As a result of rising water on the pathway due to an ice jam on the Bow River, The City has closed the pathway along the north side of the Bow River at the Zoo east to Nose Creek.
The City was made aware of this flooding mid-afternoon yesterday and immediately put up signage indicating that the pathway had been closed as well as locking the gates which block pathway access on both sides of the impacted area.
Hours later, The City and The Calgary Fire Department was notified that cyclists had entered the closed area and encountered the high water levels which had caused the closure of the pathway and were forced to abandon their bikes and seek aid for cold water exposure. The Calgary Fire Department subsequently issued a news release on the incident.
The City asks all Calgarians to obey all pathway signage. These closures are posted on calgary.ca as they occur. From time to time, The City needs to close pathways for various reasons, including when there are public safety hazards, pathway repairs or lifecycle replacement construction.
The City’s pathway operations staff are currently working on a pathway detour as the usual detour for this section can’t be used as a result of construction and a road closure in the immediate area.As soon as The City has the new detour identified, pathway staff will post signage illustrating the detour.
While The City understands that Calgarians may be frustrated about having to backtrack as a result of pathway detours, pathways are closed to ensure that everyone remains safe with last night’s incident serving as a reminder of the importance of obeying pathway signage.
Posts
Your blog article fails to mention whether proper signage was erected to notify pathway users of the danger ahead. That should have been a much higher priority than simply closing the pathway. By closing the path at such a great distance beyond an opportunity for detour, it is really not surprising that this incident happened, nor can the city really fault pathway users for not wanting to backtrack so far. The tone of this blog is simply to pass the blame onto someone else (who admittedly shares it). But please acknowledge that proper signage at the proper place would have likely avoided this incident entirely.
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous 1:23 pm:
ReplyDeleteI spoke with our team from Parks about this, here's what they told me.
A pathway closure means no one should risk venturing past a barricade at any time. Safety risks in closed areas are not monitored 24 hours a day and are always subject to change, for example rising river levels (such as last night), slope instability or construction equipment on the pathways. As well, ranking closures would only encourage more people to ignore them. Pathway users’ should respect all pathway closures as a potential risk and not enter the closed area.
To Anonymous 1:23 pm:
ReplyDeleteGive me a break - are you really saying that this fine individual who decided that the path closure shouldn't apply to him and that he was in too much of a rush to back track shouldn't take ALL the responsibility? To your mind, should the city have left the pathway open until suitable signage could be created? Seriously...
To anonymous 3:42 pm
ReplyDeleteRead my comments again. They clearly stated that this individual was to blame also. They may also face a fine for breaking the bylaw by travelling on a closed pathway, which I would fully support as well.
My point, though, was that the blog article makes it sound like the city did everything right and the cyclist was totally at fault here. No, the city could have done better and notified about the danger and provided an alternate route. The cyclist broke the rules, but this sort of behaviour is not difficult to anticipate, especially given the circumstances, and the city should be a little smarter about such things, especially since this could have led to a fatality.
Anonymous 1:23 & 4:00 pm:
ReplyDeleteYou can probably claim that I'm drinking the city kool-aid too much, but I have to side with the city here - when does "pathway closed" mean "but not to you".
Sure, I agree that the city probably could/should have put a sign further up on the path, and they'd better, but how can you fault the city for closing the path and then some idiot jumps the gate anyway? These individuals need to take some responsibility for their actions and YOU need to stop looking to heap blame at the feet of the city for a very preventable incident. It's not as though the city DIDN'T close the pathway - which would be a totally different story.
To both anonymouses (anonymi?):
ReplyDeleteWe appreciate your comments on this story.
As was mentioned above, signage indicating the pathway was closed was in place (and appears to have been disregarded) and our Parks staff will be installing signage indicating the detour as soon as possible.
You are both still missing the point. The city closes paths for a number of reasons (sometimes trivial ones), and they should not be surprised if some people break the rules and use a closed path (I don't agree with this cyclist's behaviour and I am not defending this cyclist's choice).
ReplyDeleteThe point: the city has a responsibility to inform people if there are dangerous conditions on the pathway ahead, even if a path is closed, because closures alone will not deter all users and someone may encounter that danger. People bypassing the pathway barrier was a completely predictable event, so the city could have informed people of dangerous conditions.
The city frequently has closed gates, fences, etc... that often times serve no purpose. Prime example is Nosehill Park several years ago with their fences that led people into deadends, Nosecreek pathway areas, city streets, etc etc... This is a year-round occurance. Anyone who has lived in Calgary and gets around (driver, cyclist, runner, walker, blader, etc etc) in any season has experienced this.
ReplyDeleteAs a result many users ignore them and carry on which is fine 95% of the time. Thus a culture of complacency and normalizing the deviation is created. The other 5% of the time there is a problem like this. It's really no different than people jaywalking, or drivers doing a "rolling stop", or driving 35km/hr in a school zone, etc etc... SO, for this specific incident certainly the ultimate responsibility does lay with the person getting into trouble, but the city MUST do a better job signing and establishing a safe backup plan for those affected.
It should also be noted that this section of the multi-use pathway has been under fire for many years for unsafe design - narrow, twisty, under bridges, poorly lit, near-miss incidents, head-on incidents, and now flooded. Motorists would never put up with this, so why should pathway users?