|
|
|
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
nfitz
Superstar
I'm not sure what specific personal safety issues are of great concern. I guess the biggest concern would be those from out of town, who have to drive in traffic to get to transit.
T3G
Senior Member
You've always had to be at least a little wary for your personal safety on the TTC. It wasn't all sunshine and butterflies pre COVID. I remember as a child seeing that my home station Kennedy was considered one of the sketchier parts of the TTC and being freaked out - that was 2008.
turbanplanner
Senior Member
nfitz
Superstar
The media always profits from sensationalism.
I've never felt unsafe on the TTC - or on the streets in Toronto. I have in Chicago - but much of that was probably my ignorance and paranoia. And used to live in Flemingdon Park and regular walk through Regent Park commuting (before the rebuild!), and up Sherbourne from King to Gerrard!
Far more deaths as pedestrians, and even more as drivers. You are much more likely to be run over by the bus you just got off, than by a passenger!
evandyk
Senior Member
I've switched cars or gotten off of streetcars because of people acting unpredictably. Maybe there wasn't danger in the moment, but I've had the sense it could get dangerous without much warning. But I agree that's pretty rare in the TTC. But I did get a good laugh when my mother-in-law told me about a student in the high school where she works deciding to get driven to school because she thought the TTC was unsafe. Car accidents are the leading cause of death among young people, not TTC incidents.
turbanplanner
Senior Member
Gonna step on my soap box for a second and say the unwritten social contract is leave my alone and I won't cause you trouble and vice versa, you see someone acting mentally unwell that contract suddenly goes away, hence why even if you're not in physical danger people feel uncomfortable.
Also yeah more people die driving but what is the KMs traveled per death ratio? What is it when you cut out risky behavior like driving late at night etc. Even if statistically you're more in danger in a car you have control or at least the illusion of it vs basically being up to chance who comes onto the train?
Admiral Beez
Superstar
If we would just enforce the bylaws against fare evasion, loitering and public nuisance/obstruction there would be few to any issues about the insane and intoxicated acting out on the TTC.
81-717
Active Member
Since she presumably would be driven by her parents, and not drive herself, technically this wouldn't exactly fall under the "car accidents among youth" statistic.
Jonny5
Senior Member
Diamond and Diamond are the sensational ones here.
These cases are run by insurance companies, and it's about apportioning the share of blame to decide whose insurance company has to pay.
It is typical to put in an endless list of possible reasons from beginning to end no matter how bizarre.
She was on drugs;
or if she wasn't on drugs she was drunk;
or if she wasn't drunk she was careless;
or blah blah blah [insert 40 more reasons]
This is boilerplate, standard for every civil lawsuit from pushed in front of a train, to I slipped and fell and missed two days work.
Diamond and Diamond would and have used this in their own lawsuits. Throw everything at the wall and maybe something sticks.
But BlogTO exists to selectively quote things into infotainment for the terminally online.
Last edited:
Steve X
Senior Member
No loitering also applies to the homeless hogging up a bench for themselves while the train is jammed pack full in rush hour. The cost to enforce this along with bikes, pets and large objects being brought on the subway during rush hour is very expensive. So they rather leave it at status quo.
T3G
Senior Member
And as I said upthread, how exactly does someone decide what is and isn't loitering? If we stick to the spirit of the rule then we have to ticket anyone who is standing around taking photos instead of using the transit system for traveling (AND anyone who is waiting for someone to arrive by a specific vehicle!), which would be spiteful; and a waste of time.
And how does someone decide what is and isn't a public nuisance? As I also said upthread, the language the bylaw uses is very vague. As something of a miserable bastard myself, I could argue that someone with low quality headphones with music bleeding our of them, through no fault of their own, is a nuisance. Should they be ticketed? What about someone who on an empty subway train sits uncomfortably close to me? What about if I'm deeply religious and I see someone wearing a Pentagram shirt, or a woman showing immodest amounts of skin? At the end of the day, public transit is here to serve a diverse cross section of society, and we're not always going to get along.
If the bylaw was any good, it wouldn't use meaningless word salad but outline clearly the types of behaviours that it finds unacceptable. Leaving it up to the discretion of an inspector or constable is a stupid idea, these types of low level positions of authority are well known around the world for attracting some of the very worst types of people, petty authoritarians who couldn't hack it as cops who love to make the lives of little people as unpleasant as can be. (See also: retail managers).
It's all well and good to just say "enforce the bylaws!", but if the bylaws are vague and unhelpful then that doesn't actually achieve anything.
turini2
Active Member
northyorker1
New Member
How can Canada be such a rich country and still nickel and dime these kind of issues? The priorities in this country boggle my mind. I'm not naive, I know who people voted for.
Northern Light
Superstar
Part of this is lack of real choice. See the anticipated provincial election where the first issue Bonnie Crombie chose to stake out was that she could cut taxes for middle/upper-middle income earners.
Team Red and Team Blue are often remarkably similar with slightly different spin.
But even the NDP struggle when in power to make a large difference. In BC the NDP deserve credit for making contraception free and mandating 5 paid sick days, but they still have the minimum wage well below subsistence, when the neighbouring State of Washington has a higher minimum adjusted for the exchange rate ($16.28USD which is $22.95CAD per hour). You'd think they could get to $20.00 an hour, but no, they're down at $17.40.
Likewise their social assistance rates are a bit more generous than Ontario's, though still quite low, but they also more aggressively penalize work (clawbacks).
***
Changing this means changes to political party donation rules, electoral reform and other measures.
***
There is a also a need for parties in power do a better job achieving results. If taxes rise, I think people will be fine w/that, but they want to see the result, if not in real time, then as close as practical.
Last edited: