Another Pedestrian Killed

[tboy]

Well, your bull in the china shop is a bad example, the china can't move, think or act. How about the running of the bulls in spain? That'd be better lol.....

Your hunters in the forest is a great example. Of course the hunters should take care and the hikers should know that maybe they shouldn't be hiking during hunting season? But of course there are those idiots who say "I should be able to hike wherever and whenever I want to". Then you accept the consequences for your actions.

For eg: hunters (by law I believe) have to wear an orange vest. Hikers? Nope. But they should be made to if they want to hike in hunting areas during hunting season.

The thing is, I lead my life with the adage: whoever has the most to lose, should pay more attention. I am self employed. Every action I take affects me. For eg: I had bad customers last year who tried to rip me off for $27K. Did I blame them? No. They were just crooks that tried to weasel their way out of paying for services rendered. When I took on the job I had misgivings. They convinced me to work for them by throwing money at me. I took full responsibility for my actions (making the decision) and dealt with the result (sued them). Now? I trust my judgement even more and wont' make the same mistake again.

This is why I firmly believe that whatever happens to anyone, they deserve the lion's share of the blame. For eg: a pedestrian gets hit crossing the road. They made the decision to cross the road, to put themselves in jeopardy. Now I realize accidents (true accidents) may happen but as the Workman's comp commercials say: there rarely are real accidents. 99.9% can be avoided.

I don't know if they still do this but when I was a jam face. Back in grade 3 I think it was. We had the police come to the school with that talking police car and teach us all about safety. WHile walking to and from school, playing, and how to cross the street safely. That struck home and I remember it to this day. When I walk across the street? (even at crosswalks) I look both ways TWICE before proceeding. Back then, most kids jackets came with reflective strips on them. So at night, if a car's lights hit them, they'd glow in the dark. I think every jacket I had had one of these strips on them.

I know I'm weird, but hey, this time in a GOOD way!

 

[fuji]

Black beat me to the punch: even at low speeds 2000 or more lbs of moving steel will kill a pedestrian.

That's true but there are two things you are overlooking:

1. At low speeds there's more time for everyone to react, on both sides, meaning many accidents are avoided, no matter who is in the wrong

2. Dangerous though it still is, and while you may be killed by a low speed vehicle, it is less likely that you will be

Overall if we slowed down cars to 20-30km in areas where there are lots of people there would be far fewer deaths.

 

[flubadub]

The problem with your take on the hiker and hunter analogy is one of rights.
Assuming land with equal rights to access, your take would be that during hunting season hikers should just not hike.
Similarly, your take is that pedestrians should take more care and perhaps not jaywalk and preferably not walk but drive.

So the rights of one party are curtailed for the rights of the other, hikers lose out to hunters and pedestrians lose out to drivers. The only way for equal rights to equal usage, hunting and hiking, driving and walking, are for the hunters and drivers to make sure they do not impinge on the rights of the hikers and drivers. That would mean taking more care and responsibility for the possible damage they can cause.

How about if my activity of choice was archery, and I prefered to place the target over homeplate facing out into the street. According to your logic it would fair to assume that anyone who walked or drove by end of it should just not do so until I've finished. And certainly that would be the wise thing, considering my aim, but more importantly it shifts responsiblity of the action away from those creating the dangerous situation to those at risk from it.

 

[tboy]

actually, your analogies are worse than mine lol.

With archery, I don't believe you are allowed to fire an arrow in an urban public setting unless by permit.

I have to ask (no offence at all) are you american? The reason being is sure, everyone has rights, but there are times when exercising those rights in lieu of safety should be considered.

See, the "rights" argument is the reason there is a recession now, and the reason houses are going for 10 cents on the dollar in the US. Sure, the lenders had the RIGHT to foreclose, but look what happened when they exercised those rights? They shot themselves in the foot.

See, I have the right to drink to excess whenever I want. I don't exercise those rights because I CHOOSE not to. Just like a hiker: they have the RIGHT to hike, but maybe this time, they choose NOT to. (and live to hike another day). Just like I have the RIGHT to build a car that can do over 200 mph. I also have the RIGHT to drive in at that speed on the highway. Now if I get caught, there are ramifications for exercising that right, so one might say: maybe I shouldn't exercise that right.......(and people who do end up in jail, dead, lose their car, etc).

Now you could argue that driving that fast is against the law. But it is STILL legal to buy the parts necessary to build a car that goes that fast. It is STLL legal to build a car that goes that fast.

 

[fuji]

(22) Where portions of a roadway are marked for pedestrian use, no pedestrian shall cross the roadway except within a portion so marked. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (22).

So you can only jay-walk in the middle of the street, not near the intersections. However, people do it anyway, and will continue to do it anyway, and to say "oh well then they can die" is too draconian for me. Cars are not that important to the city, pedestrians are. I see absolutely no downside in lowering the speed limit until the death count falls. In some areas that may be 10km, in some 20, in some maybe 30 but it is certainly not safe to mix pedestrians with cars doing 50.

(6) Every person on a bicycle or motor assisted bicycle who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the vehicle or equestrian to pass and the vehicle or equestrian overtaking shall turn out to the left so far as may be necessary to avoid a collision. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 148 (6).

Yes, but only where it is safe to do so, and it is left to the cyclist, and not the driver, to determine when it is safe. For example, if there are parked cars along the side of the road it is unsafe for the cyclist to ride within 1 meter of those cars.

 

[fuji]

It is worth mentioning that you have a right to walk down the street, but you have no right to drive down the street. Driving on the street is a privilege that can be curtailed.

 

[tboy]

It is worth mentioning that you have a right to walk down the street, but you have no right to drive down the street. Driving on the street is a privilege that can be curtailed.

LOL sorry, I don't know of any right that says a pedestrian can walk on the street. Maybe on the sidewalk, but not on the street. Frankly, walking on the street is already curtailed. There are curfews in place that aren't enforced either.

As for your cyclist comment: NO it is NOT up to the cyclist. No where in that law does it state that. That is a figment of your imagination my friend. It plainly states that the cyclist MUST turn out to the right and allow the faster vehicle to pass....no ifs ands or buts. If you want to argue that parked cars are a danger, then how about stopping and proceeding when it is safe to do so? OMFG that means that you the cyclist might have to have to have to BE CAREFUL god, the horror the horror.......

As for the markings quote: all roadways in toronto are marked for pedestrian crossings. Now you could argue "how far from those markings" but it doesn't mention that in the law so one must assume that " no pedestrian shall cross the roadway except within a portion so marked." It is black and white.

" no pedestrian shall cross the roadway except within a portion so marked.

 

[fuji]

LOL sorry, I don't know of any right that says a pedestrian can walk on the street. Maybe on the sidewalk, but not on the street. Frankly, walking on the street is already curtailed.

You are technically correct, the very best kind of correct: I should have said pedestrians have a right to walk on the sidewalk, and a right to cross the street. Drivers have no right whatsoever to drive on the public road, it is a privilege to be able to do so, not a right.

As for your cyclist comment: NO it is NOT up to the cyclist. No where in that law does it state that.

You are flat out wrong. The HTA under no circumstnaces requires anyone to take an unsafe action. It is always legal, for example, to stop right where you are and wait for a safe condition.

It plainly states that the cyclist MUST turn out to the right and allow the faster vehicle to pass

It also plainly omits the word "immediately".

 

[tboy]

You are flat out wrong. The HTA under no circumstnaces requires anyone to take an unsafe action. It is always legal, for example, to stop right where you are and wait for a safe condition.

You're correct. And since the law states that the cyclist must pull over and let the faster vehicle pass, and YOU say there are parked cars and you can't continue, and YOU say you can stop right where you are, then you SHOULD stop if you feel it is not safe to CYCLE past parked cars.

BTW: if you're using the excuse that cycling past parked cars is unsafe, and you don't have to pull over because of this fact, the same argument could be said for cycling on roadways period. It is unsafe to ride on roadways due to: catchbasins, potholes, broken pavement, streetcar tracks, other vehicles. Therefore by YOUR argument (that it is unsafe) cyclists should only be allowed on designated bike paths...bike PATHS no lanes....PATHS. That way they are safe from all the normal obstacles or unsafe conditions present on roads designed for motorized vehicles.....

 

[flubadub]

actually, your analogies are worse than mine lol.

With archery, I don't believe you are allowed to fire an arrow in an urban public setting unless by permit.

I have to ask (no offence at all) are you american? The reason being is sure, everyone has rights, but there are times when exercising those rights in lieu of safety should be considered.

See, the "rights" argument is the reason there is a recession now, and the reason houses are going for 10 cents on the dollar in the US. Sure, the lenders had the RIGHT to foreclose, but look what happened when they exercised those rights? They shot themselves in the foot.

See, I have the right to drink to excess whenever I want. I don't exercise those rights because I CHOOSE not to. Just like a hiker: they have the RIGHT to hike, but maybe this time, they choose NOT to. (and live to hike another day). Just like I have the RIGHT to build a car that can do over 200 mph. I also have the RIGHT to drive in at that speed on the highway. Now if I get caught, there are ramifications for exercising that right, so one might say: maybe I shouldn't exercise that right.......(and people who do end up in jail, dead, lose their car, etc).

Now you could argue that driving that fast is against the law. But it is STILL legal to buy the parts necessary to build a car that goes that fast. It is STLL legal to build a car that goes that fast.

I'd have to say my analogies aren't that much worse than yours.

Yes, you do probably need a permit to fire an arrow but you also need a permit and license to drive a car. So car driving is perhaps even more heavily regulated than archery. Not only do you have to pass a test to drive a car, you have to have insurance to cover for when you screw up and you have the car tested to make sure its road safe, and then you have to pay for a permit to be allowed to legally drive it.

You also seem confused about this 'rights' thing.

You do not have the right to drive a car at 200 km/h, you have a car that has the ability and you can legally own a car that can drive that fast. Similar perhaps to being legally allowed to own a bow and arrow but not legally allowed to use it to shoot people in the face. Yes, you do have the right to drink too much, until your drunken self acts in a way that impinges on someone else's rights or freedom, then you're going to get hit with disorderly conduct. But no, you do not have a right to drive at 200 km/h, more correctly you have a permit that allows you to drive a car on roads and highways as long as you follow the laws. As soon as you drive that fast you can have your license removed, your car impounded and a bonus fine, thanks to the new anti-street racing laws. The state gives you permission and you get to drive only so long as they deem you are fit too.

And no, I'm no American, eh.

 

[fuji]

You're correct. And since the law states that the cyclist must pull over and let the faster vehicle pass, and YOU say there are parked cars and you can't continue, and YOU say you can stop right where you are, then you SHOULD stop if you feel it is not safe to CYCLE past parked cars.

Yes. You could stop right where you are, blocking traffic, until it is safe. More likely you will continue cycling along until it is safe. In either case, you do not pull to the right until you think it is safe.

BTW: if you're using the excuse that cycling past parked cars is unsafe

It is absolutely unsafe to cycle within a car door width of a parked car. Cyclists die all the time doing that. It is completley unsafe. A cyclist must stay at least a meter away from a parked car and is not required (and should never) turn into that unsafe zone under any circumstances.

the same argument could be said for cycling on roadways period. It is unsafe to ride on roadways due to: catchbasins, potholes, broken pavement, streetcar tracks, other vehicles. Therefore by YOUR argument (that it is unsafe) cyclists should only be allowed on designated bike paths...bike PATHS no lanes....PATHS. That way they are safe from all the normal obstacles or unsafe conditions present on roads designed for motorized vehicles.....

You should educate yourself a little more before you post, you don't know what you're talking about.

You can see catchbasins, potholes, broken pavement, street car tracks, and other vehicles. Provided the other vehicles follow the rules of the road they will behave in predictable ways and give you at least 1 meter clearance when they pass.

You CANNOT predict when some driver is going to open their car door, and this is one of the leading ways cyclists get injured: They slam into a car door that opens unexpectedly just as they are passing the vehicle. Yes drivers are supposed to look before opening the door, but they don't, moreover there are often kids in the car who aren't even visible through the (tinted?) rear window anyway who don't even know the rules let along adhere to them. In any case it is unsafe to ride next to a parked car and no cyclist is ever required to do so nor should ever do so.

Cycling in that unsafe zone usually happens because a timid cyclist has been cowed into riding at an unsafe distance next to the car by aggressive drivers who wrongly believe that cyclist are required to pull over into an unsafe area when there is a car behind them.

 

[Cycleguy007]

When did this become a "cars vs cyclist thread"? WTF did I miss! LOL!

Regardless of what is legal or not.... (and I've made this point before...) a cyclist is NEVER going to win an argument with a 2,000 lb steel projectile (regardless of who is controlling it) so best stay as far away from them whenever possible!

 

[Rockslinger]

Guys, just remember this. One day, YOU will be 80 years old and the next pedestrian killed could be your MOM. WE all have to take care of each other. BE CAREFUL OUT THERE!

 

[ilovearabgirls]

the thing is. if a pedestrian gets hit he's dead and the driver goes to jail. regardless of who's fault it is, it is what it is so live with it. if you're willing to go to jail, then ok if not then don't. either way dead is dead and jail is jail.

 

[ilovearabgirls]

And one day you will mis-calculate and "plaster them on the pavement". Won't that be a thrill. What a fucking loser you are.

if he's willing to pay the price ie go jail who are u to judge. He isn't saying that he should get away with it. In life, if u do wrong u will go to jail but if he's man enough to take it then it doesn't matter.

 

[Brandon123]

Their was a guy who crossed in the middle of the street while talking on his cell phone, ran into a streetcar and died. You can't be more dumb than that.

 

[tboy]

You CANNOT predict when some driver is going to open their car door, and this is one of the leading ways cyclists get injured: They slam into a car door that opens unexpectedly just as they are passing the vehicle. Yes drivers are supposed to look before opening the door, but they don't, moreover there are often kids in the car who aren't even visible through the (tinted?) rear window anyway who don't even know the rules let along adhere to them. In any case it is unsafe to ride next to a parked car and no cyclist is ever required to do so nor should ever do so.

and you yourself said that you should stop and not proceed until it is safe to do so......YOUR words not mine. If you are not safe, STOP.

As for the other hazards on the road, your words: it is unsafe. As for a driver opening their door? Only blind dumb idiots dont' look through the car windows as they are riding. The ONLY vehicles you can't see into are panel vans and trucks. But if you're afraid of a car door opening, then you shouldn't be riding on main streets....

Just one more thing: fuji? You have this "thing" about cars in the city. You seem to think everyone else is far more important than someone driving a car. So, since cyclists and pedestrians have so much to lose by competing with cars, and since cars are a main source of income to our economy, how about we slow down cyclists and or ticket the fuck out of those that break the rules? And btw, you can't simply stop in the middle of a lane if you feel unsafe, you MUST pull to the curb and stop......and you can't just stop for an imagined danger, a real danger must exist. Otherwise you are breaking the law under the HTA.....

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion on why pedestrians should be more careful......

 

[fuji]

and you yourself said that you should stop and not proceed until it is safe to do so......YOUR words not mine. If you are not safe, STOP.

I suspect car drivers would be even more pissed if a cyclist just came to a stop in the middle of the lane. I am not sure what point you are trying to make now, but it's certainly not helping your side.

As for a driver opening their door? Only blind dumb idiots dont' look through the car windows as they are riding. The ONLY vehicles you can't see into are panel vans and trucks. But if you're afraid of a car door opening, then you shouldn't be riding on main streets....

You are just plain wrong. You shouldn't be riding within a meter of a parked car. Period. End of story.

No-one should. Ever.

since cars are a main source of income to our economy

There's a load of bullshit if I ever heard it.

And btw, you can't simply stop in the middle of a lane if you feel unsafe, you MUST pull to the curb and stop......

You are wrong. You can indeed come to a stop in the middle of the lane if it is unsafe to proceed. Any vehicle can.

 

[oldjones]

Getting back to how illegal (as opposed to how unwise) jaywalking may or may not be; we have tboy to thank for the blackletter law on the subject.

…edit…and another good one (pertaining to jaywalking):

Pedestrian crossing

(22) Where portions of a roadway are marked for pedestrian use, no pedestrian shall cross the roadway except within a portion so marked. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (22).

Pretty black and white: no pedestrian shall cross a roadway UNLESS IT IS MARKED. …edit…

Which makes it quite clear that anyone crossing close to a marked crossing is an offender, but not that everyone who crosses anywhere outside a marked crossing is one. It's the ambiguity of that phrase "Where portions of a roadway are marked for pedestrian use…", and only a lawyer could tell us how tightly (e.g. within thirty feet of a marked) or loosely (e.g. anywhere in a municipality that has any painted crosswalks) has been established by precedents. But we can all see that the intention is to tell pedestrians to damn well use the crosswalks that are provided.

It does nothing to define a general offence of jaywalking the way Elmer the Safety Elephant did: "Cross only at corners or crosswalks, anywhere else you're a jaywalker". In my immediate neighbourhood, there are no markings and I couldn't cross my own street legally under the wide version. But out on the Danforth there are many blocks long enough I'd be prepared to argue using a narrower interpretation, that mid-block is not a place "where portions of [the] roadway are marked for pedestrian use"—though perhaps they should be, where traffic has been restricted to a single lane with a huge untraveled centre area—and therefore it ain't jaywalking.

But no one can dispute the foolishness of being right, and being dead because you weren't alert.

 

[tboy]

OJ: there are many portions of the danforth that are marked for crosswalks. In fact, most really long blocks have them. I travel that route quite a lot and see a LOT of them. (now not every block has a crosswalk but enough so that you don't have to walk far to get to a marked route for passengers.

Fuji: It is illegal to simply stop in the middle of a lane for any perceived reason. You cannot simply state "I thought proceeding was unsafe". There has to be a real reason. It is your "perceived" notion that riding past parked cars is dangerous. It is only dangerous if there is someone inside the parked vehicle. This is easily overcome if you use your eyes and look into the vehicles as they are passing.

Since one BIG rule of the road is "slower vehicles keep right" if you feel the right hand curb lane is unsafe, then you shouldn't be riding. It isn't rocket science. If you feel unsafe, stop. You're correct. If you feel unsafe that doesn't give you ANY right to pull into another lane and block that one when you "think" there "might" be danger.

The thing that still kills me about you is that you have this attitude that as a cyclist, you have more rights than any other person using the roadway. You do not so get that idea right out of your head. If YOU feel your life is in danger, and you've said you should stop, then you shouldn't ride. YOUR words. PERIOD no argument for that. There are all kinds of dangers on the road and you yourself said you shouldn't ride where there's danger. So don't.

The dangers you keep harping on about riding near parked cars is no different than if you were driving a car, a truck, or motorcycle. Taking the danforth for example, I pretty much always drive in the curb lane even if there are parked cars. If your imagined danger is someone opening a door? The danger is the same for me. So I watch for it.

Where did you come up with this 1 meter bullshit? Is that an imagined rule you invented? If not, please point out in the HTA where it states this, otherwise, STFU about it.

Let's do a real world test shall we? Get your bike out of storage. We'll meet a Danforth and Pape. You start riding, I'll start driving. You pull out in front of me and jam on your brakes, I'll run you over. Then we'll see who gets charges laid by the police. I can guarantee you 100% unequivocally that I won't be charged. How can I say this? BECAUSE CAR DRIVERS GET CHARGED FOR DOING THIS ALL THE TIME!!!

As for cars contributing to the economy: You call bullshit? Ok, now you've just gone and shown yourself for just how STUPID you really are. I mean even 12 yrs olds know that the sale of cars and light trucks, the parts chain, service, roads, gas stations, car stereos, accessories, contribute Trillions of dollars to the economy every year.

""The auto industry is Canada's largest manufacturing sector and a key driver of our economy,""

from: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic1.nsf/eng/02354.html