+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Road design, safety and Vision Zero (/showthread.php?tid=1409)
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - danbrotherston - 01-20-2022
(01-20-2022, 01:34 PM)Bytor Wrote:(01-20-2022, 01:23 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Anyone know why WRPS is charging pedestrians who are hit when they have the right of way?
https://kitchener.citynews.ca/police-beat/pedestrian-charged-after-crash-in-kitchener-4974531
I'm so tired of this bullshit.
The only reason I can think of is that the person did not cross at the crosswalk. However, the reports do not mention anything about that.
If that was the case, then the charge laid is incorrect.
It should be failure to cross AT a nearby crossing.
Failure to yield at a crossover suggests they were AT the crossover.
Honestly, the police have some splainin to do here.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - Rainrider22 - 01-21-2022
(01-20-2022, 01:23 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Anyone know why WRPS is charging pedestrians who are hit when they have the right of way?
https://kitchener.citynews.ca/police-beat/pedestrian-charged-after-crash-in-kitchener-4974531
I'm so tired of this bullshit.
Likely because the pedestrian must have been in the wrong in this particular situation.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - danbrotherston - 01-21-2022
(01-21-2022, 09:34 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote:(01-20-2022, 01:23 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Anyone know why WRPS is charging pedestrians who are hit when they have the right of way?
https://kitchener.citynews.ca/police-beat/pedestrian-charged-after-crash-in-kitchener-4974531
I'm so tired of this bullshit.
Likely because the pedestrian must have been in the wrong in this particular situation.
"Must have been in the wrong"?
Why? Because the police cannot make a mistake here? I know someone who has gotten ticketed for not riding on the sidewalk. But that's only the tip of the iceberg of why I have no trust in the police anymore.
Drivers are required to yield. Pedestrians advocates say drivers WON'T yield. Pedestrians get hit by drivers who are required to yield but don't, and pedestrians get charged...I feel like you aren't understanding that this is a problem.
This is a well lit intersection, with no obstructed sight lines. A driver who doesn't see a pedestrian is at fault for not seeing that pedestrian. Any other standard is broken.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - Rainrider22 - 01-21-2022
You make a lot of assumptions without having the information. I cannot say it was warranted of not warranted because I don't know the facts. Wouldn't you prefer to know the facts before you make statements with respect to the commencement of legal proceedings ? Otherwise your simply making platitudes.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - danbrotherston - 01-21-2022
(01-21-2022, 11:10 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote: You make a lot of assumptions without having the information. I cannot say it was warranted of not warranted because I don't know the facts. Wouldn't you prefer to know the facts before you make statements with respect to the commencement of legal proceedings ? Otherwise your simply making platitudes.
We've been through this, I am allowed to have an opinion, tickets are not even challenged in courts of law 99.9999% of the time--at this point, we know all of the facts that we are ever going to know. Stop making excuses, have an opinion or don't, I don't care, but don't make accusations against me for the very act of having an opinion.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - panamaniac - 01-21-2022
It is not all that rare for a pedestrian to be charged for failure to yield. If they enter the crossover in front of a vehicle that has no way to stop in time, the pedestrian can be at fault.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - jeffster - 01-21-2022
(01-20-2022, 01:41 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(01-20-2022, 01:34 PM)Bytor Wrote: The only reason I can think of is that the person did not cross at the crosswalk. However, the reports do not mention anything about that.
If that was the case, then the charge laid is incorrect.
It should be failure to cross AT a nearby crossing.
Failure to yield at a crossover suggests they were AT the crossover.
Honestly, the police have some splainin to do here.
When I am out and driving, I have stopped at a green light more times than I can count, because of a pedestrian crossing against a red light. It's a daily occurrence. I am guessing in this case, either the police witnessed the collision, or the tow operator had a dash cam.
Possibly too, the tow operator had an advanced green, and the pedestrian ignored the "Don't Walk" pedestrian signal. Again, this occurs all the time.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - danbrotherston - 01-21-2022
(01-21-2022, 01:13 PM)jeffster Wrote:(01-20-2022, 01:41 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: If that was the case, then the charge laid is incorrect.
It should be failure to cross AT a nearby crossing.
Failure to yield at a crossover suggests they were AT the crossover.
Honestly, the police have some splainin to do here.
When I am out and driving, I have stopped at a green light more times than I can count, because of a pedestrian crossing against a red light. It's a daily occurrence. I am guessing in this case, either the police witnessed the collision, or the tow operator had a dash cam.
Possibly too, the tow operator had an advanced green, and the pedestrian ignored the "Don't Walk" pedestrian signal. Again, this occurs all the time.
Except this isn't a traffic light, this is a roundabout.
Obviously this would be far more reasonable and understandable if it was a traffic signal.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - danbrotherston - 01-21-2022
(01-21-2022, 11:30 AM)panamaniac Wrote: It is not all that rare for a pedestrian to be charged for failure to yield. If they enter the crossover in front of a vehicle that has no way to stop in time, the pedestrian can be at fault.
Why?
Drivers are required to yield. Unless there is a blocked sight line which there isn't supposed to be at a crossover, and there isn't at this intersection. Pedestrians do not just apparate at the threshold to the intersection, any driver can see a pedestrian approaching the crossing and should prepare to yield. Any driver who does not yield has broken the HTA.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - jamincan - 01-21-2022
I've been in a situation where the pedestrian is at a corner and doesn't proceed when they have the ROW, and then unexpectedly steps out without checking that the way is clear on more than one occasion. Without the full details of this particular case, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that there was a miscarriage of justice.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - danbrotherston - 01-21-2022
(01-21-2022, 03:28 PM)jamincan Wrote: I've been in a situation where the pedestrian is at a corner and doesn't proceed when they have the ROW, and then unexpectedly steps out without checking that the way is clear on more than one occasion. Without the full details of this particular case, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that there was a miscarriage of justice.
*shrugs*...you do you.
Most pedestrians aren't suicidal...and I have a low opinion of our police, I think it's quite likely to be a miscarriage of justice.
I mean, think about it, unless the driver has dashcam footage, how do you even prove the pedestrian jumped out in front. And even when the police have footage of a crime, it usually takes days or months to file charges.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - Bob_McBob - 01-21-2022
I'm prepared to believe whatever actions the pedestrian took satisfied the criteria in HTA s 140(4), such that it was "impracticable" for the vehicle to stop before striking them. However, anyone who drives through roundabouts regularly and sees how most drivers treat pedestrians in them should immediately recognize how utterly absurd it is to charge a pedestrian unless they literally jump in front of a car intending to be hit. This isn't a situation where there is any ambiguity about whether a pedestrian intends to cross, and responses I see from other drivers complaining about pedestrians who don't "wait for the flow of traffic to stop" etc. are not grounded in reality. Many drivers simply do not yield for pedestrians at roundabouts unless they're assertive, and there should almost never be a situation where you can't see a pedestrian approaching a crossover or waiting to cross long before you reach the crossover.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - panamaniac - 01-21-2022
(01-21-2022, 04:31 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(01-21-2022, 03:28 PM)jamincan Wrote: I've been in a situation where the pedestrian is at a corner and doesn't proceed when they have the ROW, and then unexpectedly steps out without checking that the way is clear on more than one occasion. Without the full details of this particular case, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that there was a miscarriage of justice.
*shrugs*...you do you.
Most pedestrians aren't suicidal...and I have a low opinion of our police, I think it's quite likely to be a miscarriage of justice.
I mean, think about it, unless the driver has dashcam footage, how do you even prove the pedestrian jumped out in front. And even when the police have footage of a crime, it usually takes days or months to file charges.
Yes, I suppose the pedestrian could be suicidal. Impact marks on the side, rather than the front, of the vehicle would also be an indication. In many cases, I imagine that there are witnesses. The possibilities are many ...
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - jeffster - 01-21-2022
(01-21-2022, 01:42 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(01-21-2022, 01:13 PM)jeffster Wrote: When I am out and driving, I have stopped at a green light more times than I can count, because of a pedestrian crossing against a red light. It's a daily occurrence. I am guessing in this case, either the police witnessed the collision, or the tow operator had a dash cam.
Possibly too, the tow operator had an advanced green, and the pedestrian ignored the "Don't Walk" pedestrian signal. Again, this occurs all the time.
Except this isn't a traffic light, this is a roundabout.
Obviously this would be far more reasonable and understandable if it was a traffic signal.
Oh, OK. I assumed the accident was a Lancaster and Bridgeport, I figured it was a typical case of poor reporting that had a spelling error.
Here is a the law regarding pedestrian duties:
Quote:Duty of pedestrian
(4) No pedestrian shall leave the curb or other place of safety at a pedestrian crossover and walk, run or move into the path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impracticable for the driver of the vehicle to comply with subsection (1). 2015, c. 14, s. 39 (2).
While he may not have been suicidal, I've have seen people run out at the last second.
I've had a pedestrian hit my vehicle, mind you, this was not at a crossing, they literally ran into the side of my vehicle. It may have been Shamari as it sure looked like him, but either way, guy ran off with some pickle barrels.
RE: Road design, safety and Vision Zero - danbrotherston - 01-21-2022
(01-21-2022, 05:23 PM)panamaniac Wrote:(01-21-2022, 04:31 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: *shrugs*...you do you.
Most pedestrians aren't suicidal...and I have a low opinion of our police, I think it's quite likely to be a miscarriage of justice.
I mean, think about it, unless the driver has dashcam footage, how do you even prove the pedestrian jumped out in front. And even when the police have footage of a crime, it usually takes days or months to file charges.
Yes, I suppose the pedestrian could be suicidal. Impact marks on the side, rather than the front, of the vehicle would also be an indication. In many cases, I imagine that there are witnesses. The possibilities are many ...
Even marks on the side of the car doesn't mean anything, the lanes are wide, I could take 3 strides into a road and still hit the side of a car.
In any case, you're welcome to believe that the police here are correct, but I find it extremely dubious, and am unwilling to accept that right now. Unless the pedestrian was literally suicidal (which frankly, should have been in the police report), the story as presented is not acceptable, and amounts to incompetence by police and media.
Which...frankly, it par for the course in the region.
My money is on the pedestrian walking through a crossing, a driver, distracted, or even just not that focused, speeding around the circle, hitting them on the exit, telling the police "the pedestrian jumped out of nowhere", and the police charging the pedestrian regardless of what the pedestrian stated, if they even were asked.