Road Safety & Vision Zero Plan

[reteequa]

While Toronto seems to be doing zero on the road safety zero plan, other cities are actually doing something.

A Dutch town put traffic lights in the pavement because people won't stop staring at their smartphones

From link.

Meanwhile, the Toronto Roads Department are busy twiddling their thumbs, since pedestrians (and transit) are low priority to them.

Pedestrians arent the problem though.....

 

[ADRM]

Pedestrians arent the problem though.....

Correct.

 

[Neutrino]

No, clueless pedestrians on their phones definitely bear responsibility. Plus, being responsible for your safety is not the same as blaming pedestrians for the bad actions of drivers. How on earth could anyone excuse the mindless texting zombies who endanger themselves and others? What about when drivers have the right of way and the iZombies wander into the road? I can't count the number of times I've seen people clad in headphones and texting at the same time stepping into the road without checking for cars at all. And I say this as a frequent pedestrian.

 

[ADRM]

No, clueless pedestrians on their phones definitely bear responsibility. Plus, being responsible for your safety is not the same as blaming pedestrians for the bad actions of drivers. How on earth could anyone excuse the mindless texting zombies who endanger themselves and others? What about when drivers have the right of way and the iZombies wander into the road? I can't count the number of times I've seen people clad in headphones and texting at the same time stepping into the road without checking for cars at all. And I say this as a frequent pedestrian.

No. Those lights are directly in front of a pedestrian crosswalk, where pedestrians have the right of way. You’re victim blaming and it sucks.

 

[gabe]

As a pedestrian, i see far more ignorant aggressive drivers ignoring the pedestrians right away than phone zombies not looking up crossing the road. Most drivers aren't on their phones either, just ignorent jerks who don't give a flying f--- about peoples saftey.

 

[Northern Light]

No. Those lights are directly in front of a pedestrian crosswalk, where pedestrians have the right of way. You’re victim blaming and it sucks.

You and I are almost always in agreement here, but on this one, I think you're being a tad hard on @Neutrino

This particular light installation is not for the benefit of motorists (in laid in the sidewalk).

Its for pedestrians, and predicated on the notion that they are not looking up to see the colour of the light.

IF the light is red, they (pedestrians) do not have the right-of-way.

If they cross, against a red, they are legally wrong.

I think making that point does not take away from negligent drivers where applicable (which is often) nor bad urban design (common), it simply states that this particular investment is to correct for self-inflicted stupidity.

As a pedestrian, I NEVER look at my phone while in motion. Does not happen.

I don't want to walk into another person, or an open manhole or oncoming traffic no matter who has the right-of-way.

That does not mean we shouldn't seek to improve the safety of crossings, or work on improving the quality of driving, including, but not limited to actions via urban design.

But neither does it mean we shouldn't call out an investment for what it is; the protection of the stupid from themselves.

 

[Neutrino]

@ADRM I knew "victim blaming" would emerge and I already addressed it in my post. Kindly re-read.

 

[Northern Light]

As a pedestrian, i see far more ignorant aggressive drivers ignoring the pedestrians right away than phone zombies not looking up crossing the road. Most drivers aren't on their phones either, just ignorent jerks who don't give a flying f--- about peoples saftey.

That too is true.

Pedestrians do lots of dumb things, though, they are, by and large, lower consequence by won't of size, speed and mass than a driver making a mistake or taking a stupid risk.

The consequence as a pedestrian of one's stupidity is also more likely to be self-harm than to others; while the inverse is true for bad driving.

 

[ADRM]

@ADRM I knew "victim blaming" would emerge and I already addressed it in my post. Kindly re-read.

Kindly understand that saying you aren't doing something and unwittingly doing the thing you're claiming not to be doing are two different things.

 

[ADRM]

You and I are almost always in agreement here, but on this one, I think you're being a tad hard on @Neutrino

This particular light installation is not for the benefit of motorists (in laid in the sidewalk).

Its for pedestrians, and predicated on the notion that they are not looking up to see the colour of the light.

IF the light is red, they (pedestrians) do not have the right-of-way.

If they cross, against a red, they are legally wrong.

I think making that point does not take away from negligent drivers where applicable (which is often) nor bad urban design (common), it simply states that this particular investment is to correct for self-inflicted stupidity.

As a pedestrian, I NEVER look at my phone while in motion. Does not happen.

I don't want to walk into another person, or an open manhole or oncoming traffic no matter who has the right-of-way.

That does not mean we shouldn't seek to improve the safety of crossings, or work on improving the quality of driving, including, but not limited to actions via urban design.

But neither does it mean we shouldn't call out an investment for what it is; the protection of the stupid from themselves.

Agree with all of that (except for being too hard on the victim-blamer).

 

[Neutrino]

Doesn't take away from one's personal responsibility. Everyone's a victim these days.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Please remember that roads were for everyone (pre-1920's) until the automobile user demanded and made up laws and rules that were in benefit for the automobile, and pushed pedestrians away from roads.

 

[BurlOak]

Please remember that roads were for everyone (pre-1920's) until the automobile user demanded and made up laws and rules that were in benefit for the automobile, and pushed pedestrians away from roads.

Are you sure?

I would have suspected that the larger vehicle had the right of way. That it, horse coach first, then carriage, then horseback, then pedestrians.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Are you sure?

I would have suspected that the larger vehicle had the right of way. That it, horse coach first, then carriage, then horseback, then pedestrians.

Actually reversed. Pedestrians had the right-of-way over horses. See link.

 

[Thorns_Embrace]

It is funny back in the days of Rob Ford I believe he made a comment about the left wanting to return to "horse and buggies" and people including me laughed him off. Now people are arguing for pedestrians and traffic to mix becasue it is what happened in the horse and buggy days. Nobody who drives a car that lives in either the inner or outer suburbs is laughing now.