Latest news with #intersection
The Guardian
a day ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
I'm glad we have rules. I just don't expect people to follow them
Rules are great. I think most of us over the age of five will agree that having them is preferable to not. Perhaps there are a few stragglers out there reading this who would love to cosplay a lesser sequel of The Purge, swinging baseball bats at strangers and urinating in the street, but I would imagine you are in the minority on that. Rules are the backbone of what we have left of society. I'm not happy about where we are, but I don't make the rules. At least not yet. I just need to host a popular reality show – then my political career can really take off. A recent interaction has me reflecting on this. I was wandering over to my local coffee shop one morning, off a wide boulevard where motorists scream through intersections like the car from Ghostbusters late for a particularly aggressive haunting. A crosswalk, with accompanying yellow yield light, was recently installed to combat the minor issue of pedestrians being flattened by drivers on their way to the hair salon or texting about being late to the hair salon. The light has been mostly successful in preventing the human waffle-ironing, but it requires walkers to actually press the button to activate it. This is a step that people often dismiss, hoping and praying that the drivers out there are lucid enough to acknowledge the existence of others. Without the yellow light, we're all operating on the honor system for not killing each other. That morning, someone confidently strolled into the intersection, and was mortified that the car screaming down the road didn't immediately stop for him. The pedestrian hollered and moaned as the vehicle screeched to a halt. Once he was done cursing and spitting on the street, the man crossed and the befuddled driver carried on. Besides my relief at not witnessing a homicide, I was left wondering why the man was so upset. Was he expecting the driver to follow the rules? How naive. Let's pray this guy never ends up involved in global foreign policy. I couldn't help but think of this beautifully trusting pedestrian during the last week of nail-biting brinkmanship between the United States and Iran. A few bombs here, a couple of missiles there. Some erratic social media posts later, and we have something akin to a ceasefire for the time being. Donald Trump claimed the Iranian nuclear capability had been 'obliterated', though experts say the country's program was only set back by a few months. It all comes back to the rules we make. We had an Obama-era deal to cap Iran's atomic ambitions – but Trump pulled the US out of it back in 2018, drastically curtailing the west's ability to hold the ayatollah to his promises. It's like if Los Angeles decided to take the crosswalk out of my neighborhood and instead ask people nicely not to run each other over with giant piles of metal going over 40mph – and if someone got hit, to blow up the area with a bunker buster. We need rules, even if we assume people will break them early and often. Because the vast majority of us won't. Most of us are too timid, too square or, in my case, too lazy. The alternative to rules is anarchy: a fistfight in the supermarket or a bachelor party in Atlantic City. Still, it's time to expect that the arc of the universe will not bend in our direction, that our fellows might not be considering whether or not to slow down through the intersection of life. I don't want to wade too deeply into the finer points of foreign policy, because, as I mentioned above, I have never hosted a reality television program. But I am highly qualified to complain about things, which I will continue doing in this space for the foreseeable future. Assume the worst, as I do, and your life will be much simpler. Expect those around you to fail and flout the rules that govern our world. Does this sound cynical? Of course it does. Does that mean it's wrong? Absolutely not. Look around. Not just at the inside of your living room, the bathroom stall or wherever it is you're reading this. I mean, look around metaphorically. Our institutions are wobbly, our trust in order is at an all-time low, and Vanderpump Rules might never come back for new episodes. Where is the justice? The Democratic primary victory of the New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has been the talk of the entire US, acting as a lighthouse of hope in the choppy pea-soup shit fog of 2025. But in order for Mamdani to win that primary, people had to show up. They had to vote for him and not assume someone else would. Better to assume everyone around you had a nasty fall on the head and can't stop saying 'Cuomo' over and over again. Expect the worst, then enjoy the surprise of being wrong. If I did host a reality show, and therefore became eligible for the presidency, this would be the primary tenet of my foreign policy. 'If we bomb Iran, people will be upset. And upset people do nasty things' – sure, that won't fit on a campaign button, but I'm sure I could hire someone to workshop it into something catchier. I'm obviously thrilled we all haven't been vaporized, but decisions made today do have this pesky way of leading to calamities of the future. You only need to think back to the 1953 CIA coup that led to the overthrow of the Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Cleverer people than me (with a higher word-count maximum) could explain the connection between that regime change and Iran's persistent conflict with the United States. What will be the long-term effects of the US-Israeli bombing campaign? Unfortunately, I'm stuck in the present and can't give you a definitive answer. That is one of the many drawbacks of corporeal existence, another of which is getting hit by a car. Whatever happens next, don't expect it to be fun. But if it is, and we're all drinking champagne in Tehran in a decade, you can come back here and tell me I'm stupid. What a lovely surprise that would be. Dave Schilling is a Los Angeles-based writer and humorist
CBC
2 days ago
- CBC
Winnipeg's Portage and Main reopens to pedestrians after 46 years of barricades: How did we get here?
Winnipeg's Portage and Main intersection is embedded in the story of Canada — the crossroads of the country and one of its windiest corners — and it's held that lore despite being inaccessible to pedestrians for 46 years. But all that changes today. The barricades that forced pedestrians below ground and into a labyrinth of tunnels to get to the other side of the street have been torn down. The shrouds over the walk signals are set to be removed after morning rush hour with the first "official" crossing at 10:30 a.m., said a city spokesperson. People have unofficially used it since crossing lines were painted last weekend. So how did we finally get to this point, after years of public opposition to reopening? Well, kind of like how the intersection started in the first place — against the odds. For decades, everything in the area that's now central Winnipeg was focused around Hudson's Bay Company's Upper Fort Garry near the forks of the Red and Assiniboine rivers. "That was the centre of government. It was the centre of commerce. It was the centre of the centre of settlement," said Gordon Goldsborough, head researcher of the Manitoba Historical Society. Travellers from the west carved deep ruts into the prairie as they followed the Assiniboine to the fort. Near there, the trail crossed the main north-south Main Road that ran between the fort and the HBC's Lower Fort Garry 30 kilometres north on the Red. That was the main intersection closest to the fort, considered the birthplace of Winnipeg. But a decision by Henry McKenney changed everything. 1859 McKenney opened the city's first hotel in an old building between Upper Fort Garry and Fort Douglas, which was in present-day Point Douglas. The Royal Hotel was between today's McDermot and Bannatyne avenues. It was so popular, a new branch of the east-west Portage trail emerged, heading to the Royal Hotel, crossing Main about a kilometre north of Upper Fort Garry. Recognizing the growing importance of that junction, McKenney sold the hotel and bought land at the northwest corner of the Main and Portage trails, where he opened a general store in 1862. He faced ridicule for the decision, as the site was considered undesirable — low lying, muddy and marshy, far from the populations around the forts and a half-kilometre from the river. With the hotel closed, there were no other businesses along the Main Road between Upper Fort Garry and Point Douglas. "At first it seemed just nuts, but in time, of course, it proved really fortunate," Goldsborough said. "Within a few years, everybody realized the wisdom of that [move]." The store became a massive success and others soon followed. By 1869, a total of 33 buildings clustered around the corner. 1979 When the intersection was closed to pedestrian traffic in 1979, Winnipeg's core was in the midst of several decades of decline in economic growth, stagnant development and a fading retail environment. Suburban growth was drawing homeowners and shopping development from downtown. There was a sense that something major had to happen, and in the mid-1970s, the Trizec Corporation made a pitch the city couldn't refuse, said Jino Distasio, professor of urban geography at the University of Winnipeg. Trizec promised to build two office towers and a hotel on the southwest corner of Portage and Main, along with an underground retail space that would double as a heated, sheltered crossing for pedestrians, saving them from Winnipeg's winter winds. It appealed not only on the development front but also the planning one. The city, since the 1960s, had been studying its traffic movements and concluded that pedestrians and vehicles should no longer mix at that corner, according to the Winnipeg Architecture Foundation. The deal was struck with Trizec in 1976 and construction started the following year. The agreement included barricading the corner for 40 years once the project was complete in 1979, redirecting pedestrians into the Trizec-owned subterranean mall. The barricades never completely stopped people from stepping foot in the intersection. It's been a gathering place for events both celebratory and solemn — including sports signings and championships, round dances for missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, and rallies to support a landfill search for the bodies of murdered Indigenous women. 2014 Then-mayor Glen Murray held a design competition in 2004 in an effort to build support to reopen Portage and Main, but property owners around the intersection were not interested. His successor, Sam Katz, balked at the idea, which then fell off the public radar until 2014, when Katz chose not to seek re-election. That's when mayoral hopeful Brian Bowman pledged to reopen the corner by 2019, if elected. He was. A year later, Bowman had a city committee direct administration to examine the feasibility of removing the wall s. But a Probe Research poll suggested there was little support — 53 per cent of respondents opposed the idea. Voices from both the for and against camps grew louder over the next two years, as the matter moved through the complexities involved — consulting property owners and studying traffic impacts and infrastructure needs. The issue came to a head as the next civic election approached, prompting the addition of a plebiscite to the 2018 ballot. A Vote Open campaign pushed the "Yes" vote, but another Probe poll showed 67 per cent of Winnipeggers opposed it, citing gridlock and longer commutes as the biggest roadblock, so to speak. Unsurprisingly, 65 per cent of the votes in the plebiscite said "No," and a re-elected Bowman said he would honour the result. It all makes Distasio shake his head. "It's confounding. What's the big deal if this one extra intersection opened or closed in relation to the entirety of the complex transportation system and network?" he said. Portage and Main isn't even the city's busiest traffic crossing. "It's no different than any other intersection you would find in any other city globally, where people cross the street." In spite of public opinion, Portage and Main had other plans, once again. Decades of wear and tear led to the physical deterioration of barricades, sidewalks, staircases, entrances and other physical features both above and below the surface. Access to the underground had also been criticized as too difficult for those with mobility issues and generally unsafe with its dark corners. Even in 2018, when the plebiscite happened, it was publicly known that millions of dollars worth of repairs to the intersection were required. But more surprises were to come. 2024 In February 2024 — 45 years after the intersection was closed — council learned the bill to fix the issues plaguing the corner would be $73 million and create four to five years of traffic delays. The membrane protecting the underground pedestrian concourse needed replacement, which also meant millions of dollars in related repairs. A new membrane would have a service life of approximately 40 years, meaning the work would need to be repeated in the future. "It's time to make the common-sense decision," Mayor Scott Gillingham said at the time, leading a motion to reopen the intersection at much less expense, in the $20-million to $50-million range. Gillingham had not supported reopening in 2018. In March 2024, without going to the public this time, council voted 11-3 to do it. "I really think the barriers and the bunkers are just a leftover of a machine-car-driven era that wanted to see us be able to speed through downtown en route to burgeoning suburbs. I think we've come a long way to realize … this isn't going to be much of anything other than just simply the right thing to do at the right time," Distasio said. "I really think it's going to be the most interesting non-event event in Winnipeg's downtown history." The cost to redo the intersection for pedestrians — remove barricades, redesign crossings and curbing and install lights — was just under $17 million, a November report said. The cost to decommission the circus — the rounded concourse that connects the four corners of the intersection — remains to be determined.
Motor Trend
2 days ago
- Automotive
- Motor Trend
Brake Lights on the Front of Your Car? They're Being Studied—and Could Prevent More Crashes
The scenario reads like this: you're in your car, stopped at an intersection—but cross traffic isn't required to stop. You want to pull out, either to go straight through the intersection or to turn, and look over and see a car approaching from one side. Is that driver slowing down? Their blinker is on, but what is their intention? Do they see you stopped there? You can only see the front of the approaching vehicle, so all of that is pretty much a mystery—because the brake lights that'd tell you more, well, are on the other side of the car. You seem to have time to pull out and complete your maneuver—do you take the risk of a potential crash, assuming that approaching vehicle is slowing down (giving you more time to act)? This is a nearly everyday occurrence for most American drivers, and many of them do end up taking that risk and becoming another crash statistic. A study suggests that there might be an easy and immediate solution to this guessing game of vehicular roulette: brake lights visible from the front and sides of new vehicles. It's not a totally crazy or infeasible idea, as the story from ZME Science points out. It can be difficult to discern whether another vehicle's nose is dipping because it's slowing, especially from a distance; many modern vehicles boast body control that snuffs out that behavior almost entirely compared to, say, large land yachts from the 1970s. In other words, the most obvious way to determine what another vehicle is doing—if you can only see it from the front—is to rely on some sort of indicator at the front and sides of vehicles that could signal to other motorists and pedestrians whether or not it's slowing down. Again, such information is critical to cross traffic and especially to pedestrians. While you might be thinking this thinking would lead to a bright red light fitted to the front and sides of a vehicle—which is illegal in the FMVSS and further still by many state laws on forward and side lighting—the study by Graz University of Austria, Comenius University of Slovakia, and the Bonn Institute for Legal and Traffic Psychology of Germany suggests that these forward brake lights be green in color. A logical idea considering that a front green light would automatically be associated with the sign that you're good to go, just like a standard traffic light. The study suggests that front-facing brake indicator lights—not even including side brake lights—could reduce intersection collisions by 17 percent and could possibly lessen injury related to those types of crashes by 25 percent. The way this study simulated potential real-world results was by recreating real crashes. In each scenario, three different reaction times were tested between 0.5 second to 1.5 seconds. The faster two of the three reaction times showed between nearly 8 percent to 17 percent of those simulated accidents could have been avoided all together. For nearly 26 percent of those same accidents, the injury severity dropped as the average crash speeds were reduced to around 18 mph from an original high of nearly 28 mph. 10 mph might not seem like much, but that equals to just over a 44 percent difference in kinetic energy for the 4,400-pound weight of your average American vehicle. We're skeptical of the conclusion drawn in ZME Science by the author suggesting it'd be easy to implement a new light on a modern CAN Bus or Zonal communications vehicle and holding optimism in the speed of NHTSA to implement such a change. More likely, any changes would apply only to newer vehicles going forward, not necessarily retroactively added to existing cars on American roads—older vehicles might simply not support an extra lamp setup, for a variety of technical reasons. Then there is the challenge of getting a green front light legal for use via NHTSA regulations, let alone local laws on lighting. NHTSA and the FMVSS section 108 only allow for white or clear lenses or lighting for forward illumination and white or amber color or lighting for side and signal lighting. Auxiliary lighting like daytime running, driving lights, or fog lights can be white or amber in color, too. Any other color is not legal on the front or sides of a vehicle. While Mercedes-Benz has an 'OK' to run turquoise lights—indicating a vehicle in true full-self driving mode on SAE Level 3 prototype vehicles—in a couple of states, this is technically not legal for the rest of the U.S. and is an exception. For something like this to be implemented nationwide, presumably as a required safety fitment, it would need literal Congressional approval and that's only recently come to allow updates to the rules on truly adaptive lighting like that offered for years overseas as part of HR 3684—aka the 2022 Infrastructure Bill—during the Biden Administration. All of which is to say, the FMVSS will have the final say. Given how today, that same regulatory framework makes it illegal to install LED replacement bulbs in headlight housings originally designed for HID, halogen, or incandescent bulbs, and is only just now being updated to accommodate high tech adaptive lighting technology that's been available elsewhere in the world for years, don't hold your breath that your next car might sprout a set of fancy new signaling lamps.
CTV News
3 days ago
- CTV News
Residents oppose safety plan at deadly intersection
Winnipeg Watch CTV's Jeff Keele reports on why Carberry residents are against a proposed plan to improve safety at a deadly intersection.
CBC
3 days ago
- Business
- CBC
Carberry residents decry proposed RCUT as 'dangerous and unsafe' at tense forum over future of intersection
Social Sharing Transportation engineers presented their plan for a Carberry-area intersection on Wednesday, pushing forward a controversial design that scores of community members rallied against last month. More than 100 community members confronted officials at a tense public forum at Carberry Collegiate about the fate of the Highway 1 and Highway 5 intersection, where 17 people died in a crash two years ago. The event was billed as a public open house, hosted by the Winnipeg-based firms Landmark Planning & Design and WSP Canada Inc., on behalf of Manitoba Transportation and Infrastructure. Some community members raised voices, saying they didn't feel like they were being heard, while others interrupted the companies' representatives as they attempted to answer questions from the crowd. A petition with more than 2,100 signatures was handed to the firms' representatives, imploring the province not to move forward with the RCUT intersection design. In May, more than 100 protesters rallied near the intersection voicing concerns the proposed design would create safety issues and confusion. A restricted crossing U-turn — or RCUT — at that intersection would mean traffic attempting to cross the Trans-Canada on Highway 5 would have to turn right onto the Trans-Canada, then cross the median by making a left U-turn, before turning right to resume travelling on Highway 5. Here's the RCUT design proposed for Manitoba intersection 2 days ago Duration 0:11 Jordan Dickson, who helped organize the May protest, expressed her frustration directly with engineers on Wednesday night, encouraging others to do the same. "Absolutely no one in attendance is in support of the RCUT," she said. "It is dangerous and unsafe for this area of the Trans-Canada. Hopefully the province doesn't actually go through with this and they decide to actually spend some money on rural citizens for once," Dickson said, stressing the RCUT will make driving more stressful for farmers driving large trucks and farm equipment along the highway. Last year, engineers with Manitoba's transportation and infrastructure department shortlisted three potential solutions for the intersection: widening the median, a roundabout or an RCUT. On Wednesday, the RCUT was presented as the department's "preferred alternative." Dustin Booy, the transportation department's executive director of highway engineering services, said the RCUT is their top choice because it reduces the number of "conflict points," or areas where drivers cross traffic travelling a different direction, which could make accidents less likely. "The primary objective of our team is safety. So we looked to the RCUT because its use in other areas have shown quite dramatic results in terms of safety performance," Booy said. Canada's only RCUT intersection is along Highway 16 near Saskatoon. Booy said they have improved safety in some parts of the United States. Wednesday's contentious open house was the third and final public engagement event for this project. Booy said the department will only be presenting provincial leaders with the RCUT as its preferred design for this intersection, but it won't be set in stone until the government weighs in. An exact cost estimate isn't available yet, but Booy says it could cost about $20 million. "At this point, it's up to the government to make a decision about how we proceed," he said, adding that the province typically chooses the department's preferred option, but that isn't always the case. "The local community has expressed a measure of concern with the intersection treatment and that's fair. It's their local community," Booy said. Carberry Mayor Ray Muirhead said he was disappointed to see that Transportation Minister Lisa Naylor wasn't at the meeting, after cancelling a stakeholder meeting earlier this week. Muirhead's council is calling on the province to build an overpass, something community members have been asking for since he first joined local government in the late 1980s. "Nobody wants the RCUT. We're all opposed to it. We feel that there should be an overpass," he said. "I think it's time to spend the money and do it right the first time." The government has previously said it's not considering an overpass because there isn't enough traffic to warrant one. Community organizer Dickson said transportation engineers should come back in the fall to see how busy the highway gets during harvest season. Booy said his team plans to return in the fall to collect more data. Despite tensions between engineers and Carberry residents, Debra Steen said this was the first time she felt the community was heard throughout the engagement process. "Our concerns have been dismissed since Day 1. And I don't think they could dismiss us today. I think the message was clear, the petition is there, and we have our MLA on board," Steen said. Opposition Progressive Conservative MLA Jodie Byram, who Agassiz riding includes Carberry, said she agrees that the province needs to consider other options for the intersection. "I do believe that there needs to be further consultation and review of what it might look like here for this community at [Highway] 1 and [Highway] 5," Byram said. Mayor Muirhead said he feels like the RCUT may be inevitable, but he's hopeful Wednesday's community turnout will cut the RCUT from consideration. "I've seen in my experience over the years, that if there's enough of a public outcry … certain situations have changed course. The government seems to find money in certain situations. I'm hoping that will happen here," he said. Engineer Booy said he hopes community members will keep open minds about the intersection. "I truly believe in the safety of this solution," he said, hopeful his team can move forward with the RCUT.
