City of Calgary converting all school zones into playground zones

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by TSXCman

I'm actually with polak here. Teach them to keep their heads up, out of their phones, with atleast 1 open ear, use proper crossing methods, wait for drivers to acknowledge, and THEN cross. Seems like a win-win, as it could pull them away from becoming smartphone zombies a little too.

It's not as if drivers are innocent of that either.

And I find kids to be the most responsible crossers. It's the older teens or young adults that seem oblivious to their surroundings while crossing.

[Locke]

All joking aside, its got to be both.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Locke

All joking aside, its got to be both.

Agreed, there is an onus on both, but I believe the greater onus is on the vehicle.

[polak]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

How many 6,7,8,9,10 yr olds have smart phones.

The issue isn't just teaching them to use the crosswalk. The crosswalk doesn't provide some sort of force field. Those drivers are also looking at their phones, messing with their radio, putting on mascara, and any other number of things. Drivers do not spend 100% of their time aware of what is happening on the road.

People have posted studies that show that a reduction of speed down to 30 km/hr increase survival rates in vehicle vs. pedestrian collisions.

It is beyond me, why there is a backlash to this move. I will preface this by saying that I can get behind a review of playground/school zones and whether or not a particular one is needed.

I'm not actually against playground zones/school zones when they make sense, as I said a bunch of times in this thread. I just think not letting your kids out cause of... roads.... is in fact, helicopter parenting.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Agreed, there is an onus on both, but I believe the greater onus is on the vehicle.

Of course, but to what extent? The speed limit is set, the rules are set, the vehicle is licensed, registered and insured, all else being equal vehicles should be traveling in a very steady and predictable manner.

Kids though...kids are unpredictable.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

People have posted studies that show that a reduction of speed down to 30 km/hr increase survival rates in vehicle vs. pedestrian collisions.

A different infographic (one I didn't post) that I saw the CPS post recently stated that a pedestrian's chance of surviving a ped/car collision at 30kph was 90%, but that dropped to 20% if the car was doing 50kph.

I have not personally verified or checked those numbers, so don't hold my feet to the fire over them.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

A different infographic (one I didn't post) that I saw the CPS post recently stated that a pedestrian's chance of surviving a ped/car collision at 30kph was 90%, but that dropped to 20% if the car was doing 50kph.

I have not personally verified or checked those numbers, so don't hold my feet to the fire over them.

I think we need to perform an experiment, just to really know. I suggest we use politicians. You know, for science. Survivors get an extra 5 years of pension.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by polak

I'm not actually against playground zones/school zones when they make sense, as I said a bunch of times in this thread. I just think not letting your kids out cause of... roads.... is in fact, helicopter parenting.

My kids just turned 8 and we're considering letting them walk a few blocks to their friend's houses unsupervised. As far as I know, we will be the first parents to do this in their grade, and I expect it'll prompt some anxiety and concerns. I'm pretty sure we don't qualify as helicopter parents.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by polak

Teach your kid to cross the street like a normal human being.

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Slow the #### down and have consideration for people other than yourself, like a normal human being.

Why can't it be both? There should be a duty to share the responsibility. Just this morning I was crossing on a walk sign, and would have been smucked by a lady who was turning right on a red had I not stopped. It wouldn't have mattered how right I was; I would have had that satisfaction all to myself as I lay in my hospital bed- wondering if I'd ever walk again.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Dagger

If cops want to actually enforce these speeds, they should sit in plain sight, in marked cars at the front of playground zones. Catching people in unmarked cars is merely a cash grab.

Man I love that cash grab argument. So what if it is? It's a fool's ''tax'' to catch people who can't follow rules. Don't want to get taxed? Don't break the rules. People toss out those words because plain and simple, they are pissed off for getting caught.

I for one, am all for more sneaky police tactics that bring in revenue

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Agreed, there is an onus on both, but I believe the greater onus is on the vehicle.

Originally Posted by ken0042

Why can't it be both? There should be a duty to share the responsibility. Just this morning I was crossing on a walk sign, and would have been smucked by a lady who was turning right on a red had I not stopped. It wouldn't have mattered how right I was; I would have had that satisfaction all to myself as I lay in my hospital bed- wondering if I'd ever walk again.

You might not have seen my post in response to Locke.

At no point have a advocated randomly walking out in front of vehicles. There most certainly needs to be a joint responsibility, but I believe the great onus is on the driver, especially when traveling through playground/school zones.


BTW, Cliff, we have been letting our animals run free since they were 6. Their AO is getting bigger as they grow and display good judgement. We just recently let the kids go down to the lake with their friends, the group of 4 consisted of 2 9 yrs, 1 10 yr old and 11 yr old.

They came back alive.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Dagger

If cops want to actually enforce these speeds, they should sit in plain sight, in marked cars at the front of playground zones. Catching people in unmarked cars is merely a cash grab.

Yep. And if you were to stand 100 meters before the speed trap with a sign warning drivers you'll probably be arrested. Never mind that almost every single person would slow down making everyone safer.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Man I love that cash grab argument. So what if it is? It's a fool's ''tax'' to catch people who can't follow rules. Don't want to get taxed? Don't break the rules. People toss out those words because plain and simple, they are pissed off for getting caught.

I for one, am all for more sneaky police tactics that bring in revenue

When I say cash grab, I don't dislike the fine part of it, you're right it's just a speed tax if you get caught it's your own fault.

My issue is it's intent. Enforcement after the fact doesn't work. Park a photo radar van there all you want, someone blasts by doing twice the limit and hits a pedestrian, congratulations, all you did was get a picture of the guy

[FireGilbert]

This seems extreme. When I lived in Calgary I thought it was perfectly normal to cover a city in playground zones but after moving away I learned Calgary actually has a weird crazy fascination with them that is not shared elsewhere.

The worst has the be the one on Elbow drive where a patch of grass by the river is considered a "playground" which clogs up one of the main routes in and out of the city. I also never liked the one on Willow Park Drive where they changed it from a school zone to a playground zone even though the park is fenced off and only busy on school days.

To compare with a much bigger city with way worse traffic, there is no such thing as a playground zone in Sydney and I have not heard of a epidemic of children being run over. They are very liberal in their placement of school zones though which have a 40kph limit from 0800 to 0930 and 1430 to 1600.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by btimbit

My issue is it's intent. Enforcement after the fact doesn't work. Park a photo radar van there all you want, someone blasts by doing twice the limit and hits a pedestrian, congratulations, all you did was get a picture of the guy

Writing speeding tickets is like a cop letting a murder happen just so he can catch a murderer.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by zamler

Yep. And if you were to stand 100 meters before the speed trap with a sign warning drivers you'll probably be arrested. Never mind that almost every single person would slow down making everyone safer.

Originally Posted by btimbit

My issue is it's intent. Enforcement after the fact doesn't work. Park a photo radar van there all you want, someone blasts by doing twice the limit and hits a pedestrian, congratulations, all you did was get a picture of the guy

Originally Posted by darklord700

Writing speeding tickets is like a cop letting a murder happen just so he can catch a murderer.

Look, we have laws. All kinds of laws. We have fines for breaking those laws. Fines imposed after the act. Sure, we try to put measures in place to stop shoplifters from stealing in the first place. But if they do manage to steal something, we arrest them. Punish them. And hopefully that punishment deters the shoplifters, and others, from shoplifting in the future.

The point of speed traps isn't to make people slow down on that particular road at that particular time. It's to make them drive within the limit wherever they drive at all times. It's to break them of the habit of habitual speeding by imposing a cost. The fact that habitual speeders complain so bitterly about photo radar suggests that getting a ticket after the fact does, in fact, have some impact. Why it doesn't always change behaviour is a matter of individual psychology.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Look, we have laws. All kinds of laws. We have fines for breaking those laws. Fines imposed after the act. Sure, we try to put measures in place to stop shoplifters from stealing in the first place. But if they do manage to steal something, we arrest them. Punish them. And hopefully that punishment deters the shoplifters, and others, from shoplifting in the future.

The point of speed traps isn't to make people slow down on that particular road at that particular time. It's to make them drive within the limit wherever they drive at all times. It's to break them of the habit of habitual speeding by imposing a cost. The fact that habitual speeders complain so bitterly about photo radar suggests that getting a ticket after the fact does, in fact, have some impact. Why it doesn't always change behaviour is a matter of individual psychology.

Perhaps we need to get speeding Precrime involved.

[Russic]

It's amazing to me that some people are of the mind that the speed limits should be increased because they themselves are good drivers. People that do that are just screwing with me, right? They don't actually fail to see the problem there, do they?

[polak]

Originally Posted by Russic

It's amazing to me that some people are of the mind that the speed limits should be increased because they themselves are good drivers. People that do that are just screwing with me, right? They don't actually fail to see the problem there, do they?

Speed limits should be increased because random numbers pulled out of a hat designed to generate income and not safety are BS and don't work. If you want evidence of this, look at the speed limits of other western countries and compare.

Although I don't think anyone is advocating higher speed limits in residential or school zones. Just stupid playground zones that are missing things like... you know... a playground?

[JiriHrdina]

How many of those are there really?
If that's the entire basis of your position it is pretty flimsy.