CITY HALL articles:
• Councillor decries secrecy of hydro pole deal [ Globe and Mail ]
• Inside City Hall feature [ Globe and Mail ]
• Budget committee meetings set bad tone [ Inside Toronto ]
TTC articles:
• How the TTC will pay its way [ Toronto Star ]
• Adam Giambrone: Riding high on the TTC [ Toronto Star ]
• Streetcar history videos [ BlogTO ]
MISC. articles:
• Pedestrians bear brunt of traffic accidents [ Globe and Mail ]
• CHRISTOPHER HUME: HtO and the waterfront [ Toronto Star ]
• Police turn off street security cameras on Yonge [ City News ]
• Road tolls: columnists face off [ Torontoist ]
photo by Tara Wilson/Toronto Star
27 comments
as usual, Steve Munro with a sensible reply to the Star’s article on TTC funding.
http://www.stevemunro.ca/?p=294
Regarding “Pedestrians bear brunt of traffic accidents”, when did we start calling jaywalkers “mid-block crossers”?
It seems like another blatant attempt by “Da Glob” to portray lawbreakers as innocent victims.
^ But mid-block crossers aren’t jaywalking as they aren’t breaking any laws.
^ Mid-block crossers, as described in TFA are jaywalking as they are breaking the laws that prohibit a pedestrian from crossing a street except at an intersection and except when any signals at that intersection give the pedestrian the right of way.
The exception to this, which TFA did NOT cover, are those bizarre (and ultimately deadly) mid-block zebra crossings. AFAIK they exist nowhere in Ontario (or even Canada) except in Metro TO. As of 2 years ago, they weren’t even mentioned in my 16-year-old son’s MTO New Drivers Handbook.
Is this perhaps what you were thinking about? Or do you still subscribe to the urban legend that “the pedestrian has the right of way” regardless of the circumstances?
^Nope, I’m talking about this:
https://spacing.ca/toronto/?p=981
^ Oh, so that’s why pedestrian deaths are on the increase. This theory hasn’t been tested in court, and it could well be responsible for getting people killed.
In contrast to you, I’m talking about this.
And even if your theory is correct and jaywalking is okay so long as you don’t get in the way of traffic, I’d say that getting struck by a car is proof positive that you DID get in the way of traffic.
Is your interpretation of the law more accurate than mine? Maybe. But those people are still dead.
The cars got in the way of people crossing the street. Cars killed those pedestrians.
Sue is incorrect or misinformed on a number of separate points.
1) Pedestrian deaths are not on the increase. As the Globe article states, pedestrian deaths have remained within a constant range for many years. The number of deaths last year (30) was at the low end of the range.
2) Mid-block pedestrian crosswalks are common in many Canadian cities, for example Vancouver.
3) Sue has misinterpreted the section of the Highway Traffic Act that she cites. This section is specifically about intersections, and the section she cites applies only in the vicinity of intersections. Pedestrians who are close to an intersection have to cross within the marked lines.
However, the Highway Traffic Act says nothing about pedestrians crossing mid-block, which means that crossing mid-block is allowed in Ontario. The only constraint is the common-law obligation to “exercise due care.”
(I consulted with the relevant case law and with an officer of the Traffic Division of Toronto Police when I was preparing my NOW article on this subject).
4) This situation has in fact been tested in case law. In general, the motorist is deemed at least partially at fault in mid-block collisions in Ontario unless the pedestrian’s behaviour was extremely reckless.
5) Pedestrians’ right to cross mid-block in Toronto is not a “theory” but an established legal right. Toronto has a more explicit and restrictive by-law than the province, stating that pedestrians may not interfere with traffic when crossing mid-block. But the right to cross mid-block where there is no interference with traffic is not under question.
6) The fault in a mid-block collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian depends on the circumstances. For example, if the vehicle is speeding (a not uncommon occurence in Toronto) then the vehicle would be at fault. (Note that speeding greatly increases the chance of serious injury or death for the pedestrian).
The real problem with the Globe article is the “blame the victim” mentality of blaming pedestrian behaviour for collisions. While some collisions are caused by reckless pedestrian behaviour, many pedestrians are struck while they have the right of way and are behaving according to the law. Reckless driver behaviour is responsible for many collisions with pedestrians, and a balanced article should note that fact.
“The cars got in the way of people crossing the street. Cars killed those pedestrians.”
Sigh.
Please don’t just write “sigh” — add something to the debate.
You obviously don’t think pedestrians come first in the transportation chain. Which is why you are defending drivers hitting pedestrians. Pedestrians make mistakes, no doubt, but as Dylan points out in the above comment, your perception is quite skewed.
Every once and a while, I wonder if people get paid paid by some unknown entity to come to this site and troll the comment area.
Luis> We’re actually pretty troll free here — we’ve hardly ever had to delete a comment, just the racist and nazi stuff. Everything else goes up no problem.
It’s unfair to say Sue is being a troll though. She’s just got an opinion a lot of us disagree with, which is just fine.
First:
I merely sighed because I thought it self-explanatory that Matthew’s comment made no sense. The streets are intended primarily for vehicles, just as sidewalks, crosswalks, medians, paths, trails and virtually all other spaces are for pedestrians. To assert that “the cars got in the way of people crossing the street” is to claim that pedestrians are in the right no matter where they go. That’s a fantasy contrary to the Highway Act but, much more importantly, it’s an attitude that results in death.
Incidentally, my simple “sigh” originally appeared immediately after Matthew’s comment, as intended. I’m curious how it disappeared, only to reappear following Dylan’s comment, a few hours later. At 4:14, I would have been walking down Bay St.
(Because, you see, I am a pedestrian too, as are all drivers at one time or another.)
Second,
Dylan conveniently omits that Toronto pedestrians are required to use a signal-controlled crosswalk, where available.
Dylan also avoids examining the fact that “interfering with traffic” includes causing a car (or a bike for that matter) to hit you and/or stop or swerve to try to avoid hitting you.
And no one seems capable of arguing my point that, even if I’m off my rocker and the pedestrian is in the right no matter what …it’s still the pedestrian that gets killed.
It’s wrong to want to always criminalize the driver for failing to die in a pedestrian-auto collision. Worse than that, it’s just plain stupid.
And, if you’re tired of reading my rants, maybe you’ll enjoy reading the source material on which the Globe based its biased article (PDF):
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/brochures/2006_fatal.pdf
Sue , you’re wrong on your first point in above comment:
Dylan did write: 3) Sue has misinterpreted the section of the Highway Traffic Act that she cites. This section is specifically about intersections, and the section she cites applies only in the vicinity of intersections. Pedestrians who are close to an intersection have to cross within the marked lines.
And what the hell does this mean: “It’s wrong to want to always criminalize the driver for failing to die in a pedestrian-auto collision.”
No one wants ANYONE to die, nor has suggested it.
LOOK AT THE STATS: pedestrians are being killed at mid-street crossings nearly as much as at intersections. It means that intersections can be more dangerous. Drivers take it easy when they see people crossing mid-street. Yet they speed up at intersections making left or right hand turns.
“Dylan did write: 3) Sue has misinterpreted the section of the Highway Traffic Act that she cites. This section is specifically about intersections, and the section she cites applies only in the vicinity of intersections. Pedestrians who are close to an intersection have to cross within the marked lines.”
Quote me the law, not Dylan’s interpretation of it.
“And what the hell does this mean: “It’s wrong to want to always criminalize the driver for failing to die in a pedestrian-auto collision.â€Â
No one wants ANYONE to die, nor has suggested it. ”
It means what it says. And there has been ample suggestion in this discussion that people should cross wherever they please, with disregard for traffic, which is a potentially deadly way to make a point that pedestrians are somehow superior to motorists.
“LOOK AT THE STATS: pedestrians are being killed at mid-street crossings nearly as much as at intersections. It means that intersections can be more dangerous. Drivers take it easy when they see people crossing mid-street. Yet they speed up at intersections making left or right hand turns.”
Wrong. These stats would indicate that intersections can be more dangerous ONLY if the number of people crossing at intersections was proportionately equal to the number of people crossing mid-block, which is not the case.
“Drivers take it easy when they see people crossing mid-street. Yet they speed up at intersections making left or right hand turns.”
Also wrong. Drivers have to slow when turning, in accordance with physics. Bikes too, to a lesser degree owing to their lesser mass. I can imagine you have never driven a car, but don’t you at least ride a bike?
Wow, Sue is picking the wrong topic and people to fight with.
too bad she doesn’t really read what the others are writing and INTERPRETS it in a whole different way.
None of the Spacing editors suggested that pedestrians SHOULD just cross willy-nilly. What they are arguing is pedestrians HAVE THE RIGHT to cross anywhere.
Dylan’s interpreation is not his alone: he wrote an article about it for NOW, talked to sources including TO traffic cops.
Sue also just wants to play semantics — physics slows you down, she writes. No shit! That doesn’t mean drivers are not reckless on turns.
There is apecking order on the road it it styarts with the most vulnerable:
PEDESTRIANS
CYCLISTS
DRIVERS
The ones in vehicles have to be the most alert and exert the most care becuz they are the ones that can kill. No matter who is at fault, the bigger one always wins. And if you’re bigger you have to operate with more care, thus there is a greater responsibility on drivers than pedestrians.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting walking across Steeles in rush hour.
And Sue seems to ignore that most of the pedestrian deaths come on the major arterial roads in the inner ring of suburbs where lights to cross the road are often 1km apart.
‘I can imagine you have never driven a car, but don’t you at least ride a bike?”
I’m not from 1825. I have done both with regularity at different points in my life. I would not write passionately about this if I didn’t have some kind of knowledge or experience on these topics.
But have you never seen anyone speed up on turns? Maybe they slow down marginally becuz of physics (very clever argument!) but its about drivers’ recklessness. Cars cut into turns ALL THE TIME missing walkers by inches so they can make a light or find a hole in human traffic.
And look at where the deaths are: arterial roads in North York or Scarborough where lights at intersections are miles apart. There are tons more pedestrians downtown yet the numbers show that there are similar numbers of deaths to suburban neighbours. That means its more dangerous outside the core becuz the traffic planners have made it that way. Someone SHOULDN’T have to walk 2km to cross the street.
You can tame cars, but it so much harder to tame pedestrians. And traffic planners try to do it all the time and it results in deaths becuz they make the environment hostile to walkers.
Worst off, Sue, you ignore some of the finer details of Dylan’s argument. he wrote about this before, got quotes, talked to traffic folks and pedestrian advocates, and talked to more officials. Dylan has been on the Pedestrian Committee, a founder of Toronto Coalition for Active Transportation for years and has a sharp knowledge of this issue.
This is not some kind of personal interpretation, which is what you are doing. If you want to argue the point to death be my guest, but you seem to ignore the finer details of this debate.
“Dylan’s interpreation is not his alone: he wrote an article about it for NOW, talked to sources including TO traffic cops.”
So what Dylan wrote in NOW is Dylan’s proof that Dylan is right?
“There is apecking order on the road it it styarts with the most vulnerable:
PEDESTRIANS
CYCLISTS
DRIVERS
The ones in vehicles have to be the most alert and exert the most care becuz they are the ones that can kill.”
So you’re saying that the pedestrians, because they are the most vulnerable, should be the least alert? I call that a victim mentality: “I do whatever I wnat, and if any harm comes to me, it’s someone else’s fault.” I prefer to take responsibility for my own actions, regardless of whether I’m walking, cycling or driving.
“I don’t think anyone is suggesting walking across Steeles in rush hour.”
Fair enough — perhaps not. But I have SEEN a woman, with two toddlers in tow no less, launch herself into rush-hour traffic on Steeles W.
I continue to see stupidity like this every second day on Bay, Yonge, Queen, Front and other downtown streets during rush hour. And, like you (don’t deny it), I hear on the news every week or two about pedestrians killed on major routes like Kipling, University, Bathurst etc. At least twice a year, some fools try to sprint across the Gardiner or the DVP or the 401.
Are you sure you want people to think this is a valid, noble, right thing to do?
You put words in everyone’s mouth Sue.
“So you’re saying that the pedestrians, because they are the most vulnerable, should be the least alert?”
No one every said that. Driver have to be MUCH MORE aware because of the responsibility and damage they can do. That’s why we have lisences for driving and not walking.
—–
“So what Dylan wrote in NOW is Dylan’s proof that Dylan is right?”
he seems to have a much better understanding of this situation because he has talked to officials, and as Matt noted, he is an “insider” (my quotes) on this issue. I take his word over yours because he is well-versed on this subject.
—–
“I hear on the news every week or two about pedestrians killed on major routes like Kipling, University, Bathurst etc.”
But does this mean pedestrians are always at fault? No. Sometimes they are. But hardly anyone is being killed dowtown (proportionately) to the amount of walkers downtown.
——
The greatest problem is that traffic planning makes you believe that the road is not for pedestrians to ever veer on to. Which is simply not the case. I beg of you , Sue, to read these posts (and subsequent links) before making any more comments.
here’s the pedestrian category:
https://spacing.ca/toronto/?cat=6
Here are the posts:
https://spacing.ca/toronto/?p=756
https://spacing.ca/toronto/?p=844
https://spacing.ca/toronto/?p=946
https://spacing.ca/toronto/?p=981
https://spacing.ca/toronto/?p=1068
https://spacing.ca/toronto/?p=1126
https://spacing.ca/toronto/?p=1202
https://spacing.ca/toronto/?p=1322
https://spacing.ca/toronto/?p=1331
It seems we’re going around in circles here. Every time I quote a contentious point, and address it, someone pops up with an unrelated (and sometimes contradictory) point, and demands that I consider that instead.
Glo: Thank you for the links, though I had indeed read most of them before. I will read the rest to be sure I am not missing the “finer” details of this debate that some of you have alluded to.
Matthew, Dylan, I’m not sure on what basis you characterize my arguments as personal interpretation, and your own as objective fact. I CAN appreciate that you want greater rights for pedestrians. But I’m not sure that all pedestrians can, or will, live up to the responsibilities those greater rights will bring with them. And those that can’t may die as a result.
Sue, to answer your question, when I first started researching the question of the legal status of mid-block pedestrian crossings, I too came across the Highway Traffic Act, Part X, Section 144, subsection 22 (“Where portions of a roadway are marked for pedestrian use, no pedestrian shall cross the roadway except within a portion so marked”) and I wondered if it meant what you said – that pedestrians had to cross at intersections.
However, I then consulted experts on pedestrianism, an officer of the Traffic Division of Toronto Police, and the relevant case law – the way the question has been interpreted and tested in numerous court cases (see Murray Segal, _Annotated Traffic Act_). They all made it clear that in fact this section of the HTA, section 144, relates specifically to traffic control signals (its title is “Traffic control signals and pedestrian control signals”) and therefore subsection 22 is not of general application but applies only in the immediate vicinity of a traffic signal.
On the contrary, the HTA says nothing about pedestrians crossing at locations that are not close to a traffic signal, and that means (according to the various experts, to Segal, and to various court judgements) that crossing elsewhere (mid-block) is a legal activity, always with the obligation to “exercise due care.” Again, this has always been the case in Ontario, and this has been tested numerous times in court cases. This is not about expanding pedestrian rights, but rather clarifying their long-standing existing rights. In Toronto, there is a by-law that is more explicit about pedestrians not interfering with traffic, but outside of such circumstances crossing mid-block has always been completely legal.
So this is not personal opinion. This is the established law as analyzed by experts and tested in court. I know that many people are not aware of this, and I’m glad that you’ve provided me with an opportunity to clarify this situation.
I want to emphasize again, as I said in my earlier comment, that this means that pedestrians have obligations and must cede to traffic when crossing mid-block in Toronto. However, drivers of vehicles also have obligations to respect the rights of pedestrians. As many or more pedestrian injuries are caused by driver recklessness as by pedestrian recklessness. If you look at the statistics, you will see that a very large number of pedestrians are hit when they have the right-of-way at intersections. Also, some pedestrians who cross mid-block may well be hit by speeding vehicles, which means the fault lies in part with the driver. No-one sets out to get hit by a car. I think it’s really important to emphasize that the obligation to be careful is, to use an apt metaphor, a two-way street and applies equally to drivers and pedestrians.
Dylan, thank you for the thorough clarification. You make a very reasonable case, and it is a pleasure to discuss this with someone who has actually researched the subject.
Can you please further clarify for me what the courts interpret as “in the immediate vicinity of a traffic signal” or “close to a traffic signal”? (I realize I am quoting your words here, not the the text of the law.)
In the court cases you have researched, has this been taken to mean within sight of a traffic signal? Within 10 meters? Within 1 meter? Is it unreasonable for me to assume, in the opinion of the courts, that a pedestrian should not cross mid-block where either end of that block is controlled by a traffic signal?
Also, you wrote: “If you look at the statistics, you will see that a very large number of pedestrians are hit when they have the right-of-way at intersections.”
Checking the 2006 City of Toronto statistics (which I linked to in an earlier post, and which I believe are the source quoted by the Globe), I find that 1 pedestrian was killed at a “Ped Crossover”, 2 at a stop sign, 12 at a traffic signal, and 15 where there were no traffic controls.
Are you assuming all or most of those 12 pedestrians killed at a traffic signal had the right of way? If so, please note that those same statistics indicate a total of only 4 individuals (including pedestrians, drivers and passengers) killed as a result of “Red Light Violations By Drivers”.
Hi Sue,
To answer the first question, the exact distance from traffic control is not defined. However, in general it is considered the immediate vicinity – so it would not include the middle of the block if there was a traffic control at the corner.
To answer your second question, I am including all injuries as a result of vehicle-pedestrian collisions, not just deaths, which (fortunately) only form a small percentage of the total. While deaths grab the headlines, injuries are also damaging and traumatic, and need to be addressed as well when dealing with the whole issue of vehicle-pedestrian interaction.
Dylan, fair enough.
It seems we have reached the crux of our differences (me vs. everyone else here, apparently): I feel that if there is a signal at either end of the block, or a “PXO” in the same block, it’s far safer to cross there than to cross mid-block.
I’m disappointed that the courts apparently don’t agree. And I wish the best of luck to anyone who acts on this apparent “freedom”.
One more request…can you post a link to your figures regarding injuries? The best I can find is this, which indicates that the pedestrian had the right of way in only 37% of cases where a pedestrian was injured by a vehicle in Toronto:
http://www.ite.org/meetcon/2005AM/Wong_Wed.pdf
…but the figures quoted are for 2002.
See the pedestrian collision statistics for 2006.
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications
/brochures/2006_ped.pdf
Look under “Pedestrian Action” – specifically those that involve crossing the street – most accurate is the five-year annual moving average. (The number of accidents without injury is minimal, so I haven’t bothered factoring them out).
Collisions where pedestrians had right of way: 824
(Peds crossing with right of way (they mean at intersections) 748, plus crossing at a crossover 76)
Peds crossing without right of way: 592
(Peds crossing (intersection) without right of way 364, plus no traffic control (which we’ll assume means they interfered with traffic) 180, plus crossover without right of way 48)
You could also add “running onto roadway” (151) and “coming from behind parked vehicle” (75) which adds up to 818, still about the same as those crossing with the right of way.
Thank you Dylan.
So, the figures show that of all pedestrians who were struck by a vehicle, (approximately) as many of those had the right of way as those who didn’t.
I further note that in the same document, under “Traffic Control Type”, of all pedestrians who were struck by a vehicle, (approximately) as many of those were under no traffic control as those who were.
Is there a correlation, do you think?
Unfortunately, there are no figures to tell us, in that same period, how many pedestrians crossed under traffic controls vs. those who didn’t, so we can’t judge the relative risk of uncontrolled crossing.
And this same figures would seem to disprove your assertion, published in the NOW article like above, that “Toronto accident statistics show that far more pedestrians are hit at intersections where there is traffic control than at “uncontrolled” locations.”