Hamilton roads second most dangerous for pedestrians in Ont.

Hamilton pedestrians and cyclists are at higher risk of getting hit by cars than the provincial average, and Hamilton has one of the highest rates of pedestrian deaths in the province.

The numbers come from new data from the Social Planning and Research Council, which is looking at the number of pedestrian deaths per 100,000 pedestrian and transit commuters. 

Sara Mayo, a social planner with the council, found that Hamilton is second only to Windsor for the number of pedestrians who die while walking, usually by getting hit by vehicles.

She also found that Hamilton pedestrians are as much as 42 per cent more likely to be injured compared to the Ontario rate. The risk to cyclists can be as much as 81 per cent higher than the provincial average.

“It kind of explains why we have a lower rate of cyclist commuters in Hamilton,” she said. “Obviously if people felt safer, there’d be more cyclists on the road.”

Mayo will present some of these findings at a general issues committee meeting Wednesday, when councillors will debate a new pedestrian mobility plan that aims to change street design to incorporate the needs of pedestrians and make walking safer.

She compiled the data using the 2010 Ontario Road Safety Report, Hamilton’s Traffic Safety Report and the most recent census data.

• Related: Hamilton running community devastated by jogger death

Looking at multiple years, she found that vehicle collisions are down in Hamilton, but pedestrian and cyclist injuries have stayed roughly the same since 2001.

Mayo isn’t certain on the reason for the higher rate, except that Hamilton needs more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly streets. She’s compiling a map of risky roads in the city, and the injuries happen all over Hamilton, she said.

Changing street design

The pedestrian mobility plan is a weighty 244-page document. It’s been in the works for about two years, said Steve Molloy, project manager of Hamilton’s transportation master plan implementation. Traditional street design, the report says, plans for the needs of cars with "the remaining space left over at the edges... used to accommodate pedestrian and cycling needs.'" This plan builds needs of walkers and bikers right into the design and planning.

Its recommendations include:

• Buffer areas between the street and sidewalks.
• A minimum sidewalk width of 1.5m, wide enough for two pedestrians to pass each other.
• Sidewalks on both sides of the street in subdivisions to encourage more people to walk.
• Pedestrian countdown and audible signals for urban and industrial areas.
• Illuminating pedestrian crossings and street signals in urban areas.
• Increasing winter maintenance in urban and suburban areas.

Mayo's report will highlight six pedestrian deaths in the last year, including an 85-year-old man struck at Barton Street East and Kenora on Aug. 30 and Zoe Nudell, 33, who was jogging when an alleged impaired driver hit her at Charlton East and Wentworth South on Oct. 30. 

The general issues committee begins at 9:30 a.m. at city hall. Reporter Samantha Craggs will tweet live at @SamCraggsCBC.

Link:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/hamilton-roads-

second-most-dangerous-for-pedestrians-in-ont-1.2415830 

Pedestrian Death Review

The Ontario Road Safety Annual Report 2008 utilizes a simpler definition which is, “Any person not riding
in or on a vehicle involved in a motor vehicle collision.”7
 This was the definition we adopted in our study.
Pedestrians are vulnerable road users as they lack protection if struck by a vehicle. In Canada, from 2004
to 2008, 13% of all road fatalities have been pedestrians; 8 % motorcyclists, and 2% bicyclists. In total,
these vulnerable road users account for almost a quarter of traffic fatalities in Canada.8
According to this report, characteristics of pedestrian traffic fatalities in Canada are as follows:
• 75% of pedestrian traffic fatalities occurred on urban roads;
• 60% of pedestrians killed in traffic crashes were trying to cross the road;
• 35% of fatally injured pedestrians were aged 65 or older even
though they represent only 13% of the population;
• 63% of pedestrians killed at intersections were 65 or older;
• 6% of fatally injured pedestrians were under the age
of 16 and of these, 20% ran out into the street;
• 33% of fatally injured pedestrians acted in a manner
which caused or contributed to the crash;
• 33% of fatally injured pedestrians were struck by a driver
who had committed a traffic infraction prior to the crash;
• 60% of pedestrians were killed at night or during dim
light conditions when they were not seen by drivers; and
• 40% of fatally injured pedestrians had been drinking.9
Historical Pedestrian Death statistics in Ontario
Ontarians reside in a society where we place a high value on preserving human life. Great
effort is made on the part of both governmental and non-governmental organizations to
promote health and prevent death. Because of this work, knowledge currently exists related to
pedestrian deaths. The Ministry of Transportation publishes the Ontario Road Safety Annual
Report, and in 2005, the Ministry published a report called, Pedestrian Causalities in Ontario:
a 15-year review.
This report contains information with respect to pedestrian deaths over a 15 year period from 1988-
2002.
• In the 15 year period, 2,089 pedestrians were fatality injured,
which accounted for 14% of motor vehicle fatalities;
• Older pedestrians >75 years accounted for 21.2 % of all fatalities;
• Child and youth fatalities in those less than 19 years of age are declining, likely due to less walking;
• 11/100 pedestrian collisions in rural areas were killed, whereas only 2/100 in pedestrian
collisions occurring in urban areas were killed, likely due to higher speeds in rural areas; and
• Locations of fatalities for pedestrians included:
• 55% occurred away from an intersection or private drive
• 32.3% occurred at or near an intersection
• 11.5% occurred due to vehicles turning in/out of an entrance

Link:
http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/stellent/groups/public/
@mcscs/@www/@com/documents/webasset/ec161058.pdf

No Excuse For Hamilton's Pedestrian Deaths

If a dozen people were randomly shot and killed in Hamilton, the community would go nuts. So why are we so complacent about pedestrians dying on our streets?

By Adrian Duyzer
Published October 22, 2011

Around midnight on Friday, as I was walking home from an event at a bar near John and Main, I paused for a moment to watch street racers ripping down Main Street.

On Friday and Saturday nights Main Street goes from a dreary urban highway to something out of a Vin Diesel movie. Cars with tinted windows, halogen headlights and mufflers that more accurately should be called "amplifiers" tear down Main and cruise down Hess.

Given Hamilton's record of pedestrian fatalities, this behaviour is similar to showing up downtown with a rifle and firing it into the air to celebrate hockey goals. If anything, it is more dangerous, but there was no sign of traffic cops, let alone a tactical team ready for a takedown.

To continue with the firearms analogy, if a dozen people were randomly shot and killed in Hamilton, the community would go nuts. The Chief of Police would be giving news conferences promising to address the problem, people would be lamenting our appalling rate of gun violence, and letters to the editor would proliferate.

So why are we so complacent about pedestrians dying on our streets?

One obvious problem with the firearms analogy is that shooting deaths in urban settings are generally the result of a deliberate act or recklessness. Although some pedestrians are killed by drivers who are drunk or speeding, others are killed while jaywalking or simply because our road system is dangerous.

That said, there would also be a major uproar if fourteen Hamiltonians died in elevator mishaps.

The real reasons for our complacence, I think, are twofold. First of all, people are accustomed to pedestrians dying in vehicle collisions. It happens every year and it's been happening for decades.

Secondly, there's a perception that pedestrian fatalities, and traffic accident fatalities in general, are an inevitable byproduct of vehicle transportation, and that there's not much that can be done about it. We're not going to give up driving cars to eliminate the relatively small percentage of people who are killed by them.

But just because we're used to people dying doesn't mean it's okay.

On Friday, an 81-year-old woman was killed as she "attempted to cross Fennell".

I don't know anything about this woman, but I bet there were people who loved her that are devastated by her death and the manner of it: struck down for the fatal mistake of trying to cross the street. Perhaps there are grieving parents who, right now, have the difficult task of explaining to their children why they will never see their dear grandmother again.

Every one of these accidents is a tragedy, compounded by the tragedy that we're so accustomed to them, we've stopped caring enough to demand they cease.

Just as outrageous is the idea that we need to accept these deaths as an unfortunate but inevitable byproduct of our automobile dependence.

In fact, there's lots that could be done, and I'm not talking about issuing tickets for jaywalking, which is a classic example of the kind of train-and-blame approach that fails to produce lasting results.

We need to start creating safer streets by engineering for safetey, not issuing tickets. We could:

• lower the speed limit, particularly where vehicles and pedestrians interact
• enforce our current speed limits (when's the last time you saw a speed trap on Main?)
• narrow city streets
• convert one-way streets, which are more dangerous for children, to two-way
• add signalized crosswalks promptly when residents demand them instead of the current rigmarole
• add bumpouts, speed bumps, and other traffic-calming measures

Or we could lower our traffic accident fatality rate and reduce traffic congestion, improve the health of our citizenry, and reduce pollution by building a comprehensive network of bike lanes, as Ryan McGreal also pointed out, quoting from Why Bike Friendly Cities are Safer:

The finding that most bike friendly cities are safer than average has been reinforced by the recent experience of cities such as Cambridge, MA, Portland, OR, and New York. These cities have garnered much press for their success in dramatically increasing bike use over the last several years. This increase in bike ridership has corresponded with an equally dramatic decrease in traffic fatality rates in all three cities.

Interestingly, the decrease in fatality occurred not just for people on bikes, but for all classes of road users – including people in cars and people on foot. In other words, the increase in bike use has benefited all road users by helping transform the streets into safer places.

We could do all of these things in the next five years for less money than a stadium. So why aren't we?

When we're talking about a dozen people dying on city streets each year, there are no valid excuses.

Link:

http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/1486/no_excuse_for_hamiltons_pedestrian_deaths