[nfitz]

Nothing personal, I do believe that you follow the rules and in your case, irresponsible drivers are the cause of risk.

How do you deal with most drivers not following the rules? I walk my kid to school down a 40 km/hr street and then a 30 km/hr street. A lot of cars are going faster. Few come to a full stop at the stop signs. From what I can see the majority of drivers are irresponsible. Unless you think that breaking safety laws in school zones at 8:55 AM is responsible.

A couple of weeks ago, I've seen a woman crossing a busy street half-way between the traffic lights, with a stroller and probably a baby inside that stroller. How is that acceptable?

It's perfectly legal. Where? Define busy?

There's lots of 4-lane roads that get large breaks in traffic, because of light timings. And closer to downtown even easier with the "busy" two lanes roads.

 

[Rainforest]

How do you deal with most drivers not following the rules? I walk my kid to school down a 40 km/hr street and then a 30 km/hr street. A lot of cars are going faster. Few come to a full stop at the stop signs. From what I can see the majority of drivers are irresponsible. Unless you think that breaking safety laws in school zones at 8:55 AM is responsible.

I've seen enough idiot drivers in my life. For example, I am crossing at a traffic light on green, a car making a left should definitely wait for me, but it rushes towards me (because pedestrians are rare at that intersection), then notices me half-way towards the spot where our paths would cross, and slows down. Meanwhile, I have to decide whether to run forward or to turn back to avoid being hit. And I teach my kids that even when they have the right of way, they have to watch for the cars whose drivers are idiots.

So what? Does the existense of idiot drivers mean that the idiot pedestrians are OK? Is that the message we want to send?

It's perfectly legal. Where? Define busy?

There's lots of 4-lane roads that get large breaks in traffic, because of light timings. And closer to downtown even easier with the "busy" two lanes roads.

It was in Thornhill, just north of Steeles, a 4-lane road. I don't know about the technicality, legal or not, but it was extremely irresponsible. I never cross like that even when alone, and would never think of crossing like that with a stroller or a small child in tow.

 

[allengeorge]

The legislation appropriately reflects that. A driver can be sent to jail if they caused serious harm, or get a large fine and / or driver license suspension if the harm didn't occur but was at risk of occuring

The penalties are actually fairly light considering, and rarely enforced. Frankly, drivers should have the book thrown at them far more than is occurring today.

And, I think this “both sides stuff” is ridiculous. One side does disproportionately more harm than the other (as can be evidenced by the stream of reports to this thread). We should be treating driver infractions far more seriously.

 

[W. K. Lis]

How do you deal with most drivers not following the rules? I walk my kid to school down a 40 km/hr street and then a 30 km/hr street. A lot of cars are going faster. Few come to a full stop at the stop signs. From what I can see the majority of drivers are irresponsible. Unless you think that breaking safety laws in school zones at 8:55 AM is responsible.

It's perfectly legal. Where? Define busy?

There's lots of 4-lane roads that get large breaks in traffic, because of light timings. And closer to downtown even easier with the "busy" two lanes roads.

From link.

It is legal for pedestrians to cross the street mid-block anywhere in Toronto as long as:

a) they are not adjacent to a marked pedestrian crossing, and
b) they yield to traffic.

This legal situation is a combination of Ontario law, through the Highway Traffic Act, and City of Toronto by-laws.

The Ontario Highway Traffic Act

The Ontario Highway Traffic Act regulates all behaviour on Ontario roads. If the Act does not specifically prohibit an activity, then that activity is not governed by the Act and is therefore legal.

The Act says nothing, for or against, about pedestrians crossing roads at “uncontrolled locations,” that is, locations without traffic control (i.e. without traffic lights, stop signs, or a crosswalk). That means that it is legal for pedestrians to cross at uncontrolled locations (e.g. mid-block) in Ontario.

Such crossings are therefore governed by the common law provision to “exercise due care.” Basically, that means exercising common sense on both sides — cars have to avoid hitting pedestrians, pedestrians have to avoid putting themselves in danger.

 

[Rainforest]

The penalties are actually fairly light considering, and rarely enforced. Frankly, drivers should have the book thrown at them far more than is occurring today.

Agreed.

And, I think this “both sides stuff” is ridiculous. One side does disproportionately more harm than the other (as can be evidenced by the stream of reports to this thread). We should be treating driver infractions far more seriously.

Both sides stuff is totally reasonable. Yes, we should be treating driver infractions far more seriously. At the same time, pedestrians must not hear a message that they can walk any way they please, and if anything happens, that's the evil drivers' fault. Pedestrians have to understand that they must act reasonably and avoid unneeded risk.

Policing the pedestrians is impractical. You can't put a policeman on every street at 200 m intervals. Survellliance cameras would cause grave privacy concerns, a massive amount of debates over the interpretation of what they captured, and at the end, wouldn't stop anyone from jaywalking because the penalties for pedestrians are minimal and can't be anything but minimal.

Therefore, the emphasis in case of pedestrians must be on education rather than enforcement. Sending them a message that "it's never your fault, it's the evil drivers" is definitely wrong.

 

[nfitz]

From link.

There couldn't be anything in the provincial Highway Traffic Act. Who'd explain that for the guy out in the country, who has to walk 5 miles down the road to the next stop sign, to cross the empty road to see the person who lives across to him!

I've no idea what the law is north of Steeles. But I've never heard of a law against crossing a street in Canada, except when you are at a signalized intersection. I'm not sure why some keep comparing this to clearly illegal acts like failing to come to a 100% stop at a stop sign, or doing 31 km/hr in a 30 zone. (on my daily walk to school, I do pass two of those electronic speed signs in a 40 km/hr SCHOOL zone, for the downhill one, it's rare to see ANYONE below 40, and very few at 40, unless they are stuck behind a bus or something.

As to the location in Thornhill - can't judge at all without knowing where and how much traffic? How far in each direction to the next stop sign, or pedestrian crossing? My experience is that these are few and far between in suburbia - less often than the transit stops! And the expectation is that people will cross the street.

 

[W. K. Lis]

There couldn't be anything in the provincial Highway Traffic Act. Who'd explain that for the guy out in the country, who has to walk 5 miles down the road to the next stop sign, to cross the empty road to see the person who lives across to him!

I've no idea what the law is north of Steeles. But I've never heard of a law against crossing a street in Canada, except when you are at a signalized intersection. I'm not sure why some keep comparing this to clearly illegal acts like failing to come to a 100% stop at a stop sign, or doing 31 km/hr in a 30 zone. (on my daily walk to school, I do pass two of those electronic speed signs in a 40 km/hr SCHOOL zone, for the downhill one, it's rare to see ANYONE below 40, and very few at 40, unless they are stuck behind a bus or something.

As to the location in Thornhill - can't judge at all without knowing where and how much traffic? How far in each direction to the next stop sign, or pedestrian crossing? My experience is that these are few and far between in suburbia - less often than the transit stops! And the expectation is that people will cross the street.

The cops would be making out a lot of tickets on the streets of Kensington Market, if they following what some interpret as their "letter of the law".

From link.

 

[Rainforest]

The cops would be making out a lot of tickets on the streets of Kensington Market, if they following what some interpret as their "letter of the law".

From link.

I think Kensington Market is much less of a concern. The road lanes are practically half-pedestrian, the cars are going very slowly and the risk of accident is low.

The problem is a multilane street with 50 or higher speed limit, that normally has few pedestrians (drivers do not expect them), and all of the sudden, one jumps into the car's path. Especially, when it is dark, the pedestrian wears dark non-reflecting clothes, or has mobility limitations. With a stroller, one can't just roll from the driving lane into the sidewalk, the front wheels of the stroller need to be lifted a bit and that takes an extra second.

 

[Rainforest]

There couldn't be anything in the provincial Highway Traffic Act. Who'd explain that for the guy out in the country, who has to walk 5 miles down the road to the next stop sign, to cross the empty road to see the person who lives across to him!

I've no idea what the law is north of Steeles. But I've never heard of a law against crossing a street in Canada, except when you are at a signalized intersection. I'm not sure why some keep comparing this to clearly illegal acts like failing to come to a 100% stop at a stop sign, or doing 31 km/hr in a 30 zone. (on my daily walk to school, I do pass two of those electronic speed signs in a 40 km/hr SCHOOL zone, for the downhill one, it's rare to see ANYONE below 40, and very few at 40, unless they are stuck behind a bus or something.

There is no law that requires you to wear warm clothes in winter. That doesn't mean you shouldn't dress according to the weather, or should encourage others to ignore the weather.

As to the location in Thornhill - can't judge at all without knowing where and how much traffic? How far in each direction to the next stop sign, or pedestrian crossing? My experience is that these are few and far between in suburbia - less often than the transit stops! And the expectation is that people will cross the street.

I was watching from a sidewalk, and it felt very unsafe. She made it OK, but the next second the cars were there and they came from both directions. If she stumbled, or one of the stroller's wheels jammed, she would be at risk.

The closest crossing was about 150 m away. Not ideal, but I would definitely detour 150+150 m to use the crossing.

 

[nfitz]

I was watching from a sidewalk, and it felt very unsafe. She made it OK, but the next second the cars were there and they came from both directions. If she stumbled, or one of the stroller's wheels jammed, she would be at risk.

If the cars left the roadway and drove onto the sidewalk - which is a frequent cause of injury to pedestrians, she would be at risk. If she'd crossed at a crossing on green, and a car went through the red, she'd have been at risk.

If she'd crossed at a crossing, and a car failed to stop, or made a turn anyways, then she would have been at risk. This is an even more frequent cause of injury.

Personally, the only time I've been hit by a car, was on a white pedestrian light, with the car, already fully stopped, trying to turn right on red, when I was already right in front of it! All the close calls have been at intersections where I was on a white light, and the car has tried to turn anyways (a lot of these would be fixed by not allowing turns on red lights, like in many major cities).

It's far safer to cross mid-block when there are no cars about. Sounds a bit close, but on a 4-lane road, it's not unusual for a car to cross 2 lanes away while crossing - though it's rather disturbing on a pedestrian crossing, where it's not legal for drivers to do that. Sometimes I wish I was less law-abiding and kept a few stones in my pocket to whip at the drivers breaking the law.

 

[PL1]

No, will not stop with the both sides stuff.

The problem is that some walking advocates attempt to demonize the drivers, and use that to absolve the pedestrians from any responsibility for their actions. Nothing personal, I do believe that you follow the rules and in your case, irresponsible drivers are the cause of risk. That doesn't negate the fact that there are irresponsible pedestrians out there and they create risk on their own.

A couple of weeks ago, I've seen a woman crossing a busy street half-way between the traffic lights, with a stroller and probably a baby inside that stroller. How is that acceptable?

(I took a couple of days off, because clearly I was very emotional when I wrote my post)

Some pedestrians are inattentive, some distracted, some lazy, some trying to seek shortcuts. Drivers are the same. However, there is a disproportionate amount of harm done by drivers ignoring the rules than by pedestrians. I don't want to rehash the issues others have raised. Pedestrians (and cyclists) doing nothing wrong are routinely injured or killed by drivers. If convicted, the penalties are a joke. Look at twitter accounts such as Patrickbrownllb, ffsafestreets, bikelawcanada for examples. $110. $500. Occasionally as much as $2000! It's upsetting to be treated as less important than property.

We disagree who has the responsibility to do better.

 

[Rainforest]

(I took a couple of days off, because clearly I was very emotional when I wrote my post)

Some pedestrians are inattentive, some distracted, some lazy, some trying to seek shortcuts. Drivers are the same. However, there is a disproportionate amount of harm done by drivers ignoring the rules than by pedestrians. I don't want to rehash the issues others have raised. Pedestrians (and cyclists) doing nothing wrong are routinely injured or killed by drivers. If convicted, the penalties are a joke. Look at twitter accounts such as Patrickbrownllb, ffsafestreets, bikelawcanada for examples. $110. $500. Occasionally as much as $2000! It's upsetting to be treated as less important than property.

We disagree who has the responsibility to do better.

I agree that drivers have to be face greater penalties in such cases.

But I will never agree that pedestrians bear no responsibility at all.

 

[Rainforest]

If the cars left the roadway and drove onto the sidewalk - which is a frequent cause of injury to pedestrians, she would be at risk. If she'd crossed at a crossing on green, and a car went through the red, she'd have been at risk.

If she'd crossed at a crossing, and a car failed to stop, or made a turn anyways, then she would have been at risk. This is an even more frequent cause of injury.

Personally, the only time I've been hit by a car, was on a white pedestrian light, with the car, already fully stopped, trying to turn right on red, when I was already right in front of it! All the close calls have been at intersections where I was on a white light, and the car has tried to turn anyways (a lot of these would be fixed by not allowing turns on red lights, like in many major cities).

It's far safer to cross mid-block when there are no cars about. Sounds a bit close, but on a 4-lane road, it's not unusual for a car to cross 2 lanes away while crossing - though it's rather disturbing on a pedestrian crossing, where it's not legal for drivers to do that. Sometimes I wish I was less law-abiding and kept a few stones in my pocket to whip at the drivers breaking the law.

I dunno. I always feel more safe to cross at traffic lights. At least, the cars are stopped, and if one of them starts moving, I have a chance to notice and do something about it. But maybe that's just me.

My closest near-miss was when I was crossing a small road (2 lanes) away from any traffic light, and a car was turning into the same road from a dental clinic parking lot. I've seen it, but reckoned that I will surely cross the first lane (where the car was supposed to go) before it can complete the turn. And then the car turned the same direction but into the leftmost lane . Perhaps the driver was right off the dental procedure and under a residual influence of an anesthetic. Whatever the cause, I had to make a desperate rush to the sidewalk.

 

[crs1026]

(I took a couple of days off, because clearly I was very emotional when I wrote my post)

Some pedestrians are inattentive, some distracted, some lazy, some trying to seek shortcuts. Drivers are the same. However, there is a disproportionate amount of harm done by drivers ignoring the rules than by pedestrians. I don't want to rehash the issues others have raised. Pedestrians (and cyclists) doing nothing wrong are routinely injured or killed by drivers. If convicted, the penalties are a joke. Look at twitter accounts such as Patrickbrownllb, ffsafestreets, bikelawcanada for examples. $110. $500. Occasionally as much as $2000! It's upsetting to be treated as less important than property.

We disagree who has the responsibility to do better.

An electrical supervisor where I used to work constantly lectured the electricians, “Don’t worry whether I will chew you out for some small mistake. Worry about whether you will still be hearing anything after you make your mistake”.

His point was that when working with electricity, even the smallest, most innocuous mistake can be lethal. The are no “small” mistakes or omissions.

I see road safety working much the same way. There are reckless drivers, sure… but a great many incidents arise from small mistakes made by average people doing an average job of using our roads, whether they are driving or on foot.

I read a good saying recently - bad habits are born from good luck.

We seem to want to fix the problem with blame, instead of looking at how people contribute to error situations and teaching them to do better. Those “smaller” mistakes made by pedestrians need to be addressed too.

- Paul

 

[allengeorge]

We seem to want to fix the problem with blame, instead of looking at how people contribute to error situations and teaching them to do better. Those “smaller” mistakes made by pedestrians need to be addressed too.

I don’t think that’s right.

I think the problem is that by using a “both sides” narrative and acting as if these collisions are a matter of bad luck/timing we completely remove the incentive to do anything about the problem. It feeds into the perception that these collisions aren’t preventable, and that no one is really responsible.