News

Hamilton's Streets Claim Another Life

By Adrian Duyzer
Published May 09, 2011

A skateboarder was struck by a car at James Street South and Charlton Avenue on Saturday around 5:00 pm. He was taken to hospital and later died of his injuries. He was just twenty years old.

From The Spec:

The young man was travelling northbound on James when he collided with a car that was turning southbound on James from Charlton, [ Staff Sergeant Emidio] Evangelista said.

No charges were laid over the weekend.

One of the witnesses, Patient Kanuni, 29, was looking out a window on the seventh floor of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton said the skateboarder, who was not wearing a helmet, hit his head on a curb at the northwest corner of the intersection.

I believe this is Hamilton's third pedestrian death (from what I can tell, most jurisdictions count skateboarders as pedestrians, along with people on motorized wheelchairs, inline skates, scooters, etc., and I think Hamilton does too). By mid-March, two pedestrians had been killed, and I don't recall any deaths since then.

It's likely that the discussion in coming days will revolve around who was at fault, but it's far more important to cast aside notions of train-and-blame in favour of engineering for safety instead.

Until we start designing safer streets, we'll continue to wring our hands while avoiding effective solutions.

Adrian Duyzer is an entrepreneur, business owner, and Associate Editor of Raise the Hammer. He lives in downtown Hamilton with his family. On Twitter: adriandz

54 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By mrgrande (registered) | Posted May 09, 2011 at 08:20:09

So what would you do to improve James & Charlton?

Permalink | Context

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 18:09:11 in reply to Comment 63230

Exactly, if you are going to claim this accident is a result of poor engineering, then cite what is wrong with the engineering design in this specific case.

If this accident was at Main and Dundurn or the bottom of the Jolly Cut, sure re-engineering is needed, but in this case, traffic engineering doesn't seem to have a lot of blame in this case.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Desmond (anonymous) | Posted May 09, 2011 at 10:11:45

Sometimes as tragic as they are accidents happen.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted May 09, 2011 at 10:24:27

the sad irony of Hamilton is that the police and roads department carry two of the largest budgets in the city. Neither ever whisper a word about the dangers of our high-speed road design, despite them being the largest cause of death in the city each year (compared to 'criminal' activity). We're willing to lose a kid here and there if it means getting to work 60 seconds faster.

Comment edited by jason on 2011-05-09 10:24:52

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 04:24:45 in reply to Comment 63241

That's the attitude I love. Let us blame one way streets and high speed even if the accident happened at an intersection where 3 of 4 roads are 2 way and only have one real lane of travel. The driver was turning from one road to another so how fast could he possibly be going. I have been warning of this kind of thing since the conversion of James South to two way. The traffic is horrible and cars are trying to get from traffic light to traffic light around stopped cars and buses and pedestrians are trying to get around or through the traffic. I feel bad for the young man and especially for his family. James South is just a dangerous place now.

Permalink | Context

By mrgrande (registered) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 08:19:02 in reply to Comment 63291

I honestly don't really remember James before the conversion, but if it was like Main Street, I think it's a safe bet that it's safer now.

That being said, this wasn't something that could be engineered away. When you have someone going downhill on a skateboard, the wrong way, it's dangerous for everyone.

Permalink | Context

By mrgrande (registered) | Posted May 09, 2011 at 11:14:44 in reply to Comment 63241

You make it sounds like James & Charlton is like Main & Dundurn. It isn't. Neither roads are speedways, and three of the four directions are two-way streets.

This was a tragic accident.

Comment edited by mrgrande on 2011-05-09 11:15:56

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By bigguy1231 (registered) | Posted May 09, 2011 at 11:09:31

It doesn't matter how much the city spends on trying to make roads safer for both pedestrains and motorists, if people don't abide by the laws put in place to protect them not much can be done.

Comment edited by bigguy1231 on 2011-05-09 11:09:53

Permalink | Context

By bigguy123 (anonymous) | Posted May 09, 2011 at 16:35:13 in reply to Comment 63244

insult spam deleted

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By ballyhoo (anonymous) | Posted May 09, 2011 at 11:55:40

Well only a village idiot would make a comment such as this: "We're willing to lose a kid here and there if it means getting to work 60 seconds faster." This 'kid' and I'm sorry he died, was 'flying' without a helmet going the wrong way on James Street. Jason even your hard head wouldn't survive!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted May 09, 2011 at 12:09:42

Article has been updated with additional detail.

“The young man was travelling northbound on James when he collided with a car that was turning southbound on James from Charlton, [Staff Sergeant Emidio] Evangelista said.”

has been revised to

"The young man was travelling northbound on James the wrong way in the southbound curb lane when he collided with a car that was turning south on James from Charlton in the intersection, police said."

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/528893--skateboarder-was-heading-wrong-way-down-james-street

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Desmond (anonymous) | Posted May 09, 2011 at 12:17:29

C'mon now Jason.

Saying that all accidents will be eliminated with road pattern changes is just as ignorant as saying the reason this poor guy died is for someone to get to work 60 seconds earlier.

Shame on you.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted May 09, 2011 at 12:33:13

Was it really necessary to state that the poor guy wasn't wearing a helmet? Is that really such a rarity? Or is it just that necessary to speak ill of the dead

Don't wanna get shot? Wear a ballistic vest. Cuz if you aren't, and you get shot, it's your own fault. People aren't going to stop shooting, so it's your responsibility to stay out of the way.

Permalink | Context

By Woody10 (registered) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 09:18:02 in reply to Comment 63251

Yes it is important to say it. The more people read that tragedy comes from neglect the more chance that some other kid will wear his/her hemet and survive a crash. A ballistic vest will cost about $1000 or more I imagine but a helmet you can get for $35 at Can. Tire. And it's not speaking ill of the dead, it's stating a fact.

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 04:29:30 in reply to Comment 63251

Maybe just maybe this poor guy would still be alive if he had been wearing a helmet. This is exactly the kind of thing helmets are meant to do. Keep you alive if you hit your head on something hard like a road or a curb. Let us keep sending the message out that everyone should be wearing a helmet when they are biking or skateboarding or rollerblading or the like. I bet that the young man's family sure wishes he had been wearing a helmet.

It is a constant fight to keep a helmet on my son's head when he is out biking and I can assure you that I am not giving up the fight anytime soon.

Permalink | Context

By helmeteer (anonymous) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 09:56:31 in reply to Comment 63292

Helmets are not designed to protect against accidents involving a third party vehicle. They are designed simply for falling over.

To say that helmets are designed to protect people in circumstances like this is absolutely incorrect, misleading and dangerous.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1081.html

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted May 11, 2011 at 09:00:39 in reply to Comment 63309

Helmets are designed to protect your head in an impact. If you knew that you were going to suffer an impact to your head tomorrow and there was absolutely nothing you could do to stop it or mitigate it except wear a helmet would you not wear it? I sure would. I would also want anyone I care about to wear one. How much they help and what there design limitations are is totally different discussion. I realize that a helmet is not guarantee of survival but it is a guarantee of increasing your chances of survival. Everything else is just a discussion of how much.

Permalink | Context

By Brandon (registered) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 16:59:50 in reply to Comment 63309

"One of the witnesses, Patient Kanuni, 29, who was looking out a window on the seventh floor of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, said the skateboarder, who was not wearing a helmet, hit his head on a curb at the northwest corner of the intersection.

“The boy just flew … and fell there,” Kanuni said, pointing to a spot on Charlton where blood remained.

The skateboarder appeared to have been injured on the back of his head, said Kanuni, who is a health care worker."

This is exactly what helmets are designed to protect you from.

Permalink | Context

By mrgrande (registered) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 11:11:19 in reply to Comment 63309

Helmets are designed to protect your head if it comes into contact with a hard surface, like a curb. That's what happened. He wasn't wearing a helmet, so there was nothing to soften the blow.

Permalink | Context

By helmeteer (anonymous) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 18:10:08 in reply to Comment 63323

Helmets are designed for low speed impacts - like that caused by falling off of a bike when it is barely moving. Please read the link that I posted.

"The boy just flew" - no bike helmet is designed to protect you from being launched at speed. The helmet is a red herring in this story.

He should not have been travelling the wrong direction in the traffic lane. And the driver should have been more aware of her surroundings. As unexpected as his presence must have been, it is a driver's responsibility to be aware of EVERYTHING going on around them. I'm not saying it's the driver's fault. But what I *AM* saying is that the lack of a helmet is NOT the story here.

Also, this woman may be a health care worker but she is in no position to determine cause of death from her 7th storey window!

Permalink | Context

By Woody10 (registered) | Posted May 11, 2011 at 00:38:42 in reply to Comment 63342

Common sense tells us it would have protected him, even if it was just a small amount. Maybe just enough to prevent death, maybe more, we will never know unfortunately.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Nord Blanc (anonymous) | Posted May 09, 2011 at 13:23:52

Cold as it reads, I’m guessing that it's an expository detail (such as BAC level, seatbelts or no, velocity, direction, vehicular conduct, right of way, signalling, regard for traffic signals etc), that is routinely factored into the narrative as germane to the resulting injuries or mortality.

eg.
http://www.thespec.com/news/canada/article/483346--three-people-die-in-head-on-collision-between-van-and-school-bus-near-montreal
http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/813036--no-charges-in-officer-s-death


But it's unclear whether a helmet would have averted this death.

By the same token, while I’m extremely sympathetic to the cause of humanizing our streets, I'm unconvinced that "engineering for safety" would have prevented this accident or others like it in the future.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ken (anonymous) | Posted May 09, 2011 at 14:26:08

While not related I thought I'd relate: I was walking down James a few hours before this occurred when some moron in a car came down the mountain and crossed into the opposite lane prior to the island then rounded onto Markland.

The risks that this "man" and others like him take are contingent upon everybody else behaving in a predicted manner. Needless to say, this doesn't always happen.

I also highly doubt a helmet would have made much of a difference.

Incidentally, there are kids who do this at the end of Londwood. I saw one lose control enough to swerve in front of a bicyclist who fortunately was only slowly ascending the hill. One day it will be a car, though--sometimes drivers really like to accelerate up the hill.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted May 09, 2011 at 16:54:01

This tragic collision shows how ridiculous it is to state that two way streets are safer than one way streets, no matter how many flawed studies are quoted.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted May 09, 2011 at 21:07:09

for those who didn't read Adrian's entire article, he concluded with some thoughts on changing how we engineer our city and our road network to allow a more safe interaction between uses.
My comment above was in relation to the overall street network and complete lack of balance in this city. I wasn't commenting on this specific accident. James and Charlton is actually reasonably decent (despite the crazy two-way 3/1 cross section) compared to most other lower city main streets. Research has proven time and time again that the likelihood of accidents being fatal dramatically drops when speeds are lowered to around 30-40km. You'd be hard pressed to find a main street anywhere in Hamilton where people do less than double those speeds: 60-80. Until we make basic, fundamental changes to our transportation network, you can expect more deaths. By all accounts the driver may have been completely surprised and driving safely in this particular accident. Those of you who live in Hamilton know that 9 times out of 10, fatalities happen on our one-way freeways and nobody - police/traffic department/most politicians ever say a single word about it. I for one, am not willing to sit back silently while we consider human tragedy an acceptable risk in our quest to zip to Hortons or work a minute faster. Hamilton is an insanely dangerous city.

Comment edited by jason on 2011-05-09 21:08:08

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 04:34:50 in reply to Comment 63280

NONSENSE. Not long ago on this site there was an article about all the pedestrian deaths in the city. How many of them actually happened on one streets you love to call freeways? I believe it was one or two. The vast majority happened elsewhere. Where this accident happened the streets are anything but one way freeways.

Permalink | Context

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted May 09, 2011 at 23:38:04 in reply to Comment 63280

Jason, come on man. Your post is pure exaggeration and lies (that sounds harsh, but unfortunately it's true).

You'd be hard pressed to find a main street anywhere in Hamilton where people do less than double those speeds: 60-80

What? really? That's a complete exaggeration and not representative of the truth. Have people gone 80km/h on some main streets? I'm sure of it. Is that the speed that people normally drive? No. Should people be discouraged from driving 60km/h or higher, yes, I agree with you on that. However, when you make such ridiculous claims, the rest of your post loses credibility.

To back up my statement, here is a video of typical traffic flow on Main compared to Barton (as promised many months ago). Note that higher speeds are reached more often on Barton (the two way street) and at no time even get up to 70.

Those of you who live in Hamilton know that 9 times out of 10, fatalities happen on our one-way freeways

This is proven to be completely false by the data that has been posted on RTH. According to the data posted on RTH, 82% of the fatal accidents that occurred in Hamilton during 2010 were on Two Way streets.

Are you trolling Jason?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted May 10, 2011 at 06:07:36

While an unnecessary death is always a 'tragedy', I'm a little disappointed that we've got conflation going on here, and it seems on at least two fronts to be selective and convenient.

This was a skateboarder in the street who got into a collision with an automobile.

Skating in the street while going the wrong way.

As a casual observer since skateboarding first came on the scene decades ago, and having had friends for whom it was a pastime and lifestyle choice, doesn't the activity appeal to the 'rebel'? Just like their surfing and snowboarding brethren, they're free-spirited, fun-loving rebels. Indeed, it seems that skateboarding has become a rite of passage for many. Part of declaring themselves to the world. Riding in the street, in traffic the wrong way seems to fit perfectly.

But while I am a strong believer in changing the function and profile of our streets, the notion of skateboarders being used in traffic is, not to put too fine a point on it, idiotic.

So please, let's have a little clarity, a little bit more reason, and maybe not reducing the importance of traffic issues by asserting that this young man was doing nothing wrong. Because that notion is insulting on so many levels. (The injection into the discussion that he wasn't wearing a helmet takes this to another level entirely.)

Permalink | Context

By Nord Blanc (anonymous) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 08:59:41 in reply to Comment 63294

Agreed. Despite the appeal not to politicize this death, the initial prescriptive arguably does just that, albeit with benevolent intent. If I were running into oncoming traffic, whatever the volume or speed of vehicles, I would certainly have a reduced expectation of freedom from harm, and no amount of protective gear would change that. Individual responsibility surely must enter into the equation at some point. The prospect of a municipal nanny state saving us from the innumerable evils of a universe in motion is more than a little infantilizing.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ballyhoo (anonymous) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 07:36:29

"Are you trolling Jason?"

Monkey, don't be hard on Jason. He isn't a troll. He's a schmuck for voicing his blatant bias. Truth has never mattered to Jason. Only opinion masquerading as fact.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 09:53:35

There is a reason we call them accidents. That is an extremely high traffic area.
A few weeks ago I was driving South on John, making a left hand turn onto Young (at the Subway). The way was clear and as I started my turn, out of the blue, there was a kid that was about eleven years old on a bicycle, flying FULL TILT down that hill with no intention of slowing down. He didn't have a helmet on and I nearly hit him. He slammed on his breaks and proceeded to flip me the bird.

Permalink | Context

By justcuriousity (anonymous) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 10:34:52 in reply to Comment 63308

This is a digression but I have to call you on this.. You say "the way was clear" and also that a kid came "out of the blue" with "no intention of slowing down"

if you were turning left at the subway then it means that he had a green. why should he have an intention to slow down for his green?

Unless he came tearing out of the subway parking lot, he could not have come from "out of the blue"

if he was coming down that hill then by definition the way was NOT clear and you should not have started your turn.

Permalink | Context

By Andrea (registered) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 10:41:34 in reply to Comment 63315

Eveyone's a critic.

Permalink | Context

By justcuriousity (anonymous) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 10:37:41 in reply to Comment 63315

Also, what he was wearing on his head has nothing to do with any of your story. Bike helmets are not designed to help in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle. You'd have to be wearing a motorcycle helmet to even get CLOSE to that level of protection.

Permalink | Context

By Andrea (registered) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 10:43:59 in reply to Comment 63317

I beg to differ...it does have to do with my analogy. It is the law for children to wear a helmet. He wasn't wearing one. Drivers are accountable to follow the rules of the road, just as cyclists, pedestrian, skateboarders etc.
He was riding his bike on the sidewalk. Need I go on? Digression or not...even with safety precautions, accidents will happen. Every single traffic fatality in this City doesn't demonstrate some type of failure of the system. I had a close call that could have happened to anyone and I was using it to ilustrate the very nature of the word 'accident'. The streets surrounding Heritage Green, the intersection at Nash and Queenston, Upper James and Mohawk.... are not at all pedistrian friendly. Is there a liklihood of the entire City being re-engineered to be safer? No. If we fix one area 'high collision areas' will still exist elsewhere.

Comment edited by Andrea on 2011-05-10 10:52:33

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 10:24:40

sad to see that many people don't view our main streets - one or two way - as dangerous speedways. I don't want to put words in Adrians mouth, but perhaps the topic of re-engineering our road network shouldn't have been brought up with this most recent accident, but his point is absolutely bang on. I would hope there are less deaths on one-ways than two-way in Hamilton. Most streets are two-way. Speed is the constant. Upper James and Upp. Wentworth are just as high speed as Main or Cannon. Speed kills. Plain and simple. Bodies don't get cut in half at 40km/hr. http://www.thespec.com/print/article/231... Shame on those of you willing to not have this discussion before the next decapitation on King or runaway transport on York (it's happened 3 times in recent years, and not one was reported in the news). If you can sit here and obfuscate in the face of clear data, you've got me. I can't. http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/50...

Comment edited by jason on 2011-05-10 10:33:55

Permalink | Context

By mrgrande (registered) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 11:19:10 in reply to Comment 63313

Nothing you said has anything to do with the topic on hand.

Upper James and Upp. Wentworth are just as high speed as Main or Cannon.

So? This was at an intersection on James South, speed wasn't a factor.

Bodies don't get cut in half at 40km/hr.

Nope, they sure don't. But the dude that was cut in half "was killed by alleged street racers." Engineering for safety isn't going to stop people from street racing.

Shame on those of you willing to not have this discussion before the next decapitation on King or runaway transport on York (it's happened 3 times in recent years, and not one was reported in the news).

Again, this has nothing to do with what we're talking about. This wasn't King, this wasn't York, this wasn't a runaway transport, and since the driver was turning a corner, the speed was probably under 30km/h.

Do we need to change our streets to make them safer? Yes, I agree. Does that have anything to do with a skateboarder going downhill, the wrong way, without a helmet, colliding into a car that was legally turning? NO.

Permalink | Context

By Lola Z (anonymous) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 10:36:14 in reply to Comment 63313

"Perhaps the topic of re-engineering our road network shouldn't have been brought up with this most recent accident but allow me to do so again."

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 10:42:16 in reply to Comment 63316

absolutely. it needs to be changed. how many more deaths will it take before you agree to discuss the subject?

Permalink | Context

By Lola Z (anonymous) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 11:30:18 in reply to Comment 63319

Street racing is a dramatic counterpoint but if you were going to discuss James Street, you might want to invoke last year’s James Street vehicular-related deaths of Clara Langmead and Rick Yates. http://goo.gl/lGjfb

Based on those cases and this one, the solution would seem to be installing pedestrian barriers along all bike lanes/sidewalks, and crosswalk tunnels/bridges at every intersection. Clearly, 40km/h just isn't gonna cut it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By sad (anonymous) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 16:31:06

Very sad and tragic event.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By -Hammer- (registered) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 17:46:50

Since we agree skateboarders are pedestrians, as has pedestrians have a legal obligation to stay on the sidewalk when it is available, and to stop and wait for traffic before crossing an intersection.

Part 10, Section 140 Subsection 4

No pedestrian or person in a wheelchair shall leave the curb or other place of safety at a pedestrian crossover and walk, run or move the wheelchair into the path of a vehicle or street car that is so close that it is impracticable for the driver of the vehicle or street car to yield the right of way.

We can say that he is at fault for not obeying this law, given he was traveling in the opposing curb lane and not the sidewalk. However, I'll accept the argument that engineers shouldn't build their streets, assuming people will follow the law (which they should be doing for their own safety). After all, I doubt anyone would say the intersection at Dundurn and Main St is well designed. Thus I would like to make a modest proposal.

Please cite what you feel is specifically wrong with the engineering of the intersection at Charlton and John, and how its single one way direction (on the westside, not from the eastside where the car came from, or south where the skateboarder came from and the car was going, or north where he was going) in any way could have prevented this accident if you want to correlate bad engineering/one way streets as the cause of this accident.

Yes this accident was tragic, and I feel for his family, but it's not fair to wholly release him from blame in this situation.

Comment edited by -Hammer- on 2011-05-10 17:56:46

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted May 10, 2011 at 20:42:25

Permalink | Context

By Nord Blanc (anonymous) | Posted May 11, 2011 at 07:01:06 in reply to Comment 63349

Superb. Another out-of-town expert our policymakers can use to make themselves feel as they've taken all points of view into account before setting the advice aside and going with the accepted wisdom.

http://www.thespec.com/opinion/article/529976--highway-would-ensure-our-future

Also:

City locations scored on a walkability scale of 0-100.

100 King and James a “walker’s paradise”

A block from either of 2010's two James Street pedestrian fatalities and lacking in many regards, but perfect nonetheless. Let's see who the runners-up are...

83 Downtown Dundas
73 Ottawa Street North

Hopefully in the years to come these sad cases take it upon themselves to learn from the shining example of King and James.

Permalink | Context

By Nord Blanc (anonymous) | Posted May 11, 2011 at 15:01:13 in reply to Comment 63365

Oh, look – good news! No need to consider walkability studies, then.

http://www.thespec.com/news/article/530506--why-gas-pains-will-ease

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Woody10 (registered) | Posted May 11, 2011 at 00:48:03

I have been to many, many accidents. Most at slow speeds with devastating results. High speeds are definitely worse but much fewer. Making it safer for pedestrians tends to make them more carefree in my opinion. I know it sounds ridiculous but from what I've seen, it's the truth. Constantly I see kids at mac crossing everywhere but the lights, assuming cars will stop or not turn because there is a signal (remember that girl at the crosswalk on Cootes just after it was installed). Re-engineering isn't going to prevent complacency.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted May 11, 2011 at 12:50:32

Here's a question - if there was a crosswalk on the south side of that intersection, where people crossed often and drivers were required to slow down and look (rather than the current speedway design), would this have happened? Would the driver have been able to stop if it had been a car turning north from one of the driveways?

This IS a badly designed intersection, and it's placed right next to a hospital in a residential area full of seniors.

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted May 12, 2011 at 09:00:41 in reply to Comment 63390

No matter what happens, no matter how it happens we must blame the Hamilton "freeways." If heaven forbid it does not happen on a one way street then we must go to option "B" We have decided that Hamilton's streets are poorly designed therefore anytime anything bad happens it must be the fault of the street design. We can never blame a pedestrian for being wrong nor can anything ever be an "accident." Always, always blame the street design until we get our way and all those nasty one way streets are converted into two way streets. We know what is best for everybody else and we must get our way. It simply is not possible that after the two way conversion that the street would be more dangerous than before.

Disagreement with the above will not be tolerated.

Permalink | Context

By Nord Blanc (anonymous) | Posted May 11, 2011 at 14:57:42 in reply to Comment 63390

Did the car even get the chance to clear the intersection? I don't know if that detail was ever discussed. If not, the fatal accident might have occurred even if the car was headed west, right?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted May 17, 2011 at 21:39:17

another day in the Hammer.... http://www.flickr.com/photos/metro_image...

Permalink | Context

By Nord Blanc (anonymous) | Posted May 18, 2011 at 16:14:09 in reply to Comment 63627

Another strange conflation.

King East at Ottawa South involves a four-way signalled stop, the intersection of two two-way streets, and 15 lanes total (including curbside parking).

http://goo.gl/bK2Z5

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted May 18, 2011 at 16:26:07

Tied into the matter of traffic engineering...

MID-PEN HIGHWAY COMMUNITY MEETING

Thursday, May 19 / 6:30pm to 8:30pm

Carlisle Arena (1496 Centre Rd., Waterdown) http://goo.gl/7ZXz6

Hear first hand from MTO staff on new information from the latest draft Transportation Development Strategy for the Niagara to GTA Corridor (Mid-Pen) report and the current 90-day public comment period on this report.

The presentation will also focus on the newest study area route through Flamborough (Ancaster Hwy #52, Westover, Millgrove, Carlisle, Kilbride and North Burlington to Hwy #407), as well as next steps for public consultation. The meeting will include brief presentations from Hamilton Airport President Richard Korosil, COPE Citizens Sue McMaster, and audience Q&A.


Agenda: Niagara-GTA Corridor/Mid-Pen Meeting

May 19, 2011 // 6:30pm – 8:30pm

Hosted by: Councillor Judi Partridge

Facilitated by: Arend Kersten, Flamborough Chamber of Commerce


1. Welcome – The Honourable Ted McMeekin, MPP Ancaster Dundas Flamborough
Westdale

2. Introductions – Councillor Judi Partridge, Flamborough Ward 15 Hamilton

3. Presentation by: John Slobodzian & Patrick Puccini, Ministry of Transportation

4. Comments by Richard Koroscil, President & CEO John C. Munro Airport

5. Presentation by: Sue McMaster & Pete Zuzek, COPE

Also in attendance for questions and answer purposes:

Representative from Strategic Planning, City of Hamilton – Rob Norman

Representative from Rapid Transit, City Of Hamilton – Jillian Stephen

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By banned user (anonymous) | Posted May 18, 2011 at 16:30:24

comment from banned user deleted

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted May 26, 2011 at 10:36:55

Further details in Tuesday's paper.

"For the family of Daniel Abdolalian-Dolmer, it’s almost impossible to imagine someone so strong, so charismatic, so full of life is gone.

The 20-year-old died May 7 after being struck by a car on James Street South at Charlton Avenue. He was travelling through the intersection on his longboard when he lost his footing. By the time he ran back to grab his board and continue through the intersection, the light changed and he was struck.....

In his life and now particularly in his death, [his biological father Morteza Abdolalian] said Daniel has brought the whole family together.

Now Morteza said he wants to remember his son by writing about his life and perhaps starting a website where other families who have gone through similar things can share. He also wants to encourage other skateboarders and longboarders to wear helmets.

Daniel is also missed by his older brother, Allan (Owen) Dolmer, younger sister, Carmella Dolmer, and many other family and friends in Canada and internationally.

Hamilton police say their accident investigation is ongoing."

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/537043--charismatic-young-man-remembered

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds