|
|
|
- Thread starter georgevicbell
- Start date
nfitz
Superstar
Or they are intentionally not avoiding Nfitz?
More likely simply a function of when and where I take it. I'm not talking every day or every week here. But you certainly see it from time to time on streetcar (at least the 504) and subway. Never seen one on a bus. A bit more frequently than I see police horses out, which I only see 3-4 times a year.
DSC
Superstar
This rather old thread seems the best place to post this.
Coming to Council next week: https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.MM5.26
Consideration Type: ACTIONWards: All
Attention
* Notice of this Motion has been given.
* This Motion is subject to referral to the Infrastructure and Environment Committee. A two-thirds vote is required to waive referral.
1. City Council direct the City Manager to request the Province of Ontario to review the existing fine structure and consider increasing the current fine of $85.00 for an improper stop at an intersection to $450.00 and increase the fine for an improper stop at an intersection in a community safety zone from $120.00 to $500.00.
2. City Council direct the General Manager, Transportation Services to report to the Infrastructure and Environment Committee as soon as possible on best practices for "don’t block the box" solutions beyond an increased fine.
3. City Council forward this item to the Toronto Police Board to request joining the City's advocacy to the Province of Ontario for the increase in fines for an improper stop at an intersection.
Of course, the City used to paint yellow lines at some intersections and the police used to enforce the existing laws on not entering an intersection if you cannot leave it but it is clearly too much to hope the police will actually do much at all as they really show little interest in this kind of thing (and seem to be screwing up in other areas too, at an alarming rate. e.g. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...d-amid-allegations-officers-misled-court.html )
Coming to Council next week: https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.MM5.26
MM5.26 - Don't Block the Box - by Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie, seconded by Councillor Frances Nunziata
Notice of MotionConsideration Type: ACTIONWards: All
Attention
* Notice of this Motion has been given.
* This Motion is subject to referral to the Infrastructure and Environment Committee. A two-thirds vote is required to waive referral.
Recommendations
Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie, seconded by Councillor Frances Nunziata, recommends that:1. City Council direct the City Manager to request the Province of Ontario to review the existing fine structure and consider increasing the current fine of $85.00 for an improper stop at an intersection to $450.00 and increase the fine for an improper stop at an intersection in a community safety zone from $120.00 to $500.00.
2. City Council direct the General Manager, Transportation Services to report to the Infrastructure and Environment Committee as soon as possible on best practices for "don’t block the box" solutions beyond an increased fine.
3. City Council forward this item to the Toronto Police Board to request joining the City's advocacy to the Province of Ontario for the increase in fines for an improper stop at an intersection.
Of course, the City used to paint yellow lines at some intersections and the police used to enforce the existing laws on not entering an intersection if you cannot leave it but it is clearly too much to hope the police will actually do much at all as they really show little interest in this kind of thing (and seem to be screwing up in other areas too, at an alarming rate. e.g. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...d-amid-allegations-officers-misled-court.html )
crs1026
Superstar
^ I would have tried the Vision Zero thread….. but…..the real issue is not so much the quantum of the fine…. which I agree could be raised…. as the availability and willingness of police to enforce.
Having said that, intersection offences can be hard to enforce because officers may have no safe place to station themselves or to pull over drivers. Where I see radar traps (more frequently than in past), these are much more frequently places where officers can work from their vehicles and pursue speeders, rather than stepping into the roadway on foot to signal a stop.
It’s a matter of luck for an officer to be in position to actually make a stop. Fines are also ineffective because the Crown attorneys and the judges have so much discretion to bargain them down. But the initiative can’t hurt.
- Paul
Having said that, intersection offences can be hard to enforce because officers may have no safe place to station themselves or to pull over drivers. Where I see radar traps (more frequently than in past), these are much more frequently places where officers can work from their vehicles and pursue speeders, rather than stepping into the roadway on foot to signal a stop.
It’s a matter of luck for an officer to be in position to actually make a stop. Fines are also ineffective because the Crown attorneys and the judges have so much discretion to bargain them down. But the initiative can’t hurt.
- Paul
afransen
Senior Member
Indeed, it's kind of pointless to increase fines for offenses that are almost never enforced. If anything, it might make it less likely for police to enforce.
How about we design our infrastructure so that drivers naturally are disinclined to commit these offenses. Stop signs are a disaster, with nearly zero compliance among drivers.
How about we design our infrastructure so that drivers naturally are disinclined to commit these offenses. Stop signs are a disaster, with nearly zero compliance among drivers.
Northern Light
Superstar
On the above motion, I agree with the above posters.
I would add, I actually think the proposed fine is excessive for a first-time offender, particularly of lower income background.
I continue to support moving to income-contingent fines; in the absence of that, I think setting up a tiered structure for 1st offense and 2nd offense in less than 5 years would be a reasonable way to go.
$100 first time, $250 a pop thereafter.
As discussed above, even if you get the fines right, that does little of use if you don't have on-the-ground enforcement.
***
In general I'm in favour of good road design, that intuits better behavior in the first place; though in this context I'm curious as to what @afransen has in mind here.
I would add, I actually think the proposed fine is excessive for a first-time offender, particularly of lower income background.
I continue to support moving to income-contingent fines; in the absence of that, I think setting up a tiered structure for 1st offense and 2nd offense in less than 5 years would be a reasonable way to go.
$100 first time, $250 a pop thereafter.
As discussed above, even if you get the fines right, that does little of use if you don't have on-the-ground enforcement.
***
In general I'm in favour of good road design, that intuits better behavior in the first place; though in this context I'm curious as to what @afransen has in mind here.
afransen
Senior Member
We should be endeavoring to remove as many signalized and stop-sign controlled intersections as possible.
Signalized intersections, we should ask ourselves:
- can they be replaced with a roundabout? with the flow improvements, can we reduce approaching streets to single lane?
- For minor cross-streets, can we use a kidney bean roundabout to de-risk left turns (you turn right and u-turn left).
- If volumes are too great to eliminate signals, what can we do to have fully protected phases instead of permissive left/right turns. If we significantly reduce the number of signalized intersections, let's spend more for highly adaptive signal phases instead of the dinosaur signal technology used in NA.
Can we have a continuous sidewalk/raised crosswalk to act as traffic calming on the minor streets, with buffer zones between the crossing and the roadway for cars to cross each conflict zone individually. Even better to have a median buffer so left turning vehicles can navigate each conflict individually.
For all-way stops:
Can we have raised intersections treated as a yield instead? These intersections should only have one approach lane per direction (instead of turning lanes). If volumes are too high for this, consider a roundabout.
Stop signs should only be used where visibility is poor, and as a last alternative when intersection geometry can't be changed to provide adequate visibility.
Doing the above would more or less solve any issues with failure to stop at intersections.
Northern Light
Superstar
Agreed.
I'm not an enthusiast for roundabouts. I don't mind them, particularly in single-lane situations; but I think the multi-lane ones exhibit lower safety improvement factor, and consume considerably more land.
I'm assuming you mean a road-diet on an arterial road, going from 4 lanes (2 per direction) to one each way. I certainly sponsor this sort of thing, but would note, many road have already seen this and more will for the addition of cycle tracks.
- For minor cross-streets, can we use a kidney bean roundabout to de-risk left turns (you turn right and u-turn left).
- If volumes are too great to eliminate signals, what can we do to have fully protected phases instead of permissive left/right turns. If we significantly reduce the number of signalized intersections, let's spend more for highly adaptive signal phases instead of the dinosaur signal technology used in NA.
Both interesting ideas.
For 2-way stops:
Can we have a continuous sidewalk/raised crosswalk to act as traffic calming on the minor streets, with buffer zones between the crossing and the roadway for cars to cross each conflict zone individually. Even better to have a median buffer so left turning vehicles can navigate each conflict individually.
I like this one ^^
For all-way stops:
Can we have raised intersections treated as a yield instead? These intersections should only have one approach lane per direction (instead of turning lanes). \
Stop signs should only be used where visibility is poor, and as a last alternative when intersection geometry can't be changed to provide adequate visibility.
Doing the above would more or less solve any issues with failure to stop at intersections.
I like all this..........
***
I think these are good ideas in school zones and lower volume streets.
I don't think they address the problem not expressly mentioned above of 'blocking' intersections, which is largely a downtown phenomenon at locations like Bay/Richmond, and York/Harbour.
afransen
Senior Member
Two-lane roundabouts only add slightly more capacity so aren't a great default choice. If we do use them, turbo roundabouts are a better design. We should be using geometries that encourage vehicles to slow right down before entering, with pedestrian and bicycle crossings set back 5m or so.
Downtown is certainly a different beast. If we're talking about blocking intersections (not merely failing to stop), that is something that likely requires aggressive enforcement. Thankfully, it's not too many intersections that would require it. Can be automated with cameras. I'd suggest giving some grace as people will occasionally make mistakes and proceed when they erroneously thought they could clear the intersection, but repeated violators should be ticketed.
I wouldn't limit this approach to community safety/school zones. We should ask these questions about every signalized intersection and stop sign. Stop signs in particular are awful, as they have near-zero compliance.
Yes, a road diet. Intersections are often quite wide because of signal phasing. With roundabouts you don't need the queuing space.
DSC
Superstar
Though I think variable fines or fees for low income are fine in many cases I am not sure if a lower fine for blocking a traffic lane is really a good idea. If a street is blocked because someone blocks an intersection, it does not matter to those inconvenienced if the person responsible is a millionaire or a homeless person.
I certainly agree that good road design is the first priority but there will always be intersections and it really is not too hard to avoid blocking one and the "if you can't leave it, don't enter it'" mantra is really not too hard to comprehend. FAR too often one sees people rushing an orange light only to get stuck in the middle of the intersection which was clearly not clearing. I am not sure if there is a road design way to avoid this kind of selfish behaviour.
Northern Light
Superstar
My take on this is that all fines for all offenses should be income contingent.
The notion is not simply one of being compassionate to someone who might struggle with a $500 fine; its noting that many people shrug off $500 fines because its nothing to them if they have a 7-figure income.
Pain should be proportionate, not only for reasons of 'justice', but also because it makes the law more effective.
For a low-income person a $50 fine can sting; for a middle-income earner $250 is pretty attention-getting; for a billionaire, .....well, lets look at it as math
0.5% of $20,000 in income is $50
0.5% of $50,000 in income is $250
0.5% of $10,000,000 in income is $50,000
crs1026
Superstar
We have debated income contingent fines before, and I'm still not certain the idea is workable in practice - although I certainly can support the underlying premise. It strikes me as something that can be better handled by applying the principle arguing before the judge case by case than by creating a bureaucracy to do the same thing. Already, people do argue the financial impact and judges do consider such in awarding fines. This may be a good place for judicial discretion.
There are too many situations where individuals who can demonstrate low income on paper should not necessarily receive a lower fine - Uber and taxi drivers, and many courier drivers for instance are not high income earners but one would certainly expect stiff penalties for their offences given the degree to which they ought to know the rules of the road. And I'm very distrustful that the rich can be proven to be such when necessary - I know someone who largely evaded paying child support in a very messy divorce by claiming poverty on paper, only to buy a Ferrari a few months later. As well, anyone with the means to own and operate a vehicle has passed above a certain income threshold.
But getting back to the main point, the largest risks in drivers making turns amounts to a mental state that combines anxiety over stopping and impeding following traffic with impatience over the lack of throughput when drivers are required to yield right of way to an unpredicable and seemingly unending flow of pedestrians. Clearly one has to defer to the pedestrian, but that can result in situations where one car (or less) can turn safely in a single light cycle. A better design should definitely have road surfaces that deter impulsive, leadfoot dashes through small gaps in pedestrians - raised crosswalks do that. But I wonder if the answer may have to be better forms of traffic control that more clearly separate "go" and "no go" intervals. I can see that design restricting pedestrians more at times as well as motorists - it's your turn, and now it's my turn.
- Paul
There are too many situations where individuals who can demonstrate low income on paper should not necessarily receive a lower fine - Uber and taxi drivers, and many courier drivers for instance are not high income earners but one would certainly expect stiff penalties for their offences given the degree to which they ought to know the rules of the road. And I'm very distrustful that the rich can be proven to be such when necessary - I know someone who largely evaded paying child support in a very messy divorce by claiming poverty on paper, only to buy a Ferrari a few months later. As well, anyone with the means to own and operate a vehicle has passed above a certain income threshold.
But getting back to the main point, the largest risks in drivers making turns amounts to a mental state that combines anxiety over stopping and impeding following traffic with impatience over the lack of throughput when drivers are required to yield right of way to an unpredicable and seemingly unending flow of pedestrians. Clearly one has to defer to the pedestrian, but that can result in situations where one car (or less) can turn safely in a single light cycle. A better design should definitely have road surfaces that deter impulsive, leadfoot dashes through small gaps in pedestrians - raised crosswalks do that. But I wonder if the answer may have to be better forms of traffic control that more clearly separate "go" and "no go" intervals. I can see that design restricting pedestrians more at times as well as motorists - it's your turn, and now it's my turn.
- Paul
lenaitch
Senior Member
I understand the concept of geared-to-income fines, and appreciate the arguments for them and the fact that it is employed in other countries, but the only way it could work here would be through a fundamental change to our provincial offences system. Currently, out-of-court fines are set by the Chief Judge of the Ontario Court of Justice (old Provincial Court). The fines and short form wording are published and, depending on the online systems used by an enforcement agency, loaded into their database for offence notice preparation. Offence notices ('tickets') are prepared and served and, if the fine is paid, little other administrative action is required. The police have access to a number of databases - the CRA isn't one of them. To go the income-based fines would require a reversion to a much more administrative heavy system.
I'm also not convinced it would survive a Charter 15 (Equality) challenge.
There is also the principle that, for offences that do not require that intent be proven, the punishment should fit the act, not the impact. All other evidence being equal, blowing a stop sign at 3am with no one around ('if a tree falls in the forest . . .) is functionally no different than mid-afternoon and hitting a pedestrian; the offended act is the same.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
It would be more fairer to base the fines on one's income tax (from last year). For Doug Ford, the current fines are pocket change.
See link.
If they use CCTV's to record any infraction, they have to look up the car owner's address. In doing so, the computers could link to a database of the owner's income, and issue a fine based on that income. If the owner was not the driver, then the owner will have to go after the driver, or renter of the car.