+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Road design, safety and Vision Zero (/showthread.php?tid=1409)
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - plam - 12-04-2020
(12-04-2020, 11:47 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Tom Flood (who won an award at OBS this year), wrote a letter to Hamilton City Council as a result of the fatal collision this week.
Sometimes people care more about animals than about people. I wonder whether this would be the case here. I was reading about southern right whales and how they have sometimes caused disruptions to ferries. Perhaps people are more willing to have their lives disrupted by whales than by people.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - danbrotherston - 12-04-2020
(12-04-2020, 04:16 PM)plam Wrote:(12-04-2020, 11:47 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Tom Flood (who won an award at OBS this year), wrote a letter to Hamilton City Council as a result of the fatal collision this week.
Sometimes people care more about animals than about people. I wonder whether this would be the case here. I was reading about southern right whales and how they have sometimes caused disruptions to ferries. Perhaps people are more willing to have their lives disrupted by whales than by people.
Case in point, people willingly stop and wait patiently for geese--a truely vile animal---to cross the road, but in the middle of a public park refuse to stop at the PXO for actual human beings in a park.
And just in case you thought we'd finish this week without any more horrific traffic deaths, a driver killed a 12 year old boy and critically injured his 10 year old sister while they were waiting for their school bus.
I even managed to miss a death yesterday, when a drunk driver murdered a 51-year old woman.
Tom Flood needs to turn his letter into a form letter. Because this happens enough it loses all meaning.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - Acitta - 12-04-2020
(12-04-2020, 04:16 PM)plam Wrote: Sometimes people care more about animals than about people. I wonder whether this would be the case here. I was reading about southern right whales and how they have sometimes caused disruptions to ferries. Perhaps people are more willing to have their lives disrupted by whales than by people.Why should we not care about animals? As someone who has never owned a car, it distresses me to see all of the wildlife lying dead beside the highways I cycle on. Earlier in the thread it was mentioned about the woman who stopped to rescue some ducks on the highway and caused an accident causing death. I ask why have we designed a road that forces people to kill wildlife in order not to kill humans? There is massive carnage on our roads of wildlife, many of them are threatened species. I recently read a report about the number of large animals killed on train tracks through the Rockies. I read another one about how chemicals in car tires are killing salmon in streams on the U.S. west coast before they can spawn. We have built our infrastructure that is destroying the natural world on which we depend, not just ourselves.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - Bob_McBob - 12-04-2020
(12-04-2020, 11:47 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Tom Flood (who won an award at OBS this year), wrote a letter to Hamilton City Council as a result of the fatal collision this week.
No "modest proposal", no sarcasm, just blunt truth.
I was just thinking about this the other day after a post about Vision Zero on Kitchener's Facebook page. It's so hard to have a meaningful conversation about road safety without it inevitably turning into complaints about the war on cars. Literally the only thing that matters to many drivers is maximizing vehicle throughput by keeping roads as wide as possible and speeds as high as possible. Even something like a lane reduction that objectively has zero impact on congestion is bad because it makes people feel like cars aren't being given the highest priority. I remind people over and over that we're talking about road safety, but it doesn't matter.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - Bob_McBob - 12-04-2020
(12-04-2020, 07:58 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Case in point, people willingly stop and wait patiently for geese--a truely vile animal---to cross the road, but in the middle of a public park refuse to stop at the PXO for actual human beings in a park.
The difference is geese aren't intimidated by drivers refusing to yield to them. You can intimidate a pedestrian into not crossing by refusing to stop, but a goose doesn't give a shit and will happily walk out and fuck up your vehicle. People literally have more respect for geese than other humans.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - ijmorlan - 12-04-2020
(12-04-2020, 08:19 PM)Acitta Wrote:(12-04-2020, 04:16 PM)plam Wrote: Sometimes people care more about animals than about people. I wonder whether this would be the case here. I was reading about southern right whales and how they have sometimes caused disruptions to ferries. Perhaps people are more willing to have their lives disrupted by whales than by people.Why should we not care about animals? As someone who has never owned a car, it distresses me to see all of the wildlife lying dead beside the highways I cycle on. Earlier in the thread it was mentioned about the woman who stopped to rescue some ducks on the highway and caused an accident causing death. I ask why have we designed a road that forces people to kill wildlife in order not to kill humans? There is massive carnage on our roads of wildlife, many of them are threatened species. I recently read a report about the number of large animals killed on train tracks through the Rockies. I read another one about how chemicals in car tires are killing salmon in streams on the U.S. west coast before they can spawn. We have built our infrastructure that is destroying the natural world on which we depend, not just ourselves.
He’s not saying we shouldn’t care about wildlife, but that we should care about people at least as much as we care about wildlife.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - danbrotherston - 12-04-2020
I don't wish to reply to this tweet, but it is striking how internalized our road safety problem is.
Here is a statement from the family of the boy, they are suffering so much right now, I cannot even imagine.
And they take the time to give a plea, asking everyone to slow down and drive safely.
But drivers are responding to their environment, everyone who cares about this family should write their councillors demanding that safety is prioritized on roads instead of speed and throughput. How many "good" drivers have opposed road safety choices that they feel would slow them down or impede their driving.
The problem is NOT individuals, the problem is a system designed at every level, to tolerate this carnage. From the design of roads, to the lackadaisical enforcement of aggressive driving, to the joke of a licensing scheme, to the entire lack of driver training and absolute minimal testing.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - plam - 12-05-2020
(12-04-2020, 09:00 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(12-04-2020, 08:19 PM)Acitta Wrote: Why should we not care about animals? As someone who has never owned a car, it distresses me to see all of the wildlife lying dead beside the highways I cycle on. Earlier in the thread it was mentioned about the woman who stopped to rescue some ducks on the highway and caused an accident causing death. I ask why have we designed a road that forces people to kill wildlife in order not to kill humans? There is massive carnage on our roads of wildlife, many of them are threatened species. I recently read a report about the number of large animals killed on train tracks through the Rockies. I read another one about how chemicals in car tires are killing salmon in streams on the U.S. west coast before they can spawn. We have built our infrastructure that is destroying the natural world on which we depend, not just ourselves.
He’s not saying we shouldn’t care about wildlife, but that we should care about people at least as much as we care about wildlife.
Yes, thanks. We should absolutely care about wildlife.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - danbrotherston - 12-06-2020
The carnage just does not end.
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2020/12/05/man-struck-and-killed-by-truck-in-scarborough/
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - Rainrider22 - 12-06-2020
I was liking it then lost me at murder....
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - ijmorlan - 12-06-2020
(12-06-2020, 10:38 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: I was liking it then lost me at murder....
Are you referring to “when a drunk driver murdered a 51-year old woman”?
If so I don’t see the problem. If somebody got drunk and starting shooting down a busy street, thinking they were at the shooting range, we would have no trouble calling it murder. Why the leniency and understanding when the deadly weapon involved is a motor vehicle?
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - danbrotherston - 12-06-2020
(12-06-2020, 10:38 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: I was liking it then lost me at murder....
Would you prefer the more clinically correct "negligent homicide"?
I choose the word murder because it is a stronger word, and it is an active word, and it is a more well understood word.
Saying someone is guilty of "negligent homicide" in the death of a person is a statement which evokes less emotion.
Choosing to drive after getting drunk has the requisite intentionality to qualify, in my opinion, just because you weren't trying to kill someone when you took a gun and started to shoot randomly doesn't mean it isn't an act that can clearly lead to you killing someone. And murder has both a legal meaning (which doesn't apply) and a lay meaning, which I believe should apply.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - tomh009 - 12-06-2020
I believe "manslaughter" is the correct term, at least in Canada, both for the drunk driving and the drunk shooting scenarios. There is not necessarily an intent to kill a person (assuming the gun was being shot randomly) but there is no doubt that the person endangered and took the lives of other people.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - plam - 12-06-2020
(12-06-2020, 01:53 PM)tomh009 Wrote: I believe "manslaughter" is the correct term, at least in Canada, both for the drunk driving and the drunk shooting scenarios. There is not necessarily an intent to kill a person (assuming the gun was being shot randomly) but there is no doubt that the person endangered and took the lives of other people.
I also believe manslaughter is the technically correct term in Canada.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - jeffster - 12-06-2020
(12-04-2020, 08:43 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote:(12-04-2020, 07:58 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Case in point, people willingly stop and wait patiently for geese--a truely vile animal---to cross the road, but in the middle of a public park refuse to stop at the PXO for actual human beings in a park.
The difference is geese aren't intimidated by drivers refusing to yield to them. You can intimidate a pedestrian into not crossing by refusing to stop, but a goose doesn't give a shit and will happily walk out and fuck up your vehicle. People literally have more respect for geese than other humans.
Something that perhaps people don't know about these geese is that they will actually move if you get close, and they move fast. In fact, I'd argue that they are more intimidated by drivers than people that jay-walk.
Duckings, on the other hand, I have no idea.