Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    outdated?

    GUIDELINES FOR SCHOOL AND PLAYGROUND ZONES AND AREAS
    Version 2
    Date of Issue: December 2007

    ...
    The purpose of the Guidelines for School and Playground Zones and Areas document is to promote uniformity in the establishment and the signing and marking of School and Playground Zones and Areas in Alberta.
    Section 107 of the Alberta Traffic Safety Act, revised in May 2003, prescribes a maximum speed limit of 30 kilometres per hour within School and Playground Zones, in both urban and rural environments. By bylaw, a municipality may prescribe a lower maximum speed limit than that prescribed under the Act but the speed limit so prescribed shall not be lower than 20 kilometres per hour. A municipality can also set the time periods when the speed limit in School Zones is in effect. A municipality cannot modify the effective period established under the Act for Playground Zones. Traffic control devices are used to mark the beginning and end of School and Playground Zones.

    The previous version of these Guidelines, having the same name, was published in 2004. These Guidelines further refine the best practices laid out in the previous version, which built on the principles of the preceding guidelines (entitled Signing and Marking of School Zones and Playground Zones, published in 198 and prescribed a set of actions that is consistent with the Traffic Safety Act and the accompanying Use of Highway and Rules of the Road Regulation. They also generally adhere to the principles of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada (MUTCDC). The revised Guidelines (Version 2) include:
    ..."



    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    Section Subject Page
    D3.1 INTRODUCTION...................................... .................................................. .........................D3-1
    D3.1.1 Background........................................ .................................................. ......................D3-1 D3.1.2 ReferenceDocuments................................ .................................................. ..............D3-1 D3.1.3 Definitions....................................... .................................................. ........................D3-1
    D3.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHOOL AND PLAYGROUND ZONES
    AND AREAS............................................. .................................................. ...........................D3-2
    D3.2.1 Introduction...................................... .................................................. ........................D3-2
    D3.2.2 Use of These Guidelines........................................ .................................................. ..D3-2
    D3.2.3 Establishment of School Zones and Areas .................................................. .............. D3-3
    D3.2.4 Establishment of Playground Zones and Areas .................................................. ..... D3-11
    D3.3 SIGNING AND MARKING FOR SCHOOL AND PLAYGROUND
    ZONES AND AREAS .................................................. .................................................. ..... D3-19
    D3.3.1 GeneralConsiderations............................. .................................................. .............D3-19
    D3.3.2 Guidelines for School Zones and Areas .................................................. ................ D3-21
    D3.3.3 Guidelines for Playground Zones and Areas .................................................. ......... D3-22
    D3.3.4 Guidelines for Adjacent School and Playground Zones and Areas.........................D3-22
    D3.3.5 Guidelines for School and Playground Zones and Areas
    Through Intersections .................................................. ............................................ D3-23
    APPENDICES
    Appendix A – Examples of Fencing Related to Schools Appendix B – Examples of Playground Equipment Appendix C – Examples of Fencing Related to Playgrounds

    ..."

    http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...n/schlpgnd.pdf

    Well, I see in our neighbourhood combined curb-sidewalk (no boulevard or widened pavement and so no separation as suggested below. Elementary school kids pile out of buses and cars right onto the sidewalk and then they go in all directions. School busses could stop further 'ahead' past the school in order to create a predictable foot traffic flow back towards the school. Parking out front just creates a disrupted chaotic system.


    How to Get Started
    ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS FOR DESIGNING YOUR SAFE ROUTES Design Elements

    ...Designing for Pedestrians
    Ideal conditions for school-aged pedestrians include low volumes of traffic moving at slow speeds, sidewalks and separation from traffic. According to Safe Kids World- wide, children do not develop the skills they need to correctly gauge the speed of ve- hicles until at least age 10. Providing facilities for young walkers not only addresses their needs but can help make children’s movements more predictable to motorists. ..."



    "High Visibility Crosswalks
    Boldly striped, colored, or tex- tured crosswalks alert drivers to pedestrian areas and delineate exactly where pedestrians are intended to cross. High Visibil- ity Crosswalks in combination with other traffic-calming treat- ments (see page 6) such as stop bars, should be consid- ered along school routes. Crosswalks can be enhanced through:
    Ladder, Zebra, Continental (piano bar) striping Texture
    Color - solid or patterned"



    http://www.nj.gov/transportation/com...gsolutions.pdf
    Last edited by KC; 14-09-2017, 11:20 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Highlander II View Post
      Originally posted by Replacement View Post
      Originally posted by Highlander II View Post
      Originally posted by Chmilz View Post
      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.
      But those changes are being made despite any evidence there was a problem to solve. Speed kills, we know that. However, speed isn't killing anyone in these places. Despite decades of evidence, there's no safety issue that needs to be resolved here. We're just pushing through feel-good measures to reduce the severity of made up pedestrian collisions that simply don't occur. It's heavy handed. If there were lots of collisions, I would be absolutely for it, but there isn't, so it's unnecessary. The signage costs alone make this a ridiculous effort if it won't solve any problem.
      "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Replacement View Post
        ^Actually polling those specific festivals, which are all central Edmonton festivals, plus polling parents in schools is a type of push polling where the likelihood of getting the results one is looking for is pronounced. They polled vested interests. Those living or frequenting central Edmonton or those with kids in school. They polled those people on the subject of driving. You know, without consulting the other subset, drivers.

        The danger here is we specifically go to some groups in society to canvas what the behaviors of another group should be. We then legislate around that. What a shitstorm.

        As per usual this council is doing what it wants and getting specious polls to attempt to justify it.

        Hell they could find neighborhoods in Edmonton where residents figure cars should be outlawed outright in front of their house provided it isn't their own..
        Clearly, End of Days is upon us if Replacement and mseaver have found common ground.

        If Cebryk the Entertainer wants to conduct polls, let him have his people do Exit Interviews of audience members of action films starring Ansel Elgort, Vin Diesel, Tom Cruise, Jason Statham, Jet, Li, Ryan Gosling, Matt Damon, Liam Neeson, Bruce Willis et al.

        Comment


        • #49
          I would assume that between intersections means crossing between intersections.

          4-way stops might work but in low-traffic areas I see a lot of people roll through - it's actually safe since slowing to 5 meets the intent of low-volume stop signs but I don't like the idea of adding signage that will continue to normalize law-breaking.

          I would rather see yields and things like raised crosswalks (slow drivers like speedbumps) and curb extensions that provide a safe place to stand that's visible to drivers while physically prevent people from stopping their cars in or too near to crosswalks. There's no good reason why sidewalk users are expected to go up and down through puddles to cross the street while people in cars (and often on bikes) continue on the level; and you can't blame people for "darting' onto the street when there's no place to be seen without entering the roadway first.
          There can only be one.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Highlander II View Post
            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.
            What a nonsensical remark.

            "never any thought behind the old 50km/hr limit"

            Sheesh.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Highlander II View Post
              I would assume that between intersections means crossing between intersections.

              4-way stops might work but in low-traffic areas I see a lot of people roll through - it's actually safe since slowing to 5 meets the intent of low-volume stop signs but I don't like the idea of adding signage that will continue to normalize law-breaking.

              I would rather see yields and things like raised crosswalks (slow drivers like speedbumps) and curb extensions that provide a safe place to stand that's visible to drivers while physically prevent people from stopping their cars in or too near to crosswalks. There's no good reason why sidewalk users are expected to go up and down through puddles to cross the street while people in cars (and often on bikes) continue on the level; and you can't blame people for "darting' onto the street when there's no place to be seen without entering the roadway first.
              Yes, but, but, but.... What about the separate numbers for walking between parked cars, running into road... (I assume it's "Other actions" but discernibly between intersections.)

              I like your comments/suggestions.


              At the crosswalk closest to our elementary school - the neighbourhood revitalization's road resurfacing created spots for pools of water and ice to form right in the walking path where the sidewalk ramp meets the higher asphalt on the road. This is one of the two main crosswalks going to the school. Moreover all the way down the street, the sloped driveways/sidewalks create slippery or wet areas for a city block's distance from the elementary school. It's insane to make the roads perfect for cars (with tires and suspension) but leave if not worsen poor ly designed sidewalks. Cracked down the middle of course - for blocks on end. Then piling snow onto those sidewalks in the winter... triggering people to cut across the road to find clearer easier sidewalks to walk on.
              Last edited by KC; 14-09-2017, 11:48 AM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Chmilz View Post
                But those changes are being made despite any evidence there was a problem to solve. Speed kills, we know that. However, speed isn't killing anyone in these places. Despite decades of evidence, there's no safety issue that needs to be resolved here. We're just pushing through feel-good measures to reduce the severity of made up pedestrian collisions that simply don't occur. It's heavy handed. If there were lots of collisions, I would be absolutely for it, but there isn't, so it's unnecessary. The signage costs alone make this a ridiculous effort if it won't solve any problem.
                That there are few actual collisions doesn't mean there's no problem. That parents are afraid to allow their children to walk to school due to traffic is a problem. That these kids grow up sedentary and believing that driving is the only way to get around is a problem and one that kills.

                We've got a society where drivers collectively say "Nice kid you got there, be a shame if something happened to him"; and people claim there's no problem as long as people on foot pay up and get out of the way.
                There can only be one.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Chmilz View Post
                  This is feel-good pandering to a broad base. It's election season, folks.
                  Game. Set. Match.
                  He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Highlander II View Post
                    Originally posted by Chmilz View Post
                    But those changes are being made despite any evidence there was a problem to solve. Speed kills, we know that. However, speed isn't killing anyone in these places. Despite decades of evidence, there's no safety issue that needs to be resolved here. We're just pushing through feel-good measures to reduce the severity of made up pedestrian collisions that simply don't occur. It's heavy handed. If there were lots of collisions, I would be absolutely for it, but there isn't, so it's unnecessary. The signage costs alone make this a ridiculous effort if it won't solve any problem.
                    That there are few actual collisions doesn't mean there's no problem. That parents are afraid to allow their children to walk to school due to traffic is a problem. That these kids grow up sedentary and believing that driving is the only way to get around is a problem and one that kills.

                    We've got a society where drivers collectively say "Nice kid you got there, be a shame if something happened to him"; and people claim there's no problem as long as people on foot pay up and get out of the way.
                    The false belief that danger lurks around every corner is the problem then, not the speed limit. Passing laws to appease helicopter parents that live outside of reality is a scary turn of events indeed. It's tragic that you've bought into it.
                    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Highlander II View Post
                      Maybe ... the reason that nobody plays in the front is because there's people driving past at ...

                      ... 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.
                      You are either childless or an Empty Nester, whose progeny have been gone so long (without producing grandchildren) that you have lost touch with today's youth realities.

                      When children of today are not transfixed by an electronic device, they are participating in an organized activity at a dedicated complex that they were driven to.

                      Take your pick: hockey, gymnastics, ringette, basket ball, soccer, ad infinitum ...

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Highlander II View Post
                        Originally posted by Chmilz View Post
                        But those changes are being made despite any evidence there was a problem to solve. Speed kills, we know that. However, speed isn't killing anyone in these places. Despite decades of evidence, there's no safety issue that needs to be resolved here. We're just pushing through feel-good measures to reduce the severity of made up pedestrian collisions that simply don't occur. It's heavy handed. If there were lots of collisions, I would be absolutely for it, but there isn't, so it's unnecessary. The signage costs alone make this a ridiculous effort if it won't solve any problem.
                        That there are few actual collisions doesn't mean there's no problem. That parents are afraid to allow their children to walk to school due to traffic is a problem. That these kids grow up sedentary and believing that driving is the only way to get around is a problem and one that kills.

                        We've got a society where drivers collectively say "Nice kid you got there, be a shame if something happened to him"; and people claim there's no problem as long as people on foot pay up and get out of the way.

                        If there isn't a widespread issue, then maybe instead of blanket rules, selective measures should be employed. Isn't that how most things traffic related work - except to some degree speed limits and other standardizations. However, traffic lights aren't standardized to EVERY intersection, and instead, I assume some sort of criteria has to be met. Should the same logic be applied to neighbourhood safety issues with more funds being allocated to potential and known problem areas and none being expended where a problem is highly unlikely?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          The practice of Open Boundaries is a leading factor in the increased danger faced by school children.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by mseaver View Post
                            Originally posted by Highlander II View Post
                            Maybe ... the reason that nobody plays in the front is because there's people driving past at ...

                            ... 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.
                            You are either childless or an Empty Nester, whose progeny have been gone so long (without producing grandchildren) that you have lost touch with today's youth realities.

                            When children of today are not transfixed by an electronic device, they are participating in an organized activity at a dedicated complex that they were driven to.

                            Take your pick: hockey, gymnastics, ringette, basket ball, soccer, ad infinitum ...
                            That's the trend and it was noted way back in 2008:

                            "Despite the fact that during the past decade the number of
                            child pedestrian deaths and injuries has declined,
                            international research indicates that a major factor for this
                            reduction is that children are walking less.1" [see page 1)

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


                            Now look at our pickup trucks - they are now massive compared to say the 80s and 90s. Many factors have changed.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Conditions are different from neighbourhood to neighbourhood, but it really is a widespread issue. That's why I prefer the city-wide reduction in the default speed limit rather than just more reduced speed zones.

                              It's the arterials and collectors that should be the exceptions.

                              If there's not a whole lot of through-traffic then there's no reason that the speed limit should be higher. If there is a lot of through traffic then maybe you raise the limit but use other methods to ensure that the street is safe and easy to cross. Or in some cases you might change the street to reduce or eliminate the through traffic.
                              There can only be one.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Highlander II View Post
                                We've got a society where drivers collectively say "Nice kid you got there, be a shame if something happened to him"; and people claim there's no problem as long as people on foot pay up and get out of the way.
                                Nonsense .

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X