roads, to yourself and to others...

If you can't see a fast moving car coming towards you and not move into its path, then you have to either be legally blind or be not very bright. I mean seriously you look all around you and you see vehicles moving towards you and you can't judge if whether they're far away enough for you to safely cross without getting hit? That's basic stuff that everyone should know with perhaps the exception of children who are still learning, but if you're a teen and above and you can't figure that out and you don't have any mental impairments, then that means you're just very bright then.

 

[Max Sterling]

Two differences:

1) Curb cuts where the sidewalk@driveway is sloping towards the road, and not level w/the surface you were just on.

2)Timing and other danger of reversing movements by motorists. On a road, you're moving w/the traffic, you can see brake lights or reverse lights ahead of you. When on a sidewalk, drivers backing out of a driveway (or about to do so) are perpendicular to you; and much closer physically, giving you and them much less reaction time in the event of a potential conflict.

Both those things aren't an issue in most cases. A slight slope isn't going to be any problem for cyclists to handle. And also people backing out of driveways on a major road shouldn't be an issue either if you're looking ahead of you and are paying attention and its something you're going to have to deal with if you're biking on the streets anyways.

And I bet those two perceived dangers are infinitely less harmful than cyclists sharing the road with fast moving vehicles. Also not everyone who would use these dual use sidewalks will be biking highspeed like they were doing the Tour De France and probably most people will be going medium to low speeds which makes the things you mentioned even less of an issue.