ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[danbrotherston]

I'm well aware of how the criminal justice system works, and the reasons why it works that way.

For driving, which is a privilege, not a right, I believe the standards should be different.  If you cannot prove that you can drive safely, you should be required to undergo training again (which is intended to ensure that you are able to drive safely).

Excellent point. “Innocent until proven guilty” is for criminal penalties in a court of law, not for lesser consequences in different situations. That doesn’t mean that we should constantly have to prove our innocence, but being required to take driver training after a collision isn’t exactly a Draconian punishment.

I think if you are "constantly" in collisions, then yes you in fact should "constantly" be having to prove yourself innocent.

This certainly isn't an unusual situation, and does apply in more than one western country.

Currently, unless police respond there isn't even the consideration of charges...the police reporting centre is nothing more than a publicly funded insurance adjuster.

[ijmorlan]

Excellent point. “Innocent until proven guilty” is for criminal penalties in a court of law, not for lesser consequences in different situations. That doesn’t mean that we should constantly have to prove our innocence, but being required to take driver training after a collision isn’t exactly a Draconian punishment.

I think if you are "constantly" in collisions, then yes you in fact should "constantly" be having to prove yourself innocent.

This certainly isn't an unusual situation, and does apply in more than one western country.

Currently, unless police respond there isn't even the consideration of charges...the police reporting centre is nothing more than a publicly funded insurance adjuster.

No argument from me about people who are regularly in collisions. I was speaking more generally e.g. imagine if they rounded up everybody who was caught on video within 1km of a burglary and made them all give an alibi, then charge anybody without an alibi. Clearly inappropriate, and exactly the sort of thing that “innocent until proven guilty” is supposed to avoid. But having to take driver training after being in a not-proven-not-at-fault collision? Fine with me.

To your last point, especially nowadays where transit vehicles are basically mobile surveillance units, why can’t we use that surveillance information to nail dangerous drivers? It shouldn’t take an officer on scene to issue a ticket for failure to stop at a streetcar door or whatever.

In general I support strong privacy protection — police departments should not be able to do fishing expeditions in the video archives, for example. But people who violate the right-of-way of transit vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians (and even other motor vehicles for that matter) do not deserve to be able to hide behind exaggerated privacy protections.

[jeffster]

That's not the way the modern judicial system works though -- it's up to them (the police/courts) to prove fault. I'm not sure we'd want it the other way round.

I'm well aware of how the criminal justice system works, and the reasons why it works that way.

For driving, which is a privilege, not a right, I believe the standards should be different.  If you cannot prove that you can drive safely, you should be required to undergo training again (which is intended to ensure that you are able to drive safely).

A better solution is for the police to start enforcing traffic laws. For example, stopping at stop signs, or right turns on red lights. These accidents are happening because people simply don't know how to drive, simply because no one gets pulled over for stupid mistakes. Hire 10 traffic only officers, this is lower pay, and have them enforce rules of the road. Eventually, most people will learn to drive correctly. Those that don't, they can fight the charges that the police will give them and then in court, the police can easily prove fault.

As for standard being different, not sure how we could for one but not the other. Too many grey area's in driving where criminal charges have to be administered. Also, lots of minor criminal and non-criminal charges files unrelated to driving, do we change that too? Think of a noise complain.

This is why we don't change how the law works.

[danbrotherston]

I'm well aware of how the criminal justice system works, and the reasons why it works that way.

For driving, which is a privilege, not a right, I believe the standards should be different.  If you cannot prove that you can drive safely, you should be required to undergo training again (which is intended to ensure that you are able to drive safely).

A better solution is for the police to start enforcing traffic laws. For example, stopping at stop signs, or right turns on red lights. These accidents are happening because people simply don't know how to drive, simply because no one gets pulled over for stupid mistakes. Hire 10 traffic only officers, this is lower pay, and have them enforce rules of the road. Eventually, most people will learn to drive correctly. Those that don't, they can fight the charges that the police will give them and then in court, the police can easily prove fault.

As for standard being different, not sure how we could for one but not the other. Too many grey area's in driving where criminal charges have to be administered.  Also, lots of minor criminal and non-criminal charges files unrelated to driving, do we change that too? Think of a noise complain.

This is why we don't change how the law works.

You're missing the point.  We aren't even willing to enforce traffic laws against drivers who DO hit things (or people), and you're suggesting we need to start with those who don't? Why is that a better solution?

As for noise complaints, what equivalent penalty to losing the privilege of driving while you undergo driver training would apply?

The law changes all the time, and most of it is implicit, there's nothing in the HTA saying police should rarely or never file charges unless responding to a collision in person, but that's what is done...the law *should* change *because* it isn't working.

[robdrimmie]

A better solution is for the police to start enforcing traffic laws.

An even better solution is for those responsible for our transportation infrastructure to stop pretending that our current practices aren't the root cause of the problem. We shouldn't need police to enforce behaviours that are enabled by how we build the system in the first place.

[Bob_McBob]

What's up with the construction cones at Northfield Station?

[KevinL]

The ones along the northbound curve? Those have been there for months to keep people from straying onto the tracks.

There also were orange barriers on the platform itself, but those came down today!

[KevinL]

[ijmorlan]

[ZEBuilder]

[clasher]

Is this going to happen every year or is there something special about this year?

[bgb_ca]

Is this going to happen every year or is there something special about this year?

My guess is every Nov 11 as the Kitchener centopath is next to Frederick station.

[KevinL]

The cenotaph is scheduled to be disassembled for restoration soon, so the next couple years may not actually require this.

[JoeKW]

They should absolutely not shut down public transit for remembrance day. This is ridiculous. (Yes, I know they are making alternative arrangements but that's not good enough).

[trainspotter139]

They should absolutely not shut down public transit for remembrance day. This is ridiculous. (Yes, I know they are making alternative arrangements but that's not good enough).

because of the way the cenotaph is set up right now they have to put portable stands out on the road for the crowds. Having portable stands on the road is incompatible with the overhead wiring.