Jump to content

Off Off Topic: Cool Toronto People's Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 11.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Zach6668

    2157

  • serge

    2150

  • Babying

    1496

  • FCP Bob

    1299

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As you may or may not know, Otto has a disability (Autism). He has cope with it very well and imo has made great strides in his development. We (my wife and I) went through alot during his primary s

At the beginning of all of these revelations, Ford's allies and councillors tried to sit down with him privately, and urge him to look out for himself, to get help, and to come back stronger than ever

Heavy Rescue Squad 331. Beaten up, soaked, and with bellies full of smoke. Best job in the world.  

So the car haters are all pissed off as usual about a pedestrian awareness campaign that the city and TTC have going on with some posters etc.

 

Their knee jerk reaction to anything that tells pedestrians to be more aware makes me so angry. I think secretly a lot of them are like Mother Teresa and want others to suffer for their ideological cause (hate of cars in this case).

 

There can be no logical justification for shouting "Victim Blaming" when you advise pedestrians to be more aware since that is the only ****ing thing that a pedestrian has control over. Yes the driver is probably the one to blame when you get hit but you are still dead and yes the street design should be better but you have no control over that and are still dead.

 

Here's the link to an article that all "walking advocates" will agree with.

http://gizmodo.com/toronto-blames-pedestrian-fashion-choices-for-crashes-1768927478

 

Here is a great comment from the comment's section of the article that sums up my feelings.

 

Where to even begin with this shit article?

 

First, telling people that darker colors are harder to see at night is not victim blaming, it’s common sense and a perfectly reasonable campaign. What’s wrong with encouraging both drivers and pedestrians to make smarter, safer choices?

 

Secondly, way to COMPLETELY MISCHARACTERIZE the results of that bike clothing study. You put it in an article about dark clothing and visibility, clearly implying (and basically outright stating) that the study would show that reflective clothing doesn’t make you more visible, when the conclusion of the study has nothing to do with visibility and noticing bikers and is about driver behavior in closely passing bicycles! Jesus.

 

Thirdly, yeah, let’s compare an ad campaign that probably cost a few thousand dollars at most with infrastructure changes that would cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. That’s reasonable.

 

Look, I have no problem with Gizmodo having you write these pro-walking city articles, as it’s important to have lots of viewpoints on the issue and I’m actually on your side of the fence for this argument if a lot more towards the middle (cities need to drastically improve the speed and availability of public transit as a first step if they want cars out of city centers.) But please, don’t write this deliberately misleading, poorly researched tripe. You aren’t gonna convince anyone by being dishonest and relying on absurd hyperbole.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is common sense, what is the point of an advertising campaign around it, unless it serves to place blame on the pedestrian? Drivers are warned not to drive drunk or talk on cell phones - both of which are illegal, and yet pedestrians are warned not to wear dark clothing, which is a basic personal freedom. Sure it is common sense, and it's common sense that if I do want to walk at night in dark clothes, I need to be aware that a car turning right at a red may not see me performing a legal crossing. Maybe we can get an ad that says "people sometimes wear dark clothes and walk dogs at night, so make sure you actually look around you and obey driving rules so you don't hit them".

 

I'm not referring to the specific ad or anything, but in general I find ads that say very useful things like "hey pedestrians, pay goddamn attention when you are surrounded by 2000-pound pieces of metal, piloted by distracted humans and travelling fast enough to kill you" imply that similarly anti-common sense (or illegal) actions by drivers like not paying attention, not fully stopping at stop signs or red lights are just going to happen. Which is true! But that doesn't make it ok.

 

We don't put signs up near schools that say "kids make sure you get off your bike at the crosswalk" because the implication that a car hitting a kid would in any way be the kid's fault is too ugly or a sign that says "women make sure your top isn't too revealing or you'll be sexually assaulted" because blaming the victim for something they could've avoided is not how that works*

 

 

*Only a partial analogy. In sexual assault, the victim is always the victim. In accidents, both the driver and pedestrian may be victims and the pedestrian may well carry some blame.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see both sides.

 

It's probably the result of some think tank on "how do we save more pedestrian lives", and this was a cheap, and probably pointless and innefective option.

 

I also agree with Bob that the outrage over it is kind of stupid. Saying (this is quoted from a tweet that Zach RT'd) "Toronto Tells Pedestrians to Fix Their Clothes Instead of Fixing Its Streets" is dumb. The 2 aren't mutually exclusive, and 1 has a cost of X, and can be implemented immediately, while the other (fixing the roads) has a cost of 1000X, and would require years of jumping through political hoops, not to mention construction etc..

 

I mean, is a campaign to encourage pedestrians walking at night to wear brighter clothing a net detriment to society? Does the existence of this campaign make it less likely that Toronto will attempt to fix their infrastructure to make things safer for pedestrians? I'm no expert, but I would suspect the answer to both is no.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I agree with the last point, though I agree with the rest. The only reason to complain about such an innocuous campaign is because of the implications of course. And when there seems to be little or no sign that politicians want to look at the long run for infrastructure planning, the only thing the planners can do is to work with public sentiment. And if public sentiment is 'pedestrians exercising more common sense will help save pedestrians' then they would argue it doesn't do enough (does the opposite) to promote that the answer is safer streets or whatever.

 

The existence of the campaign absolutely does not need to be exclusive to any of the other things you mentioned. Looking at it on its own, it is only positive. But I think it is naive to suggest that the existence of it does not imply or reinforce a sentiment of lack of driver/infrastructure responsibility, which implies a lack of interest in spending money in those areas among decisionmakers and voters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People (and drivers) get hit by trains because they're dumb.

 

People getting hit by cars are largely crossing the street legally, exiting a streetcar, standing on the sidewalk, or performing some other legal action where the driver of the car made some sort of error in judgment or wasn't paying attention etc. (note the word "largely", this does not mean "all".)

 

Those campaigns are mostly harmless, yes, but it's the continued and cumulative attitude that gets people like me annoyed by them. That traffic deaths aren't treated as a worldwide epidemic says a lot about what we value in society. We don't design safe enough streets because they would force drivers to be more engaged and drive more slowly. Instead, we waste time (and little) money perpetuating the idea that pedestrians are to blame for getting hit when they exit a streetcar. No, that's not what the poster said, but it's an unintended consequence of an otherwise well-meaning campaign. Don't think that's true? Read that story about the guy who just hit a child as she exited a streetcar. He wanted to say sorry and remind people not to exit the streetcar while holding a phone because an idiot and ******* like him could not be paying attention and drive through the open doors. Of course, he's fighting his charge. That's how culpable he feels he is. A literal black and white act. And the story makes sure to let him give every excuse in the book and reasoning that makes him look like the victim in the case. And you know what? Thousands of people in this city agree with him. That's the culture that's getting reinforced here when we don't say anything about these posters. Small thing in isolation, yes, but it's the whole world we're looking at.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for some logic using your example.

 

Idiot driver who hit the kid exiting the streetcar is 100% wrong and should be punished. Him pleading not guilty in normal and what everybody would do at this point, you try and get a lesser charge to plead to or you go to court.

 

Now let's say for a second that if that kid when they exited the streetcar had looked first and been totally on the defensive well they might not have been hit by the idiot driver, we don't really know but I know that the chances of me being hit as I exit a streetcar are super super low no matter what any driver does because my eyes are focused to the right where the cars might be coming from. I never set one foot on the road to cross no matter where I am without my head on a swivel. You being against a campaign that has a small chance of leading to somebody not being hit if their awareness and defensiveness are heightened when they walk is just a massive logic fail.

 

You know why when I took driving training they made sure to never refer to anything as an accident. Because if I was driving defensively no matter what any other driver did my chances of being in a collision was massively reduced. Just because something is somebody else's fault doesn't mean that the victim was helpless and didn't have the power to avoid the situation. If somebody thinks my statement is victim blaming then I'm sorry but they are dumb.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Now let's say for a second that if that kid when they exited the streetcar had looked first and been totally on the defensive well they might not have been hit by the idiot driver, we don't really know but I know that the chances of me being hit as I exit a streetcar are super super low no matter what any driver does because my eyes are focused to the right where the cars might be coming from. I never set one foot on the road to cross no matter where I am without my head on a swivel. You being against a campaign that has a small chance of leading to somebody not being hit if their awareness and defensiveness are heightened when they walk is just a massive logic fail.

 

 

 

100% spot on

Link to post
Share on other sites

People (and drivers) get hit by trains because they're dumb.

 

People getting hit by cars are largely crossing the street legally, exiting a streetcar, standing on the sidewalk, or performing some other legal action where the driver of the car made some sort of error in judgment or wasn't paying attention etc. (note the word "largely", this does not mean "all".)

 

Those campaigns are mostly harmless, yes, but it's the continued and cumulative attitude that gets people like me annoyed by them. That traffic deaths aren't treated as a worldwide epidemic says a lot about what we value in society. We don't design safe enough streets because they would force drivers to be more engaged and drive more slowly. Instead, we waste time (and little) money perpetuating the idea that pedestrians are to blame for getting hit when they exit a streetcar. No, that's not what the poster said, but it's an unintended consequence of an otherwise well-meaning campaign. Don't think that's true? Read that story about the guy who just hit a child as she exited a streetcar. He wanted to say sorry and remind people not to exit the streetcar while holding a phone because an idiot and ******* like him could not be paying attention and drive through the open doors. Of course, he's fighting his charge. That's how culpable he feels he is. A literal black and white act. And the story makes sure to let him give every excuse in the book and reasoning that makes him look like the victim in the case. And you know what? Thousands of people in this city agree with him. That's the culture that's getting reinforced here when we don't say anything about these posters. Small thing in isolation, yes, but it's the whole world we're looking at.

the point is that pedestrians need to be reminded to be safe, regardless of who or what poses a potential threat, legally or not. On Wednesday, I nearly hit a woman crossing queen street talking on her phone. It was damn close. The kicker? I was driving a 20 ton fire truck with sirens and lights on. I'm not sure how, in any way that could be anyone's fault but hers.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for some logic using your example.

 

Idiot driver who hit the kid exiting the streetcar is 100% wrong and should be punished. Him pleading not guilty in normal and what everybody would do at this point, you try and get a lesser charge to plead to or you go to court.

 

Now let's say for a second that if that kid when they exited the streetcar had looked first and been totally on the defensive well they might not have been hit by the idiot driver, we don't really know but I know that the chances of me being hit as I exit a streetcar are super super low no matter what any driver does because my eyes are focused to the right where the cars might be coming from. I never set one foot on the road to cross no matter where I am without my head on a swivel. You being against a campaign that has a small chance of leading to somebody not being hit if their awareness and defensiveness are heightened when they walk is just a massive logic fail.

 

You know why when I took driving training they made sure to never refer to anything as an accident. Because if I was driving defensively no matter what any other driver did my chances of being in a collision was massively reduced. Just because something is somebody else's fault doesn't mean that the victim was helpless and didn't have the power to avoid the situation. If somebody thinks my statement is victim blaming then I'm sorry but they are dumb.

 

You're actually the one being purposely dumb if that's the word you want to use - examining a situation only for its immediate consequences and not for the implications and/or long-term consequences that Zach and I were getting at.

 

Sure, maybe the posters make someone pay attention and avoid getting hit. And that'd be great! But what if they also inform people that the car-induced danger on streets is unavoidable, then yhose people won't agree to initiatives to make streets safer, which might save a lot more lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And for the record, I agree that any pedestrian acting unsafely is being really dumb! Cars are big and fast and give big owies. Pay goddamn attention. I often have my phone out by always fully put it away before crossing anywhere, and if I do have headphones on, I take them off if I'm crossing more than a 2-lane road, and I'm comically careful if I do cross at all with them on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, maybe the posters make someone pay attention and avoid getting hit. And that'd be great! But what if they also inform people that the car-induced danger on streets is unavoidable, then those people won't agree to initiatives to make streets safer, which might save a lot more lives.

 

This is ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...