(08-08-2019, 10:39 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ] (08-08-2019, 09:49 AM)plam Wrote: [ -> ]Most people probably would tell WRPS, but I don't think there is any obligation to tell them (and in that case no one would get a ticket...)
See, that is the problem. The way it should work is the owner gets the ticket, unless they testify as to who was borrowing the car from them at that time and that person gets the ticket (if they contest it, back to the owner’s liability for the ticket), or if they report the car stolen (meaning that whoever was operating the car at the time would be criminally liable for car theft, or it would go back to the owner possibly with an additional charge of perjury in the event the person actually borrowed it and didn’t steal it).
Cars are sufficiently dangerous that owners need to be held responsible for anything that is done with them.
If owners don’t like it, they can be careful about to whom they lend their vehicles.
I agree, and certainly many others do as well, but this is not what the law says right now.
Of course there are others who would vehemently oppose this, why, I don't know, they seem to have a very one-dimensional understanding of the concept of "freedom".
Quote: (08-08-2019, 05:52 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]If owners don’t like it, they can be careful about to whom they lend their vehicles.
I agree, and certainly many others do as well, but this is not what the law says right now.
Of course there are others who would vehemently oppose this, why, I don't know, they seem to have a very one-dimensional understanding of the concept of "freedom".
I’ve seen discussions in which what people said, taken to its logical conclusion, basically meant that no traffic enforcement is permissible; apparently it’s just a money grab.
To be fair, in some US jurisdictions, red light cameras really are primarily a money grab — they are timed to maximize revenue, not to mail out a ticket when somebody is observed running a red dangerously. And there are legitimate issues around police power, civil liberties, privacy, etc. But none of these give license to car drivers to drive however they want to, no matter how unsafe. The fix for all of these is appropriate policies and legislation so the legal apparatus primarily encourages safe driving.
An interesting example of this is the issue of signalling oncoming drivers that you’ve just passed a speed trap. I agree with others that it is not legitimate for the police to ticket people for signalling (by dipping headlights, as I understand it), but for a different reason. Some people say the police shouldn’t ticket because, by telling people about the speed trap, they cause them to slow down. But this is bogus, because the whole point of a speed trap is to spot-check something that can’t be enforced ubiquitously. However, I say that police shouldn’t ticket because ticketing for some nebulous offence of signalling something to other drivers is contrary to the whole concept of free speech and limiting police enforcement activities to actions that are well-defined and actually cause harm.
(08-08-2019, 10:39 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ] (08-08-2019, 09:49 AM)plam Wrote: [ -> ]Most people probably would tell WRPS, but I don't think there is any obligation to tell them (and in that case no one would get a ticket...)
See, that is the problem. The way it should work is the owner gets the ticket, unless they testify as to who was borrowing the car from them at that time and that person gets the ticket (if they contest it, back to the owner’s liability for the ticket), or if they report the car stolen (meaning that whoever was operating the car at the time would be criminally liable for car theft, or it would go back to the owner possibly with an additional charge of perjury in the event the person actually borrowed it and didn’t steal it).
Cars are sufficiently dangerous that owners need to be held responsible for anything that is done with them.
If owners don’t like it, they can be careful about to whom they lend their vehicles.
I'd be fine with this. As danbrotherson wrote, it's not the way the law currently is. But it makes sense to me.
There is already some liability involved with lending your car to someone, so it's not even that big a step from where we are now.
FWIW, I know at least one of the operators, and they have been quite happy with the job.
Reviews are mixed, I'm not sure whether on a job hunting site, how biased the results are, few people who are still at their jobs or happy with their jobs would be going to the job hunting site.
(08-09-2019, 09:34 AM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]Keolis is hiring a LRV operator if anyone is interested enough to apply: https://www.indeed.ca/viewjob?cmp=Keolis...dceb&vjs=3
Edit: Going by the reviews, people don't like working there.
Are reviews linked from that page? I didn’t see reviews.
I’m amused to see the job described as “fast-paced” and “exciting”.
It seems to me it is hardly fast-paced, and it’s only exciting on bad days.
I personally would love driving the train for about a week, and would happily do it for free for that period of time. Doing it year after year though I can’t quite imagine. I would probably end up like Choo-Choo eventually:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/992960.Choo_Choo
(08-09-2019, 09:34 AM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]Keolis is hiring a LRV operator if anyone is interested enough to apply: https://www.indeed.ca/viewjob?cmp=Keolis...dceb&vjs=3
Edit: Going by the reviews, people don't like working there.
While I always imagined driving a subway as a kid, and this job could be fun, I also understand that it probably gets very boring doing the exact same job 250 times a year. Not to mention potentially having to deal with idiots that may hop onto the LRV.
There is also a mismatch of benefits compared to the region/cities. Not sure that it's a factor, but it would be for me.
EDIT: I did read through the reviews, and there does seem to be a lot of issues with management (typical) as well favouritism and lack of job security. I am guessing that some who got hired were also fired subsequently. Also seems that the poor reviews started flooding in for this particular job (as well as maintenance positions). My guess is that the complaints about management are correct and true, and the positive reviews were not from any front-line workers.
Based on what I read, I'd stay away.
(08-09-2019, 12:17 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]Are reviews linked from that page? I didn’t see reviews.
Never mind, I found the small link near the top. Worse than I expected — I would have thought that the LRV operator position would be a low-drama situation; it’s not a job, or management task, that calls for a lot of innovation or variation — it’s just keep operating the trains reliably, day in and day out, according to schedule and safely. So I would have predicted that it would be neither unusually good nor unusually bad — just a routine, predictable, way of making a living.
Edit: finished reading them, many are more positive. Now I’m not sure what to think. It’s as if the reviews were written by people working for completely different companies.
(08-09-2019, 09:29 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ] (08-09-2019, 12:17 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]Are reviews linked from that page? I didn’t see reviews.
Never mind, I found the small link near the top. Worse than I expected — I would have thought that the LRV operator position would be a low-drama situation; it’s not a job, or management task, that calls for a lot of innovation or variation — it’s just keep operating the trains reliably, day in and day out, according to schedule and safely. So I would have predicted that it would be neither unusually good nor unusually bad — just a routine, predictable, way of making a living.
Edit: finished reading them, many are more positive. Now I’m not sure what to think. It’s as if the reviews were written by people working for completely different companies.
Most of the positive reviews were before start of service date, and really, most were before the LRT were even testing, at least full steam testing. I noticed that most positives were from those that are not front line, and/or part of team that got the ION up and running (so some temp positions).
When did they change the sign on the front of the trains? I was out of town for a couple of days, and noticed they now just say "301 to Fairway" and "301 to Conestoga" in a bigger font size instead of "301 ION to Fairway" and "301 ION to Conestoga"
I haven't seen that yet, but probably because there isn't much point in having it say ION. Bigger font makes it easier to see for those with vision problems as well.
(08-15-2019, 10:43 AM)bgb_ca Wrote: [ -> ]When did they change the sign on the front of the trains? I was out of town for a couple of days, and noticed they now just say "301 to Fairway" and "301 to Conestoga" in a bigger font size instead of "301 ION to Fairway" and "301 ION to Conestoga"
Complexity reduction maybe? Plus, numbers looking like letters ...OI, 10... could cause some confusion for certain people
(08-15-2019, 10:43 AM)bgb_ca Wrote: [ -> ]When did they change the sign on the front of the trains? I was out of town for a couple of days, and noticed they now just say "301 to Fairway" and "301 to Conestoga" in a bigger font size instead of "301 ION to Fairway" and "301 ION to Conestoga"
I also noticed the same today. Go out of town for a couple of weeks and everything changes!
(08-15-2019, 10:43 AM)bgb_ca Wrote: [ -> ]When did they change the sign on the front of the trains? I was out of town for a couple of days, and noticed they now just say "301 to Fairway" and "301 to Conestoga" in a bigger font size instead of "301 ION to Fairway" and "301 ION to Conestoga"
Easy to read short than long. Why have ION in the direction when its the system in the first place??? Take it further, why not 301 Conestoga like a lot system do????
Yeah, the 'to' is redundant if you don't give the route name.