General Transit Discussions

[spearhead]

I also think that age does matter in granting license or in renewing our license to drive here in canada.

Old people have to be kept off the road! Their reflex is deteriorating and they are safety hazards. We dont wanna end up like being grounded between the wheels and the asphalt, or being a hit and run victims inside the entrance of a mall!

Young kids also have to be kept away from the road till they reach 19 or 20, because their reflex are still underdeveloped. They drive like crazy and doesnt think about their lives, and the lives of other motorists.

So basically, we should only drive from age 19-80 and thats it, or if you fail your renewal test at old age before 80 then your happy days are over.

[spearhead]

Originally Posted by 1. Caravaggio

Oh yeah, so lets make every street a German autobahn so that those pesky little pedestrians know their place. Where did you come from?

Cities are first for people and only after for cars. Besides, no car has ever been hurt by being hit by a pedestrian. So lets have our priorities straight.

Priorities are both our lives as pedestrians and as the motorists.

If one stupid pedestrian who were not paying attention while crossing the street (jaywalking) in a 60kph street, got hit and killed instantly because of a speeding 93' honda civic that cut his or her body into 2 pcs, its not only the victim's family who would suffer, the motorist as well or whoever were behind the wheel.

The best scenario is building barricades/fence along all the roads to help stop people from darting out and cross the street illegally. And road/traffic education is very important to be taught at young age beginning from 7-8 yrs old. Make an eye contact, and never cross the street even if the light is green or white without making sure if its safe or not. Lastly, always pay attention.

Therefore, reducing the speed limit is rediculous. Maybe its better to just ask all the motorists to stop using cars on these affected areas, and start using their bicycles instead heading to their work or driving home!

[1. Caravaggio]

Originally Posted by spearhead

Priorities are both our lives as pedestrians and as the motorists.

If one stupid pedestrian who were not paying attention while crossing the street (jaywalking) in a 60kph street, got hit and killed instantly because of a speeding 93' honda civic that cut his or her body into 2 pcs, its not only the victim's family who would suffer, the motorist as well or whoever were behind the wheel.

The best scenario is building barricades/fence along all the roads to help stop people from darting out and cross the street illegally. And road/traffic education is very important to be taught at young age beginning from 7-8 yrs old. Make an eye contact, and never cross the street even if the light is green or white without making sure if its safe or not. Lastly, always pay attention.

Therefore, reducing the speed limit is rediculous. Maybe its better to just ask all the motorists to stop using cars on these affected areas, and start using their bicycles instead heading to their work or driving home!

Ridiculous. So basically, cars are supposed to never be bothered, even if they are in a space that should be for pedestrians. So the Speeding Honda kills one pedestrian that was distracted and ALL the fault is the pedestrian? This is waay too biased. Cars, because of their nature should be made to be more carefully driven, not given free license to speed all they want. I refuse the idea that pedestrians only have to be careful. Cars should be more controlled, because they have a much more intense and pernicious disruptive action on the urban environment and livability.

Barricades along the road??? What's next, a NASCAR circuit inside a neighborhood?

Actually, among all the nonsense, you managed to say something right. Bycicles are a good solution for an urban area with a 30 km/h speed limit. I would welcome that.

[Epi]

Originally Posted by spearhead

Priorities are both our lives as pedestrians and as the motorists.

If one stupid pedestrian who were not paying attention while crossing the street (jaywalking) in a 60kph street, got hit and killed instantly because of a speeding 93' honda civic that cut his or her body into 2 pcs, its not only the victim's family who would suffer, the motorist as well or whoever were behind the wheel.

The best scenario is building barricades/fence along all the roads to help stop people from darting out and cross the street illegally. And road/traffic education is very important to be taught at young age beginning from 7-8 yrs old. Make an eye contact, and never cross the street even if the light is green or white without making sure if its safe or not. Lastly, always pay attention.

Therefore, reducing the speed limit is rediculous. Maybe its better to just ask all the motorists to stop using cars on these affected areas, and start using their bicycles instead heading to their work or driving home!

Barriers on streets is the norm in Japan, China, Hong Kong. And I have to say, it stinks. Nothing like walking 20 mins to get to an overhead crosswalk to get across a street in Beijing. It's probably the least attractive of all options. If you want to drive fast so bad, live in the middle of nowhere where there are no sidewalks and no pedestrians.

[spearhead]

Originally Posted by 1. Caravaggio

Ridiculous. So basically, cars are supposed to never be bothered, even if they are in a space that should be for pedestrians. So the Speeding Honda kills one pedestrian that was distracted and ALL the fault is the pedestrian? This is waay too biased. Cars, because of their nature should be made to be more carefully driven, not given free license to speed all they want. I refuse the idea that pedestrians only have to be careful. Cars should be more controlled, because they have a much more intense and pernicious disruptive action on the urban environment and livability.

Barricades along the road??? What's next, a NASCAR circuit inside a neighborhood?

Actually, among all the nonsense, you managed to say something right. Bycicles are a good solution for an urban area with a 30 km/h speed limit. I would welcome that.

Motorists have rights too, and the roads were built for the vehicles to travel. I dont know where you got all your none sense logics.

And i didn't say us motorists should over speed or drive too slow, thats why we got posted speed limits. I merely used an example of a stupid motorist hitting a stupid pedestrian not paying attention while crossing the street.

That's why we built pedestrian walkways, lanes, traffic lights and all that shit to give way for proper discipline for us pedestrians to use and not to violate any of them.

The bottom line here is give respect. Both motorists and the pedestrians should follow these basic rules.

And seriously? You sound like you wanna abolish all the vehicles in the road!

So whats gonna happen to oil business??? Is that what you want for evryone to just go biking?

What's wrong of building fence? Have you been in any asian countries? Japan, Hong Kong, Manila, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and S Korea? You try to roam around their major cities and you'll see various type of fences and barricades in their downtown to help control the movement of pedestrians and to further discourage any jaywalkings to help reduce the fatalities in the road. And this is something what canada can also look upon.

I dont know what kind of military barricades and stupid NASCAR fence you're thinking. I mean what the heck you're smoking?? Wake up!

I dont think you ever got my point boy.

[spearhead]

Originally Posted by Epi

Barriers on streets is the norm in Japan, China, Hong Kong. And I have to say, it stinks. Nothing like walking 20 mins to get to an overhead crosswalk to get across a street in Beijing. It's probably the least attractive of all options. If you want to drive fast so bad, live in the middle of nowhere where there are no sidewalks and no pedestrians.

No one's here promoting to over speed. If anyone pls feel free to quote it.

Yes its ugly but it helps. Even in japan with slower speed limit, they still had to use barricades. As population grows, pedestrians are increasing. We need both physical deterrent and posted rules to calm down both the traffic and jaywalkings.

The GTA's fatalities due to this involvement of pedestrian and cars collision are mostly caused by jaywalking, or motorists not paying attention as well while driving. Ofcourse there are still pedestrians who were using the proper lanes or walkways yet getting hit by fast moving vehicles. Old mototists hitting joggers, or crashing through the bus stops.

Not all were due to over speeding though, a lot still are involving those slow moving trucks or buses turning in corner curve hitting those pedestrians.

[1. Caravaggio]

So a stupid pedestrian gets hit by a speeding car, and you propose fences for jaywalking pedestrians, but not measures to avoid cars speeding. Right.

Cars kill people and the probability of a hit being fatal increases abruptly the higher is the speed. So it is very logical to not only reduce the number of people jaywalking BUT ALSO to reduce car speeds in streets that are not highways or freeways. Specially streets were we want to make people feel more comfortable and attractive to urban life.

Oil is an utility not an end in itself. Oil is supposed to be used to help us do or produce something. We are not supposed to do something just to consume oil, it is not logic. In a limit case, we could profit more if we saved as much oil as we could and sell the maximum to foreign countries at a high price, so your economic argument is a bit weak.

[spearhead]

Originally Posted by 1. Caravaggio

So a stupid pedestrian gets hit by a speeding car, and you propose fences for jaywalking pedestrians, but not measures to avoid cars speeding. Right.

Cars kill people and the probability of a hit being fatal increases abruptly the higher is the speed. So it is very logical to not only reduce the number of people jaywalking BUT ALSO to reduce car speeds in streets that are not highways or freeways. Specially streets were we want to make people feel more comfortable and attractive to urban life.

Fences and stainless steel barricades for the pedestrians can also be painted with some other type of colors or with neutral colors. They could also come up like a wall gated design Google them and you'll see it yourself.

The current speed limits are fine. You can't go slower than it any longer, it just doesnt make any sense. Because like what i said earlier, it will only encourage more people to jaywalk knowing that cars travel in a slower speed and would not scare them enough to not jaywalking or pay too much attention.

What we need for the motorists are stricter penalties, very tight license application for teenagers, lower the age limit for older motorists, more insurance premiums for both age groups, and increased fines for all violations.

Oil is an utility not an end in itself. Oil is supposed to be used to help us do or produce something. We are not supposed to do something just to consume oil, it is not logic. In a limit case, we could profit more if we saved as much oil as we could and sell the maximum to foreign countries at a high price, so your economic argument is a bit weak.

If you give more difficulties to these oil giants, it will only further discourage any foreign investors in our country. Less work to do, means increase in unemployment rate, and this will mean more poverty. That's the logic you should learn to listen to.

You should live in the mountains and wilderness if you hold grudges to oil companies. Atleast over there you could do everything you want and go biking in the dirt road without any cars or trucks bugging you.

[spearhead]

The DANGER of NOT paying attention and JAYWALKING:

[Epi]

I find it funny that someone with the tag 'unrestrained freedom' on their name is advocating adding significant barriers to freedom on the streets.

[spearhead]

Originally Posted by Epi

I find it funny that someone with the tag 'unrestrained freedom' on their name is advocating adding significant barriers to freedom on the streets.

Now that's personal. Not cool.

Your logic is poorly scripted.

[Epi]

Er it was a joke, but surely you see the irony in this.

[icemachine]

I have to agree with Epi on this, 'Unrestrained Freedom' is definitely a very Libertarian sounding ideal, and barricades to prevent jaywalkers is definitely anti-libertarian, and more an idea suited to the nanny state.

[spearhead]

Originally Posted by Epi

Er it was a joke, but surely you see the irony in this.

Originally Posted by icemachine

I have to agree with Epi on this, 'Unrestrained Freedom' is definitely a very Libertarian sounding ideal, and barricades to prevent jaywalkers is definitely anti-libertarian, and more an idea suited to the nanny state.

So?


Atleast i'm not like you two promoting jaywalkings.

[spearhead]

So icemachine, which country you're calling a "nanny state"?

[Epi]

The only thing I promote is Mukmuk.

P.S. Jaywalking is technically legal as long as it is safe to do so.

[spearhead]

Originally Posted by Epi

The only thing I promote is Mukmuk.

P.S. Jaywalking is technically legal as long as it is safe to do so.

I dont know man which garbage can you fetched that idea. If we use your logic, then perhaps we dont need to build traffic signs for jaywalkers, and pedestrian walkways if your mentality is as nuts as these jaywalkers.

According to wiki, it is an informal term commonly used in North America to refer to illegal or reckless pedestrian crossing of a roadway.

And then in canada, it is technically a LAW that is not to be abused. It cost about $40 ticket AFAIK. Let's just take for example the Jaywalking culture in Montreal:

Jaywalking Causes Half of Motor Vehicle Accidents in Montreal
http://legalcanadacommunity.blogspot...r-vehicle.html

Although jaywalking occurs across Canada, in Montreal it is part of the urban culture. Teenagers, young people, old people, even mothers with strollers cross busy roads at haphazard places posing threat to drivers and other pedestrians.
This year the police have started a five-year campaign to fight this tradition. The difficult part is that most Montreal residents don’t see a problem with jaywalking. The statistic shows that last year at least 50% of pedestrian deaths occurred when pedestrians failed to obey traffic signals.

The problem is that neither the pedestrian nor the drivers will claim the responsibility for these deaths. While drivers are traditionally fined for disobeying traffic rules such as crossing at red light or failing to stop at a stop sign, pedestrians as a rule are not fined for dangerous behavior at the streets. And as in tango, it takes two to save lives. Drivers should take a minute and think about what it is to walk and try to dodge cars at a busy road and pedestrians should try to understand that drivers have an enormous responsibility both for passengers in the car and for people on the street.

Montreal police have now posted officers at several downtown streets who fine people crossing the roads illegally $37. I really do not think this will help. I wonder how you hand out a fine to a teenager or a homeless person of they have no money on them and/or no ID? Sporadic fines will not really solve the problem or change pedestrians’ attitude. Nor will reduction of speed limits with no cameras and enough police officers to enforce it.

If jaywalkers often cross the street in front of your car and if you ever get involved in a motor vehicle accident caused by a pedestrian or another driver, look here for free information on how to proceed in order to save money and time and your nerves: http://legalcanadacommunity.com/moto...ic%20Collision

JAWALKING is definitely a PEST bad culture, and is a pain in the butt problems for all motorists.

[spearhead]

THE COST OF JAYWALKING
http://fightyourtickets.ca/jaywalking-tickets/

Definition of “Jaywalking” :

It has a number of definitions, but it essentially describes a pedestrian who ignores the rules of the road, especially while crossing the road. Jaywalking would be classified as a pedestrian offence.

Pedestrians may have the right-of-way, but they do not have the right-of-weight. When a motor vehicle comes into contact with a pedestrian, the laws of physics aren’t very forgiving and unfortunately, the reality is, pedestrians die.

In the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) in the month of January, 2010 there were fourteen (14) pedestrian deaths in twelve (12) days, where a motor vehicle came into contact with a pedestrian, who were on the road. This alarming number represents almost half as many pedestrians as died, in similar circumstances, in the entire calender year of 2009.

In response to this horrific death rate, police mounted a campaign, directed at motor vehicles and pedestrians alike. In many instances, police just stood at one corner of an intersection and waited for “jaywalkers” to cross the intersection without a green light or after the flashing red hand (the “stop” or “don’t cross signal”) appeared. Upon reaching the other side, jaywalkers were either provided with a verbal warning or were asked for their identification and were then issued a “jaywalking” ticket.

Pedestrians, crossing the street at a pedestrian crossing, need to know that after the light has turned green, they have about 8 seconds to cross the street, before the flashing red hand (the “stop” or “don’t cross signal”) is activated and begins flashing. If a pedestrian, leaves the curb and steps onto the street after the flashing red hand appears (even though the timer is counting down) then they can be ticketed for “jaywalking” and provided with a ticket with a fine of thirty five ($35.00) dollars for disobeying the flashing “don’t walk” signal.

The expectation, upon entering the roadway, is that pedestrians will be able to cross the street, based on an Ontario Provincial standard of being able to cross that road at 1.25 metres per second.

If a pedestrian walks outside or adjacent to a cross-walk (not within the designated lines), this could constitute an offence of “fail to use cross-walk” which would be met with a ticket, with a fine of thirty five ($35.00) dollars.

If a pedestrian decides to avoid using the pedestrian crossing and wants to cross the street midway (in the middle of the block, also referred to as “mid-block”) and it is determined that that pedestrian forced vehicles to stop or slow down (rather than just waiting for a gap in traffic) then the pedestrian could receive a ticket, with an eight five ($85.00) fine, for “failing to yield to vehicles when crossing a roadway”. See Toronto’s By-law 32-92 and the Ontario Highway Traffic Act below:

All of the fines referred to above do not include the victim fine surcharge , which is a surcharge always added to the specified fine.

Here are some of the SET FINES for jaywalking:
H.T.A = abbreviation for Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act

Pedestrian fail to use cross-walk – subsection 144(22) of the H.T.A – Set Fine = $35.00

Pedestrian disobey flashing green light – subsection 144(24) of the H.T.A – Set Fine = $35.00

Pedestrian disobey red light – subsection 144(25) of the H.T.A – Set Fine = $35.00

Pedestrian disobey amber light – subsection 144(25) of the H.T.A – Set Fine = $35.00

Pedestrian disobey “don’t walk” signal – subsection 144(27) – Set Fine = $35.00

Cyclist — ride in or along crosswalk – subsection 144(29) – Set Fine = $35.00

In addition to these set fines, the pedestrian would be expected to pay the court fee and victim surcharge.

Example: if a pedestrian disobeyed the “don’t walk” signal and crossed the street anyway and received a jaywalking ticket (see subsection 144(27) above) with a fine of $35.00. In addition to the fine, would be the victim fine surcharge of $10.00 and the court fee of $5.00 = total payable would be $50.00 upon conviction or if the pedestrian voluntarily paid their ticket (which the law recognizes as the pedestrian acknowledging that they are guilty and are therefore paying their fine).

Remember that the courts expect a pedestrian, who walks onto a street, with the intention of crossing that street to the other side, to walk across the street as safely and as soon as is practicable. Subsection 144 (28) of the Highway Traffic Act almost sums up what the expectation is, of a pedestrian crossing the street:

Pedestrian Right of Way

(28) Every pedestrian who lawfully enters a roadway in order to cross may continue the crossing as quickly as reasonably possible despite a change in the indication he or she is facing and, for purposes of the crossing, has the right of way over vehicles.

It is surprising how many pedestrians cross the street oblivious to their surroundings while talking to someone beside them, chatting on the phone, text messaging someone or reading. It shouldn’t come as a total surprise when, after they have come into contact with a vehicle and have sustained injuries, that they (and not the motor vehicle operator) are actually charged by the police. This happens more times then one would expect.

Upon being ticketed, can a pedestrian fight a “jaywalking” ticket?

Yes. These tickets can be fought in the courts, in much the same way that a bicycle ticket, parking ticket or speeding ticket are challenged and fought.

If you follow these steps, you can successfully defend yourself – see:

Requesting a Trial
Right to Trial in French
Notice of Trial
Application for Stay of Proceedings
Disclosure
Prior to the Trial
What are the laws surrounding “jaywalking”?

Every municipality can create their own bylaws in Ontario to cover the act of jaywalking and the fines associated with this act. In Toronto, a bylaw that addresses this is:

Metropolitan Toronto bylaw 32-92, Section 10 :

Except where the traffic control signals are in operation or where traffic is being controlled by a police officer, a pedestrian crossing a highway at a place other than a pedestrian crossover shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles and streetcars upon the roadway, but nothing in the section shall relieve the driver of a vehicle or streetcar from the obligation of taking all due care to avoid an accident.

In Ontario, a review of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act has to take place to understand jaywalking laws:

Interpretation, general

Definitions

1. (1) In this Act,

“highway” includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof; (“voie publique”)

“intersection” means the area embraced within the prolongation or connection of the lateral curb lines or, if none, then of the lateral boundary lines of two or more highways that join one another at an angle, whether or not one highway crosses the other; (“intersection”)

“roadway” means the part of the highway that is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic, but does not include the shoulder, and, where a highway includes two or more separate roadways, the term “roadway” refers to any one roadway separately and not to all of the roadways collectively; (“chaussée”)

Traffic control signals and pedestrian control signals

144. (1) In this section,

“intersection” includes any portion of a highway indicated by markings on the surface of the roadway as a crossing place for pedestrians; (“intersection”)

“pedestrian” includes a person in a wheelchair; (“piéton”)

Yielding to pedestrians

(7) When under this section a driver is permitted to proceed, the driver shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within a crosswalk. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (7).

Stopping at flashing red light

(21) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal and facing a flashing circular red indication shall stop his or her vehicle, shall yield the right of way to traffic approaching so closely that to proceed would constitute an immediate hazard and, having so yielded the right of way, may proceed. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (21).

Pedestrian crossing

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

Pedestrian – green light

(23) Subject to subsections (24) and (27), a pedestrian approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular green indication or a straight-ahead green arrow indication and facing the indication may cross the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (23).

Pedestrian – stopping at flashing green light

(24) No pedestrian approaching a traffic control signal and facing a flashing circular green indication or a solid or a flashing left turn arrow indication in conjunction with a circular green indication shall enter the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (24).

Pedestrian – stopping at red or amber light

(25) No pedestrian approaching a traffic control signal and facing a red or amber indication shall enter the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (25).

Pedestrian control signals – walk

(26) Where pedestrian control signals are installed and show a “walk” indication, every pedestrian facing the indication may cross the roadway in the direction of the indication despite subsections (24) and (25). R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (26).

Pedestrian control signals – don’t walk

(27) No pedestrian approaching pedestrian control signals and facing a solid or flashing “don’t walk” indication shall enter the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (27).

Pedestrian right of way

(28) Every pedestrian who lawfully enters a roadway in order to cross may continue the crossing as quickly as reasonably possible despite a change in the indication he or she is facing and, for purposes of the crossing, has the right of way over vehicles. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (28).

Riding in crosswalks prohibited

(29) No person shall ride a bicycle across a roadway within or along a crosswalk at an intersection or at a location other than an intersection which location is controlled by a traffic control signal system. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (29).

Symbols

(30) The “walk” or “don’t walk” pedestrian control indications referred to in this section may be shown as symbols as prescribed by the regulations. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (30).

PART XI
CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

Liability for loss or damage

192. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle or street car is liable for loss or damage sustained by any person by reason of negligence in the operation of the motor vehicle or street car on a highway. 2005, c. 31, Sched. 10, s. 2.

Onus of disproving negligence

193. (1) When loss or damage is sustained by any person by reason of a motor vehicle on a highway, the onus of proof that the loss or damage did not arise through the negligence or improper conduct of the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle is upon the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle. 2005, c. 31, Sched. 10, s. 3.

Application

(2) This section does not apply in cases of a collision between motor vehicles or to an action brought by a passenger in a motor vehicle in respect of any injuries sustained while a passenger. 2005, c. 31, Sched. 10, s. 3.

Same

(3) This section applies where the loss or damage was sustained on or after the day section 3 of Schedule 10 to the Budget Measures Act, 2005 (No. 2) comes into force. 2005, c. 31, Sched. 10, s. 3.

Same

(4) This section, as it read immediately before the day section 3 of Schedule 10 to the Budget Measures Act, 2005 (No. 2) comes into force, continues to apply where the loss or damage was sustained before that day. 2005, c. 31, Sched. 10, s. 3.

Definitions

(5) In this section,

“motor vehicle” includes street car; (“véhicule automobile”)

“operator” has the same meaning as in subsection 16 (1). (“utilisateur”) 2005, c. 31, Sched. 10, s. 3.

How can a pedestrian legally cross the street without “jaywalking”?

at a pedestrian crossing (on a green light or at a marked crosswalk, respecting the right-of-way rules); or
on a street, mid-way,without impeding or slowing down traffic and always providing motor vehicles the right-of-way
you can cross in the middle of the street as long as your action of crossing does not interfer with the flow of traffic
The City of Toronto provides pedestrians the following safety advice:

• Be predictable. Do not make decisions that place you in the path of oncoming traffic
• Cross at traffic signals, crosswalks and stop signs on busy roads
• Look all ways before crossing. Never cross unless it is safe to do so
• Walk, don’t run, across intersections. Only cross when you have enough time to make it to the other side
• At pedestrian crossovers push the button to activate the flashing yellow light and point to indicate your intention to cross
• Try to make eye contact with drivers before stepping off the curb. Just because you see the car, doesn’t mean the driver sees you
• Wait for vehicles to stop before crossing in front of them. Cars take longer than you think to stop
• Keep aware of traffic until you safely reach the other side



Toronto has Existing Pedestrian Policies, Programs and Actions in place and a Pedestrian Charter. There are Pedestrian Priority Intersections and Accessible Pedestrian Signals in Toronto.

Is Jaywalking just part of our culture?

Boston – is the capital and largest city of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts – fine for jaywalking = $1.00 USD

January 29, 2010 – Toronto Police – Campaign: Crossing Safely, Enforcement Results.

February 7, 2010 – When can a child cross the road, unsupervised, at the age of nine (9)?

March 16, 2010 - Pedestrian “Safety” Campaign tickets jaywalkers – see page 3 of 24Hours (Toronto E Edition).

April 19, 2010 - U of T students believe walkway in the air could save lives of pedestrians.

[Epi]

Well let me clarify my comments then, since you like to put words into my mouth.

You said in a previous post:

Atleast i'm not like you two promoting jaywalkings.

For some reason, just because I think side barriers on roads are a bad idea, you think I'm advocating (if we use your definition of "jaywalking") people recklessly and dangerously walking into traffic.

So to clarify, since I said that "Jaywalking is technically legal as long as it is safe to do so.". I guess it sort of makes it not jaywalking if we are to use this definition because I said only if it's safe to do so.

So to be very clear, I think people should be allowed to cross city streets which have sidewalks at any point as long as it is safe to do so. And unsurprisingly this is actually LEGAL.

Putting artificial barriers to stop this is a very bad idea, not to mention a very expensive idea. (actually if we did that and you actually thought about it, it would more or less negate all on-street parking as you wouldn't be able to access your car. On street parking is something I feel you would be for).


If you really want a city with fences at every major street, please move to Kuala Lampur, where it takes 20 minutes to cross an intersection on foot because every road is blocked off, many don't even have crosswalks and only overhead pedestrian crossings which are complicated and hard to find. But hey, the drivers get a really good right of way.

[spearhead]

Originally Posted by Epi

So to clarify, since I said that "Jaywalking is technically legal as long as it is safe to do so.". I guess it sort of makes it not jaywalking if we are to use this definition because I said only if it's safe to do so.

Law is a law. Sometimes we do that and think its safe to cross the street then suddenly out of nowhere, one stupid daredevil overspeeding in your path. So the answer is no. Because technically you are violating the
Anti-Jaywalking Law by thinking that way.

Therefore as much as possible you cross only at the pedestrian walkway and always follow the rules/traffic signs.

So to be very clear, I think people should be allowed to cross city streets which have sidewalks at any point as long as it is safe to do so. And unsurprisingly this is actually LEGAL.

Depending which residential or commercial areas you are, and depending on posted speed limit, then i guess it is legal. Anyway, where does it says in canadian traffic law that its legal to cross the street without any pedestrian walkways or signs? Please post a link or any evidence to support your claims. Thank you.

Putting artificial barriers to stop this is a very bad idea, not to mention a very expensive idea. (actually if we did that and you actually thought about it, it would more or less negate all on-street parking as you wouldn't be able to access your car. On street parking is something I feel you would be for).

Depending what you prioritize in your life. If you rather see people being hit by cars and traffic fatalities rising caused by jaywalkers, then you are right on.

If you really want a city with fences at every major street, please move to Kuala Lampur, where it takes 20 minutes to cross an intersection on foot because every road is blocked off, many don't even have crosswalks and only overhead pedestrian crossings which are complicated and hard to find. But hey, the drivers get a really good right of way.

Why Kuala Lumpur? Of all the countries why malaysia? That place have human rights issues.

Other asian places have street-level walkways, both elevated and underpass/tunnels.

But for the sake of this argument, toronto actually doesnt have to barricade their streets, that is if they can somehow be able to stop jaywalkers onfoot.