30 for Sunnyside?

[ByeByeBaby]

Given that there are two whole bike accidents in Sunnyside in a mere 15 year timespan, the facts speak for themselves. Let's skip the middle step and just ban cars in Sunnyside. If the residents are truly concerned about the safety of their children, they would obviously be willing to adopt such a modest proposal. And if they are not, we have to ask why they value convenience so much over the lives of their children.

[Radley77]

Been starting to look at the pedestrian data. Haven't mapped Sunnyside yet, but found this really interesting. Top 3 locations for pedestrian accidents are:
17 Ave SW & 4 St SW (Beltline/Mission), and the other ones were 6455 McLeod Trail (Chinook Centre) and 3625 (Market Mall). There have been nearly 100 pedestrian accidents between those too malls, about a dozen major injuries, no fatalaties and scads of minor injuries.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by freeweed

What people seem to easily forget is this: speed limits aren't a new thing. Back when cars first came into widespread use, there WERE no speed limits. Chaos ensued, people were killed - and as a society, we organized and studied the problem. Traffic engineers, insurance risk managers, city planners - EVERYONE got involved to try to determine what is a "safe" speed for a given road or situation.

And by and large, 50 km/h was agreed upon as a reasonable compromise between safety and road efficiency. Children were taught how to deal with traffic at these speeds, and drivers were trained to obey them (and enforcement was put in place to ensure compliance to a reasonable degree).

This isn't a new problem by any stretch of the imagination. And it's worked perfectly fine for DECADES. 50 km/h (30mph in the US) is considered adequate for residential areas.

All we're seeing here (and with cases like Elbow Drive, Airdrie, and a hundred other examples) are neurotic busybodies who insist that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. Without even pointing to a legitimate problem. For those that compare this to school/playground zones - I point to you the fact that most cities have nothing anywhere close to Calgary's level of stupidity here. Children in most Canadian cities deal with 50km/h traffic around their playgrounds, and yet somehow kids in Winnipeg aren't being mowed down at a higher rate than in Calgary. Ask yourselves why that is the case, and perhaps you'll understand why a lot of us think this is a needless exercise.

Personally, I think a lot of people just have way too much time on their hands these days. And life is just so damned safe that they have to try to invent problems to solve.

Exactly! the current limits exist for a reason, and as long as people are paying attention to what they are doing, they work very well.

Just from following the news, people on their phone (or some other distraction) are the biggest cause of accidents. Also, people driving in (and commuting from) areas where there is very little pedestrian activity seem to have lots of issues as they aren't used to looking out for pedestrians. Lowering the speed limit in places might help, but won't address the root of the problem.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Radley77

Been starting to look at the pedestrian data. Haven't mapped Sunnyside yet, but found this really interesting. Top 3 locations for pedestrian accidents are:
17 Ave SW & 4 St SW (Beltline/Mission), and the other ones were 6455 McLeod Trail (Chinook Centre) and 3625 (Market Mall). There have been nearly 100 pedestrian accidents between those too malls, about a dozen major injuries, no fatalaties and scads of minor injuries.

Where do you find that data? I have seen the bicycle map one before but can't remember where its from

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Thanks for posting the map Radley, keep in mind this proposal EXCLUDES 10th street and Memorial.

I'm quite surprised to see that the only road I would be even slightly concerned about (2nd avenue) has only 1.5-2.5 biking incidents in one spot.

I am beginning to think this is a solution to a problem that just doesn't exist in the community.

Along 2nd Ave NW, the first instance found in the spreadsheet was 574th in terms of severity with 1 major incident, 1 minor incident and 1 no injury accident. There was maybe 1 or 2 other minor pedestrian incidents over a 15 year period along the rest of 2nd Avenue in Sunnyside (seems really safe).

[Bigtime]

I appreciate the digging you are doing on the statistics Radley77!

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Roads that would have these speedlimits would have almost zero traffic enforcement anyway. How fast you go down a residential street is pretty much an honor system. I find myself rarely going 50km/h on a true side street. The are too narrow and with poor visibility for people/animals running out. Most people do the same. The teenager I see ripping down my street at 70km/h every couple days? Well he obviously doesn't care about speed limits anyway, and he knows he'll never get caught, as putting a speed trap on said street would be ridiculous.

Now we move onto a huge problem with new neighborhoods.

The city is INCREASING the required width of residential streets... to make room for bikes.

I find narrow streets much safer. Everyone is driving at a crawl becaue you can barely fit two cars. Also much less land waste.

Bingo.

As a resident of one of these new communities I can attest to this. We have major roads (4 lanes both divided and undivided - think Boulevards etc.) and stick them with 50km/h speed limits. We line them with houses, schools, and playgrounds. Then we are surprised when traffic becomes 'a concern'. For the love of dog why plan a system like this. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or psychic to predice what the results will be.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by lubicon

As a resident of one of these new communities I can attest to this. We have major roads (4 lanes both divided and undivided - think Boulevards etc.) and stick them with 50km/h speed limits. We line them with houses, schools, and playgrounds. Then we are surprised when traffic becomes 'a concern'. For the love of dog why plan a system like this. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or psychic to predice what the results will be.

Well this is the thing. And a lot of people realize parts of it, but I think it's easy to forget the bigger picture.

The fact is, and this is backed up with decades of research, the vast majority of drivers will drive at a fairly "safe" speed - based on conditions. Narrow road, hard to see around corners? People slow down. 4-lane divided road with no intersections and little traffic? People will drive 60, 70, maybe even 80. Unless they're worried about a ticket. And most of the time, the speeds that people naturally drive are pretty damned safe (except when we put schools and driveways on these major streets). This is why the Autobahn isn't a slaughterhouse. Incidentally, this is where the common "10 over the limit" behaviour comes from. Most speed limits are set artificially low as it makes enforcement easier in the "edge" cases - but traffic engineers know full well that 10 over that is just about always safe.

Of course you'll always get a small handful who drive like idiots, regardless of conditions or speed limits. There's not much you can do about these except enforcement. Which is precisely what traffic cops are supposed to be dealing with. Not nailing someone who is doing 35 in a 30 zone on a clear day with no other traffic when it's -30 outside and all the kids are inside.

It's also why there's no need to put "max 50, but 30 if the roads are slippery" on all of our signs. People for the most part slow down of their own accord. And the few that don't, either learn or pay the consequences.

Speeding just isn't the insane killer we make it out to be lately. Undue care and attention, is. But cameras and radar have gotten to the point that speed can easily be measured, focused on, and enforced - you'll notice that "speed kills" has gone from an occasional campaign to the primary discussion on all traffic issues, and this transition happened in lockstep with automated speed monitoring (and the legalization of photo radar, etc). Kinda the same reason why we now focus on holding your phone as being such a distraction, when literally all research shows that it's the conversation that is the problem, not what your hands are doing. It's just easier to notice, and enforce, when people are holding their phone. It's got little to do with actual safety.

Much like this topic. It's safety theatre at best.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Well this is the thing. And a lot of people realize parts of it, but I think it's easy to forget the bigger picture.

The fact is, and this is backed up with decades of research, the vast majority of drivers will drive at a fairly "safe" speed - based on conditions. Narrow road, hard to see around corners? People slow down. 4-lane divided road with no intersections and little traffic? People will drive 60, 70, maybe even 80. Unless they're worried about a ticket. And most of the time, the speeds that people naturally drive are pretty damned safe (except when we put schools and driveways on these major streets). This is why the Autobahn isn't a slaughterhouse. Incidentally, this is where the common "10 over the limit" behaviour comes from. Most speed limits are set artificially low as it makes enforcement easier in the "edge" cases - but traffic engineers know full well that 10 over that is just about always safe.

Of course you'll always get a small handful who drive like idiots, regardless of conditions or speed limits. There's not much you can do about these except enforcement. Which is precisely what traffic cops are supposed to be dealing with. Not nailing someone who is doing 35 in a 30 zone on a clear day with no other traffic when it's -30 outside and all the kids are inside.

It's also why there's no need to put "max 50, but 30 if the roads are slippery" on all of our signs. People for the most part slow down of their own accord. And the few that don't, either learn or pay the consequences.

Speeding just isn't the insane killer we make it out to be lately. Undue care and attention, is. But cameras and radar have gotten to the point that speed can easily be measured, focused on, and enforced - you'll notice that "speed kills" has gone from an occasional campaign to the primary discussion on all traffic issues, and this transition happened in lockstep with automated speed monitoring (and the legalization of photo radar, etc). Kinda the same reason why we now focus on holding your phone as being such a distraction, when literally all research shows that it's the conversation that is the problem, not what your hands are doing. It's just easier to notice, and enforce, when people are holding their phone. It's got little to do with actual safety.

Much like this topic. It's safety theatre at best.

I have heard of a lot of these concepts, but you summarized this very nicely and concisely. Thank you sir, good post

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I appreciate the digging you are doing on the statistics Radley77!

No prob. Hoping to educate a bit with this info on a community by community basis. Will be interesting to see if the Peace Bridge accident data drops along 10 St NW as more people move to shoe into the safer Peace Bridge and 7 St NW route.

The following map is of pedestrian accidents for Sunnyside as well, sad to see there was a fatality at 10 St NW & 3 Av NW.:

[Bigtime]

Once again barely anything in the community proper. This is definitely a solution to a non-existent problem.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Radley77

No prob. Hoping to educate a bit with this info on a community by community basis. Will be interesting to see if the Peace Bridge accident data drops along 10 St NW as more people move to shoe into the safer Peace Bridge and 7 St NW route.

The following map is of pedestrian accidents for Sunnyside as well, sad to see there was a fatality at 10 St NW & 3 Av NW.:

Let me get this right - only four pedestrian accidents in 15 years in the proposed 30kph zone?

Wonder how that compares to let's say, Ramsay or Bridgeland, two similar sized communities in the inner city.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Incidentally, this is where the common "10 over the limit" behaviour comes from. Most speed limits are set artificially low as it makes enforcement easier in the "edge" cases - but traffic engineers know full well that 10 over that is just about always safe.

IMO, these days it's more like "20 over the limit." At least on major arteries.

[Radley77]

A bit more details about the fatality on 10 St NW and 3 Ave NW, a pickup van struck a 85 year senior female pedestrian who was crossing with right of way in broad daylight in 2004. I'm not sure if there have been any changes to this intersection since 2004.

[Calgarian]

Why did the residents of Sunnyside reject the move of the pedestrian crossing to 8st that was proposed as part of the Peace Bridge project? what with their concern for safety and all...

[MarkL]

Originally Posted by freeweed

What people seem to easily forget is this: speed limits aren't a new thing. Back when cars first came into widespread use, there WERE no speed limits. Chaos ensued, people were killed - and as a society, we organized and studied the problem. Traffic engineers, insurance risk managers, city planners - EVERYONE got involved to try to determine what is a "safe" speed for a given road or situation.

And by and large, 50 km/h was agreed upon as a reasonable compromise between safety and road efficiency. Children were taught how to deal with traffic at these speeds, and drivers were trained to obey them (and enforcement was put in place to ensure compliance to a reasonable degree).

This isn't a new problem by any stretch of the imagination. And it's worked perfectly fine for DECADES. 50 km/h (30mph in the US) is considered adequate for residential areas.

All we're seeing here (and with cases like Elbow Drive, Airdrie, and a hundred other examples) are neurotic busybodies who insist that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. Without even pointing to a legitimate problem. For those that compare this to school/playground zones - I point to you the fact that most cities have nothing anywhere close to Calgary's level of stupidity here. Children in most Canadian cities deal with 50km/h traffic around their playgrounds, and yet somehow kids in Winnipeg aren't being mowed down at a higher rate than in Calgary. Ask yourselves why that is the case, and perhaps you'll understand why a lot of us think this is a needless exercise.

Personally, I think a lot of people just have way too much time on their hands these days. And life is just so damned safe that they have to try to invent problems to solve.

The only thing I want to add to this post is that many of these standard traffic rules, such as the 50km/h speed limit were established during a completely different technological era. Cars have become magnitudes safer (for pedestrians and cyclists as well) since then, yet the old rules remain. All I have to do is drive my 2.5 ton, single brake cylinder, drum brake 1965 Dodge to be reminded of this fact.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by MarkL

The only thing I want to add to this post is that many of these standard traffic rules, such as the 50km/h speed limit were established during a completely different technological era. Cars have become magnitudes safer (for pedestrians and cyclists as well) since then, yet the old rules remain. All I have to do is drive my 2.5 ton, single brake cylinder, drum brake 1965 Dodge to be reminded of this fact.

You're exactly right, and I didn't even touch on that, was trying to be conservative. Technically most of our speed limits can be increased without adding to safety concerns. So if anything, 50 is "too slow" for many residential areas.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by speedog

Let me get this right - only four pedestrian accidents in 15 years in the proposed 30kph zone?

Wonder how that compares to let's say, Ramsay or Bridgeland, two similar sized communities in the inner city.

Bridgeland and Ramsay are both fairly benign with perhaps a few spots like near schools or specific intersections that are worse or higher risk. Myself, I feel safer running or jogging on the residential streets instead of on the sidewalk in broad daylight with less worry about blind corners.

Wheras in the Beltline, a near disaster is happening. For example on 8 St where the pedestrian and public realm improvements are proposed there has between 5 to 25 pedestrian accidents results in injuries on EVERY street between the years I have data on. While Beltline does have a higher modal share of pedestrians than many other communities, there is an increased need for intersection design that speaks specifically to the safety needs of pedestrians.

[patm]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Yeah, it makes me wonder if the better course of action would be to update the pedestrian right of way rules. Something like you would see in Manioba or Ontario; where pedestrians have right of way but need to indicate their intentions. The one thing that I couldn't believe when I first moved to Calgary was how pedestrians here just step out into traffic without really looking.

I also see parents walking with their kids and demonstrating the same lack of care and attention.

What we need is European pedestrian laws.

Get the FUCK out of the way of any car with no red light unless you want to die motherfucker.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by patm

What we need is European pedestrian laws.

Get the FUCK out of the way of any car with no red light unless you want to die motherfucker.

Alberta's pretty much has that already and even if a pedestrian does have the right of way, a driver is probably only looking at a $2,000 fine with no license suspension like this case:

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/05/29/edmonton-man-who-killed-pedestrian-fined-2000

Best to always make eye contact.