Pedestrian-motorist competition | The Press

The other day, my girlfriend almost got hit by a truck in downtown Montreal. In aviation, that’s what we would call a near missa near accident.

The light was green in the east-west direction for pedestrians and motorists at the huge Robert-Bourassa–De La Gauchetière intersection. Madame Lagacé crossed this busy intersection from east to west, therefore on De La Gauchetière. She felt a truck coming behind her, a heavy goods vehicle, which began to turn left towards the south, onto Robert-Bourassa.

She instinctively slowed her stride by a providential nanosecond as she sensed the truck about to enter her pedestrian path. Otherwise, the truck would hit her.

There are several ways to dissect this near miss who could have stupidly killed this pedestrian, who is of course more than a pedestrian: she is a mother, a daughter, a sister, a friend, a cousin, a blonde.

First, there’s the stupidity of the trucker. If he saw the pedestrian and still cut her off, she is a public danger. If he hasn’t seen her, he’s also a public danger. Driving a truck requires immense composure and restraint at all times, particularly in urban environments, where the most vulnerable road users abound: pedestrians and cyclists.

If there was a God, this guy would get a terrible stomach bug over the long Dominion Day weekend.

But the good Lord doesn’t exist and this guy will never know how close he came to finding himself in an SPVM press release under the proverbial formula “the truck driver was not injured, but was treated for nervous shock. Maybe he doesn’t care.

The other way to dissect what could have been an absurd and useless drama is through the angle of the hyper-dangerous development of this intersection.

I am talking about the Robert-Bourassa–De La Gauchetière intersection, but the same can be said of all intersections of major arteries that have this detestable characteristic of putting pedestrians and vehicles in competition.

It is totally irresponsible that there still exist in Montreal intersections of major arteries where pedestrians and vehicles compete for the space-time of a green light to cross.

Scenario: several pedestrians cross on a green light, the white silhouette of the pedestrian giving them the right to do so. Vehicles also have the right to move into the intersection, the light being green for them. Of course, pedestrians have priority. But the danger here remains: cars can turn on a green light and, to turn, you have to get into the pedestrians’ path. You have to gauge the “right” moment to turn, to insert yourself between two groups of pedestrians, for example.

This is what I mean by put pedestrians and vehicles in competition. This is a stupid and dangerous arrangement, beyond the stupidity and danger of humans walking and driving.

In fact, there are two types of competition here: for space and for time.

Competition for space: Vehicles should not turn on a green light while humans are crossing on foot in the same asphalt lane.

Competition for time: everyone is in a hurry, everyone wants to get to their destination quickly, the information worker and the truck driver; the banker and the Uber driver.

Now, everyone – motorists, drivers and pedestrians – literally has one eye on the clock, the countdown is visible to all, under the white silhouette of the pedestrian displayed at intersections: 17 seconds, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…

And it turns red.

You will often find a pedestrian starting to cross when he clearly will not have time to complete it.

You will find a truck driver or a car driver who will rush between two groups of pedestrians, because he legally has two seconds to turn.

This dangerous ballet is a direct consequence of a dangerous layout. If you put vehicles and pedestrians who have roughly the same amount of time and space to cross an intersection in competition, if you force them to pass and brush past each other, you are playing dice with pedestrian safety.

This arrangement increases the risk of fatal errors. An impatience, a distraction and it’s a collision. I have in mind an example of intelligent development that reduces the risk of collision at intersections: I am talking about lights for cyclists that are distinct from lights for cars that we find, for example, on the REV, rue Saint-Denis. These separate lights limit unfortunate interactions and give both parties, cyclists and vehicles, ample time to take turns entering an intersection.

Another example of intelligent planning: sidewalk projections, which create a funnel at intersections marked with “stop” signs, in residential areas, which limits stupid overtaking by motorists in a hurry at crossroads.

In short, the observation is clear: the City of Montreal should no longer tolerate this competition between vehicles and pedestrians at major intersections. Everyone should have their own time to enter and turn.

When it comes to road safety, we can increase awareness campaigns and ways of penalizing motorists, but three words are important to limit the number of accidents: planning, planning, planning.