I suppose what they're saying is because the HTA doesn't apply on private property, they would have to be able to prove an actual criminal charge. Given how hard it is to even obtain careless driving convictions for drivers who strike and kill pedestrians on public roads in Ontario, it sounds like the driver won't be facing any charges at all.
(09-17-2019, 02:03 PM)avernar Wrote: [ -> ] (09-17-2019, 01:48 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: [ -> ]WRPS say there is almost nothing they can charge the driver with because it happened in a parking lot. I guess it's ok to mow down pedestrians as long as you aren't on the road 
If only they weren't restricted to just charging the driver with stuff in the HTA. 
Assault- 265 (1) A person commits an assault when
- (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
Is there evidence it was intentional? If not, then the above definition does not apply.
However, it seems obvious to me that criminal negligence should apply, and should apply to almost any situation where a motionless person is injured by a moving vehicle (and, obviously, many situations where a person in motion is injured by a moving vehicle, but I want to concentrate on this situation). I find it very hard to believe that the law actually for real doesn’t have anything in it which would allow throwing the book at the driver. The problem is the special treatment of motor vehicle operators. What would happen if I walked down the sidewalk idly swinging my baseball bat and just happened to whack somebody?
More generally, we have too many specific laws about specific things. For example, there doesn’t need to be a law specifically on cyberbullying, if judges properly apply existing concepts of harassment. “With a computer” stuck in front of something doesn’t turn it into something fundamentally different, and neither should “with a car”.
From CBC London:
City approves 40 km/h speed limit on local streets and photo radar in school zones.
London's City Council just approved reducing speed limits on local streets to 40km/h,
and implementing photo radar in school zones (using mobile equipment that will cycle between different schools).
It also directed staff to report on lowering the speed limit in school zones to 30km/h, and downtown streets to 40km/h.
I don't think this goes far enough, and my opinion is that residential streets should have a standard speed limit of 30km/h, and photo radar should be used much more widely. I just wanted to post it to contrast with the City of Kitchener's decision back in August to implement a pilot program reducing speed limits in a mere three neighbourhoods (and the school zones in those neighbourhoods to 30km/h).
(10-03-2019, 08:10 AM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]From CBC London: City approves 40 km/h speed limit on local streets and photo radar in school zones.
London's City Council just approved reducing speed limits on local streets to 40km/h, and implementing photo radar in school zones (using mobile equipment that will cycle between different schools).
It also directed staff to report on lowering the speed limit in school zones to 30km/h, and downtown streets to 40km/h.
I don't think this goes far enough, and my opinion is that residential streets should have a standard speed limit of 30km/h, and photo radar should be used much more widely. I just wanted to post it to contrast with the City of Kitchener's decision back in August to implement a pilot program reducing speed limits in a mere three neighbourhoods (and the school zones in those neighbourhoods to 30km/h).
I can't comprehend why Kitchener did a pilot program. What do they expect to find? They cancel a pilot program when it would be prudent and reasonable (sidewalk clearing), and then they implement one when it's unnecessary wasteful waffling (this one). Any comments @ScottDavey? You seem to care about fiscal responsibility.
(10-03-2019, 08:10 AM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think this goes far enough, and my opinion is that residential streets should have a standard speed limit of 30km/h, and photo radar should be used much more widely. I just wanted to post it to contrast with the City of Kitchener's decision back in August to implement a pilot program reducing speed limits in a mere three neighbourhoods (and the school zones in those neighbourhoods to 30km/h).
As long as Glasgow St. counts as an arterial, with a limit of 50 or 60km/h, I’m OK with this in general principal. Also, there needs to be a plan to progressively rebuild neighbourhood residential streets with small intersections and other measures to make the slower speeds feel right. If you take an urban speedway like Westforest Trail and just put a 40km/h limit sign on it, it will feel to drivers like they could go faster by getting out and walking, and as a result many won’t slow down. The slowdown has to feel natural.
ijmorlan Wrote:Quote:As long as Glasgow St. counts as an arterial, with a limit of 50 or 60km/h, I’m OK with this in general principal. Also, there needs to be a plan to progressively rebuild neighbourhood residential streets with small intersections and other measures to make the slower speeds feel right. If you take an urban speedway like Westforest Trail and just put a 40km/h limit sign on it, it will feel to drivers like they could go faster by getting out and walking, and as a result many won’t slow down. The slowdown has to feel natural.
Glasgow must be designated a local collector, right? It seems residential to me. A lot of drivers will have their own opinions about which streets should be designated major versus minor. I've met drivers who have told me that my street is a "main/major/arterial" street because they happen to use it to rat run through my neighbourhood, but to me it seems residential- since I live there, and every other building on the block is a residence.
To your other point, I agree completely. I think speed limits should be lowered because speeds should be lower- and to accomplish the latter, redesigns are necessary. But even minor changes require resources, so might not be able to be done overnight. We really could lower speed limits now, without squandering time and money on pilot programs.
The Ottawa South work from Hoffman to Imperial is in good shape; the bike lanes are almost entirely poured, the base asphalt is in and the second layer can go on soon. The sidewalks are yet to be started, however.
That said, I can see them opening the street for full traffic movements in time for Oktoberfest at the Concordia.
(10-03-2019, 10:29 AM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]Glasgow must be designated a local collector, right? It seems residential to me. A lot of drivers will have their own opinions about which streets should be designated major versus minor. I've met drivers who have told me that my street is a "main/major/arterial" street because they happen to use it to rat run through my neighbourhood, but to me it seems residential- since I live there, and every other building on the block is a residence.
To your other point, I agree completely. I think speed limits should be lowered because speeds should be lower- and to accomplish the latter, redesigns are necessary. But even minor changes require resources, so might not be able to be done overnight. We really could lower speed limits now, without squandering time and money on pilot programs.
I don’t know the actual designation of Glasgow. Allowing the only straight route across town between Victoria and Erb to be developed in that fashion is a planning blunder of such proportion as to cast doubt on the whole concept of city planning.
My point is that the limit on Glasgow under no circumstances should be less than 50, and probably should be 60, at least west of Westmount. Using it is not rat-running; it’s just using the natural route. East of Westmount I think we need to make some concession to the existing conditions (in particular, the presence of a school) even though it should be a major traffic route. West of Westmount it’s a different story — the houses are all mansions set way back from the street and there is no school.
You're right that Glasgow probably should have been an arterial, and allowing it to be developed residentially was probably a mistake. Westmount Public School means that typical arterial speeds can not be allowed on that stretch.
If we're just talking about Westmount to Fischer-Hallman, then, I'm not sure how much sense it would make to impose higher-than-necessary speed limits on all residential streets to preserve those speeds on one stretch of street less than two kilometres in length.
(10-03-2019, 02:41 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]You're right that Glasgow probably should have been an arterial, and allowing it to be developed residentially was probably a mistake. Westmount Public School means that typical arterial speeds can not be allowed on that stretch.
If we're just talking about Westmount to Fischer-Hallman, then, I'm not sure how much sense it would make to impose higher-than-necessary speed limits on all residential streets to preserve those speeds on one stretch of street less than two kilometres in length.
That would be absurd, and I did not and would never suggest that. Whether the best fix is to have a specific speed limit on that road segment or to re-classify it properly I cannot say.
I agree that setting a lower limit on actual local residential streets is a very reasonable thing to do. But not if it means that misclassified streets get caught up in a general rule that people then insist on applying everywhere, even where plainly inappropriate.
New idea for 7/8 EB -> 8 SB as I was sitting in stopped traffic at Homer Watson this morning.
Turn the ramp from 7/8 into 2 lanes which then become through lanes 3/4 on 8 (coming from Waterloo are lanes 1/2)
Re-direct a single lane from King Street to the west and have it come underneath the new onramp and join as a merge to lane 4.
The unnecessary 2nd lane from King disappears into obscurity as a turn lane onto Dixon or Montgomery.
[
attachment=6455]
ijmorlan Wrote:MidTowner Wrote:You're right that Glasgow probably should have been an arterial, and allowing it to be developed residentially was probably a mistake. Westmount Public School means that typical arterial speeds can not be allowed on that stretch.
If we're just talking about Westmount to Fischer-Hallman, then, I'm not sure how much sense it would make to impose higher-than-necessary speed limits on all residential streets to preserve those speeds on one stretch of street less than two kilometres in length.
That would be absurd, and I did not and would never suggest that. Whether the best fix is to have a specific speed limit on that road segment or to re-classify it properly I cannot say.
I agree that setting a lower limit on actual local residential streets is a very reasonable thing to do. But not if it means that misclassified streets get caught up in a general rule that people then insist on applying everywhere, even where plainly inappropriate.
When I read your comment "As long as Glasgow St. counts as an arterial, with a limit of 50 or 60km/h, I’m OK with [reducing speed limits on residential streets] in general principal," I read it as you saying that. Sorry about that.
I think you have a case for Glasgow Street in particular, but I would say that there are probably many streets in the city that feel like actual local residential streets to the people living on them, but misclassified collectors or arterials on the people now enjoying driving 50+km/h down them.
One thing I can say: Glasgow Street residents are obviously particularly connected politically. I don't think there would be realistic hope of designating it an arterial to exempt it from new residential-only speed limits.
(10-04-2019, 07:06 AM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]ijmorlan Wrote:That would be absurd, and I did not and would never suggest that. Whether the best fix is to have a specific speed limit on that road segment or to re-classify it properly I cannot say.
I agree that setting a lower limit on actual local residential streets is a very reasonable thing to do. But not if it means that misclassified streets get caught up in a general rule that people then insist on applying everywhere, even where plainly inappropriate.
When I read your comment "As long as Glasgow St. counts as an arterial, with a limit of 50 or 60km/h, I’m OK with [reducing speed limits on residential streets] in general principal," I read it as you saying that. Sorry about that.
I think you have a case for Glasgow Street in particular, but I would say that there are probably many streets in the city that feel like actual local residential streets to the people living on them, but misclassified collectors or arterials on the people now enjoying driving 50+km/h down them.
One thing I can say: Glasgow Street residents are obviously particularly connected politically. I don't think there would be realistic hope of designating it an arterial to exempt it from new residential-only speed limits.
Yes, I definitely agree there are streets all over the city that look and act like medium-sized arterials but which are streets with houses and children playing. Some have been somewhat improved. For example, Keats Way and Davenport Road used to be 4-lane highways (even if officially not painted as 4-lane), but now have been re-structured to encourage more appropriate driving habits. This is especially true of Davenport, with the actual median strip. If the trees survive it will one day be almost like Union.
I think there is space for an in-between level of road which might apply to my examples: roads which provide access to substantial residential areas rather than just its residents, but which aren’t really meant for driving across the city.
Sadly, I think you’re right about the political issue on Glasgow: this is a locked-in bad decision.
I never thought about Davenport like that. I think the treatment it was given was appropriate and well-done, but you're absolutely right that it could be much like Union one day, a truly beautiful street. What a nice thought.
My understanding is that local collector is the designation for the types of streets we're talking about. I think they could be slowed, too- if a motorist is not traveling many kilometres, there's little difference in travel times between 30 and 50 km/h, but that difference is big in terms of safety and quality of life.
Edit: here is
the map of road classifications City of Waterloo. I can't really see any "local roads" that need 50km/h+ speed limits preserved.