Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigglez
Images of people flying everywhere after getting hit by cars as they attempt to cross comes to mind with that statement lol.
Why is spending money on pedestrian crossings on streets like Kenaston or Bishop acceptable when cars are doing 80kph? That has to be much more dangerous for people to cross than an intersection where cars are doing 50 at best (I say at best because the mix of traffic and CONSTANT traffic signals slows things down 90% of the time).
To be blunt I don't think there's going to be enough foot traffic at portage and main to cause this nightmarish hellscape of death and endless traffic jams. There needs to be more reason to actually walk that area for it to be a major problem, glass walls are not a reason to hang around.
|
I was looking at the numbers from Stats Canada about auto accident fatalities just the other day, and while my numbers are rough, they are not far off. Something like 40% of accidents happen in "rural" settings (while the definition was a little vague about urban and metro areas, one thing that rural included was all streets where speeds were greater than 60 km/h) but they account for over 70% of all fatal accidents.
I completely agree that pedestrian crossings here, while not safe at all, is still leaps and bounds safer than pedestrians allowed to cross at intersections like Sterling Lyon and Kenaston. Why don't we close that intersection to pedestrians?
EDIT: Source material is
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-1317.htm with the location stat at the bottom. Actual numbers were 24% of accidents happen in a rural setting, but account for 57% of all fatal accidents. This also doesn't account for people traveling over the speed limit in the urban setting. Speed kills folks.