|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Sep 9, 2022 |
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
Any of you goons want to work for The Brazman? Hit up his Yahoo. https://twitter.com/senatorbrazeau/status/753819588467359745
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
Hmmmm another high ranking public official refusing to use their public email account 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:The LRT is the clear winner in absolutely every metric using any of the proposed alignments. Some are better than others, but assuming the plan is to replace the SRT with something, the LRT still costs less, serves more people, and can be built sooner than a subway. Except that it's not the clear winner. The only advantage of Matlow's plan is that it saves several hundred million dollars. That's it. It's slower, requires an extra transfer (so allocate the same 10-15 minutes to make the transfer like you must with the RT), and serves the same two stations as the subway extension.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Please tell me this is actually a problem in Toronto.quote:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/text-crossing-street-ticket-1.3680311
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Please tell me this is actually a problem in Toronto. It's a problem everywhere, but it's generally a self-correcting one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Please tell me this is actually a problem in Toronto. Getting ahead of Pokemon Go! legislation, how progressive! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
If you're in a proper crosswalk you have the right of way until you get to the other side of the road so you should be able to look at whatever the hell you want.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Business Octopus posted:If you're in a proper crosswalk you have the right of way until you get to the other side of the road so you should be able to look at whatever the hell you want. Being on a bicycle gives you some kind of right of way in TO I think, I dunno. quote:"I've seen cyclists nearly take out pedestrians because the pedestrian, with headphones on and a smartphone in focus, steps in front of someone who has the right-of-way because they're on a bicycle," Carroll said.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Cyclists are gods among men, therefore there is never a need to them to give way for anyone or, indeed, follow any laws they do not wish to follow. If a pedestrian jaywalks and gets hit as a result, who cares why the pedestrian did so? It's their own drat fault.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Except that it's not the clear winner. The only advantage of Matlow's plan is that it saves several hundred million dollars. That's it. It's slower, requires an extra transfer (so allocate the same 10-15 minutes to make the transfer like you must with the RT), and serves the same two stations as the subway extension. It saves several hundred million dollars and moves the costs of construction and operation to the province. I'm not sure what definition of "clear winner" you're using, but I'm guessing it's one that excludes anything that isn't a four billion dollar hole in the ground. It would literally be better to let the SRT collapse and do absolutely nothing than to build this idiotic extension, because we can't afford it, it will run nearly empty, and it will drain resources from the rest of the system to subsidize its ill-conceived operation for decades. Based on the ridership you could run the same number of buses between STC and Kennedy as we do on Dufferin and still not be at capacity. Also, I'm not sure why you think waiting 15 to 20 minutes for one of four trains an hour that will actually use the extension rather than short turn at Kennedy will be better than a transfer, but I'll take your word for it. Edit: Also, at no point is the LRT projected to move fewer people than the subway expansion, regardless of the alignment. Even if the pants-on-head plan to run it where the SRT is now went ahead it would still serve more people than the subway. infernal machines fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jul 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Being on a bicycle gives you some kind of right of way in TO I think, I dunno. When I cycle commuted to U of T the people that would plow through the red light crosswalks on St. George really annoyed me because cyclists are uniquely worried about guilt by association.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
They need to enforce bikes not being on sidewalks first, that's the bigger problem in my experience
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:They need to enforce bikes not being on sidewalks first, that's the bigger problem in my experience God loving yes. I especially love when cyclists are riding on the sidewalk and they ring their stupid loving bell as if you have some obligation to get out of their way as they're doing an illegal and dangerous thing. Bonus points if it's two feet away from an actual, separated bike lane on the road. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:They need to enforce bikes not being on sidewalks first, that's the bigger problem in my experience Possibly the most amusing is when you have a cyclist frantically ringing their bell to get you to move out of their way while they ride literally inches away from a bike lane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Business Octopus posted:If you're in a proper crosswalk you have the right of way until you get to the other side of the road so you should be able to look at whatever the hell you want. Sure, if everything always worked the way it should. As it is, drivers are stupid and can be unaware of the pedestrian, but they have a car as a buffer, pedestrians don't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
The point is they're trying to place the onus for safety on the pedestrian rather than the driver, where it belongs. Because apparently requiring that drivers be fully aware of their surroundings when operating their multi-ton vehicles, and ensuring significant penalties for failing to do so, is too much of a burden. We've just decided to accept that drivers will behave in stupid and unsafe ways and so now it's everyone else's responsibility to deal with that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
It's not a given that the driver is at fault in every case where a car hits a pedestrian, particularly when pedestrians are distracted. If a pedestrian steps out against a red light and the car doesn't have time to react and stop, it's not the driver's fault. That's the problem with distracted pedestrians: they do dumb, unsafe, often illegal things. The proposed ban is stupid, because the issue isn't distracted pedestrians who already have the right-of-way, but that doesn't mean that "distracted walking" isn't a problem. I've had people literally walk straight into me because they're too busy looking at their phone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:The point is they're trying to place the onus for safety on the pedestrian rather than the driver, where it belongs. Because apparently requiring that drivers be fully aware of their surroundings when operating their multi-ton vehicles, and ensuring significant penalties for failing to do so, is too much of a burden. Drivers!!  "Accepting that drivers will behave in stupid and unsafe ways" is what every pedestrian, cyclist, and driver should do. Accounting for the possibility of human error is fundamental to proper use of the road. Also, texting while crossing tends to results in really dangerous, oblivious jaywalking, such that an accident wouldn't actually be the driver's fault at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It's not a given that the driver is at fault in every case where a car hits a pedestrian, particularly when pedestrians are distracted. If a pedestrian steps out against a red light and the car doesn't have time to react and stop, it's not the driver's fault. That's the problem with distracted pedestrians: they do dumb, unsafe, often illegal things. The proposed ban is stupid, because the issue isn't distracted pedestrians who already have the right-of-way, but that doesn't mean that "distracted walking" isn't a problem. I've had people literally walk straight into me because they're too busy looking at their phone. It's still the driver's responsibility to expect poo poo like that to be a possibility when they're driving. infernal machines posted:The point is they're trying to place the onus for safety on the pedestrian rather than the driver, where it belongs. Because apparently requiring that drivers be fully aware of their surroundings when operating their multi-ton vehicles, and ensuring significant penalties for failing to do so, is too much of a burden. It needs to be on both, it's not like it's a difficult loving thing for either party to be aware of their surroundings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:It's still the driver's responsibility to expect poo poo like that to be a possibility when they're driving. If people are going to abruptly change direction and step off a curb without right-of-way, it's unreasonable to expect drivers will be able to stop all the time unless you think drivers should go everywhere at 20 km/h, which is just unreasonable. Pedestrians need to take responsibility for their own safety by following the law and not doing stupid things, just like drivers need to be responsible by also following the law and looking for potential hazards (including dimwitted pedestrians). Frankly, I think before we expect drivers to be magical beings capable of foreseeing everyone else's bad behaviour, we should expect them to follow the existing laws at crosswalks -- something that I've noticed is a recurring problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Severely limiting speeds would drastically reduce pedestrian deaths. But that's unreasonable, because drivers must not be inconvenienced, so we'll accept pedestrian deaths with the provisio that it's their responsibility not to be hit by the car. Gottcha.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Until we find some way to completely overrule the laws of conservation of energy there are going to be hazards associated with transporting humans at any speed in objects of significant mass. Pedestrians should definitely have the right of way and I think that personal vehicle use should ideally be the mode of transportation of last resort in populated areas but that still doesn't mean that the onus should always be 100% on the part of the driver. Due diligence, obeying traffic laws and making every reasonable effort to yield to pedestrians and cyclists is what's currently necessary and the law but jesus loving christ people need to keep looking both ways before crossing the loving street and also don't let your god damned kids run loose in parking lots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
And while we're at it if you're a pedestrian using the blinky yellow traffic light pedestrian crossings don't just slam the button and immediately step out in to traffic cars don't stop on a dime.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Wandering out into traffic is already against the law, we don't need a new law that tells people not to wander out into traffic while playing video games.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Just because you have the right of way, doesn't absolve you of responsibility for paying attention to your surroundings. Much like drivers shouldn't look at their phones when they have right of way. e: making a law for it is WAY sillier than when they banned them in cars though
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
In the UK, pedestrians don't have the right of way. Best loving law ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Severely limiting speeds would drastically reduce pedestrian deaths. But that's unreasonable, because drivers must not be inconvenienced, so we'll accept pedestrian deaths with the provisio that it's their responsibility not to be hit by the car. Should we also limit trains and buses to an absurdly low speed to limit pedestrian injuries and fatalities? Because pedestrians can and do get hit by those too. This isn't a private-car-only issue; putting pedestrian safety ahead of all other considerations, even when the pedestrians are acting illegal and contrary to the interests of their own safety, would make our society grind to a halt. It may sound callous to say, but there is an acceptable number of deaths related to the deceased's own stupidity and negligence that's acceptable, and it's greater than 0. Why should society give a gently caress about you if you're not willing to take responsibility for your own safety?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:In the UK, pedestrians don't have the right of way. Best loving law ever. I feel like it's this way in most of Europe, I've had to watch my rear end everywhere. Which is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Wandering out into traffic is already against the law, we don't need a new law that tells people not to wander out into traffic while playing video games. Exactly. I don't think we need laws against "distracted walking" for the same reasons that we don't have laws against "walking under the influence". There are dangerous pedestrian actions, but they're already covered by jaywalking laws. Toronto council is dumb and lovely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:I feel like it's this way in most of Europe, I've had to watch my rear end everywhere. Which is a good thing. My uncle says that, in Germany, if you hit a pedestrian who did not have the right of way because you were unable to stop in time, and kill them, you can sue their estate for the damage to your car. I don't think anyone's arguing that drivers should be absolved of any responsibility to avoid pedestrians, but on the other hand, I don't think they should be blamed when a collision between a law-abiding driver and a pedestrian behaving illegally occurs. I say this as someone who walks much more often than driving: it's my responsibility to behave in a safe and lawful manner as a pedestrian, just as it is when I'm driving. Instead of focusing on how to protect pedestrians from their own stupidity, perhaps we should focus on enforcing the existing laws regarding crosswalks, which I routinely see being ignored by drivers. As a pedestrian who follows the law, that's a much bigger concern for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
New Coke posted:Drivers!! Yeah, get this, the pedestrians aren't the ones killing people here. PT6A posted:Should we also limit trains and buses to an absurdly low speed to limit pedestrian injuries and fatalities? Because pedestrians can and do get hit by those too. This isn't a private-car-only issue; putting pedestrian safety ahead of all other considerations, even when the pedestrians are acting illegal and contrary to the interests of their own safety, would make our society grind to a halt. Lowered speed limits would apply to all vehicles traveling on those roads, just like they always do. The context of this whole discussion was a debate about Toronto's implementation of Vision Zero, a plan to reduce pedestrian deaths by use of various methods including traffic calming measures and reduced speed limits on city streets. No one is talking about making a 400 series highway a 30 kph zone, but on residential streets the research shows limiting speeds to 30 kph would reduce fatalities significantly. Instead of doing that, we decided we're okay with the level of fatalities, because it's really the pedestrians fault anyway, and so we'll just make it illegal for them to look at their phones while crossing the street. Business Octopus posted:Exactly. I don't think we need laws against "distracted walking" for the same reasons that we don't have laws against "walking under the influence". There are dangerous pedestrian actions, but they're already covered by jaywalking laws. Toronto council is dumb and lovely. Fun fact: Jaywalking is not actually illegal in Toronto infernal machines fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Jul 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
30km/h speed limit might work in purely residential areas but if you did that on all main surface streets in any city you would completely gently caress everything up for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:30km/h speed limit might work in purely residential areas but if you did that on all main surface streets in any city you would completely gently caress everything up for everyone. Yeah, I can see instituting a 30 km/h limit in residential areas because there are kids playing and whatnot, but on normal surface streets 50 km/h traffic is perfectly safe. Every time I've nearly been hit by a car has been at a crosswalk, usually by a car that's turning across the crosswalk, where they obviously aren't doing anything near the speed limit. We need better crosswalk enforcement before we lower speed limits (which will also need enforcement!).
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
I'm not talking about wherever you live, because I've never been there, but how fast do you think the average speed is traveling down King St. or Dundas, or Bloor, etc. in Toronto? Hint: The average is significantly under 30 kph* *https://www1.toronto.ca/City%20Of%2..._09-15-2015.pdf PT6A posted:Yeah, I can see instituting a 30 km/h limit in residential areas because there are kids playing and whatnot, but on normal surface streets 50 km/h traffic is perfectly safe. It is provably less safe than 30 (for pedestrians).
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:30km/h speed limit might work in purely residential areas but if you did that on all main surface streets in any city you would completely gently caress everything up for everyone. Before you hurt yourself trying to disembowel this strawman, you can read the actual plan that city council approved: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-93990.pdf ... along with the proposed reductions to speed limits: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-94204.pdf ... and note that they are (almost?) all 10km/h reductions from 70-60, 60-50, and 50-40.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:Fun fact: Jaywalking is not actually illegal in Toronto http://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledgebase/68/101000049368.html If you're crossing midblock without a light or zebra crossing you lose the right of way which I think is fair, and would still provide recourse for people that just "step into a road without looking". There are people in that CBC article comments section that want to outlaw pedestrians wearing earbuds... It seems as if we're finally seeing some fightback on the War On Cars. Business Octopus fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jul 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
You can say "I don't care if people die, I don't want to drive any slower". That's a position you can hold. But if you have an interest in reducing pedestrian fatalities, there is a known way to do that and it's not "tell them to watch where they're going".
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:It is provably less safe than 30 (for pedestrians). Yes, but pedestrians shouldn't be on the road on major surface streets unless they're in a crosswalk (definitions are tricky, so I'll say "any street that is primarily or completely controlled by traffic lights"), so all we need to do is make sure that traffic is not going so fast that they're likely to lose control and mount the sidewalk. I don't know streets in Toronto, but if you're suggesting that something like McLeod Tr. or any of the major avenues in downtown Calgary be restricted to 30 km/h, that's sheer loving lunacy (even though there are lots of pedestrians around).
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
infernal machines posted:You can say "I don't care if people die, I don't want to drive any slower". That's a position you can hold. But if you have an interest in reducing pedestrian fatalities, there is a known way to do that and it's not "tell them to watch where they're going". I care if people die in general. I don't care if people die because they were negligent in crossing the street.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 19:06
|
|