(03-27-2016, 07:47 AM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]I can't tell you the number of people I still see to this day driving very early in the morning (in the dark) with NO lights on at all except the very dim DLR headlights. This also means their instrument cluster lights are not on... So they can't see their speedometer or anything. And yet they still haven't clued in that they should probably turn a switch somewhere. Dumb dumb dumb.
I'm totally with you on flipping the full head lighting system (w. Tail lights) in any sub-optimal driving condition. Makes all the difference in the world when you can see others' tail lights even if it's just a little rainy and grey our.
Rental cars in particular are easy to forget to turn headlights on. Some cars turn on the instrument cluster when the headlights are not on. Go figure.
Curious how a thread on walking has become a discussion of automobile functionality...
Threads digress: it's life online, as well as face to face.
(03-27-2016, 07:47 AM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]I can't tell you the number of people I still see to this day driving very early in the morning (in the dark) with NO lights on at all except the very dim DLR headlights. This also means their instrument cluster lights are not on... So they can't see their speedometer or anything. And yet they still haven't clued in that they should probably turn a switch somewhere. Dumb dumb dumb.
I'm totally with you on flipping the full head lighting system (w. Tail lights) in any sub-optimal driving condition. Makes all the difference in the world when you can see others' tail lights even if it's just a little rainy and grey our.
I'm one of those dummies you refer to. Every recently owned (and used at work) car I've had either had sensors to turn on the lights, or have auto-turn off of lights so I could leave them switched on all the time.
My current car (Toyota Yaris) has none of the above. My dash still lights up at night, only the heating/cooling controls don't. I've encountered many other Yaris owners on the road at night w/o their lights... so if you see me with no tail lights, cut me some slack... it's hard learning a new habit!
Coke
Having walked and run along Mill from Courtland to Ottawa several times lately I really hope that it is on the short list to be redone with sidewalks/bike lanes really soon; especially with Ion coming.
From the CBC:
Girl, 10, hit by vehicle near construction site in Kitchener
From the article:
"It happened just before 4 p.m on Old Zeller Drive, near Fairway Road in Kitchener.
The driver was passing a construction vehicle at the time. The girl was crossing the street to avoid construction and ran into the path of the vehicle."
I don't know this area too well, so I have no idea about what speeds vehicles take here. But Zeller is strictly residential with a school not too far away. Good news that the girl will recover, which suggests that the motorist's speed was probably not excessive.
A little while ago in another thread, there were comments about "hostile" signs on lawns on Lancaster asking motorists not to exceed the speed limit on their residential. Well, here's a good illustration of their concern: a child ran into a path of a vehicle because her sightline was blocked, and a motorist striking her with a car because his visibility was blocked. If the motorist was doing 50, the girl would have stood a better-than-even chance of being killed. At more reasonable speeds for a residential area, she stands a good chance of surviving. I hope she has no lasting effects from being hit.
This is why the concern, and the signs.
Oooo, that was directed straight at me.
Obviously if you can't see around a vehicle and see kids around, slow down. It's common sense.
I just hate it's always like "tsk, omg, it's so hostile here toward pedestrians and cyclists." The whole
world is hostile. It's not a fluffy marshmellow.
Let's also keep in mind that this is a single lane in each direction residential street. Passing should never occur in this area. If you are driving on this road, your destination is on it, or you just left your departure point, and you can afford to be going slowly behind anything at all for the short distance you'd be in this situation. If you're going to be passing something slow here, it's a residential area, you should be doing incredibly low speeds due to the nature of residential streets. Whether the girl came out from construction or a person was rounding the front of their curb-parked car, it's on you to make sure you can handle driving on a street where crossing at any point is common.
I had assumed "passing" in this case meant a stopped construction vehicle, not an overtake (both vehicles moving).
And even in that case, passing a construction vehicle and hitting a girl is equivalent to passing a parked car (of which there are tons) or someone stopping to get mail from a community box. It's a tragic and completely avoidable scenario for which the driver has no excuse.
We don't know all the details. While I'm inclined to agree with you, stating firmly that it's the driver's fault isn't very fair. Yes, drivers are expected to drive to the conditions but no stopping power is available that can instantly stop a vehicle when someone darts out in front of it unexpectedly.
Arguably running onto a street without looking, and getting hit by a car is a tragic and completely avoidable scenario for which the pedestrian has no excuse.
Residential streets are bound to have lots of pedestrian-vehicle interactions. The onus is on ALL parties to pay attention.
(06-08-2016, 11:24 AM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]Arguably running onto a street without looking, and getting hit by a car is a tragic and completely avoidable scenario for which the pedestrian has no excuse.
Residential streets are bound to have lots of pedestrian-vehicle interactions. The onus is on ALL parties to pay attention.
I guess “being a child” is not an excuse, but saying that a ten-year-old girl has “no excuse” for an action that led to her being injured seems a bit callous. I think most people recognize that children, being children, sometimes do things that are less than sensible.
I actually brought this up because I consider it to be a good news story (while really hoping that the little girl experiences no lasting impact from the collision) in that we could have been reading about somebody doing 60 (which is of course routine in a 50kpf zone) and striking and killing a child with his car.
I think it’s safe to assume that the driver was not driving excessively fast along this residential street- at less than 50kpm, an adult stands a good chance of dying when struck, so that she has “non-life-threatening injuries” suggests lower speeds. From the limited information, I assume it would have been very difficult for the driver to see around the construction vehicle to see the girl crossing. Fact is, higher speeds do kill, and it's not particularly unusual for kids to sometimes dart into the road- so slow down.
(06-08-2016, 10:18 AM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]I just hate it's always like "tsk, omg, it's so hostile here toward pedestrians and cyclists." The whole world is hostile. It's not a fluffy marshmellow.
I don’t think it’s “always” that, or even “usually” that. Given what we know about a person’s ability to survive impact with a car traveling at different speeds, we’re not trying very hard to keep streets safe by setting speed limits of 50kph on residential streets.
We should be trying to make city streets less hostile to everyone, particularly vulnerable users, and particularly children, who are not always gifted with your common sense.