Police fine 90 jaywalkers during morning commute

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Exactly. My husband works in an industry where he is sometiems required to close roads and sidewalks. There are actually pretty strict rules about it and his closures are usually less than a week.

I personally don't think a covered walkway is acceptable for a building demolition. What if a chunk of concrete breaks off and crashes through? Better to move people to the other side of the street where it is safe.

This is part of the issue requiring full closure - that it is a demolition. The full closure is (hopefully) temporary. The City is working right now with the contractor on access during the construction.

Also working on short term solutions while the closure is in effect.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I read the article and I understand the intention of it. However in this instance, pedestrians are directly walking in the path of traffic and don't care.

Originally Posted by FireFly

I read the article and I understand the intention of it. However in this instance, pedestrians are directly walking in the path of traffic and don't care.

Do they really not care though? Is it possible that although they are taking an informal path with dangers they are also taking precautions?

During sporadic closures in places where jaywalking isn’t recognized as an offense, people will safely share the street with vehicular traffic. Sharing a lane is part of the natural adjustments people make during daily urban life in other cities. While it is not an optimal situation and shouldn’t be imposed for long, it can be done so long as all parties are paying attention.

I’m not saying all of these people in Calgary sharing the lane with vehicles are angels but I don’t think they are all people acting with complete disregard for the safety of themselves and others.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by fotze

Can someone point me to the post where people are advocating for the feeling sorry for these people. Its been mentioned a billion times, yet I don't see it.

Also from my old traffic engineering courses, it is driven into your head that if reams of normal people are doing illegal actions, your design sucks. That's why there are limits you are allowed to design a signal to have a red. IF it goes past that point people will tend to think something is broken and do dangerous crap.

People are lemmings, instead of giving a ticket to the lemming as its falling off the cliff, you build stuff to keep them walking around safely.

But it is like argiuing the drinking and driving thing. One side is coming up with solutions where the other screams like a mongoloid "THE ONLY SOLUTION TO DRINKING AND DRIVING IS TO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE".

I cannot agree more with the suggestion about the design sucking.

I used the street that was closed down a few times a week. In the past few months, the changes there have been somewhat confusing. For at time, the sidewalk on only half the street was closed down. You could walk north just past the bus stops and then the barriers were there. Pain in the ass to turn around, walk back to the corner, wait for the light, cross the street to the east, walk north a block, cross the avenue, then cross the street again to the west. I get that in the grand scheme of things it's not that far and not that long of a delay, but when the other option is to quickly sneak up half a block and save yourself a bunch of hassle...

I believe there was a barrier up for a while that allowed pedestrians to walk along the closed portion of the street. I imagine the lane closures delayed traffic and drivers complained. I don't know for sure, but it seems like a reasonable assumption.

Part of what bugs me about the ticket blitz is that a lot of the pedestrians who frequent that area have probably become accustomed to being able to walk that corridor without consequence. This is right by the court house. If there's ever a place in town outside of a donut shop you would fear running into the police it's gotta be there. If, despite the police presence, there's been little to no enforcement to date, it seems a bit of dirty pool to start handing out tickets en masse without warning.

I think it would be preferable to provide a compromise for all involved. There are covered walkways elsewhere down town. I've not heard a compelling reason why one could not be used here. Having those same officers on the corner handing out warnings instead of tickets may have served the same purpose (albeit without the injection of revenue to the city) and got the message out about the sidewalk closure.

[PsYcNeT]

It's true I'm sure the city was really hurting for that 10 grand.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Exactly. My husband works in an industry where he is sometiems required to close roads and sidewalks. There are actually pretty strict rules about it and his closures are usually less than a week.

I personally don't think a covered walkway is acceptable for a building demolition. What if a chunk of concrete breaks off and crashes through? Better to move people to the other side of the street where it is safe.

Feels a bit arbitrary though. If the danger to pedestrians is so severe that a covered walkway would be unsafe, why are bicyclists, motorcyclists and other automobiles allowed to drive effectively beside where the covered walkway would be? Does the 5-10 feet make that much of a difference?

Granted, if the danger really is there, then I understand the need to close the sidewalk. The length of this closure is annoyingly long, however. Still; it seems weird to me that the danger is too great right here but just a few feet over there... it's okay!

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Addick

It’s not just about crossing the street but the fact that we’ve separated pedestrians and vehicles into different domains because the two modes “cannot” exist in a single, shared domain. Further, it is not even about drivers having to stop for jaywalkers. Due to the common/learned rules in cities where pedestrians and vehicles successfully share the streets (e.g. London, Paris and NYC) drivers don’t have to stop for jaywalkers because jaywalkers know to not put themselves and drivers in that position.

It's a bit disingenuous to state it like that though, isn't it?

You live in London (or are from there) right? We both know that Europe isn't a haven for shared streets in the same sense you're suggesting. There is less of a taboo about being on the road, but in Stockholm (and from what I've seen in my time spent in both Paris and London) you do NOT enter traffic nor put yourself in a situation where you might be even slightly endangered, because it isn't the job of the driver to avoid you, and that is understood.

The philosophy here is different, and that's why laws against it make sense. Pedestrians have a mentality of right and implied safety, where if they enter the road they should be protected. In London, Paris, and Stockholm, you don't enter the road.

As ken0042 was saying, there is a disconnect here. Both drivers and pedestrians don't understand sharing the road, so you need to enforce certain idiotic actions.

There is nothing I find more frustrating than a driver stopping or slowing down because they see me crossing. I'm timing my walk specifically for the rate of speed and flow of traffic, so PLEASE just GO.

The problem with this whole situation is not that jaywalking is bad or not bad, which I think is what your point is getting at, it's that these people were doing it like idiots and Calgary needs laws against it to protect these idiots from themselves. You can't possibly have come in here to promote the safety of shared domain and jaywalking in general in a thread about people walking down a lane of traffic.

Poor timing for that argument, I'd think.

[ranchlandsselling]

nm

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Having those same officers on the corner handing out warnings instead of tickets may have served the same purpose (albeit without the injection of revenue to the city) and got the message out about the sidewalk closure.

I disagree with you on that. First of all, would this have been a news article or a thread on CP if the police were just giving warnings? By giving tickets it becomes news worthy.

Secondly, not everybody would have gotten the message. I recall years ago there was a murder overnight in front of where we worked. We watched one lady lift the "police line" tape and proceed to cross the street. Three cops stopped her right away and we watched her argue with them. She worked in my building so I mentioned it to her the next day, and she had no idea why what she was doing was in any way wrong. She said something like "I was late for work, and it wasn't like I was going to walk over the body or something."

You would have gotten the message, but you are also smarter than the average bear.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by fotze

Plus, if you ever want to excuse an action you just scream "safety" and everyone immediately falls lockstep and apologizes for even questioning it.

Pedestrian: This design seems arbitrary.
City screams: SAFETY!
Pedestrian: Oh geez I never knew, how could I be so stupid. Sorry for asking.
City: hehehe, that worked well, idiot.

That doesn't even get into the question of "if it's so dangerous why don't you build a better, more secure pedestrian walkway?"

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Addick

Do they really not care though? Is it possible that although they are taking an informal path with dangers they are also taking precautions?

During sporadic closures in places where jaywalking isn’t recognized as an offense, people will safely share the street with vehicular traffic. Sharing a lane is part of the natural adjustments people make during daily urban life in other cities. While it is not an optimal situation and shouldn’t be imposed for long, it can be done so long as all parties are paying attention.

I’m not saying all of these people in Calgary sharing the lane with vehicles are angels but I don’t think they are all people acting with complete disregard for the safety of themselves and others.

Do you often walk in moving traffic while not watching the traffic at all as would be the case for anyone walking north? If I walked into traffic while not watching, would that be considered a lack of regard for my safety? In the morning when pedestrian traffic there is increased and people are walking 3 or 4 wide and halfway into a lane of moving traffic, is that a greater disregard? When people are walking both directions and there is now two people wide walking in a moving lane of traffic are those people showing any concern for their well being? Think of how wide a sidewalk is and ask yourself if you would ever walk down a lane of traffic at a spot that would be the outer edge of the sidewalk and if that would be safe. I

Originally Posted by fredr123

Feels a bit arbitrary though. If the danger to pedestrians is so severe that a covered walkway would be unsafe, why are bicyclists, motorcyclists and other automobiles allowed to drive effectively beside where the covered walkway would be? Does the 5-10 feet make that much of a difference?

Granted, if the danger really is there, then I understand the need to close the sidewalk. The length of this closure is annoyingly long, however. Still; it seems weird to me that the danger is too great right here but just a few feet over there... it's okay!

Depends on the method of demolition but yes, controlled demolitions are designed to ensure that the debris field is only so wide, on top of which would be a buffer zone.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It's true I'm sure the city was really hurting for that 10 grand.

Gotta fill those quotas.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

The problem with this whole situation is not that jaywalking is bad or not bad, which I think is what your point is getting at, it's that these people were doing it like idiots and Calgary needs laws against it to protect these idiots from themselves. You can't possibly have come in here to promote the safety of shared domain and jaywalking in general in a thread about people walking down a lane of traffic.

Poor timing for that argument, I'd think.

I believe people in Calgary are unable to share roads because the rules began to separate pedestrians and vehicles. Much of the cohesion found in places where pedestrians and vehicles share a single domain is necessitated by the fact that they have to share the same space.

Oddly enough, even the idea of forcing people to start sharing the space tomorrow isn’t that far-fetched. In recent years, there have been successful examples of town/cities that reduced the amount of signage they provided or created proper shared spaces without the normal space demarcations and it improved the situation.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Do you often walk in moving traffic while not watching the traffic at all as would be the case for anyone walking north?

No. When they close parts of the sidewalk between my office and the train station forcing me to walk on the street, I simply look behind to know what is going on with the vehicles that will pass me by.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Addick

I believe people in Calgary are unable to share roads because the rules began to separate pedestrians and vehicles. Much of the cohesion found in places where pedestrians and vehicles share a single domain is necessitated by the fact that they have to share the same space.



Oddly enough, even the idea of forcing people to start sharing the space tomorrow isn’t that far-fetched. In recent years, there have been successful examples of town/cities that reduced the amount of signage they provided or created proper shared spaces without the normal space demarcations and it improved the situation.

If I remember correctly, those were small towns with a posted speed limit of 30km/h, so I'm not sure those examples apply to downtown in a major city.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by fotze

Plus, if you ever want to excuse an action you just scream "safety" and everyone immediately falls lockstep and apologizes for even questioning it.

Pedestrian: This design seems arbitrary.
City screams: SAFETY!
Pedestrian: Oh geez I never knew, how could I be so stupid. Sorry for asking.
City: hehehe, that worked well, idiot.


There are tonnes of stories about warning blitzes. Might not make it here though.

And I'm looking at this as the lesser of two evils. They are DEMOLISHING a building, an inherently dangerous thing to do. Sure, they COULD build a covered sidewalk, but what do you think the reaction would be if there was an accident during a pedestrian rush? Do you really think a covered sidewalk is all that much protection? Something happens, the sidewalk collapes. Dozens are killed, over a hundred are hurt...how much you wanna bet folks start screaming for the construction company's head, and lambaste the City for "not doing enough to protect us!?".

Or, the construction company can close the sidewalk, inconvenience a lot of folks by making them walk a few extra meters a day, and if something happens and someone decides to walk along their protective wall and gets squished, they have no liability, as "they shouldn't have been there in the first place."

I think I'd go with Option 2, to be sure.

[Mazrim]

Many people just show a disregard for construction areas in general. At the Tuscany LRT station, they have put up fencing with signs, rope, and even chains to stop people from walking through the construction site and cross the pedestrian bridge that isn't open yet. Some people really don't care and still go out of their way to take their evening jog through the site and squirm through the cracks on the side of the fence and over the ropes holding it down.

That bridge wasn't open before as it was just built, so there's no excuse. Of the people they see trying in broad daylight, they all claim ignorance even when it's clear that the site is actively under construction right now.

[Bill Bumface]

It seems construction in this city seems to think that too bad about your daily routine or ability to move about the city, because CONSTRUCTION!

Earlier this year at Memorial and Edmonton Trail they were doing some bank work on the river. Crews would allow you to cross Memorial one way, then cross one of the Edmonton trail couplets, before telling you to turn back and go the other way, because CONSTRUCTION! This would literally be about a 7 minute detour for a pedestrian. This would double some people's commute. All because letting people walk across when no trucks are entering the site is way too hard (even though someone is sitting there yelling at pedestrians all day as their fulltime job) or putting up detour signs before people crossed several major streets with long lights was obviously way too much work.

[GirlySports]

They have a construction girl standing there today holding a flag preventing people from using the non-existant sidewalk.

Also heard that those bus stops will be moved north of 7th Ave.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1506829/ne...truction-site/

[Barnes]

The 302 stopped on the south side of 9 th ave this morning. What a cluster.

[Erick Estrada]

People are upset about this? On the surface it may seem petty but when it comes to car vs pedestrian one side always loses and pedestrian accidents happen. I personally can't stand downtown during the day with all the people that just jump out in front of traffic on non-pedestrian marked roads. If you want to put your life in danger that's one thing but as a driver I don't want to have to live with the aftermath of running over an idiot pedestrian.