Quebec’s first case of COVID-19 has been declared, and it’s here in Montreal in a woman who recently returned from Iran. The diagnosis won’t be confirmed till the national lab in Winnipeg reports on Sunday.
Update: Public health authorities here say they’re ready for anything, including quarantining entire neighbourhoods if it looks necessary. I suppose we have laws that allow police to enforce quarantine, but they won’t likely have been used since the Spanish flu in 1918.
A public health study shows that indigenous people living in Montreal are in poorer health and generally less prosperous than the average.
A pedestrian was critically injured Thursday evening after two cars collided at Villeray and St‑Michel and one car ricocheted onto the sidewalk.
Update: The young woman has died. That’s six pedestrians killed in traffic so far this year.
Update: I’m putting these deaths on a map, although the main thing we see from the stats so far is that 5 out of 6 of the deaths were people 55 or older, and 5 out of 6 were women. They’re distributed seemingly randomly around the island.
Critically injured after getting hit by one of these vehicles is the best possible outcome.
That’s not true, I’ve been both winged and doored bicycling (winged by a minivan, doored by an SUV) and here I am to tell the tale. I get it, nobody here is down with “these vehicles” but let’s not lose all credibility by falling down the bogeyman hole.
I’ll be happy to fall down the bogeyman hole.
You get hit by a Dodge Ram Charger or an SUV at speeds over 30 km you will be critically injured. That is empirical data and has been the subject of many studies.
“A high bonnet leading edge (BLE) in relation to the pedestrian stance as well as large bonnet and windshield angles increase the risk of a head impact on the ground…” ie those vehicles launch most adults to the point that their first point of impact is the skull.
“Due to the disadvantageous post‐car impact pedestrian kinematics caused by the SUV and the OneBox classes, those vehicles turn out to be particularly critical. The classes Compact, Sedan and Sports Car show more favourable kinematics with respect to the secondary impact.”
So yes I am calling out these classes of vehicles. They should not be allowed in densely populated urban areas , they are engineered to be lethal for pedestrians an increasingly large mobility class.
I don’t question your quotes, though links would be nice. Still, with those quotes you didn’t actually show this “empirical data” that “proves” anything. I have been hit by an SUV yet here I am, typing even now. Do you mean a direct hit? Do you mean a specific kind of impact? Because, and let me say it again, I was hit by an SUV and I am alive. To be precise, it was travelling at about 40 on Jarvis just south of Wellesley and I was hit in the shoulder by the side mirror. AM I to tke it that I am some kind of miracle baby? If so, I will play the lotteries more often.
@Ian: the reference to the Bonnet Leading Edge (BLE) in Jack’s quotes would seem to indicate a reference to a direct hit, by the bonnet (the front of the car). You got hit by a side view mirror, which, though I’m sure not pleasant, is hardly the same as being “hit by a car”. If you had been hit by the bonnet of the SUV, you likely would not be here to tell the tale.
Semantics, the last refuge of the incorrect.
Clarification ≠ semantics. But ok, whatever.
@Dhomas –
According to the articles, one of the vehicles was hit & skidded into the pedestrian so the likelihood of it being a direct hit instead of a glancing blow is up in the air as the reporters did not mention that (apparently) crucial detail.
Jack didn’t say that it was a “direct” hit, although he did give a BLE as an example of impact outcomes.
You are insisting that getting hit by a vehicle only counts as a hit if it’s a direct BLE impact because otherwise the argument that getting hit by a minivan or SUV invariably leads to death is simply not true.
I guess Kate will have to redo her pedestrian death count tally to accommodate this new standard of “truthiness” – were they “really” hit or just “sort of” hit? Maybe we can have two columns to compare empirical outcomes.
@Kate this may sort itself out but check the date stamps in those last few posts, they are all out of order.
Ian, can you simply try reloading the page? I don’t see any problem here.
It just kicked back into sequential on the last reload. I usually only see that sequence thing when I hit the site on mobile, that’s the only reason I mentioned it. Maybe it’s just a server cache issue.
The point of Jack’s comment was that SUVs lead to more deaths than compacts or sedans due to the high BLE height, unless SUVs have less accidents where they hit pedestrians head on. This might be the case as SUVs might have greater visibility of their surroundings and therefore better reaction times to avoid a pedestrian. I say this as a driver of a taller vehicle myself, but I have no data to back this up.
I quote, “You get hit by a Dodge Ram Charger or an SUV at speeds over 30 km you will be critically injured. That is empirical data and has been the subject of many studies.” That’s simply not true.
let’s not equivocate here, either there was either untrue exaggeration, or there wasn’t. I’m not trying to pick apart the data, obviously a higher hood leading edge will cause more fatalities. I don’t want to get hit by a van or a pickup either for that matter.
You can’t just say “Critically injured after getting hit by one of these vehicles is the best possible outcome.” It’s simply not true, but more importantly, it weakens reasonable arguments (of which there are many) to force governments to regulate sales of SUVs & CUVs. If we can’t argue our positions without obviously making things up, we can hardly be expected to be taken seriously.
Hi Ian thanks for responding. First read this… https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0386111214000235
Then this…
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-killing-americas-pedestrians/646139002/
Then this…
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/14/611116451/fatal-pedestrian-crashes-increasingly-involve-suvs-study-finds
Then this…
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/05/09/study-links-rise-of-suvs-to-the-pedestrian-safety-crisis/
I will stop there.
Please read them and then think about you telling me that what I wrote was “simply not true” or “untrue exaggeration” or “obviously making things up”.
I am not a liar and I dont make things up. Frankly your comments usually seem pretty reasoned so I am surprised by your vitriol and personal attack.
“You get hit by a Dodge Ram Charger or an SUV at speeds over 30 km you will be critically injured. That is empirical data and has been the subject of many studies.”…is true.
Ian’s not calling anyone a liar, and I’m sure he’s not saying this because he’s trying to promote cars.
What I am very specifically saying is that none of those articles (and yes, I read them all ) says that an impact that is not head on will kill you. You specifically said that in all cases being hit by an SUV is fatal.
I myself have been hit by an SUV, for you to say that this does not count as a hit because it was not head on is semantics. An impact is an impact. You are exaggerating and it weakens your overall argument.
“Semantics, the last refuge of the incorrect.”
Hey, I’m not the one insisting that getting hit by an SUV always results in death then had to change the definition of “getting hit” and even with carte blanch to cherrypick any sources I wanted posted 4 articles that don’t support that claim.
Ian If our problem is the definition of critical injury here is the definition, from Ontario’s Ministry of Labor.
Section 1 of Ontario Regulation 834 under the OHSA defines “Critical Injury” as an injury of a serious nature that,
(a) places life in jeopardy,
(b) produces unconsciousness,
(c) results in substantial loss of blood,
(d) involves the fracture of a leg or arm but not a finger or toe,
(e) involves the amputation of a leg, arm, hand or foot but not a finger or toe,
(f) consists of burns to a major portion of the body, or
(g) causes the loss of sight in an eye.
Ian I’ll leave at that I was frankly surprised not by your argument but mostly your tone. If we disagree on something I honestly will never attack you personally.
I stand by what I said, it is entirely possible to get hit by an SUV (or CUV or even a truck) and not get a critical injury. I’ve been giving my own experience as an example but I know many cyclists (pretty much everyone I know FWIW) and for the most part you simply don’t go your adult life riding a bike without at least one car accident. I only know one person who died, lots of people who did get serious injuries, but many like myself who got off with minor injuries at worst. Wearing a bike helmet has saved me from serious injury on several occasions, but that’s another debate.
All of the articles you linked to only said that being hit by an SUV increased the likelihood of injury and or death. You maintain “You get hit by a Dodge Ram Charger or an SUV at speeds over 30 km you will be critically injured. That is empirical data and has been the subject of many studies.” – and can’t produce even one.
This is not meant as a personal attack. I am responding to your statements and reasoning, there’s nothing personal about it at all. If you want to state things as facts that can’t be substantiated, you should expect to have your line of reasoning questioned. That’s not a personal attack, that’s just common sense.
The ARTM says the proposed pink line would cost between $17 and $24 billion – rather more than Valérie Plante suggested during her campaign. The mayor still insists it’s necessary.
I don’t think any of us seriously thinks it would come in at less than 32 but the longer we wait the more it will cost. Something needs to be done, the orange line is so packed at Laurier in the mornings you are way better off taking a bus to a completely different stop.
Already 5 years ago, when I lived in Rosemont, I would prefer staying on the 427 to downtown, rather than get off at Mont-Royal to take the orange line. I can only imagine it’s gotten worse since then. The orange line needs to be “désengorgé”.
It’s actually faster for me from Parc & Fairmount to Lionel-Groulx to take the 51 to the blue line and transfer than to try to take the orange line. When I worked at Square-Victoria 5 years ago it was considerably faster for me to take the 80 & walk over from Chinatown than to take the 51 to Laurier and get on the orange line.
It’s only gotten worse, too.
Ian, you take the 51 to one of the UdeM stations? But then don’t you still have to transfer to the orange line at Snowdon?
Yep, it’s still faster. I know it sounds counterintuitive but google maps suggested it one morning, I figured “why not” et voila. Turns out Snowdon to LG is that much faster than Laurier to LG, at least at 6am anyhow.
I believe you. I just don’t like Snowdon station, and given a choice won’t travel via a change at that station unless it can’t be helped.
It’s kind of catacomb-y and disorienting especially when packed full of people, but first thing in the morning it’s pretty empty and not too bad, especially if you are used to it and know exactly where to go. I completely understand though, I used to avoid the blue line connections too.
Communauto is adding more vehicles and users will be allowed to leave Communauto cars at downtown parking meters, as Car2Go prepares to exit the city.
Oh I had missed that about Car2Go pulling out of North America. That’s too bad.
I liked Car2Go and used them a lot but as a sharing fleet they’re not obligated to put on winter tires so using them this time of year is awful unless the streets are absolutely clear. There were also a lot of issues around vehicle distribution – some days there would be a dozen or more parked on my street ten for a couple of weeks they would all be parked 8 blocks away.
That’s one thing Communauto needs to get a handle on to become truly ubiquitous, though – I used to get a Car2Go to go to where my Communauto was, and I know a lot of people were doing the same.
Ephraim 10:04 on 2020-02-28 Permalink
Which of course means that their flight connected at least once, but more likely twice since we don’t have flights to Tehran. The only 1 connection flights are IST and DOH. So, a lot more people exposed.
Dhomas 16:27 on 2020-02-28 Permalink
There is also a third single-connection option through Amsterdam, Schiphol. It’s operated by Iran Air, which doesn’t play nice with Google Flights (and likely other online booking sites). Montreal to Amsterdam on KLM, then Amsterdam to Tehran on Iran Air. Source: I’ve taken this exact route before.