Grand River Transit

[jwilliamson]

Don't get me wrong, I fully support fining people who refuse to wear masks on public transit, just like in any other public space covered by the mask bylaws. My point is that the region is specifically only enforcing the bylaw for public transit users. Selectively enforcing laws like this is not right.

This exactly, and it is doubly concerning when it is a traditionally disadvantaged group.

Isn't it a good thing that transit users are getting the best enforcement of the bylaw? Obviously it would be nice if there were enough resources to enforce it everywhere, but focusing on protecting people in a setting where many can't practically leave if someone is putting them at risk seems good to me.

[danbrotherston]

I don't see this as targeting transit users. They're targeting the idiots who use transit but refuse to wear masks while doing so. What's wrong with that? A bus or LRT ride can be a perfect way to spread the virus. There is very little constant airflow nor any filtration. If you sat on a bus for 25 minutes with a maskless, SARS-CoV-2 positive individual you can be pretty sure that the chance of them infecting you or others would be very high.

So first of all, this is not true, infections have been very rare on public transit vehicles. Ventilation per cubic meter is quite good, and since people are sitting and not generally eating or talking boisterously (or moistly) it's actually a fairly safe environment. Masks are still important but you're much more likely to be infected in a bar, not my opinion, the data shows this.

And yes, idiots who ride transit but refuse to wear a mask are idiots, and they are annoying.

But it is also the case that transit riders are being targeted for enforcement in a way that the public is not. I also don't think people should ride transit without paying a fare, but I vehemently disagree with enforcing fare payment far in excess of the same crime (not paying ~3.5 for a public good) when committed by people who happen to commit said crime while driving a car.

[danbrotherston]

This exactly, and it is doubly concerning when it is a traditionally disadvantaged group.

Isn't it a good thing that transit users are getting the best enforcement of the bylaw? Obviously it would be nice if there were enough resources to enforce it everywhere, but focusing on protecting people in a setting where many can't practically leave if someone is putting them at risk seems good to me.

This has a kernel of truth to it, it's easy to enforce against transit riders, that's why it's being done. And I don't just mean because there's already a massive oversized enforcement agency available. But because it is politically convenient to target and ticket transit riders.

It's the same reason that massive oversized enforcement arm exists...because when bylaw enforces the same laws against home owning car drivers council gets complaints from people who are angry that the law applies to them. But most people on transit do not have the phone numbers of their councillors on speed dial, let alone the time to spend calling them.

I keep having to point this out, just because I feel the system is corrupt and unfair, does not mean I have to disagree with the specific law. But lots of people can not, or will not see this subtlety.

[jwilliamson]

I don't see this as targeting transit users. They're targeting the idiots who use transit but refuse to wear masks while doing so. What's wrong with that? A bus or LRT ride can be a perfect way to spread the virus. There is very little constant airflow nor any filtration. If you sat on a bus for 25 minutes with a maskless, SARS-CoV-2 positive individual you can be pretty sure that the chance of them infecting you or others would be very high.

So first of all, this is not true, infections have been very rare on public transit vehicles. Ventilation per cubic meter is quite good, and since people are sitting and not generally eating or talking boisterously (or moistly) it's actually a fairly safe environment. Masks are still important but you're much more likely to be infected in a bar, not my opinion, the data shows this.

And yes, idiots who ride transit but refuse to wear a mask are idiots, and they are annoying.

But it is also the case that transit riders are being targeted for enforcement in a way that the public is not. I also don't think people should ride transit without paying a fare, but I vehemently disagree with enforcing fare payment far in excess of the same crime (not paying ~3.5 for a public good) when committed by people who happen to commit said crime while driving a car.

I'm not going to address the issue of fare enforcement, but if we're going to rely on laws to keep people safe, I'd rather be in a population with high enforcement. I'd rather have buses with strict enforcement of mask bylaws, I'd rather have the sidewalks in my neighbourhood have strict enforcement of snow-clearing bylaws, and I'd rather have the streets in my neighbourhood have strict enforcement of traffic laws. If that means that others who choose not to comply with the law suffer, then they are getting what they deserve. If the purpose of the law is something other than safety I wouldn't feel the same, but in all those cases I would rather have high enforcement than low enforcement, even if it is specifically targeted at a population I am a member of.

(I'd like it even more if the problems could be addressed through non-regulatory approaches like vaccines, municipal snow clearing and safer street designs, but those don't seem to be on the table.)

[ac3r]

I don't see this as targeting transit users. They're targeting the idiots who use transit but refuse to wear masks while doing so. What's wrong with that? A bus or LRT ride can be a perfect way to spread the virus. There is very little constant airflow nor any filtration. If you sat on a bus for 25 minutes with a maskless, SARS-CoV-2 positive individual you can be pretty sure that the chance of them infecting you or others would be very high.

So first of all, this is not true, infections have been very rare on public transit vehicles. Ventilation per cubic meter is quite good, and since people are sitting and not generally eating or talking boisterously (or moistly) it's actually a fairly safe environment. Masks are still important but you're much more likely to be infected in a bar, not my opinion, the data shows this.

And yes, idiots who ride transit but refuse to wear a mask are idiots, and they are annoying.

Interesting, that's news to me. However, although I have not read any data on it, I don't doubt there is truth to it. Even still there is at least some risk involved, and I don't imagine anyone wants to be stuck inside a bus with someone not wearing a mask.

Even so, it doesn't feel like targeting transit users at least. If you wear a mask, you've got no problem, just like one wouldn't have problems driving if you don't do anything illegal. If you have a medical issue that prevents you from wearing one, that's perfectly okay. But the people that just don't want to wear one need to deal with the punishment of not doing so, so handing out fines is alright to me. I frequently take the bus/LRT and it's basically every other day there will be someone not wearing one (or who pulls it down after sitting down) or who are petty enough to fight with the driver about it.

I also don't think people should ride transit without paying a fare, but I vehemently disagree with enforcing fare payment far in excess of the same crime (not paying ~3.5 for a public good) when committed by people who happen to commit said crime while driving a car.

I agree here. The fines for not paying are incredibly high. I can't forget the exact number, but it's in the hundreds is it not? It should be 40-50 dollars at most. Maybe they thought that because it's a new system they could discourage people from doing this by making the fines high but they're still quite absurd. There are many people out there who can't afford it and should not have half a pay cheque taken away because they had to hop on the LRT for something. I mean, most who do this aren't doing it on a daily basis or they'd be regularly fined.

My card is all messed up and frequently won't register the tap - particularly at LRT stations - and half the time I just get on anyway...I don't have time to waste making sure it registers. It'd be nice if we could transition to a system like you can find in countries like Austria or Germany. It goes on an honour system. They simply trust you buy the ticket. No having to show/scan tickets to get onto the bus/Straßenbahn/S-bahn/U-bahn. You just walk on and if a ticket inspector comes, you show your ticket (paper or on an app) and that's it. If you have none - if you were schwarzfahren (black riding) - you got a 60 Euro fine...just enough to make you consider buying a ticket next time. But because the honour system is now so engrained in the culture there, most people do indeed buy their ticket and there isn't much of a problem. For those obviously too destitute to afford to, they would generally leave alone.

[danbrotherston]

So first of all, this is not true, infections have been very rare on public transit vehicles. Ventilation per cubic meter is quite good, and since people are sitting and not generally eating or talking boisterously (or moistly) it's actually a fairly safe environment. Masks are still important but you're much more likely to be infected in a bar, not my opinion, the data shows this.

And yes, idiots who ride transit but refuse to wear a mask are idiots, and they are annoying.

But it is also the case that transit riders are being targeted for enforcement in a way that the public is not. I also don't think people should ride transit without paying a fare, but I vehemently disagree with enforcing fare payment far in excess of the same crime (not paying ~3.5 for a public good) when committed by people who happen to commit said crime while driving a car.

I'm not going to address the issue of fare enforcement, but if we're going to rely on laws to keep people safe, I'd rather be in a population with high enforcement. I'd rather have buses with strict enforcement of mask bylaws, I'd rather have the sidewalks in my neighbourhood have strict enforcement of snow-clearing bylaws, and I'd rather have the streets in my neighbourhood have strict enforcement of traffic laws. If that means that others who choose not to comply with the law suffer, then they are getting what they deserve. If the purpose of the law is something other than safety I wouldn't feel the same, but in all those cases I would rather have high enforcement than low enforcement, even if it is specifically targeted at a population I am a member of.

(I'd like it even more if the problems could be addressed through non-regulatory approaches like vaccines, municipal snow clearing and safer street designs, but those don't seem to be on the table.)

I am not saying I disagree.

I am saying inequal enforcement is intended to reinforce existing inequities in our society.

[ijmorlan]

I am saying inequal enforcement is intended to reinforce existing inequities in our society.

That’s basically a conspiracy theory.

To be clear, I have a lot of respect for a lot of what you have said on this topic. But the idea that the reason the Region enforces fares rigorously is in order to reinforce existing inequities is absurd. You are effectively saying that decisionmaking staff within GRT and/or members of Regional Council have, as a life goal, the reinforcement of existing inequities in our society; and have thought this through and have decided that a good way of achieving that goal is to have rigorous fare enforcement on the LRT.

[tomh009]

I am saying inequal enforcement is intended to reinforce existing inequities in our society.

I will refer to Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Or at least don't make it the first assumption. Not everyone is evil.

[danbrotherston]

I am saying inequal enforcement is intended to reinforce existing inequities in our society.

That’s basically a conspiracy theory.

To be clear, I have a lot of respect for a lot of what you have said on this topic. But the idea that the reason the Region enforces fares rigorously is in order to reinforce existing inequities is absurd. You are effectively saying that decisionmaking staff within GRT and/or members of Regional Council have, as a life goal, the reinforcement of existing inequities in our society; and have thought this through and have decided that a good way of achieving that goal is to have rigorous fare enforcement on the LRT.

It is not remotely that....I did not say that.

I did not say that say Michael Harris is sitting in his office scheming to keep transit riders down using enforcement. This is not an individual act, this is a collective social act.

But the 'system' that is our society seeks to perpetuate itself. It's not a conscious choice by any one person, but is the cumulative effect of all of our choices. We have aggressive fare enforcement because the system is inequal and choosing to enforce fares aggressive perpetuates that inequality. We choose to do it, even though we know that is the case. Tare enforcement's purpose is to emaintain the system, the implicit in that is maintaining inequality.

Think about it, why did nobody object to fare enforcement on council, why is it so controversial to disagree with it. You see even in this forum people are uncomfortable with the notion that our system is broken or that there is unfairness in the system. They see it as a personal attack.

We need to understand collective action and collective behaviour independent from the choices any individual in our society makes.

[danbrotherston]

I am saying inequal enforcement is intended to reinforce existing inequities in our society.

I will refer to Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Or at least don't make it the first assumption. Not everyone is evil.

I'm not assuming anyone is evil....or at least, I am not suggesting any particular individual is evil. We as a society are perhaps evil, we are all complicit and all guilty in whatever outcomes we have.

There are people fighting for change, but those who accept the status quo--namely most people--are by definition maintaining inequality, that is part of our system.

Fare enforcement as a function of society is to enforce the system as it is, if the system is inequal then part of enforcement is to maintain that.

Man...I feel like I can be a backup singer for Rage Against tonight, but honestly, people who are fighting against change, either out of fear or out of convenience, are fighting FOR the inequality and other problems we have. Individually no one choice is necessarily oppressing people (although some clearly carry more weight than others), but collectively we are.

[ijmorlan]

It is not remotely that....I did not say that.

Did I misquote you?

“I am saying inequal enforcement is intended to reinforce existing inequities in our society.”

Enforcement is intended to…

Intended by whom? It can only be people who have some control over the enforcement process.

The enforcement regime may have the effect of reinforcing inequities, but if you can come up with any evidence that anybody is actually trying for (intending) that effect I’ll probably fall off my chair in surprise.

Honest question for you: if people with control over enforcement were asked what their intentions are for it, what would they say? And would they be lying?

It is very difficult to fight something which one does not understand. At this point I think it’s probably safe to say that most of the evil in our society is unintended, essentially due to poor thinking and carelessness. For example, most of the deaths caused by motor vehicles: there is no crypto-Nazi designing our roads with the intent of having a high death toll; rather, people have internalized that a high death toll is unavoidable and/or doesn’t matter because the victims must have been doing something wrong.

Or take the claim in recent years that the cases of missing and murdered Indigenous women constitute a genocide. This is absolutely untrue; if it were a genocide, the response would be to mobilize the military to destroy whatever force was conducting the genocide, just as was done in the Second World War. But in reality it is a class of crime of a sort that ties in to all sorts of societal assumptions and practices and what has to be done to fix it is much more subtle. Besides the actual perpetrators, who are hard to find, responsibility is diffuse.

[dtkvictim]

Dan, I certainly agree with you (at least in part) on the issue of fare enforcement, but I don't think the same arguments can be applied to mask bylaw enforcement. A fare can be a genuine burden on the poorest members of society, wearing a (freely attainable) mask does not carry the same burden. You are treading close to the shockingly common argument that the disadvantaged bear no personal responsibility, at which point you'll lose a lot of support.

[danbrotherston]

It is not remotely that....I did not say that.

Did I misquote you?

“I am saying inequal enforcement is intended to reinforce existing inequities in our society.”

Enforcement is intended to…

Intended by whom? It can only be people who have some control over the enforcement process.

The enforcement regime may have the effect of reinforcing inequities, but if you can come up with any evidence that anybody is actually trying for (intending) that effect I’ll probably fall off my chair in surprise.

Honest question for you: if people with control over enforcement were asked what their intentions are for it, what would they say? And would they be lying?

It is very difficult to fight something which one does not understand. At this point I think it’s probably safe to say that most of the evil in our society is unintended, essentially due to poor thinking and carelessness. For example, most of the deaths caused by motor vehicles: there is no crypto-Nazi designing our roads with the intent of having a high death toll; rather, people have internalized that a high death toll is unavoidable and/or doesn’t matter because the victims must have been doing something wrong.

Or take the claim in recent years that the cases of missing and murdered Indigenous women constitute a genocide. This is absolutely untrue; if it were a genocide, the response would be to mobilize the military to destroy whatever force was conducting the genocide, just as was done in the Second World War. But in reality it is a class of crime of a sort that ties in to all sorts of societal assumptions and practices and what has to be done to fix it is much more subtle. Besides the actual perpetrators, who are hard to find, responsibility is diffuse.

Society.

I was pretty clear “I’m not assuming anyone is evil”

Just because no particular person will admit that as intent, does not mean somethings function is not to maintain inequality.

I think we as a society are responsible for that.

Also, the historical claim is not true. The Second World War was not fought to stop a genocide.

We rarely stop genocides even when they are public, just see the Rwandan genocide.

As for what is a genocide, I haven’t heard the missing women specifically called a genocide outside of the context of the genocide we absolutely perpetrated against all indigenous people in the last century.

[ijmorlan]

Society.

I was pretty clear “I’m not assuming anyone is evil”

Just because no particular person will admit that as intent, does not mean somethings function is not to maintain inequality.

I think we as a society are responsible for that.

Also, the historical claim is not true. The Second World War was not fought to stop a genocide.

We rarely stop genocides even when they are public, just see the Rwandan genocide.

As for what is a genocide, I haven’t heard the missing women specifically called a genocide outside of the context of the genocide we absolutely perpetrated against all indigenous people in the last century.

“Society” doesn’t “intend” anything. I think you may actually understand just fine, but for some reason you insist on using a specific word that does not mean what you want it to mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

You just said it yourself — “Just because no particular person will admit that as intent, does not mean somethings function is not to maintain inequality” — bad things can happen that are not intended. In the case of transit enforcement, a reasonable critique is that it may function to perpetuate iniquity, but without specific evidence of intent it is inappropriate to allege that it is intended to perpetuate iniquity.

Good point about stopping genocides. We seem (as a society) to manage to be quite warlike and violent at times, and yet somehow still unwilling to really drop the hammer to stop an in-progress genocide. On the other hand, maybe the Rwandan situation would have been even worse, hard though that is to imagine, with an invasion attempting to stop the genocide. That being said, yes, the MMIWG report referred to present-day murders as an ongoing genocide, which is incorrect, given that by definition genocide is the deliberate attempt to eliminate a group of people. I think the MMIWG inquiry significantly impaired their credibility by using that word to describe the situation, undermining the goal of the inquiry. I don’t want to get into a discussion of which specific elements of our history qualify as genocide, but I think it’s pretty clear that there have been policies in the past which qualify.

[danbrotherston]

Society.

I was pretty clear “I’m not assuming anyone is evil”

Just because no particular person will admit that as intent, does not mean somethings function is not to maintain inequality.

I think we as a society are responsible for that.

Also, the historical claim is not true. The Second World War was not fought to stop a genocide.

We rarely stop genocides even when they are public, just see the Rwandan genocide.

As for what is a genocide, I haven’t heard the missing women specifically called a genocide outside of the context of the genocide we absolutely perpetrated against all indigenous people in the last century.

“Society” doesn’t “intend” anything. I think you may actually understand just fine, but for some reason you insist on using a specific word that does not mean what you want it to mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

You just said it yourself — “Just because no particular person will admit that as intent, does not mean somethings function is not to maintain inequality” — bad things can happen that are not intended. In the case of transit enforcement, a reasonable critique is that it may function to perpetuate iniquity, but without specific evidence of intent it is inappropriate to allege that it is intended to perpetuate iniquity.

Good point about stopping genocides. We seem (as a society) to manage to be quite warlike and violent at times, and yet somehow still unwilling to really drop the hammer to stop an in-progress genocide. On the other hand, maybe the Rwandan situation would have been even worse, hard though that is to imagine, with an invasion attempting to stop the genocide. That being said, yes, the MMIWG report referred to present-day murders as an ongoing genocide, which is incorrect, given that by definition genocide is the deliberate attempt to eliminate a group of people. I think the MMIWG inquiry significantly impaired their credibility by using that word to describe the situation, undermining the goal of the inquiry. I don’t want to get into a discussion of which specific elements of our history qualify as genocide, but I think it’s pretty clear that there have been policies in the past which qualify.

It was very explicitly the intent of our governments policies to destroy the First Nations people. Like, that isn't controversial, that was the stated intent.

If you want to argue that the current murders of indigenous women is not a continuation or direct result of of those policies, I suppose that's a more subtle argument that I lack the background knowledge to discuss.

On the word "intent".  I think we agree that enforcement policies function to continue inequality. You are arguing the word intent does not apply because we are not a master planned society, and we are all contributing to the function of society therefore nobody is guilty of "intent" here.

I am arguing that even as a collective society, we are all responsible for the direction of society, therefore, we have collective intent.  I'll grant you this is a somewhat radical position to take, arguing that a society of people can have intent.