Toronto Police J-Walking crackdown

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Toronto Police J-Walking crackdown
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Posted by TO guy on May-10-2006 14:15:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
Ok if thats the case, why are pedestrians here so brazen where the onus is on the driver yet anywhere else ive been where the onus is on the pedestrian, pedestrians actually respect automobiles?

I don't think it has to do with onus. I think its a deeper issue, and that is why the onus is on the driver. Like MH's post.

Since society (i.e. the people doing the walking and the people doing the driving) feel that it is more important for pedestrians to be safe than it is for cars to not have to use their brakes, we should take steps to make pedestrians safe.

The law that says it is the drivers onus did not cause this feeling, this feeling caused that law.

Posted by Jayx1 on May-10-2006 14:20:

quote:
Originally posted by TO guy
I don't think it has to do with onus. I think its a deeper issue, and that is why the onus is on the driver. Like MH's post.

Since society (i.e. the people doing the walking and the people doing the driving) feel that it is more important for pedestrians to be safe than it is for cars to not have to use their brakes, we should take steps to make pedestrians safe.

The law that says it is the drivers onus did not cause this feeling, this feeling caused that law.

Id suggest otherwise.

Either way id like to see pedestrians start respecting cars for their own sake.

Posted by TO guy on May-10-2006 14:23:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1

Either way id like to see pedestrians start respecting cars for their own sake.

agreed

Posted by Wurm on May-10-2006 14:27:

btw...

it's jaywalking, dammit!

Posted by Moral Hazard on May-10-2006 14:27:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
I think it actually does NOT protect the public. Why? because now the public has become more brazen and will take more risks because "it's their fault anyways". Lets put the onus on the jwalking pedestrian and then lets see how many put themselves at risk as they do now.

Sounds like you are in insurance. So you would know about probability. The more often a pedestrian crosses illegally, the more probable he will be hit by a car. Now imagine if a pedestrian was made to think twice about illgally crossing and had a reason not to interupt traffic? The incidences of fatal pedestrian accidents would decrease just based on probability alone.

Laws can change if we want them to. Everything in society is capable of changing if there is a will. We just have to start electing politicians who think about the big picture instead of trying to be all things to all people.

There are already measures in place to try and prevent pedestrians from crossing roads at locations other then marked crosswalks. These measures don't work. To think that adding the burdon of negligence for damage to property and persons is going to change pedestrian behaviour is simply idiotic. Do you honestly believe people are crossing the road thinking "I may get hit by a car but oh well.... it's not like it will cost me anything"???? If so you have no understanding of people.

What will happen if you remove the reverse onus of proof for pedestrian accidents is that people will still cross, they will still get hit, they will still be killed or catastrophically injured. What will change, however, is that instead of being able to recover non-pecuniary (pain and suffering) damages and pecuniary (monetary) damages they will have to pay pecuniary damages (for the damage to the vehicle). In the case of individuals that get injured and are precluded from working for the rest of their lives due to their injuries they will have no means with which to support themselves. This will result in them being added to the CPP disability or social assistance rolls. Which means rather then the insurer of a negligent driver paying for their treatment and lost earning capacity the taxpayers will. Your choice..... personally, I favour the former.

Posted by Moral Hazard on May-10-2006 14:27:

Posted by Jayx1 on May-10-2006 14:31:

quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
There are already measures in place to try and prevent pedestrians from crossing roads at locations other then marked crosswalks. These measures don't work. To think that adding the burdon of negligence for damage to property and persons is going to change pedestrian behaviour is simply idiotic. Do you honestly believe people are crossing the road thinking "I may get hit by a car but oh well.... it's not like it will cost me anything"???? If so you have no understanding of people.

What will happen if you remove the reverse onus of proof for pedestrian accidents is that people will still cross, they will still get hit, they will still be killed or catastrophically injured. What will change, however, is that instead of being able to recover non-pecuniary (pain and suffering) damages and pecuniary (monetary) damages they will have to pay pecuniary damages (for the damage to the vehicle). In the case of individuals that get injured and are precluded from working for the rest of their lives due to their injuries they will have no means with which to support themselves. This will result in them being added to the CPP disability or social assistance rolls. Which means rather then the insurer of a negligent driver paying for their treatment and lost earning capacity the taxpayers will. Your choice..... personally, I favour the former.

As i said, the current law is deeply engrained in the psyche of the toronto pedestrian. The thing that has changed is for some reason, the younger generations have lost the sense that 2 tonnes of steel is no match for 140 pounds of human.

My question is, why?

Posted by TO guy on May-10-2006 14:33:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
As i said, the current law is deeply engrained in the psyche of the toronto pedestrian. The thing that has changed is for some reason, the younger generations have lost the sense that 2 tonnes of steel is no match for 140 pounds of human.

My question is, why?

Kids are idiots, don't think too hard about it.

Posted by Jayx1 on May-10-2006 14:35:

quote:
Originally posted by TO guy
Kids are idiots, don't think too hard about it.

Im talking 40 and under though

Posted by KaiLee on May-10-2006 14:46:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1

Id love to see a toronto pedestrian in europe, asia or south america. He wouldnt last 5 minutes if he had the same attitude towards cars as most people here do.

I know the pedestrian death in Shanghai is about 10 a day....and here in Taipei it's 3, maybe 4 a day.

Cars don't stop here in Taipei, and not only do you have to watch out for cars...you have to watch out for scooters and buses that will flatten you like a rock....pedestrians are the lowest forms of life in the world of traffic in Asia, I don't even think a pedestrian can sue a driver if the driver hits them somewhere other can a crosswalk
When people are walking out into the road and stopping traffic they should get a ticket....although I did see a cop give a homeless guy a ticket for jaywalking one time and there was clearly no traffic around him....

Posted by Jayx1 on May-10-2006 14:53:

quote:
Originally posted by KaiLee
I know the pedestrian death in Shanghai is about 10 a day....and here in Taipei it's 3, maybe 4 a day.

Cars don't stop here in Taipei, and not only do you have to watch out for cars...you have to watch out for scooters and buses that will flatten you like a rock....pedestrians are the lowest forms of life in the world of traffic in Asia, I don't even think a pedestrian can sue a driver if the driver hits them somewhere other can a crosswalk
When people are walking out into the road and stopping traffic they should get a ticket....although I did see a cop give a homeless guy a ticket for jaywalking one time and there was clearly no traffic around him....

I bet most people who get flattened are those who are disobeying the law.

If you are careless you deserve what you get. I know thats harsh, but its the truth.

Posted by KaiLee on May-10-2006 15:14:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
I bet most people who get flattened are those who are disobeying the law.

If you are careless you deserve what you get. I know thats harsh, but its the truth.

exactly....and it seems to be that harshness is the only thing that brings people to their senses.

Posted by Swamper on May-10-2006 15:28:

Pedestrians in Manhattan are even more brave.. it's not just a Toronto thing.

Posted by Jayx1 on May-10-2006 15:32:

quote:
Originally posted by Swamper
Pedestrians in Manhattan are even more brave.. it's not just a Toronto thing.

However when people jwalk in manhatten and a car is coming, the car honks and doesnt slow down, and the crowd of people who are jwalking part like the red sea.

Same thing happens in Hong Kong.

Its funny to see how fast they move when a car is coming, sounds his horn, and they dont belong there.

Posted by lexclu on May-10-2006 17:22:

looking at things from the perspective the pedestrian is always right is not protecting them... placing the onus on the pedestrian to look after themselves is not idiotic, as a matter of fact quite the opposite... the fact that the law has been 'engrained into the psyche' of people in TO has lulled the average pedestrian into a false sense of security... and is a danger to drivers... its much easier for a pedestrian to turn around and remove themselves from a dangerous situation.... steps taken should be by pedestrians not placing themselves in danger... rather then them relying on a law which will not actually prevent you from bodily harm... rather will just place blame....

lex

Pages (2): « 1 [2]