Transportation

83-Year-Old Pedestrian Struck at Upper Gage and Mohawk

By Ryan McGreal
Published May 16, 2013

Hamilton Police were called to a collision at Upper Gage Avenue and Mohawk Road East yesterday just after 5:00 PM.

According to a police report, the motorist was in the southbound curb lane on Upper Gage waiting to turn right (westbound) onto Mohawk. She was looking left for vehicles and drove into a pedestrian.

The pedestrian, an 83-year-old woman whose name has been withheld at the request of her family, was knocked over and struck her head. She is in hospital with serious injuries. Police have ruled out alcohol and speeding, but are still investigating.

Witnesses are asked to contact detective-constable Matt Hewko of the Collision Reconstruction Unit at (905) 546-4755.

The corner of Upper Gage and Mohawk is very pedestrian-unfriendly, with heavy vehicular traffic, long pedestrian crossings across 4-5 lanes and off-street surface parking lots in front of adjacent buildings.

Last year, the Ontario Coroner released a report on pedestrian deaths that observed senior citizens are particularly vulnerable to injury due to inadequate pedestrian infrastructure.

The Coroner recommended a complete streets policy to make walking safer, including reduced vehicle speed limits, more crosswalks and mid-block crossings, bumpouts to make pedestrian crossings shorter, traffic calming measures to slow vehicle speeds and leading pedestrian signal intervals.

Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton with his family and works as a programmer, writer and consultant. Ryan volunteers with Hamilton Light Rail, a citizen group dedicated to bringing light rail transit to Hamilton. Ryan writes a city affairs column in Hamilton Magazine, and several of his articles have been published in the Hamilton Spectator. He also maintains a personal website and has been known to post passing thoughts on Twitter @RyanMcGreal. Recently, he took the plunge and finally joined Facebook.

9 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By dirtyWater (anonymous) | Posted May 16, 2013 at 15:24:08

Waste no time in mourning. Organize.

Permalink | Context

By z jones (registered) | Posted May 16, 2013 at 15:43:11 in reply to Comment 88777

The woman is hurt but alive. Anyway, can't we do both?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By dirtyWater (anonymous) | Posted May 16, 2013 at 15:47:31

Ah, good. Yeah, you can do both. Some tactical urbanism applied to that intersection tonight would leave the city in the defensive.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By SCRAP (anonymous) | Posted May 17, 2013 at 23:02:40

The driver is at fault and the excuse of I was looking at the cars is alme and iinexcusable. Guerilla tactics are necessary, time to start occupying the streets.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted May 19, 2013 at 00:23:30

The coroner also recommends compulsory bicycle helmets but yet that doesn't get mentioned, ever. Pick and choose the facts that put your pet projects in a good light. When they align with your goals trumpet the hell out of them, when they oppose your desires ignore them or lie about them. Truth and honesty are always the first casualties.

Let the downvoting begin.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted May 20, 2013 at 14:44:16 in reply to Comment 88815

Actually, that's in the Coroner's report on cycling, not the Coroner's report on pedestrians. In that report, the Coroner notes that the issue is controversial and the evidence is mixed. We wrote about it here, which puts you at 0 for 3 on getting your facts right in this comment. One more thing: the Coroner's report on cycling also recommends a complete streets policy "that requires roadways to be designed and built with the safety of all users in mind - pedestrians, cyclists, public transit and vehicles."

Now please, for the love of basic decency, let the trolling end.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2013-05-20 15:12:06

Permalink | Context

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted May 22, 2013 at 22:05:52 in reply to Comment 88829

I didn't have time to read the entire cycling death review. I read parts of it and in the executive summary it is pretty clear. Yes he calls for "complete streets approach" but he is also quite straight forward in his call for cycling helmets, not once but twice. Here is the list of all his recommendations.

"Our recommendations include:

Adoption of a “complete streets” approach – focused on the safety of all road users - to guide the redevelopment of existing communities and the design of new communities throughout Ontario.
Development of an Ontario Cycling Plan to guide the development of policy, legislation and regulations and the commitment of infrastructure funding to support cycling in Ontario.
A comprehensive cycling safety public awareness and education strategy, starting in public schools, and continuing through the purchase of every new and used bicycle and through driver’s license testing.
Legislative change (Highway Traffic Act (HTA); Municipal Act; relevant Municipal By-Laws) aimed at ensuring clarity and consistency regarding interactions between cyclists and other road users.
Strategies to promote and support helmet use for cyclists of all ages.
Implementation of mandatory helmet legislation for cyclists of all ages, within the context of an evaluation of the impact of this legislation on cycling activity.
Establishment of a “one-meter” rule for vehicles when passing cyclists.
Prioritizing the development of paved shoulders on provincial highways.
Mandatory side-guards for heavy trucks.
Enforcement, education and public safety activities targeted to the specific issues of cycling safety identified in a given community."

Again its funny how the calls for the mandatory use of helmets is always met with lies, falsehoods and nonsense on this site. It's pretty straight forward if you are involved in a bicycle accident you are safer wearing a helmet than without one. It's just common sense, why would anyone even try and argue that?

Let the downvoting begin.

Permalink | Context

By LOL@LOL (anonymous) | Posted May 23, 2013 at 09:01:41 in reply to Comment 88875

"I didn't have time to read the entire cycling death review." But don't let that stop you from yammering about it. You didn't even read the part you quoted- "...within the context of an evaluation of the impact of this legislation on cycling activity."

Here are some other parts you clearly didn't read-

"The issue of mandatory helmet legislation for all ages is much more controversial, and was the subject of much debate among the members of the Expert Panel. While Expert Panel members were in agreement about promoting helmet use by all cyclists in Ontario, there was disagreement as to whether mandatory legislation was the best way to achieve this goal. There were three general arguments advanced against mandatory helmet legislation.

The first related to the potential for mandatory helmet legislation to decrease the overall number of cyclists. Proponents of this view cited the experience in Australia, where the introduction of mandatory helmet legislation was associated with a drop in cycling activity. Some research exists which suggest that the health benefits of helmets may be outweighed by the detrimental effects on overall health in the population through the decrease in cycling activity in jurisdictions where helmets have been made mandatory.

The second argument against mandatory helmet legislation relates to the view that government may see mandatory helmet legislation as “the answer” to cycling safety, with the result that other measures recommended in this Review (improved infrastructure, legislative review, education and enforcement activities) are de-emphasized or not acted upon.

The third point raised by members of the Expert Panel is that helmets are, indeed, the last line of defence and of value only after a collision has occurred. Instead of mandating the use of helmets, it was argued that efforts should be focussed on preventing the collision (through strategies such as improved infrastructure and expanded public awareness and education programs) – in other words, if one prevents the collision, helmets become unnecessary. In addition, some stakeholders felt that mandatory helmet legislation sent the message that the responsibility for safety rests with the cyclist alone, rather than being a shared responsibility of all road users."

But maybe that's not "common sense" enough for you.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By 700ftSteve (anonymous) | Posted May 29, 2013 at 06:15:52

Since this accident, they have removed the southbound advanced green on Upper Gage at Mohawk. Northbound still has an advanced green.

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