7141 replies to this topic

[Victoria Watcher]

not enter the crosswalk in both cases. notice how rarely a 35-year old is involved in a pedestrian collision? its almost always the young and the elderly. making mistakes.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 21 January 2019 - 05:24 PM.

[Jackerbie]

not enter the crosswalk in both cases. notice how rarely a 35-year old is involved in a pedestrian collision? its almost always the young and the elderly. making mistakes.

How exactly does one cross a street without entering a crosswalk?

[Victoria Watcher]

you don’t enter it until cars have stopped at it. you don’t enter it when cars are close enough that they could meet you in the middle of it.

[Awaiting Juno]

So basically "don't trust cars to follow the rules of the road" - it is sad, but very true that one can be "dead right".  Ideally, both drivers and pedestrians take steps to prevent these incidents from happening, and ideally some measure of engineering is undertaken to mitigate the fact that humans make mistakes and not all humans are 35 year olds - some are kids and some are elderly or have other limitations.  Having crosswalks too far apart means that some will take risks, having speed limits that are too fast to accommodate reaction times also means there'll be a human price to pay.  Do drivers who flaunt the rules of the road deserve to be shamed? Absolutely.  Do pedestrians who fail to do "everything imaginable" to avoid an accident deserve to be in accidents - absolutely not.  

[Victoria Watcher]

agree. except it should also be noted that sometimes crosswalks - that are close together or not - often give pedestrians too much sense of security.

but look at some of the claims in the op-ed:

That’s right, you: the typical driver. I’m sure you’re a very nice person, but if you’re like most people, you probably drive too fast most of the time — on residential side streets, in school zones, in parking lots.


*** I don’t believe most people drive too fast most of the time.


While pedestrians might have more skin in the game, they aren’t the problem. The problem is driver speed, and the only effect of the one-sided messaging is to ensure it continues unabated.

*** pedestrians ARE the problem in many pedestrian/car collisions. they might even be at fault in most of them.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 22 January 2019 - 04:30 PM.

[Jackerbie]

*** pedestrians ARE the problem in many pedestrian/car collisions. they might even be at fault in most of them.

 

According to ICBC, the top two reasons for collisions involving pedestrians are distracted driving and drivers failing to yield. Pedestrians are not always in the right, but most of the time it is the driver making a mistake. Their data also show that young adults aged 20-29 are involved in collisions as pedestrians more than any other age group, approximately 25% of all cases.

 

Children and the elderly are more likely to be killed in a collision, but it's young adults getting hit most often.

[Victoria Watcher]

i take no issue with those stats and appreciate them.  but i truly believe that pedestrians sometimes or even often put themselves into a situation where they are indeed not at fault but they might have prevented the collision.  one would be entering or continuing across a crosswalk (or any road) when you do not know or indeed cannot know if an oncoming car has seen you.

[Cassidy]

I've spent 20 years telling my daughter that despite the fact that a pedestrian always has the right-of-way, to always make sure she knows that an oncoming car see's her, and if she has any reason whatsoever to suspect they don't see her, to stay put until that car passes.

I then go on to tell her that despite being "in the right", it won't do her any good if she's seriously injured (or worse).

 

It's an uncomfortable topic to discuss with kids because you're essentially telling them that, despite "the law" ... they can't count on that law to protect them.

I'd rather she not challenge cars and drivers based only on something that's written into the Motor Vehicle Act and Regulations down at the legislature, a document that gives the parameters to the relationship between cars and pedestrians ... but which offers zero physical protections to those pedestrians it references ... the ones who are actually out walking about the streets and sidewalks.

 

My aim is to impress on her that she (as a pedestrian) is actually responsible for her own safety, despite any laws that may pretend to offer her protection from vehicles.

Edited by Cassidy, 23 January 2019 - 06:37 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

it’s not unlike flashing your brake lights when you are turning off a major road left into a minor one. then checking your rear view to make sure the car behind is paying attention. I do it every time.

or waiting an extra second when the light turns green and you are the first car into the intersection. you don’t want to meet that car flying through the red.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 23 January 2019 - 07:04 AM.

[Mike K.]

I don’t understand the flashing brake lights thing. Wouldn’t the turn signal and applying the brake lights suffice?

[Victoria Watcher]

you flash the brake lights a bit earlier and look at the driver.

you only do it in rare circumstances where the following car might not expect you slowing on a straight stretch,

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 23 January 2019 - 07:27 AM.

[lanforod]

I've spent 20 years telling my daughter that despite the fact that a pedestrian always has the right-of-way, to always make sure she knows that an oncoming car see's her, and if she has any reason whatsoever to suspect they don't see her, to stay put until that car passes.

I then go on to tell her that despite being "in the right", it won't do her any good if she's seriously injured (or worse).

 

It's an uncomfortable topic to discuss with kids because you're essentially telling them that, despite "the law" ... they can't count on that law to protect them.

I'd rather she not challenge cars and drivers based only on something that's written into the Motor Vehicle Act and Regulations down at the legislature, a document that gives the parameters to the relationship between cars and pedestrians ... but which offers zero physical protections to those pedestrians it references ... the ones who are actually out walking about the streets and sidewalks.

 

My aim is to impress on her that she (as a pedestrian) is actually responsible for her own safety, despite any laws that may pretend to offer her protection from vehicles.

 

That applies to most laws that are for public safety, I'd think.  Laws against murder won't protect you from someone intent on murdering...

[spanky123]

 

My aim is to impress on her that she (as a pedestrian) is actually responsible for her own safety, despite any laws that may pretend to offer her protection from vehicles.

 

I don't think that there is anything wrong in telling your kids to be aware of the environment around them. It has nothing to do with a lack of faith in law enforcement. I wouldn't flash a wad of cash in a bar, going strolling in a strange neighbourhood at night or leave valuables in plain sight in my car. 

[Cassidy]

The "murder" analogy would apply if a person exposed themselves repeatedly to situations where they could potentially be murdered.

That doesn't happen of course, because comparing the act of murder to the concept of pedestrians having the right of way over vehicles makes very little sense, and borders on the just plain silly.

• Exposing oneself to situations where the potential for being murdered is high - NEVER
• Exposing oneself to potentially being hit by a car by walking across a roadway is high - DAILY

 

See the difference?

 

I wasn't really commenting on enforcement.

I said that just because something is enshrined in legislation somewhere doesn't automatically ensure that a person will benefit from the sentiments of that legislation regardless of how vigorously it might be "enforced".

 

 

[Sparky]

What ever happened to the age old adage of
“Stop, look, and listen”?

[exc911ence]

What ever happened to the age old adage of
“Stop, look, and listen”?

 

This.

Attached Images

• 

[Midnightly]

This.

 

 

i've always called those type of people (those who don't look where they are going staring at a phone not paying any attention to anything around them) zombies.. and remind my kid not to become one of them

[Victoria Watcher]

there are some fantastic YouTube unsafe phone walking compilations now.

[Mike K.]

A bluebird cab was involved in a serious accident on Esquimalt Road right at the Vic West/Esq border early this morning. The vehicle was witnessed rolled over and stopped on its roof.

It’s not immediately clear what caused the accident. There’s a photo on our social media.

[sebberry]

If that's what happens with cabs, imagine the carnage from UBER!

 

Hopefully everyone is OK. Was this a single-vehicle crash?