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

[Replacement]

^^Wheres the evidence then?

These are stats for 2015. Not one child killed among those. Whether that be in school/play zones or not.

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...ast-five-years

In 2016 in Edmonton traffic fatalities were actually reduced 31%. Only 10 involving pedestrians. Even collisions involving children were extremely rare. The vast amount of collisions or deaths involving pedestrians were adults.

https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...ollisions.aspx

So please cite any statistical carnage regarding children in school or play zones that is occurring that is necessitating further speed reductions in Edmonton. Excusing the pun, what is driving this? Clamor over a menace that doesn't exist?

[Chmilz]

This is feel-good pandering to a broad base. It's election season, folks.

[Highlander II]

Not a fair reply. I live in Millwoods, in the burbs, and like many such communities many of the main roads, i.e. Millwoods road for instance, go through countless school/playground zones. This is not cutting through neighborhoods, its using roads as designed.

The proposal as I understand it is that parks and playgrounds along arterial roads would be fenced, and the lower limit would not apply. Most parks are already fenced in those locations. I'm not sure about collector roads or what streets might be considered collectors in a given neighbourhood, but I expect that playgrounds that are already fenced on collectors would not become have reduced speed limits.

Nor is it fair to lay ALL responsibility on drivers as pedestrians ought to SHARE in responsibility and look both ways accountability and for their own welfare and protection. Indeed as we reduce speed limits it seems as if we reduce accountability of pedestrians for their own actions and behavior. Shared roads and all that. The difficulty though is without proper self directed pedestrian safety a 30k collision will still kill a child. So why is that the right speed?

It's totally fair to lay all the responsibility on drivers. they're the ones who are introducing the danger, after all, and they're the ones who, prior to being allowed to drive, have to reach an age at which a certain level of responsibility can be expected, and then must take test to prove that they can operate a car responsibly. People on sidewalks include small children who can't be expected to be responsible, as well as disabled people who may not be able to cross quickly, or judge your speed, or even walk predictably. Asking them to shoulder your responsibility is blatantly unfair.

Yes, we do follow those rules on freeways, and to a lesser degree on major arterials where fences or wide setbacks separate speeding cars and vulnerable people, but to expect the same everywhere is to ask that the irresponsible be caged for driver's convenience.

So why is 30 the "right speed" and what is this based on? By the logic of slower speeds resulting in less braking distance we approach a speed of zero. 40 or 50K is not fast in neighborhoods and has rarely been a problem. Please cite the actual problem in terms of kids being hurt or killed at a school crossing which is a rarity here.

At 30 stopping distance is a fraction of stopping distance at 50, and people's bodies are built to survive impact at 30 - that's about as fast as we can run (in our prime) so even when hit by a hard object like a car at that speed there's a pretty good chance you can walk away with just bruises and scrapes. If you're hit at 50 you have 90% odds of either death or a good long stay in intensive care.

[Marcel Petrin]

30 seems to be excessively low in ALL residential areas. I'm fine with it around schools and playgrounds. Seems to me that 40 in residential areas is a reasonable compromise. Problem is, most pedestrian fatalities happen on arterial roads. Further, speed is often not the primary factor while inattention and failing to yield to pedestrians in marked crosswalks are. Unfortunately, you can't just slap a photo truck on 170th street to crack down on those factors, so they get ignored.

Bring on the self driving cars.

[Highlander II]

This is feel-good pandering to a broad base. It's election season, folks.

I know, how dare our elected representatives do what people want.

[Titanium48]

The proposal as I understand it is that parks and playgrounds along arterial roads would be fenced, and the lower limit would not apply. Most parks are already fenced in those locations. I'm not sure about collector roads or what streets might be considered collectors in a given neighbourhood, but I expect that playgrounds that are already fenced on collectors would not become have reduced speed limits.

Implementation has been inconsistent so far, with some collector roads next to schools not having school zones: https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.56116...7i13312!8i6656
while others do have school zones despite fencing: https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.53152...7i13312!8i6656
and some lack fencing altogether: https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.49049...7i13312!8i6656

[Replacement]

Not a fair reply. I live in Millwoods, in the burbs, and like many such communities many of the main roads, i.e. Millwoods road for instance, go through countless school/playground zones. This is not cutting through neighborhoods, its using roads as designed.

The proposal as I understand it is that parks and playgrounds along arterial roads would be fenced, and the lower limit would not apply. Most parks are already fenced in those locations. I'm not sure about collector roads or what streets might be considered collectors in a given neighbourhood, but I expect that playgrounds that are already fenced on collectors would not become have reduced speed limits.

Nor is it fair to lay ALL responsibility on drivers as pedestrians ought to SHARE in responsibility and look both ways accountability and for their own welfare and protection. Indeed as we reduce speed limits it seems as if we reduce accountability of pedestrians for their own actions and behavior. Shared roads and all that. The difficulty though is without proper self directed pedestrian safety a 30k collision will still kill a child. So why is that the right speed?

It's totally fair to lay all the responsibility on drivers. they're the ones who are introducing the danger, after all, and they're the ones who, prior to being allowed to drive, have to reach an age at which a certain level of responsibility can be expected, and then must take test to prove that they can operate a car responsibly. People on sidewalks include small children who can't be expected to be responsible, as well as disabled people who may not be able to cross quickly, or judge your speed, or even walk predictably. Asking them to shoulder your responsibility is blatantly unfair.

Yes, we do follow those rules on freeways, and to a lesser degree on major arterials where fences or wide setbacks separate speeding cars and vulnerable people, but to expect the same everywhere is to ask that the irresponsible be caged for driver's convenience.

So why is 30 the "right speed" and what is this based on? By the logic of slower speeds resulting in less braking distance we approach a speed of zero. 40 or 50K is not fast in neighborhoods and has rarely been a problem. Please cite the actual problem in terms of kids being hurt or killed at a school crossing which is a rarity here.

At 30 stopping distance is a fraction of stopping distance at 50, and people's bodies are built to survive impact at 30 - that's about as fast as we can run (in our prime) so even when hit by a hard object like a car at that speed there's a pretty good chance you can walk away with just bruises and scrapes. If you're hit at 50 you have 90% odds of either death or a good long stay in intensive care.

It could be defended that adult bodies can withstand a collision in and around 30K (albeit possibility of death is still around 10% at such speeds, even for adults. What is less known, and not well understood, due to how fewer collisions or deaths involve children, is how much an undeveloped human body can withstand. One would also expect that a smaller object, a child, would be more subject to greater injury at the same 30k speed. Thus my question around why 30k?

Remember we are talking about kids here.

But again in a jurisdiction that has had very little specific problem with child pedestrian collision injury or death. Indeed it seems that present precautions have served well around schools/playgrounds. So why the need for increased controls?

[Replacement]

This is feel-good pandering to a broad base. It's election season, folks.

I know, how dare our elected representatives do what people want.

Get off your high horse. It isn't established that this is what ALL people want. The polls were selective.

In anycase answer the question I have asked 3 times. What factor has brought about the requirement for change. Collisions don't occur much as it is at School zones and playgrounds and they rarely involve children at all. So given that, what is this increased control for. What does it prevent that isn't already being prevented?

[Highlander II]

I suspect a child would be a greater risk simply due to being more likely to go under the car rather than over. 30 is a good blanket speed for residential neighbourhoods, but yes, there are times where I will drive slower than that in particularly narrow spots. It's not uncommon to see campgrounds and resorts signed for 20, 15 or even 10, which might tell you something about the speeds most people would actually prefer to see outside their homes.

A big portion of why so few children are injured is because children are so rarely outside. People may blame the ipad but parents' fear of traffic is at least as big a factor. With slower, quieter, safer streets maybe there will be more children outside.

[Highlander II]

This is feel-good pandering to a broad base. It's election season, folks.

I know, how dare our elected representatives do what people want.

Get off your high horse. It isn't established that this is what ALL people want. The polls were selective.

In anycase answer the question I have asked 3 times. What factor has brought about the requirement for change. Collisions don't occur as it is at School zones and playgrounds and they rarely involve children at all. So given that, what is this increased control for. What does it prevent that isn't already being prevented?

Here's the factor:

People have realized that there was never any thought behind the old 50km/hr limit in the first place, and that it didn't make sense and has a negative impact on quality of life and safety.

And thanks to the easy spear of information with the internet they say that other places were able to make changes.

[Gemini]

30 km. does seem rather low for main arteries is residential streets. I definitely see the worth of slowing down in school zones and playground areas but the rest of the main arteries it rather regressive. It's not as if we have a huge problem with children being run over all the time. In a lot of those cases speed in not usually the factor, more like inattention from the child or the driver. It's been mentioned before about how schools are designed so that the kids spill out onto the main thoroughfares of residential streets. Cars lined up on the main arteries waiting for kids all adds up to congestion on these particular streets. Schools should be designed where the drop off and pick up areas are not on these main roads. Have a slip road beside the schools so vehicles wait there. Another thing, certain members of the C of E city council are these new wave dreamers who think we should all be riding bicycles so they are going out of their way to drum up problems were really are non. Another thing, with all these new speed limits hopefully there is plenty of signage so that people know they are entering a playground area etc. No giving out tickets until that is all in place.

[KC]

AS I ALWAYS SUSPECTED, INTERSECTIONS KILL!!!
Speed kills? Of course. the faster one goes the quicker one dies. However, I suspect its intersections that kill a lot more than speed does.

Anyway, lots of data here:

Child Pedestrian Injuries Report 2007 - 2008

excerpts:
"Children are more likely to be struck by a car in areas with heavy traffic volumes, a high density of parked cars, higher speed limits, and limited choices for play, such as available green space."

A child pedestrian is most likely to suffer injuries to the lower extremities from hip to toe (34 per cent), a traumatic brain injury (25 per cent) and injuries to the torso (10 per cent).7
Fracture is the most common type of injury and the most common body area injured is from hip to toe.
Internal damage (injury to lungs, liver and spleen) is the most common cause of death.
Traumatic injury to the brain is the most common body region injured that caused death.
Overall, lower extremity injuries occur more frequently than upper extremity injuries.8
More than half of all child pedestrian deaths and most injuries (95 per cent) happen in urban areas.9 *
Note: Transport Canada defines urban as:
(a) metropolitan roads and streets and other urban areas, or (b) a speed limit at the collision site of 60 km/hr or less
Rural includes:
(a) primary or secondary highways, as well as local roads, or (b) a speed limit at the collision site exceeding 60 km/hr.

Note that in Alberta and Saskatchewan, urban includes any area within the corporate boundaries of a city, town, village or hamlet. Rural includes any area outside of what is defined as “urban”.

When children are struck by vehicles, their injuries are often life threatening or cause permanent physical damage. Children of different ages are at risk for different types of injuries because of the child’s physical stature. In children between 10 to 14 years of age, serious injuries occur because the body’s center of gravity tends to be above the bumper of the vehicle.The collisions cause three distinct impacts: the first point of contact is with the leg on the bumper, the second point of contact is between the thigh on the edge of the hood and the third contact is with the head and shoulders on the hood and windshield.As the vehicle’s speed increases, so does the force of these impacts. At high speeds, the increased momentum forces the legs to rotate above the head before falling back onto the hood, and at even greater speeds, the child somersaults into the windshield or roof.10


Table 1. Transport Canada: 1995-2004 Pedestrian fatalities
by pedestrian action
Pedestrian action Age 0-14

Intersection 114

Walk with traffic 23

Running into road 59

Safety zone 8

Between intersections 6

Walk against traffic 7

Play/work on roadway 37

From behind parked cars 21

Other actions 71

Unknown 35

Total 381



Table 2. Transport Canada: Percentage of pedestrian fatalities
by striking vehicle
Vehicle Percentage of fatalities
Passenger cars 57
Light trucks & vans 25
Heavy trucks 10
Bus 3
Other 5
Passenger vehicles are most often the type of vehicle that
injures or kills child pedestrians, followed by light trucks
(including SUVs) and vans.13 In addition, the highest
number of child pedestrian injuries and deaths occur in
areas where the posted speed limit is 50 km/hr.14


http://www.parachutecanada.org/downl...port_07:08.pdf

bolding was mine - of course. (I don't know why I always type this.)


The above table ranked highest to lowest with percentages of total - (with top 5 bolded)


Percent - Original Order - Cause - No.

30% 1 Intersection - 114

19% 9 Other actions - 71

15% 3 Running into road - 59

10% 7 Play/work on roadway - 37

9% 10 Unknown - 35

6% 2 Walk with traffic - 23

6% 8 From behind parked cars - 21

4% 4 Safety zone - 8

2% 6 Walk against traffic - 7

2% 5 Between intersections - 6

100% Total - 381

[noodle]

As I suspected. It's the intersections that kill.

Intersections are the single largest one, true, but if you add up running into road, play/work on roadway, from behind parked cars you end up at 117.

[Highlander II]

^^^ Gemini, do you know of any schools where drop-offs and pick-ups take place in a traffic lane? I've never seen one where there isn't enough room for the same number of lanes to get past, other than one where school buses (and only buses) stop on 66st at St. Francis of Assisi School. in other cases the extra cars stopped is only enough to slow cars to below the limit, not present an actual delay. Rather than simply being off the main road I've heard of schools where pick-ups and drop-offs aren't allowed at all on the streets closest to the school, so that traffic is more spread out and lower impact. Which also provides a safer and more comfortable environment for those kids that walk, ideally allowing more children to do so.

I agree wholeheartedly on the signage issue. Speed zone information needs to be clear before they can be enforced - although as someone who would prefer a city-wide change in the default limit with signed arterials I wouldn't mind so much if they just skipped this step completely rather than spend a substantial amount of money and time on playground signage.

[KC]

As I suspected. It's the intersections that kill.

Intersections are the single largest one, true, but if you add up running into road, play/work on roadway, from behind parked cars you end up at 117.

Safety Zones are very low. We need to turn more intersections into Safety Zones.

Actually, I just now read this comment in the same document (see link above or below on this post) I guess I better be less facetious.

Twenty-nine per cent of child pedestrians younger than
14 years of age were killed crossing at intersections
with no traffic control, 15 per cent were running on to
the road and 10 per cent were playing on the road.

The most frequently reported child pedestrian action
that led to injury or death is crossing at an intersection
followed by running onto the road.12

Yes, yes, yes, the bold and underline were mine.



Actually, maybe 4-way stops (assuming they are safer) should be placed within say 2 blocks in all directions of all schools. Or improved crosswalk safety lighting.

(Of course I'm making huge assumptions here - as is common.)


Note: The 2% "Between intersections " confuses me.

Source: Table #1 page 6
http://www.parachutecanada.org/downl...port_07:08.pdf