Comment 52277

By rrrandy (registered) - website | Posted November 26, 2010 at 16:56:25

Pxtl sums up the city traffic department's argument well; basically, drivers understand stop lights, and the ambiguity of other ped crossings confuse. I understand what they are saying, but not sure I buy it - when I lived in Dundas, there was a crossing with no signals that people used naturally, and with one lane in each direction, cars would stop, it didn't take too long for someone in each direction to do the courtesy (King at Ogilvie, by the Carnegie Gallery) - now they have these expensive lights, which are very unresponsive to pedestrians, because they are linked to the traffic light cycle for the street. You often wait extended periods before getting the light. I think if we made environments where cars can't speed in multiple lanes,and where the street life encouraged lots of people walking (retail areas, neighbourhoods)then courtesy and common sense would make things right. Like the "naked streets" where the boundaries that separate drivers, cyclists, pedestrians are erased, creating calmer environments. I don't have the stats handy, but the signalized intersections are actually very dangerous for people on foot. I had a traffic engineer admit this much to me, that it is often safer to cross midblock, without traffic signals, because the person is taking more care. I'll stop now, and see if I need to go digging up stats to back up my ramblings.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds