Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Vancouver jumps into action to reduce pedestrian deaths

July 27th, 2011 · 46 Comments

Lots on the table this week, as Vision Vancouver moves to put forward big policy papers and get moving on various hot-spot issues. Pedestrian safety was one of them yesterday, with a raft of new initiatives as a result.

This move to pay attention to pedestrians was kicked off last November (seems to me, partly as a result of the furor over the bike lanes and some criticism that only cyclists and not pedestrians were getting attention from council), with a report due in the spring. It seemed to fade from view, until the toll of pedestrian deaths shot up over the spring months, with several high-profile accidents, especially around Main and Hastings.

As a result, new policy. What I wonder is: What is happening in the suburbs, where there are typically as many or more pedestrian deaths than in Vancouver.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • spartikus

    Just because I’ve noticed a trend on Twitter and elsewhere (notably Sandra Thomas’s Vancouver Courier Op-ed)…

    …reducing the speed limit will likely not reduce the incidence of accidents involving pedestrians and motorists.

    But what it will do is affect the consequences.

    Both the UK Dept of Transport and the Australian Federal Office of Road Safety have found that a pedestrian hit by car travelling 65kph will die 85% of the time.

    For car travelling 50kph, that’s reduced to 45%.

    For a car travelling 30kph, it’s reduced to just 5%.

    That is a dramatic decrease.

    Pedestrians will still jaywalk. And if the pedestrians of the DTES are undeterrable as Sandra Thomas suggests, at least they won’t die as often.

  • Bill Lee

    And see the times of the recent deaths along Hastings. Both parties are not alert at those times.

    I would rather have the long speed bumps on Hastings than the ( theorical) signed limit. ( about 3 metres of raised tarmac, Some along the Adanac bike way are a poor example.)
    And to go with Hastings ramp-bumps along to Woodlands at least because they speed up when they get beyond Heatley going west in a freeway rush.

    I don’t mind the killing of the blind and deaf yuppies with a latte in hand and earbuds in, blithely walking against lights when not jaywalking across the Cordova speedway. That is a different class of people.

    Everyone should know better, but …

  • City Observer

    Spartikus if, of course, correct: a lower speed limit along East Hastings will reduce the incidence of death for those of our citizens who reside in the DTES (catastrophic injury, maybe, but not death).

    Unfortunately, the “problem” relating to pedestrian safety in the DTES is not limited to Hastings Street. Columbia Street, from Keefer to Powell, is far more precarious for pedestrians who jaywalk (because it’s not as well lit), and for those who drive along that stretch of road. Main Street, from Keefer to Powell is often not much better. The four corners at Main and Hastings are a free-for-all.

    If the City was serious about reducing pedestrian fatality in the DTES, City Council would mandate a 30km zone from Keefer to Alexander, Abbott to Jackson, at least until such time as the City / VPD undertakes an “education campaign” for residents who live in the area, complemented by a policing of that “zone” in the DTES that would reinforce the need for DTES citizens to be more cognizant of the dangers of stepping in front of moving 1-2 tonne vehicles.

  • IanS

    Given the statistics and recent deaths, I see no reason not to have 30 KM zones in certain areas. We have such zones around schools and playgrounds and such, where the people in those areas (ie. children) are perceived to be less capable of understanding, or dealing with, the traffic dangers. Why shouldn’t the same principle apply in the DTES?

  • Agustin

    Reduced speed limits are a good start, but I agree that physical incentives to slow down (e.g., speed bumps, or narrower streets, or trees along the streets) are even better.

  • David

    I’m surprised at how much support this idea has gotten. What’s next, fences at Broadway and Commercial?

    Protecting people from their own stupidity has gone way too far.

    What of the argument that those in the DTES are less capable of understanding or dealing with the fact that wandering into traffic can kill you? Just because someone is poor doesn’t mean they don’t understand the concept that being hit by a delivery truck is going to hurt.

    The only legitimate defence is that the DTES houses a high number of people that the mental health system spit out. The answer isn’t to put padded hockey boards along every street, but to knock some sense into the Provincial government and fix the mental health system.

    The tricky question is what to do about all the addicts in the area. My gut reaction is that most but not all addictions are self-inflicted and that many addicts do not want help. I realize I’m not being very charitable here, but such people don’t deserve any more public money.

  • gmgw

    The Granville Bridge, to cite my favourite dead horse, is still a pedestrian deathtrap, and Engineering still refuses to concede that there’s a problem (actually, a number of problems). Given that Gregor grandly appointed a councillor– I think it was Heather Deal– a year and a half ago to be his pedestrian-safety czar, and that not one public word on the subject has been forthcoming from either Deal or the Mayor since (as well as the fact that Deal, apparently, does not return phone calls on the subject), I’m not going to hold my breath in anticipation of a brave new wave of citywide ped-safety enhancements, “new initiatives” or not.
    gmgw

  • Sean

    I am in complete agreement with IanS #4

  • Agustin

    @ gmgw: I hope that horse is not dead! Granville Bridge definitely needs improvements for pedestrians. Unfortunately they are probably more expensive than changing a speed limit.

  • Bobbie Bees

    I can’t understand why we don’t have a 30km/h limit imposed across the entire city.
    Make helmets mandatory for vehicle occupants.
    Change the law so that car drivers are automatically 100% at fault for any accident involving a cyclist or pedestrian.

  • Sean

    @Bobbie Bees #9

    I seem to recall hearing somewhere that consideration is being given to making the speed limit 30km/h on all of the non-arterial streets, similar to the speed limits on streets with a bike route. Does anyone know if that’s real?

    I don’t know whether the accident statistics would suggest that this is something we need, but I don’t have any strong objections to it. People usually only drive a few blocks to the nearest arterial, so it’s not like it would be a huge imposition.

  • voony

    “What is happening in the suburbs”

    In Richmond, they had a problem of too many pedestrian crossing the Number 3 road (those transferrinf from bus south bound to Canada Line).

    it was way too much pedestrian crossing N3 road according to the Richmond Traffic engineers…
    So Translink come to help…

    It has suppressed South bound bus stop on Number 3 at Aberdeen and Landsowne staion (Brighouse was already lacking one!):

    Problem solved…

    So now, you will have to pay more tax, because bus not transferring anymore to Canada Line are also more empty !

  • gulley

    City Observer #4: good luck going more than 30 on Carroll or Columbia or Abbot anyways. There are so many unsynchronized lights over such a short distance you’re lucky to get to 20 most of the time.

    Powell st, between Princess and Water is a different story.

  • Everyman

    @Bobbies Bees #9
    That tiresome kind of hysterical rhetoric gets tired very, very fast.

  • Richard

    @Sean
    Municipalities have been asking the Province for years to allow them to set blanket speed limits below 30km/h. So far, the province has refused and so cities have to place signs on every block where the speed limit is below 50km/h.

    @gmgw
    Agreed, Granville Bridge is horrible and badly needs improvements. Keep after council and demand they make improvements. I’m been after them for years on this one as well.

    People also need to encourage the city to increased the capital plan funding for pedestrian and cycling improvements or else these badly needed improves will take decades.

  • David

    If simply changing numbers on a sign really affected vehicle speed, Americans would still be driving no faster than 55 mph…. It would be interesting to know what the actual average daytime speed actually is on Hastings during the day in the DTES; I bet it’s less than 50 km/h. Agustin and City Observer are right, changing the geometry will lower speeds, and the Cordova/Powell couplet probably see higher speeds than Hastings.

    Sean, there was a proposal to change the default speed to 40 km/h. The excuse not to at the time was signage; since the MVA states the the speed limit in a municipality is 50 “unless otherwise posted” that would mean a lot of new signs… though otoh, Nelson BC erects “40 km/h unless otherwise posted” signs… perhaps they don’t hold up in court.

    > Granville Bridge definitely needs improvements for pedestrians.

    After several fatal accidents in the 90s the city pledged to reduce the speed limit on the north ramps; what they did was post yellow 40 km/h ‘advisory’ signs…
    >Make helmets mandatory for vehicle occupants.

    Sorry Bobbie, they already went after vehicle occupants in 1977, with mandatory seatbelt laws… after mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists? Didn’t protest then? Too bad, then they came for you.

    >Change the law so that car drivers are automatically 100% at fault for any accident involving a cyclist or pedestrian

    Can’t agree with that either, each incident should be judged on its own merits…. I get your point, I often have trouble crossing an unmarked T intersection downtown, many don’t get that a break in the centre line on a T of 2 named streets is an intersection, a co-worker was recently struck.. by a bicycle… but to unilaterally declare the driver always 100% at fault ignores the fact that sometimes, it was the other party at fault. If a driver hits a stop-sign running cyclist.. it’s the driver’s fault? Really? Besides, these scenarios are so unlikely, let’s keep the current system, if the driver’s at fault, that’s likely the end result.

  • Jacques L’Ours

    While it is true that many DTES residents exhibit an apparent lack of awareness of traffic, we shouldn’t get carried away putting all of the blame onto them.
    On two occasions in the past week I have been lawfully using the mid-block crossing in the unit block West Hastings when a car burned right through the intersection without even braking.
    On both occasions a lack of vigilance on my part would have resulted in being hit.

  • Dave Pasin

    here’s a novel concept

    Don’t jaywalk

    if you do you face possible injurous consequences

    sometimes you just can’t prevent stupid from actually happening

    you can’t necessarily legislate common sense

  • rf

    Here’s another one, don’t text and cross the street. How often do alert drivers save pedestrians we step into the street witht their head buried in a blackberry?
    “Look both ways when you cross the street”

    Is it driver’s fault that people have decided to ignore what they learned when they were 5 years old.

  • Chris Keam

    When I crossed Broadway at a pedestrian activated signal last night, thankfully the driver who blithely drove through the very red light was in a center lane and couldn’t have run over a pedestrian quick to step off the curb — because the time to cross is just enough for an average person, and probably not enough for someone with a disability or slowed by age.

    Thankfully the car behind him stopped, but judging by her actions, she had to take a moment to text someone anyway.

    Thankfully most pedestrians won’t trust a motor vehicle user as far as they can throw them, or the streets would run red at intersections such as Cambie and Broadway where, based on my observations, failure by drivers to observe road rules regarding crosswalks is a given.

    The long and short of my anecdotes is that rule-breaking is endemic on the streets. Everyone needs to bear witness to dangerous behaviour, even if it means calling out their fellow drivers, cyclists, or pedestrians. When the public gets involved and makes risk-taking on the roads socially unacceptable, the incidence of scoff-law-ism will hopefully drop, and we can let police get on with the more important work that our collective selfish behaviour is hindering. Imagine the addt’l manpower they would have to direct toward gang activity and other serious problems if everybody, regardless of locomotion choice, decided to behave responsibly.

    I’m trying to lead by example. I wear my helmet. I stop at stop signs and yield to pedestrians. I pay the ridiculous two zone fare, even though I’m only going one stop beyond the boundary. I limit myself to one WTF? when a woman tries to pass me and my child on the left when we are signaling and positioning ourselves to turn left on a residential street, and don’t blame her (too much) for refusing to make eye contact as she sheepishly gets back in her lane, sucks it up, and endures a two second delay in her journey.

    Is it always the other guy? No. Sometimes you’re that guy. Don’t be that guy. It’s hard, but so are most things worth doing.

  • IanS

    @Chris Keam #17,

    Well said.

  • The Fourth Horseman

    @Chris Keam

    *Applause*. Totally agree.

    I was making a left onto Arbutus from 33rd the other day. Woman behind me, PULLS AROUND to my right, then pulls in front of me and takes the left turn. Stunning!

    It wasn’t even an emergency as I easily caught up to her and followed her till 4th.

    I did get her license plate and phoned it in to ICBC. BTW, they say they do have a system for noting outrageous drivers who are reported by others. Didn’t think to ask if they can apply penalties due to those citizen reports.

  • Derek W

    If you’re on income assistance due to a physical disability or severe mental illness such a schizophenia, where can you afford to live in this city? The DTES, of course. It makes sense that the speed limits would be lower in a place with such a concentration of citizens who may be vulnerable because of these disabilities. I point this out because of how often the term “junkies” is used in the Globe & Mail comments section on this story – it isn’t just drug users who are vulnerable to being hit.

    Not to mention the elderly. I spend quite a bit of time in the Downtown Eastside, and cringe whenever I watch a tiny, elderly woman trying to cross a street in two inch steps while cars patiently wait and cars behind those cars honk, and cars behind those cars dash out and around. Lord, have mercy.

  • Morry

    They should close Hastings street to all traffic from
    Dunlevy to Carrall street.

  • Morry

    “Didn’t think to ask if they can apply penalties due to those citizen reports.”

    I believe that you can issue a citizen’s ticket infraction.

  • GoVisionGo

    Have anyone seen theBS “glissando remmy” wrote on City Caucus? http://www.citycaucus.com/2011/07/good-city-haller-bad-developer-ugly-councillor
    That was a laugh. Now they are complaining about anything. Any way they could. Hey… Vision rules, Glissando rhymes!

  • brilliant

    Of course, its all so clear now. Lets close all the streets that might have junkies,drunks or the elderly nearby. Economic activity is highly overrated anyway.

  • Jeannette

    As someone who was hit by a car a few years back (thankfully they were going slow, but even still, I suffer from chronic pain due to injuries to this day), I am in favor of eliminating right hand turns on red in urban areas.

    I got hit attempting to cross Georgia and Burrard. I waited until I had a walk sign. Unfortunately the jeep which had just pulled up to the corner was more concerned about looking to the left for traffic so she can make her right hand turn than considering whether or not any pedestrians were exercising their right of way and attempting to cross.

    I know several other people who have been hit in this exact scenario, and since my accident I have had several near misses in this same scenario.

    Right hand turns on red are disallowed in Montreal, NYC and much of the EU (unless otherwise posted), places which are all arguably more pedestrian friendly than Vancouver.

  • bc bud

    As was pointed out earlier in the thread, slower speeds will reduce traffic deaths; this is a good move by the City to protect a vulnerable population …

  • brilliant

    For “vulnerable population” substitute “lawbreaking ne’er do wells” and you’ve got it right.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    “What’s happening in the suburbs”

    I’m with Voony on this one. The suburbs are putting up fences to prevent jay-walking (‘good’ urbanism if folks use ‘good’ common sense) in all the usual places: where people need to get across a river of traffic in order to pick up a bus, do some shopping, or find a short cut home.

    I know of “fences” at Lougheed Highway below Lougheed Mall; Lougheed Highway near Shaughnessy Street in Port Coquitlam; King George Highway near 98th; and No. 3 Road in Richmond in its previous incarnation as a bus way. There is bound to be more.

    They are also building pedestrian overpasses in the suburbs. In South Surrey over the 99; at mentioned spot on Lougheed near Shaughnessy; and at a place near you. Problem with these structures is that it takes longer than 5 minutes to climb over them, but 5 minutes is as far as the walking trip is supposed to last. Our urbanism is being consumed in its entirety on the chore of crossing a dangerous highway.

    What they are not doing in the suburbs is building walkable communities.

  • David

    An outright ban on Right on red sounds good, yes there are some inattentive motorist who don’t look where they’re going.

    But consider this. Today at Pender and Howe I reached the intersection just as the red hand started to flash… Not in a hurry, I stopped to wait for the next walk cycle… Everyone else, not so much, the flow of pedestrians kept going through the flashing hand, and then the solid hand… An eastbound motorist on Pender trying to turn south onto Howe had no chance to turn right on the green, he could not make his right turn until after his light had turned red and the last stragglers had cleared the intersection . So sure, ban Right on Red, but also delay all Walk signs so cars have a fighting chance to make a right turn.

  • Agustin

    @ David, #26: What about a scramble intersection? So pedestrians can cross in whatever direction they want, then vehicles take their turn doing their things. Have you ever experienced one of these? I have heard some good things but I’ve never personally used one.

  • Richard

    @David
    Motor vehicles create the need for signals. If there were no motor vehicles using an intersection, there would be no need for signals. At intersections where there are way more pedestrians than motor vehicles, which is probably the case for many intersections downtown, the total delay for pedestrians is probably much greater than the total delay for motorists. It doesn’t make sense to further delay a lot of people just for the sake of a few drivers.

  • Roger Kemble

    Road runner . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCQoUPoZOBg

    Lotsa gratuitous wisdom, lotsa NOT . . .

  • Bill

    Like Insite or shelters this is just another “harm reduction” measure that does nothing to address the root causes of the problem. Of course, actually attempting to solve the problems would cost governments a lot more in the short run and, in the longer term, negatively impact the income of all those people who are in the business of reducing harm. Not likely to happen.

  • David

    @Richard, transit buses are also motor vehicles, often buses on Burrard Street (2, 22, 32, 44) give up on using the HOV curb lane, as they’re stuck behind cars trying to make a right onto Georgia, or Robson… delaying the walk by 5 seconds might allow 2 cars to make th right, so the bus can continue through the intersection without having to merge left (across the bike “lane”) to avoid the stuck cars trying to make a right – on – green

    @30Agustin. I’ve never used one either*, the downside I can see is the time y9u have to wait until all traffic has a red and peds can cross straight, or on the diagonal. If peds can cross normally with traffic as now, _and_ during an all red phase, that might work… on 2nd thought… yes, I have seen these, In LoDo in Denver…. http://tinyurl.com/3zsng58

    *

  • Richard Campbell

    @David
    This is why right turns should be banned along bus routes at intersections with high levels of pedestrians. Why should one or two drivers be allowed to hold up 60 people on a bus or 30 or 40 people walking across an intersection?

  • T Ian McLeod

    On my reality check with Bruce Allen a couple of nights ago, Bruce told me that he hates the idea of a 30 km/h speed zone on East Hastings, just as he hates all things Vision. The man’s anger is prodigious. It’s impressive, in a way, like watching someone go over the falls in a barrel. Anyway, my first thought was that if Vision had proposed a 30 km/h zone on an arterial street in Kerrisdale or Dunbar, nobody would give a flip. I’m disappointed that a few people on this site have opted for an Allenish response to the Hastings proposal. The delay will be all of 10 or 20 seconds. Slow down, turn on the radio, and enjoy.

  • Bill

    It’s too bad Bruce Allen isn’t running for Mayor – the City needs a big dose of his common sense.

  • Bill Lee

    Madame Bula has a survey article for Vancouver, mentioning the Soviet of Burnaby and the [Census Metropolitan Area] of Abbotsford and their pedestrian crossing strategies in Saturday’s Grope and Flail with an odd map in the print version (why are industrial areas highlighted and no link to underlying geo -data? ) at : http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/three-ways-to-save-pedestrians/article2115225/singlepage/#articlecontent

    However this same day side story on [CMA, not the city of] Abbotsford got the most comments 48 to 3 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/pedestrian-deaths-prompt-vancouver-council-into-action/article2115216/

    The printed story has the editor imposed photo cutline about the intersection of Main and Hastings whereas the mid-block hits are assigned to the nearest intersection, not 40 metres from… etc.

  • getOUTofMYway

    Until pedestrians stop jaywalking, we shouldn’t build any more sidewalks.

    Until cyclists obey all rules, we shouldn’t build any bike lanes.

    Until all drivers stop speeding and signal every lane change, we should not spend any $ on streets.

    Everyone stay home!

  • Glissando Remmy

    The Thought Of The Night

    “Vision Mantra: Living like in Hollyhock in Vancouver is impossible, but it’s enforceable!”

    TIanMcLeod#36

    Kerrisdale and Dunbar are destinations, end of the line…
    Hastings is a major access route to Downtown/ Westend/ futher to Lions Gate &West/NorthVancouver OR south on Main/ Kingsway to Burnaby.

    I know that Robertson and the rest of Vision kooks are in the business of making other people’s life miserable, according to their Farmer’s Market and Basket Weaving background but Vancouver, last I heard is a City that held an Olympic Event…and not a hillbilly depot.
    Munch on that thought.

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

  • Todd Sieling

    @Bill Lee #2 “I don’t mind the killing of the blind and deaf yuppies with a latte in hand and earbuds in,”

    Really? That’s your contribution? You really live that kind of tortured, hate filled mental existence?

    As for those squawking about jaywalking and common sense, it might surprise you that many pedestrian injuries and deaths, caused by cars and their drivers, happen at intersections are are due to aggressive driving.

    What do we do about drivers who roll up past the stop line and require pedestrians to walk around them into oncoming traffic? What do we do about drivers who roll through four-way stops, take shortcuts through roundabouts, speed and text while driving? Why are they not on your list of causes?

    It’s dark humour that cars offer a ‘solution’ of two tonnes of metal and plastic to move a 180lb human, require massive amounts of tax subsidy and hog more than their share of urban geography for roads and parking, but somehow those uppity two-leggers who dare to cross the street at an unassigned spot are the villain.

    Before any new rules, I’d love to see some actual enforcement against aggressive driving. Put a cop at Quebec and 2nd where my office looks over daily awful behaviour by drivers and you’d be going further than tut-tutting pedestrians with calls of ‘common sense’.

  • Ron

    A lot of it is due to the “fast=paced” and ever increasing pace of modern technologically enabled life.

    That’s all for the same reason that someone demands an instant BlackBerry e-mail response or gets mad when you don’t answer your cell phone. People are becoming increaseingly more demanding (and self centred) – I suspect that it started with the “me” generation.

    Everyone is a “princess” and no one wants to be an “average joe”.

    On the other hand, the City is trying to “frsutrate” drivers to force them out of their cars – maybe, just maybe, the aggressive behaviour is a response to their frustration.

    Anyways, regardings Hastings, the lower speed limit will have the desired effect of saving lives.

    It will also have several other effects:
    – it will divert traffic to other streets (maybe the “underutilized” Dunsmuir and Georgia Viaducts) as well as Cordova and Water Streets (Hastings has too many tarffic lights to be a fast commuter route)
    – lower traffic volumes on Hastings will reduce the exposure that struggling businesses receive from drive-bys

  • tienda de electricidad

    Until all drivers stop speeding and signal every lane change, we should not spend any $ on streets.