City votes to change school, playground zone hours

[polak]

If we must keep playground zones (stupid) then I think it should be a blanket "effective until sundown". Pretty straight forward, no confusion as to when you can speed up and chances are if parents are letting their kids play after dark then they are also comfortable with them knowing not to screw around near roads.

If they're not then the kids need to be home before dark or they accompany them. Simple.

Whens the last time a kid has been seriously hurt on Calgary roads any where, let alone in a playground zone?

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

And to add: I've seen it mentioned that "BC got it right" and "Restrictions can be hazardous." As far as I know both of those are applicable to highway and major road driving.

I don't think urban areas where a maximum of 50 is never surpassed anyways is an applicable comparison.

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

Actually this study was on roads between 32km, and 89 km if you read the intro. So it directly effects our roads in the 30 -50 km range.

It said that the average speed limit in the US was in the 45th percentile of vehicles using the road.

As an experiment they were allowed to increase the speed limit on some of the roads to the 85th percentile, and they found that the fastest cars actually slowed down to near the speed limit, and safety improved by ~8%
Then they reduced some of the roads to the 33rd percentile, found it had no impact on speed and the safety decreased by ~5%.


the German one I was talking about was about residential areas, I can't find the study but here is an article on it. Basically saying removing signage, lights and restrictions improved safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Globa...town-finds-out

I'm going to read the studies you proved on slower traffic being safer, so I will not dismiss them.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by polak

If we must keep playground zones (stupid) then I think it should be a blanket "effective until sundown". Pretty straight forward, no confusion as to when you can speed up and chances are if kids are allowed to play after dark then their parents are comfortable with them knowing not to screw around near roads.

If they're not then the kids need to be home before dark. Simple.

This would make sense if we lived in a more consistently sunlit area, but increasing the danger to a child that wants to play outside at 6PM on a decent January day is unreasonable.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

If we must keep playground zones (stupid) then I think it should be a blanket "effective until sundown". Pretty straight forward, no confusion as to when you can speed up and chances are if parents are letting their kids play after dark then they are also comfortable with them knowing not to screw around near roads.

If they're not then the kids need to be home before dark. Simple.

Your continued use of the word "stupid" only strengthens your point(s).

Sunset, as moving target, is poor. A set time say 9 pm is better

[polak]

Disagree. If a child is out alone after sundown then I'm sure his or her parents are fine with them being around roads.

9 pm is ridiculous. How about we just abolish all roads near playgrounds and schools? Think of the children!!!

[The Yen Man]

What's kind of ironic is that whenever I enter a playground zone, part of my concentration is diverted away from observing the road and looking out for kids, as I concentrate more on making sure I'm going 30km/hr, and that there aren't any cops or speeding cameras around. Plus, I'm more on the lookout for the "End Playground Zone" sign rather than looking out for any kids.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by polak

Whens the last time a kid has been seriously hurt on Calgary roads any where, let alone in a playground zone?

The Calgary Sun reported that a 5 year old boy was hit by a car on May 17, 2014 and was rushed to hospital in serious but stable condition.
http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/05/17...-car-in-rundle

7 year old boy was taken to hospital with life threatening head injuries after being hit by a car at 4pm on March 13, 2014.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1207204/bo...ck-by-vehicle/

13 year old boy was rushed to ACH with life threatening injuries on Nov 26, 2013 after being hit at 6pm.
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/boy-hit-by...gary-1.1560906

Do you need more?

[getbak]

Interesting: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Edmon...156/story.html

Edmonton is implementing school zone speed reductions (from 8-4:30) this fall for the first time in 40 years.


Also, I found the Province's guidelines for where Playground and School zones should be placed: http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...n/schlpgnd.pdf


Page 25 of the PDF has the scorecard for determining whether a Playground zone should be put in an area. A minimum score of 81 is supposed to be required to justify a Playground zone. I can think of many Playground zones in this city that would not score that high.


I found this quote interesting...

School and Playground Zones and Areas should be used sparingly, and in accordance with these Guidelines. Zones and Areas should not be provided in an attempt to increase the safety of crossing the roadway; other devices have been developed and should be applied for such a purpose.

The WC‐1 and WC‐3 signs of the MUTCDC are to be provided to warn motorists of the presence of a school or playground, respectively, and hence the possibility of children entering the roadway.

The problem is that Calgary does not use them sparingly. Why that is a problem is two-fold: First, when there are too many of these zones and they go on too long, people get desensitized to them and instead of watching for kids, they watch their speedometer. Second, parents and kids can get a false sense of security and assume that just because there's a Playground or School zone, nothing bad can happen.


By far the worst drivers I've ever seen around schools are the idiot parents dropping their kids off who stop across the street from the school and have their kids hop out and run across the street to the school. These are the morons who whine that they need a school zone because it isn't safe for their kids to cross the street, when they're the ones making it unsafe for their kids to cross the street.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

Disagree. If a child is out alone after sundown then I'm sure his or her parents are fine with them being around roads.

9 pm is ridiculous. How about we just abolish all roads near playgrounds and schools? Think of the children!!!

Try, just a little bit, to have a discussion without throwing toys out of the cot.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by #-3

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html



Actually this study was on roads between 32km, and 89 km if you read the intro. So it directly effects our roads in the 30 -50 km range.



It said that the average speed limit in the US was in the 45th percentile of vehicles using the road.



As an experiment they were allowed to increase the speed limit on some of the roads to the 85th percentile, and they found that the fastest cars actually slowed down to near the speed limit, and safety improved by ~8%

Then they reduced some of the roads to the 33rd percentile, found it had no impact on speed and the safety decreased by ~5%.





the German one I was talking about was about residential areas, I can't find the study but here is an article on it. Basically saying removing signage, lights and restrictions improved safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.



http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Globa...town-finds-out



I'm going to read the studies you proved on slower traffic being safer, so I will not dismiss them.

Interesting!

I wish I could know more about some of the variables and details of that first study, it's kind of funny that drivers seemed to go the exact same speed regardless of whether the limit was increased or decreased. I wonder why that is?

As for the second study, that's a neat idea. Though, it does say that the speed limit was universally set to 30km/h, so perhaps that's a promotion for a 30km/h limit in all residential areas? :P

[normtwofinger]

Originally Posted by ernie

What time is the sun going to set today?

Well friend, I wonder how we can find out? Google, news, newspaper, looking at the sun as it sets, etc. 9:35pm btw, which is ironic being after the proposed 9pm cutoff.

[Ben_in_Canada]

Originally Posted by polak

If we must keep playground zones (stupid) then I think it should be a blanket "effective until sundown". Pretty straight forward, no confusion as to when you can speed up and chances are if parents are letting their kids play after dark then they are also comfortable with them knowing not to screw around near roads.

Say you go with you're thinking of it's stupid and drive at 50k and get a ticket.
You say but the sun has gone down, the Police say no it hasn't, what now??
Having a set time doesn't seem to unreasonable to me.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

it's kind of funny that drivers seemed to go the exact same speed regardless of whether the limit was increased or decreased. I wonder why that is?

It's the same reason drivers go 70 on Glenmore between Crowchild and Highway 8, but 100 between 14th Street and Macleod. They will drive at a speed that feels comfortable to them.

[normtwofinger]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Doubt all you want, but there are 2 parents in this thread who's kids are out after dark.

As I have posted below my kids are often out (weather permitting) till 8,8:30 or 9:00.

It is winter for 8 god damn month out of the year, you can't expect them to stay inside.


To be clear after dinner they get their gear on and are outside.

In your case, a small town is a different scenario.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Ben_in_Canada

Say you go with you're thinking of it's stupid and drive at 50k and get a ticket.
You say but the sun has gone down, the Police say no it hasn't, what now??
Having a set time doesn't seem to unreasonable to me.

You get a ticket and its dark?
Google the time the sun went down that day. I'm sure a judge would let a few minutes before "official sunset" go.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

http://www.ctrf.ca/conferences/2009V...harjee&Tay.pdf

I hate to be dismissive of a study, but the mean speed in playground zones in Calgary is below 32km? That discredits the entire paper for me, because it is obvious people were either slowing down for the guy measure speed or they are cherry picking data

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/resear...s/muarc276.pdf

While I agree that at 5% more speed there is 20% more chance of injury in a crash, this study concludes that crashes are less likely if we all go the same speed, so we should lower speed limits and all go the same speed as the slow drivers.

Real world trails have shown changing speed limits have no effect on drivers in the 85th percentile, as they have already decided they will drive at a reasonable speed regardless of the signage. While raising speed limits does encourage slow drivers to speed up, because they are often committed to following the rules.

So even if you are 20% more likely to get hurt in a crash if we all drive at the same reasonable speed, are you 20% less likely to get hurt in that crash? It does not seem to address that with real world scenarios.

And I have something to say about increase speed limits not being able to effect peoples commute times, but that doesn't really apply to community roads or most playground zones. It would have more to do with roads like Crowchild or McLeod

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

http://www.transportenvironment.org/.../11-01-T30.pdf

its a propaganda sheet with an agenda, so I won't take it at face value.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by normtwofinger

Well friend, I wonder how we can find out? Google, news, newspaper, looking at the sun as it sets, etc. 9:35pm btw, which is ironic being after the proposed 9pm cutoff.

Yes you can find out. That took you some time did it not? Probably a similar amount of time as perhaps slowing down from 50km/h to 30 km/h for a block or two? Probably longer (for 1 km the difference is 48 seconds). And you get to do that everyday. And that's if you are a conscientious citizen looking to be within the law every day when you drive home. Most are simply going to guess and guess wrong.

And let's not get into that is the sunset time in Calgary. What if you have a visitor from Lethbridge? He thinks the sun is going to set at 9:24 because that was what he read in the morning before visiting the city. Anothe level of added and unnecessary confusion. What isn't confusing is a sign that say 7:30am-9pm. a sign that is consistent across a municipality.

And as you point out 9:35 pm tonight (for Calgary). 9 pm suddenly looks pretty damn good. It's almost as if it might be a reasonable time when it comes to those younger kids prone to the most carelessness/running into roadways will have a reduced presence in those areas.

I'd wager there are some that have spent/wasted more time posting and reading this thread then the time of theirs that would be "wasted" over an entire year due to this change.

Did people have this issue when Calgary and other cities went from morning, noon and afternoon school zones to a set time that encompassed entire school day from start to finish?


Currently I live in a municipality that has different times for different school zones and different playground zones. They have electronic signs that flip over at certain times of day. Some don't. Some are a constant time range. Some are simply constant 24 hours a day. And while as a vigilant driver you see the signs and adjust accordingly it is easy to make a mistake, or not quite catch the time frame/or process the time frame quick enough etc etc etc. A constant time would be a fantastic improvement.

And to be clear my kids were outside last night well after dark...you can't catch fireflies otherwise! In the winter they are out after dark as well because, well, we don't really get winter That said they right now are younger so will have an adult or older teenager with them but as they get older that chaperone won't be present. Even though I know they will likely do some stupid stupid stupid stuff. Like I did.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by normtwofinger

In your case, a small town is a different scenario.

Maybe, but I doubt my parenting approach would be different if we still lived in Calgary.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The Calgary Sun reported that a 5 year old boy was hit by a car on May 17, 2014 and was rushed to hospital in serious but stable condition.
http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/05/17...-car-in-rundle

7 year old boy was taken to hospital with life threatening head injuries after being hit by a car at 4pm on March 13, 2014.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1207204/bo...ck-by-vehicle/

13 year old boy was rushed to ACH with life threatening injuries on Nov 26, 2013 after being hit at 6pm.
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/boy-hit-by...gary-1.1560906

Do you need more?

Interesting:

The first one looks like it would have been in a Playground zone during its hours of activation. The vehicle was traveling at a low rate of speed.

The second one was in a School zone as the kid ran from behind a school bus to meet a relative parked on the other side of the street. The vehicle was traveling at a low rate of speed.

The third one doesn't have much information, but the Sun's story on it gives some more details: http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/11/26...thwest-calgary. It doesn't appear to be near a playground or school zone, and witnesses say that the the kid who was hit ran in front of the vehicle, and the driver didn't have time to react.



So, basically none of those accidents would have been less likely to occur because of these changes (I know that wasn't the question you were answering), and none of them appear to be the drivers' fault or the result of excessive speed.

The first two seem to be perfect examples of the false sense of security people get when they're in playground or school zones. No one would stand on one side of Macleod Trail and ask a 7-year-old to run across the road to meet them, yet parents do this all the time when picking their kids up from school. Sure the roads aren't as busy as Macleod, but getting hit by a car doing 30 is only going to be slightly less painful than getting hit by a car doing 50.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by #-3

I hate to be dismissive of a study, but the mean speed in playground zones in Calgary is below 32km? That discredits the entire paper for me, because it is obvious people were either slowing down for the guy measure speed or they are cherry picking data









While I agree that at 5% more speed there is 20% more chance of injury in a crash, this study concludes that crashes are less likely if we all go the same speed, so we should lower speed limits and all go the same speed as the slow drivers.



Real world trails have shown changing speed limits have no effect on drivers in the 85th percentile, as they have already decided they will drive at a reasonable speed regardless of the signage. While raising speed limits does encourage slow drivers to speed up, because they are often committed to following the rules.



So even if you are 20% more likely to get hurt in a crash if we all drive at the same reasonable speed, are you 20% less likely to get hurt in that crash? It does not seem to address that with real world scenarios.



And I have something to say about increase speed limits not being able to effect peoples commute times, but that doesn't really apply to community roads or most playground zones. It would have more to do with roads like Crowchild or McLeod







its a propaganda sheet with an agenda, so I won't take it at face value.

You seem awfully critical of the data, simply because it doesn't support your own views.

As I said prior, the German study you presented was in clear support of a 30km/h speed limit being universally applied in order for eliminating signage to work. Since this thread is essentially a debate about 30km/h time zones, does this not negate your criticism of it's benefits?

And as far as propaganda and an organization with an agenda goes, should we examine the provider of your first link (http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html)? The Reasonable Drivers Unanimous site, which states some of the following (amongst other things):

- If you drive 100% legally you statistical increase your chances of getting in or causing an accident. (Well-known fact)
- Coming Soon: (I hope) An interactive step-by-step guide designed to convince skeptics that speed does not kill.
- I am interested in those few rare ... officers that actually pull over obnoxious, rude, ignorant, stupid (ones that pull out right in front of you, never mind the fact you are doing 60), and slow poke drivers (especially on two lane highways) and basically leave SAFE speeders alone.

The whole site plays like a 85th percentile propaganda site, considering ONLY supporting data and not critically considering any data that doesn't fit the agenda (or any data that outright disproves claims like "Speed does not kill"). Add to the fact that it's 20 years old and contains studies 20-40 years old (and nothing, that I could see, within the last 20 years), then I have to question your outright refusal to look into the citations of what I linked on the grounds that it "has an agenda."

Again, I'm not saying you have to agree with me. But if you're going to be critical of the validity of my data, I would hope you'd treat yours the same.