Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 4.75 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Grand River Transit
I don't think it's a good addition. It seems to have been driven by a knee jerk reaction to anecdotes from other jurisdictions, and not statistics. And, of course, without any consideration to the riders' experience.

Is Waterloo Region dangerous? Not particularly.
Reply


(11-24-2017, 08:33 AM)MidTowner Wrote: I don't think it's a good addition. It seems to have been driven by a knee jerk reaction to anecdotes from other jurisdictions, and not statistics. And, of course, without any consideration to the riders' experience.

Is Waterloo Region dangerous? Not particularly.

Not following ... ??
Reply
In the articles I've read on the issue, not one quote has even alluded to weighing the riders' experience against the risk to drivers. Maybe a careful analysis of that would have resulted in deciding that the shields were necessary, but it doesn't seem to have been included in the discussion at all.
Reply
(11-24-2017, 09:11 AM)MidTowner Wrote: In the articles I've read on the issue, not one quote has even alluded to weighing the riders' experience against the risk to drivers. Maybe a careful analysis of that would have resulted in deciding that the shields were necessary, but it doesn't seem to have been included in the discussion at all.

Nobody at all considers the cost to riders.  Every time I've traveled and gotten on a transit bus with a shield like this I have felt uneasy about it.  It's something that I might get used too, but it gives the impression of danger and unfriendliness and is antithetical to increasing transit use.

Of course, that must be weighed against the safety of drivers.
Reply
It sends a clear message that the system is dangerous. The arguments being made to justify the purchase of the shields is that the system is dangerous to drivers. Obviously they're at increased risk of assault and whatever else because of increased exposure, but there must be some risk to riders, and that won't be lost on anyone riding buses where the shields are present.

Anyway, you understand my argument. I'm not sure if, after weighing the costs, the shields are justifiable. But the decision was not implemented after a sober consideration of the costs and benefits. It was purely emotional, not based in fact.
Reply
The subway attendants (cashiers?) in the TTC (and any other system) are in enclosed booths, does that mean it is an unsafe system to use? No. Does it mean that the operator is willing to protect their staff? Yup! Same goes for currency exchanges, some banks, gov't offices, etc.

Bravo to GRT!
Reply
(11-24-2017, 11:36 AM)Coke6pk Wrote: The subway attendants (cashiers?) in the TTC (and any other system) are in enclosed booths, does that mean it is an unsafe system to use?  No.  Does it mean that the operator is willing to protect their staff?  Yup!  Same goes for currency exchanges, some banks, gov't offices, etc.

Bravo to GRT!

Safe or not, shields make it feel unfriendly and unsafe.  Same goes for currency exchanges, some banks, some gov't offices.

Also, I think TTC protecting it's staff does mean that it isn't safe, can't have it both ways.

I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying that it does have an impact on user perception.
Reply


Users need to update their perception for the employee's health and safety.

When I was young we had nice green grass between e/b and w/b lanes on the 401.  Does a huge concrete median mean there are safety issues?  Yes.  Does it make me fear the highway, No (Other things may tho).  The same can be said for florescent vests on every highway worker, etc.

The world has changed, and I will personally applaud any steps for the safety of workers, even if it ruins the perception of driving a bus in the 50's....

Coke
Reply
(11-24-2017, 11:55 AM)Coke6pk Wrote: Users need to update their perception for the employee's health and safety.

When I was young we had nice green grass between e/b and w/b lanes on the 401.  Does a huge concrete median mean there are safety issues?  Yes.  Does it make me fear the highway, No (Other things may tho).  The same can be said for florescent vests on every highway worker, etc.

The world has changed, and I will personally applaud any steps for the safety of workers, even if it ruins the perception of driving a bus in the 50's....

Coke


To think this has no effect on perception or ridership is shortsighted.

Users will "update their perception" by buying a car and driving it instead, regardless of actual safety.
Reply
If the perception is that the driver faces such a high likelihood of assault that he needs to be behind glass, it would follow that riders face a significant chance of assault, too. But it's not true.

The world hasn't really changed all that much. For most Canadians, the crime rate now is lower than at any point in their lives. But most wouldn't believe that if you told them. I don't know if it's that they watch too much tv, or what. But we're fortunate enough to live in a very safe country, and it seems to me a lot of people don't recognize that.

Maybe bus drivers in Waterloo face disproportionately high instances of serious assault such that they really do need to be separated from the people they're serving. I don't know. The union doesn't seem to know, either, or they might have cited some numbers instead of just pointing to a few instances in Winnipeg.
Reply
Quote:Users will "update their perception" by buying a car and driving it instead, regardless of actual safety.

If half-shields are the only factor between riding a bus and car ownership, I would be shocked.  People who need to get somewhere will not refuse because the employee is in a protective bubble.  Millions use NYC cabs, and they all have protective barriers.  

Quote:The union doesn't seem to know, either, or they might have cited some numbers instead of just pointing to a few instances in Winnipeg.

From the article: Over the past four years, Grand River Transit bus drivers have reported 11 physical assaults and seven attempts, 30 threats, and three cases of being spit on, said Gillespie.

Quote:If the perception is that the driver faces such a high likelihood of assault that he needs to be behind glass, it would follow that riders face a significant chance of assault, too.

Not true.  The driver is the representative of the company, and the magnet for aggression/anger for any issues.  Celebrities/Dignataries have bodyguards, not because they are in a dangerous area, but the people around them may be dangerous.  Does the average fan feel scared for their life as they try to snag an autograph?

A police officer on patrol has many tools and protective devices.  Should those around the officer be in fear because "that guy/gal is". 

S/he is a bus driver.  They are there to safely drive a bus.  All extra courtesy provided by the driver is a bonus.  The fact that this is just a partial shield and not a full enclosure boggles my mind why its even an issue.... I guess I'll have to agree to disagree....

Coke
Reply
Reminds me of when they added metal detectors at Canada’s Wonderland, because somebody got shot... in the parking lot. (Outside of where the detectors would have done anything)
Reply
(11-24-2017, 11:55 AM)Coke6pk Wrote: The world has changed, and I will personally applaud any steps for the safety of workers, even if it ruins the perception of driving a bus in the 50's....

Coke

Trying to avoid getting into the actual discussion about the shields, but the world has changed in that our crime rate is lower than it has been for decades. When people say “the world has changed” they usually mean that crime has gone up, which is usually not in fact the case.
Reply


(11-24-2017, 12:33 PM)Coke6pk Wrote:
Quote:Users will "update their perception" by buying a car and driving it instead, regardless of actual safety.

If half-shields are the only factor between riding a bus and car ownership, I would be shocked.  People who need to get somewhere will not refuse because the employee is in a protective bubble.  Millions use NYC cabs, and they all have protective barriers.  
...

It is not the *only* issue, but like everything else in life, it's a marginal issue, it contributes to a decision.  And yes, people who have no choice but to ride the bus will not change their life, but choice riders may.

And yes, in NYC nobody would even flinch about it.  We aren't NYC.

Like I said, I don't necessarily think this is the wrong choice, I haven't looked at the actual data in context, but if you refuse to acknowledge the real costs to it, then you aren't considering it objectively.
Reply
(11-24-2017, 10:40 AM)MidTowner Wrote: It sends a clear message that the system is dangerous.

The picture in the article didn't give me that impression at all.

I also liked the statement that  "Some of them are fixed and permanent and then there's some of them that give the operator the discretion to use them".  I think it's great that they're experimenting with different designs to determine what works best, allowing them to evaluate three different options: permanent, discretionary, or none at all.
...K
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 8 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links