Walking in Waterloo Region

[MidTowner]

I must say, I have never found it to be either, just quite busy at times, with the exit from the mall representing a modest challenge if you plan to turn left at River Rd.  In any event, the accident doesn't reflect "chaos", it was just (sorry, "just" sounds awful) another of those persistent cases of drivers not paying attention to the right while making a right turn at an intersection.

I agree with you that this is purely the fault of the motorist not taking due care, to tragic result. But I do think Chicopee is right that Ottawa and River is a bit chaotic. Crossing River by the liquor store is the worst part around the mall, in my opinion, in that left-turning motorists (who maybe have had to wait a light cycle, who knows) don't yield as they should.

Both Ottawa and River are stroads which probably don't induce motorists to watch carefully for people crossing. This isn't excusing them failing to do so, but the intersection could be improved. There seems to be a fair amount of foot traffic.

A scramble/Barne's dance probably isn't realistic here, for better or worse.

[Canard]

I think it being chaotic (and I ageee with that assessment; I hate that intersection) has a lot to do with it - sure we can guess the driver wasn't paying attention - or we can remember that maybe there were 22 other things the driver was paying attention to at that exact moment, as a result of the chaotic nature of everything else going on there.

[Chicopee]

Travelling NB (actual east) on Ottawa in that section, there are two streets people are stopping to turn left at (Hickson & Crosby), two lights (Midland & rear Stanley Park Mall entrance), and the other mall entrance and entrance to Petro Can. That's quite a bit of activity in such a short section of road. Also, people often take the right lane at River to jump the queue continuing on Ottawa, which causes further back up to drivers turning right.

When I'm coming home from Waterloo on the expressway, I find it easier to take 8 to Fairway then get off at Ottawa; even with King and Fairway in the mix.

This area has been a pet peeve of mine for some time. I think I mentioned it years ago on Wonderful Waterloo.

[MidTowner]

I think it being chaotic (and I ageee with that assessment; I hate that intersection) has a lot to do with it - sure we can guess the driver wasn't paying attention - or we can remember that maybe there were 22 other things the driver was paying attention to at that exact moment, as a result of the chaotic nature of everything else going on there.

The intersection might be less than optimally designed, but the driver was undoubtedly not paying attention. Possibly he was distracted by 22 other things, but in that case he needs to proceed with additional caution. He was obviously not watching for people crossing, or he wouldn't have struck one with his car, and then run him over.

[danbrotherston]

The intersection might be less than optimally designed, but the driver was undoubtedly not paying attention. Possibly he was distracted by 22 other things, but in that case he needs to proceed with additional caution. He was obviously not watching for people crossing, or he wouldn't have struck one with his car, and then run him over.

Nobody is arguing that the driver shouldn't have been able to avoid this collision. But that isn't the point being made. You cannot fix people. Someday, self driving cars might, but not today. Today, the way to prevent these collisions is to design our roads with safety of all users in mind. To design roads keeping in mind that drivers will be sometimes be distracted, and ensure that those distractions don't lead to serious injuries or fatalities. This is one pillar of VisionZero as implemented in Sweden and it's been incredibly successful.

[MidTowner]

It did sound to me like the point was that the driver was less than responsible: "...sure we can guess the driver wasn't paying attention - or we can remember that maybe there were 22 other things the driver was paying attention to at that exact moment..."

I hear you, though. The design of our streets should account for the fallibility of human beings. You shouldn't die because you made a mistake and crossed the street at the wrong time; you shouldn't be killed because someone else wasn't paying proper attention while driving.

It's bizarre to think that we have intersections in urban areas designed in such a way that they allow a turning motorist to achieve speed enough to run over someone. But most of our intersections are like this. They should be changed. In the mean time, drivers who don't pay attention, who disobey the rules, who don't exercise the duty of care commensurate with operating a vehicle, should be held accountable for putting other people's lives at risk.

[panamaniac]

It did sound to me like the point was that the driver was less than responsible: "...sure we can guess the driver wasn't paying attention - or we can remember that maybe there were 22 other things the driver was paying attention to at that exact moment..."

I hear you, though. The design of our streets should account for the fallibility of human beings. You shouldn't die because you made a mistake and crossed the street at the wrong time; you shouldn't be killed because someone else wasn't paying proper attention while driving.

It's bizarre to think that we have intersections in urban areas designed in such a way that they allow a turning motorist to achieve speed enough to run over someone. But most of our intersections are like this. They should be changed. In the mean time, drivers who don't pay attention, who disobey the rules, who don't exercise the duty of care commensurate with operating a vehicle, should be held accountable for putting other people's lives at risk.

I am at a loss to understand how this is related to the design of the intersection.  Although the media report is not explicit, it seems logical to infer that the motorist was turning on a red light (i.e from what was, or was supposed to be a full stop).  At what point do we simply admit that a significant minority of our motorists are simply not competent to be behind the wheel of a car?  Since nothing is likely to be done to address that underlying problem, perhaps the best course action is just to continue not to admit it.

[Elmira Guy]

And all this goes back to a post I made about nearly being run over at Lincoln and Weber when I was waiting for the crossing signal to change so I could legally do cross. Made eye contact with the driver waiting on Lincoln to turn right on the red, and indicated my intention to cross. Light changed, I stepped out, and he went anyway.

Now in my opinion, the guy in my situation was a complete dick. But it doesn't always follow that every driver who does not yield to the ROW of pedestrians is equally selfish and even malicious, as it may well be unintentional, but they nonetheless bear the fullness of fault.

I think the idea of driving is so pervasive and ingrained into our culture that many have become far too disconnected with the inherent dangers AND responsibilities of driving. We hand out licenses with too much ease (there is no finite number of attempts you are allowed to go for and fail your license testing before receiving it), yet death and injury by motor vehicle must surely be the number one cause of accidental death in this country.

When I lived in England (a middle-sized northern city), I remember telling one of my co-workers that there was not a year that went by when I was in high school (80-85) where at least one kid from my school wasn't killed in a car accident, and in two years, multiple students died in this manner. They were astounded.

I see no evidence that drivers today are any better. And while it may be that I'm just more observant of such things now, I might be inclined to think they are worse.

[danbrotherston]

I am at a loss to understand how this is related to the design of the intersection.  Although the media report is not explicit, it seems logical to infer that the motorist was turning on a red light (i.e from what was, or was supposed to be a full stop).  At what point do we simply admit that a significant minority of our motorists are simply not competent to be behind the wheel of a car?  Since nothing is likely to be done to address that underlying problem, perhaps the best course action is just to continue not to admit it.

So we should just throw our hands in the air and accept that 3,000 Canadians will die on our roads because *shrug*? You cannot fix people, you cannot prevent most people from driving, but it's been proven that through design, you can make roads safer, so lets do that how about?

How to fix the design of this intersection? I'm not sure of the specifics. A good guess would be, as I said before, narrower lanes and tighter corner radius. This would cause drivers to drive through the intersection, especially when turning at a slower speed (even if turning on red). Slower speeds means drivers have more time to react, and if they still manage to hit someone, the collision will be less serious. This would probably apply to around 70-80% of the intersections in our city.

I'm not sure what about the media reports suggest they were turning on red. It's equally plausible they were turning on green, and more likely in my mind given the apparent speed of the collision. But on the topic of turning on red, here's another example: disallow turns on red. They're dangerous to pedestrians because drivers are paying attention to traffic, not pedestrians.

[jamincan]

Despite the nature of this accident, I think the greater risk at this intersection is the number of left-turning vehicles. I drive through the intersection every day and I've seen a tonne of close calls, always with a left-turning vehicle waiting for a break in traffic (which can be hard for motorists to see due to the queues that tend to persist in the turn lane) and then gunning through when they see the opportunity. A simple solution the city or region could immediately implement is making left-turns only during the advance-green cycle (maybe lengthening it slightly to compensate).

[danbrotherston]

Despite the nature of this accident, I think the greater risk at this intersection is the number of left-turning vehicles. I drive through the intersection every day and I've seen a tonne of close calls, always with a left-turning vehicle waiting for a break in traffic (which can be hard for motorists to see due to the queues that tend to persist in the turn lane) and then gunning through when they see the opportunity. A simple solution the city or region could immediately implement is making left-turns only during the advance-green cycle (maybe lengthening it slightly to compensate).

A fully protected left would improve safety in other ways yes, but narrowing the lanes and tightening the turns would also make lefts safer (and easier) by slowing traffic.  Best would be to do both.

Speaking of left turns, this morning there was a big accident at Park and Victoria.  I only happened upon the scene as I was walking to the market but there are bits of car everywhere, a very wrecked SUV, and tracks all along the sidewalk.  It must have been a pretty high speed impact.  If there had been anyone walking, they'd be lucky to be alive.

[Canard]

Just drove down Charles and saw two small ploughs out ploughing the sidewalk on the North side of Charles, between Gaukel and Ontario. So I guess the city ploughs some sidewalks?

[KevinL]

I think areas like downtown have agreements in place for sidewalks to be cleared collectively.

[jamincan]

A plow came along and plowed the sidewalks on my street this morning, which is a cul-de-sac. I suppose it could have been a private company; all the buildings on my street are apartments, after all, and hire contractors to clear the snow. They aren't all owned by the same company, though, and I don't think I've ever seen a private contractor operating one of those sidewalk plows before.

[MidTowner]

Yes, sidewalks downtown are cleared. I'm not sure how extensive the area is, but I believe Victoria is one of its edges.