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.

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.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Either way id like to see pedestrians start respecting cars for their own sake.

agreed

it's jaywalking, dammit!

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.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

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.

+ 1000

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

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?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

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.

quote:

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

Im talking 40 and under though

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

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....

___________________
-.mK. - DONE UNIVERSITY weeeeeeeeee! says:
RITA MCNEIL CHRISTMAS SPECIAL MON @8, CTV

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.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill