Jump to content

      



























Photo

Herald St. / Government crosswalk


  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#41 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 09:08 AM

Brunettes, educated, smart, confident.....My old Doberman was all of those and more until she passed away 2 weeks ago.

We can't agree on this either.


  • rjag likes this

#42 shoeflack

shoeflack
  • Member
  • 2,861 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 09:08 AM

No it's not ... which is why two labourers at $45.00 per hour, a 20 litre bucket of traffic paint, and a roller on a broom handle can easily create a perfectly serviceable (and safe) crosswalk in less than a single work day.

 

(in my scenario, we'd be dropping the signal of course :) )

 

You're saying the crosswalk at Government & Pembroke works fine, yet ignoring that the reason it works is because the sidewalk juts out beyond the parking and bike lanes. The southeast corner of Government & Herald (outside of 601) already has that in place, but not the southwest corner.

 

You're also completely ignoring that Government & Pembroke has overhead crosswalk signage AND the crosswalk is fully illuminated with overhead lights.

 

A bit more time and resources needed than a simple bucket of paint to get it to the "works just fine" level of Government & Pembroke.

 

Your method sounds like a lawsuit for the City of Victoria, one that would likely cost far beyond $200,000.



#43 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 09:08 AM

So Jaywalking?

 

At every intersection there is an implied crosswalk, even when there is no paint.  Cars MUST stop.  You must be one of the 97% that don't if you do not know that.

 

As noted in our blog “What is a “Crosswalk”? The Answer Might Surprise You”, a crosswalk is includes an unmarked area if it is at an intersection and within imaginary lines drawn from opposite sides of the highway (road), or within imaginary lines on one side of the highway (such as across the base of a “T” at a t-intersection). This means that a crosswalk exists whether the intersection is controlled by a stop sign or a stoplight, and whether or not there are distinct pedestrian markings.

 

This means that, while a pedestrian may not step off a curb at an unmarked crosswalk when it is dangerous to do so (179(2)), the pedestrian does have the right of way over a vehicle at an unmarked crosswalk (an uncontrolled or controlled intersection) where they are approaching the road on the same side of the road as the passing vehicle or so closely from the other side of the road that they would be in danger if the vehicle did not stop.

 

 

 

http://www.leaguelaw...akes-crosswalk/


Edited by VicHockeyFan, 22 November 2017 - 09:10 AM.

  • Nparker likes this
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#44 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 09:10 AM

So Jaywalking?

It's not jaywalking.  See MVA s.1 "crosswalk" and section 179.



#45 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 22 November 2017 - 09:35 AM

At every intersection there is an implied crosswalk, even when there is no paint.  Cars MUST stop.  You must be one of the 97% that don't if you do not know that.

 

 

 

http://www.leaguelaw...akes-crosswalk/

 

I think the interpretation is where there is a stop sign controlling all 4 corners. The implied crosswalk would be walking parallel to Government crossing Herald as there is a stop sign controlling that part. 

 

Rights of way between vehicle and pedestrian

179  (1) Subject to section 180, the driver of a vehicle must yield the right of way to a pedestrian where traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation when the pedestrian is crossing the highway in a crosswalk and the pedestrian is on the half of the highway on which the vehicle is travelling, or is approaching so closely from the other half of the highway that he or she is in danger.

(2) A pedestrian must not leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close it is impracticable for the driver to yield the right of way.

(3) If a vehicle is slowing down or stopped at a crosswalk or at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the highway, the driver of a vehicle approaching from the rear must not overtake and pass the vehicle that is slowing down or stopped.

(4) A pedestrian, cyclist or the driver of a motor vehicle must obey the instructions of an adult school crossing guard and of a school student acting as a member of a traffic patrol where the guards or students are

(a) provided under the School Act,

(b) authorized by the chief of police of the municipality as defined in section 36 (1), or

© if located on treaty lands, authorized by the chief of the police force responsible for policing the treaty lands.

Crossing at other than crosswalk

180  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.



#46 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 09:37 AM

 

I think the interpretation is where there is a stop sign controlling all 4 corners. The implied crosswalk would be walking parallel to Government crossing Herald as there is a stop sign controlling that part. 

 

Incorrect.  At Government and Herald there are 4 implied crosswalks.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#47 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 22 November 2017 - 09:40 AM

https://www.icbcclaiminfo.com/node/26



#48 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 22 November 2017 - 09:44 AM

Incorrect.  At Government and Herald there are 4 implied crosswalks.

 

Is that because the kerb juts out? 

 

so is there a 4 way crosswalk here?  https://www.google.c...m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

or here? https://www.google.c...m/data=!3m1!1e3



#49 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 09:45 AM

 

Proving my case.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#50 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 09:47 AM

Is that because the kerb juts out? 

 

so is there a 4 way crosswalk here?  https://www.google.c...m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

or here? https://www.google.c...m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

Curb jutting has nothing to do with it.  And YES and YES.


  • Matt R. likes this
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#51 Cassidy

Cassidy
  • Banned
  • 2,501 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 22 November 2017 - 10:19 AM

You're saying the crosswalk at Government & Pembroke works fine, yet ignoring that the reason it works is because the sidewalk juts out beyond the parking and bike lanes. The southeast corner of Government & Herald (outside of 601) already has that in place, but not the southwest corner.

 

You're also completely ignoring that Government & Pembroke has overhead crosswalk signage AND the crosswalk is fully illuminated with overhead lights.

 

A bit more time and resources needed than a simple bucket of paint to get it to the "works just fine" level of Government & Pembroke.

 

Your method sounds like a lawsuit for the City of Victoria, one that would likely cost far beyond $200,000.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

There is no threat of a lawsuit when what we're talking about is already a legal pedestrian crosswalk (albeit unmarked).

 

The crossing at Herald Street for a pedestrian is for all intents and purposes ... already there!

 

All putting a formal visual aid (paint on the roadway) does is make the crossing more readily apparent to drivers.
 

But you (and a couple of others) miss my point - which is that a nimble city government could have the painted crosswalk in place TOMORROW if they wished. There would be no waiting a year or two for signs of the first bit of effort to make the crossing safer than it is today.

 

So rather than leaving it unmarked, and not dealt with for a year or two, you have a solution (even if it's temporary) in place for the day after tomorrow. I don't know if you've ever worked with xylene based traffic paint, but it dries in under half an hour, so indeed a couple of labourers, a 20 litre bucket of traffic white, and a roller on a broom stick would be more than adequate to generate a much safer crossing area before the end of this week instead of two years from now.

 

"Bridge think" (or "city think" if that's easier to digest) doesn't ever let this happen of course, which starts to get at the core of everything that's wrong with the City of Victoria and its elected officials, managers, and employees.

 

You could certainly never run a successful business thinking and working like the City of Victoria does ... (and please spare me the "a city isn't a business" line, such thinking is just more "city think", and a way to justify mishandling taxpayer dollars).


Edited by Cassidy, 22 November 2017 - 10:22 AM.

  • rjag likes this

#52 shoeflack

shoeflack
  • Member
  • 2,861 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 10:50 AM

The City of Victoria has written standards for the construction of marked crosswalks. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but if they fail to meet their own standards, and that failure results in someone getting injured in a marked crosswalk, it certainly would open them up to legal action.

 

If there's a patch of mold on a wall, you can't just paint it over to make the problem go away. You could certainly never run a successful business thinking and working like that.


  • Matt R. likes this

#53 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 10:54 AM

The City of Victoria has written standards for the construction of marked crosswalks. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but if they fail to meet their own standards, and that failure results in someone getting injured in a marked crosswalk, it certainly would open them up to legal action.

 

If there's a patch of mold on a wall, you can't just paint it over to make the problem go away. You could certainly never run a successful business thinking and working like that.

 

If a new crosswalk would be such a hazard, why not close all the existing ones that do not meet the standard though?


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#54 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 10:56 AM

If there's a patch of mold on a wall, you can't just paint it over to make the problem go away. You could certainly never run a successful business thinking and working like that.

 

But if you have mold on the wall in your house, sometimes a drywall repair and a plumbing fix is the best repair method, not demolishing the house and building a new one.  ie. the Crystal Pool method.


Edited by VicHockeyFan, 22 November 2017 - 10:56 AM.

<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#55 shoeflack

shoeflack
  • Member
  • 2,861 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 11:02 AM

There are many things built in the past that wouldn't be allowed to be built today. Those things are continued to be allowed to exist because of that fact. Obviously long term, the City will continue to replace old infrastructure, as does any municipality. But also as does any municipality, you don't build new infrastructure to old standards.

 

I'm not suggesting to demolish a house. I'm suggesting to add 8 feet of concrete to extend a sidewalk and some overhead lights to create a marked crosswalk at existing standards. I don't think you need to demolish anything to do that.


  • VicHockeyFan and nagel like this

#56 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 11:08 AM

Yup.  1.5m sidewalks used to be good enough but now the norm is 2.1+.  We don't need to go around ripping out all the 1.5m ones while we wait for proper width ones to be installed.  The idea is to ensure you make the new upgrades to the current standard, not go around ripping old stuff out you can't afford to immediately replace.


  • VicHockeyFan likes this

#57 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,173 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 11:20 AM

Can’t we do that now without the $200k investment? That’s such an unsafe crossing and living in that area I refuse to cross there and always end up having to walk one extra block up and down. I also see many close calls there when drivers aren’t expecting a pedestrian to suddenly make a run for it.
  • Nparker likes this

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#58 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 11:31 AM

The City does temporary stuff all the time.  Paint the crosswalk in now, upgrade it when you can.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#59 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 11:31 AM

I don't understand what you're suggesting?  One of the lesser types of crossing, somewhere between painted crosswalk and traffic signal?



#60 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 22 November 2017 - 11:32 AM

You could do it if you put up barriers closing one lane of traffic each direction.  Painted crosswalks do not meet standards for 4 lane arterials.  They can't put one in even temporarily.



You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users