Road design, safety and Vision Zero

[ijmorlan]

I agree with most of the context, though I am unsure of how it's related to a car. A car, in this case, is the weapon. Perhaps in this case though, using a car might have created a better outcome. By that, I mean, he likely would have committed a gun crime at a later date, at one of their religious services, and perhaps injuring and killing more people. Though it's difficult to predict different outcomes.

Just to clarify, by “able” I mean “able to pull the trigger”, so to speak (or literally if the weapon of choice was a gun). I speculate that it might be easier for this perpetrator to accidentally on purpose crash their vehicle into people than it would be for them to knife some people or point and shoot a gun. Also I wonder how long in advance this was planned; most people don’t carry knives or guns with them, so they can’t suddenly decide to commit a murder; but the difference between driving more-or-less safely down the road and committing a murder is a flick of the steering wheel which conceivably could be done on a whim.

[ijmorlan]

And now the actual reason I logged in again this evening:

https://humantransit.org/2021/06/pedestr...Transit%29

Jarrett Walker is always interesting and always thoughtful. I recommend his website to anybody interested in transit. This particular article is a review of a book on road safety which I think is very on point for this board, even if the current discussion is about intentional crime rather than the unintentional but all too predictable consequences of poor design.

[jamincan]

This is the second hate-fueled mass murder with a vehicle in just a few years. In 2018 that incel guy plowed a van through a bunch of pedestrians killing 10. Vehicles are ubiquitous in society, but they are dangerous when not used safely and can easily be misused to cause great harm. There aren't many other easily accessible things that can cause harm to such an extent. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols used diesel fuel and fertilizer to kill 168 people, and it is now much harder to buy large amounts of fertilizer. Realistically, I don't think anyone wants people to have to go through background checks and get police reports to buy a car, but I do think there's value in recognizing that the primary mode of transportation for most Canadian can also be very effectively misused as a weapon.

[Acitta]

Realistically, I don't think anyone wants people to have to go through background checks and get police reports to buy a car,

I do!

[danbrotherston]

Realistically, I don't think anyone wants people to have to go through background checks and get police reports to buy a car,

I do!

I'm confused...drivers already some background check to buy a car right? Surely you can't be sold a car unless you have a valid license?

[plam]

I do!

I'm confused...drivers already some background check to buy a car right? Surely you can't be sold a car unless you have a valid license?

I think you can buy a car but you can't drive it without a license. And certainly there is no screening for criminality (which would also be problematic in its own way given how we've constructed our society, and would not have prevented this incident).

[ijmorlan]

I'm confused...drivers already some background check to buy a car right? Surely you can't be sold a car unless you have a valid license?

I think you can buy a car but you can't drive it without a license. And certainly there is no screening for criminality (which would also be problematic in its own way given how we've constructed our society, and would not have prevented this incident).

Not just the way we’ve constructed our society, but also relevance of driving a vehicle to the crime.

For example, hiring a white-collar criminal (fraudster or some such) as an accountant is probably a bad idea. Similarly, a daycare worker should get only one chance to abuse kids before they have to change their employment to a different field. And obviously a convicted mugger should not be allowed to own or carry a gun.

In none of the examples I gave, however, would a driving prohibition have any connection to the crime or any preventive effect.

If the crime in question is vehicle-related that is a different matter. For example a mandatory permanent driving ban for anybody caught driving drunk more than a couple of times is clearly the right thing.

[ac3r]

Background checks in this case would be hard to do. It would be pretty hard to determine whether or not someone is Islamophobic at the time of obtaining a license/purchasing a car. I know the crime was horrific, but would you really want extensive background checks in order to simply buy a car? Most people are not criminals so I think that would be a huge invasion of privacy. For example, the incel fucker that drove a van into people...the only way people would have known he was a hateful incel would be to dig deep into his internet history. We couldn't do that for every single person trying to get a license or rent a van. Certain things can stick out, such as a history of drunk driving, but for your average person, looking into them would be quite a reach.

[danbrotherston]

Background checks in this case would be hard to do. It would be pretty hard to determine whether or not someone is Islamophobic at the time of obtaining a license/purchasing a car. I know the crime was horrific, but would you really want extensive background checks in order to simply buy a car? Most people are not criminals so I think that would be a huge invasion of privacy. For example, the incel fucker that drove a van into people...the only way people would have known he was a hateful incel would be to dig deep into his internet history. We couldn't do that for every single person trying to get a license or rent a van. Certain things can stick out, such as a history of drunk driving, but for your average person, looking into them would be quite a reach.

I really don't see the reason that someone is allowed to purchase a car when they do not have a license. There isn't much you can do with a car without a license. Certainly one should not be permitted to plate the car without a license...I would hope that is the case now.

So, we already have a moderately expensive, albeit highly ineffective system behind driving. So why shouldn't something like a background check be part of that? My only concern is whether that is effective in reducing dangerous driving, I'm not convinced it would be, but I really do think there should be a psychological component of licensing. There is for airline pilots.

Of course, it's all a moot point, virtually everyone, no matter how incapable is permitted to get a license these days, before we bother with background checks, psych tests or whatever, we could actually bother to try and actually test drivers beyond the most basics, and revoke licenses when drivers misbehave. But that would require us to actually treat driving like a privilege rather than a right.

[jeffster]

Realistically, I don't think anyone wants people to have to go through background checks and get police reports to buy a car, but I do think there's value in recognizing that the primary mode of transportation for most Canadian can also be very effectively misused as a weapon.

I know this is going to sound like a 'straw man' argument, but I digress. Two problems: 1) False sense of security. While I don't know the details of Nathaniel, of what his background was, but it may have been clean. So it wouldn't have been caught. 2) Like most gun murders in Canada, it's also a huge possibility that even with a background check (and subsequent denial) that they'd still get their hands on a car.

My last car accident, actually, was with someone without a license, without insurance, without ownership. He 'didn't have it on him'. But there are a lot of drivers already on the road that aren't driving legally. Since we now live in a time were people do running stops, right of red without stopping, 30 over the limit, with almost zero police charging these people, one could get a car and just attempt to drive and obey the traffic laws and never be caught.

[jeffster]

Of course, it's all a moot point, virtually everyone, no matter how incapable is permitted to get a license these days, before we bother with background checks, psych tests or whatever, we could actually bother to try and actually test drivers beyond the most basics, and revoke licenses when drivers misbehave. But that would require us to actually treat driving like a privilege rather than a right.

I recall a case a couple years ago, about this guy that had been caught drinking and driving. It was like his 10th charge. It should be noted, he had several driving bans and license suspensions on him, something like 4 overlapping each other.

So we can do all that you suggested, and then some, and it still won't keep people off of the road. And part of our problem is our very soft criminal system. You will go to jail for minor crimes, like stealing a chocolate bar from Zehrs, but when it comes to more serious things like DUI's, and license suspension driving, they're still given a 'stern warning' and a 'next time you may not be so lucky'.

[jeffster]

And now the actual reason I logged in again this evening:

https://humantransit.org/2021/06/pedestr...Transit%29

Jarrett Walker is always interesting and always thoughtful. I recommend his website to anybody interested in transit. This particular article is a review of a book on road safety which I think is very on point for this board, even if the current discussion is about intentional crime rather than the unintentional but all too predictable consequences of poor design.

He talks about bus shelters. Sucks we can't have those nice things in RoW. Only a handful of them still exist. They're needed in Vegas to cool people down in the extreme summer heat. But we should have them here, not just for our hot months, but our extreme cold months too.

[ijmorlan]

Of course, it's all a moot point, virtually everyone, no matter how incapable is permitted to get a license these days, before we bother with background checks, psych tests or whatever, we could actually bother to try and actually test drivers beyond the most basics, and revoke licenses when drivers misbehave. But that would require us to actually treat driving like a privilege rather than a right.

I recall a case a couple years ago, about this guy that had been caught drinking and driving. It was like his 10th charge. It should be noted, he had several driving bans and license suspensions on him, something like 4 overlapping each other.

I find these cases disgusting. What kind of judge doesn’t understand that some people need to be locked up for the protection of society? If they can be rehabilitated, great, but if not, they can sit in a cell forever; “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. It should be impossible to be convicted of drunk driving 10 times, because after approximately the 5th (exact number debatable) time one should be permanently incarcerated; the only debate should be on the nature of the incarceration.

This is one case where mandatory minimums should be applied: repeat recidivist drunk drivers.

[KevinL]

It's surprising how many of these perpetrators successfully plead on their need to be able to drive; that it's a vital part of their job and/or commute. Our courts should be able to shift such people into new homes or jobs to eliminate that need, not continue to enable them.

[jwilliamson]

   
   
   

I took a few photos of Larch St last time I biked through. It looks very nice.