Road design, safety and Vision Zero

[jamincan]

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.

Let's be clear - you're making a number of huge leaps and assumptions, and alleging misconduct by the police on that basis, which is your prerogative, but is by no means reasonable.

Pedestrians, just like drivers, are completely capable of moving unexpectedly and into the path of others without looking and without being suicidal. They are human after all.

[dtkvictim]

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.

Let's be clear - you're making a number of huge leaps and assumptions, and alleging misconduct by the police on that basis, which is your prerogative, but is by no means reasonable.

Pedestrians, just like drivers, are completely capable of moving unexpectedly and into the path of others without looking and without being suicidal. They are human after all.

Agreed: people are people. The idiots in cars we spend all day complaining about on here are made out of the same stuff as idiots on bike and on foot. The only difference is the level of responsibility towards safety that each should be tasked with (enshrined in law, enforcement, and street design). It would be absurd to assume by default that two drivers in a car crash must both be guilty due to being in a car.

Though if the statistic for who is at fault in pedestrian/vehicle collisions tells a damning story then maybe some assumptions would be understandable.

[taylortbb]

I think there's also an unmentioned possibility of terrible reporting, and it's the driver that was actually charged. I've seen worse errors from local media.

[danbrotherston]

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.

Let's be clear - you're making a number of huge leaps and assumptions, and alleging misconduct by the police on that basis, which is your prerogative, but is by no means reasonable.

Pedestrians, just like drivers, are completely capable of moving unexpectedly and into the path of others without looking and without being suicidal. They are human after all.

"Huge leaps"...

Well, that is your opinion. I don't think it's at all a huge leap to believe that the police get something wrong.

Humans don't move all that fast, you're assuming that a pedestrian was not in any way looking like they would cross a road, then suddenly moved in front of a moving car who reasonably believed that pedestrian to be not intending to cross, yet somehow, also did it right at a PXO, and wasn't suicidal.  The pedestrian couldn't have been on the sidewalk (they'd be 8 feet away from even the curb, moving that distance would give the driver time to react), so maybe on the road, walking parallel to the curb...I dunno...this is very hard to imagine a situation where this is possible.

That to me seems like a much bigger leap, with much bigger assumptions, than that the police just took the drivers word as "they suddenly jumped in front of me" and didn't really consider how that could happen given the road.

[jeffster]

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.

I remember back in 2019 when that woman (a care taker) and child were hit by a train. It's not like pedestrians are infallible. They do stupid things.

A scenario where a pedestrian crosses properly, oncoming vehicles had properly stopped. Pedestrian then does a 180º and heads back onto the crossing and vehicles were already accelerating. Or, if a pedestrians back is facing the crossing, a driver would reasonable conclude that the crossing is clear of a pedestrian, only to have the person turn around and go onto the crossing.

While I 100% agree with you that the WRPS has a lot of crooked cops, I doubt there was anything nefarious here. Only thing I can think of is the potential the the driver of the vehicle was family/friends of the cop. That would be sorted out in the courthouse, as judges generally do not like police (AKA: fake lawyers).

[danbrotherston]

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.

I remember back in 2019 when that woman (a care taker) and child were hit by a train. It's not like pedestrians are infallible. They do stupid things.

A scenario where a pedestrian crosses properly, oncoming vehicles had properly stopped. Pedestrian then does a 180º and heads back onto the crossing and vehicles were already accelerating. Or, if a pedestrians back is facing the crossing, a driver would reasonable conclude that the crossing is clear of a pedestrian, only to have the person turn around and go onto the crossing.

While I 100% agree with you that the WRPS has a lot of crooked cops, I doubt there was anything nefarious here. Only thing I can think of is the potential the the driver of the vehicle was family/friends of the cop. That would be sorted out in the courthouse, as judges generally do not like police (AKA: fake lawyers).

Yes, peds do occasionally do stupid things, and occasionally do suicidal things. But far less often than they are believed to, if you look at the stats, even if we count every illegal (not necessarily stupid or suicidal thing) peds do, they're still only at fault in a small minority of collisions. Most of those are peds doing risky things that are basically common place.

People complain that peds constantly walk blindly into traffic on Ring Rd. I can assure you they don't, most people look up before crossing, because most people don't want to die. Evidence: If they didn't, people would die constantly.

So yeah, it's possible that a ped did something stupid, but my money is on the safer bet that they didn't.

Now I'm not suggesting anything nefarious by the police, although, it's entirely possible--I absolutely know of an instance where someone I know was charged by police when they were not in the wrong, and the other driver involved was a close friend of a police officer--but the much more likely scenario is officers simply not really understanding the law and/or taking a drivers testimony as more reliable than a pedestrian's. I don't think the officer who ticketed a person for not riding on the sidewalk was nefarious, I think they were just part of a system which is designed to shift blame as much as possible away from drivers.

Remember, police are part of a system. It's the system which is broken.

[ijmorlan]

That would be sorted out in the courthouse, as judges generally do not like police (AKA: fake lawyers).

I thought judges almost always believed police? Isn’t it almost impossible to impeach police testimony even when it’s problematic?

[danbrotherston]

That would be sorted out in the courthouse, as judges generally do not like police (AKA: fake lawyers).

I thought judges almost always believed police? Isn’t it almost impossible to impeach police testimony even when it’s problematic?

Actually, I missed that line.

Courts are not really a relevant part of the justice system for anything but major crimes. The vast vast VAST majority of minor offences (like 99%+) never see a court room. They don't solve these problems.

And going to court for offences like this usually relate more to who is charged, and their resources.

[Coke6pk]

Anyone know why WRPS is charging pedestrians who are hit when they have the right of way?

https://kitchener.citynews.ca/police-bea...er-4974531

I'm so tired of this bullshit.

DELETED REPLY - Seems I was well behind the thread.

Coke

[jeffster]

That would be sorted out in the courthouse, as judges generally do not like police (AKA: fake lawyers).

I thought judges almost always believed police? Isn’t it almost impossible to impeach police testimony even when it’s problematic?

No..

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...rules.html

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...-told.html

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...ation.html

Generally though, police have their own internal discipline, and if needed, 'external' investigation, and these are generally are run by other police departments and if not that, they're run by retired officers. It's up to them to charge the police.

As for impeaching the police - it is hard to do that.

[jeffster]

I thought judges almost always believed police? Isn’t it almost impossible to impeach police testimony even when it’s problematic?

Actually, I missed that line.

Courts are not really a relevant part of the justice system for anything but major crimes. The vast vast VAST majority of minor offences (like 99%+) never see a court room. They don't solve these problems.

And going to court for offences like this usually relate more to who is charged, and their resources.

Back in the day, I was driving in Guelph and my 'oil pressure sensing unit' got blown. This meant my car was spewing a whole bunch of smoke. I had my friend with me, and she knew where a good mechanic was, so I started driving there, when I got pulled over. Officer asked if I knew why he pulled me over, and I said "probably because I am burning oil" and he was questioning why I was driving with it like that, and I said "I am driving down the road to 'Joe's Auto Repair', and he's like "I don't believe you, you're lying" so the cop goes back to the car, and we're waiting there for a good 45 minutes, and he finally comes back, "I am charging you with Unreasonable Smoke" -- and I look at the ticket, and said "I am not paying for this, see you in court."

Anyway, I got to court, and guess who's there, the idiot cop and his buddies. He actually took the stand as did I, and I actually had to cross examine him like this was some court case, and I said "Did you not call me a liar when I said was going to get my car repaired" and he denied it. Either way, I brought my evidence of my car repair in Guelph, a $56 fix. So in the end, the judge says "I do find that you were guilty of unreasonable smoke, but I also find that the police officer is guilty of an unreasonable charge -- so I am throwing out this charge with extreme prejudice."

Look on the cops face was priceless.

And the ticket was small, almost not worth fighting. Had the cop not be such a dick during out whole interactions that we had, I'd probably would have just paid it. I mean, had I been pulled over, and he said "Yeah, you got too much smoke coming from your car, it could be a hazard if it gets worse, so I am sorry but I have to charge you...but I'll escort you to the garage since it's only 2 minutes up the street."

But no, this guy was on roids and had some serious personal issues.

[ijmorlan]

As for impeaching the police - it is hard to do that.

Not impeaching as in impeaching the President (or other official); witness impeachment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment

Although I note it says “in the law of evidence of the United States” so actually I’m not sure what the proper Canadian term would be.

[jeffster]

As for impeaching the police - it is hard to do that.

Not impeaching as in impeaching the President (or other official); witness impeachment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment

Although I note it says “in the law of evidence of the United States” so actually I’m not sure what the proper Canadian term would be.

Got it. Not sure how that would be expressed here.

Canada Evidence Act? That's one I can think of, not sure if that's in the ballpark though.

[panamaniac]

Same word in Canada. However, "impeach a Police witness" would be more accurate than "impeach the Police".

[ijmorlan]

Same word in Canada.  However, "impeach a Police witness" would be more accurate than "impeach the Police".

Well I did say “impeach police testimony”, although I think grammatically it is actually the witness, not the testimony, which is impeached.

But good to see from those articles posted by jeffster that judges actually do seem to consider seriously the credibility of police testimony, at least some of the time.