I heard on the CBC radio this morning that the City is starting a pedestrian safety campaign. I went to the City website. Their advice for pedestrian safety:
Cross at marked crosswalks or traffic lights, not in the middle of the block or between parked cars.
Remove headphones; put away cell phones or other electronic devices when crossing the street. Use your full attention so you’ll be able to see, hear and respond safely to what is happening on the roadway.
Make sure drivers see you before you cross.
Cross when traffic has come to a complete stop.
At a traffic light, cross at the beginning of a green light. Do not cross once the “Don’t Walk” signal begins to flash or once the light has turned yellow. Never cross on a red light.
Watch for traffic turning at intersections or entering and leaving driveways.
Wear bright or light-coloured clothing or reflective strips when walking in dusk or darkness.
Note that there is nothing for motorists to do; it seems pedestrian safety is 100% a pedestrian responsibility. So if you get run over … you know who’s fault it is!
__
Being a parent with young kids – now grown up – and a full time pedestrian (I never have owned a car) I think the City’s advice absolutely totally STINKS.
__
I always trained my children to cross in the middle of the block. It is way way safer. Traffic is generally moving in only two possible directions, at a predictable rate. Midblock, the road is likely the narrowest, either because of parked vehicles or because our fair City widens roads at the intersections and then wants pedestrians to be exposed to the maximum crossing distance!
__
And what are motorists doing at intersections? Let me describe the corner a few hundred feet from my house. Vehicles heading north on Preston reach Albert. These vehicles face long red lights while Albert vehicles have long long turn signal greens. Daily commuters know the pattern, so they zoom right-turn through the intersection. While turning right, the drivers’ heads are turned 90 degrees left as they approach the intersection, and about 120 degrees back over their left shoulder as they turn through the intersection. See a pedestrian or cyclist on the right side of the road? Ha! dream on!
__
And what does the city recommend a pedestrian do in this circumstance? Why “cross when traffic has come to a complete stop“. Except it never does stop, vehicles just roll through the right turn continually, based on car movements only. See the skeleton on the corner over there? That’s a pedestrian who waited for traffic to stop…
__
Years ago the city had big pedestrian crossing signals at some minor intersections: push the button, lights flashed, cars stopped … pedestrians walked. Except on Preston St a car with Quebec plates ran over a pedestrian and claimed that the orange flashing lights were french for “sidewalk all clear”. So the city removed all the flashing signals and replaced them with regular traffic lights. Now, you can push the button and in many cases wait…and wait…and wait…and wait. Some signals, like the ones at Primrose/Bronson, simply wont turn until a car arrives to justify the light turning. I have stood at that corner through 2 red light cycles at Somerset and Gloucester, watching the intersections north and south of Primrose, while my light wont change! And when it does eventually go green, Bronson motorists run the orange and usually the red too, each driver in his or her single-occupancy vehcile looking carefully at the intersection before running the light… they are looking for cars, which might enter the intersection and damage their own car … but pedestrians, ignore them!
__
For further illustration of this common event, recall the big power blackout a few years back in August. I walked home, observing vehicle to vehicle courtesy at almost every intersection where there might have been chaos. But at Bronson/Primrose, Elm/Preston, and the Otrain crossing at Bayview, which are all mainly-pedestrian signals rather than opposing-flows-of-traffic signals, motorists did not slow, did not look, they just zoomed through at full speed. Traffic planners tell me that signals are safer than flashing pedestrian crossings, but my experience is that motorists soon learn which signals are “real” (where another car might hit theirs) and which ones don’t count (soft pedestrians are safe to ignore).
__
There is one signal that is pedestrian activated that does work instantly.The one at Primrose/Booth. But again, motorists can readily see there is no crossing car traffic, so too many are reluctant to stop, they run the orange or red so they can get 40′ ahead and stop in the queue of lined up cars in the grid lock to hell (sorry, gridlock road to Gatineau).
__
Preston St is right now being narrowed to two traffic lanes as part of its reconstruction. Prior to 1959 the houses along the street were great family living: with front yards, huge elm and maple trees shading the street, curbside sidewalks. Then the City widened the street, removed all the greenspace, and installed a mini-sidewalk so close to the houses that for most of its length it is under the drip line of the front verandahs and in some places narrowed to less than 3′ width because of verandah posts. There never was enough traffic to justify the widening. Now we are spending millions of your water-bill dollars to narrow the street and install streetscaping, a most worthwhile expenditure in my estimation. But, the major intersections such as Carling and Albert, the City is insisting on installing very generous turn radii, which means the pedestrian crossing distance [remember to cross at intersections now, its safer!] is LONGER for a street that has just been narrowed! Why the generous turn radii? Because its “safer” for a 53′ tractor trailor to turn. And just where are these tractor trailers coming from? Are they removing comatose civil servants from the cubicle farms at Tunney’s Pasture?
__
So, to conclude my rant, I do not appreciate the City’s pedestrian program to force people to cross the street only at intersections. Indeed, I would love to see the actual legislation that forbids people from crossing the street. In fact, the City’s policy is contrary to common sense and their own reports that indicate pedestrian hazards increase with the length of the crossing. And the longest crossings are at intersections, not midblock.
__
So, City, spend your money on sidewalks, crosswalks, street narrowings, and not on advertising campaigns to blame the pedestrian.
__
And stop the stupid practice of locating bus stops at mid-block, or 100’s of feed further and further from those “safe intersections”.
It’s interesting that you point out the relative safety of crossing mid-block where traffic approaches from fewer directions than at intersections.
The City seems completely unaware of this fact with respect to cyclists as well. Whenever it creates a multi-use path (like the one along the Transitway) it brings the path up to the intersection crosswalk to cross over cross streets. If turning traffic is dangerous for pedestrians, it’s even worse for cyclists who have considerably more speed. This design is so dangerous (taking the Scott Street example, especially when heading east due to cars making east-to-north left turns with very poor visibility of the path and anything approaching them from behind on the path) that I never use the sidepath and always the road, even though it’s in very poor shape.
What they should be doing is taking the path as far from the primary road (i.e. Scott) as is physically possible at intersections. It’s not perfect, but the traffic is more like two-way than four-way at the crossing point. Unfortunately, current City policy seems to be to perpetuate the current dangerous design and to retrofit formerly safe ones to the dangerous one.
It’s interesting that you point out the relative safety of crossing mid-block where traffic approaches from fewer directions than at intersections.
The City seems completely unaware of this fact with respect to cyclists as well. Whenever it creates a multi-use path (like the one along the Transitway) it brings the path up to the intersection crosswalk to cross over cross streets. If turning traffic is dangerous for pedestrians, it’s even worse for cyclists who have considerably more speed. This design is so dangerous (taking the Scott Street example, especially when heading east due to cars making east-to-north left turns with very poor visibility of the path and anything approaching them from behind on the path) that I never use the sidepath and always the road, even though it’s in very poor shape.
What they should be doing is taking the path as far from the primary road (i.e. Scott) as is physically possible at intersections. It’s not perfect, but the traffic is more like two-way than four-way at the crossing point. Unfortunately, current City policy seems to be to perpetuate the current dangerous design and to retrofit formerly safe ones to the dangerous one.
I probably generally cross at crosswalks, though I don’t hesitate to cross short blocks (i.e. I can see both ends) when both end signals are red. But I have to say that the specific Scott St path suggestion is flawed, because the physical space simply isn’t enough for the path to be not “near” the intersection. I don’t expect drivers to anticipate anything crossing a street a quarter second before or after the stop line: they’re in the “okay I’ve made it through the danger” mode where they’re least cautious. Maybe if the path was another 50m away from Scott, then I’d think it’d be a good idea.
Great rant. I agree with all of it. Where do they find planners who have never walked and never ridden a bike? And where do they get city councillors who are so relentessly stupid? And WHY DO WE VOTE FOR THEM???
Keep up the good work.
I’d agree that Ottawa drivers tend to be particularly bad when it comes to stop signs or signals – actually stopping is very rare. This is the only city in which I have, on several occasions, seen drivers stop at a red traffic light, check the traffic, then drive straight through. One of these was an OC Transpo bus traveling along Gladstone at Rochester – he picked up passengers at the stop there, pulled up to the red light, and drove right through – the cop on the other side of the road apparently didn’t notice as he was talking to the driver he’d pulled over.
Great rant. As a cyclist who has been hit three times by cars, and had a few near misses, I agree completely.
In Wellington West, there are two notorious intersections with traffic lights that are regularly ignore by pedestrians, cyclists and motorists: Western / Wellington and Scott/Carleton.
Last summer I was making a left hand turn from Wellington to Western, when the car at the red light on Western suddenly decided to turn left on a red! I saw him at the last minute and slammed on my brakes. The cyclist behind me thanked me for not letting us both become statistics.
Whether you’re a pedestrian, cyclist or driver, you need to be aware of your surroundings and be defensive.
In spring 2008, the city’s finest had a MASSIVE ticket-issuing blitz downtown, nailing pedestrian jaywalkers.
I have yet to hear of a similar effort targetting motorists who (A) fail to look both ways before entering or passing through a pedestrian crossing, (B) splash pedestrians, (C) block sidewalks and crosswalks, or (D) block other motorists in intersections by entering without enough space or signal time to clear, thereby causing gridlock.
So when can we expect this blitz, huh?
(And NO, I didn’t get ticketed myself.)
And oh yeah: are the pedestrian signal request buttons a convenient fiction, like elevator “close door” buttons? Most of them seem to do nothing; some of them do something, but only after an elapse of many minutes.
Why do I have to push a button to get a favourable light, and motorists don’t? And why don’t I get a cross light as of right, when the motorized traffic heading in the same direction gets a green?
Great blog. I agree 100 percent. I have lived in Edmonton, London, and Ottawa in the past decade, and although each city has certain problematic driving behaviours which are more prominent, there are a lot of similarities. Horrible driving, and little to no concern for pedestrians. You mention pedestrians are ‘soft’ and do little damage. I think it is more a danger factor. Other cars and trucks can kill bad drivers in an accident, pedestrians are not likely to. On a number of occasions I have barely escaped a serious accident while walking, and each time I had the right of way. What always annoys me, is I imagine if I get hit, and/or die, the driver will be ‘shaken’, and swear he/she was in the right, or didn’t see me, etc. In London, a street I often crossed had a pedestrian cross-walk well marked with giant bright orange signs, well before the intersection. I would wait for an opening in traffic (four lanes) before walking. I swear drivers would recognize that I would have an opportunity, and a driver four blocks away would speed up significantly (I thought often to 80 or 90, in a 60) to close the gap and/or intimidate me from walking. Promotion and campaings for safe driving would certainly help, but I think there needs to be increased enforcement of driving violations, including speeding, running lights (oranges, reds and advanced greens), not yielding to pedestrians at cross-walks, etc. It is a great way to make Canada’s cities safer, and help out municipal budgets.
You’ve got to be kidding me.
How many years has the City promoted Driver Safety and Bike Safety campaigns? It’s about time they target pedestrians. I myself am a full-time pedestrian/transit user, and I can see where they’re coming from. I’ll admit I jaywalk, but I’ll also be the first to admit it’s my own fault for jaywalking if I get hit by a car.
I actually had a little bit of say on this campaign as I work for the City and they’re not targeting pedestrians because they think they’re the only ones responsible, but because everybody has already been targeted. We all need to work towards safer streets – drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians alike. So deal with it!