DSCToronto
Superstar
I note you were smart enough not to actually get into it!!
|
|
|
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
Richard White
Senior Member
Didn't have the opportunity but I considered it.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Exactly. Transit is not your home - there are expectations of public decorum, which is required to maintain a neutral environment. Ditto people using the cellphones as boomboxes, smoking (tobacco, weed, crack or whatever), etc. Eating and littering eveyrwhere, to say nothing of relieving themselves. Zero tolerance.
AoD
txlseries4
Active Member
Absolutely, and good for many of us to remember that while we may wring our hands over edge or extreme cases of disruptive or threatening behaviour, women and vulnerable groups often feel at risk from more subtle things or actions that men, especially white men, either don’t notice or don’t feel uncomfortable being exposed to. Waiting 10 minutes late at night on a sparse subway platform is at most inconvenient for me but can feel unsettling or unsafe for others. As a man I never have to think about someone leering like women experience.
SubHuman
Active Member
I assume most of us who use the TTC do so to get where we want to go, hopefully without running into the continual delays of 'security incident', 'trespasser at track level', etc.
As pointed out here previously, it would seem very likely to be a relatively small number of people with severe mental issues, like the one Richard White described above, who are repeatedly causing a large amount of the problems. I don't understand the attitude that releasing them to continually endanger themselves is somehow the morally correct action that is best for them, and the rest of us.
Last edited:
turbanplanner
Senior Member
How many examples of a violent crime committed by someone who is on bail/a repeat offender would satisfy you?
If you’re not going to listen why bother relying?
I think there is an incredibly small group of people out to lunch who are being let to run free! For some reason we keep letting them run out unsupervised.
Really good point! There are a lot of situations I’m happy to put up with that I wouldn’t ever expect my partner to deal with!
For a lot of people once you start acting strange you’ve broken the social contract of I won’t bug you if you don’t bug me. If somebody’s acting unpredictably, even if it’s not in a violent way, you don’t know what their next move is!
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Living in a city surrounded by millions of people requires everyone to have a general understanding of the rules and a commitment to following them. Failure to do that diminishes the use and enjoyment of public realm and services. TTC is running a transit service - the purpose of such a service is to get users from A to B, safely, quickly and in an environment that is as pleasant as possible. Allowing any activities that distracts from this key mission through disruptions does a disservice to their users, harms the organization in the long run and the jeopardizes the utility of public transit to the citizens.
AoD
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
nfitz
Superstar
And yet you need to come here and go on and on about it. Just put on earphones, and let it go, rather than bottling it up. Wish them a Merry Christmas.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Ummm, when the bars empty out you want people driving home?
To be clear, I think being profoundly intoxicated is generally bad idea, even in private, never mind public. But back in the real world where drinking is legal, I think the options of booting the drunks off transit, writ large, for nothing other than being drunk is an odd idea and likely has consequences worse than where we started.
As it stands, there are criminal charges available for 'drunk and disorderly conduct' (now called 'causing a public disturbance')
S. 175 of the criminal code; but to apply that charge, you actually have to be doing something wrong while intoxicated, beyond merely being intoxicated.
There is also the more common legal remedy if you've gotten under the skin of a police officer, which is a the provincial charge under S.31 of the Liquor License and Control Act:
But again, if we started aggressively enforcing this we have a few problems, it applies in parks, on sidewalks, etc etc.; you have to be even-handed, not arbitrary.
We have no where near enough holding cells or detox space to 'drunk tank' everyone it might apply to......
We need to be more pragmatic in how we address things.
Northern Light
Superstar
I agree with this, but as noted above, I think your remedy is a bit problematic.
Pragmatic solutions are a challenge, that doesn't mean we should accept people disturbing others, threatening others or just setting up camp in the subway (or a local park); but neither can we regulate total sobriety, nor jail everyone who doesn't meet that standard in a public place.
We have to have a sense though of what requires rigorous enforcement action in real time, and what should simply be discouraged while we tackle underlying social ills.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I am just rather tired of transit users serving as those who had to the recipient of negative consequences from everyone who punted their responsibilities (personal and/or institutional). And yes, by the time you call in the police, you would have delayed and inconvenienced many others. No thanks. Someone else can deal with the consequences - start with those who got themselves drunk first.
No one is suggesting jailing drunks (though temporary incarceration until they sober up enough isn't a terrible idea).
AoD
Last edited:
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
Some metro/subway stations around the world play classical music, at low volume, to divert the unhoused, youth, and undesirables. Youths hear lower volumes before adulthood.
81-717
Active Member
Kinda hard not to these days with everything going on in the world...
Ratazana
Active Member
Back in the early 2010s, if someone is spread out on a subway seat, people would check on that person to make sure they are ok.
People didn’t feel threatened.
Just in 2025 alone, I saw/experienced these. All on line 2:
- two teen girls screaming at the top of their lungs in a crowded subway in an obnoxious manner, When confronted and asked to not disturb others, they rained verbal assault on the person confronting them.
- 30 something woman came on to another busy car with her Bluetooth speaker blasting music, sat down and proceeded to vape. No one including myself wanted to get involved.
- a person possibly experiencing homelessness and who looked to be having liquid on his face. A good hearted passenger offered him a Kleenex and was unfortunately spat on and verbally assaulted.
- a stranger tried to follow me in through the fare gate at Sherbourne station, I stopped and didn’t let him, he verbally assaulted me. I waved at the fare collector and she said she couldn’t do anything about it.
Multiple examples where people choosing to ignore or engage. The end result: nothing.
So why engage? Why risk being physically attacked on top of the verbal assault?
People didn’t feel threatened.
Just in 2025 alone, I saw/experienced these. All on line 2:
- two teen girls screaming at the top of their lungs in a crowded subway in an obnoxious manner, When confronted and asked to not disturb others, they rained verbal assault on the person confronting them.
- 30 something woman came on to another busy car with her Bluetooth speaker blasting music, sat down and proceeded to vape. No one including myself wanted to get involved.
- a person possibly experiencing homelessness and who looked to be having liquid on his face. A good hearted passenger offered him a Kleenex and was unfortunately spat on and verbally assaulted.
- a stranger tried to follow me in through the fare gate at Sherbourne station, I stopped and didn’t let him, he verbally assaulted me. I waved at the fare collector and she said she couldn’t do anything about it.
Multiple examples where people choosing to ignore or engage. The end result: nothing.
So why engage? Why risk being physically attacked on top of the verbal assault?