Calgary Roads

[Jimby]

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Pages/Current-studies-and-ongoing-activities/50-avenue-sw-local-area-plan/50-Avenue-SW.aspx?redirect=/50ave

[5seconds]

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/LUPP/Pages/Current-studies-and-ongoing-activities/50-avenue-sw-local-area-plan/50-Avenue-SW.aspx?redirect=/50ave

I like the concept for the area. It's going to look good if it goes ahead.

I wonder if there would be calls to retain more of the greenspace? I live near a road/greenspace corridor like that, and while I wouldn't mind that quality of development, I would hate to loose that much off-leash space.

[freeweed]

I went to Louise last weekend and it was glorious! Hesitant to go to Sunshine because I got the Louise Card (and will get the Fernie Card too), so I don't want to pay extra.

Get all of them. If you ski/ride enough and like the variety, it's worth having them all. Unless you really only go once or twice to a place.

How was the snow at Sunshine?

Fantastic. Well over 100cm base, and I find Sunshine's numbers generally reflect reality better due to their more even coverage (I've skied over green grass in the middle of a major run on days where Louise claims 100+). Plenty of iffy spots to be sure, it's still very early - but they're obvious and generally marked. It definitely wasn't a day where I was thinking "rock skis required" and I really stopped paying attention to the ground after a couple of runs, the snow was that reliable. I don't think I saw a single piece of gravel or protruding branch, and we skied everywhere that was open. Gobs and gobs of fresh, soft snow. Hella fun on moguls when they're this soft.

To actually be on-topic... I hope the City has done a full environmental impact on the de-icing they're using, because so far it's phenomenal. I'm shocked at how good the roads have been through our first few early snowfalls. I want to see this stuff on our roads as much as humanly possible.

[fusili]

I like the concept for the area. It's going to look good if it goes ahead.

I wonder if there would be calls to retain more of the greenspace? I live near a road/greenspace corridor like that, and while I wouldn't mind that quality of development, I would hate to loose that much off-leash space.

I think homebuyers need to be a little more dilligent when they purchase and their assumptions about greenspace. Unless it is municipally dedicated municipal reserve (MR), it can be rezoned. Even MR can be sold by the City. Realtors are great at promising that nothing will ever happen, knowing full well that 10 years later it can be something different.

[Bassic Lab]

I think homebuyers need to be a little more dilligent when they purchase and their assumptions about greenspace. Unless it is municipally dedicated municipal reserve (MR), it can be rezoned. Even MR can be sold by the City. Realtors are great at promising that nothing will ever happen, knowing full well that 10 years later it can be something different.

Reading over the comments gives me the impression that the loss of green space was never what the opposition was about. It seems like a lot of the people are entirely fine with building single family houses along the utility corridor but are strenuously opposed to the option of zoning for 3-4 story residential and mixed use.

I really don't understand some of that opposition. There is already a similar transition between SFHs and that kind of built density just six blocks to the south along 56 Ave. In my opinion that transition is in no way overbearing; three and four story structures just don't overwhelm houses across an alley or road in the same way that towers could.

Some of the other complaints were just bizarre: referring to 50 Ave as a dangerous freeway, asking where the new schools are in the plan (presumably for all the new people, of course the schools are already there and in danger of being shut down from lack of attendance). That said I'm glad that some of the comments were really forward thinking, embracing new residents and services in the hopes of making the area more like Garrison Woods and such.

[fusili]

Reading over the comments gives me the impression that the loss of green space was never what the opposition was about. It seems like a lot of the people are entirely fine with building single family houses along the utility corridor but are strenuously opposed to the option of zoning for 3-4 story residential and mixed use.

I really don't understand some of that opposition. There is already a similar transition between SFHs and that kind of built density just six blocks to the south along 56 Ave. In my opinion that transition is in no way overbearing; three and four story structures just don't overwhelm houses across an alley or road in the same way that towers could.

Some of the other complaints were just bizarre: referring to 50 Ave as a dangerous freeway, asking where the new schools are in the plan (presumably for all the new people, of course the schools are already there and in danger of being shut down from lack of attendance). That said I'm glad that some of the comments were really forward thinking, embracing new residents and services in the hopes of making the area more like Garrison Woods and such.

People complain about the craziest stuff. 3 storey townhouses are evidently "massive" developments in some peoples books. There are always legitimate concerns, but the vast majority of issues brought up are things like "vagrants will live there" and of course "where will the children play."

[Cage]

http://www.calgarycitynews.com/2011/11/snow-route-parking-ban-in-effect.html

The City has issued a Snow Event advisory and Snow Route parking bans will be in effect starting at 8 p.m. tonight - Wednesday, November 30.

Calgarians parked on Snow Routes are asked to move their vehicles. Vehicles that remain parked on these roads are subject to enforcement. Snow Routes include major roadways, collector roads and most bus routes and are marked by blue signs with a white snowflake.

A map and full list of Snow Route locations is available on Calgary.ca/snow and calgary.ca/roadconditions to view the map.

[Ferreth]

According to the Calgary City News Blog:

"The City has issued a Snow Event advisory and Snow Route parking bans will be in effect starting at 8 p.m. tonight - Wednesday, November 30. [...]"

link (http://www.calgarycitynews.com/2011/11/snow-route-parking-ban-in-effect.html)

I can't speak for conditions in the rest of the city as I decided to work at home today, but my local streets have barely enough snow to justify the snow shovel, never mind a snow ban. People are going to complain about this. I predict some roads will be bare before the parking ban is done, without a plow touching them.

[mersar]

Should be fun. I won't get home until around 10 tonight so it will be interesting to see where the 30+ people on the stretch of Ranchlands Blvd where I live who don't have driveways nor space in the alley to park will put their vehicles before I get home. We're already talking about the possibility of building a driveway in front of our house and possibly one in the back off the alley as well (I'd rather a 2 car driveway in the back, but the geography of our backyard makes that an expensive proposition) next summer if its as bad as I fear it will be.

[fusili]

According to the Calgary City News Blog:

"The City has issued a Snow Event advisory and Snow Route parking bans will be in effect starting at 8 p.m. tonight - Wednesday, November 30. [...]"

link (http://www.calgarycitynews.com/2011/11/snow-route-parking-ban-in-effect.html)

I can't speak for conditions in the rest of the city as I decided to work at home today, but my local streets have barely enough snow to justify the snow shovel, never mind a snow ban. People are going to complain about this. I predict some roads will be bare before the parking ban is done, without a plow touching them.

My guess this is more of a trial run than an actual necessity. I bet the city wants to see how it works, get a feel for what issues/complications arise and adjust accordingly.

[kw5150]

Theres no fucking snow on the fucking roads.

[5seconds]

Parking ban lifted, Snow Event called off.

Oh dear...

[kw5150]

Im pretty shocked that we went from the worst snow removal in canada.....to this strict system that makes no sense at all. If last nights' snow was a "snow event" then clearly people have lost touch with reality. In my world, the snow last night was a skiff and not much more than that.

[freeweed]

Theres no fucking snow on the fucking roads.

Incorrect. There's no fucking snow on YOUR fucking road.

There was plenty of snow on the roads at higher elevations at 6am this morning and it snowed for several hours past that. I don't think our -2 high is going to melt much of it. The bus route by my place, while certainly not impassable now, will be if the city doesn't plow it and we get much more snow.

This is exactly what I predicted: Calgary usually gets very spotty snow coverage, and the city needs to figure out how to target snow removal. If they do nothing (like in previous years), half the city is screaming about blocked roads while the other half smugly sits and says "there's no snow on MY road". If they plow, half the city whines about needless plowing while the other half says "FINALLY, some damn proper snow removal in this city". It's an unwinnable situation because the average person can't see past the end of their own nose and only cares about me ME ME!

I don't see what the big deal is with this new plan. The downtown core was shut down for a day and we survived. The downtown workforce barely made it to work on Monday and we survived. I'm sure the minority of people who can only park on snow routes can survive a day or two of inconvenience. First world problems, etc.

[kw5150]

Incorrect. There's no fucking snow on YOUR fucking road.

There was plenty of snow on the roads at higher elevations at 6am this morning and it snowed for several hours past that. I don't think our -2 high is going to melt much of it. The bus route by my place, while certainly not impassable now, will be if the city doesn't plow it and we get much more snow.

This is exactly what I predicted: Calgary usually gets very spotty snow coverage, and the city needs to figure out how to target snow removal. If they do nothing (like in previous years), half the city is screaming about blocked roads while the other half smugly sits and says "there's no snow on MY road". If they plow, half the city whines about needless plowing while the other half says "FINALLY, some damn proper snow removal in this city". It's an unwinnable situation because the average person can't see past the end of their own nose and only cares about me ME ME!

I don't see what the big deal is with this new plan. The downtown core was shut down for a day and we survived. The downtown workforce barely made it to work on Monday and we survived. I'm sure the minority of people who can only park on snow routes can survive a day or two of inconvenience. First world problems, etc.

You are silly.

The bus route by my place, while certainly not impassable now, will be if the city doesn't plow it and we get much more snow.

What do you drive? a go cart? If this past snowfall makes things impassable for anyone, they need a driving course.

[Bigtime]

Couldn't agree more Freeweed, there are people on twitter complaining about getting too many emails from the city about the snow ban AFTER signing up for the alerts. So you sign up to stay in the loop and then you complain because you got too many emails because of the changing situation. THEY ARE JUST EMAILS, Jesus rollerskating Christ.

[freeweed]

Couldn't agree more Freeweed, there are people on twitter complaining about getting too many emails from the city about the snow ban AFTER signing up for the alerts. So you sign up to stay in the loop and then you complain because you got too many emails because of the changing situation. THEY ARE JUST EMAILS, Jesus rollerskating Christ.

:haha:

OMG the sky is falling, the City actually planned for a contingency for once! Stop telling me things might be less than perfect! If you don't have perfect clairvoyance and things end up turning out better than expected, you're a bunch of assholes for scaring me!

I swear, some people complain about anything, even if it literally has no effect on them. Too many emails. Priceless. :jester:

[Bassic Lab]

Incorrect. There's no fucking snow on YOUR fucking road.

There was plenty of snow on the roads at higher elevations at 6am this morning and it snowed for several hours past that. I don't think our -2 high is going to melt much of it. The bus route by my place, while certainly not impassable now, will be if the city doesn't plow it and we get much more snow.

This is exactly what I predicted: Calgary usually gets very spotty snow coverage, and the city needs to figure out how to target snow removal. If they do nothing (like in previous years), half the city is screaming about blocked roads while the other half smugly sits and says "there's no snow on MY road". If they plow, half the city whines about needless plowing while the other half says "FINALLY, some damn proper snow removal in this city". It's an unwinnable situation because the average person can't see past the end of their own nose and only cares about me ME ME!

I don't see what the big deal is with this new plan. The downtown core was shut down for a day and we survived. The downtown workforce barely made it to work on Monday and we survived. I'm sure the minority of people who can only park on snow routes can survive a day or two of inconvenience. First world problems, etc.

I think they're going to have to change the plan to a targeted approach. Snow fall throughout the city simply varies too greatly. Often, when Tuscany gets five centimetres, most of the city gets nothing. If the city ends up inconveniencing too many people needlessly, then opposition to the plan will mount.

[kw5150]

I think they're going to have to change the plan to a targeted approach. Snow fall throughout the city simply varies too greatly. Often, when Tuscany gets five centimetres, most of the city gets nothing. If the city ends up inconveniencing too many people needlessly, then opposition to the plan will mount.

:previous::previous:

Thats kind of what I was getting at.

[freeweed]

I think they're going to have to change the plan to a targeted approach. Snow fall throughout the city simply varies too greatly. Often, when Tuscany gets five centimetres, most of the city gets nothing. If the city ends up inconveniencing too many people needlessly, then opposition to the plan will mount.

Agreed. I'm just not sure how the heck to do it. The old "you can't please all of the people all of the time" comes to mind.

If it's targetted, I guarantee you there will be 2 vocal contingents to emerge:

1. "My street is covered with snow and you haven't plowed it because you don't think it's ENOUGH??? BS, I pay taxes and I'm not getting service!"

2. "Why the hell did you plow my street? There was only 10cm of snow on it, I can drive fine, grow a pair and learn how to drive you wimps! No wonder my taxes are so high, Silly Hall at it again!"

Interestingly, those 2 groups are not mutually exclusive of members from my experience, which makes for much amusement. Some people just like to complain.

Without a costly and inefficient monitoring program, some cities just resort to plowing "on demand", ie: when citizens complain loudly enough. Of course what also tends to happen is that streets/neighbourhoods where certain Aldermen live tend to get preferential treatment.

Not sure how to solve this one myself.

[kw5150]

Anywayyyyyyy............

I have a feeling the system will work fine as it starts to work the kinks out. Its just, at this point, it seems completely out of whack to tell people not to park on streets that are bare. The inner city usually requires small amounts of clearing becasue of all of the salt and sand dragged in from all over the city. All they would have to do is remove the snow/ice chunk build up once a month and that would be good...

..anyway, whatever, I park underground.

[Ferreth]

I don't think it would take much to target snow clearing. We have bus drivers going down most of the feeder roads; have them phone in the trouble spots. It's not perfect, but I think it would be good enough for a targeted plow program.

I'm glad they called off the snow event - at least it shows the city is trying to adjust on the fly for our rapidly changing weather - the afternoon was much nicer than expected - I took a short walk and could see snow already melting along one of those snow routes.

[freeweed]

I don't think it would take much to target snow clearing. We have bus drivers going down most of the feeder roads; have them phone in the trouble spots. It's not perfect, but I think it would be good enough for a targeted plow program.

*slaps head*

That's actually a brilliant idea. So long as the CT union doesn't insist on extra pay for drivers for "extra work" or something. Major routes are going to get cleaned regardless, and no one can park on Deerfoot or Glenmore anyway - it's really the bus routes that are of concern here for the most part.

[CTrainDude]

*slaps head*

That's actually a brilliant idea. So long as the CT union doesn't insist on extra pay for drivers for "extra work" or something. Major routes are going to get cleaned regardless, and no one can park on Deerfoot or Glenmore anyway - it's really the bus routes that are of concern here for the most part.
Bus drivers have been reporting problem spots for sanding and plowing for as long as I can remember. The trick is actually getting a resonably prompt response from roads. If City management mandated that problems called in by buses should be a higher priority, it may work a little better.

[monocle]

Bus drivers have been reporting problem spots for sanding and plowing for as long as I can remember. The trick is actually getting a resonably prompt response from roads. If City management mandated that problems called in by buses should be a higher priority, it may work a little better.

How about a dash-mounted camera facing forward (or backward) on the bus that photographs shitty conditions that the the Driver notices? One push of a button, and voilà! geo-tagged pic goes to Roads, dispatcher evaluates, and responds as needed?

[MalcolmTucker]

How about a dash-mounted camera facing forward (or backward) on the bus that photographs shitty conditions that the the Driver notices? One push of a button, and voilà! geo-tagged pic goes to Roads, dispatcher evaluates, and responds as needed?
That would be smart.

[freeweed]

Expect a parking ban tomorrow night for sure. From what I gather, roads are closed in a few spots and buses are getting stuck (or at least having great difficulty with hills) all over the city.

[mersar]

Yep. From whats floating about on twitter though the City has decided to wait and see before issuing the ban, probably issue it early in the morning for taking effect at 8pm tomorrow night is my bet.

[freeweed]

Yep. From whats floating about on twitter though the City has decided to wait and see before issuing the ban, probably issue it early in the morning for taking effect at 8pm tomorrow night is my bet.

To be honest, it'd be a bit unfair for them to have declared it tonight. The snow didn't really start falling until 5 or so, and it was 7-8 before it was really obvious just how bad it was going to be. I'd rather they wait a day instead of completely destroying everyone's plans for the evening on incredibly short notice.

Calgarians should feel lucky though - in Winnipeg, parking on a snow route overnight is banned - period - from November through March (I may be slightly wrong on the dates here). And there are a lot more snow routes there. It made for fun times trying to visit friends on weekends in the winter. At least here it's only going to be a handful of days.

7 hours in and it's still coming down fairly constantly if a fair bit lighter than earlier. I bet this ranks in the top 5 snow events of this winter - well, at least I HOPE so! :haha:

[5seconds]

I'm amazed they haven't called it yet. Where I am at least, it has to be over 5cm.

I think that they should give an hour grace time between when they call an even and when they start ticketing. Does anone know if there is any grace period, or they can just start ticketing once it's called?

[freeweed]

I'm amazed they haven't called it yet. Where I am at least, it has to be over 5cm.

Just finished up with the snowblower. I measured well over 30cm up here in Royal Oak (some of that is drifting, granted, but even on the road itself it was close). Cars are getting stuck EVERYWHERE. Definitely one of the bigger dumps we get out here.

I think that they should give an hour grace time between when they call an even and when they start ticketing. Does anone know if there is any grace period, or they can just start ticketing once it's called?

I'd hope there's a long grace period of some sort. Even an hour seems a bit crazy - kinda hard to plan life if you can't stay somewhere more than an hour!

Edit: According to the Herald, the City is still "considering" things as of 11am this morning. As I predicted, panicking whiners obviously complained loudly about the last time they called it, so now they're going to wait until they're ABSOLUTELY SURE. Which means people will have much less warning. Ridiculous. I was downtown this morning (grr work) and the roads were "ok" but the parking lanes were a mess and full of cars. And then it came down HARD around 10am or so. The roads turned into a complete disaster. I don't see the morning rush going very well if they don't clear those parking lanes (which are driving lanes during the rush). Not really sure what there is left to "consider" - I think anyone with a whit of sense better plan on not parking on snow routes tonight.

[5seconds]

And there it is. Snow event called for 2pm.

I find this strange. I would expect them to just go ahead and call an event if it meets the criteria. I don't like this "We might call one in 2 hours" business. If they are concerned about giving everyone notice, then they should call the event, and give a decent grace period

(You're right about even 1 hour being tough to schedule your life around. Then again, it's clear the snow/event was coming, so maybe that will be enough notice...)

[Ferreth]

Yep. From whats floating about on twitter though the City has decided to wait and see before issuing the ban, probably issue it early in the morning for taking effect at 8pm tomorrow night is my bet.

Mersar, you need to be in charge of issuing the snow bans. What you suggested made sense, what the city issued is unreasonable. Give people 8 hours to get there cars off the road - not 2 hours.

It's not like the plows don't have lots of snow to clear off the main streets, and it's not like they can't do some good on the feeder roads in the meanwhile. I know a plow went through my area overnight, making the feeder road a lot better for my drive out today.

It will be interesting to see if any parking tickets are issued today for snow ban routes.

[kw5150]

Does this count as 5cm?

[eggbert]

Counts as way more than 5cm in my area. I shoveled 10cm last evening and another 15cm today. Cars on my street are struggling to drive through the deep snow so a parking ban is more than welcome.

[freeweed]

Does this count as 5cm?

6x that on my street. So no, it doesn't *technically* count as 5cm.

[Bigtime]

I heard the trucks come through 7th avenue around 3am. Leaving for work the road was cleared nice and wide, with only a couple of cars that hadn't moved.

[mersar]

Parts of Ranchlands were looking better, but in front of our house was still barely plowed this morning (the driving lanes were mostly clear, but thats it). I'd say 90% of the vehicles were moved off the road, including a few who I hadn't seen move in months.

[kw5150]

Counts as way more than 5cm in my area. I shoveled 10cm last evening and another 15cm today. Cars on my street are struggling to drive through the deep snow so a parking ban is more than welcome.


Lol, I was kidding. It is obviously more.

[The Fisher Account]

Looks like the City released a new iPhone app today that tells you about current road conditions and send you notifications when a parking ban is in effect:

http://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/city-calgary-road-conditions/id482156663?mt=8

[freeweed]

Lol. It's almost as if they could send email to people who sign up!

I swear, soon there will be apps to dial a phone number.

[DizzyEdge]

Lol. It's almost as if they could send email to people who sign up!

I swear, soon there will be apps to dial a phone number.

An app for email -> snailmail.

[Radley77]

Today I met with the City of Calgary to propose a cycling strategy for Bridgeland area (there currently is no north/south or east/west routes), and they mentioned that the plan is to put in a cycling lane on Edmonton Trail. This is a street with 22,000 vehichles on an average day. The cycling strategy I had proposed was to create a cycling friendly street on 6 St NE instead which is mostly a calm residential street (with potential for roundabouts and speed bumps).

I think that the Edmonton Trail option may cause congestion for cars, and negate the possibility of offpeak parking for the retail businesses in the neighbourhood that had been piloted this year, plus be much more expensive to implement a segregated route versus the option I had proposed.

Which one do you think is a better option and best use of road network?

[MichaelS]

There is a setback on Edmonton Trail that will allow for the construction of an additional lane. If they want to go that route, it wouldn't impact traffic. Having said that, I think if we could have a viable option for a lot less money, I would be supportive of that. Does 6th Street NE go up the hill? I can think of 4A street and 5th. The wooden stairs off of 6th would be pretty steep.

[Radley77]

There is a setback on Edmonton Trail that will allow for the construction of an additional lane. If they want to go that route, it wouldn't impact traffic. Having said that, I think if we could have a viable option for a lot less money, I would be supportive of that. Does 6th Street NE go up the hill? I can think of 4A street and 5th. The wooden stairs off of 6th would be pretty steep.

Here is the proposal that I submitted, essentially the bike lane would jot over to 5 St NE for the hill and then back to 6 St NE:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/63629927?access_key=key-1frqofvhsq3n3x0d2xu0

Google Maps also has the current cycling network:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=51.056232,-114.036412&spn=0.021634,0.066047&vpsrc=6&t=p&z=15&lci=bike

What are your general thoughts? I am thinking 6 ST NE s a more viable, safe and pragmatic option that can be implemented sooner for a lot less money. The proposal also received an endorsement letter by the Bridgeland Riverside Community Association. Bridgeland population growth from 2005 to 2008 was 16%, and with future projects like NEXT and McPherson Place, which will add 100's more units to the area there is a need to look at how to move people without further adding to congested primary transportation routes.

[freeweed]

From a purely safety perspective, if we have less busy nearby roads that run in parallel, bike routes should ALWAYS be on them (all things being equal of course). I don't understand the push to have bicycles on very busy roads unless there's no other choice or the alternative is a huge pain in the ass for cyclists.

Beyond that, I don't think I'll *ever* agree with most traffic "calming" measures, especially speed humps. I've seen some pretty dangerous behaviour come about as a result of them, and they're almost always put in at the request of a select few vocal residents who can't handle the fact that they live in busy areas.

[fusili]

Here is the proposal that I submitted, essentially the bike lane would jot over to 5 St NE for the hill and then back to 6 St NE:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/63629927?access_key=key-1frqofvhsq3n3x0d2xu0

Google Maps also has the current cycling network:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=51.056232,-114.036412&spn=0.021634,0.066047&vpsrc=6&t=p&z=15&lci=bike

What are your general thoughts? I am thinking 6 ST NE s a more viable, safe and pragmatic option that can be implemented sooner for a lot less money. The proposal also received an endorsement letter by the Bridgeland Riverside Community Association. Bridgeland population growth from 2005 to 2008 was 16%, and with future projects like NEXT and McPherson Place, which will add 100's more units to the area there is a need to look at how to move people without further adding to congested primary transportation routes.

I have to commend you for the tremendous amount of work you put into this. I agree with you- putting the cycling infrastructure on Edmonton Trail is not optimal. 6th street serves a much better purpose. IMO, cycling lanes should be put on through streets, but not on major traffic streets.
Great work!

[fusili]

Here is the proposal that I submitted, essentially the bike lane would jot over to 5 St NE for the hill and then back to 6 St NE:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/63629927?access_key=key-1frqofvhsq3n3x0d2xu0

Google Maps also has the current cycling network:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=51.056232,-114.036412&spn=0.021634,0.066047&vpsrc=6&t=p&z=15&lci=bike

What are your general thoughts? I am thinking 6 ST NE s a more viable, safe and pragmatic option that can be implemented sooner for a lot less money. The proposal also received an endorsement letter by the Bridgeland Riverside Community Association. Bridgeland population growth from 2005 to 2008 was 16%, and with future projects like NEXT and McPherson Place, which will add 100's more units to the area there is a need to look at how to move people without further adding to congested primary transportation routes.

Just one comment- why not have a continuous N/S route on 6th street from McDougall all the way up to 16th avenue- or maybe 12th avenue instead? Commuter routes need to be direct- so this may help. You can get over the escarpment with a new bike path.


Also, your graph on active modes vs. population is awesome!

[Radley77]

From a purely safety perspective, if we have less busy nearby roads that run in parallel, bike routes should ALWAYS be on them (all things being equal of course). I don't understand the push to have bicycles on very busy roads unless there's no other choice or the alternative is a huge pain in the ass for cyclists.

Beyond that, I don't think I'll *ever* agree with most traffic "calming" measures, especially speed humps. I've seen some pretty dangerous behaviour come about as a result of them, and they're almost always put in at the request of a select few vocal residents who can't handle the fact that they live in busy areas.

Right now essentially block after block of traffic stop signs are serving as traffic calming measures. Roundabouts and speedbumps can be designed not to slow traffic, but to calm acceleration and deceleration patterns. Also, there is lots of variance in speed deflection in terms of what a traffic calming element is. It can be something that can range from jarring at 10 kmphr, or 40 kmphr depending on the size and width of the speed bump. I wouldn't support speed bumps that are a nuisance to drivers driving at the speed limit and have been clear to City of Calgary that would require some engineering work to determine what that is.

[Radley77]

Just one comment- why not have a continuous N/S route on 6th street from McDougall all the way up to 16th avenue- or maybe 12th avenue instead? Commuter routes need to be direct- so this may help. You can get over the escarpment with a new bike path.


Also, your graph on active modes vs. population is awesome!

I totally agree about 6th street from McDougall up to 16th Ave. Much of this has already been designated as a bike route and this between 6th and McDougall is a missing link. At this point, I'm not sure what modifications would be needed to the cycling route on 6 St NE north of 8 Ave NE. I also agree that commuter routes need to be direct.

Thanks for the feedback. I may end up using some of the comments from this website to supplement feedback for this proposal to the City of Calgary. Hope this is okay!

[Innersoul1]

Today I met with the City of Calgary to propose a cycling strategy for Bridgeland area (there currently is no north/south or east/west routes), and they mentioned that the plan is to put in a cycling lane on Edmonton Trail. This is a street with 22,000 vehichles on an average day. The cycling strategy I had proposed was to create a cycling friendly street on 6 St NE instead which is mostly a calm residential street (with potential for roundabouts and speed bumps).

I think that the Edmonton Trail option may cause congestion for cars, and negate the possibility of offpeak parking for the retail businesses in the neighbourhood that had been piloted this year, plus be much more expensive to implement a segregated route versus the option I had proposed.

Which one do you think is a better option and best use of road network?

I really like the 6th St. Option. I think that it makes a lot of sense and would receive a better reception from the general public.

Having lived in Victoria, they are pretty bike crazy there. Most of the major roads have bike lanes that are widely used. However of the 3 main routes from where I lived (all with bike lanes) to the University the one that was very well utilized was the route that went through a calm residential area with minimal traffic. I asked a few people why this was the preferred route and the concensus seemed to be that there was less influence from traffic. All of the bike lanes get blocked by busses and turning traffic so you have to be much more aware even if you are a beginner cyclist.

Anyway. I like the 6th St. option rather than Edmonton trail

[DizzyEdge]

I don't see the point of Edmonton Trail at all, in fact I would say that putting cycle routes on: 1) high streets with onstreet parking 2) throughfares
should be the last choice in every situation and only used if there is absolutely no other route available.

[freeweed]

Right now essentially block after block of traffic stop signs are serving as traffic calming measures. Roundabouts and speedbumps can be designed not to slow traffic, but to calm acceleration and deceleration patterns. Also, there is lots of variance in speed deflection in terms of what a traffic calming element is. It can be something that can range from jarring at 10 kmphr, or 40 kmphr depending on the size and width of the speed bump. I wouldn't support speed bumps that are a nuisance to drivers driving at the speed limit and have been clear to City of Calgary that would require some engineering work to determine what that is.

If someone ever demonstrates to me a traffic calming speed hump that keeps traffic at the actual speed limit, I'd probably change my tune. So far all I've seen in countless cities are speed bumps that force you to slow down to 20-30 or slower. Which of course is the intention of the locals - make it so inconvenient that no one wants to drive down the street, effectively closing it off.

I like the idea of roundabouts because they actually make traffic flow better, PLUS you get cars driving slower overall. There's no start/stop required and people won't bother flooring it. Vancouver has a huge section in/near the downtown that works beautifully with this.

[Radley77]

If someone ever demonstrates to me a traffic calming speed hump that keeps traffic at the actual speed limit, I'd probably change my tune. So far all I've seen in countless cities are speed bumps that force you to slow down to 20-30 or slower. Which of course is the intention of the locals - make it so inconvenient that no one wants to drive down the street, effectively closing it off.

I like the idea of roundabouts because they actually make traffic flow better, PLUS you get cars driving slower overall. There's no start/stop required and people won't bother flooring it. Vancouver has a huge section in/near the downtown that works beautifully with this.

There are some in Sunnyside, that have about the width of a car long (~ 12'). I've never had any issues in Sunnyside with accessiblity. Perhaps the better word to describe it is a speed hump, instead of a speed bump. Residential speed limits are 50 kmphr, and 30 kmphr in school zones. I don't have an issue as long as people are following the law. In some cases, I do think there are citizens who want to throttle back traffic volumes as opposed to controlling speed to the legal limits. Right now, there is a bit of a backlog as I understand it with traffic calming studies.

In some cases, "turning" stop signs or replacing with yield signsand a combination of speed humps or roundabouts may actually reduce travel times, reduce acceleration and deceleration and maintain safety. I don't believe that impeding vehicular flow is good for a community as it has the potential to destroy businesses in BRZ's and just be a nuisance in general.

[kw5150]

It is also bad for your health to be breathing the road dust (and road air) while cycling. The dust on major roads, especially that dusty, salty spring mix contains all kinds of bad shite.

Do brake pads still have asbestos in them?

[Mazrim]

It is also bad for your health to be breathing the road dust (and road air) while cycling. The dust on major roads, especially that dusty, salty spring mix contains all kinds of bad shite.

Do brake pads still have asbestos in them?

Wow. Better to just stay inside during the spring and never go near any roads right?

[kw5150]

Wow. Better to just stay inside during the spring and never go near any roads right?

Lol, I knew someone would perk up and say something stupid like that, so predictatable. Im just raising a concern, thats all. Road dust is not that good to breathe especially after it has been sitting there gathering settlement for 6 months.

Heavy metals
Tiny amounts of asbestos......
Tire compounds
Oil, trans fluid, antifreeze, window fluid, brake fluid, steering fluid, rust particles.

Just sayin.........

Bicycle routes are probably better on less busy streets.

[kw5150]

The ride to conquer cancer.........

or on a busy road....... "the ride to get cancer"

[Radley77]

Lol, I knew someone would perk up and say something stupid like that, so predictatable. Im just raising a concern, thats all. Road dust is not that good to breathe especially after it has been sitting there gathering settlement for 6 months.

Heavy metals
Tiny amounts of asbestos......
Tire compounds
Oil, trans fluid, antifreeze, window fluid, brake fluid, steering fluid, rust particles.

Just sayin.........

Bicycle routes are probably better on less busy streets.

I think a bigger factor than road dust, would be say families with their children in tow. Even if I was a tremendously confident and skilled cyclist, I still would not want to take a child in tow behind me on a route with 20,000 vehicles per day for safety reasons.

It's just like you wouldn't want to take a child on a black diamond route on the first day on the ski hill.

At a minimum, I think there needs to search for green runs first that are amenable to people with a wide range of body types, ages (seniors to kids) and skill levels. Can look at adding more challenging routes with higher grades, speeds and traffic volumes from there.

[DizzyEdge]

I don't see the point of Edmonton Trail at all, in fact I would say that putting cycle routes on: 1) high streets with onstreet parking 2) throughfares
should be the last choice in every situation and only used if there is absolutely no other route available.

It occurred to me that although I still agree with this, non-highstreet/non-throughfare bike routes would likely not have dedicated lanes, as you would be removing residential parking. That said, I think a quiet street without a dedicated lane is better than a busy street with one.

[You Need A Thneed]

December Airport Trail Tunnel Update:

Link (http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Documents/Road-projects/Airport-Tunnel-Update-December2011.pdf)

[Cage]

Tweeting location of Checkstop locations: good idea, doesn't really matter, or bad idea - what are your thoughts?

http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/police+disappointed+with+calgarians+tweeting+check+stop+locations/6442541466/story.html

My own thoughts, I am slightly for tweeting check stop locations for the following reasons:
- most of the tweets are concerning "high profile awareness Checkstop" locations that occur during afternoon rush hour. The rush hour checkstops are there to raise awareness of the holiday checkstop program. The yield and effectiveness at catching drunk drivers is secodnary to making a statement to the general public.
- I generally have a problem with Police setting up a checkstop location just to be seen and heard, if the location and time is known or suspected of catching drunk drivers, go for it. But inconveniencing travelling public just to make a point is very dissrespectful to others time and inconvenience.

Just as an example I went through Checkstop last year on the way into office Christmas party. It was located on EB Crowchild before Nosehill Drive exit and backed up traffic for 1/2 hour. This was a 5:30pm. There was no Checkstop outbound of Downtown after all the parties had finished up (when everyone actually had a drink of 3 in them). I question whether resources would be better spent putting the checkstop on 6th Avenue heading out of downtown after 10pm when people start to leave the party.

So what does tweeting the checkstop location accomplish? It allows for commuters to avoid these high profile get in your face Checkstop locations and get commuters at home faster and avoid inevitable clogged roads. Its not like commuters cannot guess for themselves that a Checkstop is ahead. For me, yesterday's evening commuter came to standstill on Glenmore and Richard RD SW. I rerouted onto 37th street and went to 17th Avenue. Got back onto Sarcee and the road was dead because the Checkstop was further south.

[Calgarian]

I think it's a good idea, especially with the new .05 law. People who are shitfaced and are causing accidents are too drunk / stupid to realize they shouldn't drive, therefore they are too stupid to check twitter before they drive. If you have had a few beers and know you are perfectly capable of operating a vehicle, then why not try and avoid a check stop and potential suspension of your license and huge fine?

Also, checkstops during rush hour are pretty strange, not very many people are hammered by 5PM.

[Radley77]

Tweeting location of Checkstop locations: good idea, doesn't really matter, or bad idea - what are your thoughts?

http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/police+disappointed+with+calgarians+tweeting+check+stop+locations/6442541466/story.html

My own thoughts, I am slightly for tweeting check stop locations for the following reasons:
- most of the tweets are concerning "high profile awareness Checkstop" locations that occur during afternoon rush hour. The rush hour checkstops are there to raise awareness of the holiday checkstop program. The yield and effectiveness at catching drunk drivers is secodnary to making a statement to the general public.
- I generally have a problem with Police setting up a checkstop location just to be seen and heard, if the location and time is known or suspected of catching drunk drivers, go for it. But inconveniencing travelling public just to make a point is very dissrespectful to others time and inconvenience.

Just as an example I went through Checkstop last year on the way into office Christmas party. It was located on EB Crowchild before Nosehill Drive exit and backed up traffic for 1/2 hour. This was a 5:30pm. There was no Checkstop outbound of Downtown after all the parties had finished up (when everyone actually had a drink of 3 in them). I question whether resources would be better spent putting the checkstop on 6th Avenue heading out of downtown after 10pm when people start to leave the party.

So what does tweeting the checkstop location accomplish? It allows for commuters to avoid these high profile get in your face Checkstop locations and get commuters at home faster and avoid inevitable clogged roads. Its not like commuters cannot guess for themselves that a Checkstop is ahead. For me, yesterday's evening commuter came to standstill on Glenmore and Richard RD SW. I rerouted onto 37th street and went to 17th Avenue. Got back onto Sarcee and the road was dead because the Checkstop was further south.

I installed a blood alcohol content calculator on my iPod and iPhone this weekend. I think I just had to enter my height, weight, sex, age, number of drinks and time elapsed between drinks and it spits out an approximate BAC level. It might not be 100% accurate, but it can at least help you gauge whether or not you are likely to be within the legal limit.

With Calgary Police on twitter already who is to say that they or someone else isn't tweeting fake checkstop locations or that the information is untimely and the checkstop has moved?

I don't think it's a big deal tweeting checkstop locations. There was a woman who was killed earlier this year in a hit and run from someone who was driving a Jeep and was kicked out of the Saddledome for being intoxicated. Hopefully, people plan ahead or use tech to help ensure that they are not impaired in the first place instead of trying to find ways to avoid detection of being impaired.

Anyways, I'm for tweeting checkstop locations, and I think downloading an app to estimate BAC levels is also a good tool to help ensure you are within the legal limit.

[You Need A Thneed]

There was a checkstop on HWY 1a on the way to Cochrane at 3:30 this afternoon.

As far as tweeting about checkstop locations, I don't know why anyone would want a drunk driver to remain on the road. Why would anyone want to help someone who is drunk and driving to avoid getting caught?

Tweeting about a current checkstop location should carry a fine, IMO.

[fusili]

There was a checkstop on HWY 1a on the way to Cochrane at 3:30 this afternoon.

As far as tweeting about checkstop locations, I don't know why anyone would want a drunk driver to remain on the road. Why would anyone want to help someone who is drunk and driving to avoid getting caught?

Tweeting about a current checkstop location should carry a fine, IMO.

Agreed. Tweeting it just alerts people who might be intoxicated enough not to drive to avoid the checkstop. Yay- drunk people on the road!

[DizzyEdge]

I installed a blood alcohol content calculator on my iPod and iPhone this weekend. I think I just had to enter my height, weight, sex, age, number of drinks and time elapsed between drinks and it spits out an approximate BAC level. It might not be 100% accurate, but it can at least help you gauge whether or not you are likely to be within the legal limit.

With Calgary Police on twitter already who is to say that they or someone else isn't tweeting fake checkstop locations or that the information is untimely and the checkstop has moved?

I don't think it's a big deal tweeting checkstop locations. There was a woman who was killed earlier this year in a hit and run from someone who was driving a Jeep and was kicked out of the Saddledome for being intoxicated. Hopefully, people plan ahead or use tech to help ensure that they are not impaired in the first place instead of trying to find ways to avoid detection of being impaired.

Anyways, I'm for tweeting checkstop locations, and I think downloading an app to estimate BAC levels is also a good tool to help ensure you are within the legal limit.

What BAC are you using as your acceptable upper limit when using this app, know that it's not necessarily completely accurate?

[freeweed]

If you have had a few beers and know you are perfectly capable of operating a vehicle

This is a situation where we definitely have to agree to disagree.

The Herald (I think?) had a recent story on this. They took a tiny little woman reporter (like 110lbs or so) and had her drink half a bottle of wine over dinner. She didn't even blow over .05 (police tested). But she definitely felt the effects of the alcohol and knew her judgement would be impaired, no matter how slightly. They also compared to a fairly big (220lbs or so) guy, he managed to drink a fair bit. I think he had to chug 2 beers in a row at the end, on top of the beer he had during dinner, just to go over .05.

If you're over .05, you've had a fair bit of booze for your body and you're impaired. Whether you personally realize it or not (this is kinda of the point of being impaired, you don't actually have good judgement of these things when you're drinking).

That being said, in 8 years in Calgary I've seen exactly 2 checkstops. I think there's far too little enforcement in this city. After Stampede and after Flames/Stamps games there should pretty much always be a checkstop outside, and I've only seen that once. And I drive far more in this city than most people.

[Bigtime]

That being said, in 8 years in Calgary I've seen exactly 2 checkstops. I think there's far too little enforcement in this city. After Stampede and after Flames/Stamps games there should pretty much always be a checkstop outside, and I've only seen that once. And I drive far more in this city than most people.

In 30 years here I've only hit a Checkstop twice.

[Radley77]

What BAC are you using as your acceptable upper limit when using this app, know that it's not necessarily completely accurate?

I think there may be several available, so you could check several sources and then pick the lowest one. I've only been at a handful of checkstops ever and never had to do a breathalyzer. I plan ahead if I'm drinking more than two beers, so have been nowhere near the limit since I started checking the app (~.02ish).

[fusili]

In 30 years here I've only hit a Checkstop twice.

I hit a checkstop twice as well. Always waved through. Maybe it was just obvious I was the DD. I have also been "pulled over" a few times because I am driving drunk friends home who are throwing up on the side of the road.

If I am driving, my limit is usually 1 drink. Maybe 2 if I am there for several hours.

[Calgarian]

This is a situation where we definitely have to agree to disagree.

The Herald (I think?) had a recent story on this. They took a tiny little woman reporter (like 110lbs or so) and had her drink half a bottle of wine over dinner. She didn't even blow over .05 (police tested). But she definitely felt the effects of the alcohol and knew her judgement would be impaired, no matter how slightly. They also compared to a fairly big (220lbs or so) guy, he managed to drink a fair bit. I think he had to chug 2 beers in a row at the end, on top of the beer he had during dinner, just to go over .05.

If you're over .05, you've had a fair bit of booze for your body and you're impaired. Whether you personally realize it or not (this is kinda of the point of being impaired, you don't actually have good judgement of these things when you're drinking).

That being said, in 8 years in Calgary I've seen exactly 2 checkstops. I think there's far too little enforcement in this city. After Stampede and after Flames/Stamps games there should pretty much always be a checkstop outside, and I've only seen that once. And I drive far more in this city than most people.

I'm 170lbs soaking wet, but have a fairly high tolerance for beer, so I usually need 3 or 4 pints at the bar to even get a buzz (i'm generally eating food as well). But when I look at a BAC calculator online, most say 2 pints in an hour will make me blow over .05. .08 I agree with, but .05 is complete bullshit.

All that being said, I know my limits so I can tell when I should drive or when I need to call a cab (which is basically impossible these days I might add).

As for checkstops, I've seen 3 in the 12 years I've been driving in this city.

[MichaelS]

If you're over .05, you've had a fair bit of booze for your body and you're impaired. Whether you personally realize it or not (this is kinda of the point of being impaired, you don't actually have good judgement of these things when you're drinking).


I am going to have to disagree with the bolded part. You aren't impaired. At least not to the point where it is illegal to operate a vehicle. You have to be over .08 for that.

[Cage]

That being said, in 8 years in Calgary I've seen exactly 2 check stops. I think there's far too little enforcement in this city.

The quote above really aggravates me. The problem with the quote and underlying attitude is that in order to solve the situation police resources need to be redirected to inefficient activities and have a now intended consequence to delay or other inconvenience law abiding citizens. Basically, set up check stops in places that make them more visible to people who have not had alcohol and do not participate in the underlying activities (social drinking), an example being afternoon rush hour in the suburbs.

What CPS does need is more targeted check stop enforcement to catch impaired drivers. This quote excites me and I am in whole hearted agreement:
After Stampede and after Flames/Stamps games there should pretty much always be a check stop outside, and I've only seen that once.

How to fix the driver aggravation issue at the top of this post? My proposal to CPS is as follows:
- Post the exact date, time and location of all check stops the day after.
- Include in the PR the number of cars stopped, number of individuals charged with impaired driving, number of 24 hour roadside suspensions.

As a driver trying to get home in the afternoon, if I am delayed over 1/2 hours due to check stop I am angry at CPS. However if CPS tells me the net day that they charged 10 people with impaired driving at the exact time I went through the check stop; my impression of CPS is completely altered and they are doing a great job keeping the peace and keeping me safe.

[kw5150]

Is it just me or is anyone else suddenly craving a pint? lol.

Joking aside, I do not drink and drive after I have had more than 2 drinks. I rarely need to drive anywhere anyway, unless one of my suburbanite friends throws a party, then I find a way to carpool with a designated driver.

I dont like wasting money on cabs so I usually do whatever it takes to find an alternate way, walking, train etc...

Im glad that they are cracking down on drunk drivers, but I hope people arent getting busted for a glass of wine with a meal.

[freeweed]

I am going to have to disagree with the bolded part. You aren't impaired. At least not to the point where it is illegal to operate a vehicle. You have to be over .08 for that.

Unless the law changes the legal limit to .05. Which is essentially what's being discussed here.

We can Philadelphia lawyer this to death, but if there are negative legal consequences to driving over .05, then in practice it's illegal to drive over .05.

[Bigtime]

In the three years we lived in arriVa I only once saw a Checkstop after a Saddldome event, they were set up on 11th avenue between 3rd and 2nd St.

[freeweed]

Is it just me or is anyone else suddenly craving a pint? lol.

I'm *always* craving a pint. Impulse control is what separates man from beast. :D

Joking aside, I do not drink and drive after I have had more than 2 drinks. I rarely need to drive anywhere anyway, unless one of my suburbanite friends throws a party, then I find a way to carpool with a designated driver.

I just don't drink and drive, period. I think a few times I've broken this rule and driven an hour or 2 after having a single beer. I just don't find it all that difficult to plan my life - and again, I'm *always* craving a pint. Hell, I live out in the suburbs so you'd think I just HAVE to drink and drive all the time, according to some of the "logic" I see thrown around in these sorts of discussions.

I dont like wasting money on cabs so I usually do whatever it takes to find an alternate way, walking, train etc...

Yup. Or I acknowledge the fact that if I can go out and spend enough money on alcohol in public to be impaired, I can afford cab fare. Saving 20 bucks isn't worth risking someone ELSE'S life.

Im glad that they are cracking down on drunk drivers, but I hope people arent getting busted for a glass of wine with a meal.

They aren't. As I mentioned, the tiniest woman imaginable managed to drink half a bottle of wine (that's a lot more than a glass, by the way) with her meal and still didn't blow high enough to "get busted". And shockingly, I heard a rumour the other day that it's actually possible to enjoy a meal sans alcohol.

But I'm extremely biased. I've actually designed and participated in controlled studies of impairedness. It's mindboggling (and a little sad) to see people presented with direct evidence that their reflexes and judgement are obviously impaired, and listen to them tell me straight to my face that they "have a high tolerance". It's a lot like how most drivers thinks they're a better-than-average driver, or how most people think they're smarter than average. Logical impossibilities, but the human brain can play all sorts of tricks to make us feel better.

[Ramsayfarian]

I don't tweet checkstop locations because I don't want to spill my drink. Kidding aside, the point .05 rule is joke and will have no effect on those who currently get completely shit faced and drive. Those types of people will drive regardless of the laws.

The fact that there's zero check stops during Stampede shows exactly how serious the CPS are about drinking and driving.

[Calgarian]

the point .05 rule is joke and will have no effect on those who currently get completely shit faced and drive. Those types of people will drive regardless of the laws.



My sentiments exactly!

[bookermorgan]

Could you imagine if the train ran 24hrs, year round? Or maybe leaving downtown after closing time...

[freeweed]

the point .05 rule is joke and will have no effect on those who currently get completely shit faced and drive. Those types of people will drive regardless of the laws.

The .05 rule isn't about those types. We already have a ton of laws in place to deal with them - perhaps not enough, but that's a different discussion really.

The fact that there's zero check stops during Stampede shows exactly how serious the CPS are about drinking and driving.

This is definitely true.

[Ferreth]

I got tested in a Checkstop once (my 3rd in 20 years of driving). I'd had 3 drinks over a 4 hour evening with a meal - finished my last beer 1/2 hour before leaving. I was feeling the booze a bit so was a little worried I might blow over the limit. I blew 0.03. Based on that, for myself, if I ever blew over 0.05, I would feel I should definitely not be driving.

The problem the police have is they can not give a "one rule fits all" for how much you can drink and still be safe to drive. I knew a guy in university who could get drunk on de-alcoholized (0.5%) beer. His liver didn't metabolize alcohol very well, so one bottle of regular beer for him was like a six pack for the regular person. Come to think of it, I know of a second older person with the same type of problem, so it might not be that uncommon.

We obsess about drunk driving too much now. The media needs to stop listening to MADD and start preaching common sense again (not going to happen). At least there is some acknowledgment now that driving tired / distracted / angry can have as much detrimental effect to your driving safety as driving at 0.05 blood alcohol level. No matter what, the law is not going to stop people fro driving when they are not "optimal" to drive. The best we can do is to educate people to think about it before they turn the key.

[Jimby]

MADD should have lost their charity tax status for being a fund raising mill - their revenues went to pay for fundraising expenses (ie: rooms full of telephone solicitors).

[Blader]

MADD should have lost their charity tax status for being a fund raising mill - their revenues went to pay for fundraising expenses (ie: rooms full of telephone solicitors).

In agreement - they only receive pennies - so sad!!

[freeweed]

The problem the police have is they can not give a "one rule fits all" for how much you can drink and still be safe to drive. I knew a guy in university who could get drunk on de-alcoholized (0.5%) beer. His liver didn't metabolize alcohol very well, so one bottle of regular beer for him was like a six pack for the regular person. Come to think of it, I know of a second older person with the same type of problem, so it might not be that uncommon.

This is definitely true, but it applies to literally all safety regulations. I can drive perfectly safe in my car at far higher than the speed limit, and others can barely control their vehicles at far under it - yet we have to come up with some sort of "reasonable" value that covers most of us off. .08 is definitely dangerous, and .05 is pretty dangerous for the average person - so we use it as a benchmark. It covers off most people and if a few edge cases "suffer", well that's the price we pay to live in a society. I have to drive slower than necessary, and I somehow manage to survive.

The other thing with a fairly low BAC rule is that it (in theory) helps to prevent mildly intoxicated people from having to use their judgement - or lack thereof. If the level is "too high", an awful lot of people will drink enough that their judgement about how much they've drank and how much it's affected them is SERIOUSLY impaired, generally leading to more drinking. Because that 3rd (or 4th or 5th or 6th) drink doesn't *really* make you feel that much drunker, so if you're safe with 3, why not have 4? I've known plenty of people personally who'd never think about driving drunk, but then went on to do it anyway because by the time they had to make the decision, they were long since drunk. The idea is to set a value so low that everyone knows "a drink or 2 may be fine, but THAT'S IT". At least that's the theory.

We can't just say "hey, I know a guy who gets drunk off 1/10th of a beer, and the law lets him drive, so the law is pointless". We've been down that route, and people regularly drove who could barely keep their eyes open. There has to be some sort of socially-accepted standard, and .05-.08 is currently it. And after all, is it REALLY that much of an issue to just not mix alcohol with driving? I shudder to think of people raising children who can't stay sober long enough to operate a motor vehicle safely.

Oh, and MADD is a bunch of prohibitionist lunatics. I hope people don't still listen to them. Their real name should just be MAD, because their agenda is pretty transparently removing all alcohol from our society.

[Mazrim]

In my first three years in Calgary, I drove through 6-8 checkstops, three of them on Shaganappi Trail going up along Nose Hill Park. In the three years since (I moved from the NW to the SW), I've only seen 1, and it was from afar. Guess you guys aren't out late at night or something :cool:

[freeweed]

Guess you guys aren't out late at night or something :cool:

Most drunk drivers aren't either, contrary to popular belief. ;) And quite frankly for those that are, they're a hell of a lot lower risk at 2:30am when the roads are practically deserted in this city. Hence the calls from some of us to have checkstops after sporting events, concerts, and Stampede. None of which are exactly "late night" activities.

Although all of my ranting about drinking and driving aside, I don't know that it's a huge problem in Calgary. When I see bad extremely driving on the roads here, it's more commonly due to visible cellphone use (even with the new law - handsfree use is still pretty easy to spot and proven over and over again to be just as dangerous as handheld).

[AB Born]

About two years ago I helped get a drunk driver off Deerfoot. I was going NB on Deerfoot and around 130 Ave there was a vehicle in the left lane doing about 40... This was 9:30PM and dry roads. He was swerving in and out of the left lane... I threw on my 4 ways and followed and called 911. By the time he got to the Anderson exit (but still on NB Deerfoot) he was grinding his car against the jersey barrier. At that point I wasn't sure if he was drunk or having a medical problem. Right before the exit for Deerfoot Meadows he went from grinding his car against the jersey barrier on the left shoulder... to cutting across all lanes of traffic to the far right... and off the road he went, and crashed into the cement base of one of the overhead signs. Keep in mind he was going about 40 or 30 K at this point.

911 then stepped it up, and when the police arrived about 5 mins after he crashed, they later mentioned to me that they arrested this guy multiple times for DUI in the past.

[fusili]

I got hit by a drunk driver last year. I was driving eastbound on 10th avenue just before the Bow Trail underpass. The lady opposite started making a left turn (I had the right of way of course as I was going straight through the intersection) and although I slammed on the brakes, I slid right into her front fender. I was driving a Jeep TJ at the time, whose frame and bumper are built to withstand being rammed by tank, so I didn't take any damage. But after we cleared the intersection and I called to report the accident to the police, my gf and I noticed the lady was not really walking right and talking kind of funny. Then we saw her stumble to get back in her car. I called the police again, reported her as a drunk driver and had them send a patrol car over. By this time, she started to pull away, so I walked up to her and told her to pull back over and wait for a bit (I was still on the phone with the police operator at this point). She just gunned it and sped away. I gave the cops her driver's license and colour and model of her car and ..... nothing. Because we couldn't prove she was intoxicated the police had nothing to go on. Pissed me right off.

[MichaelS]

AB Born, I am amazed and disappointed it took the police so long to respond to your initial call. I would have thought a call about a drunk driver on the road would illicit a quicker reaction than that.

[Ferreth]

[...]
We can't just say "hey, I know a guy who gets drunk off 1/10th of a beer, and the law lets him drive, so the law is pointless". We've been down that route, and people regularly drove who could barely keep their eyes open. There has to be some sort of socially-accepted standard, and .05-.08 is currently it. And after all, is it REALLY that much of an issue to just not mix alcohol with driving? I shudder to think of people raising children who can't stay sober long enough to operate a motor vehicle safely.
[...]

I agree with what you've said. At the end of the day, I have no problem with the current thresholds; it is a compromise at the end of the day. What bugs me is the message of "don't drink and drive", It should be "don't drive drunk" (or tired or angry). Our current Police Chief, asked by CBC if it's okay to drive after a single beer and a meal, says, nope, not acceptable. That kind of BS pisses me off - I know damn well me and 98% of the drivers out there would be just fine.

[freeweed]

What bugs me is the message of "don't drink and drive", It should be "don't drive drunk" (or tired or angry).

It should be, but we tried that and it failed miserably. The problem is far too many people have just about zero capability of judging their own abilities. So we ended up in a situation where the average Joe was regularly driving over .08. Growing up I was in some very scary situations until I made my own personal policy of never getting into a vehicle driven by someone who'd been drinking. And yup, it was a pain in the ass at times (my friends tend to have very poor planning skills).

It just seems a lot simpler and easier to me - don't take a chance. Don't sit around calculating the exact amount of booze you can ingest without "blowing over". Don't worry about "hmm, am I actually sober enough to drive or not?". Much as I'd personally like to (:D), I don't see the need to be consuming alcohol on a 7x24 basis, nor do I see the need to be always driving everywhere. Surely there's a way to not mix the 2 activities.

What annoys me about this particular issue is that I come off almost like an abstinence advocate at times, which I'm obviously not if you've ever been around me socially. :haha:

[Mazrim]

As a side note to all this, saw a checkstop on 17th Avenue near Deerfoot Trail last night! Funny how we've been talking about this here, and then I finally see one for the first time in a long time.

[Ferreth]

As a side note to all this, saw a checkstop on 17th Avenue near Deerfoot Trail last night! Funny how we've been talking about this here, and then I finally see one for the first time in a long time.

I saw that too. At least they were doing it counter to the rush-hour flow of traffic so it wasn't backing up so bad. Deerfoot, OTOH, was still crawling, at 6:30pm! (Cop car hit by a drunk around 16th Ave I understand - that's not the way to get the drunks off the road!)

[Calgarian]

It should be, but we tried that and it failed miserably. The problem is far too many people have just about zero capability of judging their own abilities. So we ended up in a situation where the average Joe was regularly driving over .08. Growing up I was in some very scary situations until I made my own personal policy of never getting into a vehicle driven by someone who'd been drinking. And yup, it was a pain in the ass at times (my friends tend to have very poor planning skills).

It just seems a lot simpler and easier to me - don't take a chance. Don't sit around calculating the exact amount of booze you can ingest without "blowing over". Don't worry about "hmm, am I actually sober enough to drive or not?". Much as I'd personally like to (:D), I don't see the need to be consuming alcohol on a 7x24 basis, nor do I see the need to be always driving everywhere. Surely there's a way to not mix the 2 activities.

What annoys me about this particular issue is that I come off almost like an abstinence advocate at times, which I'm obviously not if you've ever been around me socially. :haha:

PLanning your night out is the way to go, choose a DD or call a cab. Though wih the cab thing, I find it's pretty much impossible to get a cab in this city on the weekend. If you are downtown you can usually flag one down or find one at a bar or hotel, but in the burbs, you wait on hold for 45 minutes before giving up. If the city and province want to keep people from driving after having a few drinks, they have to address this, especially around this time of year.

Has anyone used that service where they drive you home in your own car? tonight might be a good time to try it out, going to a party in Dover Ridge and am not keen on leaving the car there overnight. lol

[freeweed]

PLanning your night out is the way to go, choose a DD or call a cab. Though wih the cab thing, I find it's pretty much impossible to get a cab in this city on the weekend. If you are downtown you can usually flag one down or find one at a bar or hotel, but in the burbs, you wait on hold for 45 minutes before giving up. If the city and province want to keep people from driving after having a few drinks, they have to address this, especially around this time of year.

Good point about cabs. I just take transit in from the burbs and flag cabs down on the way home. Hopefully as transit continues to improve this will become less of an issue in the future.

But still, at the end of the day - even if cabs didn't exist, that's zero excuse for drinking and driving. Maybe (shock! gasp! horror!) it's possible to go out and enjoy yourself without drinking. I think this is the fundamental problem in a city like Calgary (other cities too, but it's very pronounced here) - people here act like a night out without drinking is denying them some sort of basic human right or something.

[Ramsayfarian]

I drove through a Checkstop this afternoon on Ogden Road just north of 50th Ave.
A few years ago I hauled a drunk out of his truck right in front of the Kam Han.

His girlfriend tried to jump out of the truck and got hung up in her seatbelt. He dragged er for about 20 ft until he stopped right in front of me. I opened her door and she fell. He tried to fend me off and I ended up snapping his key off in the ignition and dragged him out of the cab. We had a bit of a tussle but he was so drunk it was comical.

He ended up staggering away on foot and I followed him up to the top of Scotsman Hill. In an effort to evade arrest he decided to bypass the stairs and go straight down the embankment. He got lost in the scrub and trapped by the Stampede's maintenance yard fence. He'd try to find one end of it then give up and turn around, go 100 ft, give up and turn around. He was like a polar bear at the zoo.
I was able to hear him but not see him as it was getting dark by then and the bush is pretty thick. When he'd stop to catch his breath, I'd start singing the theme to Cops. It took the cops about 30 minutes to find us and another 30 to haul him out of the bush.
He was so cold by the end, they had to take him to the hospital for observation.

I had to testify at his trial. I got to court a bit early and had to wait for the court room to open. I wasn't the only one who was early. I ended up shooting the shit with the defendant for a good 10 minutes. He had no clue who I was. The cops and prosecutor thought it was hilarious. He ended up pleading guilty.

[Jimby]

I drove through a Checkstop this afternoon on Ogden Road just north of 50th Ave.
A few years ago I hauled a drunk out of his truck right in front of the Kam Han.

His girlfriend tried to jump out of the truck and got hung up in her seatbelt. He dragged er for about 20 ft until he stopped right in front of me. I opened her door and she fell. He tried to fend me off and I ended up snapping his key off in the ignition and dragged him out of the cab. We had a bit of a tussle but he was so drunk it was comical.

He ended up staggering away on foot and I followed him up to the top of Scotsman Hill. In an effort to evade arrest he decided to bypass the stairs and go straight down the embankment. He got lost in the scrub and trapped by the Stampede's maintenance yard fence. He'd try to find one end of it then give up and turn around, go 100 ft, give up and turn around. He was like a polar bear at the zoo.
I was able to hear him but not see him as it was getting dark by then and the bush is pretty thick. When he'd stop to catch his breath, I'd start singing the theme to Cops. It took the cops about 30 minutes to find us and another 30 to haul him out of the bush.
He was so cold by the end, they had to take him to the hospital for observation.

I had to testify at his trial. I got to court a bit early and had to wait for the court room to open. I wasn't the only one who was early. I ended up shooting the shit with the defendant for a good 10 minutes. He had no clue who I was. The cops and prosecutor thought it was hilarious. He ended up pleading guilty.

wow, I would have backed over him with his own truck *. great story, too bad it is true (I guess).

* I have been drunk and foolish behind the wheel in the past, and I'm glad I never hurt anyone, but I never fell down a bluff!

[freeweed]

I was able to hear him but not see him as it was getting dark by then and the bush is pretty thick. When he'd stop to catch his breath, I'd start singing the theme to Cops.

No matter how much I detest drunk drivers, at least they're good for a laugh when they don't hurt anyone. This part made me LOL for real. :haha: