News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

JWBF said:
"Don't understand English." is actually "Io non capisco l'inglese"
Click to expand...

Sorry, I only read English. My parents could have understand your translation better.

99% of Canada is literate, in French or English. Its the 1% I'm worried about. And also about immigrants and tourists who may come and are illiterate. How would they be able to understand the "Transit Vehicles Only" signs? See this link.
 
W. K. Lis said:
In other words, 15% wouldn't know that the subway will be closed for more than a week in October, no matter how many times the city and the TTC publishes it.
Click to expand...

Woah lets not exaggerate here. Of course many would know that the subway would be closed. ]

The study said that 15% of Canadians have a level 3 (Grade 12) level of literacy. What does that mean? It means that many of the people in the 15% group would "only" be able to write a 2000 word essay and do a few book reports. Doesn't mean they can't read a simple sign.
 
actually it said that 37% had at maximum a level 3 literacy rate, with 15% of that (or 6% of the general population) failing basic reading tasks.
 
innsertnamehere said:
actually it said that 37% had at maximum a level 3 literacy rate, with 15% of that (or 6% of the general population) failing basic reading tasks.
Click to expand...
Only 6% of the general population failing basic reading tasks seems low. Looking at my family in the GTA, only 6 out of 9 can read and write. Two are too young, and one is too old. That's 33% in my family, compared to 6% in the general population. Which makes me suspect that the 6% figure is not for the general population.
 
nfitz said:
Only 6% of the general population failing basic reading tasks seems low. Looking at my family in the GTA, only 6 out of 9 can read and write. Two are too young, and one is too old. That's 33% in my family, compared to 6% in the general population. Which makes me suspect that the 6% figure is not for the general population.
Click to expand...

I think your family is case is unusual. Especially if you're not first gen immigrants. 15/16 people in my family (in Canada) are able to read and write. The 1/16 of my family that can't read/write is a new born baby girl. And we're a second generation immigrant family, so we're more likely than most so suffer illiteracy issues.

Two are too young, and one is too old.
Click to expand...

Did the one that is too old just never learn to read and write, or is he/she just too old to read because of poor vision. If the latter is true, I'm fairly certain that he/she qualifies as literate.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
actually it said that 37% had at maximum a level 3 literacy rate, with 15% of that (or 6% of the general population) failing basic reading tasks.
Click to expand...

Ahh okay. Don't know where I got that idea from. Probably misread somewhere.

I'm curious to know what exactly they define as a "basic reading task". Does reading a sign count as a basic reading task, or is that too simple?
 
Nope, that's not too simple. I've worked in adult literacy for 25 years. The functional literacy rates would surprise a lot of people, but I just posted the numbers for those who would struggle with basic reading tasks, which includes simple signs, filling in a basic information form, etc. So even though a sign may only have three words on it, it may not be understood by a significant number of people. And we're not talking about language issues or immigrants here -- those folks aren't generally included in literacy stats.
 
Couldn't we just hang electronic signs above the lane....when cars were banned they would show a red car in a red circle with a red x over the car.....when cars were allowed, it would show a green car?

I would imagine that anyone who was able to get a driver's license (the first step of which is a written test) should/would be able to held to the standard of recognizing/obeying that.

The other advantage of using electronic signs rather than fixed signs is that we could use those to not only control the daily restrictions but if there was a need for a special closure at any time they could be used for that (whereas fixed, written , signs are only useful for "regular" restrictions.)
 
Isn't it time that we realized that this is a major corridor both in terms of passengers carried and in terms of importance to the network, and that this corridor is enough passengers to meet the TTC's standard of 10 000+ peak passengers per hour. Thus it is time to place this corridor underground either by building a subway or an underground LRT. If we can do it for Eglinton than surely we can do it for Queen/King as I'm willing to bet that Queen/King will carry far and away more passengers than Eglinton.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top