08-31-2017, 03:51 PM
(08-31-2017, 02:20 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(08-31-2017, 02:13 PM)tomh009 Wrote: What protects pedestrians on a sidewalk if a vehicle hits it at 50 km/h, 70 km/h or 100 km/h? Exactly the same as for an island. What would you like, a concrete wall? Won't someone please think of the children?
So it does seem it meets the minimum of the OTM at least. I agree that it should be wider, but the hyperbole does get to be a bit much at times.
What hyberbole?
As for a sidewalk, there is a boulevard between the sidewalk and the road. In fact, even the region has acknowledged that a curb faced sidewalk is not preferred, and wouldn't build one if it were possible to avoid. In this case, it was entirely possible to avoid having such a narrow island. So why was it build this way?
Curb faced sidewalks are similarly unpleasant, but even curb faced sidewalks don't generally put you within 10 cm of the roadway.
Also, sidewalks only have a road on one side of them. If necessary, it’s usually perfectly safe to jump away from the road. If you try that with this very narrow island, you’re liable to end up in the other direction traffic.
Yet another planning fail. What they should do at these locations is specifically narrow the traffic lanes and paint it weird so drivers slow down. Also the traffic island should be protected by massive concrete bollards that would stop a concrete truck going 70km/h. Pedestrians deserve not to have to worry about vehicles careening into the space created for their safety.
Ok, maybe the bit about the bollards is slightly exaggerated, since I don’t actually know how massive a bollard would have to be to accomplish that, but the basic idea is there.