Police fine 90 jaywalkers during morning commute

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by nik-

Ok. That doesn't really change what I'm getting at though. I do understand that there was signage there. Repeating that there was signs isn't going to make me understand that basic fact any deeper. I'm making the statement that even though there was signage I would have preferred a warning instead of letting people walk the route and then ticket them.

There was no "route" to walk. The sidewalk was closed, and inaccessible.

[photon]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

In Calgary we let developers close the sidewalk and parking lane at will. Pedestrian activity is high enough Downtown/Beltline now that pedestrians should be considered more.

I know I've seen times when a covered walkway has been setup, so there must be some kind of rules about when it is required. Proximity to other sidewalks, length of closure, that kind of thing.

I'm sure the building codes require a certain amount of space around what they're doing depending on what it is as well, and probably some things where even a covered walkway wouldn't be considered safe, maybe the differences in building codes is part of it?

Sometimes there are reasons.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Then call your councilor and ask that they propose to council that the city hire nannies to politely wag their fingers at people who ignore numerous signs because they are too effing lazy to take an extra ten seconds to cross the street.

Like those North Korean traffic cop girls?

[GirlySports]

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 work on 5th Street. I walked by there, they did build stuff to keep them walking around safely. They were walking into traffic!

[FireFly]

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.

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.

The article is referring to jaywalkers who run ACROSS the street when it is clear to do so which is, IMO, an acceptable form of jaywalking.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Hardly.

Walk around any major city that isn't Calgary and the pedestrian traffic is 4x-5x times greater at nearly all times of day. Calgary's downtown, even during rush hour, is a literal ghost town.

You mean figurative ghost town.

Even so - a ridiculous statement especially about rush hour. We have literally hundreds of thousands of pedestrian trips within the downtown and Beltline each day. While it's not Hong Kong in terms of intensity, there are a lot of pedestrians and they need to be accommodated safely.

That these kinds of closures are still happening is disappointing and frustrating. We thought we had solved this exact issue a year and a half ago by passing this Notice of Motion at Council and changing the policy.

http://www.calgary.ca/councillors/wa...nstruction.pdf

In fact, I wrote the darn thing myself. While there have been improvements to various construction sites in terms of hoarding and access, there is still work to do - this one being a prime example.

My point of view is that we need to design for what we know humans will do, not what we hope they will do or think they should do knowing full well it's unlikely. In the case of sidewalk closures, we can hope all we want, on a busy street, that people will cross the street to use the open sidewalk, but we know that most won't, so we need a solution that moves people safely past these construction sites. Many cities have figured out ways to virtually never close sidewalks fully during construction, there's no reason we can't too.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by photon

I know I've seen times when a covered walkway has been setup, so there must be some kind of rules about when it is required. Proximity to other sidewalks, length of closure, that kind of thing.

I'm sure the building codes require a certain amount of space around what they're doing depending on what it is as well, and probably some things where even a covered walkway wouldn't be considered safe, maybe the differences in building codes is part of it?

Sometimes there are reasons.

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.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

You rolling your eyes does not make it any less true. The amount of people inconvenienced in Calgary by a sidewalk closure is far less than in most large metropolitan hubs.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by fotze

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.

Not to over quote you (as I don't really have an issue with what you're saying), but I guess I would replace "lemmings" with "lazy".

They specifically put up multiple large orange barriers and signs indicating that the sidewalk was closed. The signs even pointed the route to walk around safely as you put it.

People were just too lazy to bother following the stuff that was specifically set up for their safety; likely because the extra few meters was too far.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

You rolling your eyes does not make it any less true. The amount of people inconvenienced in Calgary by a sidewalk closure is far less than in most large metropolitan hubs.

Here's the basic followup question:

So what?

At what point do you tip the scales in favour of the citizen? What's the population density necessary to accommodate pedestrians?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Here's the basic followup question:

So what?

At what point do you tip the scales in favour of the citizen? What's the population density necessary to accommodate pedestrians?

I prefer to tip the scales in favour of darwinism...

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Hardly.

Walk around any major city that isn't Calgary and the pedestrian traffic is 4x-5x times greater at nearly all times of day. Calgary's downtown, even during rush hour, is a literal ghost town.

Agreed. Here's a picture from last year during rush hour. I don't see any pedestrians.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Not to over quote you (as I don't really have an issue with what you're saying), but I guess I would replace "lemmings" with "lazy".

They specifically put up multiple large orange barriers and signs indicating that the sidewalk was closed. The signs even pointed the route to walk around safely as you put it.

People were just too lazy to bother following the stuff that was specifically set up for their safety; likely because the extra few meters was too far.

Or it was inattentional blindness, something more likely to occur on a familiar yet overly stimulating environment like a sidewalk downtown during the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness
http://viscoglab.psych.ubc.ca/videos/

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I work on 5th Street. I walked by there, they did build stuff to keep them walking around safely. They were walking into traffic!

Before they started demolishing the building there was a sidewalk. Now there isn't one. They didn't build anything, they removed the sidewalk and put up signs to walk around.

[Barnes]

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".

Exactly this.

There has to be a better way. It's adjacent to a bus stop with 3 of the most used bus routes for commuters. The sidewalk is closed as is a lane and the lane closure is not for construction, it's literally a fenced in bunch of concrete barriers. The open area of that stretch of 5th is next to the now abandoned Chicago chophouse and that building is built about 4 feet from the street. Sometimes a #3 and #302 bendy bus arrive at the same time and there is no choice but to get off in the middle of the closed section. There is barely enough room for two people to pass each other let alone have people waiting, embarking and disembarking busses.

There has been times where I get off the 302 adjacent to the closed section and since I am already in the middle of the road I may as well walk north in the road.

Look at the construction site on 6th an 6th that has covered scaffolding set up to allow pedestrians to walk up 6th ave. Half the sidewalk is river rock gravel. Someone in a wheelchair could never navigate that. How is this stuff ok?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Flames89

Calgary's hatred of jaywalking always confounds me.

The problem here is people do it wrong. Myself included. Yesterday I caught myself jaywalking and a car had to stop for me. Growing up in Winnipeg we learned that if you are jaywalking the following "rules" apply.
- Jaywalker must assume that no vehicle is going to stop, slow down, or even ease up on the throttle.
- Vehicles must never stop, slow down, or ease up on the throttle.

Here in Calgary the opposite is true, pedestrians give no regard to vehicles; as they know/assume they will stop for them. A good jaywalker is like playing Frogger- he must judge the vehicles' speed and adjust the crossing accordingly. Just like in the game, the vehicle speed should not change.

[photon]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Here in Calgary the opposite is true

This. First time I was in Quebec city I almost died, the rest of the country, let alone the world, is not like Calgary in this.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Here's the basic followup question:

So what?

At what point do you tip the scales in favour of the citizen? What's the population density necessary to accommodate pedestrians?

Dunno, I'm just an armchair quarterback in this regard. You'd probably have to ask a city planner or a civil engineer.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by ken0042

The problem here is people do it wrong. Myself included. Yesterday I caught myself jaywalking and a car had to stop for me. Growing up in Winnipeg we learned that if you are jaywalking the following "rules" apply.
- Jaywalker must assume that no vehicle is going to stop, slow down, or even ease up on the throttle.
- Vehicles must never stop, slow down, or ease up on the throttle.

Here in Calgary the opposite is true, pedestrians give no regard to vehicles; as they know/assume they will stop for them. A good jaywalker is like playing Frogger- he must judge the vehicles' speed and adjust the crossing accordingly. Just like in the game, the vehicle speed should not change.

Could not agree more, the worst street to drive is 10th St NW through Kensington. Jaywalkers just randomly walk across the street, and it is really unnerving, and just infuriates me. If you dare honk at them Jaywalking you get them shouting at you.

Totally dangerous, and I am really shocked more people aren't hit. I've seen a few Kensington rookies actually stop and let people standing on the roadside run across. Again totally dangerous, and is an accident waiting to happen.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Could not agree more, the worst street to drive is 10th St NW through Kensington. Jaywalkers just randomly walk across the street, and it is really unnerving, and just infuriates me. If you dare honk at them Jaywalking you get them shouting at you.

Totally dangerous, and I am really shocked more people aren't hit. I've seen a few Kensington rookies actually stop and let people standing on the roadside run across. Again totally dangerous, and is an accident waiting to happen.

Uptown 17th Ave is pretty bad too after about 10pm.