Road design, safety and Vision Zero

[danbrotherston]

I don't think there are easy solutions for safety. Even when there are "easy solutions" they are not easy. This is what makes me angry. Why aren't we upset about this. Why do we keep defending it.

London Police as a result of this collision gave a list of ways in which pedestrians can be blamed for being hit including clothing. Hamilton Police actually did lay charges of dangerous driving, likely as a result of the witness testimony about the aggressive driving, but if that driver had not actually hit a child, that same testimony of dangerous driving wouldn't have led to so much as a warning.

Would you consider telling people to use a flare or a warning triangle to be blaming? This is similar to telling people that more visible clothing improves safety, is it not?

The reality is that a 2000 kg fast-moving object is always going to be dangerous to other users of the road, so we should take all opportunities to improve safety and reduce risk. That includes road design, vehicle safety features, driver/cyclist/pedestrian training/education, traffic rules, improved visibility and more. I don't personally view any of these as "blaming", only as opportunities to improve safety and reduce risk.

You're right, the reality is that a 2000 kg fast moving object is a danger, which is why we should focus on the 2000 kg fast moving object, not the person they ran over.

[danbrotherston]

For a little more context, WRPS recorded 110 collisions including 14 injuries in addition to the fatal crash on Tuesday...that's 0.02% of the entire population crashing in a single day.

Even on a day like today where we have record spike in COVID numbers, you were more likely to have crashed your car on Tuesday than you were to have gotten a positive result on a COVID test.

[ijmorlan]

It could well be. I was not there and I have no details.

If the driver didn’t see them in time then they were driving too fast for the conditions. I don’t need to know anything about what actually happened in any specific instance to be able to make that statement.

This reminds me of a case where somebody stopped in the fast lane to help ducks cross the road. Then motorcycles came up and hit them from behind; two motorcyclists dead instantly.

Now, clearly, stopping in the fast lane to help ducks is questionable, and my recollection is that the driver was charged, although I don’t remember the outcome. But the motorcyclists were driving too fast no matter what one thinks of the person who stopped their car. The car could have stopped because they hit a deer or because their car failed suddenly; then how would one deflect blame from the too-fast motorcyclists?

[jamincan]

It was one motorcycle ridden by a father and daughter. The lady had parked her car in the left lane and left the vehicle to try to rescue a bunch of ducklings. She was convicted of two counts of negligence causing death and two counts of dangerous driving causing death which was upheld on appeal. The sentence was relatively light considering the seriousness of the charges - 90 days in jail on weekends, 3 years probation, 240 hours community service, and 10 year driving ban.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/...-1.4152387

[danbrotherston]

It was one motorcycle ridden by a father and daughter. The lady had parked her car in the left lane and left the vehicle to try to rescue a bunch of ducklings. She was convicted of two counts of negligence causing death and two counts of dangerous driving causing death which was upheld on appeal. The sentence was relatively light considering the seriousness of the charges - 90 days in jail on weekends, 3 years probation, 240 hours community service, and 10 year driving ban.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/...-1.4152387

That's an amazingly severe sentence for a driver actually, no driver who isn't drunk would ever get even a tiny fraction of that sentence for running down and killing a group of pedestrians in a crosswalk with the right of way.

It is interesting that a driver gets that sentence for stopping...

It's not to say those charges don't apply...just interesting that killing someone by driving never gets that charge, only by NOT driving.

[tomh009]

You're right, the reality is that a 2000 kg fast moving object is a danger, which is why we should focus on the 2000 kg fast moving object, not the person they ran over.

My focus is on improving safety and avoiding future collisions and deaths, not focusing on who to blame.

[danbrotherston]

You're right, the reality is that a 2000 kg fast moving object is a danger, which is why we should focus on the 2000 kg fast moving object, not the person they ran over.

My focus is on improving safety and avoiding future collisions and deaths, not focusing on who to blame.

My focus is on improving safety, but telling people what to wear to not be run over is not a policy that improves safety...it's a policy which blames the victim.

And I never said "who to blame", I said, what to focus on. I think it's entirely reasonable to focus on the SOURCE of the harm and risk on our roads.

[tomh009]

There is rarely a single reason for a collision but a confluence of factors. Visibility is a big factor, as it was in this week's 7/8 crash. Using that as an example, headlights, DLRs, four-way flashers, flares, warning triangles, reflectors and bright-coloured clothing all contribute to better visibility and would have improved the situation (as would have a lower speed, indeed). I personally don't associate any of those with "blame".

But, as always, we can agree to disagree on this point.

[danbrotherston]

There is rarely a single reason for a collision but a confluence of factors. Visibility is a big factor, as it was in this week's 7/8 crash. Using that as an example, headlights, DLRs, four-way flashers, flares, warning triangles, reflectors and bright-coloured clothing all contribute to better visibility and would have improved the situation (as would have a lower speed, indeed). I personally don't associate any of those with "blame".

But, as always, we can agree to disagree on this point.

It's victim blaming (not assinging blame), because when police and council instead of making actual changes that will improve safety reply with stuff like "you should wear brightly coloured clothing" the response is an abdication of responsibility for improving safety.

[dtkvictim]

My focus is on improving safety and avoiding future collisions and deaths, not focusing on who to blame.

My focus is on improving safety, but telling people what to wear to not be run over is not a policy that improves safety...it's a policy which blames the victim.

And I never said "who to blame", I said, what to focus on. I think it's entirely reasonable to focus on the SOURCE of the harm and risk on our roads.

If wearing bright and reflective clothing makes you less likely to be hit, then it improves safety. This is not victim blaming, it's suggesting that people take precautionary steps to avoid being a victim. I look both ways before I cross at a walk signal, even though I shouldn't have to, because it improves my safety. In fact, we require cars to have lights to help them avoid being hit (or to help other cars avoid hitting them). Drivers are also suggested to look both ways before proceeding at a fresh green light. All of these things improve safety, despite the action being required of the would-be victim.

That said, there are much more meaningful ways to improve safety and statements about wearing bright and reflective clothing is a deflection from them, so I understand the frustration.

[danbrotherston]

My focus is on improving safety, but telling people what to wear to not be run over is not a policy that improves safety...it's a policy which blames the victim.

And I never said "who to blame", I said, what to focus on. I think it's entirely reasonable to focus on the SOURCE of the harm and risk on our roads.

If wearing bright and reflective clothing makes you less likely to be hit, then it improves safety. This is not victim blaming, it's suggesting that people take precautionary steps to avoid being a victim. I look both ways before I cross at a walk signal, even though I shouldn't have to, because it improves my safety. In fact, we require cars to have lights to help them avoid being hit (or to help other cars avoid hitting them). Drivers are also suggested to look both ways before proceeding at a fresh green light. All of these things improve safety, despite the action being required of the would-be victim.

That said, there are much more meaningful ways to improve safety and statements about wearing bright and reflective clothing is a deflection from them, so I understand the frustration.

Wearing reflective clothing is different from telling people to wear reflective clothing.  Telling people what to wear is not a thing which changes people's behaviour.

I'd also question the effectiveness of brightly clothing on a well lit city street, and argue that you'd have to give data proving that. Given drivers propensity to hit reflective objects like signs and pylons...I'm guessing that's going to be a high bar to demonstrate.

[danbrotherston]

And it never ends...another cyclist has been killed in Toronto (the second in as many weeks), the reporting completely absolves the drivers

"From what I know, she was clipped by a vehicle"

That's right, a vehicle, not a driver.

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/cyclist-dies-...-1.5214636

This is the same pattern as the previous death:

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2020/11/20/c...etobicoke/

Where the article mentions only a "cement truck"...no indication if it was being driven by a person.

Amazingly, police have gotten around to charging the garbage truck driver who killed the woman and her dog.

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/garbage-tru...-1.5214949

Of course, why it took them five months to lay charges, I have no idea. Of course, even though the driver has literally been charged careless driving causing death, the author of the article STILL absolves the driver in the description of the crash:

"The crash happened on July 14 near Tuerr Drive and Countryside Crescent. A 68-year-old woman was walking her dog when she was hit by the truck."

It's a wonder the American's don't try the same thing with gun violence. "It was at 6:30 PM when several children were shot by the gun. Later the gun holder was charged in connection with the accident."

[ijmorlan]

It was one motorcycle ridden by a father and daughter. The lady had parked her car in the left lane and left the vehicle to try to rescue a bunch of ducklings. She was convicted of two counts of negligence causing death and two counts of dangerous driving causing death which was upheld on appeal. The sentence was relatively light considering the seriousness of the charges - 90 days in jail on weekends, 3 years probation, 240 hours community service, and 10 year driving ban.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/...-1.4152387

Thanks for doing the work to dig up the reference.

[ijmorlan]

It's a wonder the American's don't try the same thing with gun violence.  "It was at 6:30 PM when several children were shot by the gun. Later the gun holder was charged in connection with the accident."

That is the true injustice. Imagine that, an American patriot and defender of the 2nd amendment being charged criminally! Next thing you know, a Democrat will win the White House!

[danbrotherston]