|
|
|
- Thread starter salsa
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
May I suggest that childish insults are not the way to make a persuasive argument?
I think its entirely fair that you may feel enforcement resources here are misplaced, or not deployed consistently across vehicle types.
That critique carries more weight when you at least appear to respect others, and their take.
Important also to realize, that front line officers working a group assignment were assigned that task by someone in command, it wasn't a whimsical decision as to how to spend their day.
Also, most of this campaign seems centred on education, and issuing cautions, they aren't even taking vehicles the City deems illegal off the roads. Its important to understand nuance.
I have a good friend, who is a middle-aged, able-bodied guy, who while walking on a sidewalk on Bloor and got sideswiped by someone on an e-bike. It knocked him off his feet, he landed on his hip and bruised it badly, and dropped his groceries, some of which were damaged.
There is a measure of enforcement here that is entirely appropriate.
I'll tell you, the cops are nicer than my friend would like to be, he only wishes he could see the idiot who did that to him coming, and stick his arm out and clothesline them off of their vehicle, helmet or not.
A bit of gentle enforcement is probably overdue.
Last edited:
T3G
Senior Member
I'm not saying that users who put others in danger shouldn't be penalized, but it is beyond ridiculous that electric micromobility device users are being singled out, as though there aren't regular bikers who can harm others by being inattentive. I see lots of analog bike riders who ride around as recklessly as do users of electric transport, but I never see anyone complaining about that or calling for them to be banned. The inordinate focus on electric devices smacks of politics - which, of course, it must at least partially be, since the city refuses to get with the times and legalize e-scooters. What good is a blitz, anyway, if you're going to announce it ahead of time and pull the curtain on it after a couple of weeks?
Meanwhile, ticketing people for not wearing helmets is absurd. It could be argued wearing a helmet may be a good idea, and I personally have never gone on my bike without a helmet, but hitting people with a financial penalty for it is inane. Perhaps the city should start ticketing people who don't wear condoms or who have lots of casual sexual partners, next? Or who eat junk food? Once you legitimize micromanaging people's own safety, there is no end to what absurdities you can do.
The fact that the beat cops engaging in this did not come up with the policy, but their seniors, is not something I find to be a very compelling defense, as they willingly chose to become cops. If you don't want to enforce policy you don't personally find palatable but are compelled to, don't do it - this would hardly be the first time the cops have refused to do their jobs - or even better, don't become a cop.
They aren't currently taking the vehicles off the roads, but unless I've wildly misinterpreted the following paragraph, that is coming, and we will all lose:
Meanwhile, ticketing people for not wearing helmets is absurd. It could be argued wearing a helmet may be a good idea, and I personally have never gone on my bike without a helmet, but hitting people with a financial penalty for it is inane. Perhaps the city should start ticketing people who don't wear condoms or who have lots of casual sexual partners, next? Or who eat junk food? Once you legitimize micromanaging people's own safety, there is no end to what absurdities you can do.
The fact that the beat cops engaging in this did not come up with the policy, but their seniors, is not something I find to be a very compelling defense, as they willingly chose to become cops. If you don't want to enforce policy you don't personally find palatable but are compelled to, don't do it - this would hardly be the first time the cops have refused to do their jobs - or even better, don't become a cop.
They aren't currently taking the vehicles off the roads, but unless I've wildly misinterpreted the following paragraph, that is coming, and we will all lose:
evandyk
Senior Member
I think focusing on e-bikes has a logic to it because they are heavier and go faster than most casual cyclists on regular bikes. And the delivery cyclists seem to be responsible for a good share of the more dangerous stuff I see, like riding on sidewalks, riding the wrong way in a lane, reading their phone while riding, cutting corners etc. Obviously they have an economic incentive to do those things that isn't present for most people commuting or running errands.
That said, I have always been of the view that as long as cars are getting in accidents 150 times a day on Toronto streets, killing and seriously injuring hundreds of people a year, focusing on bikes is the least cost-effective thing the police can do, particularly given they've pretty much abandoned all traffic enforcement over the last decade and it's basically a free-for-all for drivers out there right now with speeding, running red lights, illegal turns, dangerous lane changes, etc.
That said, I have always been of the view that as long as cars are getting in accidents 150 times a day on Toronto streets, killing and seriously injuring hundreds of people a year, focusing on bikes is the least cost-effective thing the police can do, particularly given they've pretty much abandoned all traffic enforcement over the last decade and it's basically a free-for-all for drivers out there right now with speeding, running red lights, illegal turns, dangerous lane changes, etc.
PL1
Active Member
Northern Light
Superstar
Let me note here that Toronto Cops have taken it on the chin for enforcement of speeding against 'analog' cyclists in High Park. There was lots of media attention on that and discussion here at UT.
I think you're being entirely unreasonable suggesting that there is no enforcement on analog cyclists.
In fact, the style is very similar, one or two, 1-2 weeks blitzes per year.
Is that the right strategy? Fair debate. But its not one unique to E-Bikes.
****
Second points here, E-Bikes are heavier than conventional bikes, they are also capable of greater speed, at least for most riders purposes, as such, they are generally more dangerous to others.
If you hit me on a regular bike, doing 20k/ph, I may well be seriously hurt, but if you hit me on an E-Bike weighing twice as much, and at 25km/ph, my risk of serious injury is substantially increased. They are not the same.
I don't know why you insist on being silly about this. As @PL1 notes above, riding an E-Bike requires a helmet, by law. Just like riding on motorcycle does. Its not a point of negotiation its the law.
The idea that the risk is merely self-harm is nonsense. We ticket people for not wearing seatbelts in cars, where the risk is not likely to a third party, but to the driver/passenger in question. Why do we do this?
Because first of all, if they get seriously hurt, whether its their fault or another drivers, they will probably be unhappy they didn't wear it; but also, its also that the person in question is someone's child, quite possibly someone's parent, someone's spouse, and the risk they are taking affects others.
Also, if they go splat, and require massive medical intervention, we have a public healthcare system that will be picking up the tab for that.
The requirement for a helmet is based on the degree of risk. We don't as a society demand that you be entirely free of risk; we examine the likelihood of a problem, and likelihood of said problem being severe.
Again, you're being silly. But just to match that; were you aware, than until recently, if you knowingly had a serious STI, and had unprotected sex with a partner, you could face jail time, and a criminal conviction? Yup, charges of assault right up to attempted murder.
Courts have recently dialed this back in respect of notably HIV noting that low viral load may minimize the risk of transmission.
Last edited:
T3G
Senior Member
Perhaps you and I spend our time in different circles of the internet. I'm not saying there never has been any enforcement, period, against cyclists, but in the circles of the internet where I move I see an inordinate amount of vitriol towards e-bikes and scooters. Advocating for their ban is a fairly regular thing to read even on here, whereas to find someone hating on analog bikes, you would have to do a deep dive into the deepest, darkest of Facebook comments. So I do think that electric devices are being inordinately targeted at all sides in this city.
I didn't say anywhere that I objected to enforcement of dangerous driving. But if you're going to do a blitz of unsafe driving, you might as well perform a service to society and target everyone that is being unsafe, regardless of their form of transport.
I am aware of this, yes. But if one takes the following arguments into account:
Are any of these risks somehow not present when riding a traditional bike? If the city wants to encourage people to be safe, make it a requirement for regular cyclists to do so, too, otherwise it's hard not to give off the impression that they have a personal grudge against electric mobility users alone.
Yes, of this I was aware, and it was not what I was referring to. In the argument I was putting forth, the question is what if neither partner knows their STI status? Perhaps neither of them even has one, but without knowing, they are taking a risk, which, if things don't work out, causes harm and could possibly require medical intervention for which the taxpayer has to pick up the tab. And the latter argument I really don't accept - the medical system is not there to only treat people who take responsibility for themselves. Otherwise we should make it illegal to eat junk food, smoke, get into a car, leave our houses...
Perhaps we should institute a lockdown to protect our healthcare system...
Northern Light
Superstar
Probably.
I don't.
I don't think so; what you may have seen is people advocating banning them from trains, given both the amount of room they consume and the risk fire, which is very real, as we all saw not so long ago.
Again, whether that's the correct answer is a fair matter for debate. I'm not taking sides on that at the moment. Merely saying that putting that forward isn't hateful or unreasonable on its face.
Uh, we have two regular posters in the Cycling thread who do nothing but post anti-bike comments, here on UT, a forum very sympathetic to cycling overall.
The traffic unit is small and has always concentrated on particular offenders and particular offenses for blitzes.
Perhaps there is a better way to do things, but this is not new or unique to e-bikes or scooters.
This is really way too much........ I mean no disrespect but its comes off not merely as angry but as borderline delusional.
You just need to dial this way back or your make is such that no one will take any argument you make seriously.
***
On that note, I will decline to engage further, as it doesn't appear to be productive here.
crs1026
Superstar
I'm very dubious about "bans" for the simple reason that the products are readily available and consequently people will acquire them and try to use them.
A "ban" may be easier to enforce at first rather than creating rules around use - since it's easier to intervene around the mere presence of the device, rather than how it is being driven. But ultimately we are going to have to figure out how to share the road and sidewalk space among all these types and modes of mobility. If you thought bike lanes were a challenge.....
I have been watching an emergency sewer repair in my neighbourhood that has caused a painful backstreet detour around a work zone on a busy street. When the road was first pylonned off, people were getting out of their cars, moving the pylons, and just driving through. The work crew has pretty much solved that problem with some excavation and strategic placement of their bulldozers - but it's a sign of just how determined people are to defy any form of order to satisfy their own convenience (Taking a possibly cheap shot - this is just down the road from the new Bloor West bike lanes. Kinda typifies the local neighbourhood mentality, perhaps). I suspect the e-device users will have no reservations about simply forcing their way onto our roads or sidewalks somehow - the authorities will be unable to keep up with enforcement.
- Paul
A "ban" may be easier to enforce at first rather than creating rules around use - since it's easier to intervene around the mere presence of the device, rather than how it is being driven. But ultimately we are going to have to figure out how to share the road and sidewalk space among all these types and modes of mobility. If you thought bike lanes were a challenge.....
I have been watching an emergency sewer repair in my neighbourhood that has caused a painful backstreet detour around a work zone on a busy street. When the road was first pylonned off, people were getting out of their cars, moving the pylons, and just driving through. The work crew has pretty much solved that problem with some excavation and strategic placement of their bulldozers - but it's a sign of just how determined people are to defy any form of order to satisfy their own convenience (Taking a possibly cheap shot - this is just down the road from the new Bloor West bike lanes. Kinda typifies the local neighbourhood mentality, perhaps). I suspect the e-device users will have no reservations about simply forcing their way onto our roads or sidewalks somehow - the authorities will be unable to keep up with enforcement.
- Paul
evandyk
Senior Member
Obviously, if you are going to ban anything for being too dangerous, you'd ban cars. But that's not workable, any more than at this point banning all of the various electric conveyances that are being developed will be.
lenaitch
Senior Member
In my opinion, bans are more effective at the import or manufacturing level. Once something is physically available, restricting its use becomes exponentially harder.
As for police seizing conveyances Toronto doesn't like, if they are otherwise considered legal by the province, I'm not sure what the authority would be. There might be - I'm just not sure.
Northern Light
Superstar
A report to the next meeting of the City's Infrastructure and Environment Ctte responds to a Council request to look into mandating side guards on trucks.
The conclusion is that regulating private commercial vehicles, with no relationship to the City is outside of Toronto's jurisdiction (no surprise).
The report does, however, recommend retrofitting the entire City-owned fleet where possible; excepting all the emergency services and TTC.
The report also recommends a follow-up from staff on whether it may be feasible tor require side guards for commercial vehicles that are in use on City contracts. (construction, waste management, hydrovac among others might see this apply to them).
I think this is a solid move...........
That said, this one paragraph jumps out at me, and suggests that we collectively need to get all over the Feds and the Province on this issue:
The conclusion is that regulating private commercial vehicles, with no relationship to the City is outside of Toronto's jurisdiction (no surprise).
The report does, however, recommend retrofitting the entire City-owned fleet where possible; excepting all the emergency services and TTC.
The report also recommends a follow-up from staff on whether it may be feasible tor require side guards for commercial vehicles that are in use on City contracts. (construction, waste management, hydrovac among others might see this apply to them).
I think this is a solid move...........
That said, this one paragraph jumps out at me, and suggests that we collectively need to get all over the Feds and the Province on this issue:
J Bacon
New Member
Excuse me?
So to make it clear:
- this forum is about attacking people who live in Toronto and don't agree with special interest viewpoints
- this forum is about attacking people who have busy lives and aren't on the forum everyday but care about Toronto
Can you make it clearer on the homepage that this forum does not represent the opinions of the citizens of Toronto?
Sadly this "fall in line or you're cancelled" point of view reminds me of someone coming to power in the United States.
T3G
Senior Member
How exactly is a forum where people exchange opinions supposed to be representative of the opinions of a population of ~2 million people, as though those opinions were a monolith?
evandyk
Senior Member
It's not "cancelling" someone to tell them that their opinions are both predictable and uninformed.