There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?
Recent Articles
- Justice for Indigenous Peoples is Long Overdueby Ryan McGreal, published June 30, 2021 in Commentary
(0 comments)
- Third-Party Election Advertising Ban About Silencing Workersby Chantal Mancini, published June 29, 2021 in Politics
(0 comments)
- Did Doug Ford Test the 'Great Barrington Declaration' on Ontarians?by Ryan McGreal, published June 29, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- An Update on Raise the Hammerby Ryan McGreal, published June 28, 2021 in Site Notes
(0 comments)
- Nestlé Selling North American Water Bottling to an Private Equity Firmby Doreen Nicoll, published February 23, 2021 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- Jolley Old Sam Lawrenceby Sean Burak, published February 19, 2021 in Special Report: Cycling
(0 comments)
- Right-Wing Extremism is a Driving Force in Modern Conservatismby Ryan McGreal, published February 18, 2021 in Special Report: Extremism
(0 comments)
- Municipalities Need to Unite against Ford's Firehose of Land Use Changesby Michelle Silverton, published February 16, 2021 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Challenging Doug Ford's Pandemic Narrativeby Ryan McGreal, published January 25, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- The Year 2020 Has Been a Wakeup Callby Michael Nabert, published December 31, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- The COVID-19 Marshmallow Experimentby Ryan McGreal, published December 22, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- All I Want for Christmas, 2020by Kevin Somers, published December 21, 2020 in Entertainment and Sports
(1 comment)
- Hamilton Shelters Remarkably COVID-19 Free Thanks to Innovative Testing Programby Jason Allen, published December 21, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- Province Rams Through Glass Factory in Stratfordby Doreen Nicoll, published December 21, 2020 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- We Can Prevent Traffic Deaths if We Make Safety a Real Priorityby Ryan McGreal, published December 08, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(5 comments)
- These Aren't 'Accidents', These Are Resultsby Tom Flood, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(1 comment)
- Conservation Conundrumby Paul Weinberg, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Defund Police Protest Threatens Fragile Ruling Classby Cameron Kroetsch, published December 03, 2020 in Special Report: Anti-Racism
(2 comments)
- Measuring the Potential of Biogas to Reduce GHG Emissionsby John Loukidelis and Thomas Cassidy, published November 23, 2020 in Special Report: Climate Change
(0 comments)
- Ontario Squanders Early Pandemic Sacrificeby Ryan McGreal, published November 18, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
Article Archives
Blog Archives
Site Tools
Feeds
By kevlahan (registered) | Posted March 15, 2013 at 14:40:55 in reply to Comment 87241
I agree that this is dangerous behaviour, but it is primarily harmful to the law-breaker, not others.
When a motorist engages in dangerous behaviour (speeding, running a red light, failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk or at an intersection), it is harmful (often lethal) both to the driver and especially to vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists. This is an important distinction.
Also, as pointed out by Arien, driving a vehicle is making a deliberate choice to engage in an activity that is potentially extremely dangerous to yourself and to others, both in principle (due to size, energy and momentum) and in fact (around 2000 deaths and 20 000 serious injuries every year in Canada).
Choosing to walk or cycle just doesn't involve the same risks to others.
Finally, as the book "Car Jacked" points out,
http://www.amazon.ca/Carjacked-Culture-A...
in the USA (and Canada) even if you kill a pedestrian or cyclist and are at fault, it is very unlikely you will face anything more serious than a $500 fine. The only cases that result in serious charges are when it can be proved that you were deliberately trying to run someone down.
There are many cases of drivers in the GTAH being sentenced to only the maximum $500 fine after killing a pedestrian in a crosswalk, even when the driver pleads guilty to failing to yield.
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2011/0...
According to the article the driver was originally charged with "careless driving", but the charge was reduced because
"Police say careless driving is one of the toughest offences under the Highway Traffic Act to prove. "
In other words, the penalty for killing a pedestrian in a crosswalk is a $500 fine (and the driver's own remorse).
This shows society's true attitude: lethal "accidents" are a normal part of driving, and drivers can't be expected to pay attention all the time.
Some more examples of drivers killing pedestrians in crosswalks getting off with $500 fines:
http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/449137/...
http://gothamist.com/2011/07/14/unlicens...
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2011/0...
http://www.mississauga.com/article/15011...
http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/11/11/un...
$500 does indeed seem to be the normal cost to a careless driver at fault for killing a pedestrian. Far from always being "blamed", the motorist who kills a pedestrian in a crosswalk is almost always given the benefit of the doubt: they are almost always charged with the minor offence of "failing to yield", with the assumption that no one can be sure why they failed to yield ... but they probably had a good excuse.
Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-03-15 15:41:09
Permalink | Context