[zang]

Not sure where you heard this, but you generally know everything drum. I read (from Metrolinx, early in the process of building Line 5) that the grey was chosen to match higher-order transit, specifically the Line 1 Toronto Rockets. This doesn't really hold the test of time (like everything Metrolinx does) because the Line 3 trains and the new Line 2 trains will all sport color to some degree, albeit not as much as the CLRV or SRT cars.

I would have assumed the TTC stopped painting subway cars simply because it's been cash starved for decades and could save a few bucks; not for any aesthetic reason.

 

[zang]

Both of those links are american and the trajectory for road safety in Canada is not the same.

Here's a very recent article about the divergence in outcomes: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ing-in-different-directions-on-traffic-safety.

Am I wrong, or does the data not cover Canada past 2020? Post-covid stuff has certainly changed. I don't know if it's the links to covid and brain damage, but it's so rare that I don't see terrible infractions at every single intersection I cross.

 

[fiendishlibrarian]

I would have assumed the TTC stopped painting subway cars simply because it's been cash starved for decades and could save a few bucks; not for any aesthetic reason.

They briefly tried.

 

[Cambry Ardship]

I agree there's lot of traffic safety issues still (and I encounter them almost everyday too), but for a host of reasons that doesn't seem to translate into the same trends that the americans are seeing with increasing numbers of collisions.

Here's Toronto's serious automobile collision statistics (from https://data.torontopolice.on.ca/pages/automobile). Obviously there's going to be far more minor collisions but the trendlines are moving in the right direction, if all too slowly.

To tie it back more directly to Line 5, my hope is that this means the various responsible bodies in Toronto are capable of taking measures that, at the minimum, over time, reduce number of collisions with the LRVs.

I've got to imagine increasing familiarity will play a role in safety too. When I saw them relatively close in-person for the first time, I was surprised how big the LRVs were. I was picturing in my mind sort of a larger streetcar but they are very much bigger and quicker moving.

 

[duffo]

I agree there's lot of traffic safety issues still (and I encounter them almost everyday too), but for a host of reasons that doesn't seem to translate into the same trends that the americans are seeing with increasing numbers of collisions.

Here's Toronto's serious automobile collision statistics (from https://data.torontopolice.on.ca/pages/automobile). Obviously there's going to be far more minor collisions but the trendlines are moving in the right direction, if all too slowly.

View attachment 673396

To tie it back more directly to Line 5, my hope is that this means the various responsible bodies in Toronto are capable of taking measures that, at the minimum, over time, reduce number of collisions with the LRVs.

I've got to imagine increasing familiarity will play a role in safety too. When I saw them relatively close in-person for the first time, I was surprised how big the LRVs were. I was picturing in my mind sort of a larger streetcar but they are very much bigger and quicker moving.

They are nearly the same vehicle as the TTC streetcars, both are Bombardier Flexities. The LRT just has two coupled together whereas streetcars are solo.

 

[nfitz]

Am I wrong, or does the data not cover Canada past 2020? Post-covid stuff has certainly changed. I don't know if it's the links to covid and brain damage, but it's so rare that I don't see terrible infractions at every single intersection I cross.

It was my observation, returning to a similar commute in 2023 that I left in 2009, that things were much worse. The racists blame non-white immigrants, but the folks I had verbal interactions with, they most certainly weren't in that category! Sure, failing to stop while turning on red lights and stop signs was common enough back then - but the extreme turning right across traffic from the outer lane (at speed even!) and trying to overtake people on the shoulder (and then honking the horn if someone was too far to the side) wasn't like this. Or the sense of privilege and tendency towards conflict.

That said, are diverting outcomes between Canada and the USA perhaps the difference between the numbers of people driving cars, versus pedestrian-killing SUVs and oversized farmer trucks?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Both of those links are american and the trajectory for road safety in Canada is not the same. Here's a very recent article about the divergence in outcomes: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ing-in-different-directions-on-traffic-safety.

"Another factor could be differences in vehicle size. Although Ford’s F-Series pickup trucks were for many years the best-selling vehicle on both sides of the border, Canada’s relatively lower wealth, higher fuel costs, and denser cities may be nudging residents to purchase somewhat smaller models than their American peers."

If we would introduce a nation-wide large vehicle tax, say 25% on anything non-commercial that is heavier than 1,500 kgs. (3,500 lbs) and greater than 5m long and 2m wide (excluding mirrors) while at the same time having Transport Canada approve smaller vehicles sold overseas, we would go a long way to riding our roads of obese arses in F-150s.

 

[innsertnamehere]

"Another factor could be differences in vehicle size. Although Ford’s F-Series pickup trucks were for many years the best-selling vehicle on both sides of the border, Canada’s relatively lower wealth, higher fuel costs, and denser cities may be nudging residents to purchase somewhat smaller models than their American peers."

If we would introduce a nation-wide large vehicle tax, say 25% on anything non-commercial that is heavier than 1,500 kgs. (3,500 lbs) and greater than 5m long and 2m wide (excluding mirrors) while at the same time having Transport Canada approve smaller vehicles sold overseas, we would go a long way to riding our roads of obese arses in F-150s.

This kind of talk while popular in urbanist circles would be wildly unpopular with the wider population and ultimately doesn't address any real pressing policy issues beyond urbanists distaste of pickup trucks.

 

[Northern Light]

This kind of talk while popular in urbanist circles would be wildly unpopular with the wider population and ultimately doesn't address any real pressing policy issues beyond urbanists distaste of pickup trucks.

I wouldn't go that far.

There is certainly conjecture and perhaps empirical evidence that vehicles with taller front ends are at greater risk of accidents. The linkage, beyond any assertion of the predisposition of those who choose to buy 'x' is that it gives you reduced visibility of anything short/close, and that mean people, cyclists, but also the exact location of that small car to which you're way too close.

Limiting ownership only to businesses would seem impractical, and limiting engine power seems questionable too.

But I think a luxury tax of sorts that exempts businesses (ie. contractors) makes some sense.

I get that that the vehicle type may make sense in a more rural setting, exempting by address seems impractical though.

I'd certainly agree that anything that is a de facto ban ownership would not be well received and has real policy drawbacks. However, I think that less ownership of large vehicles by people who have no need of them makes good sense.
The only question in my mind is whether there's a policy tool that threads the needle well.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I wouldn't go that far.

There is certainly conjecture and perhaps empirical evidence that vehicles with taller front ends are at greater risk of accidents. The linkage, beyond any assertion of the predisposition of those who choose to buy 'x' is that it gives you reduced visibility of anything short/close, and that mean people, cyclists, but also the exact location of that small car to which you're way too close.

Limiting ownership only to businesses would seem impractical, and limiting engine power seems questionable too.

But I think a luxury tax of sorts that exempts businesses (ie. contractors) makes some sense.

I get that that the vehicle type may make sense in a more rural setting, exempting by address seems impractical though.

I'd certainly agree that anything that is a de facto ban ownership would not be well received and has real policy drawbacks. However, I think that less ownership of large vehicles by people who have no need of them makes good sense.
The only question in my mind is whether there's a policy tool that threads the needle well.

There may be a small correlation between larger front ends and vehicle injuries, but if there is, it's relatively small and is a result of vehicle design, not size in itself.

And regardless, any impact is small. If anything the increase in pedestrian deaths and injuries is likely offset by a reduction of passenger deaths and injuries as larger vehicles simply have more material to absorb collision forces instead of transferring it to passengers.

A SmartCar may be excellent at not killing pedestrians compared to a Silverado, but I can promise you the Silverado kills far fewer occupants than the SmartCar. And when modal shares in Canada remain in the 80-90% range of vehicle occupants, that's an important distinction.

Taxing by weight also has all kinds of issues with the push for electrification and will only encourage continued use of gas vehicles as they are significantly lighter..

Any difference in pedestrian fatalities which may be achieved by some attempt to regulate vehicle size is just not going to be worth the political blowback.

The gap between American and Canadian road deaths are multi-fold but vehicle size has little to do with it - Canadians drive less, drive slower, are less likely to be intoxicated, drive on better quality roads, are less likely to speed and drive aggressively, drive cars which are newer on average (better safety features) and are better maintained due to stronger safety standards... the list goes on. Personally my bet is that Canadian road deaths are much lower than American ones mostly because Canada has far fewer mega-stroads with very high road speeds and large numbers of conflicts which create far more opportunities for high-speed, high-impact collisions. The typical american suburban strip has a ~70km/h speed limit with huge numbers of conflicts - Canadian stroads are better designed, generally, and have lower speed limits, typically 50km/h.

 

[jordanmkasla2009]

Oh boy...and so it begins..

I don't even know what to say or think about this anymore..

I don't even understand how this could even happen. This intersection already had restrictions even before the LRT was put in there...

 

[nfitz]

This kind of talk while popular in urbanist circles would be wildly unpopular with the wider population and ultimately doesn't address any real pressing policy issues beyond urbanists distaste of pickup trucks.

It would literally save lives. Alternatively so would putting in mandatory industry-wide crash standards that minimize pedestrian injury as well driver/passenger injury.

Given all the hysteria we hear about very rare murders on transit this is massively more pressing!

There may be a small correlation between larger front ends and vehicle injuries, but if there is, it's relatively small and is a result of vehicle design, not size in itself.

And momentum. Weight is a thing. P=Mv.

I believe the correlation is much larger when comparing over all size and/or height to outcomes. But yes, there's certainly ways to do it without outright bans. Even a cow-catcher would improve things (not that I suggest ...)

I don't even understand how this could even happen. This intersection already had restrictions even before the LRT was put in there...

Swift? I was really surprised they put an LRT crossing there. It's prime usage is people avoiding Bermondsey. I'd think intersection improvements at Bermondsey (the approach from the south is terribly poorly laid out) could improve much of that.

 

[innsertnamehere]

It would literally save lives. Alternatively so would putting in mandatory industry-wide crash standards that minimize pedestrian injury as well driver/passenger injury.

Given all the hysteria we hear about very rare murders on transit this is massively more pressing!

Taxing vehicles by weight would not imperially save lives. I'm not saying we shouldn't implement better pedestrian safety standards in vehicles - actually, I think that's a great idea.

I'm saying that taxing vehicles by weight or an all-out ban would be a very brunt tool to meet an end goal which could be better achieved through the latter item you brought up. It's like using a jackhammer to try to drive a brad nail.. Sure, it may drive the brad nail. But the bradnailer will do it much nicer with less damage..

 

[nfitz]

Taxing vehicles by weight would not imperially save lives. I'm not saying we shouldn't implement better pedestrian safety standards in vehicles - actually, I think that's a great idea.

Democratically perhaps, rather than imperially.

You don't think when prices go up, demand goes down? That's Economics 101.

Though given the absurd prices people pay for these less useful (and extremely fragile based on how slow people seem to drive them over speed bumps and rough pavement), I don't think it would be effective enough.

Improved crash standards are the solution.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Democratically perhaps, rather than imperially.

You don't think when prices go up, demand goes down? That's Economics 101.

Though given the absurd prices people pay for these less useful (and extremely fragile based on how slow people seem to drive them over speed bumps and rough pavement), I don't think it would be effective enough.

Improved crash standards are the solution.

We can agree on the last point!

I don't disagree that taxing large vehicles would lead to fewer large vehicles being sold - I disagree that selling fewer large vehicles will result in a substantial and notable decline of road deaths and injuries, particularly given the large amount of political capital that would have to be spent on it and the cost of implementing and administering such a program, plus any economic or quality of life draw downs that happen whenever you introduce new tax regimes into an economy..