Road Safety & Vision Zero Plan

[PinkLucy]

how about we just stick to the topic of road safety

 

[lenaitch]

A report to the next meeting of the City's Infrastructure and Environment Ctte responds to a Council request to look into mandating side guards on trucks.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/ie/bgrd/backgroundfile-250547.pdf

The conclusion is that regulating private commercial vehicles, with no relationship to the City is outside of Toronto's jurisdiction (no surprise).

The report does, however, recommend retrofitting the entire City-owned fleet where possible; excepting all the emergency services and TTC.

The report also recommends a follow-up from staff on whether it may be feasible tor require side guards for commercial vehicles that are in use on City contracts. (construction, waste management, hydrovac among others might see this apply to them).

I think this is a solid move...........

That said, this one paragraph jumps out at me, and suggests that we collectively need to get all over the Feds and the Province on this issue:

View attachment 613551

Although there is this opposing view from way back in 2016.

Truck side guards may not be safer for cyclists

Although they’re mandatory in Europe, many in the industry say there’s no proof truck side guards will save lives

www.thestar.com

They have been mandated in the UK since the 1980s. I would have thought the committee could have come up with some actual empirical 'before-and-after' data. Since any vehicle standards change would have to apply nation-wide, there would obviously be significant industry pushback due to the costs involved, particularly if it involved retrofitting. With the impending US administration, any though of finding common regulatory standards seems beyond hope.

 

[nfitz]

how about we just stick to the topic of road safety

Yes - but on the other hand, to improve road safety those that would prioritize convenience over an increased death toll, may need a deeper understanding of the issues and consequences.

 

[J Bacon]

How exactly is a forum where people exchange opinions supposed to be representative of the opinions of a population of ~2 million people, as though those opinions were a monolith?

Except I'm responding to the fact that I was called "contrarian" implying that there is a certain point of view here that is "acceptable".
That kind of labeling does not promote an exchange of opinion.

It's not "cancelling" someone to tell them that their opinions are both predictable and uninformed.

Fair, of course it's not canceling.
However like the above, labeling your fellow citizen as "predictable" and "uninformed" just because they don't have the same opinion as you? Fairly ridiculous.

 

[Northern Light]

Except I'm responding to the fact that I was called "contrarian" implying that there is a certain point of view here that is "acceptable".

Except that's not what Contrarian means.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

The word does not imply acceptability or a lack thereof. It suggests a disposition to oppose irrespective of evidence or reason, simply because you enjoy the argument.

That kind of labeling does not promote an exchange of opinion.

Few here will suggest I don't enjoy a good debate; and I am notorious for engaging with others who have views not widely endorsed here.

I simply ask that said people make their arguments in good faith, and with supporting evidence.

Where I see neither, I presume to find the contribution unworthy of ongoing engagement.

 

[J Bacon]

Except that's not what Contrarian means.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

View attachment 613707
The word does not imply acceptability or a lack thereof. It suggests a disposition to oppose irrespective of evidence or reason, simply because you enjoy the argument.



Few here will suggest I don't enjoy a good debate; and I am notorious for engaging with others who have views not widely endorsed here.

I simply ask that said people make their arguments in good faith, and with supporting evidence.

Where I see neither, I presume to find the contribution unworthy of ongoing engagement.

Since it's been demonstrated over and over, should I provide the definition of condescending?

At this juncture, I will remind everyone that the poster to whom I am replying is only visible here every few months, stays a few weeks to argue in only one or two threads, with contrarian view points that are typically anti-cycle and anti-pedestrian.

A reminder this was the context, "contrarian" followed by two illogical statements.

Anti-cycle because they don't like the bike lanes as currently implemented?
Anti-pedestrian because they don't like one proposed implementation of a permanent pedestrian zone?

With that kind of judgement, any claims of an open forum board where debate is welcomed are clearly false.

Remind you of anyone?

No idea what this secret message means, other than secretly judging people on their opinions I suppose?

 

[Northern Light]

Since it's been demonstrated over and over, should I provide the definition of condescending?



A reminder this was the context, "contrarian" followed by two illogical statements.

Anti-cycle because they don't like the bike lanes as currently implemented?
Anti-pedestrian because they don't like one proposed implementation of a permanent pedestrian zone?

With that kind of judgement, any claims of an open forum board where debate is welcomed are clearly false.



No idea what this secret message means, other than secretly judging people on their opinions I suppose?

I have you on ignore, please feel free to do likewise.

There is no value in further exchange with you.