As pedestrian deaths started to mount to disturbing numbers in January, the response at first was a combination of concern, blame that was reasonably balanced between both drivers and pedestrians, and, occasionally, some thoughtful discussion.
Then, in the last week of January, the response suddenly changed for the worse. On Wednesday Jan. 27, Toronto woke up to radio, TV and newspapers saturated with stories about reckless pedestrians, and images of Toronto Police “blitzing” pedestrian behaviour in downtown Toronto. Suddenly it was pedestrians’ fault for getting themselves killed. While a few drivers were ticketed too, they were not emphasized in the stories.
What happened? The change in tone seems to have been a direct response to the police campaign. The first sign was a segment on CBC TV’s The National on Jan. 26, where the cameras were there to watch police warn pedestrians and then drive along with a policeman as he talked about reckless pedestrians. The next day, the stories focused on police stopping people on foot for various infractions in the downtown business district. They had plenty of quotes or clips from police representatives and the pedestrians being stopped, and not many from others. There was only minimal discussion about driver behaviour, mostly buried at the end of the stories.
Now that the deadly January and, I hope, the police crackdown are past, it’s a good time to look back and analyze the whole affair, one last time, in more depth. I’ve heard outrage from a lot of people about this police campaign, and it had various negative effects on pedestrianism in Toronto.
The police campaign consciously shifted the blame-game towards pedestrians. This strategy ignored the fact that many of the pedestrians killed in January were behaving in a legal and responsible manner when they were killed by vehicles. Instead, it reassured drivers that they did not need to examine or change their own behaviour, relieving them of responsibility. By trivializing the causes of the deaths as “those crazy pedestrians,” it threatened to derail a developing and constructive discussion about how Toronto intersections can be made safer. And it portrayed walking itself as an unsafe activity.
What’s more, the police focus on the downtown business district was a cheap shot, the easy way out, and sent the wrong message. This area is in fact quite safe for pedestrians, because there are so many of them that drivers drive slowly and carefully. No pedestrian has been killed there recently. The danger comes at bigger intersections farther out, where there are fewer pedestrians and vehicles drive faster.
The way pedestrians clog the streets downtown is not the problem — it’s the solution.
Perhaps most aggravating was the way the police blitz literally added insult to injury. At a time when pedestrians were shocked and horrified by a series of terrible fatalities, and looking for someone to do something constructive about the situation, the police chose to pile blame on pedestrians themselves with a facile publicity campaign that did not address the real issues. Rather than reasssurance or constructive action, pedestrians were left with the sour taste of being kicked while they were down.
Why did police do this? It seems like it was primarily an attempt to get a low-effort publicity win. Picking off pedestrians in the financial district is like shooting fish in a barrel — it didn’t take a lot of resources, it didn’t require a lot of effort from the media, and it got maximum publicity.
The weird thing is that, apparently, police in every division were targeting intersections that were actually dangerous, and many of them were no doubt ticketing drivers too. It really would not have been that difficult to focus media attention on these intersections instead, and on drivers as well as pedestrians — but it would have taken the media more time and more travel to get there, with less of a clear and easy story.
Another reason for the pedestrian focus may have been the theory that a series of pedestrian safety campaigns and anti-jaywalking blitzes by Montreal police in recent years reduced pedestrian deaths in that city. Several of the media stories that accompanied Toronto’s blitz referred to these Montreal blitzes. Of course, Montreal also re-introduced its universal “no right turns on red” rule throughout the city after the Province of Quebec had rescinded the provincial law. That would do way more for pedestrian safety than a blitz, but I’m not expecting to see it implemented in Toronto any time soon.
Let’s have a closer look at some of the tactics in this anti-pedestrian blitz.
“Pedestrians are the vulnerable ones”
When the fatal collisions began, the police response took a while to develop, but it at first tended to assign responsibility for pedestrian safety equally between drivers and pedestrians.
But then the police response shifted. Rather than assigning responsibility equally, the police began emphasizing only the pedestrian’s responsibility. The argument was, essentially, that because pedestrians are the ones who get hurt, it’s up to pedestrians to be more vigilant, even if they are obeying all of the rules.
On Monday, in response to a pedestrian struck by a bus while crossing with the right-of-way, a police spokesman had this to say:
Although the woman was crossing the street legally, Const. William Wang said she should have been more aware of her surroundings.”It’s an unfortunate situation,” he said. “Even though the pedestrian had the right of way, she still has to pay attention.”
This line of argument is flawed. You could just as easily argue that, because drivers are the only ones wielding machinery that can cause injury, they are the ones who bear extra responsibility to be vigilant that their actions do not cause harm. Basically, “with power comes responsibility.”
As a matter of fact, that’s exactly what Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act says. Section 193 (1) states that when a driver hits a pedestrian, the onus rests with the driver to prove that it was not their fault.
Pedestrians should not have to cross Toronto’s streets in constant fear.
If we are crossing a street with a green light, we should not have to be watchful at every moment to see if a reckless driver is about to hit us. No doubt we will make a quick check for turning vehicles when we start crossing, but we should be able to expect that drivers will routinely obey the law. Furthermore, even if we did notice an oncoming vehicle, there is likely very little we could do about it. Cars move fast, and in many cases they are turning into the pedestrian from the side or from behind. The only way to prevent pedestrians being hit in these circumstances is for drivers to exercise reasonable caution and obey the laws that say they have to stop before turning, and yield to pedestrians who are crossing with the right-of-way. The police should be working to raise driver awareness and remind them of these responsibilities, not lay the blame on pedestrians when they are behaving responsibly.
Expanding the application of laws
In order to find reasons to warn and ticket pedestrians, the police began to enforce laws that they had not previously concerned themselves about, notably the law that says that pedestrians cannot start crossing on the flashing hand signal.
When Toronto’s pedestrian countdown signals were introduced a few years ago, the Toronto Pedestrian Committee discussed how the countdowns — which seem to acknowledge that pedestrians might start crossing after the flashing hand has started — fit with the legal technicality that says they should not do so. The police representative at the committee said that, in their experience, this law was rarely enforced.
In fact, one of the reasons for introducing the countdown was that studies showed that, when they are present, pedestrians are much more likely to clear the intersection before the light changes (because they know how fast they have to go). So the law is even less relevant now.
For the purposes of creating a highly-publicized “crackdown” where they could warn or ticket lots of pedestrians in a short time for the media, however, it seems that the police began to actively enforce this law — in an area of town where pedestrians were not in fact in significant danger.
If a fully mobile pedestrian is still in the intersection when the light changes to green the other way, ticket them by all means for causing danger and impeding traffic. But the enforcement should depend on when they finish crossing, not when they start.
Some media also picked up on the idea of “jaywalking” as part of this blitz, but the police began clarifying this question the next day. In a Q&A with the Globe and Mail on Thursday Jan. 28, Sgt. Tim Burrows explained right from the top (at 12:06) in reply to a question about “under what conditions jaywalking is legal and illegal”:
As long as you never cause a driver/rider to avoid you (interfere with them) there has been no offence. Walking outside of crosswalk line, also an offence. If you are near them, you have to use them.
The “near a crosswalk” provision, however, is not clearly defined, so police may be able to use it flexibly when they want to be more aggressive in targeting pedestrians.
It’s also worth quoting Sgt. Burrows at 12:53 of the same Q&A:
I am not against jaywalking…I do it myself. What we all have to keep in mind is that we have no protection in the event we get hit. When I jaywalk, I leave extra space in case I slip or something so that thereis a safety cushion built in for hazzards.
Of course, it is entirely reasonable to target pedestrians behaving irresponsibly — such as crossing against a red light, not getting out of an intersection by the time the light changes, or darting into traffic and forcing vehicles to stop to avoid them. The point is that changing and enforcing driver behaviour is at least as important in saving pedestrian lives. Any “crackdown” is a useless and facile publicity stunt unless it targets drivers loudly and clearly as well as pedestrians.
The dangers caused by drivers are nicely illustrated in a video sent by a reader of an intersection in Philadelphia. Note how the vehicles almost invariably do no more than a rolling stop, often not until they are well into the crosswalk. The only time they actually come to the full, legal stop is when there is a pedestrian in the intersection, and the pedestrians often feel so intimidated they rush across even though they have the right of way. Note also how the right-turning vehicles almost never stop completely before turning — and the turning buses barely slow down. Just last weekend a woman in Toronto was clipped by a bus turning right.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpRfUh1Dzlw[/youtube]
These are the kind of driver behaviours that need to be targeted in any attempt to make the city safe for walking.
The one good thing about the terrible events of January is that it raised awareness of pedestrian safety and, amidst the general clamour, resulted in a few good articles about how to make the city better for walking. Here are a few of the ones I collected:
• Sunday Star editorial: “Don’t blame pedestrians”
• Christopher Hume: “Maybe we’d all be safer jaywalking” (Toronto Star)
• Chart of how to improve an intersection in “The war on walking” (Globe and Mail)
• Jane Farrow talks about suburban intersections on Globe and Mail video (at 45 seconds in)
• “Why are Toronto’s streets so dangerous?” – the Globe actually looks at the statistics (although I’m disappointed no-one noticed that the spike between 3-4 pm coincides with kids getting out of school)
Photo by deadrus
41 comments
Great article, Dylan. As a cyclist, pedestrian and occasional (carsharing) driver, I’ve considered the media and police response far too heavy on pedestrian “awareness”.
Might be time for all of us to take out our cameras to film our favourite intersections and see who’s behaving badly…
(p.s. I love how the Philadelphia intersection has not one but three stop signs, two flashing lights and markings all over the road – still to no effect).
I agree with your general point, but I’m curious as to how much blame rests with the police and how much goes to the media. The police were ticketing drivers as well as pedestrians, but that fact was buried in most articles; I remember reading an early version of a Star story that omitted it completely.
Does that reflect the police stopping more pedestrians than drivers, or is it merely the aspect the media chose to focus on?
I love that video. It reminds me of The Star’s “cyclists never stop at stop sign!” epidemic, which left out that probably less than 25% of cars come to a proper stop at that intersection.
An excellent summary of the issue, Dylan. That Philly video is great – makes me feel like camping out for a few minutes at one of my local intersections.
What’s so shocking about the video is not so much that almost no drivers come to an absolute stop but that so many go through the intersection *even when there are pedestrians trying to cross the street.* Many of the pedestrians are clearly intimidated by the cars, even though they completely have the right of way.
Great again, Dylan. Thank you for keeping on top of this topic, and for researching the facts from the HTA and traffic studies. The Toronto study from 2003 on causes of pedestrian injuries and deaths was by far the best document I’ve seen yet.
Suggestion: Do the Philadelphia experiment at select pedestrian fatality intersections in Toronto, then send it to local police division with request they charge drivers. This should work if your video clearly shows: a: Time/date stamp and 2: Licence plate of those that flout the law.
It would be really interesting to see what police/court response is and whether the big media pick up on it.
In the video, cyclists were no better than the drivers. Try to board a streetcar when a stream of cyclists is pouring by in rush hour.
Regarding pedestrian safety, particularly outside the downtown core, I wanted to bring to people’s attention a situation created by the TTC that I’m afraid has the potential for putting pedestrians at risk in the near future.
Construction recently began at Glencairn Station, and is scheduled to last until April. The entrance to the station on the north side of the street is closed, so the only way to access the station is on the south side of the street. The problem I am seeing everyday now, is that the 14 Glencairn bus to Caledonia Rd. still stops on the north side of the street. There are no official crosswalks within close proximity of the station, the nearest one in either direction is a couple blocks away.
Because there are no crosswalks, nor any stop signs in the vicinity of the station, cars go down the road without much hesitation or awareness for any pedestrians.
If you’re walking to the station, and are aware of the construction, then you can cross the street before arriving. But passengers on the bus don’t have this option. This forces pedestrians who want to access the subway, to cross the street in the middle of the road, and the middle of oncoming traffic. Factor in the possibility that both the Caledonia and Davisville 14 buses sometimes arrive at the station at the same time, the buses block the view of oncoming traffic.
During rush hours I have seen a number of pedestrians almost get blindsided when attempting to cross the street to enter the station, because the cars aren’t slowing down due to the lack of crosswalks and stop signs. It’s gotten to a point now where pedestrians coming off the bus are traveling in a pack to ensure the cars stop for us.
If the TTC is going to pedestrians at risk like this until April, some sort of temporary solution to crossing the road needs to be put in place to ensure the safety of pedestrians crossing the road.
In Europe (except for the UK), in ALL the pedestrian deaths that have occurred, it would be the driver of the motor vehicle at fault, period. See this link at http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/02/strict-liability.html where the policy of STRICT LIABILITY is in force in most of Europe.
Under Strict Liability, “basically, cars kill. Those who drive cars and kill or injure people are liable, simply because of the responsibility involved in operating a 2000 kg machine.”
Only if the motor vehicle is NOT moving, would the pedestrian or bicyclist be liable.
Terrific article with excellent reasoning. Wish this would appear in the weekend papers rather than the usual drivel.
That video is incredible, even for Philly drivers, so I looked into it a little further. It is indeed a prime example of drivers (and cyclists) failing to heed traffic signals but their behavior is not entirely without context. Here is the google map link for Rittenhouse Sq and South 19th St: http://bit.ly/8ZxYAs Looks like this T-shaped intersection is part of a jog in a major one-way roadway that bends around the park. The jog leads vehicles into a smooth left and then a very quick right, the right being shown in the video above. This is rather like the soon-to-die Dufferin-Gladstone jog in Toronto at Queen. Were one to put a stop sign at Dufferin and Peel you might see the similar results to the video.
This is not to excuse the drivers for their explicit breaking of the law, but it makes me wonder how best to resolve this awkward situation.
1) Would no signs at all be better, so that drivers have to cautiously look around as they navigate the corner, Dutch-style? I don’t think that would work in a “jog” situation like this on a major roadway. Too much taffic in a single direction.
2) A traffic light would definitely force drivers to make a much better effort at stopping before turning right, though this would then result in pedestrians thinking they had total right of way while drivers continued to roll stop and turn right on a red light. This would also penalize cyclists, who really should in my opinion be allowed to make rolling-yield-stops at stop signs.
3) Perhaps this needs some traffic calming in the form of pavement treatments and narrowing the street further. Would be tough to make this work with the buses though.
4) Were the streets both two-way, the drivers would have to slow down due to drivers coming from the opposite direction. Drivers do not modify their behavior for the odd pedestrian but they will modify their behavior if they fear an SUV will T-bone them. This is certainly something that could help.
5) The left before the right in the jog is, like Dufferin-Peel in Toronto, not a stop – it is actually a car-friendly, roaring curve that keeps the cars going full speed around the corner. Were the cars forced to stop at that left, they would be traveling more slowly at the intersection in the video 100 ft later and might easily be more inclined to stop. As it currently exists, drivers entering the jog probably feel more like they are hitting the chicane on an Indycar track rather than navigating an urban area.
I certainly do not blame pedestrians for being hit by cars, even ones who jaywalk or talk distractedly on cell phones — driving in highly urban areas is like visiting African Lion Safari — respect must be given to the native occupants, even if they are a bit untamed. But I don’t entirely blame drivers either, as they are responding to the inputs given to them by the traffic planners and urban designers. Engineering and architectural changes can improve many intersections so that the safety interests of drivers and pedestrians are aligned.
Dylan,
It appears that you have backed away from your emphatic “jay walking is legal” statements. Instead you attempt to use the words of others to make the same point. Jaywalking is not legal if there is a reasonable alternative. Nonetheless you should not be promoting it in any way.
On taking issue with the police comments on the women struck by the bus. I agree with the police. Yes the women had the right of way. That is not the issue. The issue is that there is always an opportunity for human error to interface with our lives that has disastrous consequences. Tombstones in-scripted with “I had the right of way” offer little comfort.
When my children are near traffic or in a parking lot, I urge them, along with myself, to keep a constant vigilance. I tell them to assume that they are not seen by drivers and to act accordingly. While they unequivocally have the right of way, the offers them no protections.
Toronto drivers are babies and bullies: two groups you don’t let make their own decisions. If we are serious about human life we’d ban personal motor vehicles. Short of that:
– no right turns on red
– advanced walk signals
– lower speed limits on unseparated roads
– some actual policing against careless driving
– a cell phone law that prohibits use handheld or handsfree, since the risk is statistically the same
– jail terms for drivers with suspended licenses which increases dramatically with each offense
However, we are not serious about human life, and these won’t happen. Our society is sociopathic.
Frank said: “In the video, cyclists were no better than the drivers. Try to board a streetcar when a stream of cyclists is pouring by in rush hour.” Of course Frank, let’s focus on the cyclists. They kill so many more people than drivers!
I’m not saying cyclists shouldn’t obey the laws (and btw, there is some room for interpretation on what coming to a stop means, for a cyclist, but something tells me you don’t do nuance), but when they don’t it is a nuisance, not gross negligence. If you don’t buy it, I have a challenge. I’ll let a bike hit me at 10km/h; you let a car hit you at 10km/h.
Excellent post, Dylan.
I was reading this fine article “In Defense of Jaywalking” by Tom Vanderbilt recently just to keep me sane. http://www.slate.com/id/2234011/pagenum/all/
He seems to echo your thoughts.
Again, thank you.
Glen I will presume to speak for Dylan and say that he has not backed away from his statement that jaywalking (or crossing the road in the middle of a block) is legal. He has simply not stated that himself in this article for the 100th time. Indeed, he let’s the police in the words of Sgt. Burrows say jaywalking is legal. He does this to validate his earlier words, and to try and take away the argument that only activists say it is legal. No, the HTA and the Toronto police say it is legal. As with many acts, it is also possible to do it illegally.
It appears that you have backed away from your emphatic “jay walking is legal†statements.
I don’t recall Dylan ever saying jaywalking was legal (although a number of commenters did). In fact, jaywalking is not legal – an illegal pedestrian crossing is the essence of jaywalking. What Dylan did take issue with is what is considered by some to be jaywalking (ie. illegal).
I think discussing jaywalking in this thread would be distracting since it has next to no bearing on the deaths.
But let’s be clear on the semantics so everyone is on the same page.
jaywalking = mid-block crossing
crossing on a red ≠jaywalking (its just illegal)
Jaywalking got it’s name from the word “Jay” which was a slight dig at country folk over 100 years ago. Country folk would wander into traffic oblivious to how city roads functioned, and thus the term was coined. It has — and continues to have — no connection to anyone crossing illegally at a red light. That’s not jaywlaking, its just illegal.
But jaywalking is legal. As Sgt Burrows clearly states the only thing you can’t do while jaywalking (or more appropriately called a ‘mid-block crossing”) is stop/get in the way of cars/traffic.
In the video, cyclists were no better than the drivers. Try to board a streetcar when a stream of cyclists is pouring by in rush hour.
Yes, I can see how cyclists in Philadelphia tell us a lot about how cyclists in Toronto behave near streetcars…
While I appreciate that data is not the plural of anecdote, in my (extensive) experience cycling in this city I rarely, if ever, see cyclists blowing by streetcars boarding passengers.
McKingford: In the article “TORONTO STAR FRONT PAGE ALL-CAPS FAIL”, Dylan said: “One problem: **Crossing mid-block is NOT illegal.**” (Emphasis in original!)
After some commenters raised questions about this statement, Dylan said he would look into it and get back to us. I’m wondering what the answer was.
Not that I want jaywalking to be illegal (quite the opposite). I’m just wondering, if I get busted for jaywalking, which I do all the time, can I send the bill to Spacing?
How many people were mowed down by horse and buggy traffic in the 19th century? I’m sure more than a few. If we were serious about human life we’d have banned horses and buggies.
Anyone else notice the sign in the photo misdirecting people going to the Convention Centre North? It’s pointing north on Bay St. instead of west on Front St.
Thursday Feb 4 about 1pm down at Liberty Village I saw a police officer on a horse (“Honest Ed” – the horse, not the cop). He actually chased someone who was yakking on her cell phone and (I think) breezed through a stop sign. He didn’t catch her, but he did pull over a guy who had rolled through the stop sign a little later.
Wish I’d had a better photo of the guy’s amazed face when the big horse appeared beside his window!
(Maybe horse police need a siren/lite, but where would they put it?)
TokyoTuds,
Sgt. Burrows may well say that the earth is square. That does not make it so. The courts are where the HTA will be defined.
McKingford,
Here is a quote from Dylan ” I wrote an article in NOW magazine about pedestrians crossing in the middle of a block, noting that it is in fact legal to do so, so that there is no crime of “jaywalking†in Toronto.” (https://spacing.ca/toronto/2007/11/20/pedestrians-crossing-mid-block-in-toronto-the-definitive-guide/)
The grey area of his argument lies here…
There is only one restriction in the Highway Traffic Act that affects pedestrians crossing in uncontrolled locations. In Section 144, which governs behaviour at traffic control signals and pedestrian control signals, sub-section (22) states:
Where portions of a roadway are marked for pedestrian use, no pedestrian shall cross the roadway except within a portion so marked.
There is no definition of what “Where†means, exactly, but since section 144 only deals with behaviour at signals themselves, this sub-section refers to the area immediately adjacent to the signals and marked crossing. It basically means that if a pedestrian is at or approaching a marked crossing, they have to cross within the lines — they can’t cross beside the lines or step outside them. It does not apply to an extended section of the street
Dylan assumes that “Where” is only relevant to the area immediately adjacent to designated crossings. This may not be the case. In the case of Rados Justice Quon appears to define a reasonable distance to be a few blocks….
“If that were so, it would create a extremely dangerous situation in giving a legal right to senior citizens to cross at an intersection where there are no other indicators at that intersection or location that pedestrians would be crossing there, such as flashing lights, painted crosswalks, or other safety devices that would easily notify motorists travelling southbound on Yonge Street that pedestrians would be crossing there, especially when a few blocks earlier there were traffic lights and a designated or painted crosswalk on the surface of the roadway.”
I should also add the Justice Quon also gives a good indication to as why s. 144(22) needs to allow for crossings in unmarked areas….
Additionally, if undelineated crosswalks defined under s. 1(1)(a) are not “portions of a roadway are marked for pedestrian useâ€, then s. 144(22) would create an anomalous situation for residential neighbourhoods or areas where many intersections may not have painted crosswalks or lines on the road surface indicating a crosswalk, and would require that pedestrians contravene s. 144(22) each time they crossed a roadway at an intersection from one opposite sidewalk to the other opposite sidewalk. Therefore, since “marked†by definition also means “evident†or “clearly noticeableâ€, then “undelineated†crosswalks that arise from the connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks on opposite sides of a roadway would be evident or clearly noticeable at those particular types of intersections. Moreover, there is also public awareness that pedestrians can cross roadways at these types of intersections where there are undelineated crosswalks. As a result, “portions of a roadway are marked for pedestrian use†is broad enough to include “undelineated†crosswalks defined under s. 1(1)(a) of the H.T.A.
if the police are going to patrol intersections, shouldn’t they go to the most treacherous intersections, the places where most pedestrians are killed, such as Bathurst and Finch? policing the downtown intersections is stupid, everyone knows those are the safest ones for both cars and people.
I forget which comedian said it, but I recall that it always rings true.
“When I’m a pedestrian, I hate drivers. When I’m a driver, I hate pedestrians. But whether I’m driving or walking, I ALWAYS hate bicyclists.”
My god… I get the sense that the horse being flogged is long dead.. Yeah, the HTA is ambiguous.
I think the larger point, though, is that it is completely reasonable cross the street mid-block so long as you’re not putting yourself in danger. And rarely do people put themselves in this kind of danger – we all know that a car will seriously hurt or kill you if it hits you.
I cross illegally (i.e. on a red) multiple times everyday. When I’m walking down Bloor, there are a bunch of one-way streets and the light’s often red for me (e.g. Bloor and Brunswick). But, seeing there isn’t a single car on the one-way street (and no traffic from Bloor can turn onto the one-way), I cross the street. It’s as dangerous and putting on a shirt. I dread a world where we all stand like morons waiting for the light to change when there isn’t a car for miles.
Excellent article! Just wanted to tip my hat in your general direction. The comments thread picks up on anything I might add except that, yes, I have been nearly mowed down by a cyclist on more than one occasion when getting off a streetcar.
Re. jaywalking – I quoted Sgt. Burrows because the opinion of the police is more important than my own in determining whether crossing mid-block is legal and will be charged.
I note that the opinion of the police agrees substantially with my own.
What seems to have changed since I analyzed the legality of jaywalking in 2007 is that the provision that you have to cross in the crosswalk if one is “near” has been revealed to be more ambiguous and open to interpretation than it appeared to be when I wrote. That’s why I noted in this post that the police have some flexibility in applying it.
Re. Rados – one case does not make law. If you look at the _Annotated Highway Traffic Act_ (ed. Murray Seagal), you’ll see that cases vary substantially in their interpretation of the Act. In the case of Rados, the main issue at question was what constitutes a marked crossing, not whether the pedestrian was crossing at an uncontrolled location (the pedestrian argued that where they crossed was effectively a marked crossing, which the judge ruled against).
Toronto bylaws state that pedestrians can cross at uncontrolled locations as long as they yield to traffic. The police have made clear that they are enforcing the law according to these bylaws, and that they consider the HTA provision to only apply near marked crossings.
Of course, if you are crossing the street mid-block in Toronto, be sure to look both ways to make sure you don’t interfere with traffic, which would be an offense (and dangerous). And if you are close to a marked crossing, walk the extra few metres to use it.
Dylan,
The charge in Rados was…
Charge: s. 144(22), H.T.A. – “pedestrian fail to use crosswalkâ€
The judge would not have found him guilty if his actions were otherwise considered legal. The judge also cited Toronto Bylaw 32-92. Rados tried to argue that there was an undelineated crossing. Which the judge struck down.
I think this is a real condemnation of the media, which I work in, and I can’t help but agree with most of what you say.
Glen > in Rados, under the Toronto mid-block crossing bylaw, the pedestrian would probably have been guilty by the very fact that he got hit by a vehicle, so he was by definition not yielding to traffic. So the mid-block crossing bylaw wasn’t really the issue in this case – crossing in front of a vehicle would have probably been illegal if he was at an uncontrolled location, as he would not have had the right-of-way. The main question was, as you say, whether there was an “undelineated crossing” – an implied traffic control – or not at the location where he crossed (which could have given him the right of way rather than the vehicle), not whether crossing the street when there is a gap in traffic at an uncontrolled location is legal (even if the judge did offer some opinions that relate to that issue, it was not the primary question of the case). Also, the pedestrian was only defended by a law student, not an experienced traffic lawyer. I agree that the case, which happened after I wrote my original article, has to be considered, but I don’t think it is decisive.
A decisive case would be if a pedestrian crossed the street safely a resonable distance from a marked crossing, and still got charged (and was defended by an experienced lawyer). But the police have indicated they don’t intend to charge people for doing that, because they don’t think it’s against the law.
I think we have both stated our cases quite comprehensively at this point, in both this and other comment threads, so let’s give this question a rest for the moment. It may well crop up again in the future.
Jaywalking done properly is legal… but all too often the fact that it can be done legally encourages some people to do it in a reckless manner (which is not legal) and ends up endangering themselves and others. I’m not necessarily against blitzes of pedestrians (or cyclists or drivers) since they often do encourage users of public space to change behaviour. But this current blitz is a sign that they want to be seen as doing something, but aren’t really sure what to do. Also the occassional blitz followed by long periods of police inattention does very little to change behaviour longterm. There used to be much more sustained focus by police especially of drivers… and that practice had merit.
Dylan, Rados was not charged under Toronto’s bylaw. He was charged under the HTA. Keep in mind that the HTA has supremacy over municipal bylaws. He lost because he violated the law. His counsel, regardless of experience did a good job, making really the only argument that he could. Looking at his arguments I doubt that he would have missed any previous presidents. I was unable to.
Back to the original question, Why did the police take aim at pedestrians?
Why does the drunk look for his keys under the street light?
Because pedestrians are easy to pull over, harangue harass and ticket. Low hanging fruit.
Good post; good discussion.
A huge number of our police officers don’t live in TO, and I presume they drive in. So many of them see a lot of our traffic/mobility only from behind a windshield. Similarly, our media derive a great deal of their ad revenue from cars. Many politicians are also “carrupt” – so it’s not a total surprise that we tend to blame the victim.
But cyclists aren’t Gaia’s gift to the world either; and there are many of us who don’t respect peds or transit users, and it is difficult to be a bike advocate with these real issues – we can and sometimes do kill people/peds.
I caution you all not to advocate in either way for increased police enforcement on both pedestrians, cyclists or motorists unless you are completely sure the your solutions are the right ones. I am both a cyclist and an experienced Montreal jaywalker and I do not want “authorities” given the excuse to clamp down on reasonable actions as another income source. The same for the thought that it is an improvement to make illegal a car turning right on a red when there are no pedestrians. On cars I have posted before that the biggest issue is cars running yellows and reds that was supposed to have been clamped down on several years ago. On pedestrians it is the same when crossing at an intersection and not giving vehicles time to turn right because they are crossing on a yellow. Both sides are to blame for their believing that their time is so important than risking lives. Civility a long overlooked word is the answer. David McDonaldâ€
Dave
——————–
Posted on behalf of David McDonald.
For those following Glen and Dylan’s discussion of Rados in this thread, you can read the decision on CanLII here: http://canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2009/2009oncj166/2009oncj166.html
@jamesmallon
I like your list of recommendations. Perhaps we can bring these recommendations forward with a signed petition to Transportation Minister Wynne.
I forwarded the piece in this thread regarding Glencairn Station to Brad Ross at the TTC judging that he probably would not be following this conversation. Here is his response:
– Paid Duty Officers are there during rush hour right now
– Next week, a re-routing will take place so that passengers are let off on the southside where there are traffic lights
– We’re also having discussions with the City about a temporary cross-walk
– Work is scheduled to be completed this summer.
Great article, Dylan. Though as one of the ‘experts’ interviewed for the Globe piece, I would like to challenge your assertion that I failed to link the 3-4pm ‘spike’ with kids getting out of school.
I carefully review the pedestrian collision statistics released each year by Transportation Services, and am consistently disappointed with the lack of useful information or analysis contained within them. For example, contrary to the Globe’s report, there is no data to support that Wednesday is any more dangerous a weekday to cross the street than any other. It just so happened that last year it was Wednesday’s turn. It was Friday in 2004, Tuesday in 2005, Thursday in 2006, and so on. But this information is easy to collect, so it goes into reports. And when an apparent pattern appears, the media looks for ‘experts’ to provide reasons – even where there are none. I made this very same point in my interview with the Globe’s reporter, though you may note my response does not appear next to the question: Why is it that so many pedestrians are struck on Wednesdays?
While the data is more consistent with respect to time of day, as I pointed out in my interview: “A quick review of the historical data reveals a moving statistical target: 3pm in 2004 and 2005, 6pm in 2006, 5pm in 2007.†In fact, the Globe’s own graphic identifies 7pm as the 5-year average, which seems to contradict the very question they are asking. So your ‘spike’ theory is difficult to support based on historical trends alone.
What I also explained in my interview (though this point, too, was regrettably omitted) is that we really should focus our resources and energy on measuring the things we can actually influence. Attempt to identify specific elements that are contributing to pedestrian-automobile conflicts, and then act upon these deficiencies to improve pedestrian safety. For example, what is the average curb radius where pedestrians are being struck at intersections? Where mid-block accidents occur, what are the average distances between signalized crossings? Is lack of adequate pedestrian-focused lighting a contributing factor in night time accidents? These would be more useful variables to collect and analyze.
If we continue using poor information in our observations, we can’t help but be led to the wrong solutions. Which is precisely why we see our police department out ticketing pedestrians, while our planning department – who really should be conducting this research – remains so woefully underfunded.
Cheers.
Bryan – thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree with your frustration about the lack of useful analysis of the statistics. It’s something we have often pressed staff about.
My response regarding the 3-4 pm spike was based on the 2007 Pedestrian Collisions report, which was based on collected stats from 2002-2003, and where this spike is apparent. I asked staff to analyze the stats in more detail to see if there was any correlation with age in those being hit at that time, to either confirm my hypothesis about students being hit in that time period or refute it, but that analysis was never done. I do think it would be useful information to know.
Apparently staff are willing to run analyses of a wider range of years for the media, but they have not done so routinely for the Pedestrian Committee or for direct public consumption.
A reader sent this example of more thorough analysis of pedestrian stats, from London UK:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ped-casualties-in-greater-london-march-2009.pdf
Dylan – thanks for providing this report. I hadn’t seen it before. While it seems London is also seduced by the easy analysis of irrelevant data (unless we start segregating our streets by gender, comparing the number of injured males to females is perhaps the least useful statistic of all), there are some interesting observations here.
Specifically, the classification of pedestrian injury by road type, and the geographic distribution of injuries by borough. These are important distinctions that recognize the diversity of street and right-of-way design and their impacts on neighbourhoods. We could use a similar analysis in Toronto to identify and correct design flaws of various road types, thus hopefully avoiding/reducing pedestrian collisions rather than simply recording them.
Thanks again and keep up all the great work on the Pedestrian Committee.