Road Safety & Vision Zero Plan

[PinkLucy]

10 year trend:

Source: http://data.torontopolice.on.ca/pages/fatalities

 

[Northern Light]

Forgive me for this post if you feel offended by it but to what extent is this road collision hype these days a real phenomenon or hype like homicide news? My sense is like homicide violence Toronto streets probably used to be more dangerous, then they became way safer, now there may be an uptick.

Average is 55 fatalities per year over the last decade.

But notably lower at the beginning of the decade 27 in 2008 vs 40 in 2018.

Fatalities

Fatal Collisions

data.torontopolice.on.ca

Interestingly the numbers took a clear leap in 2013 and have been relatively consistent since.

We're at 34 thus far, for the year, I believe, which has us roughly in line w/the last few years, on pace for about 37.

Stats show those 55 and older represent about 60% of the victims; followed by younger adults then kids.

 

[crs1026]

Stats show those 55 and older represent about 60% of the victims; followed by younger adults then kids.

Any stats on the age of drivers?

- Paul

 

[TossYourJacket]

Interestingly the numbers took a clear leap in 2013 and have been relatively consistent since.

It's worth noting that 2013 was the year the Police disbanded the traffic enforcement unit.

 

[picard102]

Forgive me for this post if you feel offended by it but to what extent is this road collision hype these days a real phenomenon or hype like homicide news? My sense is like homicide violence Toronto streets probably used to be more dangerous, then they became way safer, now there may be an uptick.

Not higher than the last two years, certainly no where near the hysteria.

Deathspercapita

DEATHS Year,Deaths,Pop,Per-Capita,Percentage Change Per-Capita,Per-Capita (Round),Percentage Change Per-Capita 2011,18,2,615,060,0.6883207269,0.6883207269,1,1,0 2012,24,2,635,980,0.9104771519,0.2221564251,32.27513228,1,0,32 2013,40,2,657,068,1.505418571,0.5949414194,65.34391534,2,1,65 2014,31,2,...

docs.google.com

 

[ADRM]

Not higher than the last two years, certainly no where near the hysteria.

Deathspercapita

DEATHS Year,Deaths,Pop,Per-Capita,Percentage Change Per-Capita,Per-Capita (Round),Percentage Change Per-Capita 2011,18,2,615,060,0.6883207269,0.6883207269,1,1,0 2012,24,2,635,980,0.9104771519,0.2221564251,32.27513228,1,0,32 2013,40,2,657,068,1.505418571,0.5949414194,65.34391534,2,1,65 2014,31,2,...

docs.google.com

I find “hysteria” to be offensively ignorant of the scale of the problem. Thousands of people’s lives have been forever ruined at the hands of drivers — the number we should all be focusing on is KSIs, not just deaths.

And what is particularly egregious about the road safety crisis is that the solutions are *known* — but politicians, the police, and a reluctant, ignorant, cautious bureaucracy aren’t pursuing them. I find that to be utterly repulsive.

 

[picard102]

KSIs don't show a marked increase per capita either. It's been decreasing since 2005.

 

[ADRM]

KSIs don't show a marked increase per capita either. It's been decreasing since 2005.

I am talking about awareness of the number of lives ruined, not the movement of a statistical trend line.

 

[lenaitch]

Lots of interesting discussion. To avoid multiple quotes and references, I'll just toss out some random thoughts:
- To me it is no surprise that SUVs account for a high number of collisions. They have been the highest selling category for the past several years.
- I would have to convinced that an SUV of today is any heavier than a 'sedan' of ten or 20 years ago.
- It would be interesting see some data on whether the 'A' pillar of current vehicles is any larger than than those of a few years ago and hence causing a larger blind spot. I wasn't aware that any manufacturer housed airbags in them.
- The concept that a lower roof line impairs forward/side visibility I'm not sure is supported by fact.
- Properly adjusted side and rear view mirrors will eliminate the so-called side blind spot, although I'm not sure many pedestrians are struck in that way.
- Camera views can be both a blessing and a curse. They draw your eyes from the road-view to the screen-view. Mandatory visual and event recording might be nice thought, but because vehicle standards are federal, good luck with that. As well, while they might make the evidence available, a warrant would still be required under current law if it involves evidence from a suspect's vehicle. Note than similar 'public space' photo evidence such as speed, red light and proposed transit/school bus cameras are only liability to the registered owner.

 

[tiffer24]

So far this year, an analysis by The Globe and Mail found, more than one-quarter of drivers involved in a pedestrian death in Toronto did not stop. That’s double the rate it was just three years ago and three to five times worse than earlier this decade.

Police descriptions of several of the hit-and-run pedestrian fatalities in Toronto this year do suggest a failure of humanity.

In February, a man crossing Warden Avenue was hit by a driver, who fled. The impact sent his body into another vehicle, the driver of which stayed, before ending up on the road, where he was hit again, by another driver who fled.

Also in Scarborough, a woman crossing Midland Avenue in August was hit by a truck, the driver of which left the scene. She was then hit by another driver, who dragged her down the road before stopping. He exited the vehicle and fled on foot.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...y-as-the-number-of-toronto-hit-and-runs-keep/

 

[crs1026]

I find “hysteria” to be offensively ignorant of the scale of the problem. Thousands of people’s lives have been forever ruined at the hands of drivers — the number we should all be focusing on is KSIs, not just deaths.

And what is particularly egregious about the road safety crisis is that the solutions are *known* — but politicians, the police, and a reluctant, ignorant, cautious bureaucracy aren’t pursuing them. I find that to be utterly repulsive.

Waaaaaait a moment....."at the hands of drivers"? This kind of hyperbole is dog-whistling just as much as treading on race or gender or identity.

Those injured and killed represent a tragedy, yes. But I bet most of them had drivers' licenses in their pockets, or had one in earlier years. Many owned cars, and I'm sure that over the years before their accident, they willingly and eagerly drove cars, rode in cars, asked for rides, made out in cars.

Everything about roads and cars and highway design is something they mostly accepted and were complicit in....unlike misogyny, racism, or colonialism, the automobile was never one group enriching themselves at others' expense. Until the last decade, cars were for everyone. Carnage on highways is something that was accepted, but no longer is.... just as smoking, rates of industrial accidents, environmental disregard, and other past practices have become concerns.

The automobile is something that our society has run with, for over a century, with all its benefits and all its flaws. You can't separate the argument into villains and victims. We have seen the enemy, and it is indeed us.

What has happened with Vision Zero is - we don't like the picture we see, and we've set a far higher standard for ourselves and for each other. That goes beyond trying to maintain past levels of injuries and deaths, it extends to eliminating them altogether. That's hugely ambitious. It's hugely noble, but it means reevaluating everything from engineering designs to rights of way to roadway use to the vehicles themselves. The whole value proposition of the automobile is up for debate....even though we don't really have an alternative yet. That's not an exercise in correcting past grievances or injustices, it's an exercise in replacing something that is unsustainable with something else that may be. So go easy on everyone, because we were all in this together.

I once thought the "war on a car" was just a goofy slogan that a goofy mayoral candidate invented. But lately it sure is manifesting itself.

I totally support Vision Zero, but I deplore the we/they manner that it is being advanced through. We have enough issues of inequality and social injustice that are steeped in grievance politics. It would be good if we fixed this one without attacking anyone in the process. We just want the tragedies to stop.

- Paul

 

[W. K. Lis]

This article is from the States, but we need Canadian information.

New Studies Link Unlicensed and Revoked Licensed Drivers to Higher Fatalities and How to Spot these Drivers

From link.

The number of drivers who are injured or killed by an unlicensed or revoked license driver has increased in the last decade. Two separate reports have come out over the last few years that indicate these drivers pose more of a risk than ever before.

Recently, the California Department of Motor Vehicles came out with the “Fatal Crash Rates for Suspended/Revoked and Unlicensed Drivers” report. This report looked at crash data over 23 years, using statistics from the Federal National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

“According to the report, fatal crashes involving unlicensed drivers (or with suspended or revolved licenses) have increased nearly 50 percent in California between 1998 and 2009. California’s numbers are considerably higher than the national percentage of 27 percent of drivers involved in fatal crashes without valid licenses over the same time frame.” – www.timesheraldonline.com

In a separate report called “Unlicensed to Kill,” the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety concluded that on average, 8,400 people die each year in crashes with unlicensed drivers. Additionally, for 28 percent of these drivers, this isn’t their first encounter with the law. These drivers received three or more license suspensions or revocations in the three years prior to their fatal collision.

“It’s like a revolving door. These people are being suspended and suspended and suspended again, and still, they’re driving,” said researcher Lindsay I. Griffin of the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University.” – abcnews.go.com

Nobody knows the exact number of unlicensed drivers on the road today. But, according to these reports, the illegal drivers involved in fatal crashes shared a few common characteristics.

• One-third were younger than 20.
• They were more likely male.
• They drove late at night or early in the morning.

Additionally, drivers with a suspended license were three times more likely to be intoxicated than those with a legal license. Drivers with a revoked license were four times more likely to be drunk.

...

Would like to see information of where the unlicensed drivers live in the GTA. Likely the 905 would produce more unlicensed drivers than the 416, because public transit is better in the 416 and available 24/7.

 

[lenaitch]

We just want the tragedies to stop.

And that needs to be the shared goal of everyone. I doubt there is a single cause anymore than there is a single solution, but finger pointing surely isn't one of them. Interesting observation of Tiffler regarding the breakdown (or at least apparent weakening) in humanity in terms of failing to remain, and I don't have an easy explanation for its growing frequency. Unless a driver knows s/he is a wanted criminal, panic is usually the typical reaction, but it seems now the prevailing attitude of many is absolve themselves of personal responsibility and make the State find them. It is so pervasive now that media usually make a point of saying that the driver remained at the scene, as though that is something unusual and worthy of noting.
Failing to remain, both criminally and under the HTA, are serious charges, but I don't know the current sentencing guidelines. Legal punishment has both a general and specific deterrence role, but there is risk if the trend becomes overly onerous. A few heads on pikes at the castle gate might satisfy some, but it can drive others to burrow even deeper, particularly if their ill-advised action was simply out of panic and they otherwise might not have done anything wrong regarding the collision itself.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Are Toronto's police service pro-cyclist, pro-pedestrian, or pro-motorist?

This is happening in New York City...

Op-Ed: Ticketing an Unresponsive Cyclist is a New Low for NYPD
Cops' awful treatment of a Manhattan crash victim underscores why bikers don't trust them.

From link.

An incident this week — in which cops issued a ticket to a cyclist who lay non-responsive on the ground after being doored by a motorist — sadly epitomizes the kind of hostile and indifferent treatment that cyclists have come to expect from the NYPD.

The incident — covered by Gothamist — happened on Monday on W. 21st Street in Chelsea. In a video of the crash, an officer asks a witness cyclist, “Was he getting off right here? Because there’s a bike lane here, so technically you’re supposed to ride in the bike lane.” Another officer asks the injured cyclist, who does not appear to move, “Sir, were you in the bike lane?”

This behavior on the part of the NYPD should anger all New Yorkers, given the insensitivity and indifference that went into the decision by the officers to issue a summons to a doored cyclist for a crash he had no part in causing.

What kind of training did these police officers have that they deemed it appropriate to question and ticket a crash victim lying prostrate and unresponsive? Would they do the same to an unresponsive motorist?

We need some answers, but we’re not getting them from the NYPD or its boss, Mayor de Blasio. Indeed, this week Streetsblog asked de Blasio about the NYPD’s lack of training and knowledge of traffic law, but he instead impugned Streetsblog’s reputation, saying, “I’m not going to assume that those facts are accurate because I haven’t seen any evidence of that.” He said he couldn’t accept Streetsblog’s facts or premise because its reporters have “only one worldview.” Really?

But what makes the Chelsea episode even sadder and more maddening is that such behavior doesn’t even surprise cyclists anymore.

From the bogus tickets issued for non-existent infractions, to the persistent NYPD parking in bike lanes, to the widespread refusal to charge motorists involved in crashes, to the relentless blaming of cyclists almost immediately after crashes in which they are injured or killed — even when evidence exists that plainly and unequivocally absolves the cyclist of any wrongdoing — cyclists long ago learned that they can’t assume that the police are allies.

Occasionally, the NYPD does some action to help cyclists. For example, officers of Manhattan’s 19th Precinct earlier this year put up barricades in order to protect the “protected” Second Avenue bike lane on the Upper East Side when motorists began encroaching on it. But the majority of stories cyclists tell about the NYPD aren’t positive ones.

The NYPD surely will respond to the incident on 21st Street, if it hasn’t already, and I imagine that it will either be a half-hearted apology or an attempt to say that the cyclist, who was clearly not in the wrong, was somehow to blame and that we’re wrong for believing he wasn’t. But that won’t change the fact that police officers decided to plant a summons on a barely conscious cyclist after he was doored and while he was lying on the pavement unresponsive.

This is not keeping New York cyclists safe from danger; this is harassment, plain and simple, and as long as the NYPD continues to do it, it shouldn’t be at all surprised that cyclists do not trust its officers.

 

[salsa]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1201930341147131911