News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

STUDY: Automatic Braking Doesn’t Work on Dark Streets, Where One-Third of Peds Deaths Happen​


From link.

Pedestrian-dark-road.png

Automatic braking systems aren’t reliable on unlit roads where more than one-third of all walking deaths currently happen, according to a new study the comes out just weeks after the feds said they would pursue new rules to put such pedestrian detection and braking systems on all new cars — and they don’t work well at the deadliest speeds, either.

In an analysis of more than 1,500 real-world crashes involving vehicles equipped with the tech across America, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found “no difference in the odds of a nighttime pedestrian crash for vehicles with and without the crash avoidance technology” in areas not equipped with working street lighting.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a whopping 34 percent of pedestrian deaths happened on unlit roads at night between 2015 and 2019. Of those deaths, about 65 percent occurred in urban areas, rather than in rural areas (35 percent) with which streetlight-free roads are more commonly associated.
Click to expand...
AEB-tests.png

The good news: automatic emergency braking did cut the odds of a pedestrian crash by about 32 percent in daylight, and 33 percent on well-lit roads after dark.

But those benefits vanished as drivers sped up: there was “no reduction at all” on roads with speed limits over 50 miles per hour, a threshold above which walkers die more than 75 percent of the time.

The Institute confirmed those findings in off-road tests of eight vehicles, which also revealed that good headlights couldn’t compensate for poor streetlights, and that radar-equipped vehicles, which don’t depend on light to “see” the road, didn’t identify pedestrians any better than cars with cameras alone.

“It’s a great reminder of the fact that the vehicle is just one part of a safe system,” said Jessica Cicchino, vice president of research for the Institute. “This technology can save lives, but we still need to focus our attention on improving all parts of the system at the same time.”
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1489319507176873987
The study is a timely reminder that today’s automated vehicle technology is not a silver bullet for America’s roadway safety woes — and of how critical street lighting is for walker-friendly road design, whether software or a human driver is controlling the brakes.

Actually illuminating more U.S. roads, though, will be a challenge. Few municipalities conduct regular audits of their street light networks, and when they do, they often focus on reducing “unnecessary” lamps that the city is obligated to power; others remove lights out of concern for excessive light pollution, which can disturb the natural rhythms of humans and wildlife, particularly if lamps aren’t “shielded” to direct the beam towards the ground rather than the sky.

Even among the street lamps that make the cut, maintenance still can be a challenge. When Detroit filed for bankruptcy in 2013, for instance, officials famously estimated that more than 50 percent of the Motor City’s 88,000 streetlights were non-operational, plunging whole blocks into total darkness. (Transportation for America ranked it the 11th most dangerous U.S. metro for pedestrians the next year; Detroit has fallen 20 spots down the list in the years since the city began replacing broken lights with LEDs.) A 2019 study of Austin, Texas’ West Campus neighborhood, meanwhile, found that 8 percent of lights were obstructed by trees and other objects, and another 10 percent weren’t working for other reasons the auditors couldn’t determine, underscoring the challenges of shining a light on every possible car crash site.
Click to expand...
Light-pollution.png

In its new National Roadway Safety Strategy, NHTSA pledged to “incorporate lighting into Complete Streets implementation so that lighting becomes a key design factor in roadway upgrades,” which advocates regarded as a positive first step. That guidance, though, won’t light up every U.S. street overnight — and in the meantime, automatic emergency emergency braking systems won’t be much help to pedestrians on the ones that stay dark.

That’s not to say, of course, that automatic pedestrian detection systems aren’t a worthy effort that will save lives in many roadway scenarios — or that DOT shouldn’t be applauded for including them in their upcoming rule-making. To make that move truly meaningful, though, Cicchino says that it’s critical that NHTSA develop performance standards to measure how well the tech works at all times of day, and make sure consumers are aware of when they can — and can’t — trust their car to save pedestrian lives.

“We’ve known for a long time that vehicle-to-vehicle automatic emergency braking is highly effective at reducing rear end crashes,” added Cicchino. “And it’s a promising countermeasure for pedestrian crashes, too…[but] all forms of drive assistance have their shortcomings.”
Click to expand...
 
Hamilton is undertaking a plan for 'Complete Streets'.

They have a survey up you can take (1 page) showing base concept designs based on road size/use and inviting comments.

CLB Streets Survey #2 - Proposed Roadway Designs | Engage Hamilton

Complete Street features vary depending on the context and their role within the city’s street network, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to designing a Complete Street. Common Complete Streets elements include pedestrian amenities, cycling facilities, transit facilities, motor vehicle...
engage.hamilton.ca engage.hamilton.ca

I focused on making sure tree growing conditions are good, and use of alternatives to sod as ground covers, while also encouraging less parking, where practical in favour of enhanced cycling/pedestrian facilities as
local conditions dictate.
 
I just spent the past twenty minutes quickly scrolling through the last 30 pages of this thread. It was a seemingly endless cycle of police tweets and news articles reporting of collision and pedestrian deaths. I think in general our minds tune out of news reports of collisions on the news because its an isolated incident until it happens again a few days or a week later. The scale of the issue really has more gravitas when you scroll through it all at once.

It also makes it clear to me that the public officials in this city (and country) really aren't taking the problem seriously and that Vision Zero has been a complete joke nothingburger in outcome. This is a massive public health crisis that is being actively ignored by our public officials and perhaps even the greater community at large.

One lost life is one too many, especially when the vast majority of these accidents are easily preventable with public policy measures. Isn't that the crux of the Vision Zero statement? Does any public official actually believe it or is it all a publicity stunt?
 
WislaHD said:
One lost life is one too many, especially when the vast majority of these accidents are easily preventable with public policy measures. Isn't that the crux of the Vision Zero statement? Does any public official actually believe it or is it all a publicity stunt?
Click to expand...

There are certainly individual municipal politicians who believe it. I'm not sure they can achieve a majority at City Council, however. At the provincial level, the breadth of views is even greater.

There is a balance in our society between leadership having a vision, and getting people to buy in, versus taking them somewhere that the populace doesn't want to go. It's certainly curious how politicians choose which hill to fight for, and which to leave alone.

This week, I was doing some research in the Toronto Star archives. I discovered there was a time (decades back) when the Star very prominently displayed the year's current accident statistics whenever there was a fatality or serious accident. It's wrong to say there has never been a consciousness about road carnage. What has changed more recently is the belief that road design should address risks, instead of baking risks into the road design in the interest of vehicular throughput or speed or driver convenience. That change is happening, and perhaps the less said about it the less resistance there is. Let's hope we are on the right track with that change.

- Paul
 
Towered said:
View attachment 379298

Why does this sidewalk randomly end there? This is in the middle of Kensington Market, an area usually packed with pedestrian activity. What’s worse is that this park was given a makeover just a few years ago. Horrible.
Click to expand...
It's even more bizarre as it looks like there are only about 30 feet are missing. I drew it to Councillor Layton's attention. (EDIT: He replied, very fast, to say that he had not had any complaints and having no sidewalks along-side parks was common. If I wanted to, I could gather a petition and he would see what he could do. I will do no more!)

1644869529456.png
 
Last edited:
DSC said:
It's even more bizarre as it looks like there are only about 30 feet are missing. I drew it to Councillor Layton's attention.

View attachment 380177
Click to expand...
Should get a verge to separate the sidewalk from the road, creating a place for snow windrows. In fact, the sidewalk in the background should be rebuilt with a verge.
 
This tiny piece of sidewalk on the corner of Carlton and Parliament bugs me. It's such a tiny space for one of the busiest pedestrian corners in Cabbagetown. Cars turning right come within centimeters of hitting people. The curb edge is rounded so that cars can move quickly.

What can be done here without obstructing the streetcars? For one, could the corner come out further to a pointed, more 90 degree point, ideally with a concrete bollard at the tip to protect against those cutting the corner. Thoughts?
 
Admiral Beez said:
This tiny piece of sidewalk on the corner of Carlton and Parliament bugs me. It's such a tiny space for one of the busiest pedestrian corners in Cabbagetown. Cars turning right come within centimeters of hitting people. The curb edge is rounded so that cars can move quickly.

What can be done here without obstructing the streetcars? For one, could the corner come out further to a pointed, more 90 degree point, ideally with a concrete bollard at the tip to protect against those cutting the corner. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
It does look a bit dangerous but is not unique. Have there actually been any 'accidents' here?
 
Admiral Beez said:
Is that the SOP, collisions, injuries and death before we make obvious changes? Let's just change the radii so there's more space to stand.

Curb-Radius_d5-crop-500x500.png


Curb-Radius :: Seattle Streets Illustrated

streetsillustrated.seattle.gov streetsillustrated.seattle.gov
Click to expand...
EVERYTHING is (potentially) dangerous; one needs to evaluate based on whether it (or similar locations) have been dangerous in practice. God knows, we have enough locations in the city which see actual 'situations' to keep us busy 'fixing them' for decades before we start to worry about others that MIGHT be dangerous. For example: we all seem to like wide sidewalks but the wider the sidewalk the more chance there is for a vehicle to use it as a 'road' and mow down pedestrians; like most things in life one needs to evaluate and all I suggested here was that the 'history' of this location be examined. It has existed like this for decades, have there been any actual problems?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top