ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[Bob_McBob]

Another collision today. Not sure why CTV decided this one in particular was important enough to report considering there were at least two others in the last couple weeks.

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/suv-collide...-1.4647104

[panamaniac]

From the report:  "It happened on Maurice Street between Ottawa Street South and Sydney Street South around 5:30 p.m."

Not surprising that there's collisions, if the Ion is going to go on streets that have no tracks on them!

[Spokes]

Ok ya this one's the IONs fault haha

[ijmorlan]

No, it's the CBTC system. While the gates do have to automatically activate, there's a button in the cab that can cancel gates when the train is stopped. So you'll see the gates start activating as the train arrives, it stops, and then the gates go back up, then the train has to inch out of the station to re-trigger the gates.

Yes, they always have to inch forward, it's annoying, I feel like there should be a button in cab to trigger the lights, so that they can trigger it as they close the doors, this would a) speed the train along because they could depart sooner, and b) not have us edge forward 2 feet only to shudder to a stop again, leading to a more comfortable ride.

There isn’t a button? Unbelievable. Since it needs to be able not to trigger the lights in the event it is stopped for an extended period or travelling in the opposite direction, it should be trivial to give the operator a way to indicate when they are ready to go. The crossing protection should be triggered at the same time as the chimes go for the doors. Then by the time the doors are closed the crossing protection will be almost entirely engaged already and the train can probably leave without further delay; but on the other hand the crossing won’t have been uselessly blocked for the entire time the train is in station.

[Bob_McBob]

Well shockingly enough the car driver in the latest incident has been charged.

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/965...kitchener/

[taylortbb]

Well shockingly enough the car driver in the latest incident has been charged.

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/965...kitchener/

I believe so far they've charged the car drivers when the collisions have occurred at intersections with signage. Either the light up no turn signs, or the permanent metal ones

 The car/train collisions where the driver has turned in front of the train at an unsignalized intersection, where drivers are just expected to check mirrors/blindspot on the right, the drivers have not been charged. Similar to how they're not charged for injuring cyclists in the same situation, despite it being required.

[danbrotherston]

Well shockingly enough the car driver in the latest incident has been charged.

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/965...kitchener/

I believe so far they've charged the car drivers when the collisions have occurred at intersections with signage. Either the light up no turn signs, or the permanent metal ones

 The car/train collisions where the driver has turned in front of the train at an unsignalized intersection, where drivers are just expected to check mirrors/blindspot on the right, the drivers have not been charged. Similar to how they're not charged for injuring cyclists in the same situation, despite it being required.

*sigh*...so true :'(

[Spokes]

I don't understand the logic behind the lack of charges if there is no signage

[panamaniac]

Neither do I, but discretion whether to charge is always with the police, no?

[ac3r]

I think in this case yes. But still, why not press charges if the driver is at fault, regardless of signage? I don't really get that, when the train driver and cameras can easily confirm if the driver was at fault. It makes little sense to not charge a driver for being an idiot, just because there is no sign telling them to watch out for trains.

[panamaniac]

You'd have to ask WRPS.

[danbrotherston]

Drivers will always be given the benefit of the doubt in collisions. Any driver who believes they are a victim is not seeing the way things really work. Just look at the driver who killed the cyclist on King St. they say "well it was dark, and the cyclist (may) have been wearing dark clothing"...."oh, well that's okay then, no charges" say the police.

I'm of the opinion that if you are involved in a collision it should be up to you prove, not only that you aren't at fault, but that you took every possible precaution to prevent that collision. And I'm not saying that criminal charges should be the result, but if you cannot prove that the collision was unavoidable, you should lose your license with (depending on the situation) the option of re-applying and going through driver training again.

[jeffster]

I'm of the opinion that if you are involved in a collision it should be up to you prove, not only that you aren't at fault, but that you took every possible precaution to prevent that collision.  And I'm not saying that criminal charges should be the result, but if you cannot prove that the collision was unavoidable, you should lose your license with (depending on the situation) the option of re-applying and going through driver training again.

That's not the way the modern judicial system works though -- it's up to them (the police/courts) to prove fault. I'm not sure we'd want it the other way round.

[danbrotherston]

I'm of the opinion that if you are involved in a collision it should be up to you prove, not only that you aren't at fault, but that you took every possible precaution to prevent that collision.  And I'm not saying that criminal charges should be the result, but if you cannot prove that the collision was unavoidable, you should lose your license with (depending on the situation) the option of re-applying and going through driver training again.

That's not the way the modern judicial system works though -- it's up to them (the police/courts) to prove fault. I'm not sure we'd want it the other way round.

I'm well aware of how the criminal justice system works, and the reasons why it works that way.

For driving, which is a privilege, not a right, I believe the standards should be different.  If you cannot prove that you can drive safely, you should be required to undergo training again (which is intended to ensure that you are able to drive safely).

[ijmorlan]

That's not the way the modern judicial system works though -- it's up to them (the police/courts) to prove fault. I'm not sure we'd want it the other way round.

I'm well aware of how the criminal justice system works, and the reasons why it works that way.

For driving, which is a privilege, not a right, I believe the standards should be different.  If you cannot prove that you can drive safely, you should be required to undergo training again (which is intended to ensure that you are able to drive safely).

Excellent point. “Innocent until proven guilty” is for criminal penalties in a court of law, not for lesser consequences in different situations. That doesn’t mean that we should constantly have to prove our innocence, but being required to take driver training after a collision isn’t exactly a Draconian punishment.