ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[Bob_McBob]

Well shockingly enough the car driver in the latest incident has been charged.

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/965...kitchener/

[taylortbb]

Well shockingly enough the car driver in the latest incident has been charged.

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/965...kitchener/

I believe so far they've charged the car drivers when the collisions have occurred at intersections with signage. Either the light up no turn signs, or the permanent metal ones

 The car/train collisions where the driver has turned in front of the train at an unsignalized intersection, where drivers are just expected to check mirrors/blindspot on the right, the drivers have not been charged. Similar to how they're not charged for injuring cyclists in the same situation, despite it being required.

[danbrotherston]

Well shockingly enough the car driver in the latest incident has been charged.

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/965...kitchener/

I believe so far they've charged the car drivers when the collisions have occurred at intersections with signage. Either the light up no turn signs, or the permanent metal ones

 The car/train collisions where the driver has turned in front of the train at an unsignalized intersection, where drivers are just expected to check mirrors/blindspot on the right, the drivers have not been charged. Similar to how they're not charged for injuring cyclists in the same situation, despite it being required.

*sigh*...so true :'(

[Spokes]

I don't understand the logic behind the lack of charges if there is no signage

[panamaniac]

Neither do I, but discretion whether to charge is always with the police, no?

[ac3r]

I think in this case yes. But still, why not press charges if the driver is at fault, regardless of signage? I don't really get that, when the train driver and cameras can easily confirm if the driver was at fault. It makes little sense to not charge a driver for being an idiot, just because there is no sign telling them to watch out for trains.

[panamaniac]

You'd have to ask WRPS.

[danbrotherston]

Drivers will always be given the benefit of the doubt in collisions. Any driver who believes they are a victim is not seeing the way things really work. Just look at the driver who killed the cyclist on King St. they say "well it was dark, and the cyclist (may) have been wearing dark clothing"...."oh, well that's okay then, no charges" say the police.

I'm of the opinion that if you are involved in a collision it should be up to you prove, not only that you aren't at fault, but that you took every possible precaution to prevent that collision. And I'm not saying that criminal charges should be the result, but if you cannot prove that the collision was unavoidable, you should lose your license with (depending on the situation) the option of re-applying and going through driver training again.

[jeffster]

I'm of the opinion that if you are involved in a collision it should be up to you prove, not only that you aren't at fault, but that you took every possible precaution to prevent that collision.  And I'm not saying that criminal charges should be the result, but if you cannot prove that the collision was unavoidable, you should lose your license with (depending on the situation) the option of re-applying and going through driver training again.

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.

[danbrotherston]

I'm of the opinion that if you are involved in a collision it should be up to you prove, not only that you aren't at fault, but that you took every possible precaution to prevent that collision.  And I'm not saying that criminal charges should be the result, but if you cannot prove that the collision was unavoidable, you should lose your license with (depending on the situation) the option of re-applying and going through driver training again.

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).

[ijmorlan]

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).

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.

[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.