![\"\"](\"http:\/\/farm5.static.flickr.com\/4046\/4320661702_0dc905ac39.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
As pedestrian deaths started to mount<\/a> to disturbing numbers<\/a> in January, the response at first was a combination of concern, blame that was reasonably balanced between both drivers and pedestrians<\/a>, and, occasionally, some thoughtful discussion<\/a>.<\/p>\n Then, in the last week of January, the response suddenly changed for the worse. On Wednesday Jan. 27, Toronto woke up to radio<\/a>, TV<\/a> and newspapers<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/em><\/a> 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.<\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The way pedestrians clog the streets downtown is not the problem — it’s the solution.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Another reason for the pedestrian focus may have been the theory that a series of pedestrian safety campaigns and anti-jaywalking blitzes<\/a> by Montreal police in recent years reduced pedestrian deaths in that city. Several<\/a> of the media stories<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n Let’s have a closer look at some of the tactics in this anti-pedestrian blitz.<\/p>\n “Pedestrians are the vulnerable ones”<\/strong><\/p>\n 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/a>:<\/p>\n 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.” <\/em><\/p>\n 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.”<\/p>\n As a matter of fact, that’s exactly what Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act<\/em> says. Section 193 (1)<\/a> states that when a driver hits a pedestrian, the onus rests with the driver to prove that it was not their fault.<\/p>\n Pedestrians should not have to cross Toronto’s streets in constant fear.<\/p>\n 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<\/em> 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.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/a> — in an area of town where pedestrians were not in fact in significant danger.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/a> 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”<\/span>:<\/p>\n 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. <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/p>\n It’s also worth quoting Sgt. Burrows at 12:53 of the same Q&A:<\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n 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<\/a> unless it targets drivers loudly and clearly as well as pedestrians.<\/span><\/p>\n 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<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n [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.<\/span><\/p>\n The one good thing about the terrible events of January is that it raised awareness of pedestrian safety and,<\/span> amidst the general clamour,<\/span> resulted in a few good articles about how to make the city better\u00a0 for walking. Here are a few of the ones I collected:<\/span><\/p>\n \u2022 Sunday Star<\/em> editorial: “Don’t blame pedestrians<\/a>” Photo by deadrus<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n\u2022 Christopher Hume: “Maybe we’d all be safer jaywalking<\/a>” (Toronto Star<\/em>)
\n\u2022 Chart of how to improve an intersection in “The war on walking<\/a>” (Globe and Mail<\/em>)
\n\u2022 Jane Farrow talks about suburban intersections<\/a> on Globe and Mail<\/em> video (at 45 seconds in)
\n\u2022 “Why are Toronto’s streets so dangerous?<\/a>” – the Globe<\/em> 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)<\/p>\n