ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[jeffster]

I can only think of two things: Only single line (so no crossover) until past the next transfer point. Or down slop up ahead. I'm going with the single line though.

Isn’t that always true? I mean, there is never any crossing over until the next crossover. I think I’ve misunderstood you.

My guess is that the chevrons indicate direction — up or down the line. I haven’t seen any except in photos however, so I can’t tell if the way they are installed is consistent with this meaning so this is pure speculation. If it is verified that trains travelling from Conestoga to Fairway will always see one direction of chevron and trains in the other direction will always see the other direction, then I would upgrade this to working hypothesis (at that point it would be proven that they do indicate direction in that way at present, but it would still not be proven that that is the actual reason for their installation nor would it be proven that future installations would continue the pattern).

Perhaps it's meant as directional only? As in, you can only stay in the right track?

As you said, speculation.

I do have an associate that conducts an LRV, I'll try to reach out to him.

I spoke with the driver and he's going to find out, he actually doesn't recall seeing it, so I am wondering if it's for service workers.

[kps]

It appears we've had our first LRT-bike collision. https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/bike-and-lr...76505#_gus

Am I correct in understanding that the cyclist is to be charged?

“A cyclist is now facing a charge of careless driving in connection with a collision involving an ION in Kitchener.”

[Bob_McBob]

Careless driving is a much more serious charge than drivers typically face for this sort of thing. And just a reminder the driver who killed Robert Linsley had that charge dropped because it was a bit dark on King St.

[tomh009]

Careless driving is a much more serious charge than drivers typically face for this sort of thing. And just a reminder the driver who killed Robert Linsley had that charge dropped because it was a bit dark on King St.

Pulling out onto the street (and in front of the train) without looking really fits careless driving to a tee. If car drivers doing the same don't get charged with careless driving, they should.

Careless driving
130 (1) Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway.

[Bob_McBob]

Careless driving is considered an incredibly difficult offence to prosecute, which is why driver who strike and kill pedestrians rarely end up with more than a small fail to yield fine.

[tomh009]

Careless driving is considered an incredibly difficult offence to prosecute, which is why driver who strike and kill pedestrians rarely end up with more than a small fail to yield fine.

And the same thing may happen here, too.

[panamaniac]

Careless driving is considered an incredibly difficult offence to prosecute, which is why driver who strike and kill pedestrians rarely end up with more than a small fail to yield fine.

Why?

[jeffster]

Careless driving is considered an incredibly difficult offence to prosecute, which is why driver who strike and kill pedestrians rarely end up with more than a small fail to yield fine.

Why?

Likely because people lawyer up and makes it harder to convict, so they plead guilty to a lesser charge.

Though keep in mind, there is Careless Driving and Careless Driving Causing Bodily Harm or Death and it's only been in law since September 2018. While not a 'criminal conviction', technically you could do jail time (I have no idea how that works) if properly convicted.

[tomh009]

It's also harder to convict because "careless" is a somewhat subjective term, whereas an illegal left turn, for example, is pretty much black-and-white whether the accused did it or not.

[Spokes]

Careless driving is considered an incredibly difficult offence to prosecute, which is why driver who strike and kill pedestrians rarely end up with more than a small fail to yield fine.

And the same thing may happen here, too.

Do we not have vehicular manslaughter?

[jeffster]

And the same thing may happen here, too.

Do we not have vehicular manslaughter?

I believe this falls under "dangerous driving causing death" or "careless driving causing death" depending if there is a criminal element to it (one might be driving too fast and killing someone, the other might be fail to yield killing someone).

Unless you ran over someone on purpose, than it would be then 1st or 2nd degree murder.

[danbrotherston]

Careless driving is a much more serious charge than drivers typically face for this sort of thing. And just a reminder the driver who killed Robert Linsley had that charge dropped because it was a bit dark on King St.

You're right, that is a good point, drivers have just been charged with "making an improper turn" or something like that, a far less serious charge....I didn't even notice that.

Ugh, pretty typical....yeah, please keep reminding us that "I didn't care to look out for cyclists cause...eh...slightly dark" is a sufficient justification for murder as long as you're driving a car.

[ijmorlan]

Careless driving is a much more serious charge than drivers typically face for this sort of thing. And just a reminder the driver who killed Robert Linsley had that charge dropped because it was a bit dark on King St.

You're right, that is a good point, drivers have just been charged with "making an improper turn" or something like that, a far less serious charge....I didn't even notice that.

Ugh, pretty typical....yeah, please keep reminding us that "I didn't care to look out for cyclists cause...eh...slightly dark" is a sufficient justification for murder as long as you're driving a car.

On top of all the other considerations, do we really need to prosecute somebody who just put themselves in hospital with their carelessness, without endangering anybody else?

If we replace the bicycle with a car and the LRV with a bicycle, then you have an innocent but dead (possibly) cyclist and an unharmed automobile driver who is in need of prosecution. In this case, though, the cyclist didn’t endanger anybody else and is spending a few days in hospital, probably followed by an extensive period of healing.

If all collisions only harmed the at-fault party, I don’t think we would even need driving laws. It’s only because one person driving badly can hurt someone else that the law needs to come into it. There isn’t a law against cutting your thumb off with a paring knife while preparing dinner.

[Momo26]

Gotdamn another problem with LRT and during my morning commute. Sign said 55 min to next one - lady on intercom going on about shuttle buses in a completely seperate part of the track so I take mitigation measures and grab the one going opposite way so I can catch a bus to DTK. Then I see the one I would need zoom by.

Bus drivers have no clue - treated like completely seperate entity. I dunno what the hell is going on

[danbrotherston]