Halifax Active Transportation

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I live in this area, and Isleville is the main north-south pedestrian connection in the area. It's full of people, but it's also not-infrequently used as a thoroughfare for drivers bombing down the street at 40 or 50 km/hr, which is way too fast.

You can be as pissed as you want, but if this reduces the chances that my infant son (or me) will be struck and killed as we walk or bike in our own neighbourhood by someone buzzing down Isleville too fast, I'm 100 percent for it. Drivers have to maneuver around a little circle? Jesus, tough.

Isleville st is narrow, and has a significant small business component. I am on it fairly frequently. I never see fast traffic on it. It would be nearly impossible to do so. Plus it crosses the busy Young and Duffus Sts., and essentially dead-ends at Almon. I can only see one way to accommodate this on Isleville, and that is by removing on-street parking that is used by those businesses.

Meanwhile you have a very wide stretch of Gottingen st that is totally untouched. That makes no sense. I'm sure the good burghers of Drummond Court will enjoy having their little enclave overrun with cyclists.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Isleville st is narrow, and has a significant small business component. I am on it fairly frequently. I never see fast traffic on it. It would be nearly impossible to do so. Plus it crosses the busy Young and Duffus Sts., and essentially dead-ends at Almon. I can only see one way to accommodate this on Isleville, and that is by removing on-street parking that is used by those businesses.

Local Street Bikeways don't remove on-street parking. It's actually encouraged because parked cars act as a calming technique and will slow traffic down. I bike on the lower part of Isleville quite often and most traffic is well behaved but I do notice there is just as many pedestrians and cyclists as there is vehicular traffic so this project will just enhance that experience.

I just hope as the project progresses southwards the vehicular traffic detours onto Gottingen or Robie and not Agricola.

[atbw]

Love the traffic button idea. Hope they're implemented on the Creighton/Maynard portion of it too. It's a route I ride pretty much weekly and combined with South Park Street it makes for a really strong core biking artery between North and South.

Really we need to see some movement on East-West connections. Almost all the major routes (Hollis, Lower Water, South Park, Windsor, Vernon) are all North-South.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Isleville st is narrow, and has a significant small business component. I am on it fairly frequently. I never see fast traffic on it. It would be nearly impossible to do so. Plus it crosses the busy Young and Duffus Sts., and essentially dead-ends at Almon. I can only see one way to accommodate this on Isleville, and that is by removing on-street parking that is used by those businesses.

Meanwhile you have a very wide stretch of Gottingen st that is totally untouched. That makes no sense. I'm sure the good burghers of Drummond Court will enjoy having their little enclave overrun with cyclists.

I live here and I definitely see fast traffic. Not the majority of drivers, but enough that it's a problem. The small-business element is a primary reason why this makes sense, IMO--that increasingly draws people on foot from the surrounding blocks. As DMAjackson said, this won't result in any lost parking. It's basically just traffic-calming.

[MonctonRad]

The War Against the Car - Paris Style

I thought I would drop off this little YouTube video for Keith's benefit. I'm sure he will appreciate it.

• Video Link

What do you think Keith? Do you think Halifax in 2030 will resemble Paris in 2021???

[Good Baklava]

Build your concrete bunkers and prepare for the bike-demic

- no one is safe

[Keith P.]

A fake taxi roof light solves the problem. Most Parisians ignore all traffic rules anyway.

[Dmajackson]

^A taxi roof light will let you get away with anything here in Halifax. I've seen a taxi hit someone while running a red light and the cops didn't issue a ticket or anything.

That said on my bike I've been hit twice and neither was a taxi. One was careless driving and the other was intentional and caused by road rage. In both cases the drivers left the scene and nothing came of it.

So I guess a driver's license is really just the government's way of saying hit whatever you want besides another car and we'll look the other way.

[Summerville]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

^A taxi roof light will let you get away with anything here in Halifax. I've seen a taxi hit someone while running a red light and the cops didn't issue a ticket or anything.

That said on my bike I've been hit twice and neither was a taxi. One was careless driving and the other was intentional and caused by road rage. In both cases the drivers left the scene and nothing came of it.

So I guess a driver's license is really just the government's way of saying hit whatever you want besides another car and we'll look the other way.

Wait,...if you break a traffic bylaw,...like failing to stop at a crosswalk, you may get a fine for $300, regardless of whether you kill the person or not.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by Summerville

Wait,...if you break a traffic bylaw,...like failing to stop at a crosswalk, you may get a fine for $300, regardless of whether you kill the person or not.

Yes but quite often when pedestrians are hit no fines are given out. This is what happened in this case. It's similar to two-car collisions where the police may find the driver of one car at fault but issue no tickets/fines for the dangerous behavior.

Also I believe that the $300 fine should only be for proactive reasons. If a cop sees you break the law then that amount works. If you have hit a pedestrian though and you're found at-fault it should be treated like stunting and automatically revoke your license for a week and a hefty fine.

[atbw]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Also I believe that the $300 fine should only be for proactive reasons. If a cop sees you break the law then that amount works. If you have hit a pedestrian though and you're found at-fault it should be treated like stunting and automatically revoke your license for a week and a hefty fine.

I wholeheartedly agree. You can run someone over and have them die in hospital a week later and pay the same fine. I don't know why anybody would go to such lengths as to cover up a murder when you can just pay $300 to run them over and not even get a criminal record.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

^A taxi roof light will let you get away with anything here in Halifax. I've seen a taxi hit someone while running a red light and the cops didn't issue a ticket or anything.

A cab ran a red light, struck and injured a pedestrian, police were at the scene, and no ticket was issued? That would be extraordinarily unusual, especially if the pedestrian is injured - which they are in virtually every case. And if the injury is serious, that sort of incident can even attract criminal negligence charges, quite apart from any Motor Vehicle Act ticket.

That said on my bike I've been hit twice and neither was a taxi. One was careless driving and the other was intentional and caused by road rage. In both cases the drivers left the scene and nothing came of it.

Were police involved? If so, again, nothing coming of it would be very unusual, unless there were no way to identify the vehicle. Police (and the courts) generally treat leaving the scene of an accident as a very serious offence (especially if injuries are involved), one which can and often does also result in criminal charges in addition to MVA tickets.

So I guess a driver's license is really just the government's way of saying hit whatever you want besides another car and we'll look the other way.[/QUOTE]

Forgive me for calling that a gratuitous bit of nonsense, but that’s what it is.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Yes but quite often when pedestrians are hit no fines are given out.

That’s simply untrue.

It's similar to two-car collisions where the police may find the driver of one car at fault but issue no tickets/fines for the dangerous behavior.

Two points arise from that. First, it is not the police’s job to decide who’s “at fault” in an accident, and that’s not what they do. Aside from their important public safety and traffic control functions, their legal role is to determine whether a law has been violated (Nova Scotia Motor Vehicle Act or the Criminal Code, which is federal). I appreciate that police do sometimes make gratuitous comments about “fault” at accident scenes (I’ve experienced it myself; they can’t seem to help themselves), but “fault” is a civil law concept and can be determined only by the courts. A police officer’s opinion on fault is irrelevant in law and meaningless in a lawsuit or, for the same reason, in an insurance claim.

Second, unless there’s egregious illegal behavior resulting in injury and/or significant damage, the law generally considers accidents - and quite appropriately so - to be just that, accidents. Motor vehicles are operated by humans and by virtue of the sheer number of people and vehicles involved, frequent accidents are absolutely inevitable. It would be both impossible and pointless to treat every one of them as a matter requiring state intervention. That’s why we have recourse to civil remedies (lawsuits) and why auto liability insurance exists - to resolve matters between the parties, as opposed to considering accidents to be offences against the state.

Also I believe that the $300 fine should only be for proactive reasons. If a cop sees you break the law then that amount works. If you have hit a pedestrian though and you're found at-fault it should be treated like stunting and automatically revoke your license for a week and a hefty fine.

Well, there’s a rather glaring difference there: “stunting” is a manifestly intentional act while striking pedestrians overwhelmingly is not. Anyway, we could debate whether Motor Vehicle Act fines for certain traffic offences could or should be higher, but again, the big stick is not a traffic ticket, it’s a lawsuit. Civil law is designed exactly for that very function: it’s intended to discourage careless or intentional wrong behavior by significantly penalizing the person at fault. And, if the behavior is bad enough, it can and does result in criminal prosecution as well, but 99.9% of vehicle accidents simply don’t justify that.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by atbw

I wholeheartedly agree. You can run someone over and have them die in hospital a week later and pay the same fine. I don't know why anybody would go to such lengths as to cover up a murder when you can just pay $300 to run them over and not even get a criminal record.

Please. If you “run them over” intentionally - and, in some cases, unintentionally - you most definitely will end up with a criminal record, as well as getting your ass sued.

If it’s accidental, you’ll face a significant lawsuit and, assuming you’re insured, your premiums will skyrocket. And if you’re not insured, you’re in really deep doo-doo.

The truth is that people simply don't "get away with" running over other people, intentionally or otherwise.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Summerville

Wait,...if you break a traffic bylaw,...like failing to stop at a crosswalk, you may get a fine for $300, regardless of whether you kill the person or not.

Actually, the fine for failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk or stopped facing a crosswalk is $697.50.

[Good Baklava]

Regardless of whether the fine is 300 dollars or 700 dollars, even a 1000 dollar fine won’t stop some in the crowd from not self-isolating or hosting parties during this mess.

Even if there are possibilities for holding drivers accountable, stories like these don’t really help public perception on the issue. It may not be representative of the entire sample, but it’s not encouraging news.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

...even a 1000 dollar fine won’t stop some in the crowd from not self-isolating or hosting parties during this mess.

Well, the province doubled it today, so we'll have a real-life test of whether $2000 is a deterrent.

You'd have to think that there must be some amount at which a monetary fine would work with most people. Guess we'll see.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Even if there are possibilities for holding drivers accountable, stories like these don’t really help public perception on the issue.

There's not enough in that story for anyone to make an informed and reasonable comment. I'd definitely want to hear/read the judge's reasons in full. As a JP, he likely didn't produce a written decision, though it's possible, but there's more to the case than what's in that story, and it's entirely possible that his decision was 100% correct.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Please. If you “run them over” intentionally - and, in some cases, unintentionally - you most definitely will end up with a criminal record, as well as getting your ass sued.

If it’s accidental, you’ll face a significant lawsuit and, assuming you’re insured, your premiums will skyrocket. And if you’re not insured, you’re in really deep doo-doo.

The truth is that people simply don't "get away with" running over other people, intentionally or otherwise.

There is a mindset among some advocates for "active" transportation (a.k.a. the anti-vehicle crowd) that cyclists are targeted indiscriminately by motorists without fear of consequence. I have seen it on display in other forums and now we see it here. Earlier this week on another site I read a sob story posted by a cyclist about them being targeted for death by a vehicle operator. Naturally all the like-minded types formed a support network commiserating and casting aspersions about vehicle drivers. When I asked if anything had sparked the incident without suggesting which party might have been responsible, the alleged victim and friends were all in high dudgeon over being accused of doing something that would make them responsible even though nothing of the sort was suggested. Now, I fully expect that the cyclist probably did do something to set the vehicle operator off, like run a stop sign, flip them the bird, or cut them off, because drivers generally do not vow death on random cyclists whom they encounter, but I did not suggest that. It was really quite a strange reaction.

The same holds true with incidents involving pedestrians, with a lot of the attitude locally due to the media's favorite pedestrian/anti-vehicle advocate, M. Williams, who likes to spout off about how peds are targeted by the evil driving community. That is the same sort of mindset that lobbies not to use the term MVA or motor vehicle accident and instead use MVC where "c" stands for crash. The thinking is that motorists do not wreck accidentally and that nothing which occurs on the roads is an accident. It is a simply bizarre way of thinking.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

A cab ran a red light, struck and injured a pedestrian, police were at the scene, and no ticket was issued? That would be extraordinarily unusual, especially if the pedestrian is injured - which they are in virtually every case. And if the injury is serious, that sort of incident can even attract criminal negligence charges, quite apart from any Motor Vehicle Act ticket.

Yes to most of that. The pedestrian was injured but not seriously thankfully. I'm not sure what the cabbie said to the police since I went to the hospital and gave my statement there but it was convincing enough no ticket was issued.

Were police involved? If so, again, nothing coming of it would be very unusual, unless there were no way to identify the vehicle. Police (and the courts) generally treat leaving the scene of an accident as a very serious offence (especially if injuries are involved), one which can and often does also result in criminal charges in addition to MVA tickets.

For my bike accidents it was more of a comment that cabbies aren't the only bad drivers around. I keep rough track of my close calls though and for the few cabs on the streets they do make up almost a quarter of all my close calls which is alarming. General traffic is still the most and HT buses are about 10%.

The police weren't called for one of my accidents. It was well over a decade ago but I remember the car clipped me (a "right hook"). They never stopped, it was dark out and I lost balance and hit the curb but wasn't injured.

The other incident the police were called and nothing ever came of it because there was no license plate. He hit me from behind and when he started cursing at me and made it clear he was going to do it again I dismounted and walked ahead to where I was going. Traffic was congested so he never passed me. That one we were both stuck in traffic and not moving. He got angry, honked at me and then let go of his brake and pushed me into the curb. Then leaned out his window and said it was my fault and that cyclists shouldn't be on the road.

I should note that I like the HRP. They've done a great job helping me out in a lot of situations before. They're just horrible at pedestrian/cyclist safety issues.

Really what's saved my skin over the years as a pedestrian, cyclist and driver is just assuming that driver's will do the stupidest moves at all times. That tactic has made all of my incidents pretty minor over the years and has saved me on my bike numerous times and kept me out a multi-car pileup at least twice.