Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: Grand River Transit
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I'm astonished to think someone would be allowed on a bus without a mask. WTF?
Don't get me wrong, I fully support fining people who refuse to wear masks on public transit, just like in any other public space covered by the mask bylaws. My point is that the region is specifically only enforcing the bylaw for public transit users. Selectively enforcing laws like this is not right.
(12-11-2020, 04:41 PM)panamaniac Wrote: [ -> ]I'm astonished to think someone would be allowed on a bus without a mask.  WTF?

Well, you get an exemption if you have a medical condition that a mask would obstruct, and it's not considered appropriate to pry about such matters, so non-mask-wearers had been quietly tolerated. I get the impression too many people who clearly do not have such conditions are flouting this, and action is being taken.
(12-11-2020, 05:03 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: [ -> ]Don't get me wrong, I fully support fining people who refuse to wear masks on public transit, just like in any other public space covered by the mask bylaws. My point is that the region is specifically only enforcing the bylaw for public transit users. Selectively enforcing laws like this is not right.

This exactly, and it is doubly concerning when it is a traditionally disadvantaged group.
I don't see this as targeting transit users. They're targeting the idiots who use transit but refuse to wear masks while doing so. What's wrong with that? A bus or LRT ride can be a perfect way to spread the virus. There is very little constant airflow nor any filtration. If you sat on a bus for 25 minutes with a maskless, SARS-CoV-2 positive individual you can be pretty sure that the chance of them infecting you or others would be very high.
(12-11-2020, 07:45 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-11-2020, 05:03 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: [ -> ]Don't get me wrong, I fully support fining people who refuse to wear masks on public transit, just like in any other public space covered by the mask bylaws. My point is that the region is specifically only enforcing the bylaw for public transit users. Selectively enforcing laws like this is not right.

This exactly, and it is doubly concerning when it is a traditionally disadvantaged group.

Isn't it a good thing that transit users are getting the best enforcement of the bylaw? Obviously it would be nice if there were enough resources to enforce it everywhere, but focusing on protecting people in a setting where many can't practically leave if someone is putting them at risk seems good to me.
(12-11-2020, 07:51 PM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see this as targeting transit users. They're targeting the idiots who use transit but refuse to wear masks while doing so. What's wrong with that? A bus or LRT ride can be a perfect way to spread the virus. There is very little constant airflow nor any filtration. If you sat on a bus for 25 minutes with a maskless, SARS-CoV-2 positive individual you can be pretty sure that the chance of them infecting you or others would be very high.

So first of all, this is not true, infections have been very rare on public transit vehicles. Ventilation per cubic meter is quite good, and since people are sitting and not generally eating or talking boisterously (or moistly) it's actually a fairly safe environment. Masks are still important but you're much more likely to be infected in a bar, not my opinion, the data shows this.

And yes, idiots who ride transit but refuse to wear a mask are idiots, and they are annoying.

But it is also the case that transit riders are being targeted for enforcement in a way that the public is not. I also don't think people should ride transit without paying a fare, but I vehemently disagree with enforcing fare payment far in excess of the same crime (not paying ~3.5 for a public good) when committed by people who happen to commit said crime while driving a car.
(12-11-2020, 07:54 PM)jwilliamson Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-11-2020, 07:45 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]This exactly, and it is doubly concerning when it is a traditionally disadvantaged group.

Isn't it a good thing that transit users are getting the best enforcement of the bylaw? Obviously it would be nice if there were enough resources to enforce it everywhere, but focusing on protecting people in a setting where many can't practically leave if someone is putting them at risk seems good to me.

This has a kernel of truth to it, it's easy to enforce against transit riders, that's why it's being done. And I don't just mean because there's already a massive oversized enforcement agency available. But because it is politically convenient to target and ticket transit riders.

It's the same reason that massive oversized enforcement arm exists...because when bylaw enforces the same laws against home owning car drivers council gets complaints from people who are angry that the law applies to them. But most people on transit do not have the phone numbers of their councillors on speed dial, let alone the time to spend calling them.

I keep having to point this out, just because I feel the system is corrupt and unfair, does not mean I have to disagree with the specific law. But lots of people can not, or will not see this subtlety.
(12-11-2020, 08:05 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-11-2020, 07:51 PM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see this as targeting transit users. They're targeting the idiots who use transit but refuse to wear masks while doing so. What's wrong with that? A bus or LRT ride can be a perfect way to spread the virus. There is very little constant airflow nor any filtration. If you sat on a bus for 25 minutes with a maskless, SARS-CoV-2 positive individual you can be pretty sure that the chance of them infecting you or others would be very high.

So first of all, this is not true, infections have been very rare on public transit vehicles. Ventilation per cubic meter is quite good, and since people are sitting and not generally eating or talking boisterously (or moistly) it's actually a fairly safe environment. Masks are still important but you're much more likely to be infected in a bar, not my opinion, the data shows this.

And yes, idiots who ride transit but refuse to wear a mask are idiots, and they are annoying.

But it is also the case that transit riders are being targeted for enforcement in a way that the public is not. I also don't think people should ride transit without paying a fare, but I vehemently disagree with enforcing fare payment far in excess of the same crime (not paying ~3.5 for a public good) when committed by people who happen to commit said crime while driving a car.

I'm not going to address the issue of fare enforcement, but if we're going to rely on laws to keep people safe, I'd rather be in a population with high enforcement. I'd rather have buses with strict enforcement of mask bylaws, I'd rather have the sidewalks in my neighbourhood have strict enforcement of snow-clearing bylaws, and I'd rather have the streets in my neighbourhood have strict enforcement of traffic laws. If that means that others who choose not to comply with the law suffer, then they are getting what they deserve. If the purpose of the law is something other than safety I wouldn't feel the same, but in all those cases I would rather have high enforcement than low enforcement, even if it is specifically targeted at a population I am a member of.

(I'd like it even more if the problems could be addressed through non-regulatory approaches like vaccines, municipal snow clearing and safer street designs, but those don't seem to be on the table.)
(12-11-2020, 08:05 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-11-2020, 07:51 PM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see this as targeting transit users. They're targeting the idiots who use transit but refuse to wear masks while doing so. What's wrong with that? A bus or LRT ride can be a perfect way to spread the virus. There is very little constant airflow nor any filtration. If you sat on a bus for 25 minutes with a maskless, SARS-CoV-2 positive individual you can be pretty sure that the chance of them infecting you or others would be very high.

So first of all, this is not true, infections have been very rare on public transit vehicles. Ventilation per cubic meter is quite good, and since people are sitting and not generally eating or talking boisterously (or moistly) it's actually a fairly safe environment. Masks are still important but you're much more likely to be infected in a bar, not my opinion, the data shows this.

And yes, idiots who ride transit but refuse to wear a mask are idiots, and they are annoying.

Interesting, that's news to me. However, although I have not read any data on it, I don't doubt there is truth to it. Even still there is at least some risk involved, and I don't imagine anyone wants to be stuck inside a bus with someone not wearing a mask.

Even so, it doesn't feel like targeting transit users at least. If you wear a mask, you've got no problem, just like one wouldn't have problems driving if you don't do anything illegal. If you have a medical issue that prevents you from wearing one, that's perfectly okay. But the people that just don't want to wear one need to deal with the punishment of not doing so, so handing out fines is alright to me. I frequently take the bus/LRT and it's basically every other day there will be someone not wearing one (or who pulls it down after sitting down) or who are petty enough to fight with the driver about it.

Quote:I also don't think people should ride transit without paying a fare, but I vehemently disagree with enforcing fare payment far in excess of the same crime (not paying ~3.5 for a public good) when committed by people who happen to commit said crime while driving a car.

I agree here. The fines for not paying are incredibly high. I can't forget the exact number, but it's in the hundreds is it not? It should be 40-50 dollars at most. Maybe they thought that because it's a new system they could discourage people from doing this by making the fines high but they're still quite absurd. There are many people out there who can't afford it and should not have half a pay cheque taken away because they had to hop on the LRT for something. I mean, most who do this aren't doing it on a daily basis or they'd be regularly fined.

My card is all messed up and frequently won't register the tap - particularly at LRT stations - and half the time I just get on anyway...I don't have time to waste making sure it registers. It'd be nice if we could transition to a system like you can find in countries like Austria or Germany. It goes on an honour system. They simply trust you buy the ticket. No having to show/scan tickets to get onto the bus/Straßenbahn/S-bahn/U-bahn. You just walk on and if a ticket inspector comes, you show your ticket (paper or on an app) and that's it. If you have none - if you were schwarzfahren (black riding) - you got a 60 Euro fine...just enough to make you consider buying a ticket next time. But because the honour system is now so engrained in the culture there, most people do indeed buy their ticket and there isn't much of a problem. For those obviously too destitute to afford to, they would generally leave alone.
(12-11-2020, 08:52 PM)jwilliamson Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-11-2020, 08:05 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]So first of all, this is not true, infections have been very rare on public transit vehicles. Ventilation per cubic meter is quite good, and since people are sitting and not generally eating or talking boisterously (or moistly) it's actually a fairly safe environment. Masks are still important but you're much more likely to be infected in a bar, not my opinion, the data shows this.

And yes, idiots who ride transit but refuse to wear a mask are idiots, and they are annoying.

But it is also the case that transit riders are being targeted for enforcement in a way that the public is not. I also don't think people should ride transit without paying a fare, but I vehemently disagree with enforcing fare payment far in excess of the same crime (not paying ~3.5 for a public good) when committed by people who happen to commit said crime while driving a car.

I'm not going to address the issue of fare enforcement, but if we're going to rely on laws to keep people safe, I'd rather be in a population with high enforcement. I'd rather have buses with strict enforcement of mask bylaws, I'd rather have the sidewalks in my neighbourhood have strict enforcement of snow-clearing bylaws, and I'd rather have the streets in my neighbourhood have strict enforcement of traffic laws. If that means that others who choose not to comply with the law suffer, then they are getting what they deserve. If the purpose of the law is something other than safety I wouldn't feel the same, but in all those cases I would rather have high enforcement than low enforcement, even if it is specifically targeted at a population I am a member of.

(I'd like it even more if the problems could be addressed through non-regulatory approaches like vaccines, municipal snow clearing and safer street designs, but those don't seem to be on the table.)

I am not saying I disagree.

I am saying inequal enforcement is intended to reinforce existing inequities in our society.
(12-11-2020, 09:31 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]I am saying inequal enforcement is intended to reinforce existing inequities in our society.

That’s basically a conspiracy theory.

To be clear, I have a lot of respect for a lot of what you have said on this topic. But the idea that the reason the Region enforces fares rigorously is in order to reinforce existing inequities is absurd. You are effectively saying that decisionmaking staff within GRT and/or members of Regional Council have, as a life goal, the reinforcement of existing inequities in our society; and have thought this through and have decided that a good way of achieving that goal is to have rigorous fare enforcement on the LRT.
(12-11-2020, 09:31 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]I am saying inequal enforcement is intended to reinforce existing inequities in our society.

I will refer to Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Or at least don't make it the first assumption. Not everyone is evil.
(12-11-2020, 10:15 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-11-2020, 09:31 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]I am saying inequal enforcement is intended to reinforce existing inequities in our society.

That’s basically a conspiracy theory.

To be clear, I have a lot of respect for a lot of what you have said on this topic. But the idea that the reason the Region enforces fares rigorously is in order to reinforce existing inequities is absurd. You are effectively saying that decisionmaking staff within GRT and/or members of Regional Council have, as a life goal, the reinforcement of existing inequities in our society; and have thought this through and have decided that a good way of achieving that goal is to have rigorous fare enforcement on the LRT.

It is not remotely that....I did not say that.

I did not say that say Michael Harris is sitting in his office scheming to keep transit riders down using enforcement. This is not an individual act, this is a collective social act.

But the 'system' that is our society seeks to perpetuate itself. It's not a conscious choice by any one person, but is the cumulative effect of all of our choices. We have aggressive fare enforcement because the system is inequal and choosing to enforce fares aggressive perpetuates that inequality. We choose to do it, even though we know that is the case. Tare enforcement's purpose is to emaintain the system, the implicit in that is maintaining inequality.

Think about it, why did nobody object to fare enforcement on council, why is it so controversial to disagree with it. You see even in this forum people are uncomfortable with the notion that our system is broken or that there is unfairness in the system. They see it as a personal attack.

We need to understand collective action and collective behaviour independent from the choices any individual in our society makes.
(12-11-2020, 10:17 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-11-2020, 09:31 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]I am saying inequal enforcement is intended to reinforce existing inequities in our society.

I will refer to Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Or at least don't make it the first assumption. Not everyone is evil.

I'm not assuming anyone is evil....or at least, I am not suggesting any particular individual is evil. We as a society are perhaps evil, we are all complicit and all guilty in whatever outcomes we have.

There are people fighting for change, but those who accept the status quo--namely most people--are by definition maintaining inequality, that is part of our system.

Fare enforcement as a function of society is to enforce the system as it is, if the system is inequal then part of enforcement is to maintain that.

Man...I feel like I can be a backup singer for Rage Against tonight, but honestly, people who are fighting against change, either out of fear or out of convenience, are fighting FOR the inequality and other problems we have. Individually no one choice is necessarily oppressing people (although some clearly carry more weight than others), but collectively we are.