Grand River Transit

[Canard]

I just got this hilarious mental image of the Lexan "blast shields" that the folks in the woodwinds section of the KSO have with the brass right behind them. Makes me laugh every time.

[MidTowner]

I find that really disappointing. Is the job really risky enough to justify that? Is Waterloo Region really that dangerous? The riding experience will really be altered with the introduction of plexiglass bubbles separating the driver from the clientele.

In Winnipeg, there are calls for those kinds of shields after a recent murder of a bus driver, and an uptick in the rate (I can't remember from what to what) of assaults on drivers. Are issues like that significant here? Or are some folks just watching too much CNN?

[Viewfromthe42]

It's going to create a different experience, for sure. To me, yes, it will make it a less pleasant interaction with the driver. But if they are the ones feeling unsafe, I have to want them to feel safe in the end. On the perhaps plus side, it should make it too impossible for the bus-driver-conversationalist to carry on a chat with the driver, preventing them from blocking access to the bus as I've often run into.

[MidTowner]

No more bus-driver-conversationalists...imagine the drivers losing the ability to chat with anyone over the course of an entire shift...

I just noticed, though, that it says "trial process." I wonder what that means, but assume there will be some information gathering from drivers and riders alike at some point. No harm in trying it out to see how it improves drivers' feelings of safety versus their and riders' experiences.

[Coke6pk]

I find that really disappointing. Is the job really risky enough to justify that? Is Waterloo Region really that dangerous? The riding experience will really be altered with the introduction of plexiglass bubbles separating the driver from the clientele.

In Winnipeg, there are calls for those kinds of shields after a recent murder of a bus driver, and an uptick in the rate (I can't remember from what to what) of assaults on drivers. Are issues like that significant here? Or are some folks just watching too much CNN?

Are we that dangerous, no.  Could we be, yes.

As much as I don't support the bubble, I can't support a "wait until a driver is murdered" before we react.

Coke

[KevinL]

Buses in Toronto have these.

It's up to the driver if they close it; they can secure it in the open position if they wish. It's often left open in quiet midday periods, for example, but will be closed after dark, in particular neighbourhoods, or when carrying rowdier groups like sports fans or high schoolers.

[MidTowner]

Coke6pk, I am quite sure you couldn't have read my comment as a suggestion that we "wait until a driver is murdered"...I'm comparing the safety concerns in a jurisdiction that has experienced actual violence, with what actually happens here, where you say the situation isn't dangerous, but "could be."

KevinL, thanks for the info about the configuration of these barriers in Toronto.

[Coke6pk]

Coke6pk, I am quite sure you couldn't have read my comment as a suggestion that we "wait until a driver is murdered"...I'm comparing the safety concerns in a jurisdiction that has experienced actual violence, with what actually happens here, where you say the situation isn't dangerous, but "could be."

KevinL, thanks for the info about the configuration of these barriers in Toronto.

I'm not putting those words into your mouth by any means... however, some employers are very reactive as opposed to being proactive, and I'm glad GRT took the correct route.

Coke

[MidTowner]

Since it's a "pilot," I can't do anything but agree with you that putting this thing on trial and seeing what the impacts are is the correct route. Introducing something as drastic as a plexiglass shield separating drivers from their clients without even consulting the clients wouldn't be. But I'm assuming that there will be an opportunity to voice concerns about the shields before they're adopted wholesale, if there are any concerns.

[yige_t]

Since it's a "pilot," I can't do anything but agree with you that putting this thing on trial and seeing what the impacts are is the correct route. Introducing something as drastic as a plexiglass shield separating drivers from their clients without even consulting the clients wouldn't be. But I'm assuming that there will be an opportunity to voice concerns about the shields before they're adopted wholesale, if there are any concerns.

Why should riders be consulted about this? This is about the safety of drivers. 

Verbal assaults and spitting on drivers is real. It does happen in this Region, and they should be treated as seriously as the more aggressive behaviours. And I can imagine drivers feeling especially vulnerable during the last bargaining process + constant strike threats... Anything to make their job comfortable. 

I don't see how passengers can be negatively affected by this at all. A driver's job is to drive a bus, not chatting with passengers. It's not like you can't ask drivers questions anymore (while bus is stopped) - they can still hear you over the plexiglass...

And besides, nobody should be talking while the bus is moving anyways, it's distracting.

[danbrotherston]

Since it's a "pilot," I can't do anything but agree with you that putting this thing on trial and seeing what the impacts are is the correct route. Introducing something as drastic as a plexiglass shield separating drivers from their clients without even consulting the clients wouldn't be. But I'm assuming that there will be an opportunity to voice concerns about the shields before they're adopted wholesale, if there are any concerns.

Why should riders be consulted about this? This is about the safety of drivers. 

Verbal assaults and spitting on drivers is real. It does happen in this Region, and they should be treated as seriously as the more aggressive behaviours. And I can imagine drivers feeling especially vulnerable during the last bargaining process + constant strike threats... Anything to make their job comfortable. 

I don't see how passengers can be negatively affected by this at all. A driver's job is to drive a bus, not chatting with passengers. It's not like you can't ask drivers questions anymore (while bus is stopped) - they can still hear you over the plexiglass...

And besides, nobody should be talking while the bus is moving anyways, it's distracting.

Passengers (and even the region as a whole) are affected by the appearance of unfriendliness and of danger.

That being said, it disgusts me that such things could even be necessary.  Who spits on a driver?!  Why don't these people end charged with assault?

[MidTowner]

yige_t, I can't really understand the comment that "Verbal assaults and spitting...should be treated as seriously as the more aggressive behaviours." Obviously those things are serious and should be treated seriously. But, no, "verbal assaults" aren't as serious as physical assaults. Both should be prosecuted, both should be mitigated, but they can't be treated the same.

Highly visible safety precautions like this obviously impact riders. It sends a clear message that the drivers at least consider the bus dangerous. It does impact communication, even if drivers and riders can still hear each other. Of course the safety (and, probably more relevantly in this case, the perception of safety) of the drivers is important. But the amount that any precaution adds to safety should be balanced against how it impacts service. If "safety" were the only criteria, with no regard to rider experience, the precautions we could take would be only limited by the imagination.

[KevinL]

 Who spits on a driver?!  Why don't these people end charged with assault?

Very angered and/or intoxicated individuals, who are told their fare is invalid or something else they disagree with, and feel the need to physically present their displeasure. And sometimes they are tracked down and charged with assault; but not every case can be prosecuted, and at any rate the driver gets traumatized by the act in the first place. Giving drivers the option to separate themselves from the possibility of the act is quite empowering and is a big boost to morale.

[trainspotter139]

 Who spits on a driver?!  Why don't these people end charged with assault?

Very angered and/or intoxicated individuals, who are told their fare is invalid or something else they disagree with, and feel the need to physically present their displeasure. And sometimes they are tracked down and charged with assault; but not every case can be prosecuted, and at any rate the driver gets traumatized by the act in the first place. Giving drivers the option to separate themselves from the possibility of the act is quite empowering and is a big boost to morale.

Not to mention that some of these individuals may have a fluid-borne illness that may cause lasting health effects on the driver.

[DKsan]

Mods, can you please ban trainspotter139? There's no report option and their last two posts have been unnecessarily inflammatory and steeped in discrimination.