[ShonTron]

Well, do you think they should advise pedestrians to walk around with blindfolds on? I don't see that as "both sides"

Over the past two years, we’ve seen drivers hit pedestrians walking on sidewalks, waiting in bus shelters, crossing the street with the walk signal, drivers crashing into buildings, crashing into emergency vehicles with their lights flashing, crashing into each other, and crashing into lamp poles.

Eight people were sent to hospital. Seven of them due to no fault of their own.

There is no “both sides” unless you see the world through a windshield your whole life. But that is how Toronto’s cops see the world, commuting by car or truck from the 905, or even the 519 or 705 every day, and then driving around for almost their entire shifts.

 

[ShonTron]

PS - While we may disagree with the suggestian that pedestrians could and should be alert and ready to dodge flying vehicles, you can be sure that if this issue goes to court, the defendants’ lawyers will advance that very argument. Don’t single out the cop as the villain here….the lawyers will run with stuff this in a heartbeat.

And that’s the problem. The police shouldn’t be making statements like this that taint public perceptions and any potential jurors in criminal (dangerous driving or criminal negligence) or civil cases.

 

[crs1026]

No one is suggesting that pedestrians walk around with blindfolds - but there's an expectation that you should have an expectation of safety while using public infrastructure appropriately. That's what's so tone-deaf about both this statement and that of the police spokesperson: the idea that you should be on the lookout for the completely unexpected while following the rules. You may as well tell me to be on the watch for stray bullets from the police while I'm in my home typing.

This is very well stated. The expectation that pedestrian use of a sidewalk is somehow optional or subjugated to other uses has no place in civic policy. There will be times when pedestrians have to manage their safety (sometimes heavy work equipment or construction has to intrude on sidewalks, for instance, and people ought to pay attention around such hazards) - but no one should be on the defensive by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Nor should the delivery of safe sidewalks be a “when convenient” mission for the city…. it has to be treated as a priority.

I can understand why this kind of official indifference is a trigger to many.

TPS has stopped aggressively enforcing traffic infractions. Council offers thoughts and prayers (and entreaties for driver education and awareness). We're getting the results.

I am convinced that this goes beyond the police (not saying it excuses them, but it’s a bigger issue). Our society has become resistant to rigid (and slightly picky) correction of individuals - about everything. I don’t fault the police for easing off traffic enforcement when absolutely nobody thanks them for doing it. Beyond just saving some money in the police budget, politicians will also duck this kind of controversy.
And, a fair enforcement system ought to focus on all shared users… so yes with greater enforcement there would at times be interventions against pedestrians also. I’m sure if enforcement is ramped up, the public outcry would be enormous. With every marginalised group complaining that they were targeted.
Maybe the police have been just practicing wise self preservation by not poking the bear.
There is also the reality that our society reserves criminal or quasi-criminal prosecution for very select offenses. To many, a traffic offense, even one that injures innocent people, is not something we would apply the framework of judicial penalties to correct. In fact, insurance rates are the most significant consequence for bad driving. Hoping that a particularly serious incident leads to harsh charges may not be all that realistic.
Again, I’m not trying to excuse anyone, but the police may actually be sensing and aligning to a silent majority. It’s a bigger challenge than just reforming the police…. the public may not be ready.
What ever happened to Tory’s Traffic Warden proposal, anyways?

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

On the subject of safe road design..........

In course of my walk yesterday...........I noted that a still missing sidewalk (I first observed this issue as a teen, but I'm increasingly aghast at it being ignored).........

On Lonsdale/Oriole Parkway.

This is my pic, taken Dec 26th, 2021:

Using Streetview we can see this continues well to the north:

An extremely narrow (would not meet the City's current design standard) sidewalk appears a bit further north, with the extremely odd beginning/end point of the playing fields at Upper Canada College.
Odd, in that it begins/ends at private property (albeit the public is generally allowed to wander most of the UCC grounds at most times.)

But just to the north..........it stops again:

The real, continuous sidewalk doesn't resume til Kilbarry, at the north end of the UCC campus, at this traffic island with a Vision-Zero non-compliant slip lane:

Of note; there is room w/in the Oriole.Lonsdale ROW to add a sidewalk continuously w/o encroaching on UCC lands.

Residents on Oriole Parkway are always complaining about speeding, this, along w/removing the slip lane would be partial solutions to that issue.

While a road diet here would be ideal, it isn't necessary to the provision of a sidewalk.

A crude estimate from streetview suggests to me the removal of up to 5-7 mature'ish trees, of which 4 are non-native, invasive Norway Maples.

The only pinch point is where a current bus shelter is provided, which might require a retaining wall and/or pushing the UCC fence back by ~0.5m

****

Should safety advocates win the battle to remove 2 lanes of Avenue Road (which I hope they do); the removals should extend up Oriole Parkway as well (which eliminates the need for any tree removals to achieve the sidewalk.); and would still afford room for cycle tracks.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Don't have your vehicle end up on the sidewalk like in this instance - it's not a "shared responsibility", it's the responsibility of the driver. Saying people need to be aware of their surroundings in reference to this instance is about as stupid as someone saying someone should "dress appropriately" after they had been assaulted.



We shall see whether they will be held responsible in this instance /s laugh.

AoD

Just like it is not the fault of the children on the front yard or grass. They should not be blamed.

Teen driver accused in crash that killed 2 kids in Vaughan, Ont. granted $300,000 bail​

From link. Dated May 26, 2021.

The Richmond Hill teen driver accused of striking and killing two children who were playing on their Vaughan, Ont. driveway was granted a $300,000 bail in a Newmarket court on Wednesday.

According to police, a 10-year-old girl and her four-year-old brother were playing on their driveway on May 16, alongside a neighbour who was helping them fix a bike when the three individuals were struck by a black Mercedes-Benz sedan around noon.

The siblings later died in hospital. The neighbour was also taken to hospital but sustained non-life-threatening injuries. An online fundraiser supported by the family identifies the children as 10-year-old Anaya and four-year-old Jax.

 

[nfitz]

Recommending that people be aware of their surroundings is not blaming pedestrians for cars ending up on the sidewalk, or very clear victim blaming.

It is, when it's part of their announcement that 7 people were hospitalized after being hit by a flying car while walking on wide downtown sidewalk.

I'm surprised that anyone is defending this!

 

[lenaitch]

Just like it is not the fault of the children on the front yard or grass. They should not be blamed.

Teen driver accused in crash that killed 2 kids in Vaughan, Ont. granted $300,000 bail​

From link. Dated May 26, 2021.

Pre-trial judicial release is meant to be neither judgement nor punishment. It's goals are to protect evidence, ensure the accused shows up in court and impose interim conditions to ensure public safety based on the facts as known.

 

[W. K. Lis]

This is very well stated. The expectation that pedestrian use of a sidewalk is somehow optional or subjugated to other uses has no place in civic policy. There will be times when pedestrians have to manage their safety (sometimes heavy work equipment or construction has to intrude on sidewalks, for instance, and people ought to pay attention around such hazards) - but no one should be on the defensive by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Nor should the delivery of safe sidewalks be a “when convenient” mission for the city…. it has to be treated as a priority.

I can understand why this kind of official indifference is a trigger to many.



I am convinced that this goes beyond the police (not saying it excuses them, but it’s a bigger issue). Our society has become resistant to rigid (and slightly picky) correction of individuals - about everything. I don’t fault the police for easing off traffic enforcement when absolutely nobody thanks them for doing it. Beyond just saving some money in the police budget, politicians will also duck this kind of controversy.
And, a fair enforcement system ought to focus on all shared users… so yes with greater enforcement there would at times be interventions against pedestrians also. I’m sure if enforcement is ramped up, the public outcry would be enormous. With every marginalised group complaining that they were targeted.
Maybe the police have been just practicing wise self preservation by not poking the bear.
There is also the reality that our society reserves criminal or quasi-criminal prosecution for very select offenses. To many, a traffic offense, even one that injures innocent people, is not something we would apply the framework of judicial penalties to correct. In fact, insurance rates are the most significant consequence for bad driving. Hoping that a particularly serious incident leads to harsh charges may not be all that realistic.
Again, I’m not trying to excuse anyone, but the police may actually be sensing and aligning to a silent majority. It’s a bigger challenge than just reforming the police…. the public may not be ready.
What ever happened to Tory’s Traffic Warden proposal, anyways?

- Paul

What drivers want to see posted for pedestrians to follow...

From link.
No jogging or running allowed. They might run in front of their precious shiny automobiles and scratch them.

 

[crs1026]

What drivers want to see posted for pedestrians to follow...

From link.
No jogging or running allowed. They might run in front of their precious shiny automobiles and scratch them.

I get the point..…but…. here’s the thing… there is a minimum stopping distance for a vehicle which is comprised of how far the vehicle travels between when the driver spots an obstruction, processes what they see and recognises the need to stop, moves their foot to the brake pedal, and then the car actually brakes.

At walking speed, and assuming a car driven by an alert driver at a responsible speed, that stopping distance is usually short enough to assure safety. And assuming alert and responsible driving at a legal and cautious speed, some of us would not find a driver to blame if something or someone enters the vehicle’s path leaving less than that necessary stopping distance, and the driver brakes but can’t stop short of striking the intruder.

Joggers, in my experience, sometimes do create that situation, especially if they choose to cut the corner and unexpectedly cross the street at some random point that isn’t reasonably assumed to be a crossover. Judging that minimum stopping distance is the jogger’s challenge, not the driver’s.

I suspect that sign was meant to regulate interactions between cyclists and pedestrians, which is way out of context for a discussin of driving safety. And a bit of stretching the argument. But I get the point you are making about drivers not sharing the road.

- Paul

 

[ShonTron]

I get the point..…but…. here’s the thing… there is a minimum stopping distance for a vehicle which is comprised of how far the vehicle travels between when the driver spots an obstruction, processes what they see and recognises the need to stop, moves their foot to the brake pedal, and then the car actually brakes.

At walking speed, and assuming a car driven by an alert driver at a responsible speed, that stopping distance is usually short enough to assure safety. And assuming alert and responsible driving at a legal and cautious speed, some of us would not find a driver to blame if something or someone enters the vehicle’s path leaving less than that necessary stopping distance, and the driver brakes but can’t stop short of striking the intruder.

Joggers, in my experience, sometimes do create that situation, especially if they choose to cut the corner and cross the street at some random point that isn’t reasonably assumed to be a crossover.

I suspect that sign was meant to regulate interactions between cyclists and pedestrians, which is way out of context for a discussin of driving safety. And a bit of stretching the argument. But I get the point you are making about drivers not sharing the road.

- Paul

Which is why joggers and runners are smart wearing higher visibility clothing at low light periods, and why they need to take extra care crossing streets and driveways while maintaining their pace. That said, causal pedestrians at a regular pace should not be shamed into doing so.

This is also why cyclists are instructed to dismount at crosswalks - it is hard for a prudent driver to watch for higher speeds on sidewalks and walkways - but why we should upgrade crossings instead with better visibility, signals to indicate that cyclists/joggers use this crossing (such as signs and cyclist signals) and measures to slow drivers’ turns to reduce the number of potential collisions and reduce the impact of collisions if they take place.

 

[tiffer24]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1475844515386773518

 

[Admiral Beez]

Are you on the watch for cars flying into you while you're walking on the sidewalk? What about while eating in a restaurant?

Yes and yes. Especially when waiting at traffic lights to cross the road. I ensure there is a post or building to block any wayward car. At restaurants I always assume an octogenarian or device-addled driver will crash through the window and place myself at the rear. And I never once during the pandemic sat at one of those makeshift curbside patios, if it wasn’t the noisy trucks, siren and insane beggars it was the lack of protection that kept me away.

You’ll never find me sitting here by the window, for example.

 

[Northern Light]

An article in The Star discussing whether the time has come for laws requiring speed governors (limiters) in all new vehicles.

The limit’s 100 km/h. So why should any new car let you go twice that?

A rash of stunt driving incidents is pushing more voices to call for automatic speed limiting for new cars.

www.thestar.com

They note in the above article that Volvo has actually voluntarily capped the speed of all of its new models at 180km/ph.

Arguably not much of a concession to sanity or safety, but a sensible move in principle nonetheless, in my opinion.

Lest my above statement not make it clear, I am very much in favour of speed limiting all cars at the level of design/built-in limiters.

For the time being, real-time limitation, where the limit on acceleration varies by road, is neither technically practical nor politically feasible; so what we're really looking at is
limits above permissible highway speeds.

I think 140km/ph would be perfectly reasonable in that regard, based on speeds limits across the U.S. and Canada.

At some point thereafter, we need to consider the need for variable limits according to road class/local limit........but that's for the future.

 

[W. K. Lis]

An article in The Star discussing whether the time has come for laws requiring speed governors (limiters) in all new vehicles.

The limit’s 100 km/h. So why should any new car let you go twice that?

A rash of stunt driving incidents is pushing more voices to call for automatic speed limiting for new cars.

www.thestar.com

They note in the above article that Volvo has actually voluntarily capped the speed of all of its new models at 180km/ph.

Arguably not much of a concession to sanity or safety, but a sensible move in principle nonetheless, in my opinion.

Lest my above statement not make it clear, I am very much in favour of speed limiting all cars at the level of design/built-in limiters.

For the time being, real-time limitation, where the limit on acceleration varies by road, is neither technically practical nor politically feasible; so what we're really looking at is
limits above permissible highway speeds.

I think 140km/ph would be perfectly reasonable in that regard, based on speeds limits across the U.S. and Canada.

At some point thereafter, we need to consider the need for variable limits according to road class/local limit........but that's for the future.

The police vehicles would be able to override the governors. However, mechanics and those with money would be able to bypass them as well.

 

[Northern Light]

The police vehicles would be able to override the governors. However, mechanics and those with money would be able to bypass them as well.

No system is perfect or fool proof.

But it would make a material difference, I think.

As to those with money, I would offer 3 points.

1) Make it an offense to tamper with a speed governor, including automatic license suspension and impounding of the offending car.
2) Increase penalties for 'stunt driving' and lower the threshold from '50 over' to '40 over.
3) Finally, and most importantly, make fines income contingent (with a base minimum); this has already been done elsewhere, and it would ensure that if you earn 10x the money, you pay 10x the fine.

*The last one requires some measure of access of computers that print/issue tickets to the Canada Revenue database. I don't really have an issue with this, providing there are appropriate privacy/security controls.