Raise the Hammer

Nicholas you sound surprised. I was expecting the new pedestrian plan to mandate pedestrians to have a minimum of 2 flashing lights per extremity, and face possible jail time for wearing anything other than neon yellow or orange clothing.

Hamilton, where you have to spend so much energy trying to stop bad ideas there's no time left to start good ones.

When aggrieved residents of Waterdown and Stoney Creek took baseball bats to newly installed parking meters, council regarded this as a legitimate form of protest and promptly removed the offending meters. I suggest the pedestrians of this city employ this innovative form of citizen engagement. Council legitimized this form of protest when it came from people demanding their entitlement to free parking. I'm sure they will respond just as positively to people who are only demanding that the city adhere to its own policies on pedestrian rights, lest they be accused of having double standards.

Comment edited by highwater on 2013-11-04 09:48:55

"When aggrieved residents of Waterdown and Stoney Creek took baseball bats to newly installed parking meters, council regarded this as a legitimate form of protest and promptly removed the offending meters."

Remind me never to shoot or set the remake of "Cool Hand Luke" in Hamilton!

Comment edited by SeanM on 2013-11-04 10:40:19

This is a great response to this ridiculous plan.

That said, it's sad that these responses need to be written.

It should really be as simple as this: Who is more likely to die in the event of a collision should one unfortunately happen? The pedestrian. Therefore the err of caution should then be on the one who controls the possible (literal) vehicle for death.

I find the Hamilton approach to pedestrians and crosswalks completely bizarre -- both as a pedestrian and driver. Nothing frustrates me more than the danger of crossing James North at Colborne or Robert in quasi-crosswalks wondering if traffic will even slow-down as i cross (often with a small child). As a driver I try to stop if i see someone waiting to cross, but i always have to check in the rear-view mirror first to make sure no-one is following to closely ... because I've had a few close calls. It seems few other drivers expect you to stop and are surprised, and occasionally pissed-off, when you do.

I've lived in Vancouver and Toronto, and only been in Hamilton for a few years. Never thought twice about who had the right-of-way in these other places ... pay attention to traffic markings and signals, including pedestrian specific ones and you're fine (in downtown Vancouver to ensure motorists can actually make left and right turns, pedestrian walk signals on many streets are delayed at the start of a green-light ... as a pedestrian you take your life in your hands if you try to cross early). Elsewhere in the city the main issue was ensuring you were seen by drivers, and that you were conscious of pedestrians and cyclists while driving. I don't remember the extreme disregard for pedestrians I see regularly in Hamilton being normalized by the city or practiced by most drivers.

Rob.

Comment edited by RobF on 2013-11-04 10:42:38

I grew up in Vancouver, and can confirm that the attitude of drivers is completely different. What's strange is that, as far as I can see, the law is actually the same: motorists must stop or slow down once a pedestrian step off the curb.

Part of the problem may be that over a decade ago the traffic department removed all signs from crossings at uncontrolled intersections and simply allowed the pavement markings to fade. This was because the director at the time (Hart Solomon) himself mis-interpreted the HTA as meaning that motorists do not have to yield to pedestrians crossing at such intersections. I think it is the residue of this thinking that has led to the current passive-aggressive recommendation that the city paint crosswalks, but then put up signs saying that motorists don't need to stop (so the painted lines are some sort of decoy??).

The main point of the article is that the Hamilton drivers on the McMaster campus immediately respected the new signs and started yielding for crossing pedestrians. This suggests it is not actually all that difficult to change behaviour if the signage is clear as to who should do what. The current recommendation would just end up making things even more confusing.

If they are really worried about motorists not stopping they should put up two sets of signs:

1. To motorists: "Stop for crossing pedestrians" (like at McMaster)

2. To pedestrians: "Be cautious and check that drivers have seen you before crossing"

I agree that it is a question of expectations. But as recently as this past summer I've had police officers explain that the Hart Solomon interpretation still applies, much to my surprise. I'm not sure i'd conflate Hamilton drivers as a whole with the mix of people who drive around Mac or Mohawk. Or at least, I'm not sure that the behaviour witnessed after the new signs went up would occur in quite the same way on Cannon, Wellington, Victoria, Main, etc. The disregard for pedestrians is part of a wider disregard for the lower city by some.

Comment edited by RobF on 2013-11-04 11:40:08

The interpretation of the Ontario HTA was likely always provided by Hamilton's Legal & Risk Management departments.

Are you sure you aren't misinterpreting this misinterpretation?

I think what the police (and the legal department) might actually be saying is that drivers are unlikely to be convicted for hitting a pedestrian at an uncontrolled intersection. Which is true.

However, this is not actually much different from the situation at a crosswalk at a controlled intersection, such as at a traffic light.

As I've pointed out before, even if a motorist hits and kills a pedestrian crossing legally at a crosswalk at a traffic light, the motorist is highly unlikely to get anything more than a $500 fine in Ontario.

For some reason, the courts demand a very high level of proof for criminal negligence causing death in the case of motor vehicles, which is difficult to meet when the only witness (apart from the driver) is often dead. This is typical across North America, as discussed in the book Carjacked, where the penalties for killing someone with a vehicle are usually just moderate fines even when the driver is at fault. The assumption seems to be that these are inevitable "accidents" that could happen to anyone.

The only exceptions are when it is clear the driver deliberately tried to run down the pedestrian, or when drugs or alcohol is involved (which leads to special penalties).

However, this actually shows that the "drivers don't have to stop" argument is pretty weak as there are not severe penalties imposed on drivers not stopping even at crosswalks at controlled intersections. And it is inconsistent with the HTA and the Ministry interpretation. I have never seen an actual reference to the HTA or regulations or any other law that justifies this interpretation.

If someone from the City or Police could point to the legislation that is supposed to justify this interpretation, I would be very grateful!

The key point is that responsible drivers will obey signs and pavement markings, and pedestrians always need to be careful of inattentive drivers. Reminding drivers to yield to crossing pedestrians can only improve conditions for pedestrians, and help drivers know when they should be stopping.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-11-04 12:06:37

Toronto Police Const. Clint Stibbe explains that to lay a criminal charge of dangerous driving or criminal negligence causing death, police have to be satisfied there was intent to kill or the driving was so flagrantly egregious that the motorist would have known someone was going to be killed as a result.

More often than not, that’s too high a threshold to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And so, drivers are charged under the HTA where it’s driver conduct — and not the injuries they cause — that comes into play.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/11/03/fatal-crashes-typically-fail-to-yield-criminal-charges

Yes, that's what I understood. As a pedestrian (or an irresponsible motorist) a $500 fine is not much protection (or dissuasion). Of course, I would still claim that it should be obvious that barreling through a crosswalk on a red light is highly like to kill someone ...

So, the bottom line is that the legal protection (in terms of serious dissuasive penalties) is not really any better for pedestrians at crosswalks at controlled intersections (the only kind the city currently recognizes) than at uncontrolled intersections.

Explicitly telling motorists they don't need to yield to pedestrians only makes things far worse.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-11-04 12:28:53

"Kill someone while driving and chances are good that your fine will be less than what you’d pay for a new TV."

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/11/03/fatal-crashes-typically-fail-to-yield-criminal-charges

Hopefully this ridiculous and dangerous sign up for consideration will be addressed at the GIC Committee on Wednesday. To say I'm shocked is an understatement.

oddly the city recently painted a cross walk at centre road and 6th concession north of waterdown in what is formally known as flamborough centre. i have stopped at that stop sign probably 5000 times and driven past the intersection probably as many times and NEVER can i recall ever seeing a pedestrian crossing.

also interestingly the city only painted the crosswalk crossing 6th concession and not the much busier north south centre road.

what is going on? i daily drive and walk by DOZENS of intersections downtown which are unpainted that see more pedestrian traffic in a day than 6th concession and centre see in a lifetime.

i don't for a minute begrudge flamborough centre their cross walk, i just wish the city would prioritize a bit.

I don't even mind them prioritizing pedestrian-friendly measures in the 'burbs. I just wish they would stop actively opposing them in the lower city.

just to clarify this intersection isn't even the burbs. it barely qualifies as a settlement. there are 3 houses within 500m north of 6th concession!

Flamborough is an amalgamated suburb of Hamilton even if it is largely rural in nature.