City votes to change school, playground zone hours

[normtwofinger]

Originally Posted by ernie

Rant...

I never knew someone could be so passionate about playground zones. Congrats, you win. Not going to waste anymore time debating with you.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by getbak

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.

In my opinion, the driver is always at fault especially in lower speed collisions with pedestrians or people who enter the roadway. In the second posted story about the kid who got hit it is absolutely the drivers fault. Sure, the kid shouldn't be jumping out into the road from in front of or from behind the bus but kids don't have the same level of comprehension that adults do. Logic and safety should dictate to the driver that a bus is stopped and it is quite likely that children are in the area and that they are unpredictable. It makes sense to essentially slow to a crawl in this type of situation. The driver was careless and at fault.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

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):



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.

I think maybe the news article i linked read wrong, but my understanding was they removed all signage and intersection controls on small local roads, except to say, yield to Right.

And yes I could see their being holes in both articles, I was not the one who posted that study I just quickly read it today. But at least they included real world trials in theirs.

They did not just suggest, if we all slow down we will be safer, without accounting for the fact that people will not slow down.

Either way, I'm not all that against slowing down in areas with kids, my main problem with playground zones in Calgary is that they often do not really make sense.

How come a swing set 300m from the road needs one, and a soccer field 15m from the road doesn't?

If there is a 6' tall fence that is impassable for children under 10, why do we need a playground zone?

If you can clearly for 1/2 KM in every direction does a playground zone really make a difference.

Why are residents allowed to put up their own slow down children playing signs, if that's OK why don't we get rid of playground zones and insist people carry their own signs around.

Things like that. And I don't think a blanket policy change that doesn't look at any of these issue will have any effect on safety, so why bother.

[polak]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

In my opinion, the driver is always at fault especially in lower speed collisions with pedestrians or people who enter the roadway. In the second posted story about the kid who got hit it is absolutely the drivers fault. Sure, the kid shouldn't be jumping out into the road from in front of or from behind the bus but kids don't have the same level of comprehension that adults do. Logic and safety should dictate to the driver that a bus is stopped and it is quite likely that children are in the area and that they are unpredictable. It makes sense to essentially slow to a crawl in this type of situation. The driver was careless and at fault.

Don't buses have those little stop signs that deploy for this specific reason? Why weren't they used? Or do they not do that anymore?

I also disagree that it's the drivers fault. Article says he was moving at a slow rate of speed and no charges were laid. We can't stop the world for children. Parents have to take some responsibility in teaching their kids that running out from behind a bus is not allowed and if they can't get them to understand that then they shouldn't let them cross the road by themselves.

Whats next? Are we going to expect the driver to stop the car, get out, hold the little guys hand and cross the street with him and finally then go on his way?

Kids need to be taught how to function in the world. The world doesn't have to be built to function around kids. This is the attitude that leads to those ridiculous stories of balls being removed from gym class or whatever.

[The Yen Man]

I wish there was a way to ticket dumb ass parents who drop off / pick up their kids on the other side of the street from the school. Now that would be something I'd be in favor of.

[Bobblehead]

Here is the article about removing signage and traffic controls: http://archive.wired.com/wired/archi...2/traffic.html

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by polak

Don't buses have those little stop signs that deploy for this specific reason? Why weren't they used? Or do they not do that anymore?

I also disagree that it's the drivers fault. Article says he was moving at a slow rate of speed and no charges were laid. We can't stop the world for children. Parents have to take some responsibility in teaching their kids that running out from behind a bus is not allowed and if they can't get them to understand that then they shouldn't let them cross the road by themselves.

Whats next? Are we going to expect the driver to stop the car, get out, hold the little guys hand and cross the street with him and finally then go on his way?

Kids need to be taught how to function in the world. The world doesn't have to be built to function around kids. This is the attitude that leads to those ridiculous stories of balls being removed from gym class or whatever.

The stop signs/flashing lights have no use or significance within the city limits which is why they are generally not used. In Calgary, motorist do not have to stop for buses with flashlights.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The stop signs/flashing lights have no use or significance within the city limits which is why they are generally not used. In Calgary, motorist do not have to stop for buses with flashlights.

I dont think you're allowed to use them within city limits.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

Some of the most effective traffic calming is extending concrete boulivards from the side walk making the lanes narrower. The narrower lanes naturally slow people down to the desired speeds.

Effective in reducing speeds, but are narrower lanes effective in increasing overall safety when they increase the risk of lane violations and decrease the margin of error for drivers?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont think you're allowed to use them within city limits.

The by-laws in Calgary are a mess in regards to this. There is a by-law in Calgary that does not allow for the use of the stop signs within the city but at a later date I believe there were some exceptions made and there are some places where the use of the stop signs is permissible in Calgary.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by Locke

We should abolish school and playground zones entirely and force kids to watch out for themselves.

Old school Carmageddon style!

How many kids have been hit in playground or school zones in the past 5 years?

I think that would be a valuable statistic to have.

My guess is that there is almost NO value to playground and school zones.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

How many kids have been hit in playground or school zones in the past 5 years?

I think that would be a valuable statistic to have.

My guess is that there is almost NO value to playground and school zones.

If there are/were no kids hit within playground or school zones couldn't that statistic be attributed to the existence of the zones and hence they are providing value.

It is very likely that more kids are hit on residential streets outside of playground and school zones and as such the limits of those zones should be expanded across all residential streets to keep kids safer.

Here is a map of pedestrian collisions in Calgary from 1996 to 2012. It is not broken down by age at all but you can roughly determine which occurred in or around playground or school zones (although it is unknown if it occurred at active times.)
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/...hml=GEOCODABLE

[Locke]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

If there are/were no kids hit within playground or school zones couldn't that statistic be attributed to the existence of the zones and hence they are providing value.

It is very likely that more kids are hit on residential streets outside of playground and school zones and as such the limits of those zones should be expanded across all residential streets to keep kids safer.

While the current school zones are fine, I find the proposed changes to be much ado about nothing.

Are there a significant number of instances where kids are getting hit by cars in school/playground zones after their effective hours? Because thats really the only reason to extend the effective hours.

A) Kids arent being hit during effective hours
B) Kids are being hit outside effective hours

Ergo: Solve problem by extending effective hours

Otherwise whats the point? The new rules have to address the identified problem.

Not like that stupid .05 rule.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

How many kids have been hit in playground or school zones in the past 5 years?

I think that would be a valuable statistic to have.

My guess is that there is almost NO value to playground and school zones.

Which is exactly what I said a few pages back. I was completely unaware that this was a problem.

[jammies]

Can't we just outfit kids with those shock collars they use to keep dogs inside a perimeter? Then whenever they ran after a ball, or decided it was time to play punchy-face with little Ryelee in the middle of the road, instead of getting run over they'd be twitching on the sidewalk, unable to successfully execute their nefarious plans.

I've always thought that playground and school zones in this city were arbitrarily situated according to the whims of the whinier community associations, and especially those with moneyed members, but never once have I thought "Wow, it's 7 PM and I sure wish I was only going 30 km/h so I wouldn't be running over these hundreds of playing kids!" It doesn't really matter if it's not all that much of an inconvenience, what matters is that arbitrary changes to an already suspect system should be opposed on principle.

[taco.vidal]

Count me in as another one who thinks this is a joke. Waste of money.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

How many kids have been hit in playground or school zones in the past 5 years?

I think that would be a valuable statistic to have.

My guess is that there is almost NO value to playground and school zones.

Isn't the fact that few if any kids are being hit in school zones proof that they are successful? We hear of adult pedestrians getting hit by cars all the time yet young children that are unpredictable, run first look later, etc aren't getting hit in school zones. Sounds to me like the value of school zones is paramount. This isn't photo radar where there's no evidence that it reduces the amount of speeders. The results speak for themselves.

[Methanolic]

Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.

7:30 AM until 1 Hr. after sunset..... for both would make perfect sense. Every day, year round.

[Daradon]

I agree that the new rules don't make a lot of sense and really aren't needed. However I do wonder what the big deal is. It's not like there's a ton of these zones, and you only hit them in residential areas. It's not like they back up traffic or really cost you more than 20 seconds.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I agree that the new rules don't make a lot of sense and really aren't needed. However I do wonder what the big deal is. It's not like there's a ton of these zones, and you only hit them in residential areas. It's not like they back up traffic or really cost you more than 20 seconds.

One could argue that any law and/or public expenditure that "doesn't make a lot of sense and really isn't needed" is a big deal.