|
Toronto Police J-Walking crackdown (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| muzzybear |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
thats exactly how it is in most juridictions in the world. and pedestrians are therefor respectful of cars. I just find it unbelievable how people here have no regard for their own safety and just waltz out into traffic expecting everyone to stop for their royal highnesses. And then have the gall to flip the bird when someone gets upset. |
And that's why J-walking is illegal! Pedestrians should cross at intersections. (Not trying to be argumentative, Jayx1, just regurgitating what my parents told me growing up... when it comes to a battle of crossing or not... cars always win.) |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by muzzybear
And that's why J-walking is illegal! Pedestrians should cross at intersections. (Not trying to be argumentative, Jayx1, just regurgitating what my parents told me growing up... when it comes to a battle of crossing or not... cars always win.) |
I agree with the jwalking law. But only in cases where you cause a disruption to traffic.
But as i said, if you jwalk the law should say that you do so at your own risk. |
|
|
| jesteraver |
| They started that like last week here in Montreal. Montreal notorious for j-walking. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
My solution:
If you get hit by a car while Jwalking it should be automatically the pedestrian's fault except in cases of wreckless driving or impaired driving. |
Sorry Jay but this will not happen. There is a reverse onus of proof for pedestrian collisions, the driver is automatically considered negligent unless they can prove the pedestrian was negligent. Ordinarilly, in cases of collisions that happen out side of marked cross walks the courts will hold the pedestrian 25% contributorally negligent. This is to say that the pedestrian is 25% at fault.
The reason for this reverse onus is to protect pedestrians from the financial ruin that could result from injuries suffered due to being struck by a vehicle. This is the way it works in every province in Canada and every state in the USA. No legislature believes that someone should have to be left completely unprotected should they be struck by a vehicle as vehicles have the capacity to render catastrophic injuries to pedestrians. Personally, I agree with this. As the driver of a vehicle you owe a duty of care to those whom you could injure or kill to protect them from the danger posed by your operation of an automobile. As part of that duty you need to remain attentive to your surroundings including pedestrians that may step off the curb in front of your vehicle. If you do not drive with due care sufficient to avoid collisions with pedestrians then you have breached your duty of care. Despite the fact that this reverse onus often works against my interests as an insurance adjuster I believe it is necessary to protect the public and subsequently must be maintained. |
|
|
| *~LiSa-LoO~* |
| I think this is pretty stupid. Hopefully they're only ticketing the J-walkers who are endangering other people...i.e. when they cause a traffic to stop. Just b/c you're a pedestrian does NOT mean you have the right of way. If you're J-walking and there's no cars coming and it doesn't effect traffic than fine...these people shouldn't get a ticket. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by *~LiSa-LoO~*
I think this is pretty stupid. Hopefully they're only ticketing the J-walkers who are endangering other people...i.e. when they cause a traffic to stop. Just b/c you're a pedestrian does NOT mean you have the right of way. If you're J-walking and there's no cars coming and it doesn't effect traffic than fine...these people shouldn't get a ticket. |
I knew there was a reason i liked you LOL |
|
|
| TO guy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
"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.
|
Do you really think people think about their right to sue when they cross the road? |
|
|
| *~LiSa-LoO~* |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
I knew there was a reason i liked you LOL |
Well I'm glad you figured it out ;) |
|
|
| zokissima |
| quote: | Originally posted by muzzybear
Pedestrians should always have the right of way.
Car vs. Person = death.
(This is not excusing the idiots who expect cars to stop, but drivers need less road rage). |
On a green, pedestrians always DO have the right of way. But if you're crossing a street on red, well .
One of my pet peeves is people who take FOREVER to cross the road. I'm waiting in the middle of an intersection to make a left hand turn, and fatasses walking at a normal pace always purposely seem to slow down when they cross the street. Frustrating. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by TO guy
Do you really think people think about their right to sue when they cross the road? |
I think its deeply engrained that they have some warped idea about how they "always have right of way" even when they dont. And then they act on it. I think that if this law were to change and there was a lot of media coverage, this idea would be erased. |
|
|
| TO guy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
I think its deeply engrained that they have some warped idea about how they "always have right of way" even when they dont. And then they act on it. I think that if this law were to change and there was a lot of media coverage, this idea would be erased. |
I think you're dreaming. People are trying to get to the other side of the street. They're not thinking about who was the right of way. It may be different if the outcome of a collision wasn't so catastrophic for the pedestrian. It doesn't really matter if a dead pedestrian was at fault or not. |
|
|
|
|
