|
Good news - UConn's made a searchable database of all the accident records in the state from 1995 onward. There are two sections - the crash summary tool, which anyone can access, and the data query tool, which required a (free, unrestricted) account. If you're at all interested in crash records, I'd recommend checking it out. http://ctcrash.uconn.edu/ The whole thing is set up so you can click and drag to make graphs really quickly, and you can also see diagrams of the accidents, sort by any factor imaginable, or even look at our Photolog at the crash location.  Ped fatalities have decreased somewhat over the past two decades, but major ped injuries have sharply declined. A lot of that is due to more stringent auto manufacturer standards to improve ped safety.  In the same time, motorist injuries have decreased as well, though not at the same rate.  In Union, our least populous town, there have been 193 crashes in the last 3 years. This is a diagram of one of them.  In Newington, just in 1998, there were 197 accidents on Route 15 alone. Here's the location of one of them. And before you guys ask, yes, you can search by age. I think there were about 180 crashes where someone 5 and under was driving.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:11 |
|
|
Cichlidae posted:And before you guys ask, yes, you can search by age. I think there were about 180 crashes where someone 5 and under was driving.  Come again? How are these children even getting the cars to move? God damnit it world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 21:42
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:
Best bit about this is when it happens in the UK and the kid goes to court and they get "banned from driving". I don't know how that works with an 11 year old.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:
If my niece, nephew, and their friends are to be believed: by working together. "Jayden is good at the pedals, but Hayden steers better." Admittedly, these kids are 7-12, but I can see a swarm of smaller children, drunk on Mario Kart, figuring out how this all works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:
I'm betting, in most of these cases, their parents leave them momentarily in a running car / keys in the ignition. The kid pulls up the parking brake, whoops, now the car's rolling down the street and into someone's mailbox. Only one of those accidents resulted in a fatality, but still, you've gotta feel like poo poo if your kid even gets a bruise that way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 03:02
|
|
|
It's also possible that among a few hundred thousand crash reports, some have the age listed incorrectly (5 instead of 50, for example).
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 06:47
|
|
|
John Dough posted:It's also possible that among a few hundred thousand crash reports, some have the age listed incorrectly (5 instead of 50, for example). I did a search and was shocked to see hundreds of results in the age 1-10 range, but then realised the vast majority were bikes. Still upsetting but less surprising.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 10:19
|
|
|
John Dough posted:It's also possible that among a few hundred thousand crash reports, some have the age listed incorrectly (5 instead of 50, for example). It's possible in the DPS records, but the ConnDOT records are cross-checked pretty carefully. I don't think every accident in there is gospel, but I'd be surprised to see more than a couple errors like that. From what I'm told, the database throws up warnings when someone tries to put a young age in it (along with roads going the wrong direction, wrong town, wrong exit number, that sort of thing.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
I think I recall seeing similar stats nationwide for the UK -- decreasing overall injuries from car accidents, but stable (or only slowly decreasing) fatalities. They suggested that the decrease in injuries might be due to cars being built with more safety features, but that the lack of a decrease in fatalities (or increase in the chance of a car accident being fatal, if you will) might be due to cars being bigger and hence more momentum being involved.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
So, can you explain what's going on here? http://imgur.com/5i7WEi3 The new shopping center in the bottom left is going to be a traffic headache no matter what, but creating three new interchanges within a couple thousand feet of that cloverleaf just looks crazy. Also, they've removed some of the old roadways that are no longer needed in this image, but left the upper left cloverleaf - does it serve a purpose or just a mistake?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
snickles posted:So, can you explain what's going on here? At first blush, this looks a little dicey, but the cloverleaf interchange actually interacts with collector/distributor roads on I-10, so it's not so unreasonable. Ditto the other new entrances / exits. And it's not actually even a full cloverleaf, since there's no weave present for the northeast quadrant. And like you said, the northwest quadrant of the cloverleaf (if property connected, looks like an oops) would act only as a U-turn for traffic going from NB I-110 to SB I-110.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
Apologies if something similar has been posted before but: I just moved to Santa Clara, Calif, and I live right off of El Camino Real. One thing that bugs the hell out of me is that this road--lined with stores, restaurants and bus stops as it is--has very few crosswalks. So here's an idea: if you have two intersections that are really far apart, why not add a controlled crosswalk halfway between them. Then the signals for each half of the crosswalk could be synchronized with the light down the road so that they turn green either simultaneously or in sequence. Sure, pedestrians have to cross the road in two halves, but I'd rather jaywalk across half of el camino than all of it. A good example of what I'm talking about is the stretch of El Camino Real in Sunnyvale between Bernardo and Sylvan. Over a quarter mile between crosswalks, and they for some reason thought it was a good idea to put a bus stop smack dab in between them. Socket Ryanist fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Jun 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
I've jaywalked the hell out if that stretch of road more than once.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
Why not build a pedestrian bridge for a road that size?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
Socket Ryanist posted:Apologies if something similar has been posted before but: Mid-block crossings are pretty common out here. We've been planting them all over the place - most recently on New Britain Avenue in West Hartford to connect a prominent local business to its parking lot across a busy four-lane street. It's not cheap to do properly, but mid-block crossings make the whole area much more friendly to pedestrians. Jeoh posted:Why not build a pedestrian bridge for a road that size? This is an option for a very wide or busy road. Unfortunately, from what I've seen, many people will choose simply to cross at grade, even if it's a freeway. We have a fatality every month or two from a pedestrian trying to cross a freeway on foot, often when there's an overpass just a short walk away. -----  ©1984 BBC  Look around you.  Look around you!  Just look around you.  Have you worked out what we're looking for?  Correct! It's the I-95 New Haven Harbor Crossing Corridor Improvement Program! I've got a couple hundred photos from today's tour, and it'll take the better part of the weekend to sort through 'em, but once I do, I'll have a nice big post for you guys. Anything in particular you're interested in?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:
I really like that design used for suspending signs. Our latest stuff looks bad, and the signs are smaller than the ones they're replacing. They also aren't very reflective, cheap all around. But cutting corners is the core belief of our current government. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
less than three posted:I really like that design used for suspending signs. They look like they come pre-hit by a truck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:They look like they come pre-hit by a truck. The bottom part of those signs have been installed yet as it wasn't yet tolling. (Toll ahead / Last exit before toll) Here's another. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
less than three posted:The bottom part of those signs have been installed yet as it wasn't yet tolling. (Toll ahead / Last exit before toll) These look like they'd start swaying at the slightest wind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:These look like they'd start swaying at the slightest wind. Canada has a habit of signs that work like that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3CzfkVHbWU
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:Why not build a pedestrian bridge for a road that size? Plus, 50% of the time there's not enough traffic to justify a pedestrian bridge, and when there is it's moving so slowly that an extra crosswalk wouldn't really hurt it much. Socket Ryanist fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Jun 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Canada has a habit of signs that work like that You really have to watch this right up to the end; the sign actually falls off in the last two seconds of the video. Which is exactly why they're putting up those heavier supports these days.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 07:18
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:You really have to watch this right up to the end; the sign actually falls off in the last two seconds of the video. Not in BC, we've moved backwards! We used to do stuff like Cichlidae posted. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 07:20
|
|
|
While I'm prepping those field visit photos, have a couple more from today's hike. Humans aren't the only ones who use our roads! Check out I-691, for example: It might SEEM it's just for humans, but...  The trail sign makes an excellent impromptu antfarm. The ants store their pupae on the interstate, then march along the roads and trails.  And our full-scale ped bridge makes an excellent habitat for cicadas!
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Aww, look at those cute little ants that think they're people! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
I wonder, if Three Phase is still around, what he'll make of our wire splices: Electricians might do it with splice caps and electrical tape; we use PVC pipes and duct tape.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
Wow. What is that powering? Also, I don't think PVC likes being out in the sun very much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 04:12
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:I wonder, if Three Phase is still around, what he'll make of our wire splices: I like that this is just kind of zip-tied to a jersey barrier. Nothing can possibly go wrong on this one...
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
I'd have end-capped that pipe and angled the splice toward the sky, to keep water out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
OK, here's a serious traffic planning question. I present the Stanley Park Causeway: 1.8km of 3-lane road with switchable lane direction connecting the Lion's Gate Bridge to downtown Vancouver. It serves its purpose fairly well for motorists as the major arterial connection between West Vancouver and downtown. However, it is also a major route for cycle commuters. In fact, it is the only route through Stanley Park (a forest under conservation) that is lit, so cycle commuters don't have much choice during winter. The cycling infrastructure, however, consists of a narrow sidewalk shared with pedestrians, with a one-foot drop to the motorway. The road is on a slope, so this works reasonably well on the uphill side, where cyclists don't go much faster than walkers. On the downhill, it creates an extremely dangerous situation, with cyclists picking up speed, but running the risk of falling into traffic if they lose control of their bike. This happened a month ago, and the cyclist in question fell in front of a bus and was killed instantly. Needless to say, the fatality has had cycling advocacy organisations, as well as the City of Vancouver, and the Provincial Ministry of Transportation (who are actually responsible for the stretch of road) looking for solutions. Nothing concrete has been suggested yet. The question I have is, what would you do to make this road safer for cyclists (and pedestrians)? Would a railing be enough? Maybe separated paths for cyclists and pedestrians (but could these be put in place without cutting down trees)? This is not an entirely moot question. I am involved with one of these cycling organisations, and so far our position is just that "something" needs to be done. It would be good to nail that down to some viable proposals we can start lobbying for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
Build a new bridge next to the existing one, preferably combined transit/cycling/ped. e: or maybe bolt a lightweight cycling deck to its side(s) if strucuraly viable. Koesj fucked around with this message at 10:04 on Jun 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 10:00
|
|
|
A series of shuttles that run back and forth across the stretch of road, ferrying cyclists from one end to the other. Safe and efficient. If cyclists are concerned about their environmental impact of their activity they can give the driver like $2 for the gas or something. We can solve this problem with more cars, not fewer cars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 13:02
|
|
|
Looking at Streetview, a cheap solution could be to convert the sidewalk on one side of the road into a bikepath, and the other side into a pedestrian route with no bikes allowed. Broaden the bikepath where possible, and add a railing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 13:05
|
|
|
If anyone is going to be at the Midwestern ITE conference later this week in Milwaukee, let me know. I will be attending many of the presentations to get the rest of my pdh's.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 13:45
|
|
|
John Dough posted:Looking at Streetview, a cheap solution could be to convert the sidewalk on one side of the road into a bikepath, and the other side into a pedestrian route with no bikes allowed. Broaden the bikepath where possible, and add a railing. That was my first thought as well. That solution does require widening the pavement on the bike side, since it currently looks a bit too narrow to have two bikes meet at reasonably high speeds. Would involve moving a few lamp posts on the bike side. Not sure which is worse though, having no railing and risking running into traffic, or running the risk of falling head over heels over a railing, into traffic... Hippie Hedgehog fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Jun 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
John Dough posted:Looking at Streetview, a cheap solution could be to convert the sidewalk on one side of the road into a bikepath, and the other side into a pedestrian route with no bikes allowed. Broaden the bikepath where possible, and add a railing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
Jethro posted:This would be good if not for the fact that neither bikes nor pedestrians care very much about rules. But at least it'll be more difficult to sue the state 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
Jethro posted:This would be good if not for the fact that neither bikes nor pedestrians care very much about rules. Canadians might be more politely law-abiding than Americans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Canada has a habit of signs that work like that Someone didn't consider wind very much when they designed that, but at least no one ignores the sign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:11 |
|
|
Koesj posted:Build a new bridge next to the existing one, preferably combined transit/cycling/ped. Yes, the bridge is also an issue, albeit something of a lesser one. The focus right now is on the road going through Stanley Park to the bridge, however. I'm told the bridge may become transit/ped/cyclist only at some point between now and 2040, although I'll believe that when I see it. Jethro posted:This would be good if not for the fact that neither bikes nor pedestrians care very much about rules. Road users in general don't care much about the rules; good traffic design should try to provide as few opportunities for them to do stupid/illegal things and kill themselves/others as possible. The real issue I could see with having one side bikes only and the other peds only is that a pedestrian caught on the bike side has nowhere legitimate to go after they get buzzed by a bike halfway along the path and realise they're on the wrong side (and vice versa). Volmarias posted:A series of shuttles that run back and forth across the stretch of road, ferrying cyclists from one end to the other. Safe and efficient. If cyclists are concerned about their environmental impact of their activity they can give the driver like $2 for the gas or something. I'm pretty sure that the majority of cyclists, if given the choice between a shuttle (that would probably only run every half- or quarter-hour at best), and taking their chances on the lovely infrastructure, would choose the lovely infrastructure. For reference, there is one bike shuttle in the region, and although it works, it's really quite a headache (where if the infrastructure in question had been a bridge rather than a tunnel, it would have worked a lot better.) Wait - you were being ironic, weren't you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 19:43
|
|