©Car Crash-Woodbine Danforth-May 08-2009-2242
(Photo: sniderscion)
Councillor Bill Saundercook will be proposing to the City of Toronto's Pedestrian Committee a 10 km/h reduction in the speed limit across Toronto. His call is taking place just as Councillor Walker is pushing his own idea of "safety" by imposing more restrictions on cyclists with mandatory helmets and licenses. Guess which proposal is not blaming the victims and trying to instead get at the root of the problem: almost all traffic fatalities involve heavy motor vehicles.
"When you start seeing the (pedestrian) fatalities across Toronto, and you start studying where they're occurring, then you're going to see in the suburbs of Toronto ... where we have posted 60 km/h speed limits and in some places even as much as 70, that whenever there's a collision in those areas, it's usually a fatality," he said yesterday.
"You don't want people to say, 'I'm not going to walk because it's too risky.' "
There are a lot of negative comments on the blogs by what I would guess are drivers who don't understand the point of this proposal. One commenter even asked why were motorists being forced to go slower when cars are getting safer and safer. Maybe it's because there's no car wrapped around those pedestrians? How are air bags supposed to protect pedestrians and cyclists? Given that everyone is a pedestrian for at least some of the time you'd think this would be common sense. But the truth is that city planning has been so focused on making driving smoother for cars by widening roads and reducing the space for other road users that it's no wonder that many people can't see beyond the car.
Given this, the most politically feasible option would be to test it out in a small part of town that has a lot of pedestrian and cycling traffic. Saundercook suggests the area around Union Station:
"Make it a zone where any vehicles that are travelling in that area have to go 30 km/h or less and let the people cross the roads, making their judgement whether they can go in front or behind that vehicle," Saundercook said, arguing it would reduce the large groups of traffic-clogging pedestrians crossing streets near Union Station.
Saundercook is not coming up with this out of his own crazed mind. Many cities in Europe and now in the UK have 30 km/h speed limits. Studies show that lower speeds vastly increase the chances of a child or adult pedestrian surviving a collision with a motor vehicle:
A pedestrian hit at 20 mph [30 km/h] has a 95% chance of survival. The transition from minor to major injuries occurs at 20 mph. 30 mph [50 km/h] is a dangerous speed, an un-survivable speed. Just driving at 5 miles over the current 30 mph limit increases the chances of killing a pedestrian to 50%. Stopping distances increase in proportion to the square of the speed which means driving at 20 mph rather than 30 mph reduces the stopping distance by 134 per cent, and the risk of killing a pedestrian considerably; more collisions are avoided by making it easier to brake, as well as reducing injury severity should a collision occur.
The side benefits are decreased congestion (more cars can fit on a section of roadway at lower speeds than higher), better quality of life, lower fear, and lower emissions.
Comments
Rantwick (not verified)
Wow, that would be something
Mon, 09/14/2009 - 14:59As you say, such an idea strikes at the heart of the matter. It also directly challenges the culture of speed, and I'm afraid I won't be holding my breath while I wait for it to come true.
lOCk
His own crazed mind...
Mon, 09/14/2009 - 16:32He has seemed a little silly in the past, but I'm with him on this...
Not so long ago Saundercook was on the Segway bandwagon. (The Ontario gov't gave this privately owned US company an exclusive monopoly for the use of all Ontario roads and sidewalks.) I tried to explain to Saundercook that my $500 kick-bike with power-assist had the same max. speed and range on one charge as his $5,000 Segway, and that an electric kick-bike is a true hybrid, with the option of exercise built in. He was just too starry-eyed about his $5,000 toy to see the reality...
Anyway, wish him luck on this one, but yah, not holding my breath either...
tks
Random cyclist (not verified)
enforcement
Mon, 09/14/2009 - 22:10Naturally, as an advocate for active transportation I like this idea. It seems to me that getting the existing speed limits enforced would be a good start. Does anyone remember the circumstances by which photo radar was canceled? (other than the obvious Mike Harris).
Quebec seems to be on to the idea again
electric
Photo radar is mostly a cash grab because there are no points
Mon, 09/14/2009 - 23:01Same deal with red-light cameras, the count-down timers are far more effective at preventing accidents but sometimes the city wants revenue not safety.
Smart idea about the speed limit change. A 10km/h drop on the max won't make a huge difference to your local city drive but improve safety(kinetic energy=1/2mv^2) for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. We're talking average speeds remaining mostly the same, if you traveled for 60 minutes(at 60km/h) you'd cover 60km vs 50km(under new proposal), the proposed difference being 10 minutes if you could travel top-speed for that hour - which you can't.
Sarcastically, if it drops by 15km/h you'd get everybody to drive the speed which the city originally posted.
geoffrey
who stole the South Kingsway bike lanes
Mon, 09/14/2009 - 23:12In the early 1980s South Kingsway was reduced to 2 lanes from 4 and bike lanes were added to take up the slack. Now South Kingsway is a magnet for 80 kph motor vehicles with cars parked in what were once bike lanes. Why were these repainted as something other than bike lanes? When did the city approve this?
The number of five car households on the South Kingsway is remarkable. Driveways full plus need for street parking in an area with no lack of double garages and driveways with double width curb cuts is something to ponder.
ryan Marr (not verified)
why coming down on good ideas?
Tue, 09/15/2009 - 00:51"imposing more restrictions on cyclists with mandatory helmets and licenses."
Helmets and licenses are a really good idea. First off helmets save lives, be it a collision with another cyclist a pedestrian a vehicle of even a streetcar track. Brain injuries are extremely serious. Your brain is the only part of your body that does heal back like a scraped knee or a broken arm. This is hardly blaming the victim.
Secondly licenses for cyclists is an excellent idea. Not only will it bring cyclists who might not even have a drivers license up to speed on the rules of the road but it will no doubt become a part of the graduated licensing system for driving an automobile.
Also cycling is a privilege and people who abuse that by riding irresponsibly should have their license revoked. Accountability for everyone is very important if cyclists want to be taken seriously. It also leaves no room for misinterpretation of the laws.
In Ontario bicycles are considered vehicles by the highway traffic act and it's about time we start being treated like vehicles.
Which brings me to my next point/question. My average commuting speed is around 35km/h in the city. Under this new speed limit law could I be fined for speeding? I regularly am pushing 50 down the hills on spadina rd between eglinton and st clair. (on a bike of course)
Personally I don't have any problem with the speed limits in the city. It's very infrequent that drivers in toronto proper get a chance to exceed it and most of the time traffic is so bad that the average speed is well below 50 or even 40.
electric
I don't agree with licensing cyclists.
Tue, 09/15/2009 - 01:23Cyclists are hardly a danger to anybody, they aren't licensed for the same reason pedestrians aren't licensed; neither are particularly dangerous to the public, particularly when compared to the automobile. Drivers must be licensed and controlled, piloting two tonnes of steel moving at death-dealing speeds in public is a privilege. A privilege not a right because, other people must trust them with their lives.
Though I feel privileged to be able to cycle, it is no more a legal privilege than walking.
Education is about education. Licensing cyclists isn't about education, it's about a means of retribution. A laminated card is not going to make Mr/Mrs motor-head take you seriously, in their eyes you're still a lesser life-form on their road. Why as a cyclist would you voluntarily offer yourself up to be saddled with a license, I can't figure out, maybe you need some external validation?
locutas_of_spragge
We've allowed
Tue, 09/15/2009 - 05:02some politicians to redefine the right of personal mobility, a right protected in Magna Carta, as a "privilege". Shame on us! Our kids may well ask how we managed to let a right protected by thirty generations turn into a "privilege", licensed by the government, to make us "accountable" (to the government). Laws and constitutions descended from English common law recognize personal mobility as a fundamental right. In an age where cities and regions spread out for hundreds of kilometres, and planning decisions have sometimes (inadvertently or deliberately) restricted the mobility of individuals, the right of personal mobility means little unless it extends to a right to use the means of personal mobility.
That means that while the government rightly defines operating a two tonne steel bomb as a privilege, that does not make operating a 5kg human powered vehicle any less of a right. We license motorists because the average motor vehicle has the power to punch through a building wall and carries enough high explosive to take down a small house. Bicycles simply don't fit that description, and therefore do not, by any standard, have a need for licenses. Attempts to argue that the status of vehicle on the public road justifies the imposition of licensing ignores history.
Toujours (not verified)
Raise your hand...
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 13:26Raise your hand if you've been hit and injured by a cyclist before...
It might not be 2,000lbs, but 200lbs moving at 35km/hr packs quite the punch.
dash (not verified)
I've been knocked down a few
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 15:21I've been knocked down a few times by couriers while walking on the sidewalk, and t-boned a couple times in the street while on my own bike. Hurts like the dickens and then some, but at least I haven't been hit by a car (although it seems like an inevitability).
Seymore Bikes
LIke Moths to a Street Light
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 22:44I have had pedestrians walk right off the sidewalk and into me - laid my bike down more than once trying to avoid them too; to my discredit I have hit 2 others under similar circumstances but all were uninjured.
I offer my sincere apologies to the following:
- 180 guy at the crosswalk
- the female runner that popped out from behind the mail box
- man with umbrella trying to cross the street without looking up
- the curb jumper on Bathhust
- the drunk on Danforth
electric
Yeah, like moths
Wed, 09/30/2009 - 00:45I get the tough-guy pedestrian who stares right at you then after approximating your intended path keeps stepping to within a centimeter of it... just finish j-walking already.
As for cyclists though I've collided once with a person from a group of 5-7 bike salmon, almost head on. Was going the right way on a quiet road then all of the sudden those salmon decided to scatter into the wind... slammed on the brakes but it was too late, one of them made a b-line right into me. It wasn't pretty and there was some swearing!
Anonymous (not verified)
You may have a personal issue, wear a helmet outside plz
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 22:44to have been hit by couriers so many times. Maybe you have an issue with jumping in front of them on purpose? It is certainly you and not them that is the problem, because no other person in toronto could claim to have been hit by our courteous messengers so many times when out of over a hundred of them riding through the streets all day pedestrian collisions are so rare that they are frowned upon severely and if it happens a few times results in not being employed at any courier company.
by what you say you are the only pedestrian that has been hit and knocked down by a courier in Toronto for the past several years, and the only cyclist in ten times that long to have been in an accident with a courier
but it is far, far more likely that you are a liar and have never been struck by a courier at all.
dash (not verified)
I realize my posting made it
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 15:03I realize my posting made it appear I was blaming couriers for the t-bones too - that's not the case. Other "regular" riders were involved in those and the blame is usually 50/50 because they always involved blind pull outs.
As for getting hit by couriers as a pedestrian on the sidewalk, well my stats are no more provable than yours, but I'm not out to prove anything here - just sharing experiences. In some ways, I suppose that blame can be put on myself, as I instinctively move to the side rather than walk a straight line, and the cyclist - who has every intention of going around me, also moves to the side. They are able to correct faster than I, so it's never been a full on collision - more of a body check.
Was I asking for it? They seemed to think so. I can't say much either way frankly because I'm guilty of riding on the sidewalk as well. Experiences such as that have ensured I keep my speed at a walking pace however.
Anyway, it's happened three times, all on bloor street and the last time was seven years ago. I hope that's enough info for your records.