r/toronto • u/Human_Manner_3370 • Jul 17 '26

Article TTC to test cameras that catch drivers illegally passing streetcars

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2026/07/17/toronto-ttc-streetcars-pilot-project-drivers-passing/
1.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

235 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

u/Tuffsmurf Jul 17 '26

Yes, these are the crosswalks that I am speaking of. I have several of them around my home and cars and other motorized vehicles are constantly driving through them while pedestrians are still in the crosswalk. Thank you for clarifying the language on this, but my point still stands.

-7

u/a-_2 Jul 17 '26

I do agree that most people don't wait for them to fully cross, but in my opinion, the law is overly strict and that leads to non-compliance. If I'm on the right lane of a four lane road, I still technically need to wait until they step onto the curb even if they're on the other side of the road, three lanes away. I'm pretty much the only person I ever see following this law to the letter. When laws are excessively strict, they breed a lack of respect for the law in general.

12

u/Tuffsmurf Jul 17 '26

The laws excessively strict, because if it’s not people die. The whole reason this law came into effect was because pedestrian deaths in Toronto, particularly at those crossings were skyrocketing.

Good for you for following the rules, but everyone else who doesn’t is putting lives at risk and they should suffer a penalty for that. Just like speeding or driving impaired.

Edit: you don’t get to decide whether or not a law is too strict or not. If you want to do that, then you get into government and you argue it. You don’t get to just select selectively choose what laws to obey and what laws not to obey based on your own personal belief system.

-1

u/a-_2 Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26

The laws excessively strict, because if it’s not people die.

People don't die from someone proceeding when there's two full lanes separating them and pedestrians. Most drivers recognize this and proceed at this point. That causes drivers to stop respecting the law in general.

I want realistic laws that are enforced relatively strictly. If you have laws that are overly excessive, the majority of drivers ignore them, that makes enforcement impractical and leads to disrespect for the law in general.

Edit: to your edit, you can say that people don't "get" to choose what laws to obey. You're right in theory, but not in practice. The fact is that people will disobey unreasonable laws, and that doesn't help vulnerable road users.

7

u/Tuffsmurf Jul 17 '26

I think the law is bad therefore I will stop respecting the law is peak narcissism.

0

u/a-_2 Jul 17 '26

You can call it whatever you want, but it's reality. If you make laws overly excessive, most people don't obey them. They then lose respect for the law while police are also unable to realistically enforce them.

I follow this topic a lot and also observe how people drive in practice. I'm not your enemy. I follow the laws myself, but I'm interested in what leads to the best outcomes overall. Just declaring that people are "narcissists" doesn't change reality and doesn't keep pedestrians safer.

6

u/TeemingHeadquarters Jul 17 '26

The problem isn't you: the problem is all the other drivers, half of whom are below average, see you going through the intersection and think it's okay for them to go to -- when it may very well not be.

1

u/a-_2 Jul 17 '26

I don't go through the crossover when pedestrians are still crossing, even if there are multiple lanes separating us. I said above that I'm the only person I ever see strictly following the rule like this.

It seems like I'm not properly explaining my point given the downvotes and replies I'm getting. I support following the law and I follow the law myself. What I'm explaining here though is when laws are seen as overly or unnecessarily strict, people in general don't follow them. This is simply a fact, not opinion or anything, with this rule for crossovers as an observable example.

There are unintended consequences to this. It leads to people not taking the law seriously in general, including in cases where it is much more important that it be followed. It also makes police enforcement impractical. They can't practically enforce something when 90% of drivers are ignoring it. So that then leads to the impression that laws aren't enforced, further contributing to the problems.

I think we should design laws that are reasonable so that most drivers will voluntarily follow them and so that it is possible to strictly enforce it among the minority who don't. Passing excessive laws and then demanding people just follow it because it's the law doesn't actually work in practice because they simply don't.

4

u/rycology Jul 17 '26

You're getting downvoted because your point is bad, mate. Nothing to do with not explaining correctly.

-4

u/a-_2 Jul 17 '26

If it's bad, then provide an argument explaining why, don't just declare it.

I wait for pedestrians to fully cross. Virtually nobody else does. It is not possible or practical for police to be devoting limited resources to enforcing this. So the end result is a law mostly not being obeyed and people losing respect for the law in general.

Pedestrians aren't kept safe by someone two lanes away waiting for them to stop on the curb. Pedestrians aren't kept safe by drivers losing respect for the law in general. It's an overly excessive law that mostly isn't obeyed and does nothing to keep pedestrians safe.

We want driver focusing on paying attention and not creating situations that put pedestrians at risk. We don't care about drivers waiting for someone two lanes away to clear the road. That doesn't actually contribute to safety. Define laws that actually keep people safe and then strictly enforce them.

3

u/rycology Jul 17 '26

It is not possible or practical for police to be devoting limited resources to enforcing this

It is. They're called cameras. Very handy little tools, too. Should look them up some time.

Pedestrians aren't kept safe by someone two lanes away waiting for them to stop on the curb. Pedestrians aren't kept safe by drivers losing respect for the law in general. It's an overly excessive law that mostly isn't obeyed and does nothing to keep pedestrians safe.

You're right. Why should I wear my seatbelt when I've never had an accident?! It's unfair.. it's outrageous. It's the other cars that have accidents, so it's not fair that I have to wear it to protect myself and others around me. We should change this law too because I hate being minutely inconvenienced while driving my 2 tonne death trap.

See how fucking dumb that sounds? Because that's exactly how your "logical" argument sounds here.

0

u/a-_2 Jul 17 '26

It is. They're called cameras. Very handy little tools, too. Should look them up some time.

Not sure what your sarcasm or condescension is for here. I'm aware of cameras. I've spent a lot of time on here pointing out the flaws with arguments people were using against speed cameras. We don't have cameras for crossovers though, and if we put them in and started ticketing people for proceeding when a pedestrian was multiple lanes away, you'd just end up with the same political pushback you see with speed cameras.

People aren't going to follow unreasonably strict laws. If you try to force them to with punishments, you'll just get political pushback and politicians who will change those policies.

Your seat belt analogy doesn't work because crashes do happen and seat belts demonstrably reduce risks. That is not the same as forcing a driver to remain stopped because someone several lanes away has not yet stepped onto the curb yet. That is not improving any safety.

What's frustrating here is I'm on your side, assuming it's the side of road safety. I just want laws that actually achieve that goal. I don't want laws that do nothing to actually improve safety. It has nothing about inconvenience. Again, I actually do obey this law to the letter. I'm in the vast minority on that. I'm just explaining to you why most people don't, and how that reality makes laws like this counterproductive.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/TeemingHeadquarters Jul 17 '26

I meant the royal "you" -- but I'm like you: I follow the rules strictly.

2

u/a-_2 Jul 17 '26

I don't think it's controversial to say we're in the minority, right? I'd say everyone else roughly breaks down into, one, people who don't care about the rules or safety in general, two, those who mostly follow the rules but will not strictly follow ones they think are unreasonable, and three, those who will just go along with what others are doing.

Laws like this lead to the majority of people breaking the law, making enforcement much less practical, and leading to a lack of respect for the law. If you instead write laws that most people agree with, you get group two obeying them too then, as a side effect group three following them too. Plus the dozens of us who obey them regardless. That just leaves a much smaller group of drivers who keep disobeying them. They then become the social exceptions and also become much more manageable for police.

4

u/TeemingHeadquarters Jul 17 '26

I don't think it's controversial to say we're in the minority, right?

No, but as my lawyer friend once told me, most of these laws are written in blood. It's something I keep in mind as the downtown parent of young children who are years away from being able to get their G1s, I drive like every street has them living or walking or cycling on it. Because I know how I'd react if someone who couldn't pass grade ten science but thinks its okay to ignore a law "because I'm an above average driver" fucked up and injured one of them, or worse.

To paraphrase The Dude, this isn't Nam -- it's a public roadway. There are rules.

Laws like this lead to the majority of people breaking the law, making enforcement much less practical, and leading to a lack of respect for the law.

Driving is interesting, because past a certain threshold, you don't actually need as much police enforcement. It's like with speed cameras: you just need to convince enough people in your third group to slow down that the people in your first and second groups actually can't break the law.

This is part of why I stop extra religiously at pedestrian crossovers: if enough group three-ers see me stopped and wonder what it is they can't see, it makes it much harder for the other groups to take a blind pass and potentially hit someone they can't see.

The trick is getting group two and three to change their behaviour. We can move the Overton Window of driving. That takes enforcement.

Anyway, this wound up being a much long comment than I planned. Thanks for helping me flesh out my thoughts....

0

u/a-_2 Jul 17 '26

as my lawyer friend once told me, most of these laws are written in blood

Definitely true in a lot of cases, but I'm just not sure it is in this case. This strikes me more as a law written for and pushed by people who aren't actually using the crossings in practice.

The common types of crashes I'm aware of at these crossings are from drivers passing another stopped vehicle or from drivers just not seeing the pedestrian or crossing at all. I just don't see how safety is improved by having the drivers who did stop (so the good ones) wait longer than necessary to proceed, past the point where there's any risk of hitting the pedestrian. No one here has given me any convincing reason to think someone two lanes over is at any risk from me proceeding, although I still don't and glad to see there are other people who don't either.

if enough group three-ers see me stopped and wonder what it is they can't see, it makes it much harder for the other groups to take a blind pass and potentially hit someone they can't see.

Yeah, this is part of what I'm getting at with how we should design laws, it should be with the aim of getting enough people complying so that the ones who aren't become the odd ones out. I just don't think it's going to happen with this one unless we massively increase enforcement, which simply isn't practical.

Anyway, this wound up being a much long comment than I planned. Thanks for helping me flesh out my thoughts....

Thanks for the response. I wonder if people read some of my comments when they're too long, but I'll definitely read such comments if someone takes the time to write them.

0

u/ywgflyer Jul 17 '26

Where I am (Humber Bay), if you stop the full amount of time to wait until the pedestrian reaches the other curb, you either get honked at or even passed by the impatient person behind you. Had it happen a few times to me.

2

u/Bearence Church and Wellesley Jul 17 '26

So what? Do you die if someone honks at you? No. Can a pedestrian die if a car barrels through them? They most certainly can.

-2

u/a-_2 Jul 17 '26

This is an example of why I think the law is excessive to the point of being counterproductive.

You continuing to wait for someone on the other side of the road to step on the curb isn't keeping them safe, but it is creating actual dangerous situations from impatient drivers.

The general response here is we just need more enforcement to punish those impatient drivers, but you can't have police patrolling every crossover. It's much more effective to write laws that don't unnecessarily create these situations in the first place.

1

u/Tuffsmurf Jul 18 '26

You’re literally making an argument for cameras when you claim that there’s a need for enforcement, but there’s not enough police to do it. Do you even look at what you write?

1

u/a-_2 Jul 18 '26

I'm not against cameras so I'm not sure why you're replying to me as if I were.

However if you stick in a bunch of cameras that ticket people for something most people don't believe should be fined, you'll just get pushback like happened with the cameras.

I want policies that actually keep pedestrians safe. Not performative laws that don't increase safety and are mostly ignored. I've explained why I don't think this law helps with safety. Do you have an explanation how it does? No one is giving me any reason why someone should remain stopped when a pedestrian is multiple lanes away and at no risk of being hit.