Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 197 of 197

Thread: 30 km/h Playground Speed Limits Approved, Entire Residential Areas in Crosshairs Next

  1. #101

    Default

    30 km. feels like slo mo. Oh well.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." ľMark Twain

  2. #102

    Default

    Exactly, the City just stole 7.6 days from your free time. All in the name of safety. Before you know it they'll narrow the traffic lanes, create pedestrian-only roads, and install curb bump-outs and more bike lanes.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  3. #103

    Default

    All of this is pointless nonsense that is just made to make people feel safe and that is it. A false sense of security. I especially love the percentages they throw around on the news instead of concrete numbers as to the reduction of incidents just to make it sound more impressive.

    Bottomline, unless you plan on having cops every where and actually enforcing this past the first week or two it won't mean squat. People will go as fast they want to go as they do already through school zones and other areas. Just like people will continue using cell phones, putting on make up and other distracted behavior because that is what THEY DO. Morons are morons.

    Personally, I'm for responsibility for drivers and pedestrians. Commonsense. If you're driving then focus on that, if you see kids then slow down. Do people really need government and millions of signs telling them this?
    If you're a pedestrian then you watch where you're going. Thinking that pressing a button is magic and all cars will stop for you is naive and thus you watch and proceed when it is safe. You can be 100% in the right when it comes to your right of way but it won't mean much when you're struck by a distracted driver and end up dead.

    Why don't we just make all the roads 30 km per hour? Think about it. It'll be a utopia where everyone will be safe.

  4. #104

    Default

    We need to do more to make drivers feel unsafe, I guess. Need to make them fear for their lives at every crossing so they'll be responsible like pedestrians.
    There can only be one.

  5. #105

    Default

    I watched a girl get smoked by a truck near my sons school. Girl was an older teenager who ran across a busy road. This accident was caused from the ***** kid yet the stat will be used to discuss how unsafe our roads are.

    Pedestrians really need more accountability. So easy to blame the drivers these days...

  6. #106

    Default

    The city installed an absurd full signal setup on 153 Ave at the Beaumaris crosswalk after the lady pushing a stroller got hit last year. It's so overkill and the delay is often so long that people just walk across when there's no traffic, leaving a pile of cars to sit there idling watching nobody cross after the fact. How did a lady with a baby get hit? How little attention does a pedestrian have to be paying to get ran down like that? Maybe I'm superhuman or something, but I make sure the car that can kill me has come to a stop before I step out, and if there's multiple lanes, I make sure the next lane is clear before continuing. It's not difficult. Soft, squishy meatbags need to be a bit smarter about this.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  7. #107
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Exactly, the City just stole 7.6 days from your free time. All in the name of safety. Before you know it they'll narrow the traffic lanes, create pedestrian-only roads, and install curb bump-outs and more bike lanes.



    Good one.

  8. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    The city installed an absurd full signal setup on 153 Ave at the Beaumaris crosswalk after the lady pushing a stroller got hit last year. It's so overkill and the delay is often so long that people just walk across when there's no traffic, leaving a pile of cars to sit there idling watching nobody cross after the fact. How did a lady with a baby get hit? How little attention does a pedestrian have to be paying to get ran down like that? Maybe I'm superhuman or something, but I make sure the car that can kill me has come to a stop before I step out, and if there's multiple lanes, I make sure the next lane is clear before continuing. It's not difficult. Soft, squishy meatbags need to be a bit smarter about this.
    haha i drive through that one everyday going south. i have a red light on it every day with nobody crossing 99% of the time. its ridiculous.

  9. #109

    Default

    It might be overkill, but if it's activated and there's no one crossing then the timing is a huge part of the problem. There's one like that crossing 118 in front of the Highlands Library that I don't think I've ever crossed with the light. It's needless delay for drivers and an insult to pedestrians.
    There can only be one.

  10. #110

    Default

    I've opened a pile of 311 tickets about it and they don't give a crap. I told them all it ever needed was flashing lights like at 124 St and 103 Ave. Great setup. Too smart for Edmonton.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  11. #111

    Default

    I agree, the flashing lights are a better solution in the vast majority of situations, and when the full red is necessary for whatever reason it should be much faster and should probably have sensors so that the light isn't red longer than it has to be.
    There can only be one.

  12. #112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Exactly, the City just stole 7.6 days from your free time. All in the name of safety. Before you know it they'll narrow the traffic lanes, create pedestrian-only roads, and install curb bump-outs and more bike lanes.
    Thanks for taking the bait. I doubt that you would be impacted for 60 years. More like 30... and probably not 365 days a year. More like 275. So let's lower that number. 3 days of your life gone to keep neighbourhoods safe. "Live and love... your neighbourhood." is your signature no? Doesn't sound like you practice that tag line much, if all you care about is a precious 30 seconds TOPS a day to make sure you're not running over kids, and make your neighbourhood more pedestrian friendly.

    As for me, it literally has no impact. I walk or bike to work. If your so worked up about 30 seconds, perhaps you need to move closer to work. That 30 seconds a day you potentially could be saving is gone by the time you hit the first red light anyways.


    The world doesn't need to be run over by elited drivers driving cars at 60km/h through residential neighbourhoods.

  13. #113

    Default

    ^I like being a little facetious on here. Makes me laugh. Appreciate the response though. I'm on your side on this topic.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  14. #114

    Default

    ^^Not everybody can move "closer to work". A lot of people travel from place to place as part of their work. Indeed this is common. This is my case as well and so that the best a person can do in this situation is live close to a primary access that gets you efficiently to any part of the metro and surrounding region. My "commutes" would actually be worse if I was centrally located as my work takes me primarily to outlying regions more easily assessed by ringroad.

    Thank heavens for the Henday. Albeit it gets clogged up plenty through southwest Edmonton.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  15. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    ^I like being a little facetious on here. Makes me laugh. Appreciate the response though. I'm on your side on this topic.
    sometimes it hard to tell tone, delivery and sarcasm intentions over txt

  16. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^^Not everybody can move "closer to work". A lot of people travel from place to place as part of their work. Indeed this is common. This is my case as well and so that the best a person can do in this situation is live close to a primary access that gets you efficiently to any part of the metro and surrounding region. My "commutes" would actually be worse if I was centrally located as my work takes me primarily to outlying regions more easily assessed by ringroad.

    Thank heavens for the Henday. Albeit it gets clogged up plenty through southwest Edmonton.
    I live and work in Ambleside. Very aware of the congestion of Henday in the SW. I used to live in South Terwillegar and worked in Ambleside, and would walk/bike across the Henday via the Rabbit Hill road overpass and feel a little win every day that I saw the Henday was at a near stand still, and I'm enjoying my nice walk to/from work and de-stressing. Now I no longer have to cross the Henday, but can see it from my office window. Suckers stuck on the road!
    Before, when I lived in Oliver, and had to commute to Ambleside. The reverse commute wasn't bad, but I oftentimes found myself stressed a bit before I even got into work. I really love being so close to work, and not having a stressful commute before a stressful day at work I know not everyone can enjoy the benefits I do - not everyone has a single job site, or even a job site that might be close to reasonable housing.

  17. #117

    Default

    For the kind of massive time savings that eliminating school and playground zones would provide, "Moving Closer to Work" could mean as little as sleeping on the side of the bed closer to the door.
    There can only be one.

  18. #118

    Default

    ^ or making your morning routine a little quicker. While doing the morning constitutional, one could brush their teeth at the same time.

  19. #119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    ^I like being a little facetious on here. Makes me laugh. Appreciate the response though. I'm on your side on this topic.
    sometimes it hard to tell tone, delivery and sarcasm intentions over txt
    Intentionally hidden. Anyway, road design near school should begin to resemble that of MNO neighbourhoods. I'm near Donnan School quite often and the roads are "well built" for slow speeds, but visibility due to parked cars and traffic is tough. Many schools I've seen have also employed concrete barriers to widen and bump-out crosswalks which slow cars down and make visibility easier.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  20. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    ^ or making your morning routine a little quicker. While doing the morning constitutional, one could brush their teeth at the same time.
    And that's distracted driving. Another kettle of fish.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  21. #121

    Default

    ^That those designs aren't automatic at every school is baffling. There shouldn't be any crossings anywhere near a school where crossing pedestrians have to cross more just two narrow traffic lanes. You can't legally park within 5m of a crosswalk, so why is that ever part of the asphalt?
    There can only be one.

  22. #122

    Default

    ^Exactly. Here is a early 20th Century example outside Donnan School. https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.51436...7i13312!8i6656

    This isn't a 4-way-stop, but even though this is quite narrow, you have to step out a bit before you or a car can make eye contact. A 30km/h speed limit will make this whole intersection much safer, as everyone will have better reaction times. Even with added infrastructure the new speed limit goes a long way to help elementary-aged kids navigate intersections safely: https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.51499...7i13312!8i6656
    Last edited by GenWhy?; 21-09-2017 at 04:15 PM.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  23. #123

    Default

    ^It's especially hard for kids who can't see over those parked cars, and especially trucks. It's essentially impossible for kids to follow the "rules" and wait for eye contact before crossing. I really hope that the People who say it's the kid's own fault if they get hurt not following rules that are effectively impossible to follow just have no clue.

    The alternative, that they honestly believe that death is a reasonable consequence when a child make as mistake, is unfathomable.
    There can only be one.

  24. #124

    Default

    instead of cars taking an extra 5 seconds of their time why aren't we asking pedestrians to take a half a second longer to look both ways before crossing the road.

    Problem solved.

    Its too bad many pedestrians feel they can do anything they want... it's the wrong mentality for people to have yet drivers are the ones being blamed for everything.

  25. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    ^It's especially hard for kids who can't see over those parked cars, and especially trucks. It's essentially impossible for kids to follow the "rules" and wait for eye contact before crossing. I really hope that the People who say it's the kid's own fault if they get hurt not following rules that are effectively impossible to follow just have no clue.

    The alternative, that they honestly believe that death is a reasonable consequence when a child make as mistake, is unfathomable.
    With all due respect walking in front of a truck is not a mistake. Its lethal. At pretty much any speed in the case of a child. Your verging on a twisting mentality of thinking that anybody would want to not have children, pedestrians, safe. Of course everybody ideally wants safety. However, the reality is safety first and foremost resides within the person themselves ensuring safety. Nobody can make somebody else safe, we can't ensure it through legislating it. We can't bubblewrap the world.

    Again crossing a street without looking is not a "mistake" checking both ways and continuously prior to, and while crossing, is an absolutely CRUCIAL survival habit that needs to be drilled into people. A child is not street proofed and safe until you see them doing this proper checking 100 times out of a 100. That degree of training is required. Once the proper habit is learned it becomes rote, lifelong.

    An added side benefit? Learning street safety while being a child pedestrian, skateboarder, or cyclist immediately translates to defensive and safe habit as an adult and even in driving. Safety is a lifelong habit, or it isn't..
    Last edited by Replacement; 21-09-2017 at 06:47 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  26. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^^Not everybody can move "closer to work". A lot of people travel from place to place as part of their work. Indeed this is common. This is my case as well and so that the best a person can do in this situation is live close to a primary access that gets you efficiently to any part of the metro and surrounding region. My "commutes" would actually be worse if I was centrally located as my work takes me primarily to outlying regions more easily assessed by ringroad.

    Thank heavens for the Henday. Albeit it gets clogged up plenty through southwest Edmonton.
    I live and work in Ambleside. Very aware of the congestion of Henday in the SW. I used to live in South Terwillegar and worked in Ambleside, and would walk/bike across the Henday via the Rabbit Hill road overpass and feel a little win every day that I saw the Henday was at a near stand still, and I'm enjoying my nice walk to/from work and de-stressing. Now I no longer have to cross the Henday, but can see it from my office window. Suckers stuck on the road!
    Before, when I lived in Oliver, and had to commute to Ambleside. The reverse commute wasn't bad, but I oftentimes found myself stressed a bit before I even got into work. I really love being so close to work, and not having a stressful commute before a stressful day at work I know not everyone can enjoy the benefits I do - not everyone has a single job site, or even a job site that might be close to reasonable housing.
    Yep. I'm very familiarly with the traffic loads there. To the point where I try to limit 6pm appts anywhere in that area. Its nice you have a job reasonably close to where you live.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  27. #127
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Royal Gardens
    Posts
    1,649

    Default

    They now have 30km playground signs on Cloverdale Hill. I can see photo radar hidden in the trees nailing everybody going 35 Km downhill with a playground at least 300 m away. Sigh
    My antidepressent drug of choice is running. Cheaper with less side effects!

  28. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^^Not everybody can move "closer to work". A lot of people travel from place to place as part of their work. Indeed this is common. This is my case as well and so that the best a person can do in this situation is live close to a primary access that gets you efficiently to any part of the metro and surrounding region. My "commutes" would actually be worse if I was centrally located as my work takes me primarily to outlying regions more easily assessed by ringroad.

    Thank heavens for the Henday. Albeit it gets clogged up plenty through southwest Edmonton.
    I live and work in Ambleside. Very aware of the congestion of Henday in the SW. I used to live in South Terwillegar and worked in Ambleside, and would walk/bike across the Henday via the Rabbit Hill road overpass and feel a little win every day that I saw the Henday was at a near stand still, and I'm enjoying my nice walk to/from work and de-stressing. Now I no longer have to cross the Henday, but can see it from my office window. Suckers stuck on the road!
    Before, when I lived in Oliver, and had to commute to Ambleside. The reverse commute wasn't bad, but I oftentimes found myself stressed a bit before I even got into work. I really love being so close to work, and not having a stressful commute before a stressful day at work I know not everyone can enjoy the benefits I do - not everyone has a single job site, or even a job site that might be close to reasonable housing.
    Yep. I'm very familiarly with the traffic loads there. To the point where I try to limit 6pm appts anywhere in that area. Its nice you have a job reasonably close to where you live.
    900 meters door to door

  29. #129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by booster View Post
    They now have 30km playground signs on Cloverdale Hill. I can see photo radar hidden in the trees nailing everybody going 35 Km downhill with a playground at least 300 m away. Sigh
    We all knew why this was passed. And of course, if they actually cared about safety, those trucks would be on the street and lit up like Christmas trees so drivers would slow down before running over all kids. But they don't. Because no kids were being ran over. This was a master stroke election pander with a side benefit of photo radar revenues.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  30. #130

    Default

    ^No, because the idea is to have people slow down when the photo truck isn't there too.

    Same reason that lights don't always make people safer: because if drivers expect light to tell them when they need to stop or slow down then they won't do so otherwise.

    Just to be clear here: What you're expecting of people walking is the equivalent of expecting drivers to slow down at every green light just in case.
    There can only be one.

  31. #131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    ^No, because the idea is to have people slow down when the photo truck isn't there too.

    Same reason that lights don't always make people safer: because if drivers expect light to tell them when they need to stop or slow down then they won't do so otherwise.

    Just to be clear here: What you're expecting of people walking is the equivalent of expecting drivers to slow down at every green light just in case.

    No, that's not the comparable. Here's more obvious ones;

    A driver crossing a road needs to look both ways before proceeding. A driver making a right turn on a standard intersection needs to look both ways before crossing. A driver waiting to turn left needs to make sure not to make the turn until it is safe to do so and even on the amber insuring that head on traffic will stop for the red.

    Also, part of defensive driving is looking out for others even if one has the green. Even if one is next on the 4 way stop, and so on. Drivers exercise due diligence and need to observe everything around them all the time and drive judiciously with that in mind. Similar diligence, as befits a pedestrian, is all that is being expected.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  32. #132

    Default

    No, those aren't applicable when we're talking about a crosswalk in a school zone. You can't complain about rules that limit car speeds to a still substantial 30km/hr while ragging on the horribly irresponsible children who have the audacity to cross a crosswalk with the right of way, and with blinking lights, even, at just 5km an hour without adequately surveying for negligent drivers and deferring to them. And heaven forbid they run, not walk, into the crosswalk at 10-15km/hour! That sort of speed is practically suicidal!!
    There can only be one.

  33. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    No, those aren't applicable when we're talking about a crosswalk in a school zone. You can't complain about rules that limit car speeds to a still substantial 30km/hr while ragging on the horribly irresponsible children who have the audacity to cross a crosswalk with the right of way, and with blinking lights, even, at just 5km an hour without adequately surveying for negligent drivers and deferring to them. And heaven forbid they run, not walk, into the crosswalk at 10-15km/hour! That sort of speed is practically suicidal!!
    This posted with you apparently not realizing the fallacy you are stating. Since when is cars not stopping at school crosswalks a problem? Kids are not getting run over in those locations. You're stuck on some kind of concept of wantom drivers in school zones being a malevolent threat to children that simply doesn't exist. You're inventing a fiend to rail against it.

    People have asked you countless times. What incidents involving children in school zones necessitated the switches and extended reduced speed zones? School zones and playgrounds and crossings were safe before this. That's something you've avoided commenting on at every turn. I've even produced stats and links citing that kids are not getting hit, kids here are not getting killed in school zones etc.

    But go on ranting about horrible drivers that maim children.
    Last edited by Replacement; 22-09-2017 at 11:17 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  34. #134

    Default

    What you're advocating is, in effect, a prison sentence for anyone who is not capable of maintaining your approved level of hyper-vigelence. Can't leave you block on pain of death, can you?, and all to perpetuate a system in which supposedly competent, trained drivers can be assured that their negligence and indiscretion doesn't have consequences.

    Maybe instead of just photo radar that sends a ticket and a fine in case of law-breaking we need photo radar that sends immediate feedback in the form of a rocket-propelled grenade*. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.





    * This is not a serious proposal, merely an expression of frustration at the inability of many to realize that we could actually change things, and that traffic isn't an immutable force of nature.
    There can only be one.

  35. #135

    Default

    Finally, as a driver, all I want to see is that kids don't dart between parked cars across a busy street chasing a ball without so much as looking. That's where harm comes into play, not at controlled and monitored school intersections.

    All any driver wants is for things like that not to happen. For each person to have some sense of safety around roadways.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  36. #136

    Default

    https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...ty/why-30.aspx

    Injury Statistics on Traffic Injuries to Children

    In the last five years, there have been 176 injury collisions involving children aged 15 years or younger on collector and local roadways (non-arterial).

    • 37% (65) of those collisions occurred in areas that will be covered by the proposed playground zones (even though, playground zones would constitute only 7% of the entire collector and local road network)
    • 20% of those injured in those 65 collisions required hospitalization
    • 99% of the 65 injury collisions happened between 7:30am-9pm (the proposed hours of playground zones)
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  37. #137

    Default

    ^^You're right, there are few actual injuries and deaths because we're successfully displace much of the responsibility for safe vehicular travel on neighbourhood streets from the people operating the vehicles onto others.

    To the point where school-age kids are often not allowed to cross even a quiet street by themselves.
    There can only be one.

  38. #138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    What you're advocating is, in effect, a prison sentence for anyone who is not capable of maintaining your approved level of hyper-vigelence. Can't leave you block on pain of death, can you?, and all to perpetuate a system in which supposedly competent, trained drivers can be assured that their negligence and indiscretion doesn't have consequences.

    Maybe instead of just photo radar that sends a ticket and a fine in case of law-breaking we need photo radar that sends immediate feedback in the form of a rocket-propelled grenade*. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.





    * This is not a serious proposal, merely an expression of frustration at the inability of many to realize that we could actually change things, and that traffic isn't an immutable force of nature.
    heh, I'm reminded of a Bruce Cockburn song and the lyric "if I had a rocket launcher"..

    your frustration is merely revealing an inability to discuss this topic rationally. Which is fine, understood, afairc you have children, good for you to fight this fight. But understand others expressing differing views are not against children, not against child safety. Indeed we want it. But by kids learning a modicum of precaution in interacting with the real world. We all want the same things.

    cheers
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  39. #139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Finally, as a driver, all I want to see is that kids don't dart between parked cars across a busy street chasing a ball without so much as looking. That's where harm comes into play, not at controlled and monitored school intersections.

    All any driver wants is for things like that not to happen. For each person to have some sense of safety around roadways.

    Drivers say that, but they continue to drive at more than a jogging pace in places where there are parked cars on the side of the road. I have to assume that what they really mean is they don't want to be inconvenienced in any way, either by having to slow down or by feelings of guilt.

    All I want is for people to have some sense of safety around people.
    There can only be one.

  40. #140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...ty/why-30.aspx

    Injury Statistics on Traffic Injuries to Children

    In the last five years, there have been 176 injury collisions involving children aged 15 years or younger on collector and local roadways (non-arterial).

    • 37% (65) of those collisions occurred in areas that will be covered by the proposed playground zones (even though, playground zones would constitute only 7% of the entire collector and local road network)
    • 20% of those injured in those 65 collisions required hospitalization
    • 99% of the 65 injury collisions happened between 7:30am-9pm (the proposed hours of playground zones)
    Without noting that 176 collisions in 5 years involving children is a miniscule amount in relation to general population. In short children are under represented in collision statistics. Also of note increasing the age category to 15 skews the number higher. Up to age 12 would be significantly less. I mention this because most people beyond elementary age should probably have some ability to comprehend safe action.

    In anycase afairc there was one or two pedestrian child fatalities during this 5year period. Among approximately 150 fatalities overall during that time period.

    I wonder how much the city has been reacting to the carnage of 2015, with 35 fatalities yet not one of those being a child or youth.

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...ast-five-years
    Last edited by Replacement; 22-09-2017 at 11:43 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  41. #141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    ^^You're right, there are few actual injuries and deaths because we're successfully displace much of the responsibility for safe vehicular travel on neighbourhood streets from the people operating the vehicles onto others.

    To the point where school-age kids are often not allowed to cross even a quiet street by themselves.
    How terrible it is that everybody exercise safety and precaution so that children and youth are not killed. Memo, we do this as a society. Quite well.

    "Not allowed to cross" C'mon.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  42. #142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Finally, as a driver, all I want to see is that kids don't dart between parked cars across a busy street chasing a ball without so much as looking. That's where harm comes into play, not at controlled and monitored school intersections.

    All any driver wants is for things like that not to happen. For each person to have some sense of safety around roadways.

    Drivers say that, but they continue to drive at more than a jogging pace in places where there are parked cars on the side of the road. I have to assume that what they really mean is they don't want to be inconvenienced in any way, either by having to slow down or by feelings of guilt.

    All I want is for people to have some sense of safety around people.
    All I want is all people wanting to maintain safety. Using your parlance and phrasing.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  43. #143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...ty/why-30.aspx

    Injury Statistics on Traffic Injuries to Children

    In the last five years, there have been 176 injury collisions involving children aged 15 years or younger on collector and local roadways (non-arterial).

    • 37% (65) of those collisions occurred in areas that will be covered by the proposed playground zones (even though, playground zones would constitute only 7% of the entire collector and local road network)
    • 20% of those injured in those 65 collisions required hospitalization
    • 99% of the 65 injury collisions happened between 7:30am-9pm (the proposed hours of playground zones)
    Distracted driving and things like my pet peeve of people actually deliberately creating forward blind spots* by hanging crap from one’s mirrors (totally unnecessary for driving but generally seen as acceptable behaviour) also increases stopping distances, or more accurately delays the onset of braking.


    * a few months back I saw a car come out of a lot and drive many city blocks to a car lot with a 8 1/2” x 11” piece of card stock taped horizontally below the rear view mirror.

  44. #144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post

    heh, I'm reminded of a Bruce Cockburn song and the lyric "if I had a rocket launcher"..

    your frustration is merely revealing an inability to discuss this topic rationally. Which is fine, understood, afairc you have children, good for you to fight this fight. But understand others expressing differing views are not against children, not against child safety. Indeed we want it. But by kids learning a modicum of precaution in interacting with the real world. We all want the same things.

    cheers
    I'm not seeing this irrationally, I'm just coming from a different perspective than you are. You can look at this starting from current conditions, the way every north American city is built and operated besides a tiny bit of Quebec. From that frame of reference slowing drivers is an imposition.

    The other way to look at it is to start from the bottom; what cities have looked like for thousands of years until about 100 years ago, what the places that people go to on purpose look like, what it looks like when the simplest technologies available to the greatest number of people are given priority.

    From that frame of reference it doesn't look the same.
    There can only be one.

  45. #145

    Default

    Just to note that I drive 30K through school zones. I faithfully follow it. I reduce speed with reduced visibility and including parked cars. I track where pedestrians are and might be whether they be walking, on rollerblades, bikes, skateboards, whatever. I also limit residential driving as much as possible and instead use arterials, freeways, ringroad as much as possible. (this reduces probability of pedestrian collision as much as anything)

    What I discuss, argue, is aside from what the actual driving behavior is. I'm a common cyclist and pedestrian as well and so vulnerable, susceptible, and I comprehend the risks out there from every perspective. Just not the perspective that shows limited self care and due diligence. I'm defensive and cautious by nature though.

    I think a nice balance is achieved when one utilizes different modes of transportation. When one is a driver, a cyclist, a walker. This possibly increases awareness of different modes.

    cheers again, thanks for the discussion.
    Last edited by Replacement; 22-09-2017 at 12:05 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  46. #146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Without noting that 176 collisions in 5 years involving children is a miniscule amount in relation to general population. In short children are under represented in collision statistics.
    Wrong. Try to read the links before you start blindly flailing around, attempting to refute things.

    Vulnerable Road Users

    When children are struck by vehicles, their injuries often result in life threatening or permanent damage. The faster a vehicle is moving, the greater the impact and the more devastating the results.
    Children:

    • Aged 5 to 14 years are at the greatest risk for pedestrian-related deaths
    • Aged 10 to 14 years have the highest incidence of pedestrian-related injuries
    • Have difficulty judging the speed and distance of cars
    • Believe if they can see a car, the driver can see them
    • Assume a car can stop instantly
    • Have a limited peripheral vision, and
    • Have a limited sense of danger
    https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...ty/why-30.aspx

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Also of note increasing the age category to 15 skews the number higher. Up to age 12 would be significantly less. I mention this because most people beyond elementary age should probably have some ability to comprehend safe action.
    Wrong again, see above. The age category matches the ages of students where school zones are in effect, elementary through junior high.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  47. #147

    Default

    I have read the links, also other stats and the year to year summaries.

    Also, the main editorial part you quoted above is not substantiated. The parts like kids have limited peripheral vision, difficulty judging speed, etc. The bullet points read as convenient editorial commentary. Not necessarily as fact.

    I'll look forward to you fleshing out the scientific fact substantiating all those bullet points...

    Then, and in that case, I'll be wrong.

    In anycase the bullet points involve largely learned behavior more than biological limitation. For instance assuming a car sees them is a learned or unlearned characteristic. It isn't a given. Similarly judging speed, distance, danger, are learned characteristics. Learned or not.

    Stating these as some sort of irrevocable fact is a disservice to child and youth ability.
    Last edited by Replacement; 22-09-2017 at 12:17 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  48. #148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I have read the links, also other stats and the year to year summaries.

    Also, the main editorial part you quoted above is not substantiated. The parts like kids have limited peripheral vision, difficulty judging speed, etc. The bullet points read as convenient editorial commentary. Not necessarily as fact.
    It's no more editorial or fact-filled than your own "teenagers should know better" & you're completely ignoring the red text which is what proves your own ignorance & incorrect notions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I'll look forward to you fleshing out the scientific fact substantiating all those bullet points...

    Then, and in that case, I'll be wrong.
    No, you're wrong. You stated children are underrepresented in collision statistics. This is absolutely incorrect, on multiple levels, aka wrong.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  49. #149

    Default

    http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/Pre...2020%20mph.pdf

    A new study by vision scientists at Royal Holloway, University of London has measured children’s ability to detectapproaching cars in a road crossing scenario. At vehicle speeds faster than 20 mph, primary school age children (6-11 years) may not be able to tell that a car is approaching. This strongly supports arguments for implementing andenforcing 20 mph speed restrictions in areas with child pedestrians such as residential streets.The study, which is in press for the international journal Psychological Science, outlines how a speed illusion canmean that all pedestrians, and/or drivers at junctions, can under-estimate the speed of faster vehicles and may, insome cases, fail to see them at all. Researchers measured the perceptual acuity of over 100 children in primaryschools and calculated the approach speed that they could reliably detect. Adult pedestrians can make accuratejudgments for vehicles travelling up to 50 mph, but primary school age children become unreliable once theapproach speed goes above 20 mph.
    There you go. Now you're extra wrong.

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/...56797611400917 <- actual study.

    Our results from perceptual tests of looming thresholds show strong developmental trends in sensitivity, such that children may not be able to detect vehicles approaching at speeds in excess of 20 mph. This creates a risk of injudicious road crossing in urban settings when traffic speeds are higher than 20 mph. The risk is exacerbated because vehicles moving faster than this speed are more likely to result in pedestrian fatalities.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  50. #150

    Default

    OK, nice nitpicking needle

    So assuming that you've ceded that the other bullet points you quoted are complete hogwash, lets look at the ones you have now hilited in red.

    The statements are incomplete. They reference something without stating clearly what it is.

    For instance "age 4-15 are at greatest risk". I assume this is in reference to other age groups. However its wrong. Other age demographics are more typically over represented in pedestrian fatalities. look at any of the city or provincial stats that breakdown age. ( I don't know how to link pdf files)

    Heres another source that cites age of pedestrian fatalities. Clearly seniors are most at risk. Under age 13 is least represented in rate stats.

    http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pe...ts/pedestrians
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  51. #151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/Pre...2020%20mph.pdf

    A new study by vision scientists at Royal Holloway, University of London has measured children’s ability to detectapproaching cars in a road crossing scenario. At vehicle speeds faster than 20 mph, primary school age children (6-11 years) may not be able to tell that a car is approaching. This strongly supports arguments for implementing andenforcing 20 mph speed restrictions in areas with child pedestrians such as residential streets.The study, which is in press for the international journal Psychological Science, outlines how a speed illusion canmean that all pedestrians, and/or drivers at junctions, can under-estimate the speed of faster vehicles and may, insome cases, fail to see them at all. Researchers measured the perceptual acuity of over 100 children in primaryschools and calculated the approach speed that they could reliably detect. Adult pedestrians can make accuratejudgments for vehicles travelling up to 50 mph, but primary school age children become unreliable once theapproach speed goes above 20 mph.
    There you go. Now you're extra wrong.

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/...56797611400917 <- actual study.

    Our results from perceptual tests of looming thresholds show strong developmental trends in sensitivity, such that children may not be able to detect vehicles approaching at speeds in excess of 20 mph. This creates a risk of injudicious road crossing in urban settings when traffic speeds are higher than 20 mph. The risk is exacerbated because vehicles moving faster than this speed are more likely to result in pedestrian fatalities.
    I doubt you even believe these specious citations. Indeed children and youth excel in almost any sensory modality, hearing, vision, mental acuity, reaction time, ability to learn, judge, assess information, but I'm to believe on the basis of a couple just googled citations that the time period in which humans are most adept at learning and sensing incoming information, and at their time of peak sensory ability, is a time where they're at somehow greater perceptual risk..

    At best this is false conclusion in the citations. I could find ample that would counter such conclusion and you know that.

    In anycase the sage publication is citing a stat "Road traffic statistics confirm that children up to 15 years old are overrepresented in pedestrian casualties" that simply isn't the case here and isn't the case in the USA either. In what could be confirmation bias the study purports to find basis for foregone conclusion. With such meaningful conclusions as "may not be able to detect"..

    Its not convincing. Its not clear substantiation.
    Last edited by Replacement; 22-09-2017 at 12:51 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  52. #152

    Default

    Our findings have important implications for road-safety policy in terms of the upper limits of vehicle speed that allow children to make accurate judgments, and these findings converge with evidence that the risk of pedestrian accidents involving children is nearly 3 times higher in places wheremean speeds exceed 25 mph compared with places with lower mean speeds (Roberts, Norton, Jackson, Dunn, & Hassall,1995). These data support the case for reduced speed limits outside schools and in other areas densely populated by children(Department of Transport, 1999). Existing research shows that reducing traffic speeds to 20 mph leads to a 50%reduction in the number of 6- to 11-year-olds who are killed or seriously injured in traffic accidents (Grundy et al., 2009). In part, this reduction is due to speed of impact: Pedestrians havea 90% chance of surviving being hit by a car traveling under20 mph, but less than a 50% chance of surviving an impact with a car traveling at 28 mph or higher (Toroyan & Peden,2007). However, our results suggest that children’s perceptual limitations place them at greater risk of stepping out in front of cars that are traveling at higher speeds. The combined implication is that driving in excess of 20 mph in a residential or school area not only increases the potential severity of any impact with a pedestrian, but also increases the risk that a child will injudiciously cross in front of the vehicle.
    From my aforementioned & linked study, because I know the "time is money & my money is more important than your kids" crowd doesn't have the time or will to actually read the paper.
    Last edited by noodle; 22-09-2017 at 12:45 PM. Reason: fixedthemissingspacesinthecutandpasting
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  53. #153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    At best this is false conclusion in the citations. I could find ample that would counter such conclusion and you know that.
    On one hand we have the forum's Curmudgeon-in-Chief/Grumpy Old Man & self-professed unsafe driver, on the other we have a published, peer-reviewed study.

    Hm.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  54. #154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    At best this is false conclusion in the citations. I could find ample that would counter such conclusion and you know that.
    On one hand we have the forum's Curmudgeon-in-Chief/Grumpy Old Man & self-professed unsafe driver, on the other we have a published, peer-reviewed study.

    Hm.
    A peer reviewed study that I detected to be erroneous in around 2mins of looking at it. To wit, again, since you ignore this salient point this critical part is wrong in the sage citation;

    "Road traffic statistics confirm that children up to 15 years old are overrepresented in pedestrian casualties"

    Well look at the actual stats. Age under 13 are LEAST represented in pedestrian deaths. The LOWEST rates ever since 1980.



    Link again to the actual stats;

    http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pe...ts/pedestrians


    The sage article is bunk. Confirmation bias of a premise that was wrong in the first place.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  55. #155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    A peer reviewed study that I detected to be erroneous in around 2mins of looking at it.
    You sure are a juggernaut in your own mind. Sadly, I do not share your opinion on the infallibility of your own mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    To wit, again, since you ignore this critical point this critical part is wrong in the sage citation;

    "Road traffic statistics confirm that children up to 15 years old are overrepresented in pedestrian casualties"

    Well look at the actual stats. Age under 13 are LEAST represented in pedestrian deaths. The LOWEST rates ever since 1980.



    Link again to the actual stats;
    Fatalities aren't casualties. Casualties are hurt. Fatalities are dead.

    Apologies that I think hurt children are as important to avoid as dead children. Also, we're speaking specifically in this thread about Edmonton, so I'm not sure what you're trying to point out by saying nation-wide, American stats are different than Edmonton's. In other news, cats are not dogs, apples not oranges.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  56. #156

    Default

    You were the one citing a UK article as confirmation bias of what occurs here. Children and youth here, or in the USA (the most similar other nation to ours) are actually under represented in both collision and fatalities.



    Look at the 2016 COE annual reports on Motor vehicle collisions. Or any other year.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  57. #157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    You were the one citing a UK article as confirmation bias of what occurs here.
    The UK stuff I've posted is relating to the study, not statistics. My god, you're denser than usual today.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  58. #158

    Default

    Heh, carry on. I see you ceded this argument. Thanks.

    Or is it conceivable you hold a faulty study engaging in confirmation bias over actual relevant, applicable, longitudinal, statistics.

    If we were on reversed sides of the issue you would be telling me to extract my head out of my posterior.

    have a good day, I enjoyed the discussion as always.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  59. #159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Heh, carry on. I see you ceded this argument. Thanks.
    My desire to stop arguing with someone I hold beneath contempt does not constitute concession on any level. I'm done discussing this issue with someone who looks at pedestrian fatalities, blames the victim & thinks things are safe enough. That's morally repugnant & has damaged what little regard I ever held you in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Or is it conceivable you hold a faulty study engaging in confirmation bias over actual relevant, applicable, longitudinal, statistics.
    You keep saying it's faulty, yet provide me no instance as to why it's faulty, or what inherent differences there are between the cognitive development patterns of children around the world? Or do you have issue with the methodology of the experiment itself? Just saying it's faulty doesn't make it so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    If we were on reversed sides of the issue you would be telling me to extract my head out of my posterior.

    have a good day, I enjoyed the discussion as always.
    What discussion? I provide peer-review studies & you egotistically go "no, my gut tells me different" & bust out the thesaurus in an effort to sound erudite, but instead only come across as a try-hard version of your normal cantankerous little-black-raincloud self.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  60. #160

    Default

    I provide factual information on ACTUAL longitudinal statistics rebutting your, and the studies notion that children and youth are over represented in pedestrian collision stats and this is all you got?

    One last time. Statistically speaking children and youth are NOT over represented in accident, collision, or fatality stats. They are actually under represented relative to other ages.

    I'll look at your further wanking with some degree of mirth.

    Its OK for you to be to be wrong, ok to admit if for once, I won't hold you in any contempt for it..heh

    ymmv
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  61. #161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I provide factual information on ACTUAL longitudinal statistics rebutting your, and the studies notion that children and youth are over represented in pedestrian collision stats and this is all you got?
    Remember this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I have read the links, also other stats and the year to year summaries.

    Also, the main editorial part you quoted above is not substantiated. The parts like kids have limited peripheral vision, difficulty judging speed, etc. The bullet points read as convenient editorial commentary. Not necessarily as fact.
    I've shown that this is entirely the case, via the study. You were wrong when you first challenged it based upon your gut instincts & your desire to try and move the goalposts around while you redefine what's acceptable proof in order to save face is transparent & pathetic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    One last time. Statistically speaking children and youth are NOT over represented in accident, collision, or fatality stats. They are actually under represented relative to other ages.
    Once more, restating a falsehood does not make it so. Here, yet another source corroborating what I'm saying, with Canada-wide statistics.

    Younger pedestrians. Children aged 14 years and younger are also a high-risk group forfatalities and injuries in pedestrian collisions.
    ╗ According to a review of the pedestrian issue by the Canadian Council of MotorTransport Administrators (CCMTA) in 2013, the overall physical, cognitive, visual,auditory development of children puts them at a disadvantage as a pedestrian.
    ╗ Children aged 5 to 14 years are at greatest risk of pedestrian fatalities and have thehighest incidence of pedestrian-related injuries.
    ╗ On average, 30 child pedestrians younger than 14 years are killed and 2,412 areinjured every year.
    ╗ 6% of fatally injured pedestrians were under the age of 16 and of these, 20% ran outinto the street;
    ╗ Pedestrian-related injuries contribute to almost 12 percent of all injury-related deathsof children younger than 14 years of age. (CCMTA 2011; PHAC 2012)
    http://tirf.ca/wp-content/uploads/20...rian-Issue.pdf

    So on one side we've got the CoE, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation & the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, on the other we've got Replacement, his gut, and his misrepresent American statistics, on top of his propensity to cite sources he finds specious, just to prove his point (behaviour previously projected onto me). Hmmmm. Tough call.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    I'll look at your further wanking with some degree of mirth.

    Its OK for you to be to be wrong, ok to admit if for once, I won't hold you in any contempt for it..heh

    ymmv
    No, you're wrong. Flat out.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  62. #162

    Default

    I thought you were done responding in contempt.

    you're wrong, flat out.

    btw the Edmonton stats are the same, children and youth are not over represented in the collision, hurt, injury, or death totals. Feel free to check out any of the very detailed COE Annual Motor vehicle collision studies. They provide ample stats. Heres a chart from 2016 that is relevant; (taken from CoE 2016 MVCA report)

    https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpre...0&h=800&crop=1

    That might amuse you for awhile.

    ps One other thing needle. You are providing tertiary analysis as your rebuttal. I am citing actual pedestrian accident, collision, stats.

    So reduced its commentary vs the actual statistics provided. hmmm, what to choose as primary evidence..

    How odd for you to prefer third party analysis to actual factual statistics. mindblown, you're usually too intelligent for that. Confirmation bias is strong I guess.
    Last edited by Replacement; 22-09-2017 at 02:28 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  63. #163

  64. #164

    Default

    ~17% of Edmontonians are 19 & under (https://www.edmonton.ca/city_governm...ONTON_2016.pdf), yet ~19% of all pedestrian collisions are 18 & under (https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...alReportsm.pdf Figure 21).

    Remind me, is 17 bigger than 19? Is the CoE Census & MVC Annual Report primary evidence enough for you, you fatuous dotard?

    E: If you take out the 0-4 age group & 1/5 the 15-19 people to account for the larger demographic bucket, it drops to ~11% of the population.
    Last edited by noodle; 22-09-2017 at 03:07 PM.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  65. #165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    who is needle?
    It's his attempt at being witty & clever since I've dismantled/disproved all of his arguments, even as he moved the goalposts around faster than the Rogers Place crew setting up for a concert.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  66. #166

    Default

    Statistics on Child Pedestrian Collisions
    • Child pedestrian injuries are a leading cause of injury-relateddeath for Canadian children aged 14 years or younger.
    • On average, 30 child pedestrians younger than 14 yearsare killed and 2,412 are injured every year.*
    • Pedestrian-related injuries contribute to almost 12 percentof all injury-related deaths of children younger than14 years of age.**
    • Children aged 10 to 14 years have the highest incidence of pedestrian-related injuries, but a larger age range of children (5 to14 years) are at the greatest risk for pedestrian-related fatalities.*

    *Transport Canada, National Collision Database (NCDB)
    **Public Health Agency of Canada, Injury SurveillanceOn-line. Leading causes of unintentional injury deathsin Canada for 2000-2005, both sexes, ages 0-14 years
    http://ccmta.ca/images/publications/..._Eng_FINAL.pdf
    And a meme in lieu of a mic drop.

    Here's Replacement:


    Last edited by noodle; 22-09-2017 at 03:25 PM.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  67. #167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    ~17% of Edmontonians are 19 & under (https://www.edmonton.ca/city_governm...ONTON_2016.pdf), yet ~19% of all pedestrian collisions are 18 & under (https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...alReportsm.pdf Figure 21).

    Remind me, is 17 bigger than 19? Is the CoE Census & MVC Annual Report primary evidence enough for you, you fatuous dotard?

    E: If you take out the 0-4 age group & 1/5 the 15-19 people to account for the larger demographic bucket, it drops to ~11% of the population.
    Speaking of being all over the map. We were discussing children and youth. Not specifically the 15-19yr age group.

    So looking at age under 14 they represent 10.7% of pedestrian collision injuries. While making up almost 13% of the population. This would seem to refute your earlier notion that children and youth are at greatly enhanced risk relative to population.

    Nowhere was I inferring that Teens, a different element entirely, were not a different case. Hormones, distractibility, disaffect, substance abuse among other causes would make that a risk factor for that age group. In all endeavors, and yes, including crossing the street like random molecules.
    Last edited by Replacement; 22-09-2017 at 07:10 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  68. #168
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,263

    Default

    That 12.9% of the population that is representing 10.7 of pedestrian minor collision injuries includes 34% of whom aren't even school aged. The under 14 age group represented 12.7% of major pedestrian injuries. The data you linked to doesn't show information for pre-school pedestrian injuries. It is possible that the elementary and junior high aged population is over represented in the total pedestrian injuries.

    But whatever, let's all drive 60km/h past school zones during times that pedestrian activity is the highest so we can save 3.5 days of our lives to wait in Tim Horton's line-ups.

  69. #169

    Default

    ^If you followed the discussion nobody is saying lets drive 60K through school zones.

    As far as what you raise you are correct that the preschool age is not separated out in the collision stats. But also to consider that the under 14 stat often used is a larger block than the typical 10year demographic brackets used. For instance 25-34, 35-44, and so on.

    In anycase I've simply adopted the null hypothesis that there is no appreciable higher rates in accident statistics of children vs other age groups. Others have clearly posited that children are at significantly increased risk but without adequately substantiating that. Therefore the burden of proof, that there is appreciable difference, and that children are much more at risk of pedestrian injury, is a position that needs to be substantiated.

    Interestingly though, and perhaps counterintuitive is that children and youth are not most at risk. The risk group, by and large, is age 14-24. Those numbers fly off the charts. But nobody else in the thread was arguing that that age was the greatest risk. Even though it appears to be. For instance in 2016 this cohort represented 50/242 total pedestrians hurt by a collision. Nearly 21% of total and astoundingly while representing only 9% of the Edmonton population. Now THAT is what over representation in the stats looks like.

    So that is remarkable, is of great significance, and flies in the face of what people have been purporting that children are at greatest risk. Its simply not the case. Not even close. Its adolescents and young adults at greatest risk. The ramifications of that is that more attention should possibly be paid to Highschool crossings then is presently the case. Another risk area could be crossings from High schools to local malls. Or even crossing safety in drinking districts. Age 18-24 are probably at considerable pedestrian risk in those areas with a combo of drunk pedestrians and some drunk or distracted drivers.

    People can call me names, make clever memes, but I don't think what I've entered in this thread is unreasonable. I think I've enganged in the discussion fairly, overall.
    Last edited by Replacement; 23-09-2017 at 09:06 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  70. #170

    Default

    Next, albeit I'm labeled negative, always looking at dark clouds, etc.. of note that I think in the US and Canada we do an excellent job in emphasizing school safety, crossing safety, and from students, parents, teachers, communities, drivers, on, do a tremendous job furthering the safety of children around schools. That has been my premise all along in the thread that we are already knocking this one out of the ballpark. Theres few things we do better as a society than trying to maximize the safety of children and as it should be. So kudos on how much is done in that regard. I accept the 30K speed limits unconditionally, I adopt them, I adhere to them.

    But the kids are alright. Its the teens that are not. In society we could do much better jobs improving safety for teens in all regards and having a society more appropriate for teens. We think about every possible protection regarding children, but not as much regarding teens. The latter being my opinion.

    Interestingly, in the landmark US longitudinal study I posted earlier BAC impairment is a chief cause in the pedestrian fatality statistics of over 16 age group during typical drinking hours and represent more than 50% of these deaths and always have.
    You've all heard "don't drink and drive" thousands of times. Who has ever heard of a "don't drink and walk" safety slogan. Albeit I'm sure to be accused of victim blaming for pointing out this obvious, and often missed critical fact.

    Lastly doesn't the latter point suggest that in society we put much more focus on the driver, than on the pedestrian. Its OK to focus on both.
    Last edited by Replacement; 23-09-2017 at 09:24 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  71. #171
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by booster View Post
    They now have 30km playground signs on Cloverdale Hill. I can see photo radar hidden in the trees nailing everybody going 35 Km downhill with a playground at least 300 m away. Sigh
    Riverbend Road adjacent to James Ramsey Park. Approximately 43-45th Ave at about 150th St. This four lane divided corridor with broad boulevards and wide medians has been posted with signs designating a 30km/h 7:30AM-9:00PM Playground Zone

    I haven't checked Henderson Park further south. A problem down there has been the Dodge Ram-driving hillbillies that come up from walking their pitbulls, mastiffs or other bully dogs at Terwillegar, turn south from Rabbit Hill onto Riverbend and then roar off at speeds well above 60. Dedicated enforcement of the 50 km/h limit there by Henderson would have been nice. Oh, well ...

    Another issue all along RbR and RhR is the matter of cars blasting through crosswalks with activated flashing yellow lights. Really, this is yet another unenforced hazard ignored throughout the city by EPS. Did I miss the memo: "no one in the crosswalk, ok to ignore the lights" ?

  72. #172
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...ty/why-30.aspx

    Injury Statistics on Traffic Injuries to Children

    In the last five years, there have been 176 injury collisions involving children aged 15 years or younger on collector and local roadways (non-arterial).

    • 37% (65) of those collisions occurred in areas that will be covered by the proposed playground zones (even though, playground zones would constitute only 7% of the entire collector and local road network)
    • 20% of those injured in those 65 collisions required hospitalization
    • 99% of the 65 injury collisions happened between 7:30am-9pm (the proposed hours of playground zones)
    This graphic must be wrong. If reaction time is the same then distance traveled must be exactly five thirds longer - not fourteen sixths as portrayed. Very basic math. Same with braking distance - just plain wrong by all basic physics. Makes me go HMM especially noting the source.

    I do agree with the speed zones and they don't amount to a hill of beans as far as inconvenience.

  73. #173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    • Child pedestrian injuries are a leading cause of injury-relateddeath for Canadian children aged 14 years or younger.
    Key term here: injury-related death. This isn't surprising whatsoever. Lowering the speeds isn't going to change this fact. Kids under the age of 14 aren't working outside in the field where they would be exposed to other dangers
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    • On average, 30 child pedestrians younger than 14 yearsare killed and 2,412 are injured every year.*
    This is very VERY small number. How many of these are in rural areas? How many of these are a direct result of their immediate family members/neighbors playing in the driveway?

    This fact is so useless. Adding random 30km/hr speed limits all day would probably not effect these numbers whatsoever.

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    • Pedestrian-related injuries contribute to almost 12 percentof all injury-related deaths of children younger than14 years of age.**
    Once again, 12 percent in such a small pool is insignificant.
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    • Children aged 10 to 14 years have the highest incidence of pedestrian-related injuries, but a larger age range of children (5 to14 years) are at the greatest risk for pedestrian-related fatalities.*
    Yes ofcourse. Once again, people in this age range aren't exposed to any other danger. This is expected.


    If the argument we are making is that "Oh if we lower down to a snails pace from 7am to 9pm at every single freaking field, its totally worth it and no one dare complain because it may save the life of ONE child in the country" then lets just stop using cars altogether. Thats a guarantee way to reduce pedestrian related injuries or deaths of children to zero.

  74. #174

    Default

    The amount of time it takes to go 30 versus 50 for 500 m is really not the big deal you are making it out to be.

  75. #175

    Default

    An easy fix for some areas: simply shift school yard fencing from the school yard side of the public sidewalks along to the street side of sidewalks. Put the fence between the sidewalk and the street.

  76. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    The amount of time it takes to go 30 versus 50 for 500 m is really not the big deal you are making it out to be.
    The one I drive through is closer to 200m.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  77. #177

    Default

    but won't anyone think of my commute time? I mean, gosh, it took me an extra 1.5 seconds to go through a playground zone.

  78. #178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    An easy fix for some areas: simply shift school yard fencing from the school yard side of the public sidewalks along to the street side of sidewalks. Put the fence between the sidewalk and the street.
    not really an idea I can get behind. An easier solution just slow down. Just about every other jurisdiction I've been in Canada and the USA has playground and school zone speed limits of 30 km/h.

  79. #179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bhaskar21 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    • Children aged 10 to 14 years have the highest incidence of pedestrian-related injuries, but a larger age range of children (5 to14 years) are at the greatest risk for pedestrian-related fatalities.*
    Yes ofcourse. Once again, people in this age range aren't exposed to any other danger. This is expected.
    You obviously haven't met many young people. While they may be less active than in the past they are still playing more sports, climbing more trees, jumping on trampolines and skis and skateboards and bikes far more than the sedentary tubs-o-lard in older demographics for whom a few second delay is apparently too much as their mobile couch whisks them off to an appointment at the cardiologist.
    There can only be one.

  80. #180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    but won't anyone think of my commute time? I mean, gosh, it took me an extra 1.5 seconds to go through a playground zone.
    A 200m school zone would lead to a 10 second longer drive for each individual person. This doesn't even account for phantom traffic jam it will cause and lead to more time spent on the road.

    And because these playground times are all day, that means that it will be something people would go through multiple times a day.

    It slows down traffic FOR NO APPARENT ADVANTAGE. Saying "Oh who cares you lost 1.5 seconds of your life" is such a terrible argument with no substantial backup that it will save ANY LIVES. Hell, why not just walk to your work? "Oh its just an hour of your life everyday", you SAVE 30 kids a year in the country. GUARANTEED.

  81. #181

    Default

    You know what I really dislike about the school zones?

    The school zone ends signs, with the big 50km/hr sign.

    Nothing wrong with school zones ending, until we get it fixed and lower the limit everywhere, but when people see speed limit signs they don't see a maximum, they see at best a target. And there's one near me on a street that's narrow enough that if there's a car coming the other way you need to pull over and wait. and it's all of 30m ahead of a stop sign.

    Streets like that should never have been 50, school zone or no.
    There can only be one.

  82. #182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bhaskar21 View Post
    And because these playground times are all day, that means that it will be something people would go through multiple times a day.
    I go through a zone twice a day, but it's only in effect when I go home. The various push-to-activate crosswalks w/ their 30km/h limits are more burdensome than the 200m of playground zone in effect one-way on my commute. Hell, the revised light timing for the 102 Ave bike path at 116 St in Oliver has affected my commute more.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  83. #183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bhaskar21 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    • Children aged 10 to 14 years have the highest incidence of pedestrian-related injuries, but a larger age range of children (5 to14 years) are at the greatest risk for pedestrian-related fatalities.*
    Yes ofcourse. Once again, people in this age range aren't exposed to any other danger. This is expected.
    You obviously haven't met many young people. While they may be less active than in the past they are still playing more sports, climbing more trees, jumping on trampolines and skis and skateboards and bikes far more than the sedentary tubs-o-lard in older demographics for whom a few second delay is apparently too much as their mobile couch whisks them off to an appointment at the cardiologist.

    While totally sidebar the bike riding part I question. Theres tons of kids today that don't, for whatever reason ride bikes. Could have to do with helicopter parents that don't want their kids going anywhere on their own. Back in the day every kid I know of rode bikes. Tree climbing? Same, used to be a lot more of that going on.

    Trampolines I'll give you, more of that now. Organized sports as well. But in my day we were playing pick up sports every day. Which means we were all playing, continuously, not sitting on the bench or something or waiting our turn.

    Ironically, and I know you were just tongue and cheek with that, but young people now actually have increasing cardio problems, strokes, etc, from a sedentary lifestyle and unhealthy diet. So actually the opposite of what you argue.

    https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/lif...beandmail.com&
    Last edited by Replacement; Today at 09:53 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  84. #184

    Default

    The question shouldn't be if a lower speed will save lives, cause it will. The question should be would people adhere to the new speed limit. Unless you are putting speed cameras at all those new playground/school zone, I think this move won't decrease any traffic accidents. I personally think the opposite might happen. I ride the bus and I go by 1 playground, 3 school zones. I can tell you at around 8 AM, no one is driving at 30 km/hr or slower. Not the bus driver, not the other drivers either.

    You need something to motiviate people to slow down or else all you're doing is DESENSITIZE people. It's like if you lived in an apartment where the fire alarm is wacky and goes off once every two weeks v. never having a fire alarm go off. Which is more likely to get you out of your apartment? The City wants to set off fire alarms 14 hrs 30 minutes per day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

  85. #185

    Default

    ^In Calgary there are speed cameras and police with Lasers, all the time at school zones, so people take them very seriously. A couple of tickets where you go 60 in a 30 zone (I got one being 11km over - only 41 km/hr), and people will very quickly behave in them.

  86. #186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bhaskar21 View Post

    A 200m school zone would lead to a 10 second longer drive for each individual person. This doesn't even account for phantom traffic jam it will cause and lead to more time spent on the road.

    And because these playground times are all day, that means that it will be something people would go through multiple times a day.

    It slows down traffic FOR NO APPARENT ADVANTAGE. Saying "Oh who cares you lost 1.5 seconds of your life" is such a terrible argument with no substantial backup that it will save ANY LIVES. Hell, why not just walk to your work? "Oh its just an hour of your life everyday", you SAVE 30 kids a year in the country. GUARANTEED.
    You don't actually lose time when it takes an additional 5 seconds per trip. Really you don't, unless you're actually planning your day in 5-second intervals. But you don't. It's like 10% of a single traffic light.

    Adding those seconds up to some number of days is completely meaningless, especially when for most of us besides the most active we're actually shortening our lives by longer than that by our choice to drive.
    There can only be one.

  87. #187

    Default

    What I am trying to say. The argument that this is to protect kids is ridiculous. Noodle posted some stats. But we really need to question how many of these kids deaths were: A result of them being at a playground site; how many of these vehicles were going 50km/hr that lead to a death, what time of the day did these fatalities occur?


    We know that most incidents are around the kids home (in the driveway). Most vehicle pedestrian fatalities happen in rural areas. We know that most pedestrian deaths happen at night. We know most pedestrian deaths happen due to speeding.


    So to say that "30km/hr playground zones are going to make the kids safer" is utterly ridiculous. Safety of kids is important. But this is where I draw the line. Lowering the speed from 50 to 30 isn't saving any lives in the city. Its just another way for the city to put their photo radar and ticket people going 34 in a 30 zone. Thats why playground zones are going to be from 730am to 9pm.
    Last edited by bhaskar21; Today at 09:58 AM.

  88. #188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bhaskar21 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    • Children aged 10 to 14 years have the highest incidence of pedestrian-related injuries, but a larger age range of children (5 to14 years) are at the greatest risk for pedestrian-related fatalities.*
    Yes ofcourse. Once again, people in this age range aren't exposed to any other danger. This is expected.
    You obviously haven't met many young people. While they may be less active than in the past they are still playing more sports, climbing more trees, jumping on trampolines and skis and skateboards and bikes far more than the sedentary tubs-o-lard in older demographics for whom a few second delay is apparently too much as their mobile couch whisks them off to an appointment at the cardiologist.

    While totally sidebar the bike riding part I question. Theres tons of kids today that don't, for whatever reason ride bikes. Could have to do with helicopter parents that don't want their kids going anywhere on their own. Back in the day every kid I know of rode bikes. Tree climbing? Same, used to be a lot more of that going on.

    Trampolines I'll give you, more of that now. Organized sports as well. But in my day we were playing pick up sports every day. Which means we were all playing, continuously, not sitting on the bench or something or waiting our turn.

    Ironically, and I know you were just tongue and cheek with that, but young people now actually have increasing cardio problems, strokes, etc, from a sedentary lifestyle and unhealthy diet. So actually the opposite of what you argue.

    https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/lif...beandmail.com&
    For sure kids today do less of those things than a generation ago, but they still do far more of those "dangerous" activities than adults do, so their risk of injury from those things is higher than todays adults as adults, not today's adults when they were kids. Which was the point.


    I totally agree with you on the consequences of a sedentary lifestyle, which is why school zones and playground zones and school area pedestrian improvements are so incredibly important, and why looking at the possibility of reducing injuries only isn't nearly the whole story.

    Creating a city where kids are safe, and where they feel safe and their parents can trust that they are safe walking or cycling to school won't just save kids from injuries, it will enable more active lifestyles, cut obesity and related illness and make people healthier all-around.


    Edit: This is not directed at you personally:

    Screw your worthless seconds.

    We're talking about extending lives by decades.
    Last edited by Highlander II; Today at 10:08 AM. Reason: disclaim what would otherwise be interpreted as a personal.
    There can only be one.

  89. #189

    Default

    Kids are helicoptered to the degree that they are not because parents feel that they will die or get injured in a traffic accident. More the case is its a fear that a John Wayne Gacey or a pedophile is living down the block. Or various other unending fears. So that in effect children are kept home a lot and watched all the time not because its good for them, but serves the purpose of relieving parent anxiety.

    Kids have never been safer. Its never been less dangerous to be a kid. Yet media sensationalism of any event lends itself to parental paralysis that fairly forbids kids going out on their own. So that whole generations raised are inherently different, and with a huge subset of just discovered problems unfolding.

    You're blaming drivers for this when its actually parental free floating anxiety causing this.

    This is the world when "stranger danger" is the most often heard thing a child hears from parents about their world.

    Parents are creating this fear of the world, not drivers.
    Last edited by Replacement; Today at 10:27 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  90. #190

    Default

    Take one look at Halloween. How much its changed. Dangers are virtually nonexistent. Yet in the 60's or 70's if your parents took you out tricker treating you would be wearing a mask to hide your identity and shame as you'd be laughed at until Christmas. NOBODY went out on Halloween with their parents. They went out with other kids. As long and as late as they wanted to. With parents ALLOWING this special time.

    Now its kids and parents in tow. I wouldn't even want to go out for this in present day. For sure I wouldn't want to if I was with parents 24/7.

    One un mentioned aspect is that for kids in broken homes getting out of the house as much as possible is therapeutic. (or arguably growing up with any family its therapeutic) Yet in present day this is frowned upon and kids are stuck with their parents, no matter how sordid they are, for better or worse, and thus creating enmeshed and overly dependent relationships.
    Last edited by Replacement; Today at 10:25 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  91. #191

    Default

    I tend to agree that most parents are more scared of their kid getting accosted/ kidnapped/assaulted than they are of their kid getting run over on a residential street.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." ľMark Twain

  92. #192

    Default

    Maybe, but it's extremely difficult to tell. Parent who aren't afraid of abduction may still not allow their kids out because of peer judgement, or fear of apprehension by overzealous child welfare workers and meddling busybodies. It's certainly a bigger fear for me.

    We all know by now that most abuse isn't stranger danger, it's people we know.

    Even the one and only case of sabotaged Halloween candy was planted by a parent, not a stranger, but that's been the end of home-made treats anyway.
    There can only be one.

  93. #193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    An easy fix for some areas: simply shift school yard fencing from the school yard side of the public sidewalks along to the street side of sidewalks. Put the fence between the sidewalk and the street.
    not really an idea I can get behind. An easier solution just slow down. Just about every other jurisdiction I've been in Canada and the USA has playground and school zone speed limits of 30 km/h.
    If you can't get the needed degree of compliance - is it an "easier solution"? So I think that sometimes problems can simply be designed away so you eliminate that pesky "human factor". Also, for example, if you look at the median across from Hairy Ainley High School (south of Whitemud Dr NW on 111 St ) the City installed both a fence and a concrete barrier on the median side. (I believe that before the LRT they just had a fence.)

    So... I guess once needs to ask why would the City often find a rationale for placing fencing between sidewalks, roadways, etc and LRT but not between little kids and cars - especially where they have a concentration of both and so a fairly clear issue of risk?

    Examples of the willingness to design in safety - when it comes to trains:


    Busy west Edmonton intersection focus of LRT info session Wednesday night
    June 21, 2017
    By Karen Bartko and Scott Johnston Global News

    https://globalnews.ca/news/3545575/b...dnesday-night/
    Reducing Light Rail Pedestrian Collisions
    BY MICHAEL CONLON ON SEP 15, 2017

    "...
    Engineered Safety

    There were several engineering improvements applied to make light rail more risible in its operating environment. “Wig Wag” train headlamps were installed – a change of the front markers from steady to alternating brightness when the horn or bell is activated. The fleet is currently 66 percent complete.

    Ground-mounted pedestrian indicators at station entrances were changed from static LED lighting to flashing when a train is approaching.

    Along the right-of-way, existing fencing was extended to discourage shortcutting across the tracks. At certain station locations, railings were added to channel pedestrians to the crossing and force them to turn to face oncoming traffic.

    Grade crossing warnings were enhanced by keeping at least one bell sounding even when gates are fully deployed. In addition, advance flashers were added to a bike path for advance notification of a train approaching a nearby crossing. ..."

    http://www.masstransitmag.com/articl...ian-collisions

  94. #194
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    149

    Default

    Self-righteous and superior C2Eers who seek to impose their values on others are sure enjoying success at baiting in this thread.

    Something the rest of you more right-minded folk might turn your attention to is the strong prospect of Edmonton Council adopting 30 km/h as a default residential speed limit across the city, once elements of the City Charter Framework Agreement begin to be enacted later this year.

  95. #195

    Default

    It's 40, not 30.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...tial-1.4288953

    Edmonton city council's move to look at possible speed-limit reductions across all neighbourhoods is getting some positive response from citizens.Early next year, council will see a report on changes to the maximum speed limits in neighbourhoods. Most are currently at 50 km/h but some neighbourhoods have already limited speeds to 40 km/h.
    A handful of residents CBC News spoke with on Wednesday voiced support for 40 km/h as a new default speed limit.
    I've zero issue with 40 being the new speed limit inside of neighbourhoods.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  96. #196

    Default

    mseaver getting facts wrong? You don't say. That never happens.

  97. #197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    It's 40, not 30.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...tial-1.4288953

    Edmonton city council's move to look at possible speed-limit reductions across all neighbourhoods is getting some positive response from citizens.Early next year, council will see a report on changes to the maximum speed limits in neighbourhoods. Most are currently at 50 km/h but some neighbourhoods have already limited speeds to 40 km/h.
    A handful of residents CBC News spoke with on Wednesday voiced support for 40 km/h as a new default speed limit.
    I've zero issue with 40 being the new speed limit inside of neighbourhoods.
    Why not lower it down to 20? Think about the safety!

    I have ZERO issue with it being 20. It should be 20 km/hr.

    *Insert graphics on lower braking distance between 40 km/hr and 20km/hr to support my argument*
    *Further support argument by pointing out stats which just say that pedestrian deaths are a thing to support why driving 20 km/hr is necessary*
    Last edited by bhaskar21; Today at 12:49 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •