Walking in Waterloo Region

[tomh009]

Anybody who, after hitting a pedestrian another person in their car, continues on driving, is a criminal and should be treated as such.

Fixed that for you. This should apply whether the other person is a pedestrian, a bicyclist or another motorist.

[ijmorlan]

Anybody who, after hitting a pedestrian another person in their car, continues on driving, is a criminal and should be treated as such.

Fixed that for you. This should apply whether the other person is a pedestrian, a bicyclist or another motorist.

Fair point. Pedestrians were top-of-mind when I wrote that, but it’s equally true of hitting anybody else.

[jeffster]

Well, I meant in the context of spending $100,000 on a lawyer to get them off. The driver might get a $5K fine either way. What really should be happening is jail time and a lifetime driving ban. But if this family does have the cash, or at least assets, they afford a smart lawyer that will figure things out in their favour. They'll probably suggest that the man jaywalked or was too close to the road, or something. Unless they (the police) have some sort of video proving otherwise.

That might have been the case if he stopped.  And if he wasn’t drunk, which seems unlikely, might even have been the default response of the media and police. It is much harder to blame a pedestrian for being too close to the road and causing you to flee the scene of a collision and then work to cover it up after the fact.

If they have stopped, which they should have. Had they stopped, they wouldn't need a lawyer.

That said, they left the scene of the accident. It's up to the courts to prove malice now. It's unlikely that they intentional hit the man - unless there is more to this story that we don't know. Hopefully the crown will try to set an example here, and toss the book at the driver and occupants of the car.

[ijmorlan]

That said, they left the scene of the accident. It's up to the courts to prove malice now. It's unlikely that they intentional hit the man - unless there is more to this story that we don't know. Hopefully the crown will try to set an example here, and toss the book at the driver and occupants of the car.

Leaving the scene proves malice, in my book. I agree the Crown should do their best to set an example. Of course the judge has to co-operate; way too many driving sentences are ridiculously light.

[tomh009]

That said, they left the scene of the accident. It's up to the courts to prove malice now. It's unlikely that they intentional hit the man - unless there is more to this story that we don't know. Hopefully the crown will try to set an example here, and toss the book at the driver and occupants of the car.

Leaving the scene proves malice, in my book. I agree the Crown should do their best to set an example. Of course the judge has to co-operate; way too many driving sentences are ridiculously light.

I think once you leave the scene, it becomes much more difficult to show that you are NOT guilty. Exceptional circumstances can exist, but the baseline will be as ijmorlan said.

[jeffster]

That said, they left the scene of the accident. It's up to the courts to prove malice now. It's unlikely that they intentional hit the man - unless there is more to this story that we don't know. Hopefully the crown will try to set an example here, and toss the book at the driver and occupants of the car.

Leaving the scene proves malice, in my book. I agree the Crown should do their best to set an example. Of course the judge has to co-operate; way too many driving sentences are ridiculously light.

I just hate affluenza. If they have money...

And I am hoping this isn't going to be a case in this. So husband out with his wife and his parents, celebrating the parents (the in-laws) 40th anniversary. A husband with a great job, always there for the community, made a horrible, horrible mistake. Wasn't on purpose, but he got real scared. Their kids shouldn't have to suffer from his mistake. Why was the guy walking on the road in the middle of a cold night?

I can just see how this can go sh*tty really quickly for the family and friends of victim. But this type of hit and run, no matter what the victim did, calls for some serious justice. No mercy.

[jeffster]

Leaving the scene proves malice, in my book. I agree the Crown should do their best to set an example. Of course the judge has to co-operate; way too many driving sentences are ridiculously light.

I think once you leave the scene, it becomes much more difficult to show that you are NOT guilty. Exceptional circumstances can exist, but the baseline will be as ijmorlan said.

My issue is this: I see how money works for so many people. It's the money to afford a great lawyer and to drag things out as long as they can. People with silver spoons, where buying something for $50,000 is no different than a regular dude buying an iPhone -- yeah, you think about it, and you notice the financial hit, but you can afford it.

If this family has a lot of money, and I have seen this done, they can sink $100's of thousands fighting the case. It gets to the point where the Crown simply can't afford to continue the fight -- so they hand a "slap on the wrist" judgement.

This is why you have dudes in jail for trespassing and ruining some dudes garden for 60 days, and you have drunk drivers that kill people handed a 12-month conditional discharge and 12 months house arrest along with a 2 year driving ban. Like...wow.

Go to the courthouses sometime guys, and see the bullshit in real life. You get one judge that lets everyone off even if they beat the crap out of someone and other judges that throw the book at some punk for stealing a freaking lollipop.

[Acitta]

My impression of the court system is that it is highly bureaucratic.

[jeffster]

My impression of the court system is that it is highly bureaucratic.

Your impression would be correct.

[Bob_McBob]

https://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news-st...-official/

Has the region's director of transportation ever actually walked anywhere? Because it sure doesn't sound like it. As someone who primarily drives, ground loop triggers are in no way as annoying and inconvenient as pedestrian beg buttons, nor do I have to touch a high traffic surface during a global pandemic just to legally proceed through many intersections. The icing on the cake is van De Keere claiming the mayor of Guelph literally received a million emails in opposition to the change, when it was just a sarcastic comment on Twitter.

[ijmorlan]

https://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news-st...-official/

Has the region's director of transportation ever actually walked anywhere? Because it sure doesn't sound like it. As someone who primarily drives, ground loop triggers are in no way as annoying and inconvenient as pedestrian beg buttons, nor do I have to touch a high traffic surface during a global pandemic just to legally proceed through many intersections. The icing on the cake is van De Keere claiming the mayor of Guelph literally received a million emails in opposition to the change, when it was just a sarcastic comment on Twitter.

The article didn’t sound as bad as I was expecting.

In particular, I think it’s hard to make a case for running regular cycles at an intersection where a very low-traffic road meets a high traffic road.

In other locations, the pedestrian buttons are clearly inappropriate. An obvious example is King St. at Willis Way., where the pedestrian signal should always activate.

In still other locations, the lights should just sit on walking person in all directions until a motor vehicle comes and triggers a green. Detectors could even be placed well in advance of the intersection so that in the absence of other traffic, a vehicle travelling at the intended speed would reach the light just after it turns green and wouldn’t have to stop at all.

[danbrotherston]

https://www.waterloochronicle.ca/news-st...-official/

Has the region's director of transportation ever actually walked anywhere? Because it sure doesn't sound like it. As someone who primarily drives, ground loop triggers are in no way as annoying and inconvenient as pedestrian beg buttons, nor do I have to touch a high traffic surface during a global pandemic just to legally proceed through many intersections. The icing on the cake is van De Keere claiming the mayor of Guelph literally received a million emails in opposition to the change, when it was just a sarcastic comment on Twitter.

The article didn’t sound as bad as I was expecting.

In particular, I think it’s hard to make a case for running regular cycles at an intersection where a very low-traffic road meets a high traffic road.

In other locations, the pedestrian buttons are clearly inappropriate. An obvious example is King St. at Willis Way., where the pedestrian signal should always activate.

In still other locations, the lights should just sit on walking person in all directions until a motor vehicle comes and triggers a green. Detectors could even be placed well in advance of the intersection so that in the absence of other traffic, a vehicle travelling at the intended speed would reach the light just after it turns green and wouldn’t have to stop at all.

I mean, it's poor reporting (the headline, and the weak questions) and full of missinformation at best from Mr. van de Keere (the region DOES NOT treat intersections differently based on context, it's widely repeated that their engineers refuse to consider context in implementation, and fight council when told too).

But no, it's pretty clear van De Keere never walks anywhere (he might GO for a walk in his neighbourhood, but not TO anywhere).  I've not made a secret of it, top level regional staff are one of the biggest obstacles to improving our transportation system in the region.  I have absolutely no clue why they are so obstinant, it's not even like it's a local thing, we have reasonably progressive cities, with very good staffs.

This is my biggest fear with any sort of amalgamation, the region staff would likely take over transportation, and we'd lose any hope of even localized improvements.

[creative]

As both a walker and driver I found this article very informative and understanding. Isn’t a walk in your neighborhood going somewhere?

[taylortbb]

As both a walker and driver I found this article very informative and understanding. Isn’t a walk in your neighborhood going somewhere?

If your destination is the same as your origin I don't think it's going somewhere. I think Dan's point is that if one is going for a casual stroll it's less time sensitive than if walking is a part of your commute.

I do understand the argument, whether I agree with it or not, on suburban arterials. But there's beg buttons in downtown Kitchener and uptown Waterloo. Willis Way may not have as many cars as King St, but I bet the pedestrian counts are far more similar between the two directions. Once again showing they only considered cars in how they design the infrastructure.

[creative]

So if I walk to the variety store or grocery store or pizza place in my neighborhood and cross busy streets, that doesn’t count, because my final destination is back home?