[vic]

I'm not sure what it's like in other parts of the city, but in the Junction Triangle where most homes are old rowhouses / semis, the response to a fire can be pretty huge/fast. Fire spreads quickly in these old homes.... a whole row of 6 was destroyed on Franklin Ave. in 2008.

At a 2014 fire on Perth Ave north of Dupont St., in a newer (20yo?) townhome, the response was huge. All of Dupont St. jammed with trucks, plus more trucks up Perth. From my photos (including ones not on Flickr) I can count at least 11 trucks. https://www.flickr.com/photos/vgedris/albums/72157643728070523

Last year for a garage fire that did not spread, there were at least four or five trucks, plus other vans/vehicles, ambulance, etc.: https://www.flickr.com/photos/vgedris/albums/72157678823282354

 

[darth_freeman]

Do they illuminte / turn off automatically after the LRV passed? Like the ones in KW?

No, because in addition to LRT east-west signals, there are also bicycle AND pedestrian signals going east-west. So the potential for conflicts is too high.

 

[lenaitch]

I'm not sure what it's like in other parts of the city, but in the Junction Triangle where most homes are old rowhouses / semis, the response to a fire can be pretty huge/fast. Fire spreads quickly in these old homes.... a whole row of 6 was destroyed on Franklin Ave. in 2008.

At a 2014 fire on Perth Ave north of Dupont St., in a newer (20yo?) townhome, the response was huge. All of Dupont St. jammed with trucks, plus more trucks up Perth. From my photos (including ones not on Flickr) I can count at least 11 trucks. https://www.flickr.com/photos/vgedris/albums/72157643728070523

Last year for a garage fire that did not spread, there were at least four or five trucks, plus other vans/vehicles, ambulance, etc.: https://www.flickr.com/photos/vgedris/albums/72157678823282354

That's why you have to throw a lot of resources at these fires in the first instance. If you send one truck to spec. it out then call for more, by the time everybody shows up to the party it's all but over. And of course, more personnel beget the need for still more resource; air supply, command, etc.

I got a kick out of the lady casually walking through the fire scene. Just another day in the neighbourhood it seems.

 

[W. K. Lis]

58-year-old cyclist killed in collision with flatbed truck at Bloor and St. George

From link.

A female cyclist has been killed after being hit by a flatbed truck near the Annex, police say.

Police were called to the intersection of St. George St. and Bloor St. W. around 12 p.m. Tuesday by the report of a collision between a cyclist and a truck.

In the last ten years, only 2015 saw more pedestrians and cyclists killed by this date, at 23.

At the public works and infrastructure committee on Tuesday, Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti said: “I do not believe bicycles should be on roads at all.”

The committee was debating adding bike lanes and cycle tracks in the northwest part of the city, including in the area near York University — what Mammoliti called a “downtown approach to the suburbs.”

Speaking to reporters later, Mayor John Tory called that kind of thinking “outdated”.

From link.

Mammoliti says bike lanes in the suburbs will lead to more cyclists getting hit. “Today, there was one crazy, LOONEY cyclist, that was going in and out of the cars —“ Coun. McMahon cuts him off, calls his comments offensive.

Mammoliti says bike lanes in the suburbs will lead to more cyclists getting hit. “Today, there was one crazy, LOONEY cyclist, that was going in and out of the cars —“

Mammoliti continues! “I was just waiting for this woman to get hit by a car when she was a zigzagging…” McMahon wants him to apologize. Mammoliti refuses. “It was a woman that was going to get killed because of her choice on how she was riding her bicycle,” he says.

Mammoliti, who never did apologize or withdraw his “looney” comment about the cyclist, goes on and on about how hard it is to be a car driver in this city. The election is October 22.

From link.

 

[muller877]

Mammoliti continues! “I was just waiting for this woman to get hit by a car when she was a zigzagging…” McMahon wants him to apologize. Mammoliti refuses. “It was a woman that was going to get killed because of her choice on how she was riding her bicycle,” he says.
.

Mammoliti does raise a good point (just in his ranting way of doing it). We should have zero vision for people that obey the social norms. However, if a cyclist or motorbiker decides to weave in and out of traffic they are well aware of the risks they are taking.

We can protect those that want protecting. But there will always be idiots who disobey the rules and they should be willing to accept the consequences (no matter how severe). We can't be living in a nanny state protecting the lowest common denominator. We need to be living in a state where people who respect the rules are respected.

I think this ethical question is where the Vision Zero ideal collapses. Even if you create effective pedestrian crossings and limit speeds there will always be someone that will dart in front of traffic or zig zag and die.

I guess unless everyone wants a nanny state

 

[Admiral Beez]

58-year-old cyclist killed in collision with flatbed truck at Bloor and St. George

From link.





From link.

From link.

What we never get from these reports is what happened beyond cyclist dead. How can the driving and cycling public learn from this and other events? Was the truck proceeding to turn right and the cyclist came up from behind trying to proceed straight through? Was the cyclist stopped and the truck, turning right collided with the cyclist? Clearly I don't even know the scenarios to suggest, but I'm getting frustrated with the reports that a cyclist or pedestrian has been killed in an automobile collision, but we never know how it happened, nor what we can learn from it.

If, for example we knew that the majority of cyclists killed were struck by a right turning vehicle when proceeding on a separated bike lane through an intersection, I may think to take more care here.

I've been a motorcyclists for about 12 years. We're educated, both formally and informally that the risks from other users of the road are about not being seen, drivers misperceiving the closing speed and drivers turning left in front of us. We know these risks, and can thus avoid them. But for bicyclists, we have no idea of any commonalities of these fatal collisions, and thus can't take defensive or preventative action when encountering the same circumstances.

It reminds me of roadkill, when my kids used to ask why the squirrel didn't avoid the road, and my reply was it's not a learning experience, since the squirrel is dead, and the other squirrels don't know why, so can't avoid repeating the same risk and fate.

 

[pman]

Yes but...

I get that people need to behave in a responsible manner. However, how people actually behave is very much a function of the built environment. For example, I guarantee you that when I drive I will stop for a concrete wall. Every time. I’m writing as a driver and non-cyclist here, and I say this Zero Vision bullshit has to be declared a failure. A record number of pedestrians and cyclists have been killed by drivers. Until we accept that the physical design of our city has to accommodate their legitimate safety needs, it’s only going to get worse. Mammo would have his hair on fire if this death toll were a result of terrorism. Fuck, why do we even give that idiot the time of day? It’s time to acknowledge reality, admit that this half-assed nothing of a “plan” isn’t working, and get serious about rebuilding our streets to make them safe for everyone.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

We can protect those that want protecting. But there will always be idiots who disobey the rules and they should be willing to accept the consequences (no matter how severe). We can't be living in a nanny state protecting the lowest common denominator. We need to be living in a state where people who respect the rules are respected.

Did the state even seriously try? There is a long way between expectation that traffic rules are being followed to actuality. The state isn't even willing to consistently protect those who respect the rules, given the inherent asymmetrical impact of a pedestrian/cyclist who doesn't follow them (they tend to die) vs. someone who is operating a vehicle (unless the other party is another vehicle, they aren't the ones likely to die). I mean, how many times have we seen cars rushing through yellow and red lights? Or rushing to turn right before the pedestrians have a chance to cross? Or speeding in general? Higher-risk activities with greater impact on individuals other than oneself should rightly be held to a different standard - but was it, given the ubiquity of said violations to the point that not doing so would actually be considered odd?

Or take that crazy zigzagging cyclist and replace it with a car - we'd be displeased, but shrugging it off as another day, another sh*tty driver.

AoD

 

[OneCity]

Ill never agree to any justification that bicycles and cars should be in close and unprotected proximity. Downtown areas need to do whatever it can to provide fully protected bicycle lanes. While the City's outer areas should remove most shared road/bicycle lanes recently expanded (especially those that removed lanes of vehicle traffic) and look to widen pedestrian paths/sidewalks to accommodate both wherever possible. Humans error is never going away and the outcome of these to modes when mixed together will always have tragic consequences. No excuses for this type of implementation

 

[Admiral Beez]

The state isn't even willing to consistently protect those who respect the rules, given the inherent asymmetrical impact of a pedestrian/cyclist who doesn't follow them (they tend to die)

But is that even the case? Are cyclists and pedestrians at greater risk if they don't follow the rules? As a pedestrian, I would argue I'm at greater risk blindly stepping out at a lighted intersection on the "walk signal" than cautiously crossing mid-block.

That's what I'm getting at above - we don't know, so we can't learn and adapt our behavior while wait for my senior years before the city is restructured to prioritize non-automobile traffic.

Interestingly, I was in Amsterdam two weeks ago and rented a bike, and no one followed the apparent rules. I was left at a red signal when every bicycle around me kept on going. No one used their bell, no one stopped for automobile traffic, but it seemed to work.

 

[W. K. Lis]

A lot, actually a LARGE amount, of laws were created over a hundred years that benefited the automobile. Look at this video and find all the made-up laws that would be broken by everyone today.

 

[TrickyRicky]

The Bloor St. George cyclist death hits home because it’s near where I drive every day and my daughter goes to daycare in the area.

Cycling infrastructure is important but pushing for more lanes in isolation is not the only answer to enhanced safety. The aforementioned death was on a stretch of the now permanent bike lanes on Bloor although I have no idea what caused the accident or if the lanes were involved.

I personally feel that the curb-side lane configuration is dangerous because of turning sight lines. I much prefer the lane side configuration for safety both as a driver and cyclist. I say this as someone with 24 years of complete accident free driving and 18 years of on street cycling experience in Toronto including 10 years where that was my primary transportation mode. I have also cycled in urban environments in at least 10 countries.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Don't follow New York City's examples, follow London's instead.

London’s Slow Zones Save Lives and New York’s Don’t. Here’s Why.

See link.

In New York's slow zones, speed humps are the only physical traffic calming measure. London uses a greater variety of traffic calming measures, installed more intensively.

Gateway treatments made with paint and signs haven't been enough to prevent reduce traffic injuries in NYC's neighborhood slow zones. Photo: Noah Kazis

New York’s quick and cheap approach to creating “neighborhood slow zones” isn’t working, according to a new paper from Columbia University graduate researcher Jonas Hagen.

NYC DOT launched its slow zone program in 2011, inspired by a similar effort in London to create 20 mph zones. There are now 28 slow zones across the five boroughs, each encompassing an average of 25 city blocks.

While the program generated enthusiasm from neighborhood groups and created a template for residents to organize for and opt into DOT traffic-calming efforts, the implementation wasn’t robust enough to reduce fatalities and injuries, Hagen concludes. But the London program, which included more physical street design changes, led to a measurable reduction in severe traffic collisions.

Hagen analyzed crash data before and after the implementation of 18 slow zones for his doctoral research paper, “Calming New York: An Examination of Neighborhood Slow Zones” [PDF]. He found no significant change in the rate of traffic injuries in the areas with slow zones compared to areas with no slow zones and similar street widths, street designs, and traffic patterns.

In those 18 slow zones, overall traffic fatalities and injuries fell 10 percent, primarily among motor vehicle occupants. Injuries to people walking or biking actually increased 6 percent. The control streets saw statistically similar trends.

In London, the effects of 20 mph zones were different, preventing dozens of fatalities or severe injuries each year, according to the British Medical Journal. Hagen credits the more intensive traffic calming measures installed in London.

Curb extensions and raised crosswalks are key features of London’s 20 mph zones that New York’s neighborhood slow zones lack. Photo: Google Maps

In New York, slow zones rely on three tools: pavement markings highlighting the speed limit, speed humps, and “gateway” signage telling drivers they are entering a slow zone. DOT later moved the gateway signs from the roadbed to the sidewalk, leaving the speed humps as the only physical traffic calming measure.

More robust measures in the city’s toolkit, like curb extensions or expanded sidewalks, were not part of the program. This enabled implementation to proceed quickly, without involving the Department of Design and Construction, but at the expense of effectiveness.

In comparison, London added raised crosswalks, raised intersections, curb extensions, pedestrian refuges, traffic diverters, mini-roundabouts, and other traffic-calming measures as part of its 20 mph zone program. And these interventions are installed at five times the rate per mile of street as New York’s speed humps.

London’s 20 mph zone program consists of a robust set of traffic-calming measures. New York’s slow zones mainly consist of speed humps.

Under the de Blasio administration, DOT’s focus has shifted away from the Neighborhood Slow Zone program and toward arterial streets. Given the agency’s limited resources, that makes sense, since major streets like Queens Boulevard and Fourth Avenue have higher rates of traffic injuries and fatalities than residential side streets. The slow zone program, which relies on speed humps that aren’t permitted on bus routes, didn’t touch wider roads.

“The DOT has a pool of engineers that work on all traffic safety projects in the city, so when something like neighborhood slow zones becomes less of a priority, the agency will be reluctant to put precious resources on a lower-priority program because their pool of engineers is finite,” Hagen said.

But smaller local streets are still places where people walk and bike, where kids play, and where traffic endangers people. As London’s example shows, a neighborhood traffic-calming program with sufficient resources can make a significant impact.

Hagen thinks the Neighborhood Slow Zone program provides a good blueprint that the city should return to for neighborhood-level traffic-calming efforts.

“This program isn’t perfect, but I think it’s a good start for area-wide traffic-calming in New York,” he said. “The zones exist, the mechanism to implement the zones exists, and you could decide to implement a more robust [program].”

“Raised crosswalks, raised intersections, mini-roundabouts, curb extensions, landscaped curb extensions — These are measures that we see the DOT implementing in other places, so it’s possible.”

 

[georgevicbell]

I heard the biker was in the lane, and she was wearing a helmet. Truck was turning right and she ended up under the back wheel. In this situation it seems clear that side guards are necessary (from the pictures it didn't seem the truck had them). Secondly at intersections a cement post can be placed which forces trucks to make wide turns, this is why you are generally safe when standing on the sidewalk and even more safe if you are standing behind the pole - you have to be a bad driver (not just a careless one) to drive over an immovable cement curb or into a lamp post. In the case of Bloor, there are no protections at intersections, and in most cases vehicles turning right will drive through some of the bike lane since it is convenient to do so. There are usually only planters mid-block.

 

[muller877]

I heard the biker was in the lane, and she was wearing a helmet. Truck was turning right and she ended up under the back wheel. In this situation it seems clear that side guards are necessary (from the pictures it didn't seem the truck had them). Secondly at intersections a cement post can be placed which forces trucks to make wide turns, this is why you are generally safe when standing on the sidewalk and even more safe if you are standing behind the pole - you have to be a bad driver (not just a careless one) to drive over an immovable cement curb or into a lamp post. In the case of Bloor, there are no protections at intersections, and in most cases vehicles turning right will drive through some of the bike lane since it is convenient to do so. There are usually only planters mid-block.

It is actually safer for cyclists to permit vehicles to get into the bike lane before turning right. The truck legally is suppose to pull to the right and signal. The cyclist either has to stop or alternatively go to the left of the truck (if there is no other traffic).

Your idea of concrete barriers would only cause more T-bones. The cars would be going across the bike lane which is even more dangerous.

Side guards are a great idea. They have saved countless lives on the highways and any transport truck should have them. They have to still be 6+ inches when the truck is fully loaded (which may mean 24 inches when the truck is empty) so their usefulness for bikes depends on if the truck is loaded or not