CBC’s The National for Jan. 26 just ran a segment on the wave of pedestrians killed by vehicles in the GTA in the past three weeks.
Without reference to the circumstances of the actual deaths, they focused blame almost entirely on pedestrians. They showed pedestrians walking across streets, talked about pedestrians talking on cell phones and rushing into traffic. They noted that pedestrians “jaywalk” in Toronto — which is, of course, perfectly legal if there’s a gap in traffic.
CBC cameras happened to be there to record Toronto Police stopping pedestrians for their dangerous behaviours. There were no shots of police stopping drivers who engaged in dangerous behaviour. Then CBC tagged along with a police officer in a car as he drove along a street talking about how reckless those crazy pedestrians are. Why not go walking with a police officer for a story about pedestrians?
It ended with a warning to pedestrians to pay attention and “focus on the task of crossing the street.” How about drivers? Shouldn’t they be told to pay attention too?
Let’s be clear — the statistics show that where there is blame, it’s divided half and half between drivers and pedestrians. Many of the fatal collisions in the past weeks have been clearly the driver’s fault, as pedestrians crossed intersections with a green light and were hit by turning vehicles or vehicles running the light. Any campaign to reduce pedestrian deaths has to focus at least as much on drivers as it does on pedestrians. Not to mention, of course, that the design of streets and intersections plays as much of a role as behaviour. The National‘s segment was appalling.
CBC local news, by contrast, did some excellent actual reporting on the pedestrian situation in Toronto and got politicians to promise to do something about it.
photo by RebelIXL
31 comments
I think this just highlights that the time is especially right to launch a campaign targeting cyclists and their unruly behaviour.
While I agree there’s inattentive drivers, human flesh is much softer than hard metal.
What’s the use of having the right of way if I’m about to get hit because someone might have been inattentive or perhaps I was wearing dark clothing and they didn’t see me because they have a thick A-pillars on their vehicle? (have your noticed how newer cars & SUVs have thicker & thicker A-pillars, and smaller windows, making it even harder to see pedestrians and cyclists when you’re turning left or right?)
If you value your life, be attentive when crossing a road!
Never ever do as some people do when they think a car is about to hit them…namely to actually stop dead in their tracks and look at the car as if daring it to hit them. Your feet should continue moving, getting yourself out of the way.
Or worse, to put your hand out at the same time, as if you’re going to stop it.
My brother used to do that and I kept telling him that if an 80 year old lady was at the wheel and did not see him, it wouldn’t matter if his hand was out there, as if he had superhuman powers to stop her. Sure enough, 2 years ago, he got hit. Now he’s got bolts in his lower right leg, walks with a cane, and he’s just turned 30.
Pedestrians: Whether you think you have the right of way or not, be attentive! Not just crossing the street, but even on the sidewalk with people cycling illegally and darting in and around pedestrians. (Cyclists on the sidewalk is a matter for another post)
And yes, let’s face it, all pedestrians break the law every single day, including yours truly…
By the way, I’m an avid pedestrian and cyclist that works & lives downtown Toronto. I use my car only from time to time, normally going almost 2 months between fill-ups at the gas station.
I constantly see pedestrians taking chances or just not caring. And if I dare tell someone “hey buddy, you should have waited for the light”, like the guy that almost got hit at Parliament & Carlton earlier today & had cars screeching and honking at him, I’m the one that gets told off…
Thank you for writing this, Dylan.
Peter – touching story, but isn’t it analogous to blaming Jane Creba for being around gunfire?
You are certainly right that pedestrians have an added burden, in that it doesn’t matter if they are in the right or not, they are the ones who suffer in the event of a collision – it is little solace to know *you* had the right of way when you are dead or maimed.
But this is an argument to crack down against drivers, not pedestrians, since they are the cause of exponentially more trauma arising from a collision, whether or not (but especially when) they are in the wrong.
the pedestrian SHOULD rule the streets in downtown toronto. good lord — every person is a pedestrian at some point, even if it’s only in walking to the car. surely everybody is entitled to walk around a city, including on paved roads, without risking death? surely it’s a basic rule of civil conduct that people in control of the heavy machinery – cars, trucks, buses, streetcars – look out for those who are simply walking along? does anyone seriously say that a person deserves to die for jaywalking? i despair…
I live mid-block on Dundas between Ossington and Dovercourt. Which means there’s going to be some jaywalking going on. Every time I do so I tend to notice plenty of people going in what I consider to be far from adequate gaps. They often tend to be older as well. I just don’t trust drivers to stop in time, much less the 505.
Not saying motorists shouldn’t be more attentive, because they should. I’ve come close to being killed a number of times due to someone who took a left turn and was only paying attention to oncoming traffic. But at the same time, if you are going to cross make sure you can actually get across. This also goes for looking for cyclists, because I’ve almost swerved into traffic trying to avoid pedestrians that didn’t see me on my bike.
And not that it happens very often, but don’t drive on the sidewalk. I almost got hit today taking in garbage/green bins due to someone who used the curb cut up the block on my one way street (to avoid blocking traffic) and drove half on the sidewalk and half off right past me.
Ha, CBC. When I checked the feed for this report, the first suggested related video was episode one of DEATH COMES TO TOWN.
We should be thankful that this debate hasn’t yet reached the point where drivers are shouting for pedestrians to be licensed and carry insurance before they’re allowed to cross the road. Where are those people’s helmets anyway? Don’t they know that walking is dangerous?
While it pains me to see pedestrians skirting the law, and clearly in some cases, pedestrians are clearly at fault, I still think the greater responsibility in preventing pedestrian accidents falls to the driver.
If you’re in a car, you’re protected in a big, deadly, steel cage. You will always win in a confrontation with a pedestrian. Just because that pedestrian was not, and should have been, paying attention, does not mean that you are absolved of any responsibility for avoiding hitting them.
I think if there is a public awareness campaign (and there should be) the brunt of it should be focussed on drivers, and how they, as the operators of deadly equipment, should pay attention at all times to any danger. No one wants an innocent person to die, even if they put themselves in danger.
It would be nice if the news commented on the visual clutter in the road landscape. Have you ever noticed how many unnecessary signs there are everywhere? I know of a sign that even says to obey all the other signs. Garbage day is also a hazard with the large bins now a major visual obstruction on many roads.
Cities that suck – Toronto – are unsafe for pedestrians, cyclists… and even drivers. We’ve got a city where no mode of transportation is efficient, safe and comfortable. Think about transit, walking, cycling and driving. None of them are even two of the three in Toronto. We can’t even turn Kensington into a pedestrian zone. Hume made the point in his articles: our society has a craven disregard for human life:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/753044–hume-silence-on-pedestrians-deaths-deafening
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/753670–pedestrian-toll-a-sign-of-things-to-come
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/753703–hume-we-must-find-a-way-to-share-the-road
in Tokyo, meanwhile…
Far easier to buttonhole pedestrians than make traffic stops. TPS is looking for their keys where the light is brighter.
The rationale often seems to be that pedestrians are vulnerable, so need to be cautious and attentive at all times. That’s true, but people often bypass the other side of the coin: If you’re driving a car, even a second’s carelessness can kill someone. You could kill multiple people, if things go particularly badly.
It also seems that many people are blinid to routine traffic infractions. Rogue pedestrians and cyclists seem to attract attention, but it’s much rarer to see someone calling attention to the drivers who cruise through red lights, stop in the middle of intersections, and hit the gas when they see a yellow light.
Obviously some accidents are wholly the vehicle’s fault and some the pedestrian’s — and most are probably a combination. The notion that Toronto pedestrians are somehow taking more risks lately, and that *they* can therefore be fingered for blame is problematic.
As a point of comparison I wanted to know how the fatalities in TO stack up against those of NYC. New Yorkers are way more aggressive pedestrians (and the drivers are pretty aggressive too). According to this site (http://www.crashstat.org/) NYC has the highest fatality rate in the US. However, their statistics for 2005 (the most recent year posted) are actually slightly below Toronto’s “normal” fatalities per capita (calculating either based on GTA and Greater Metropolitan Area, or actual inhabitants of the cities). This is hardly a rigorous statistical analysis, and one should be done, but it suggests that jaywalking alone cannot explain this spike in deaths.
I am kind of disgusted by the media’s focus on blaming jaywalking in response to the recent series of tragic accidents. Easy to blame the victims right? In the most recent case, the lady was walking on a green signal, just a few steps outside a large crosswalk when she was hit by a left turning SUV, which must be turning at a high speed. How does the fact that she was walking outside of the crosswalk making it her fault? Do you really think the outcome would be different if she was just inside the crosswalk? Is there a force field protecting the crosswalk or what?
Here is my take on jaywalk: jaywalk should be, is, and will continue to be a part of urban life. However, when you jaywalk, you have to take responsibility for your own safety. So do watch out carefully, and cross only when it is safe. For all the talk about banning jaywalking, my response will be, OK, just put a signal crosswalk every 100 meters on every street, put a heavy fine on motorists disobeying those signals, strictly enforce it, then you can totally ban jaywalk.
Thanks for writing this Dylan. I was also appalled when I saw the National’s coverage of these deaths last night.
Logically, the responsibility is almost entirely with the driver. They have chosen (some more freely than others) a mode of transportation that has lethal potential. The pedestrian hasn’t. Like a cop carrying a gun, drivers must recognize they have far more responsibility since it is almost always others that will suffer if an incident occurs. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be driving (or that cops should be unarmed), just that they should have to be far more careful than any pedestrian.
They have most of the power and carry the least amount of risk. This is why drivers are licensed. This is why cops are licensed. This is why pedestrians aren’t licensed (or not yet anyways).
I want to reiterate what is stated in this post.
Jaywalking is legal.
Articles on pedestrian deaths are full of commentors laying blame at the feet (pun intended) of pedestrians. Almost all who mention jaywalking incorrectly seem to think it is illegal. In fact, jaywalking is legal in Ontario.
http://tinyurl.com/qfwdl9
Cars have the right-of-way when you are jaywalking, and either cars or PEDs have the right-of-way at marked or signaled crossings based on established rules.
My suggestions for addressing this issue:
1. Ban vehicle right turns on red lights. [As a cyclist, and therefore a vehicle, I”ll probably curse that one, but I can live with it if it means I’m safer as a pedestrian. And no, I don’t believe there should be two laws, one for motorized vehicles and one for non-motorized vehicles.]
2. Reduce the speed limit by 10 km/hr on all streets.
3. Strictly enforce speed limits.
4. The provincial law should be changed so that any driver convicted of killing a pedestrian, cyclists or occupant of another motorized vehicle should lose their license. FOREVER. Driving is a priviledge, not a right. You kill someone, you lose your priviledge. [Not sure how to apply that to a cyclist who might kill someone. If you have a driver’s license, perhaps that could be revoked? But that would not be the case with the lad who collided with a woman on a sidewalk in Scarborough and she subsequently died. If I recall, he was under 16 and therefore would not have had a driver’s license. Suggestions anyone?]
My two-cents worth.
Dylan, I am wondering whether you have a law degree, and if not, why you are stating that jaywalking is legal provided there is a gap in traffic.
Just because we all do something doesn’t mean it is legal.
As you note in your earlier article, subsection 144(22) of the Highway Traffic Act provides that “where portions of a roadway are marked for pedestrian use, no pedestrian shall cross the roadway except within a portion so marked.”
The “where” in this provision is properly interpreted as “if” and does not refer to a specific location on the roadway. This interpretation is consistent with other provisions in the Act, such as subs. 5.1(2), “Where payment for an administrative monetary penalty is dishonoured,”. The Act is replete with such examples. The word “where” used in this context does not refer to a location.
Accordingly, subs. 144(22)is a broadly-worded prohibition on jaywalking on roadways if portions of those roadways are marked for pedestrian use. There is nothing in the provision to suggest it applies with any less force even where (i.e., if) the crosswalk is 500 metres down the roadway. It is left up to the reasonableness of law enforcement officers and the courts not to apply it in such a manner.
Further to my above posting:
In subs. 144(22) of the HTA, the word “where” is used as a conjunction, and means “in the case that”. This is what I meant, when I wrote that the word “where” really means “if” in this context.
So this provision should be read as follows:
“In the case that portions of a roadway are marked for pedestrian use, no pedestrian shall cross the roadway except within a portion so marked.”
Of course, I don’t disagree that everyone should take more care — drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, runners…
Chris:
I won’t speak for Dylan, but he is the foremost expert on Toronto pedestrian issues since he is the co-Chair of the City of Toronto’s Pedestrian Committee.
There has been many conversations with the Police about this factoid and only the lawyers and the activists seem to know jaywalking is legal.
If I’m correct, in the summer issue of Spacing there was a Clip N Save article on the legalities of walking. Spacing has been a leading voice on making sure people know the rules of the road as cyclists and pedestrians.
Shame on the CBC. The quality of their reporting has been steadily decreasing.
Chris — very interesting. I was wondering about the same question myself.
I can’t speak for Dylan either but I thought part of his argument hinged on the title of s144 being “Traffic control signals and pedestrian control signals”. Do titles have the effect of scoping what follows — saying that anything in that section is only to be read in reference to signals — or are they strictly for convenience?
Because if s144 is only about signals, then crossing would be legal mid-block where there are no signals. But if (22) is to be seen as a general rule that just happens to be buried in the signals section, then it would make mid-block crossing illegal except for roads with no marked ped crossings at all (e.g. rural roads).
If it’s the drivers fault it is a horrific act of murder by car but if it is a pedestrians fault it is a tragic accident. People that walk in this city are just as bad as the motorists. Take out your earphones, look up and look when you enter a street. The amount of people that don’t look where they are going in this city is what is appalling. I wonder what they would call it in the news and on this site if the idiot i saw today cycling with his son riding on his bicycle, on the main seat, holding on to his backpack, with no helmet, where to loose his son. If the kid had fallen of the bike he would have been squashed. It would have been for the driver that hit him but ultimately it would have been the fathers fault just like it is the pedestrians fault who crosses without looking and gets hit and just like it is the drivers fault who turns without looking.
Matt L.
Keep in mind that the Act is a provincial act and therefore is written in a language that must encompass all types of roadways. Relying on the argument of reasonableness, it would be difficult to argue that if there was a marked crossing within view that that there is no obligation to use it. There is already a similar precedent with parking. If you park your car and find that the ticket dispensing machine is out of order, that does not give you the right to park for free. You are expected to go to the next closest machine.
Matt L.:
Section 9 of the Interpretation Act expressly provides that the marginal notes and headings in the body of an Act and references to former enactments form no part of the Act but shall be deemed to be inserted for convenience of reference only. R.S.O. 1990, c. I.11, s. 9.
In any event, section 144 of the HTA is in Part X of that Act, entitled “Rules of the Road”, and the heading for subsection 22 is “Pedestrian Crossing”.
If we want to be really picky, subs. 27 provides:
(27) No pedestrian approaching pedestrian control signals and facing a solid or flashing “don’t walk” indication shall enter the roadway.
Now, surely, we’re all guilty of that. I’ll start crossing so long as the light is green.
I believe the real story is bound-up with the media’s ability to convert a short spike in pedestrian/automobile related deaths into headline material.
If motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, police, joggers-everyone devote just a little more attention to the business of watching out for each on the roads, the spike will diminish–and in that respect I admit the media has played a worthwhile role. Perhaps next week they can focus on “fires caused while smoking in bed” and we can read about it on the front pages of Toronto papers.
Please read my web article on the subject. I do not blame pedestrians 100%, they do things wrong, but motorists do too. I prefer not to call careless motorists drivers, because to me a driver, is a skilled person, and would not endanger people.
My webpage is http://www.johnrossharvey.com
Much of my article has been reprinted in Vaughan Citizen on January 28 2010, and I was interviewed by City News about my book which is entered for Toronto Book Awards that discusses as humourously as possible everything motorists do wrong, and tells them why its stupid as bluntly as possible. (Think Simon Cowell blunt)
Today alone I saw 3 pedestrians do very stupid things in front of me, an unskilled motorist would likely have hit them. You have to think like everyone else is stupid so you do smarter things.
Cutting corners increases your time on the street, it is a Long cut not a Short one, if it shortens your life, did you feel it was worth it? Walk straight at crosswalks, jaywalk only if there is no traffic, most jaywalkers I see slip between moving cars, its pure insanity.
I run 2 road safety twitters that @trafficservices (Toronto Police) follow
@harveyhelmet and @s_i_n_s look them up.