Results 1 to 97 of 97

Thread: 30 km/h Playground Speed Limits Approved, Entire Residential Areas in Crosshairs Next

  1. #1
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    125

    Default 30 km/h Playground Speed Limits Approved, Entire Residential Areas in Crosshairs Next

    Is there a dedicated thread on this topic?

  2. #2
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,026

    Default

    Great news! Cars shouldn't trump over children's safety.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  3. #3

  4. #4

    Default

    Great news. I'm looking forward to the neighbourhood wide change, especially in older neighbourhoods where 30 is already a natural speed.

    And even more, I can't wait to see the excessively wide streets for the 70's through 90's get redesigned neighbourhood by neighbourhood at renewal time so that speeds below 40 feel natural there too.
    There can only be one.

  5. #5
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Great news! Cars shouldn't trump over children's safety.
    Uhm, there has been carnage near playgrounds on the streets of Edmonton ?

    I think not.
    Numbers in a report to council show that in the last five years,
    half of all collisions involving pedestrians or cyclists 15 years old
    or younger happened in the periods from 7 a.m. until 9 a.m. and
    from 4 p.m. until 6 p.m.

    Let's see that report, please.

    7 AM to 9 AM and 4 PM to 6 PM. Aren't those prime times for to/from school trips?

    Yes. Time period and location issues dealt with by the School Zone Speed Limits.

    Ahh, I get it. By extending the locations covered and times enacted, we have harm reduction/elimination for the other 50% of collisions.

    And next year, council willing, entire residential areas will be cut back to 30 km/h.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Great news! Cars shouldn't trump over children's safety.
    Yeah, all of the zero injuries will be prevented. Newsflash: 50, 30, 10, zero, the people that drive recklessly and hit things will still be driving recklessly and hitting things. It's the law abiding people that will be penalized with a further hit on their time.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  7. #7

    Default

    On the other hand, a collision where the driver was going 55 on a residential street will no longer be noted as "speed was not a factor".

    It will also allow better street design, since engineers will not longer have the goal of making each street safe for drivers who want to go 50.
    There can only be one.

  8. #8
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mseaver View Post
    And next year, council willing, entire residential areas will be cut back to 30 km/h.
    Do you have any hard evidence of that? Seeing that you're calling for hard evidence yourself?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Great news! Cars shouldn't trump over children's safety.
    Yeah, all of the zero injuries will be prevented. Newsflash: 50, 30, 10, zero, the people that drive recklessly and hit things will still be driving recklessly and hitting things. It's the law abiding people that will be penalized with a further hit on their time.
    Yeah, the extra 10-15 seconds it will take to pass a playground is going to be such a hardship.
    Last edited by Sonic Death Monkey; 13-09-2017 at 05:52 PM.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  9. #9

    Default

    ^Why speak about it in singular terms. Some commutes involve passing by countless zones. Some neighborhoods have schools/playground zones all over the place and meaning that anytime a person drives down the street they are impacted.

    I had little concern with the part time nature of the school restriction and enforcement. That's fine in that it involves only common use times and given how many kids are on the street at those times leaving or going to school I'm OK with that restriction.

    Bumping this up to a fulltime restriction till 9pm and incorporating larger, and more areas into the mix is harder to justify.

    Remembering as well that this is largely to protect kids that would dart out into the street. The protection should be kids being more well versed in their own safety and awareness.

    Finally, this is a winter city. The playgrounds requiring supposed protection are only well used maybe 6mths of the year. Rarely used in the colder months. They will be dark long before 9pm much of the year. Cold and dark. Yet the traffic ordinance will be year round, inflexible, unwavering. Could any of the sloped foreheads at silly hall actually determin that a seasonal restriction made more sense? Or one that takes account of when its actually light out and when kids will be playing?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  10. #10

    Default

    Lets call a spade a spade. This is not simply about protecting kids its about the COE wanting to limit speed limits in almost any neighborhood and on a pretty much full day, 7 day, full year basis.

    Lets bring back the Model T ford with better brakes. They ran fast enough..

    This not too curiously being trotted out during Don Ivesons reign of terror against drivers.

    Also photo enforcement not bringing in as much lately. City needs more spurious restrictions to dragnet more tickets.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  11. #11
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mseaver View Post
    And next year, council willing, entire residential areas will be cut back to 30 km/h.
    Do you have any hard evidence of that? Seeing that you're calling for hard evidence yourself?
    Fer goodness' sake. Look up from NetFlix now and then.

    This proposal has appeared a number of times in different media outlets. A current example:

    Quote Originally Posted by CBC
    City council approves 30 km/h speed limits near Edmonton playgrounds
    By Stephanie Dubois,
    CBC News Sep 12, 2017

    Early next year, council will see a report on changes to the maximum speed limits in neighbourhoods. Most are currently at 50 km/h but some neighbourhoods have limited speeds to 40 km/h.
    That People for Paths guy, Komrad, managed to get in another sound bite about his group's intention to push for the residential reduction following Council's approval for playgrounds yesterday.

    Here's a link to PfP's manifesto

    Quote Originally Posted by Komrad
    Default 30 km/h Speed Limit

    A default of 30 km/h in all residential areas (exceptions like arterials and some collectors would be signed).

  12. #12
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Still looking for the report(s) relied on to support this decision.

    Linda Banister's company, Banister Research and Consulting Inc, apparently performed a survey that contributed opinions from city residents.

    What about the statistics - where's the report that details the incidents ?

  13. #13
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mseaver View Post
    And next year, council willing, entire residential areas will be cut back to 30 km/h.
    Do you have any hard evidence of that? Seeing that you're calling for hard evidence yourself?
    Here, some more specifics.

    On June 7th after receiving a report, Council’s Urban Planning Committee gave the go-ahead for city staff to begin a consultation process with the public.

    Get this:
    Speed limit review coming after Edmonton public consulted
    By Scott Johnston
    Global News June 7, 2017

    Gord Cebryk, branch manager for Parks and Roads, said city staff will conduct surveys at the festivals this summer, then they’ll reach out to parents through the school systems this fall, to get feedback early in the new year. ... Staff will ask residents how fast drivers should go in neighbourhoods, on roads entering neighbourhoods, as well as the main roads that cross the city.

    Really ?

    Asking people at 'Folk Fest', 'Taste of Edmonton', 'The Fringe' about road speeds ?

    Taking those responses and making policy ?

  14. #14
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Urban Planning Committee Members 2016-2017

    • Andrew Knack (Chair)
    • Ben Henderson (Vice Chair)
    • Dave Loken
    • Mike Nickel

  15. #15
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    125

    Default

    So, you ask. The playground change and the residential reduction were both presented in June, how come the playground change has been approved now while the residential change languishes ?

    Its because the City Charter established by the Province currently determines the Default Minimum Speed. The City Charter is due to be updated passing power to set speed limits to the City later this year. Once that takes place, watch for our car-hating council to make their move on residential speed limits.

    After considering results from Cebryk's 'Public Consultation', of course !

  16. #16
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,026

    Default

    I didn't bother looking all that up because it's your hill to die on, not mine.

    Reducing speed limits on residential roads (not just playgrounds and school zones) is perfectly fine with me. Whether they go ahead with it or not, it doesn't really matter to me, I'll obey whatever speed limit is put in place in these areas.

    Full disclosure:
    I am a driver, pedestrian, a cyclist and a transit user (mostly the former two)
    I develop a lead foot on major commuter routes and freeways, and I have the speeding tickets to prove it
    I think the speed limits on some major arterials are too low
    I can't wait for a free-flow Yellowhead Trail (a major agenda item by the "car-hating council" that was fully funded recently).
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  17. #17
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,026

    Default

    BTW polling at festivals is a smart move! Maybe you should check the attendance figures because where else are you going to find thousands of people converging to one place from all parts of the city? Maybe they should also be polling at Rogers Place and Commonwealth Stadium events if they aren't doing so already.
    Or maybe you mad because they're providing results you personally don't like.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  18. #18

    Default

    ^Actually polling those specific festivals, which are all central Edmonton festivals, plus polling parents in schools is a type of push polling where the likelihood of getting the results one is looking for is pronounced. They polled vested interests. Those living or frequenting central Edmonton or those with kids in school. They polled those people on the subject of driving. You know, without consulting the other subset, drivers.

    The danger here is we specifically go to some groups in society to canvas what the behaviors of another group should be. We then legislate around that. What a shitstorm.

    As per usual this council is doing what it wants and getting specious polls to attempt to justify it.

    Hell they could find neighborhoods in Edmonton where residents figure cars should be outlawed outright in front of their house provided it isn't their own..
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  19. #19

    Default

    I'm in favour of turning all residential roads except collectors into 30km/h. It takes 2 minutes at most to get to collector road from any house.
    You don't need to be doing 50-70 km/h on residential roads where children might be playing, or others enjoying their neighbourhood.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    It's the law abiding people that will be penalized with a further hit on their time.
    I'm sorry you have to spend another 15 seconds in your neighbourhood.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I'm in favour of turning all residential roads except collectors into 30km/h. It takes 2 minutes at most to get to collector road from any house.
    You don't need to be doing 50-70 km/h on residential roads where children might be playing, or others enjoying their neighbourhood.
    It probably should depend on the neighbourhood design. I never see kids playing out front on their lawns, driveways or sidewalks in my neighbourhood (on my routes out of the neighbourhood). Plus we have those horrible combined sidewalks and curbs and no boulevard trees so visiblity is high. This is very different from the old neighbourhood I grew up in where kids were always out on the streets. That said, 40 kph would be ok but still rather unnecessary.

    One thing though, if the City is really serious about playground and school safety, then the yellow reflective tubes should be put on each and every signed zone pole at the entry to the zones. They make a huge difference in terms of demarcation of the zone.

    Some school zone signs but not all, have yellow reflective tubes on the signs somewhat like that shown here under the R R sign. These should be put on all school zone signs.



    http://www.4ssign.com/brights1.jpg




    http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/059...g?v=1459542045



    https://i.cbc.ca/1.3945031.148493508..._620/wires.jpg
    Last edited by KC; 14-09-2017 at 08:13 AM.

  22. #22

    Default

    Maybe you've got it backwards, and the reason that nobody plays in the front is because there's people driving past at 55? maybe it's the road design that's effectively robbed people of the use of the front 1/4 of their property.
    Maybe with a 40 or 30 limit you can get the city to add boulevards and fix the neighbourhood when renewal time comes around.
    There can only be one.

  23. #23

    Default

    If there's cars parked on the side of the road, it's next to impossible to see kids playing, or about to dart on to the road. Again, all in favour of 30km/h on residential roads that aren't collectors.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^Why speak about it in singular terms. Some commutes involve passing by countless zones. Some neighborhoods have schools/playground zones all over the place and meaning that anytime a person drives down the street they are impacted.
    If someone's commute takes them through "countless" school and playground zones then they're shortcutting through neighbourhoods and deserve zero sympathy for having to go neighbourhood speeds.
    I had little concern with the part time nature of the school restriction and enforcement. That's fine in that it involves only common use times and given how many kids are on the street at those times leaving or going to school I'm OK with that restriction.
    There are kids out at far more than just the school rush. It can be more dangerous when there are few pedestrians because you're not looking for them as you speed through. And after the kids are in bed there are still adults out walking dogs or going for a run. Sure they're more responsible but by then it's dark, so 30 is STILL the right speed.

    Bumping this up to a fulltime restriction till 9pm and incorporating larger, and more areas into the mix is harder to justify.
    That's right. The right way to do it is make the lower limit 24/7 and every neighbourhood street, to avoid confusing all the poor responsible drivers.

    Remembering as well that this is largely to protect kids that would dart out into the street. The protection should be kids being more well versed in their own safety and awareness.
    That's right. We need to relieve poor drivers of the unfair duty to be responsible for the considerable danger that their cars introduce to the street and place that responsibility on toddlers who according to replacement are smarter and more responsible than he is.

    Finally, this is a winter city. The playgrounds requiring supposed protection are only well used maybe 6mths of the year. Rarely used in the colder months. They will be dark long before 9pm much of the year. Cold and dark. Yet the traffic ordinance will be year round, inflexible, unwavering. Could any of the sloped foreheads at silly hall actually determin that a seasonal restriction made more sense? Or one that takes account of when its actually light out and when kids will be playing?
    Yeah, heaven forbid drivers slow down when it's dark 17 hours a day and the street is icy.
    There can only be one.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Maybe you've got it backwards, and the reason that nobody plays in the front is because there's people driving past at 55? maybe it's the road design that's effectively robbed people of the use of the front 1/4 of their property.
    Maybe with a 40 or 30 limit you can get the city to add boulevards and fix the neighbourhood when renewal time comes around.
    Hmmm. Maybe so. You know though that the implication of what you are saying is that reducing the speed limit might create a sense of security that will put more kids out in front of their houses and at risk of injury.

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^Actually polling those specific festivals, which are all central Edmonton festivals, plus polling parents in schools is a type of push polling where the likelihood of getting the results one is looking for is pronounced. They polled vested interests. Those living or frequenting central Edmonton or those with kids in school. They polled those people on the subject of driving. You know, without consulting the other subset, drivers.

    The danger here is we specifically go to some groups in society to canvas what the behaviors of another group should be. We then legislate around that. What a shitstorm.

    As per usual this council is doing what it wants and getting specious polls to attempt to justify it.

    Hell they could find neighborhoods in Edmonton where residents figure cars should be outlawed outright in front of their house provided it isn't their own..
    The vested interests have a lot to lose. This is about minority rights. Polling though should be transparent in terms of who and why select groups were contacted.

    Minority rights like those of people on beaches with kids that might not have the common sense to not wander into unsafe water.

  27. #27

    Default

    My biggest concern with this is that it not only doesn't address distracted driving (which I believe is the real problem), it adds to it. Forcing all drivers to be constantly looking for signs to tell them where playgrounds are will likely cause more accidents. The city should just actually enforce 50kmoh, since it appears it's the speeders they care about anyway.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^Why speak about it in singular terms. Some commutes involve passing by countless zones. Some neighborhoods have schools/playground zones all over the place and meaning that anytime a person drives down the street they are impacted.
    If someone's commute takes them through "countless" school and playground zones then they're shortcutting through neighbourhoods and deserve zero sympathy for having to go neighbourhood speeds.
    I had little concern with the part time nature of the school restriction and enforcement. That's fine in that it involves only common use times and given how many kids are on the street at those times leaving or going to school I'm OK with that restriction.
    There are kids out at far more than just the school rush. It can be more dangerous when there are few pedestrians because you're not looking for them as you speed through. And after the kids are in bed there are still adults out walking dogs or going for a run. Sure they're more responsible but by then it's dark, so 30 is STILL the right speed.

    Bumping this up to a fulltime restriction till 9pm and incorporating larger, and more areas into the mix is harder to justify.
    That's right. The right way to do it is make the lower limit 24/7 and every neighbourhood street, to avoid confusing all the poor responsible drivers.

    Remembering as well that this is largely to protect kids that would dart out into the street. The protection should be kids being more well versed in their own safety and awareness.
    That's right. We need to relieve poor drivers of the unfair duty to be responsible for the considerable danger that their cars introduce to the street and place that responsibility on toddlers who according to replacement are smarter and more responsible than he is.

    Finally, this is a winter city. The playgrounds requiring supposed protection are only well used maybe 6mths of the year. Rarely used in the colder months. They will be dark long before 9pm much of the year. Cold and dark. Yet the traffic ordinance will be year round, inflexible, unwavering. Could any of the sloped foreheads at silly hall actually determin that a seasonal restriction made more sense? Or one that takes account of when its actually light out and when kids will be playing?
    Yeah, heaven forbid drivers slow down when it's dark 17 hours a day and the street is icy.
    Not a fair reply. I live in Millwoods, in the burbs, and like many such communities many of the main roads, i.e. Millwoods road for instance, go through countless school/playground zones. This is not cutting through neighborhoods, its using roads as designed.

    Nor is it fair to lay ALL responsibility on drivers as pedestrians ought to SHARE in responsibility and look both ways accountability and for their own welfare and protection. Indeed as we reduce speed limits it seems as if we reduce accountability of pedestrians for their own actions and behavior. Shared roads and all that. The difficulty though is without proper self directed pedestrian safety a 30k collision will still kill a child. So why is that the right speed?

    So why is 30 the "right speed" and what is this based on? By the logic of slower speeds resulting in less braking distance we approach a speed of zero. 40 or 50K is not fast in neighborhoods and has rarely been a problem. Please cite the actual problem in terms of kids being hurt or killed at a school crossing which is a rarity here.
    Last edited by Replacement; 14-09-2017 at 08:49 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^Why speak about it in singular terms. Some commutes involve passing by countless zones. Some neighborhoods have schools/playground zones all over the place and meaning that anytime a person drives down the street they are impacted.
    If someone's commute takes them through "countless" school and playground zones then they're shortcutting through neighbourhoods and deserve zero sympathy for having to go neighbourhood speeds.
    I had little concern with the part time nature of the school restriction and enforcement. That's fine in that it involves only common use times and given how many kids are on the street at those times leaving or going to school I'm OK with that restriction.
    There are kids out at far more than just the school rush. It can be more dangerous when there are few pedestrians because you're not looking for them as you speed through. And after the kids are in bed there are still adults out walking dogs or going for a run. Sure they're more responsible but by then it's dark, so 30 is STILL the right speed.

    Bumping this up to a fulltime restriction till 9pm and incorporating larger, and more areas into the mix is harder to justify.
    That's right. The right way to do it is make the lower limit 24/7 and every neighbourhood street, to avoid confusing all the poor responsible drivers.

    Remembering as well that this is largely to protect kids that would dart out into the street. The protection should be kids being more well versed in their own safety and awareness.
    That's right. We need to relieve poor drivers of the unfair duty to be responsible for the considerable danger that their cars introduce to the street and place that responsibility on toddlers who according to replacement are smarter and more responsible than he is.

    Finally, this is a winter city. The playgrounds requiring supposed protection are only well used maybe 6mths of the year. Rarely used in the colder months. They will be dark long before 9pm much of the year. Cold and dark. Yet the traffic ordinance will be year round, inflexible, unwavering. Could any of the sloped foreheads at silly hall actually determin that a seasonal restriction made more sense? Or one that takes account of when its actually light out and when kids will be playing?
    Yeah, heaven forbid drivers slow down when it's dark 17 hours a day and the street is icy.
    Not a fair reply. I live in Millwoods, in the burbs, and like many such communities many of the main roads, i.e. Millwoods road for instance, go through countless school/playground zones. This is not cutting through neighborhoods, its using roads as designed.

    Nor is it fair to lay ALL responsibility on drivers as pedestrians ought to SHARE in responsibility and look both ways accountability and for their own welfare and protection. Indeed as we reduce speed limits it seems as if we reduce accountability of pedestrians for their own actions and behavior. Shared roads and all that. The difficulty though is without proper self directed pedestrian safety a 30k collision will still kill a child. So why is that the right speed?

    Next, why is 30 the "right speed" and what is this based on? By the logic of slower speeds resulting in less braking distance we approach a speed of zero. 40 or 50K is not fast in neighborhoods and has ravely been a problem. Please cite the actual problem in terms of kids being hurt or killed at a school crossing which is a rarity here.
    I trust that there is good evidence for a reduction. There are substantial numbers of both restricted and unrestricted jurisdictions that could have been analyzed.

    Added fencing between sidewalks and roadways in some areas might be a solution to satisfy everyone.

    In other places improved parking to get kids away from the thoroughfares or to remove parked vehicles from lines of sight might also reduce risk.
    Last edited by KC; 14-09-2017 at 08:51 AM.

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    My biggest concern with this is that it not only doesn't address distracted driving (which I believe is the real problem), it adds to it. Forcing all drivers to be constantly looking for signs to tell them where playgrounds are will likely cause more accidents. The city should just actually enforce 50kmoh, since it appears it's the speeders they care about anyway.
    As I understand it, the more that drivers are forced to pay attention to what they see out the windshield the less likely they are to try to use their phone at the same time. It's not like the signs will be placed far from the street - if they are, that's a problem - but will be right beside the sidewalk, and drivers should always be aware of what's happening on the sidewalk.
    There can only be one.

  31. #31

    Default

    ^^Wheres the evidence then?

    These are stats for 2015. Not one child killed among those. Whether that be in school/play zones or not.

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...ast-five-years

    In 2016 in Edmonton traffic fatalities were actually reduced 31%. Only 10 involving pedestrians. Even collisions involving children were extremely rare. The vast amount of collisions or deaths involving pedestrians were adults.

    https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...ollisions.aspx

    So please cite any statistical carnage regarding children in school or play zones that is occurring that is necessitating further speed reductions in Edmonton. Excusing the pun, what is driving this? Clamor over a menace that doesn't exist?
    Last edited by Replacement; 14-09-2017 at 09:06 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  32. #32

    Default

    This is feel-good pandering to a broad base. It's election season, folks.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Not a fair reply. I live in Millwoods, in the burbs, and like many such communities many of the main roads, i.e. Millwoods road for instance, go through countless school/playground zones. This is not cutting through neighborhoods, its using roads as designed.
    The proposal as I understand it is that parks and playgrounds along arterial roads would be fenced, and the lower limit would not apply. Most parks are already fenced in those locations. I'm not sure about collector roads or what streets might be considered collectors in a given neighbourhood, but I expect that playgrounds that are already fenced on collectors would not become have reduced speed limits.

    Nor is it fair to lay ALL responsibility on drivers as pedestrians ought to SHARE in responsibility and look both ways accountability and for their own welfare and protection. Indeed as we reduce speed limits it seems as if we reduce accountability of pedestrians for their own actions and behavior. Shared roads and all that. The difficulty though is without proper self directed pedestrian safety a 30k collision will still kill a child. So why is that the right speed?
    It's totally fair to lay all the responsibility on drivers. they're the ones who are introducing the danger, after all, and they're the ones who, prior to being allowed to drive, have to reach an age at which a certain level of responsibility can be expected, and then must take test to prove that they can operate a car responsibly. People on sidewalks include small children who can't be expected to be responsible, as well as disabled people who may not be able to cross quickly, or judge your speed, or even walk predictably. Asking them to shoulder your responsibility is blatantly unfair.

    Yes, we do follow those rules on freeways, and to a lesser degree on major arterials where fences or wide setbacks separate speeding cars and vulnerable people, but to expect the same everywhere is to ask that the irresponsible be caged for driver's convenience.



    So why is 30 the "right speed" and what is this based on? By the logic of slower speeds resulting in less braking distance we approach a speed of zero. 40 or 50K is not fast in neighborhoods and has rarely been a problem. Please cite the actual problem in terms of kids being hurt or killed at a school crossing which is a rarity here.
    At 30 stopping distance is a fraction of stopping distance at 50, and people's bodies are built to survive impact at 30 - that's about as fast as we can run (in our prime) so even when hit by a hard object like a car at that speed there's a pretty good chance you can walk away with just bruises and scrapes. If you're hit at 50 you have 90% odds of either death or a good long stay in intensive care.
    There can only be one.

  34. #34
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,513

    Default

    30 seems to be excessively low in ALL residential areas. I'm fine with it around schools and playgrounds. Seems to me that 40 in residential areas is a reasonable compromise. Problem is, most pedestrian fatalities happen on arterial roads. Further, speed is often not the primary factor while inattention and failing to yield to pedestrians in marked crosswalks are. Unfortunately, you can't just slap a photo truck on 170th street to crack down on those factors, so they get ignored.

    Bring on the self driving cars.

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    This is feel-good pandering to a broad base. It's election season, folks.
    I know, how dare our elected representatives do what people want.
    There can only be one.

  36. #36
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    The proposal as I understand it is that parks and playgrounds along arterial roads would be fenced, and the lower limit would not apply. Most parks are already fenced in those locations. I'm not sure about collector roads or what streets might be considered collectors in a given neighbourhood, but I expect that playgrounds that are already fenced on collectors would not become have reduced speed limits.
    Implementation has been inconsistent so far, with some collector roads next to schools not having school zones: https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.56116...7i13312!8i6656
    while others do have school zones despite fencing: https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.53152...7i13312!8i6656
    and some lack fencing altogether: https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.49049...7i13312!8i6656

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Not a fair reply. I live in Millwoods, in the burbs, and like many such communities many of the main roads, i.e. Millwoods road for instance, go through countless school/playground zones. This is not cutting through neighborhoods, its using roads as designed.
    The proposal as I understand it is that parks and playgrounds along arterial roads would be fenced, and the lower limit would not apply. Most parks are already fenced in those locations. I'm not sure about collector roads or what streets might be considered collectors in a given neighbourhood, but I expect that playgrounds that are already fenced on collectors would not become have reduced speed limits.

    Nor is it fair to lay ALL responsibility on drivers as pedestrians ought to SHARE in responsibility and look both ways accountability and for their own welfare and protection. Indeed as we reduce speed limits it seems as if we reduce accountability of pedestrians for their own actions and behavior. Shared roads and all that. The difficulty though is without proper self directed pedestrian safety a 30k collision will still kill a child. So why is that the right speed?
    It's totally fair to lay all the responsibility on drivers. they're the ones who are introducing the danger, after all, and they're the ones who, prior to being allowed to drive, have to reach an age at which a certain level of responsibility can be expected, and then must take test to prove that they can operate a car responsibly. People on sidewalks include small children who can't be expected to be responsible, as well as disabled people who may not be able to cross quickly, or judge your speed, or even walk predictably. Asking them to shoulder your responsibility is blatantly unfair.

    Yes, we do follow those rules on freeways, and to a lesser degree on major arterials where fences or wide setbacks separate speeding cars and vulnerable people, but to expect the same everywhere is to ask that the irresponsible be caged for driver's convenience.



    So why is 30 the "right speed" and what is this based on? By the logic of slower speeds resulting in less braking distance we approach a speed of zero. 40 or 50K is not fast in neighborhoods and has rarely been a problem. Please cite the actual problem in terms of kids being hurt or killed at a school crossing which is a rarity here.
    At 30 stopping distance is a fraction of stopping distance at 50, and people's bodies are built to survive impact at 30 - that's about as fast as we can run (in our prime) so even when hit by a hard object like a car at that speed there's a pretty good chance you can walk away with just bruises and scrapes. If you're hit at 50 you have 90% odds of either death or a good long stay in intensive care.
    It could be defended that adult bodies can withstand a collision in and around 30K (albeit possibility of death is still around 10% at such speeds, even for adults. What is less known, and not well understood, due to how fewer collisions or deaths involve children, is how much an undeveloped human body can withstand. One would also expect that a smaller object, a child, would be more subject to greater injury at the same 30k speed. Thus my question around why 30k?

    Remember we are talking about kids here.

    But again in a jurisdiction that has had very little specific problem with child pedestrian collision injury or death. Indeed it seems that present precautions have served well around schools/playgrounds. So why the need for increased controls?
    Last edited by Replacement; 14-09-2017 at 09:55 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    This is feel-good pandering to a broad base. It's election season, folks.
    I know, how dare our elected representatives do what people want.
    Get off your high horse. It isn't established that this is what ALL people want. The polls were selective.

    In anycase answer the question I have asked 3 times. What factor has brought about the requirement for change. Collisions don't occur much as it is at School zones and playgrounds and they rarely involve children at all. So given that, what is this increased control for. What does it prevent that isn't already being prevented?
    Last edited by Replacement; 14-09-2017 at 10:01 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  39. #39

    Default

    I suspect a child would be a greater risk simply due to being more likely to go under the car rather than over. 30 is a good blanket speed for residential neighbourhoods, but yes, there are times where I will drive slower than that in particularly narrow spots. It's not uncommon to see campgrounds and resorts signed for 20, 15 or even 10, which might tell you something about the speeds most people would actually prefer to see outside their homes.

    A big portion of why so few children are injured is because children are so rarely outside. People may blame the ipad but parents' fear of traffic is at least as big a factor. With slower, quieter, safer streets maybe there will be more children outside.
    There can only be one.

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    This is feel-good pandering to a broad base. It's election season, folks.
    I know, how dare our elected representatives do what people want.
    Get off your high horse. It isn't established that this is what ALL people want. The polls were selective.

    In anycase answer the question I have asked 3 times. What factor has brought about the requirement for change. Collisions don't occur as it is at School zones and playgrounds and they rarely involve children at all. So given that, what is this increased control for. What does it prevent that isn't already being prevented?
    Here's the factor:

    People have realized that there was never any thought behind the old 50km/hr limit in the first place, and that it didn't make sense and has a negative impact on quality of life and safety.

    And thanks to the easy spear of information with the internet they say that other places were able to make changes.
    There can only be one.

  41. #41

    Default

    30 km. does seem rather low for main arteries is residential streets. I definitely see the worth of slowing down in school zones and playground areas but the rest of the main arteries it rather regressive. It's not as if we have a huge problem with children being run over all the time. In a lot of those cases speed in not usually the factor, more like inattention from the child or the driver. It's been mentioned before about how schools are designed so that the kids spill out onto the main thoroughfares of residential streets. Cars lined up on the main arteries waiting for kids all adds up to congestion on these particular streets. Schools should be designed where the drop off and pick up areas are not on these main roads. Have a slip road beside the schools so vehicles wait there. Another thing, certain members of the C of E city council are these new wave dreamers who think we should all be riding bicycles so they are going out of their way to drum up problems were really are non. Another thing, with all these new speed limits hopefully there is plenty of signage so that people know they are entering a playground area etc. No giving out tickets until that is all in place.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  42. #42

    Default

    AS I ALWAYS SUSPECTED, INTERSECTIONS KILL!!!
    Speed kills? Of course. the faster one goes the quicker one dies. However, I suspect its intersections that kill a lot more than speed does.

    Anyway, lots of data here:


    Child Pedestrian Injuries Report 2007 - 2008

    excerpts:
    "Children are more likely to be struck by a car in areas with heavy traffic volumes, a high density of parked cars, higher speed limits, and limited choices for play, such as available green space."

    A child pedestrian is most likely to suffer injuries to the lower extremities from hip to toe (34 per cent), a traumatic brain injury (25 per cent) and injuries to the torso (10 per cent).7
    Fracture is the most common type of injury and the most common body area injured is from hip to toe.
    Internal damage (injury to lungs, liver and spleen) is the most common cause of death.
    Traumatic injury to the brain is the most common body region injured that caused death.
    Overall, lower extremity injuries occur more frequently than upper extremity injuries.8
    More than half of all child pedestrian deaths and most injuries (95 per cent) happen in urban areas.9 *
    Note: Transport Canada defines urban as:
    (a) metropolitan roads and streets and other urban areas, or (b) a speed limit at the collision site of 60 km/hr or less
    Rural includes:
    (a) primary or secondary highways, as well as local roads, or (b) a speed limit at the collision site exceeding 60 km/hr.

    Note that in Alberta and Saskatchewan, urban includes any area within the corporate boundaries of a city, town, village or hamlet. Rural includes any area outside of what is defined as “urban”.

    When children are struck by vehicles, their injuries are often life threatening or cause permanent physical damage. Children of different ages are at risk for different types of injuries because of the child’s physical stature. In children between 10 to 14 years of age, serious injuries occur because the body’s center of gravity tends to be above the bumper of the vehicle.The collisions cause three distinct impacts: the first point of contact is with the leg on the bumper, the second point of contact is between the thigh on the edge of the hood and the third contact is with the head and shoulders on the hood and windshield.As the vehicle’s speed increases, so does the force of these impacts. At high speeds, the increased momentum forces the legs to rotate above the head before falling back onto the hood, and at even greater speeds, the child somersaults into the windshield or roof.10


    Table 1. Transport Canada: 1995-2004 Pedestrian fatalities
    by pedestrian action
    Pedestrian action Age 0-14

    Intersection 114

    Walk with traffic 23

    Running into road 59

    Safety zone 8

    Between intersections 6

    Walk against traffic 7

    Play/work on roadway 37

    From behind parked cars 21

    Other actions 71

    Unknown 35

    Total 381



    Table 2. Transport Canada: Percentage of pedestrian fatalities
    by striking vehicle
    Vehicle Percentage of fatalities
    Passenger cars 57
    Light trucks & vans 25
    Heavy trucks 10
    Bus 3
    Other 5
    Passenger vehicles are most often the type of vehicle that
    injures or kills child pedestrians, followed by light trucks
    (including SUVs) and vans.13 In addition, the highest
    number of child pedestrian injuries and deaths occur in
    areas where the posted speed limit is 50 km/hr.14


    http://www.parachutecanada.org/downl...port_07:08.pdf
    bolding was mine - of course. (I don't know why I always type this.)


    The above table ranked highest to lowest with percentages of total - (with top 5 bolded)


    Percent - Original Order - Cause - No.


    30% 1 Intersection - 114

    19% 9 Other actions - 71

    15% 3 Running into road - 59

    10% 7 Play/work on roadway - 37

    9% 10 Unknown - 35


    6% 2 Walk with traffic - 23

    6% 8 From behind parked cars - 21

    4% 4 Safety zone - 8

    2% 6 Walk against traffic - 7

    2% 5 Between intersections - 6

    100% Total - 381
    Last edited by KC; 14-09-2017 at 10:59 AM.

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    As I suspected. It's the intersections that kill.
    Intersections are the single largest one, true, but if you add up running into road, play/work on roadway, from behind parked cars you end up at 117.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  44. #44

    Default

    ^^^ Gemini, do you know of any schools where drop-offs and pick-ups take place in a traffic lane? I've never seen one where there isn't enough room for the same number of lanes to get past, other than one where school buses (and only buses) stop on 66st at St. Francis of Assisi School. in other cases the extra cars stopped is only enough to slow cars to below the limit, not present an actual delay. Rather than simply being off the main road I've heard of schools where pick-ups and drop-offs aren't allowed at all on the streets closest to the school, so that traffic is more spread out and lower impact. Which also provides a safer and more comfortable environment for those kids that walk, ideally allowing more children to do so.

    I agree wholeheartedly on the signage issue. Speed zone information needs to be clear before they can be enforced - although as someone who would prefer a city-wide change in the default limit with signed arterials I wouldn't mind so much if they just skipped this step completely rather than spend a substantial amount of money and time on playground signage.
    There can only be one.

  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    As I suspected. It's the intersections that kill.
    Intersections are the single largest one, true, but if you add up running into road, play/work on roadway, from behind parked cars you end up at 117.
    Safety Zones are very low. We need to turn more intersections into Safety Zones.

    Actually, I just now read this comment in the same document (see link above or below on this post) I guess I better be less facetious.


    Twenty-nine per cent of child pedestrians younger than
    14 years of age were killed crossing at intersections
    with no traffic control, 15 per cent were running on to
    the road and 10 per cent were playing on the road.

    The most frequently reported child pedestrian action
    that led to injury or death is crossing at an intersection

    followed by running onto the road.12
    Yes, yes, yes, the bold and underline were mine.



    Actually, maybe 4-way stops (assuming they are safer) should be placed within say 2 blocks in all directions of all schools. Or improved crosswalk safety lighting.

    (Of course I'm making huge assumptions here - as is common.)


    Note: The 2% "Between intersections " confuses me.

    Source: Table #1 page 6
    http://www.parachutecanada.org/downl...port_07:08.pdf
    Last edited by KC; 14-09-2017 at 11:08 AM.

  46. #46

    Default

    outdated?

    GUIDELINES FOR SCHOOL AND PLAYGROUND ZONES AND AREAS
    Version 2
    Date of Issue: December 2007

    ...
    The purpose of the Guidelines for School and Playground Zones and Areas document is to promote uniformity in the establishment and the signing and marking of School and Playground Zones and Areas in Alberta.
    Section 107 of the Alberta Traffic Safety Act, revised in May 2003, prescribes a maximum speed limit of 30 kilometres per hour within School and Playground Zones, in both urban and rural environments. By bylaw, a municipality may prescribe a lower maximum speed limit than that prescribed under the Act but the speed limit so prescribed shall not be lower than 20 kilometres per hour. A municipality can also set the time periods when the speed limit in School Zones is in effect. A municipality cannot modify the effective period established under the Act for Playground Zones. Traffic control devices are used to mark the beginning and end of School and Playground Zones.

    The previous version of these Guidelines, having the same name, was published in 2004. These Guidelines further refine the best practices laid out in the previous version, which built on the principles of the preceding guidelines (entitled Signing and Marking of School Zones and Playground Zones, published in 198 and prescribed a set of actions that is consistent with the Traffic Safety Act and the accompanying Use of Highway and Rules of the Road Regulation. They also generally adhere to the principles of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada (MUTCDC). The revised Guidelines (Version 2) include:
    ..."



    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    Section Subject Page
    D3.1 INTRODUCTION...................................... .................................................. .........................D3-1
    D3.1.1 Background........................................ .................................................. ......................D3-1 D3.1.2 ReferenceDocuments................................ .................................................. ..............D3-1 D3.1.3 Definitions....................................... .................................................. ........................D3-1
    D3.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHOOL AND PLAYGROUND ZONES
    AND AREAS............................................. .................................................. ...........................D3-2
    D3.2.1 Introduction...................................... .................................................. ........................D3-2
    D3.2.2 Use of These Guidelines........................................ .................................................. ..D3-2
    D3.2.3 Establishment of School Zones and Areas .................................................. .............. D3-3
    D3.2.4 Establishment of Playground Zones and Areas .................................................. ..... D3-11
    D3.3 SIGNING AND MARKING FOR SCHOOL AND PLAYGROUND
    ZONES AND AREAS .................................................. .................................................. ..... D3-19
    D3.3.1 GeneralConsiderations............................. .................................................. .............D3-19
    D3.3.2 Guidelines for School Zones and Areas .................................................. ................ D3-21
    D3.3.3 Guidelines for Playground Zones and Areas .................................................. ......... D3-22
    D3.3.4 Guidelines for Adjacent School and Playground Zones and Areas.........................D3-22
    D3.3.5 Guidelines for School and Playground Zones and Areas
    Through Intersections .................................................. ............................................ D3-23
    APPENDICES
    Appendix A – Examples of Fencing Related to Schools Appendix B – Examples of Playground Equipment Appendix C – Examples of Fencing Related to Playgrounds

    ..."

    http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...n/schlpgnd.pdf

    Well, I see in our neighbourhood combined curb-sidewalk (no boulevard or widened pavement and so no separation as suggested below. Elementary school kids pile out of buses and cars right onto the sidewalk and then they go in all directions. School busses could stop further 'ahead' past the school in order to create a predictable foot traffic flow back towards the school. Parking out front just creates a disrupted chaotic system.


    How to Get Started
    ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS FOR DESIGNING YOUR SAFE ROUTES Design Elements

    ...Designing for Pedestrians
    Ideal conditions for school-aged pedestrians include low volumes of traffic moving at slow speeds, sidewalks and separation from traffic. According to Safe Kids World- wide, children do not develop the skills they need to correctly gauge the speed of ve- hicles until at least age 10. Providing facilities for young walkers not only addresses their needs but can help make children’s movements more predictable to motorists. ..."



    "High Visibility Crosswalks
    Boldly striped, colored, or tex- tured crosswalks alert drivers to pedestrian areas and delineate exactly where pedestrians are intended to cross. High Visibil- ity Crosswalks in combination with other traffic-calming treat- ments (see page 6) such as stop bars, should be consid- ered along school routes. Crosswalks can be enhanced through:
    Ladder, Zebra, Continental (piano bar) striping Texture
    Color - solid or patterned"



    http://www.nj.gov/transportation/com...gsolutions.pdf
    Last edited by KC; 14-09-2017 at 11:20 AM.

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    This is feel-good pandering to a broad base. It's election season, folks.
    I know, how dare our elected representatives do what people want.
    Get off your high horse. It isn't established that this is what ALL people want. The polls were selective.

    In anycase answer the question I have asked 3 times. What factor has brought about the requirement for change. Collisions don't occur as it is at School zones and playgrounds and they rarely involve children at all. So given that, what is this increased control for. What does it prevent that isn't already being prevented?
    Here's the factor:

    People have realized that there was never any thought behind the old 50km/hr limit in the first place, and that it didn't make sense and has a negative impact on quality of life and safety.

    And thanks to the easy spear of information with the internet they say that other places were able to make changes.
    But those changes are being made despite any evidence there was a problem to solve. Speed kills, we know that. However, speed isn't killing anyone in these places. Despite decades of evidence, there's no safety issue that needs to be resolved here. We're just pushing through feel-good measures to reduce the severity of made up pedestrian collisions that simply don't occur. It's heavy handed. If there were lots of collisions, I would be absolutely for it, but there isn't, so it's unnecessary. The signage costs alone make this a ridiculous effort if it won't solve any problem.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  48. #48
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ^Actually polling those specific festivals, which are all central Edmonton festivals, plus polling parents in schools is a type of push polling where the likelihood of getting the results one is looking for is pronounced. They polled vested interests. Those living or frequenting central Edmonton or those with kids in school. They polled those people on the subject of driving. You know, without consulting the other subset, drivers.

    The danger here is we specifically go to some groups in society to canvas what the behaviors of another group should be. We then legislate around that. What a shitstorm.

    As per usual this council is doing what it wants and getting specious polls to attempt to justify it.

    Hell they could find neighborhoods in Edmonton where residents figure cars should be outlawed outright in front of their house provided it isn't their own..
    Clearly, End of Days is upon us if Replacement and mseaver have found common ground.

    If Cebryk the Entertainer wants to conduct polls, let him have his people do Exit Interviews of audience members of action films starring Ansel Elgort, Vin Diesel, Tom Cruise, Jason Statham, Jet, Li, Ryan Gosling, Matt Damon, Liam Neeson, Bruce Willis et al.

  49. #49

    Default

    I would assume that between intersections means crossing between intersections.

    4-way stops might work but in low-traffic areas I see a lot of people roll through - it's actually safe since slowing to 5 meets the intent of low-volume stop signs but I don't like the idea of adding signage that will continue to normalize law-breaking.

    I would rather see yields and things like raised crosswalks (slow drivers like speedbumps) and curb extensions that provide a safe place to stand that's visible to drivers while physically prevent people from stopping their cars in or too near to crosswalks. There's no good reason why sidewalk users are expected to go up and down through puddles to cross the street while people in cars (and often on bikes) continue on the level; and you can't blame people for "darting' onto the street when there's no place to be seen without entering the roadway first.
    There can only be one.

  50. #50
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    People have realized that there was never any thought behind the old 50km/hr limit in the first place, and that it didn't make sense and has a negative impact on quality of life and safety.
    What a nonsensical remark.

    "never any thought behind the old 50km/hr limit"

    Sheesh.

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    I would assume that between intersections means crossing between intersections.

    4-way stops might work but in low-traffic areas I see a lot of people roll through - it's actually safe since slowing to 5 meets the intent of low-volume stop signs but I don't like the idea of adding signage that will continue to normalize law-breaking.

    I would rather see yields and things like raised crosswalks (slow drivers like speedbumps) and curb extensions that provide a safe place to stand that's visible to drivers while physically prevent people from stopping their cars in or too near to crosswalks. There's no good reason why sidewalk users are expected to go up and down through puddles to cross the street while people in cars (and often on bikes) continue on the level; and you can't blame people for "darting' onto the street when there's no place to be seen without entering the roadway first.
    Yes, but, but, but.... What about the separate numbers for walking between parked cars, running into road... (I assume it's "Other actions" but discernibly between intersections.)

    I like your comments/suggestions.


    At the crosswalk closest to our elementary school - the neighbourhood revitalization's road resurfacing created spots for pools of water and ice to form right in the walking path where the sidewalk ramp meets the higher asphalt on the road. This is one of the two main crosswalks going to the school. Moreover all the way down the street, the sloped driveways/sidewalks create slippery or wet areas for a city block's distance from the elementary school. It's insane to make the roads perfect for cars (with tires and suspension) but leave if not worsen poor ly designed sidewalks. Cracked down the middle of course - for blocks on end. Then piling snow onto those sidewalks in the winter... triggering people to cut across the road to find clearer easier sidewalks to walk on.
    Last edited by KC; 14-09-2017 at 11:48 AM.

  52. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    But those changes are being made despite any evidence there was a problem to solve. Speed kills, we know that. However, speed isn't killing anyone in these places. Despite decades of evidence, there's no safety issue that needs to be resolved here. We're just pushing through feel-good measures to reduce the severity of made up pedestrian collisions that simply don't occur. It's heavy handed. If there were lots of collisions, I would be absolutely for it, but there isn't, so it's unnecessary. The signage costs alone make this a ridiculous effort if it won't solve any problem.
    That there are few actual collisions doesn't mean there's no problem. That parents are afraid to allow their children to walk to school due to traffic is a problem. That these kids grow up sedentary and believing that driving is the only way to get around is a problem and one that kills.

    We've got a society where drivers collectively say "Nice kid you got there, be a shame if something happened to him"; and people claim there's no problem as long as people on foot pay up and get out of the way.
    There can only be one.

  53. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    This is feel-good pandering to a broad base. It's election season, folks.
    Game. Set. Match.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  54. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    But those changes are being made despite any evidence there was a problem to solve. Speed kills, we know that. However, speed isn't killing anyone in these places. Despite decades of evidence, there's no safety issue that needs to be resolved here. We're just pushing through feel-good measures to reduce the severity of made up pedestrian collisions that simply don't occur. It's heavy handed. If there were lots of collisions, I would be absolutely for it, but there isn't, so it's unnecessary. The signage costs alone make this a ridiculous effort if it won't solve any problem.
    That there are few actual collisions doesn't mean there's no problem. That parents are afraid to allow their children to walk to school due to traffic is a problem. That these kids grow up sedentary and believing that driving is the only way to get around is a problem and one that kills.

    We've got a society where drivers collectively say "Nice kid you got there, be a shame if something happened to him"; and people claim there's no problem as long as people on foot pay up and get out of the way.
    The false belief that danger lurks around every corner is the problem then, not the speed limit. Passing laws to appease helicopter parents that live outside of reality is a scary turn of events indeed. It's tragic that you've bought into it.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  55. #55
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Maybe ... the reason that nobody plays in the front is because there's people driving past at ...

    ... A big portion of why so few children are injured is because children are so rarely outside. People may blame the ipad but parents' fear of traffic is at least as big a factor. With slower, quieter, safer streets maybe there will be more children outside.
    You are either childless or an Empty Nester, whose progeny have been gone so long (without producing grandchildren) that you have lost touch with today's youth realities.

    When children of today are not transfixed by an electronic device, they are participating in an organized activity at a dedicated complex that they were driven to.

    Take your pick: hockey, gymnastics, ringette, basket ball, soccer, ad infinitum ...

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    But those changes are being made despite any evidence there was a problem to solve. Speed kills, we know that. However, speed isn't killing anyone in these places. Despite decades of evidence, there's no safety issue that needs to be resolved here. We're just pushing through feel-good measures to reduce the severity of made up pedestrian collisions that simply don't occur. It's heavy handed. If there were lots of collisions, I would be absolutely for it, but there isn't, so it's unnecessary. The signage costs alone make this a ridiculous effort if it won't solve any problem.
    That there are few actual collisions doesn't mean there's no problem. That parents are afraid to allow their children to walk to school due to traffic is a problem. That these kids grow up sedentary and believing that driving is the only way to get around is a problem and one that kills.

    We've got a society where drivers collectively say "Nice kid you got there, be a shame if something happened to him"; and people claim there's no problem as long as people on foot pay up and get out of the way.

    If there isn't a widespread issue, then maybe instead of blanket rules, selective measures should be employed. Isn't that how most things traffic related work - except to some degree speed limits and other standardizations. However, traffic lights aren't standardized to EVERY intersection, and instead, I assume some sort of criteria has to be met. Should the same logic be applied to neighbourhood safety issues with more funds being allocated to potential and known problem areas and none being expended where a problem is highly unlikely?

  57. #57
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    125

    Default

    The practice of Open Boundaries is a leading factor in the increased danger faced by school children.

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mseaver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Maybe ... the reason that nobody plays in the front is because there's people driving past at ...

    ... A big portion of why so few children are injured is because children are so rarely outside. People may blame the ipad but parents' fear of traffic is at least as big a factor. With slower, quieter, safer streets maybe there will be more children outside.
    You are either childless or an Empty Nester, whose progeny have been gone so long (without producing grandchildren) that you have lost touch with today's youth realities.

    When children of today are not transfixed by an electronic device, they are participating in an organized activity at a dedicated complex that they were driven to.

    Take your pick: hockey, gymnastics, ringette, basket ball, soccer, ad infinitum ...
    That's the trend and it was noted way back in 2008:

    "Despite the fact that during the past decade the number of
    child pedestrian deaths and injuries has declined,
    international research indicates that a major factor for this
    reduction is that children are walking less.1" [see page 1)

    http://www.parachutecanada.org/downl...port_07:08.pdf


    Now look at our pickup trucks - they are now massive compared to say the 80s and 90s. Many factors have changed.

  59. #59

    Default

    Conditions are different from neighbourhood to neighbourhood, but it really is a widespread issue. That's why I prefer the city-wide reduction in the default speed limit rather than just more reduced speed zones.

    It's the arterials and collectors that should be the exceptions.

    If there's not a whole lot of through-traffic then there's no reason that the speed limit should be higher. If there is a lot of through traffic then maybe you raise the limit but use other methods to ensure that the street is safe and easy to cross. Or in some cases you might change the street to reduce or eliminate the through traffic.
    There can only be one.

  60. #60
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    We've got a society where drivers collectively say "Nice kid you got there, be a shame if something happened to him"; and people claim there's no problem as long as people on foot pay up and get out of the way.
    Nonsense .

  61. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mseaver View Post
    The practice of Open Boundaries is a leading factor in the increased danger faced by school children.
    It's definitely a factor, although I suppose that if parents feel that their kids can't safely walk to the local school then there's one factor that might shift the balance toward choosing an alternate school.
    There can only be one.

  62. #62
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mseaver View Post
    The practice of Open Boundaries is a leading factor in the increased danger faced by school children.
    It's definitely a factor, although I suppose that if parents feel that their kids can't safely walk to the local school then there's one factor that might shift the balance toward choosing an alternate school.
    Walking safely to school ranks low, if at all, on the list of reasons why parents choose to send, I mean drive, their child to a school outside their neighborhood.

    Want your child to have a better chance of becoming a star athlete - off they go to Vimy Ridge Academy (nee Bonnie Doon High)

    French immersion? J H Picard, here you come.

    Think the child is gifted? Probably need to choose from one of the charter schools operating around the city.

    And so on ...

    While some of those travelling to facilities outside their neighborhood utilize transport, my experience is that the numbers are a small fraction of the total.

    Everyone one of the private vehicles shuttling precious cargo twice daily; morning and afternoon; rain, snow or shine; piloted by harried, distracted parents who might be late for work, a massage or even a tryst.

    None of which was an issue when I was a child in Edmonton and bound to attend the designated school for my neighborhood, getting there on foot or by bicycle.

  63. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mseaver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Maybe ... the reason that nobody plays in the front is because there's people driving past at ...

    ... A big portion of why so few children are injured is because children are so rarely outside. People may blame the ipad but parents' fear of traffic is at least as big a factor. With slower, quieter, safer streets maybe there will be more children outside.
    You are either childless or an Empty Nester, whose progeny have been gone so long (without producing grandchildren) that you have lost touch with today's youth realities.

    When children of today are not transfixed by an electronic device, they are participating in an organized activity at a dedicated complex that they were driven to.

    Take your pick: hockey, gymnastics, ringette, basket ball, soccer, ad infinitum ...
    Nope, I'm a parent with kids at home, ranging from toddlers who actually do play in the front yard and tricycle down the sidewalk to pre-teens who are starting to roam more on their own.

    We do have seasons of activities, but it really is a chicken-egg thing. It's not like the choice to get involved is made in a vacuum. In some cases there might be a choice between a local community league option and a club team, but if unlike previous generations your kid can't get to the local games on their own why not go to the club option?
    There can only be one.

  64. #64
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,294

    Default

    Thought I heard 40 for purely residential.

    Can't think of purely residential where I feel safe going any faster.

    That said, would you call Millwoods Road purely residential? Or a collector?
    ... gobsmacked

  65. #65
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,340

    Default

    Millwoods road is a collector. One of the few roads that actually connect the circuitous mess of residential streets in that area to the rest of the city. It also hosts many of the schools in Millwoods, most of which do not have an alternative access. Terrible urban planning all around.

  66. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    ^^^ Gemini, do you know of any schools where drop-offs and pick-ups take place in a traffic lane? I've never seen one where there isn't enough room for the same number of lanes to get past, other than one where school buses (and only buses) stop on 66st at St. Francis of Assisi School. in other cases the extra cars stopped is only enough to slow cars to below the limit, not present an actual delay. Rather than simply being off the main road I've heard of schools where pick-ups and drop-offs aren't allowed at all on the streets closest to the school, so that traffic is more spread out and lower impact. Which also provides a safer and more comfortable environment for those kids that walk, ideally allowing more children to do so.

    I agree wholeheartedly on the signage issue. Speed zone information needs to be clear before they can be enforced - although as someone who would prefer a city-wide change in the default limit with signed arterials I wouldn't mind so much if they just skipped this step completely rather than spend a substantial amount of money and time on playground signage.
    I hear what your saying about drop offs and pick-ups not impeding traffic lanes. Those vehicles have a right to be there, but one of the problems is that often the parent will stand outside of the vehicle and stand and watch traffic while the youngster jay walks over the road because the school crossing is in the opposite direction to where they have parked or is too far away from where they have parked. I have no problem with kids crossing the roads and no problem with slowing down in school zones or playgrounds but that does not get away from the fact that they can and maybe design school entrances and exits so that they are not facing the main arteries of residential areas. Don't build roads around schools so that the main thoroughfares get clogged with vehicles at certain times of the day. Lots of schools have large fields around them. Why not make an access route at the back of the school for pick up and drop offs where possible including school buses. It would be safer all round for the kids.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  67. #67
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,340

    Default

    ^You mean the way things were before about 1950, with school yards surrounded by roads (mostly minor) instead of back yards on 3 sides and a major road on the other? Street layout practices went to hell halfway through the 20th century and have never recovered.

  68. #68
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,372

    Default

    I think 40km is fair, 30 km would be unnaturally low for my neighbourhood. I would be looking down at my speedometer more than up at the road just to ensure I don't inadvertently speed because the road is quite wide with high visibility.

  69. #69

    Default

    ^Is that the local crescent or the collector? I think that with a generous definition of collector we could probably make 30 work by leaving most collectors, including every bus route, at 40.


    In any case, 40 is the best first step whether the goal is 30 or 40. It's a reasonably small job to sign all the arterials so they can remain at 50, but determining which collectors stay 40 would be a big project, needing lots of signs and lots of consultation.
    There can only be one.

  70. #70
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,372

    Default

    Oh it's a collector with a bus route running on it.

  71. #71

    Default

    ^Then I agree that that's not the kind of street that should be 30. The roads like that, at least the ones that I'm familiar with, need better crosswalks and sidewalk boulevards to make walking and crossing easier, but would work just fine at 40, I think.
    There can only be one.

  72. #72
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,340

    Default

    I could see some debate over what is a collector and what is a local road, but 30 km/h on a collector road is too slow, bus route or not. Even 40 km/h is too slow for most of them IMHO. Rather than general speed limit reductions and/or littering collector roads with school and playground zones, why not some fencing and more pedestrian lights?

  73. #73

    Default

    I'd like to see the determinate factor in all pedestrian collisions. In what % of those did the pedestrian just walk in front of a moving car? It seems to me that this city is paralyzed with fear at being accused of "victim blaming" when a pedestrian causes an accident by intentionally walking into traffic without seeing if it's safe. When waiting at crosswalks in my vehicle, I can visibly see some pedestrians using every ounce of their willpower to avoid even trying to look up and make eye contact with the machinery that could turn them to mush. It's like they're playing some kind of game where they like to pretend that pedestrians can't be at fault, even if it costs them their life.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  74. #74

    Default

    Armed with facts and more nuanced understanding of the problem, Vision Zero leaders are able to boldly address the factors that actually influence behavior on the roads, rather than lazily assuming cell phones and poor walking skills are the culprits. This leads to better analysis and, in some cases, much-needed challenges to long-held assumptions about factors such as street design, speeds, and policies that influence traffic culture. By committing to Vision Zero, these city and community leaders are acknowledging that these traffic deaths are preventable and taking action.

    One “bright spot” in this news is that the biggest cities in the U.S. are doing far better than the rest of the nation in prioritizing its walking public. The report finds that the 10 most populous cities had a 3.5% decrease in the number of pedestrian fatalities between 2014 and 2015, which are the most recent data available. This compares with the nearly 10% increase nationwide during that time frame. It’s no coincidence that Vision Zero has been championed primarily by larger urban areas in its early adoption in the U.S. But safety is not only a big city issue: the tools and strategies employed by big cities to cut deaths can be adapted to small towns, suburbs, and rural communities so that the whole country can experience a decline in traffic deaths. It’s not rocket science; it’s about prioritizing people-first policies over speed at all costs.
    http://visionzeronetwork.org/resist-...strian-safety/
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  75. #75

    Default

    ^^ I sometimes do that, use this special power I have called "peripheral vision" to make sure the car is stopping. See, there are scads of drivers out there who will stop if they think the pedestrian isn't aware, but if the pedestrian sees them they'll keep on truckin', since the pedestrian will stop and no one will get hit.

    I consider it a public service, since the more often drivers encounter "unpredictable" pedestrians who actually claim the right of way the more drivers might be prepared to stop when they are supposed to.
    There can only be one.

  76. #76

    Default

    I was driving east to west on 144th Ave in the Dickensfield area the other day. There a quite a few schools on that stretch and you have to drop to 30 more than once on the parts I travelled. At times it seemed like you are going in slow motion when you drop to thirty. There was on spot between 82 st and 97 Ave where you had to drop to 30 for the school zone. There was a sign saying 'School Zone' but no sign saying the school zone had ended. Hopefully the C of E gets their signage right so we don't have to guess these things.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  77. #77

    Default

    If there's no "School Zone End" sign the School Zone ends when you see the next speed sign >30 km/h. Basic Learner's Permit level knowledge.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  78. #78

    Default

    Well most roads it's 50 km unless otherwise posted. Basic Learner's Permit level knowledge.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  79. #79

    Default

    School zone start:
    https://goo.gl/maps/vyFvgLt9n6C2

    School zone continues:
    https://goo.gl/maps/2ATzsDcwQx92

    School zone ends:
    https://goo.gl/maps/6SAQJ2PFSNM2

    Pretty simple stuff.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  80. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    ^^ I sometimes do that, use this special power I have called "peripheral vision" to make sure the car is stopping. See, there are scads of drivers out there who will stop if they think the pedestrian isn't aware, but if the pedestrian sees them they'll keep on truckin', since the pedestrian will stop and no one will get hit.

    I consider it a public service, since the more often drivers encounter "unpredictable" pedestrians who actually claim the right of way the more drivers might be prepared to stop when they are supposed to.
    I have no idea what you're saying here. All drivers should stop for pedestrians, but it's also the pedestrian's primary concern to make sure the vehicle they're walking in front of has, indeed, stopped.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  81. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    ^^ I sometimes do that, use this special power I have called "peripheral vision" to make sure the car is stopping. See, there are scads of drivers out there who will stop if they think the pedestrian isn't aware, but if the pedestrian sees them they'll keep on truckin', since the pedestrian will stop and no one will get hit.

    I consider it a public service, since the more often drivers encounter "unpredictable" pedestrians who actually claim the right of way the more drivers might be prepared to stop when they are supposed to.
    I have no idea what you're saying here. All drivers should stop for pedestrians, but it's also the pedestrian's primary concern to make sure the vehicle they're walking in front of has, indeed, stopped.
    Stop Chimlz. You're trying to say a pedestrian has some responsibility? Ha, that ship sailed. For example, I can't count how many pedestrian amber light switches I've observed where the ped. hits the button and steps off the curb, totally into the traffic. Sad really. Highlander is trying to spin it that the onus is TOTALLY on the motorist. The special power I use is called 'common sense'.
    He who posteth too much, should moveth out of his parents basement and get a life.

  82. #82

    Default

    All I know is my dashcam proves that pedestrians are seemingly suicidal with no regard for their own well being. As posted above, saying that putting any onus on pedestrians is "lazily assuming cell phones and poor walking skills are the culprit" is the lazy assumption that says motorists are at fault. There is no shortage of evidence that proves pedestrians are at fault at least some amount of the time, and they have a responsibility to not kill themselves out of stupidity.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  83. #83

    Default

    I think if you asked some of the younger generation about defensive driving they would not know what it was. They may have heard of it but don't understand the concept. Things like covering your brake when you are coming up to a light in anticipation of it turning yellow/red. Now instead of doing that they hit the accelerator hoping to get through the light before it does that. Or going forward on a green light but doing a quick check left right to make sure no one is going to run their red.
    Even being prepared just in case a pedestrian steps off the road when they should not. There are all kinds of those tricks that people used to learn when driving but now it seems it's everyone for themselves on the road.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  84. #84
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bpeters
    I can't count how many pedestrian amber light switches I've observed where the ped. hits the button and steps off the curb, totally into the traffic.
    My cars have buttons provided by the manufacturer for use as a rebuttal to behavior such as you describe.

  85. #85
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Perhaps the rush to shield pedestrians (& cyclists) from the consequences of inattentions and sometimes willful disregard is breeding the once instinctive behavior of self-preservation out of humankind.

    My youth was a time of indoctrination into a culture of safety. Personal accountability is a basic tenet of this.
    Last edited by mseaver; 15-09-2017 at 10:20 PM.

  86. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Armed with facts and more nuanced understanding of the problem, Vision Zero leaders are able to boldly address the factors that actually influence behavior on the roads, rather than lazily assuming cell phones and poor walking skills are the culprits. This leads to better analysis and, in some cases, much-needed challenges to long-held assumptions about factors such as street design, speeds, and policies that influence traffic culture. By committing to Vision Zero, these city and community leaders are acknowledging that these traffic deaths are preventable and taking action.

    One “bright spot” in this news is that the biggest cities in the U.S. are doing far better than the rest of the nation in prioritizing its walking public. The report finds that the 10 most populous cities had a 3.5% decrease in the number of pedestrian fatalities between 2014 and 2015, which are the most recent data available. This compares with the nearly 10% increase nationwide during that time frame. It’s no coincidence that Vision Zero has been championed primarily by larger urban areas in its early adoption in the U.S. But safety is not only a big city issue: the tools and strategies employed by big cities to cut deaths can be adapted to small towns, suburbs, and rural communities so that the whole country can experience a decline in traffic deaths. It’s not rocket science; it’s about prioritizing people-first policies over speed at all costs.
    http://visionzeronetwork.org/resist-...strian-safety/
    Most decreases in pedestrian deaths could be due to proliferation of freeways and ringroads that in effect move a lot of drivers to drive routes where there are few if any pedestrians. For instance the advent of the Henday possibly resulted in decreasing pedestrian deaths. Albeit this benefit is diminished as the ring road ceases being a ring road and has several communities existing outside of it and then necessitating pedestrian crossing points at exits/entries.

    I'm aware of the vision zero initiative, some of what it tackles makes good sense, but theres little obvious reason to increase restrictions in school/play zones when these have not been problematic, and have not been the common site of collisions involving pedestrians.
    On the contrary School crossings are the best example of a traffic measure that had been tackled decades ago and made safe. The initiatives we already had for school zones worked.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  87. #87

    Default

    One of the obvious results of helicopter parenting and sheltering is a decreased awareness to accept and be aware of common dangers. In this sense the protected child grows up influenced by protectionism and having not been exposed to enough risks during their formulative time. So that they exist in a carebears or pokemon influenced type universe.

    Indeed nothing was more eye revealing as the virtual pokemon craze. Actually transposing the world with pokemon creatures for adherents to go out and meet. To me it was scary to see how much influence this had. To see how innately a generation was moved to engage and immerse in this. It was as revealing as a world launched social experiment.

    Similarly the tech that allowed that craze, mobile distraction devices, and the addictive use of the same of course results in increased distractibility and inattention to the real world.

    The question inevitably becomes do we restructure the entirety of real world transportation for those not attending in real time to the real world? That will end up being an unending task. Or one that results in transportation being stymied.

    Or do we need driverless cars and walkless pedestrians..? People just moving around in care bear bubbles..
    Last edited by Replacement; 16-09-2017 at 07:11 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  88. #88

    Default

    What was the point of the experiment 4 or 5 years ago where there was about half a dozen neighborhoods who had their speed limits lowered? At the end of the experiment it was decided that it had zero impact on safety and the neighborhoods could vote on whether they wanted the lower speed limits. Of course the neighbourhoods that skewed older voted to keep them....as we all know the 90 year old drivers out there going 30 on all roads are much safer....sigh

    The city loves to study things until they get the answer they want

    What about greenhouse emissions with all these lower speed limits and turn left only on green initiatives. Did they not study that impact? They do when it suits their agenda

  89. #89

    Default

    If they drop the speed limit to 30KM for all hours of the day in residential neighborhoods I can envision long lines of traffic just trying to get out of some of these new subdivisions. In my area there are two main roads that feed onto a major avenue. The two main roads are designed so they are like a horseshoe around the hood. Probably they will be very congested during rush hour if people are going 30km. on the whole circuit.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  90. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    If they drop the speed limit to 30KM for all hours of the day in residential neighborhoods I can envision long lines of traffic just trying to get out of some of these new subdivisions. In my area there are two main roads that feed onto a major avenue. The two main roads are designed so they are like a horseshoe around the hood. Probably they will be very congested during rush hour if people are going 30km. on the whole circuit.
    Further trouble is in the drivers that already go far below the speed limit. the ones already going 30k in a 50 zone or 40 on a 60zone. One fears these dolts come to almost a complete stop paralysis if we reduce speed limits further. As silly as it sounds I virtually guarantee that if there are increased speed limits of 30K through broader areas you will see drivers plugging along at 10-20K.
    But with 30K back up resulting probably in more standstill traffic areas.

    Theres also a point at which arbitrarily induced speed restrictions just results in anger, impatience, road rage, and the further implications of that.

    But hey, its OK, its always somebody else saying "its just 15 secs"


    Nobody responded to my Model T tongue and cheek comments. The irony being we've spend a century creating ever more powerful vehicles designed to go greater speeds and we've spent the last half century trying to find ways to reduce speeds. Seems like the ol Model T speed range would suit most of todays driving. Its kind of funny to think of that.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  91. #91

    Default

    Last year in the summer there was a lot of talk about photo radar and people getting ticketed for going 5 to 10 km above the limit. I don't know how many times I got stuck behind people doing 40 in 60 mile zones. It was as if the were darn sure they were not going to get a 'speeding' ticket from those money grabbers at city hall. The purposely drove slowly thinking they were real clever and smart. I must say, most of the people doing this were elderly guys with bad attitudes. If you don't want a speeding ticket doing 62 in a 60 zone maybe do 58. It's way better than going 40 as it does not infuriate the people who are following your dumb azz.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  92. #92

    Default

    Can someone please define what a collector and/or arterial road is?

  93. #93

    Default

    The Wikipedia articles can give a you good idea of what people mean when they use the terms collector or arterial. Sometimes the distinction between the two can be a bit blurry if an arterial is built with less access control/lower speed design or if a collector is built with more access control and a higher speed design.

    In my mind, Edmonton examples of arterials would be the major streets/avenues like 82 Street or 137 Ave. Collectors are roads like 134/135 Ave between 97 Street and 113A Street, they're basically roads that 'collect' the traffic from local streets and distribute it to major arteries.

  94. #94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by happydays View Post
    Can someone please define what a collector and/or arterial road is?
    google is your friend. http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...rviceClass.pdf

    National Highway System (Level 1)
    These highways accommodate the movement of people, goods and services inter-provinciallyand internationally. They are defined as core routes in the National Highway System and servelong trip lengths. This category comprises the regionally known systems such as the TransCanada, Yellowhead and the North/South CANAMEX Trade Highway. Access to this type offacility is restricted and generally only connects with arterial roads.

    Arterials (Level 2)
    Roadways in this category are similar in nature of the preceding level as they accommodate themovement of people, goods and services but intra-provincially only. As these highways alsocarry traffic over long distances it is sometimes difficult for the motorist to differentiate between(Level 1)National HighwaySystem(NHS)(Level 2)Arterials(Level 3)Collectors(Level 4)LocalsFreeway Multi-laneHighwayMajorHighwayMinorHighwayFreeway Multi-lane 2-laneServiceRoadsideManagementDesign2PROVINCIAL HIGHWAY SERVICE CLASSIFICATIONEXECUTIVE SUMMARYNovember 2007r v:\1135\active\113555124\report\final_v3.doc E.3the two levels. Access to arterial roads is restricted connecting with the National HighwaySystem and collector roads.

    Collectors (Level 3)
    This type of highway carries traffic from major generators such as communities, and / or resource and industrial developments but with overall shorter travel distances. These roadways provide the connection between local roads and arterials, and generally serve traffic of an intercounty nature (i.e. through two or more counties). The collector network generally should be spaced no greater than 30 kilometres apart in developed agricultural areas. For areas that are more sparsely populated, this spacing can increase. Access to this type of roadway is less restrictive and can serve major communities and developments.

    Locals (Level 4)
    Roadways in this category serve traffic of an intra-jurisdictional nature or traffic within a localized area in the vicinity of a boundary. A commuter route is considered in this category unless itpasses through a separate jurisdiction from origin to destination. In this case, it would be considered as a collector. A road that primarily serves country residential and rural homesteads is considered local in nature. This type of roadway is the main access for developments and agricultural, resource and natural areas of the province.
    Last edited by Medwards; Yesterday at 10:55 AM.

  95. #95

    Default

    That's provincial, the city's definitions are different.
    There can only be one.

  96. #96

    Default

    same idea though, just apply it at the city level rather than at the provincial level.

  97. #97
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,340

    Default

    ^ Replacing "province" with "city", "county" with "neighborhood", and 30 km with ~800 m works fairly well.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •