34 responses so far ↓

• 1 Mike Klassen // Aug 4, 2011 at 11:19 am

  I’ve always admired your attention to the pedestrian issue, Frances. When I wrote for 24 Hours a column on pedestrian safety attracted a lot of response from readers, which made me sit up and take greater notice of this issue.

  For my part I have been critical of the DTES 30 km/h plan, and support the VPD’s argument that enforcement here will be challenging.

  I’ve been vocal during my campaign on the issue of walking for several reasons. I don’t support city council’s call to combine walking into a sub-committee advisory group paired up with cycling. Those who’ve I’ve discussed this with on city staff believe that you can’t lump walking and cycling together. Cycling advocates considerable grants from the city and Translink, whereas those advocating walking issues have little or none of this financial support. If elected I will advocate for a walking advisory committee that will have the ear of city council, along with cyclists.

  Secondly, I’m also concerned with our city’s reputation. Vancouver will soon host an international conference on walking – Walk 21, coming here in October. When those hundreds (thousands?) of delegates arrive here from around the globe, Vancouver will have to explain why it has the highest per capita pedestrian fatalities of any large Canadian city. We will also have not much to show in the way of action on improvements for pedestrians (such as the advisory committee, dollars for public education, improved signage, etc.). To do any of the above in September just days before Walk 21 opens will seem very opportunistic.

  As always I love the debate on these issues, and look forward to reading other comments here.

• 2 gmgw // Aug 4, 2011 at 11:57 am

  I’d venture a couple of reasons for this:
  1) Most of the built-up sections of the burbs– I’m thinking Tri-cities, Surrey, Langley, Maple Ridge– were developed with the car in mind as the principal means of transport, hence there’s all those big wide Surrey/Langley-style boulevards and set-back developments (case in point: The area around 200th and the Fraser Highway in Langley). About as pedestrian-unfriendly as it’s possible to get– pedestrians have an easier time of it in Los Angeles than in areas like this and the area around Coquitlam Centre, to name another hideously overbuilt neighbourhood.

  2) A great many streets in the less built-up areas of the burbs are dangerous for pedestrians for a number of reasons, including poor lighting, lack of ped-friendly (or indeed any) signal lights or lighted crossings and often even a dearth of sidewalks, forcing people like my 92-year-old mother-in-law in Ocean Park to either dart across a busy street to the sidewalked side, or trudge along an un-sidewalked soft shoulder whenever she wants to walk to her local Safeway. She already took a bad fall crossing the street in front of her home a couple of years ago, hurrying to avoid an oncoming car; she broke her shoulder and spent a month in hospital. Complaints to the city of Surrey have been of no avail. The anachronistic single-sidewalk design on that part of 16th persists.
  gmgw

• 3 Bill Lee // Aug 4, 2011 at 12:04 pm

  Could we add the proliferation of private liquor stores leading to drunken driving?
  Perry Kendall submitted a report that more alcohol health trouble rates were associated with areas that had far more private liquor stores

  A second hand account at http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/BC-Politics/2011/01/18/LiquorDeaths/

• 4 Bill Lee // Aug 4, 2011 at 12:19 pm

  And the Abbotsford numbers from StatCan’s Juristat are for the CMA of Abbotsford which includes the “dissolute” city of Mission.

  Yes, Abbotsford is the main part of the CMA, but… not exactly equivalent.
  The Vancouver CMA includes out to Langley, Maple Ridge.

  From the quarterly Juristat magazine.
  “A CMA refers to a large urban core (at least 100,000 population) combined with adjacent urban and rural areas that have a high degree
  of economic and social integration. In 2007, there were 27 CMAs in Canada, representing almost two-thirds of the Canadian population”

  And the murder rate was up “per population” in 2007 (released in July 2008)

  Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics
  Crime Statistics in Canada, 2007

  And in July 21 2011, the report said
  “Many other CMAs also reported substantial decreases in violent crime severity, the largest of which were in Abbotsford–Mission (-24%),”
  And they are calling it Abbotsford-Mission now.

  Chronological index of Juristat
  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=85-002-X&CHROPG=1&lang=eng

• 5 T Ian McLeod // Aug 4, 2011 at 2:07 pm

  @gmgw #1 has nailed it. Operating speeds on major routes running into suburban commercial zones are as high as 80 km/h, and in my experience motorist awareness of pedestrians is lower in the deep ‘burbs than it is in the City. At the same time, pedestrians often take unwise risks in trying to cross unlit high-speed roads at unmarked locations, and they sometimes pay the price.

• 6 Max // Aug 5, 2011 at 9:46 am

  An article in the Province outlined a recent ruling where a vehicle driver was found 40% to blame for hitting a jaywalker.

  An interesting precendent has now been set and should be remember for those that travel the DTES where the addicts run out at any given moment.

• 7 Richard // Aug 5, 2011 at 9:47 am

  @Mike Klassen

  If you had bothered to do any research on the issue, you would know that pedestrian fatalities climb dramatically when motor vehicle speeds are greater than 30km/h. People in cars and on foot will make mistakes, when people make these inevitable mistakes, the result should not be someone dying.

  The police position is really confused. Their logic seems to be be that if vehicles are not going excessively over the 50km/h speed limit, the cause of the death is not speeding. This may be the correct legal interpretation, but what is clear that in collisions, it is the motor vehicle speed that is the cause of the fatality to the pedestrian. If the motor vehicle was going slower, below 30km/h, the pedestrian would not have died. The legal cause of the collision and the cause of death can be different. Also, at 30km/h, the driver may have been able to avoid the collision altogether even when a pedestrian makes the mistake of stepping in front of a car. So even if speed is not the actual cause of the collision, it could be the reason why the collision could not be avoided.

  The 30km/h speed limit could just be the most important decision that any council has made in the support of pedestrian safety. It sends a strong message out that speeds over 30km/h are dangerous and that drivers really need to take responsibility by driving slower when pedestrians are around. We also need to start redesigning streets and phasing traffic signals to encourage driving at safe speeds.

  It is too bad that you aren’t willing to support this bold decision. Sometimes making the right decision will involved upsetting some people.

• 8 Westender1 // Aug 5, 2011 at 10:25 am

  I think many are concerned that pedestrian safety and comfort needs to be improved, but the solutions are not simple. The bulk of Beach Avenue in the West End has a 30kmh speed limit, and has had for many years. Try driving down Beach at 30kmh and see how many people pass you at speeds of 50, 60, and 70 kph. I think everyone is aware that the lower the speed, the less serious the injuries arising from a collision (although serious injuries can still occur at very low speeds). But putting up new signage doesn’t solve the problem – doing so requires changing behaviour of both drivers and pedestrians.

• 9 Richard // Aug 5, 2011 at 10:55 am

  @Westender1

  Lower speed limits are the first step. They need to be backed up by traffic calming and other design measures to reduce motor vehicle speed.

  Photo radar would be a good idea as well. It is time for the province to allow it again. Hopefully all council candidates would support that.

• 10 Baran // Aug 5, 2011 at 1:59 pm

  @Mike Klassen

  Can you explain in logical terms how enhancing pedestrian safety before a conference is “opportunistic”?

  Speaking of which, I see campaigning on this blog about your political agenda, while the conversation is about pedestrian safety, as opportunistic.

• 11 Richard // Aug 5, 2011 at 2:17 pm

  @Westender1

  It is important that people, police and community leaders especially explain the importance of slowing down to save lives. If drivers know there are likely to be pedestrians wondering out in the streets unexpectedly, as is the case with Hastings street, they need to explain that it is the responsibility of drivers to slow down. The advantage of the 30km/h speed limit, is that they can say it is the law now as well.

  It is also important to note that it was the automobile lobby that first invented the term jaywalking and then lobbied to make it illegal to facilitate the fast movement of automobiles through cities. Before that, people walking had complete run of streets and vehicles had to go slow and yield to them. This enabling of dangerous speeds by automobiles has had and still has devastating effects on people and communities. It is time we acknowledge this horrible mistake and move towards only allowing safe speeds in areas where there are pedestrians around.

• 12 Max // Aug 5, 2011 at 2:45 pm

  I find it interesting that many commentors are giving pedestrians a pass on responsibility and placing the blame solely on drivers.

  I can’t tell you how many times I see people dodge across a street when a crosswalk is a 1/2 block down the street.

  Or they cross on the red as they don’t see cars and or are paying more attention to 1) talking to friends 2) texting 3) i-pods 4) sense of entitlement.

  The saddest is seeing people with little kids walking against the red or the little man.

  So kids go to school where they are taught how to cross a street safely and parents throw those teachings out the window.

  As for Hastings Street, nothing will change until the drug issues are dealt with – and that isn’t going to happen as too many people make a living off of the sick in that area.

• 13 Richard // Aug 5, 2011 at 4:18 pm

  @Max

  It is not an issue of blame, it is an issue of eliminating fatalities. If vehicle speed is 30km or below, the chances of fatalities are dramatically reduced regardless of whose fault the collision is.

  And safety is far more than just trying to avoid blame, it is taking responsibility both for your safety and the safety of others. This requires more than just following the rules, it requires adjusting behaviour to fit the circumstances. On Hastings Street, this responsibility means that drivers should not be going over 30km/h as there is a good chance that somebody who may not be in the best state to determine what is safe maybe walking across the street.

• 14 Agustin // Aug 5, 2011 at 4:26 pm

  I am in full agreement with what Richard has said.

• 15 Bill Lee // Aug 5, 2011 at 5:47 pm

  “Sometimes, it seems like pedestrian issues only get attention after a tragedy.
  In the span of just eight days, nine people on foot have been killed in traffic accidents in the GTA, including three in one day on Tuesday Jan. 12, 2010. This rash of fatalities has prompted a flurry of stories in the media about pedestrian safety.”
  A piece on street formation in The Toronto Star re-edited from Spacing Magazine, the latter which you migh have noticed in the recent RRJ.
  Copies of Spacing at Spartacus Books on Hastings at Heatley where you can watch the daily parade of vehicles.

  That piece in the broadsheet inspired other comments on road surfaces and design, such as http://www.drivingtips.org/suburban-streets.html

  However it is the soft humans who are in charge and charging along the streets or across them.
  Despite all the cries of how to behave, in cars and outside of them, people are willfully blind to their crossing faults and the capabilty of ‘the other’ to get-out-of-the-way/evade/dodge/go-around/be-visible/be-aware/look-ahead/look-out/look left etc. that impacts will always happen.

  Look at the map in Madame Bula’s Saturday article. Hits are all over the place.
  And see her earlier piece in Vancouver Magazine last summer. http://francesbula.com/uncategorized/vancouver-worst-city-in-canada-for-pedestrian-deaths/

• 16 spartikus // Aug 5, 2011 at 6:39 pm

  So kids go to school where they are taught how to cross a street safely

  And there’s also a 30 km/h speed limit.

  #headdesk

• 17 Max // Aug 5, 2011 at 7:18 pm

  @spartikus #15

  Perhaps I should have added when the head out on school day trips. I see bundles of kids crossing streets heading to and from school trips outside of the ‘school’ zone areas.

  They are taught to cross when they see the little man or on the green.

  Yet you see parents with their kids crossing regardless.

• 18 gmgw // Aug 5, 2011 at 8:53 pm

  @Max #16:
  Every time I see a mother (and it’s almost always a mother– but substitute “primary caregiver” if you prefer) dashing across an intersection moments ahead of a light change, dragging some poor kid behind her, I have to restrain myself from shouting something like “Way to teach your kid about traffic safety, lady!!” And I see this way too often.
  gmgw

• 19 spartikus // Aug 6, 2011 at 12:19 am

  Ancedotes are a basis for policy!

• 20 Max // Aug 6, 2011 at 11:14 am

  @gmgw#17

  About 2 weeks ago I was heading downtown via bus – the #22.

  We had one of those ‘speedy’ bus drivers, evidentially he was late for something, I don’t know.

  We get to the Cornwall and Yew stop and a woman, I think a nanny or sitter, is trying to get out the back doors.

  She gets the one little guy (guessing around 3 or 4 years old) out the door and slam goes the door and the driver takes off. People are yelling at the driver to stop – he was pissed and snapped back, finally pulls over, and here is this little guy running down the sidewalk after the bus.

  The lady gets off with two other little ones.

  I felt so bad for this little guy, he ran for about two blocks before the bus pulled over and you could see he was scared, and thank heavens he didn’t get hit while running accross the side street after the bus.

  Not a peep of apology from the driver.

• 21 Lewis N. Villegas // Aug 7, 2011 at 12:00 am

  Let’s go to “facts and analysis” on this, and add tangentially that the death toll for cyclists is also a figure to keep in mind.

  What is the safe crossing distance in high traffic volume streets? I would argue 7m or 22 feet—two lanes of traffic. I should be able to cross two lanes of traffic and stand in a refuge, or an island of safety.

  What are the most dangerous conditions for pedestrians? Here, I fall back on my own analysis, and must underscore that I have no supporting studies on this. The most dangerous places for pedestrians are our busiest arterials—typically 6-lane highways—on the off-peak periods.

  Why? Because driver behaviour when there is more road space than is needed—i.e. when the morning and evening rushes are not “on”—is to speed up. This is not a criminal inclination, but rather a natural reaction. There is lots of room, drivers naturally drive faster.

  Therefore, what needs to happen is that as we evolve the city to a higher density, we need to also alter the design of our six-lane arterials.

  What is the easiest way to do that?

  With transit implementation. Either Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or Light Rail Transit (LRT—on the road not in the Sky) will afford the possibility of lessening pedestrian crossing distances; removing cars from the arterials; and at the same time providing a surplus of trip capacity on either BRT or LRT.

• 22 Roger Kemble // Aug 7, 2011 at 9:16 am

  Google WOONERF

• 23 Norman // Aug 7, 2011 at 9:31 am

  There has to be a multi-pronged approach. Speeding and running red lights have gotten out of control and really have to be curtailed. Jay walking, crossing against do not walk signs and the like has to be curtailed. Both irresponsible drivers and irresponsible pedestrians have to bear the blame for increased injuries. If you want to see really stupid behaviour by both, stand at Broadway and Commercial for a while.

• 24 Richard Campbell // Aug 7, 2011 at 1:00 pm

  @Lewis N. Villegas

  I would hardly a median with LRT or BRT an “island of safety”. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite. Vehicles traveling above 30 km/h have devastating impacts on people when they hit them. That goes for automobiles, trains and buses. For heavy vehicles like buses and trains, the speeds at which they can travel safely could even be below 30 km/h. Speeds at which trains and buses can safely travel at around pedestrians and cyclists are no longer rapid.

  If vehicle speeds above 30 km/h are required to provide efficient transportation, they should be grade separated from traffic. As grade separating roads is a very expensive and low capacity solution, the only cost effective solution is grade separated rapid transit like SkyTrain.

  On the Hastings corridor, it would be relatively cost effective to extend the Expo Line east from Waterfront Station elevated through the industrial area to Lakewood or so. really hard to “blight” that area. It could be then tunneled a short distance to Hastings Park to a new transit/bike/pedestrian bridge over to the North Shore. As this would make use of the existing tunnel and underground stations that have lots of capacity in the non-peak direction, this would be a cost-effective way of dramatically increasing the transit capacity downtown while improving pedestrian safety by removing high-speed commuter traffic both in automobiles and buses from the Hastings corridor.

• 25 Bobbie Bees // Aug 8, 2011 at 9:54 pm

  The major problem I see is the mixing of different modes of transportation.
  Pedestrians, Cars and Bicycles do not belong together.
  In the city proper, cars, buses and streetcars should be limited to 25 to 30 km/h.
  Large transport trucks should be limited to 20 km/h if not out right banned.
  The only place that cars should be allowed to exceed 30 km/h would be on specified ‘high speed routes’ where the would be allowed to travel no faster than 50km/h.
  The next step up in speed would be on the highways where the speed limit would be 100 km/h.

  Also, I think a lot of people in here need to look up ‘jay-walking’ under the motor vehicle act. I think you’d be surprised at what you’ll find.

• 26 Bobbie Bees // Aug 8, 2011 at 9:57 pm

  Oh, and talking about ‘jay-walking’. ‘Jay-walking’ is one way to tell just how biased society is against pedestrians.

  If a person crosses a street in mid block to get to the other side, they’re called a ‘jay-walker’.
  If a person crosses mid block to get to their car, they’re not a ‘jay-walker’.

  Why the double standard?

• 27 IanS // Aug 9, 2011 at 2:34 pm

  @Bobbie Bees #25 and 26:

  You write:

  “Also, I think a lot of people in here need to look up ‘jay-walking’ under the motor vehicle act. I think you’d be surprised at what you’ll find.”

  OK, I’ll bite.

  I could not find any reference to “jay walking” in the Motor Vehicle Act. It does not appear to be a term used in the Act.

  However, section 180 of the MVA states as follows:

  “When a pedestrian is crossing a highway at a point not in a crosswalk, the pedestrian must yield the right of way to a vehicle.”

  Section 1 defines “highway”, as follows:

  “highway” includes

  (a) every highway within the meaning of the Transportation Act,
  (b) every road, street, lane or right of way designed or intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, and
  (c) every private place or passageway to which the public, for the purpose of the parking or servicing of vehicles, has access or is invited,

  Section 119, which governs Part 3 of the MVA, defines “pedestrian” as follows:

  “pedestrian” means a person afoot, or an invalid or child in a wheelchair or carriage;

  So, I’m curious, what is the part I’m supposed to be surprised at?

• 28 ThinkOutsideABox // Aug 10, 2011 at 12:27 pm

  Bobbie Bees’

  Large transport trucks should be limited to 20 km/h if not out right banned.

  And thus those skyscrapers you want the West End to be carpeted with will never get built because of the banned dump trucks that would’ve hauled away the rubble of the demolished 3 story walk-ups.

  Right-o.

• 29 Bobbie Bees // Aug 15, 2011 at 6:33 pm

  IanS, you win the golden prize. I’m sorry but I’m poor and I have no gold to give you. Maybe Frances could give you an ounce or two.

  That’s right kiddies, there is NO SUCH THING as jay walking.

  You can cross just about any major street mid-block at any place other than a marked and controlled crosswalk so long as you yield the right of way to any motor vehicles.

  And hence why there is no crack down against those evil ‘Jay walkers’. There is no law against it. So long as you don’t interfere with the right of way of any on coming vehicle.

• 30 Bobbie Bees // Aug 15, 2011 at 6:38 pm

  ThinkOutsideABox, There’s a marked difference between a 60 foot semi trailer and a dump truck.
  Have you ever watched the ‘President’s Choice’ driver try to negotiate the right hand turn from Denman onto Nelson. If it wasn’t for him breaking all sorts of rules in the motor vehicle act, he’d never get around that intersection.
  And oddly he’s not the only large semi trailer that uses the west end as a short cut. But he is the messiest.

• 31 Westender1 // Aug 16, 2011 at 10:53 am

  The ‘President’s Choice’ truck is not “short-cutting” – it’s delivering food to the ‘No Frills’ store at Denman Mall. I suppose they could make deliveries in a larger number of shorter trucks (which I would encourage), but then our grocery prices would rise. Until there is better enforcement of all types of goods and people movements, I wouldn’t expect much to change.

• 32 ThinkOutsideABox // Aug 16, 2011 at 1:22 pm

  Bobbie Bees,

  This is what’s used to haul away the demolished 1401 Comox building, 80 cubic feet at a time, 6 times daily for two weeks, from the middle of a residential neighbourhood:

  http://www.twitpic.com/675jod

  …then let us know what that “marked difference” might be to the Weston/Loblaw’s semi-trailer you’re ranting about?

• 33 Bobbie Bees // Aug 16, 2011 at 8:48 pm

  So Pacific Demolition chose to use a long bin. That can easily be banned.
  Don’t forget, a lot of these companies get away with doing that because it’s cheap for them to do so.
  Something like that wouldn’t be allowed in most European cities. And it doesn’t need to be allowed here either.
  And back to my original point, do you really think a vehicle like that should be allowed to speed through the westend? Limit them to 20km/h or ban them.

• 34 Bill McCreery // Aug 22, 2011 at 12:35 am

  I agree with Bobbie, one of the fundamental issues regarding pedestrian safety is the proper separation of differing transportation modes. Lewis is really also talking about that in his “islands of safety” thoughts.

  Can I suggest that the VPD’s no doubt considered position against reducing the speed limit must be looked at within the larger context. Unless speed limits are reduced generally throughout the City, reducing them on an arterial street such as Hastings will not be effective. For that matter school zone speed limits are more often than not ignored. I support adding guardrails along both side of Hastings for the affected areas. Handrails should also be considered as one of the several pedestrian friendly design solutions in many other crowded pedestrian zones as well.

  This is an important concern, and as Frances’ articles and this discussion highlight, we have a long way to go.

Leave a Comment