Metro Vancouver Bike & Pedestrian Discussion

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by whatnext

As an aside, the video is a great rebuttal to the David Eby's of the world who shriek about CCTV. They may not stop crime, but they sure as hell help track down the guilty!

A bit off topic, but your comment reminded me about an article I read regarding how fears of government surveillance have changed. 20-30 years ago people were very concerned that cameras would enable authorities to keep tabs on citizens. But what's actually happened is almost the opposite - ubiquitous surveillance is enabling the citizens to keep tabs on the authorities. For example, the seemingly endless charges and complaints about police behaviour never had a leg to stand on before widespread video recordings became a reality.

It was a very interesting article, worth a read IMHO: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technolog...-total-openness/article1320397/?page=all

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Yes, I totally agree. I hope they nail the guy.

That's why you have to be so careful. I'm not defending the guy in any way, but it's easy for pedestrians to get hidden behind the windshield pillar of a driver making a left turn. I'm a driver AND I'm a pedestrian, and I know how easy it is while driving, especially on rainy nights like that one, to miss things unless you're very, very careful. So when I'm walking I never trust drivers to see me no matter what I'm wearing. Bright reflective clothing lowers your chances of getting hit, but it's not a magic deflector shield.

There's no way to know how many pedestrians in situations just like this have avoided severe injuries by the simple precaution of looking around. They're the fortunate ones, saved by their vigilance.

But at least at most of the accidents that do happen the driver stops to render assistance. By leaving the scene the driver has abandoned all claim to whatever understanding he might have been afforded for a lapse of attention that could happen to many of us. They guy's a scumbag, no doubt about it.

My wife, my baby with stroller, dog and I were crossing a crosswalk this week with the pedestrian walk signal going at night. We were waiting for the light to change just like the guy in the left turn lane. Walk signal comes on we go and he does too! He stopped thankfully but the car waiting to turn right or go through honked to alert the driver. We were just talking about how we should wear more reflective gear for our walks at night.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

Funny we should be getting the usual comments about what pedestrians should be wearing in response to a story about two people *wearing reflective clothing* getting hit.

If you watch the video, you can see that in this case reflective gear is fairly ineffective because when a car is turning left into an intersection, their lights won't be shining onto the pedestrians in the crosswalk until the car is practically on top of them. What's to reflect?

However we still expect people to be able to use crosswalks and cars to be able to turn left, so a solution needs to be found.

It appears that the preferred solution proposed by many drivers (make pedestrians more visible) is not as effective as anyone would like. Perhaps that means it is time for the solution proposed by many pedestrians (cars should slow the *?&! down) to be given a chance?

How about no left turns, no right turns during walk signals? Most of the time they are push button activated so there is someone there for sure!

[DKaz]

Someone wrote that it should be like the UK where pedestrians have their dedicated time to cross in any direction, no cars.

I must add that this person was nabbed because a driver who stopped to help the victims noticed a white SUV up the street who was stopped, outside of his car, and observing the scene. He noted the license plate of the vehicle. When the video aired Wednesday night, he was able to put two and two together and notified police right away.

Who knows, maybe this driver was drunk off his ass but instead of being charged for two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm, he's now going to be charged with two counts of negligent driving causing bodily harm and failure to remain on the scene. Yes, this was negligence and I'll tell you why.

He was driving a BMW X1, and one feature of the X1 are ADAPTIVE HEADLIGHTS.

A winding road at night. Adaptive Headlights optimally illuminate every bend in the road – thanks to swivelling headlights – as soon as the driver turns the wheel. The turning light is automatically activated either at a standstill when the indicator is used or, on the move, when heavy steering is applied. Adaptive Headlights help to keep the essentials in view at all times.

NEGLIGENCE.

[easy as pie]

i'm on a one man campaign to ban turns on red lights here in san francisco. it's the rule in montreal and nyc and it makes intersections way way safer for pedestrians. as for reflective clothing, wtf? reflective clothing?? 'hey, i'm going to wander to the shops, i'd better put on some reflective clothing so some automobilist doesn't plow into me.' like wtf. 'oh well, it makes sense that the driver turned into the crosswalk and hit the pedestrians, none of them were wearing reflective clothing. none of them were wearing helmets either, they were just asking for it.'

[memememe76]

Are you talking about posts in this thread? Because nobody here is blaming the pedestrians. We're just saying that you should learn from this regrettable incident and not let it happen to you.

I was talking about the comments from the News1130 website, not anyone here.

How about no left turns, no right turns during walk signals? Most of the time they are push button activated so there is someone there for sure!

When I am Downtown, it seems there is almost always at least one pedestrian who crosses the street when the light is for drivers needing to turn right. Always. The turn right light is just so uncommon in the Lower Mainland.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

i'm on a one man campaign to ban turns on red lights here in san francisco. it's the rule in montreal and nyc...

I'm with you on this one. Too many drivers seem to think the have the ROW when they right turn. Actually, outside of NA,the norm is no left or right turns on red. Red means stop.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by deasine

I'm with you on this one. Too many drivers seem to think the have the ROW when they right turn. Actually, outside of NA,the norm is no left or right turns on red. Red means stop.

The problem with that is there are large swaths of suburbia where "no right on red" would be pointless as there are virtually no pedestrians.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The problem with that is there are large swaths of suburbia where "no right on red" would be pointless as there are virtually no pedestrians.

Then this can be a rule in Vancouver then. And it doesn't have to involve a change in the Motor Vehicle Act: cities can easily post the "No Right Turn on Red" signs.


(Popular Driving School)

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by deasine

I'm with you on this one. Too many drivers seem to think the have the ROW when they right turn. Actually, outside of NA,the norm is no left or right turns on red. Red means stop.

It isn't that turning right on a red is unsafe. It is that a lot of drivers are not paying attention to what is going on around them on a right turn. They spend all their time looking left for other vehicles. When they should be spending just as much time looking to their right and behind them as well.

Yet at the same time pedestrians and cyclists should never assume that the driver as seen them and should approach the intersection with the idea that the driver has not seen them.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by djh

That's such a useless comment. No facts, nothing to back up the statement. It's just idle gossip.

I believe he was referring to the video footage of the two year old who was run over in China and then backed up and left for dead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15398332

It caused outrage in China too.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by cabotp

It isn't that turning right on a red is unsafe. It is that a lot of drivers are not paying attention to what is going on around them on a right turn. They spend all their time looking left for other vehicles. When they should be spending just as much time looking to their right and behind them as well.

Yet at the same time pedestrians and cyclists should never assume that the driver as seen them and should approach the intersection with the idea that the driver has not seen them.

Well said...

Wonder if having a sensor on the side of a car that will alert you if anything bigger then a beach ball is moving parallel to you at a fast enough pace within two or so meters of your lane... when you turn on your blinker...could help. This would not be expensive technology and should be completely reliable and easy to maintain imo.

It can scan a few meters ahead to a few meters behind you and would be nothing but a simple cheap laser or radar...just a thought.

While at it have a simple radar system that scans a 360 area around you and displays the results on a little screen on your dash board, like almost one of those submarine radars...just less hi tech. If a person would be walking across the street when your turning left or right they should show up pretty clearly on the screen and give you a pretty good idea that someone or some object is on the roadway and you can act accordingly. (it would be like another mirror kind of except that you would see it in your peripheral vision as you drive).

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by cabotp

It isn't that turning right on a red is unsafe. It is that a lot of drivers are not paying attention to what is going on around them on a right turn. They spend all their time looking left for other vehicles. When they should be spending just as much time looking to their right and behind them as well.

That sounds unsafe.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

That sounds unsafe.

Can you please elaborate on what you think is unsafe on what I said

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Well said...

Wonder if having a sensor on the side of a car that will alert you if anything bigger then a beach ball is moving parallel to you at a fast enough pace within two or so meters of your lane... when you turn on your blinker...could help. This would not be expensive technology and should be completely reliable and easy to maintain imo.

It can scan a few meters ahead to a few meters behind you and would be nothing but a simple cheap laser or radar...just a thought.

While at it have a simple radar system that scans a 360 area around you and displays the results on a little screen on your dash board, like almost one of those submarine radars...just less hi tech. If a person would be walking across the street when your turning left or right they should show up pretty clearly on the screen and give you a pretty good idea that someone or some object is on the roadway and you can act accordingly. (it would be like another mirror kind of except that you would see it in your peripheral vision as you drive).

The idea of using technology is nice. The problem I have is it can potentially give drivers a false sense of security. What if one day the scanner system malfunctions. If the driver is relying on it they may not be looking like they should and just proceed.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Can you please elaborate on what you think is unsafe on what I said

He's pointing out a contradiction in your statement. You started by saying that right turns are not unsafe. And right after that you listed a bunch of reason why they're unsafe...

You may think dumb drivers aren't a reason to call something unsafe, but I think you might find some opposition to that opinion. That's why cyclists like separated bike lanes - they make it harder for dumb drivers to hit them. Ergo, they're safer.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

He's pointing out a contradiction in your statement. You started by saying that right turns are not unsafe. And right after that you listed a bunch of reason why they're unsafe...

You may think dumb drivers aren't a reason to call something unsafe, but I think you might find some opposition to that opinion. That's why cyclists like separated bike lanes - they make it harder for dumb drivers to hit them. Ergo, they're safer.

I can see how it might seem like I said one thing and then say another. Although that wasn't my intention. Are right turns on red lights 100% safe no. Are they so unsafe that an accident will always happen of course not. That doesn't mean we need to ban right turns on a red light just because they are not 100% safe.

I guess all I'm saying is drivers, cyclists and pedestrians all need to be more aware of what is going on around them. Not being aware is what makes things less safe, but that doesn't mean they are 100% unsafe and should be banned.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cabotp

I guess all I'm saying is drivers, cyclists and pedestrians all need to be more aware of what is going on around them.

Absolutely. There's an old saying: it takes two to make an accident - one to screw up and the other to not see it coming.

[officedweller]

Of interest:
Bike racks on the San Jose LRT:


http://greg-vassilakos.com/sanjoselrt/sanjoselrt.htm


http://greg-vassilakos.com/sanjoselrt/sanjoselrt.htm

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by cabotp

The idea of using technology is nice. The problem I have is it can potentially give drivers a false sense of security. What if one day the scanner system malfunctions. If the driver is relying on it they may not be looking like they should and just proceed.

Your right but unless someone is using a stealth suit or a stealth car a radar is pretty simple with little that can go wrong as far as I know. But I was thinking of having it more as something to help you instead of something to rely on, not sure how to implement it though. Radar is pretty simple technology, it gets complicated if you want extreme accuracy but for this all you want to know where the objects are around you, not what the objects are and their exact shape and composition.

But I agree the concept needs allot more thought.

Personally I just want a smart windshield but we are not there yet...