[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..

 

[smallspy]

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.

As I understand the situation from someone who had been involved in the project since the very early days but retired a couple of years ago, the idea behind the paint scheme of the cars was that they were purposely kept neutral so that they could have a final paint scheme applied via vehicle wraps shortly before the revenue service launch.

And while that may have been the plan 15 or 20 years ago, the amount of turnover in the various organizations involved in the project likely means that the plan from that long ago has simply been forgotten.

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.

The TTC stopped painting subway cars simply because it no longer had to.

The first several batches of subway cars were painted red because they were steel, and steel needs to be painted in order to keep rust at bay. Within those batches they received one batch of otherwise identical cars that were built of aluminum, and were kept unpainted because aluminum doesn't rust but instead forms an oxide layer that is virtually impervious to oxygen - and so doesn't deteriorate like steel will.

Since then, and until the Toronto Rocket cars, all cars were built with aluminum bodies. They still used steel underframes, which had to be painted and treated in order to stop rust.

Then the Toronto Rocket cars arrived, and are made of stainless steel. Much like aluminum, the type of stainless used doesn't rust through the creation of a passive oxide layer.

So why bother spending the money on paint when you don't need to?

Dan

 

[smallspy]

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..

How about applying the same rules to all of the vehicles?

"Light trucks" do not have to meet the same crashworthiness or pedestrian impact standards are cars do. Maybe its time that they do.

Dan

 

[BrenWilson]

Realistically Canada doesn't have control over crash safety regulations. We can either choose to copy American regs and import American cars, or European standards and import European cars.

But pedestrian crash safety standards doesn't prevent hitting pedestrians, just reduces the severity of the resulting injury. Limiting large vehicles with horrific visibility reduces the likelihood of certain collisions from happening at all. I would like to see regulations that encourage cab-over design styles as we transition into EV trucks and commerical vehicles.


The pickup truck tax is something I've thought about before. A vehicle registration fee based on weight class that is tax deductible for business would lessen the amount of people buying pick-ups for personal reasons but given the price of these trucks already I'm not sure how effective it would really be. Would be nice to also see additional license requirements for light duty vehicles.

 

[Natika33]

Realistically Canada doesn't have control over crash safety regulations. We can either choose to copy American regs and import American cars, or European standards and import European cars.

But pedestrian crash safety standards doesn't prevent hitting pedestrians, just reduces the severity of the resulting injury. Limiting large vehicles with horrific visibility reduces the likelihood of certain collisions from happening at all. I would like to see regulations that encourage cab-over design styles as we transition into EV trucks and commerical vehicles.


The pickup truck tax is something I've thought about before. A vehicle registration fee based on weight class that is tax deductible for business would lessen the amount of people buying pick-ups for personal reasons but given the price of these trucks already I'm not sure how effective it would really be. Would be nice to also see additional license requirements for light duty vehicles.

They have something like this in Japan. Smaller & lighter vehicles (kei cars) are taxed less, but there's also a special commercial license for those who use bigger vehicles for work (trucks, etc) that one wouldn't get if you just wanted a bigger vehicle for your personal vehicle. The license plates are different colours too, to differentiate.
Example: https://www.pref.aichi.jp/global/en/living/taxes/tax.pdf

Since we're all paying for the extra damage to the roads from larger vehicles too, couldn't we make an economic as well as a safety argument for this?

 

[jordanmkasla2009]

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.

Considering you aren't allowed to turn left or u-turn in both directions on Eglinton at this intersection anyone who hits the LRT here is at fault. Heck you aren't even allowed to drive straight through from Swift Dr to Credit Union Dr and vice versa. The only reason there even is traffic lights there is for the single allowed left turn from Credit Union to WB Eglinton. otherwise it should just be a channelized right turn in right turn out

 

[nfitz]

Considering you aren't allowed to turn left or u-turn in both directions on Eglinton at this intersection anyone who hits the LRT here is at fault. Heck you aren't even allowed to drive straight through from Swift Dr to Credit Union Dr and vice versa. The only reason there even is traffic lights there is for the single allowed left turn from Credit Union to WB Eglinton. otherwise it should just be a channelized right turn in right turn out

I hadn't realized that you couldn't turn left from Eglinton (nor have I ever needed to).

Good grief, that arrow is hard to see. Especially if you are in the left-hand lane, where the no U-turn sign is more prominent.

 

[micheal_can]

Why are police not out enforcing the laws? Even if they gave drivers warnings, it may do more than much else will. It seems most accidents do involve activities that are illegal under the HTA.

 

[trafficexplorerON]

I hadn't realized that you couldn't turn left from Eglinton (nor have I ever needed to).

Good grief, that arrow is hard to see. Especially if you are in the left-hand lane, where the no U-turn sign is more prominent.
View attachment 673524

I think combining the "no left turn" and the "no U-turn" signs would be more effective that what we have here, as it wouldn't require as much space. Unfortunately, I don't think it's allowed in Ontario.
This example is from the American MUTCD:

 

[goodcitywhenfinished]

I hadn't realized that you couldn't turn left from Eglinton (nor have I ever needed to).

Good grief, that arrow is hard to see. Especially if you are in the left-hand lane, where the no U-turn sign is more prominent.
View attachment 673524

What a horrible design