[11th]

Incidents like this are the inevitable result of drivers trying to "beat" the pedestrians when they're about to get a green light, justified in their mind by the fact that they're allowed to turn right while their light is still red, but knowing full well that the pedestrian green is about to light up. Happens at every light cycle at busy intersections.

That said, when you're walking in a city, keep your eyes up and your earbuds low. Thankfully that person got out just in time.

The video is an good example of that. I think no one has commented that there were two people in the video about to cross.

 

[txlseries4]

It also highlights the importance of combining LPIs with No Right Turn on Red. If this crossing had an LPI but still permitted right turns on red, exactly the same situation would have occurred, since the truck driver was turning right on red already.

Absolutely. The culture of turning or inching forward on a red is so pervasive people are blind to it and the dangers it presents. I've had the habit of doing it, but less so since I've become more aware of the topics in this thread. Sometimes when I choose not to I get some jackass laying on their horn behind me -- all because I didn't want to flatten the pedestrian about to cross, or get demolished because of a blind spot. The desire to fit in is so powerful that people are willing to break the law and endanger others so they can avoid upsetting "the group" (ie people in cars behind you).

It drives me crazy to have LPIs but not ROR restrictions, though I appreciate the LPIs in my area. Allowing ROR puts a disproportionate burden on people walking to be hyper aware about whether a driver is obeying traffic signals. This also presumes the pedestrian is fully able to hear, see, and has the awareness and ability to react quickly. Plenty of circumstances, permanent or temporary, create deficits in this context, which I think No ROR would help alleviate.

 

[reaperexpress]

Or don't step into the path of a turning 18-wheeler after he's already midway through his turn.

My 6-year old has more common sense.

That is a good example of victim blaming. Our crosswalks should be safe enough for a blind person to cross. Yes, I think most of us would have had more situational awareness than the pedestrian in the video, but our systems need to be designed such that a momentary lapse of attention (or a literal disability) isn't life-altering or life-ending.

 

[11th]

That is a good example of victim blaming. Our crosswalks should be safe enough for a blind person to cross. Yes, I think most of us would have had more situational awareness than the pedestrian in the video, but our systems need to be designed such that a momentary lapse of attention (or a literal disability) isn't life-altering or life-ending.

I actually thought about the wording to use to not come across as victim blaming. I was stating from observation, nor I am disagreeing with better road designs, and I am not faulting the pedestrian involved. Are we not even allowed to comment on observation?

But then, I am not sure why I have to explain myself. Why are we assuming the worst of people?

 

[reaperexpress]

I actually thought about the wording to use to not come across as victim blaming. I was stating from observation, nor I am disagreeing with better road designs, and I am not faulting the pedestrian involved. Are we not even allowed to comment on observation?

But then, I am not sure why I have to explain myself. Why are we assuming the worst of people?

Perhaps I misinterpreted your post, and if so I apologize. My interpretation was you were supplementing the call to "keep your eyes up and your earbuds low" by suggesting that not enough people were comparing the behaviour of the two pedestrians, one who had good situational awareness and one who didn't.

 

[11th]

Perhaps I misinterpreted your post, and if so I apologize. My interpretation was you were supplementing the call to "keep your eyes up and your earbuds low" by suggesting that not enough people were comparing the behaviour of the two pedestrians, one who had good situational awareness and one who didn't.

All cool. Case closed.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Sometimes when I choose not to I get some jackass laying on their horn behind me

I do hate how North Americans use their car horns. It's always a big "f#ck you! get a move on!" while in much of the rest of the world the horn means, "I'm here, please watch out" or "you can go".

Though recent move to hard to press horns doesn’t help this. On my motorcycle a quick and friendly toot of the horn is easily. On my VW it’s nearly impossible to achieve that nuance, to where the horn is either off or a 2-3 second roar.

 

[lenaitch]

In Ontario, while there aren't specific regulations mandating truck proximity sensors, the province encourages and supports their use for enhancing safety and visibility in industrial workplaces and for commercial motor vehicles. Proximity sensors, along with other assistive devices like mirrors and warning lights, are recommended to improve driver awareness and reduce blind spots.

In other words, it may happen with time. Like seat belts, they became mandatory in Canada in phases. Ontario was the first province to enact a mandatory seat belt law on January 1, 1976.

Thanks. I wasn't aware they existed (I don't follow the industry) but it makes sense given the proliferation of sensors in modern passenger vehicles.

One complicating issue (in addition to vehicle safety standards being a federal mandate), is the fact that tractor-trailer combinations are not matched sets and operate commercially across multiple jurisdictions. It might be easier if all of the sensors could be mounted on one vehicle, such as the tractor, but I doubt that would work.

The culture of turning or inching forward on a red is so pervasive people are blind to it and the dangers it presents

Performing right turns on a red light is a legal issue, not a cultural one. In this case, the driver could hardly be accused of "inching forward". The turn appeared to be a deliberate and continuous movement, as the law allows.

Our crosswalks should be safe enough for a blind person to cross.

The only practical solution for that standard to exist would be no concurrent/conflicting movements between roadway users and sidewalk users.

 

[hawc]

View attachment 653055

Or don't step into the path of a turning 18-wheeler after he's already midway through his turn.

My 6-year old has more common sense.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Then there are the double-trailers...

I would like to be as far from the intersection when those trailers make any kind of turn.

I would want to be a block away from the triple trailers...

 

[txlseries4]

Performing right turns on a red light is a legal issue, not a cultural one. In this case, the driver could hardly be accused of "inching forward".

My comment was not in the context of the video.

The turn appeared to be a deliberate and continuous movement, as the law allows.

As the law allows involves yielding the right of way which driving into the path of pedestrians who have a walk signal doesn't do...

 

[lenaitch]

Then there are the double-trailers...
View attachment 653200

I would like to be as far from the intersection when those trailers make any kind of turn.

I would want to be a block away from the triple trailers...

Vehicle load and dimension regulations are really complex, but generally speaking, the maximum combination vehicle length in Ontario is 23m. There is a 'long combination vehicle program' that allows up to 40m but there are a lot of restrictions.

As the law allows involves yielding the right of way which driving into the path of pedestrians who have a walk signal doesn't do...

Everybody is looking for a villain here. It could be argued that, since the truck was well into the bounds of the intersection before the pedestrian was, who should yield to whom?

Maybe there is a case for separate, non-interfering signal phases, but that's not what we have here.

 

[reaperexpress]

The only practical solution for that standard to exist would be no concurrent/conflicting movements between roadway users and sidewalk users.

Which is exactly what they do at nearly all signals in the Netherlands;

 

[crs1026]

Very scary video.

I do wonder whether, had the driver seen the pedestrian in the mirror and stopped their vehicle, would the pedestrian have simply walked into the side of the trailer?

No road design except perhaps physical barriers will guarantee safety when any of the parties is inattentive. The truck driver may have the greater legal onus, but our HTO is not fail-safe nor is it meant to be. If we are talking from a level of fixing causal factors, rather than legal compliance, we need to build in features that mitigate or discourage inattention and/or bad judgement..

I liked @reaperexpress ´s video as it shows that signal timing alone is not the sole answer.... the intersection portrayed is laid out entirely differently to most in this city. I wonder if the traffic volumes that we create are feasible with the more elaborate design. And we cram in maxxed out vehicle dimensions that maybe the road design can't handle. We are not merely perfecting road design, we are doing so under very high volume assumptions. Separating pedestrian occupancy from vehicle occupancy seems like a good solution, I wonder what the tradeoff on vehicular flow is?

- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

I do wonder whether, had the driver seen the pedestrian in the mirror and stopped their vehicle, would the pedestrian have simply walked into the side of the trailer?

It is absolutely critical to remember that the intent of Vision Zero is not to eliminate all collisions. It is to eliminate specifically killed or seriously injured collisions by carefully managing risk.

A pedestrian walking into the side of a stationary trailer is extremely unlikely to result in death or serious injury, whereas a pedestrian being crushed by the rear wheels of a tractor trailer is almost certain to result in death or serious injury.

To give another hypothetical example, if the City places a boulder on the road at a pedestrian crossover that causes traffic to slow down at the crossing (reducing the chance of death or serious injury) but also drastically increases the number of property-damage-only collisions (due to incompetent drivers hitting the boulder), that is a clear win from the perspective of Vision Zero even though the number of collisions increased.

That's an exaggerated example, but a similar phenomenon tends to occur with the implementation of roundabouts: more total collisions, but fewer severe collisions. Which old-fashioned traffic safety analysis would see as a failure (more collisions), but Vision Zero would see as a success (fewer injuries/deaths).

No road design except perhaps physical barriers will guarantee safety when any of the parties is inattentive. The truck driver may have the greater legal onus, but our HTO is not fail-safe nor is it meant to be. If we are talking from a level of fixing causal factors, rather than legal compliance, we need to build in features that mitigate or discourage inattention and/or bad judgement..

For a collision to occur due to user error, typically at least two road users need to be inattentive. First the one user needs to make an error, AND the other user needs to fail to identify/accommodate the error. If either user were attentive the collision could be avoided.

I liked @reaperexpress ´s video as it shows that signal timing alone is not the sole answer.... the intersection portrayed is laid out entirely differently to most in this city. I wonder if the traffic volumes that we create are feasible with the more elaborate design. And we cram in maxxed out vehicle dimensions that maybe the road design can't handle. We are not merely perfecting road design, we are doing so under very high volume assumptions. Separating pedestrian occupancy from vehicle occupancy seems like a good solution, I wonder what the tradeoff on vehicular flow is?

Indeed the most effective solution is generally a systematic implementation of a set of safety interventions, rather than just focusing on a particular type of interventions. At an intersection level, geometric design and signal operations go hand-in-hand, it's difficult to have safe and efficient signal operations without designing the geometry accordingly, and vice versa.

As part of Safe System thinking, intersection design/operations is just one tool in the toolbox. On the heirarchy of controls, it would fall under Engineering Controls, so more effective than administrative controls (e.g. traffic enforcement) or PPE (e.g. pedestrian helmets), but less effective than substitution (e.g. moving truck routes away from pedestrian/bike routes) or elimination (e.g. grade separation).

In an ideal world with infinite space and money we'd always eliminate hazards, but in the real world we need to use a combination of all the other types, taking opportunities to implement interventions higher on the heirarchy wherever possible.

This is what I was focusing on in my blog post about the Safe Systems approach to urban planning.