Road Safety & Vision Zero Plan

[nfitz]

It seems there might be a HTA Fail to Report summons and possibly even a Fil to Remain in someone' future.

They might have phoned it in. And if no property damage, I'm not sure there's a requirement to stay on scene. I dinged a hydro pole once - never crossed my mind to even report it, and the damage was all on my vehicle.

 

[lenaitch]

They might have phoned it in. And if no property damage, I'm not sure there's a requirement to stay on scene. I dinged a hydro pole once - never crossed my mind to even report it, and the damage was all on my vehicle.

Perhaps. The photo doesn't show a whole lot, but that is a pricy vehicle and it doesn't take much to get to $2000 in body work these days. The dollar value that makes a collision reportable includes all damage. Also, it looks like some old rails were moved - that's gotta leave a mark. if it was that minor, why didn't (he) drive away? Unless TPS has some program on the go, 'phoning it in' isn't typically an option, particularly when the incident involves, or potentially involves, third party property and a construction site.

 

[DSC]

Not sure this really fits here but it will surely increase road rage!

For the next 3 or 4 weekends (Friday morning to Sunday night) Yonge St is closed from Front to Lake Shore as the CIBC folk are demolishing part of the Yonge St viaduct so they can extend the PATH.

At the same time, Cherry remains closed from Mill to Lake Shore and Parliament is closed from Mill to Lakeshore for the huge gas main installation.

I am not a driver, but it will not be fun driving around here this weekend.

 

[nfitz]

Perhaps. The photo doesn't show a whole lot, but that is a pricy vehicle and it doesn't take much to get to $2000 in body work these days. The dollar value that makes a collision reportable includes all damage. Also, it looks like some old rails were moved - that's gotta leave a mark. if it was that minor, why didn't (he) drive away? Unless TPS has some program on the go, 'phoning it in' isn't typically an option, particularly when the incident involves, or potentially involves, third party property and a construction site.

Oh, it's more than $2000 damage! If everyone reported every $2000 damaged body panel, the system would be overwhelmed. Honestly, why do the police care that I destroyed a side panel on a pillar I didn't see, reversing out of a parking spot in an underground garage? Especially when the pillar is absolutely covered with paint from similar events.

Heck, it was $2000 limited and over that damage when I did that over 30 years go. Insurance never cared there was no police report. In another case, I had a 3-car fender-bender on the 401 (I was in the middle) at about the same time. Looked pretty minor ... it was several days before my mechanic had the car up on the hoist, and discovered the entire floor of the trunk had taken severe over $2000 damage. Their bumper must have hit the metal for the tow-bar attachment, and rolled up the metal floor!

Also, you do have 24 hours to report. I can imagine one doesn't want to start that process at 2 AM. It's not like they were trying to hide what happened.

 

[lenaitch]

Oh, it's more than $2000 damage! If everyone reported every $2000 damaged body panel, the system would be overwhelmed. Honestly, why do the police care that I destroyed a side panel on a pillar I didn't see, reversing out of a parking spot in an underground garage? Especially when the pillar is absolutely covered with paint from similar events.

Heck, it was $2000 limited and over that damage when I did that over 30 years go. Insurance never cared there was no police report. In another case, I had a 3-car fender-bender on the 401 (I was in the middle) at about the same time. Looked pretty minor ... it was several days before my mechanic had the car up on the hoist, and discovered the entire floor of the trunk had taken severe over $2000 damage. Their bumper must have hit the metal for the tow-bar attachment, and rolled up the metal floor!

Also, you do have 24 hours to report. I can imagine one doesn't want to start that process at 2 AM. It's not like they were trying to hide what happened.

It seems you got lucky with your insurance company. In my experience, most would expect a police report if the damage was over the current minimum of $2K. Obviously, if the extent of the damage isn't determined until sometime later, the world recognizes that we aren't prescient.

If a collision happened on private property, you're probably right - the police and insurance company might not care. But they might, or the owner of the property might, and you might be out some bucks and s few demerit points.

The thing with hitting somebody else's property is, well, it's somebody else's property and we don't usually get to make that kind of call unilaterally. Depending on what is struck and how it is struck, that kind of self-determination might not always be advisable. If somebody drives across my lawn and damages it, I care. Hitting a support pillar with a Honda Civic is different than hitting one with a 5-ton truck.

The 'Fail to Report' section of the HTA is one of the few that does not specific that the incident must occur on a highway. The 'Fail to Remain' section does. In the instance of this photo, the collision clearly occurred on a highway (as defined). While TPS might have some internal procedure that gives a 24-hour grace period, the legislation does not. Both the Fail to Report and Fail to Remain sections use the word "immediate". It is similar to the urban myth that I heard many times in my career that you had 24-hours to produce a driver's licence. Legally, you do not.

In the case of the photo, the driver might not be trying to hide 'what' happened, but they might be trying to hide the why. I have my suspicions.

 

[nfitz]

The 'Fail to Report' section of the HTA is one of the few that does not specific that the incident must occur on a highway. The 'Fail to Remain' section does. In the instance of this photo, the collision clearly occurred on a highway (as defined). While TPS might have some internal procedure that gives a 24-hour grace period, the legislation does not. Both the Fail to Report and Fail to Remain sections use the word "immediate". It is similar to the urban myth that I heard many times in my career that you had 24-hours to produce a driver's licence. Legally, you do not.

Immediate? Then why aren't the reporting centres open after 9 pm? And don't even open until after morning rush hour is over.

I'm a little puzzled what one would have expected the driver to do in the middle of the night, with no urgency about the matter.

 

[lenaitch]

Immediate? Then why aren't the reporting centres open after 9 pm? And don't even open until after morning rush hour is over.

I'm a little puzzled what one would have expected the driver to do in the middle of the night, with no urgency about the matter.

The way I read this TPS page, after hours, you're supposed to call the police. Whether a member attends, or the call taker just gives you an incident number I don't know, but at least the legislation has been satisfied since it has been 'reported'. Either way, it seems leaving a note and walking away from a vehicle that apparently needs to towed (otherwise, they would have driven away) meets no legislated requirement.

Collision Reporting- Toronto Police Service

www.tps.ca

I notice that several insurance websites say 'within 24 hours'. Cool, but it's not supported by the legislation.

So at seven-ish is the morning and the construction crews show up to find a damaged vehicle in their site. What are they going to do - likely call a supervisor who will call the cops, who will have no record. Is it stolen? Was the driver impaired (my guess)? Was it used in a non-vehicular crime? All that would have to be figured out, the vehicle towed and impounded and a copper sent to no doubt roust the owner from their beauty sleep.

If you came home from a night out to find a car on your torn up front lawn or nosed into the wall, are you going to see a note on the dash and say 'ok, cool. Off to bed then'?

 

[nfitz]

If you came home from a night out to find a car on your torn up front lawn or nosed into the wall, are you going to see a note on the dash and say 'ok, cool. Off to bed then'?

Yeah, I probably would if there was no structural damage - after taking note of the licence plate.

As I noted much earlier - for all we know they could have called it in. I'd think if they told them that they'd hit some construction material, no one else was involved, and his car was now parked on the side of the road out of the way of traffic, they'd give him a file number and not want to send an officer.

Alcohol though, is possibility. Though anytime I've damaged my car by driving into something, it hasn't been.

 

[lenaitch]

Yeah, I probably would if there was no structural damage - after taking note of the licence plate.

As I noted much earlier - for all we know they could have called it in. I'd think if they told them that they'd hit some construction material, no one else was involved, and his car was now parked on the side of the road out of the way of traffic, they'd give him a file number and not want to send an officer.

Alcohol though, is possibility. Though anytime I've damaged my car by driving into something, it hasn't been.

You're right - they could well have called it in.

You're a better (calmer?) person than I to leave an errant vehicle on your property. I'd want cops, CP24, the whole shebang and be calling the 24-hour number for my insurance company. (Hint - take a pic lots of pics, including the VIN too, plates are too portable).

 

[W. K. Lis]

What do MOST motorists do after the come to a (allegedly) full stop at a stop sign? What do MOST motorists do after the red traffic signal light turns green?

They press hard on the accelerator and try to reach the speed limit (allegedly) as soon as possible. And hope that there is no one in front of their motor vehicle who would dare slow them down.

It's either stop or go as fast as possible (to the alleged speed limit).

 

[TheTigerMaster]

 

[W. K. Lis]

 

[W. K. Lis]

It’s Hard to Get a Driver’s License in Holland — And That’s One Reason Dutch Roads Are So Safe​

From link.

When Shelley Bontje took her driver’s license exam for the first time, she failed — and so did almost everyone she knows.

“My brother is really into cars, and even he didn’t get it on his first go,” she added. “If you make one major mistake, you’re done. … But I would say, in the end, that we’re really good drivers.”

That notorious test was the Dutch rijexamen, which is known for being one of the hardest in the world — though it doesn’t get much press overseas.

Even as Holland has become globally famous for its people-first infrastructure, transportation professionals like Bontje, who works at the Dutch Cycling Federation, have noticed that U.S. advocates rarely talk about the arduous process Netherlanders must undertake before they’re allowed to drive, or how education contributes to her country’s eye-popping safety stats. The per-capita road fatality rate in Holland has been roughly one-third of America’s for decades.

Bontje said that much of that success can be credited to great road design, but that the nation’s driving schools deserve some credit, too.

“How can you expect people with no education on a topic at all to behave properly?” she added.

Of course, getting a driver’s license isn’t totally impossible in Holland — indeed, 80 percent of Dutch adults will eventually get one, compared to 89 percent of Americans — and on paper, passing muster at a Dutch DMV doesn’t seem too daunting.

According to local driving schools, about 48 percent of test-takers in the Netherlands will fail either their written or on-road test in a given year, which is roughly on par with states like Arkansas (47 percent) and Oregon (46 percent). Notably, neither U.S. community nor Holland actually require would-be drivers to take a formal driver’s education course — even though Oregon officials note that 91 percent of teens involved in crashes didn’t take one.

Experts say, though, that not hitting the books is pretty rare among Dutch drivers because “without driving lessons it is virtually impossible to pass the driving test,” as the country’s Institute for Road Safety research notes. And even with an average of 42 practice hours behind the wheel and thousands of Euros worth of study sessions with a professional instructor who has to go through a rigorous certification process of her own, many still struggle to succeed.

“Most people really need to study for it,” added Bontje. “You won’t pass without studying unless you’re some kind of an Einstein-type.”

The test begins with a timed “hazard recognition” section during which students have just eight seconds per question to assess a photo of a complex roadway environment and indicate how they’d behave in response. Nearly every image is full of easy-to-miss but critical details, like a pedestrian emerging from between two parked cars, or a soccer ball in the middle of the road, suggesting that a child might be following close behind.

That’s followed by “knowledge” and “insight” sections, which resemble the kind of multiple-choice tests with which most American license-seekers — except way harder.

Would-be drivers have to answer a randomized selection of forty questions from a pool of more than 1,500 possible prompts, including both typical prompts (“when should you use your low-beams?”) and hyper-arcane details, like the maximum length of a tow rope, or whether a Segway is classified as a motor vehicle. Test-takers might be denied a license for not knowing whether their cars’ heating or air conditioning uses more fuel, or what to do if their vehicle becomes submerged in a lake, or why the design of a sleepy rural road might induce “polderblindness,” or zoning out behind the wheel.

If they just miss three of the twelve “knowledge” questions, they’ll fail; if they miss four of the 28 “insight” questions, that’s a fail, too. Put another way: every single driver on the road in the Netherlands scored a B+ or better on her written test.

This journalist, who passed her U.S. exam with flying colors, failed three practice tests before she gave up.

Even if he conquers the dreaded written exam, though, a Dutch teenager still can’t even touch a steering wheel until he turns 16 and a half — and even then, he can only drive with a registered “coach” in the passenger’s seat. And when he finally does get to take his road test at the ripe old age of 17, our would-be driver still might fail, because many examiners have such sky-high standards.

As one ex-pat laments:

“You can fail the test for driving too slow or too fast, for being ‘not confident enough‘ or ‘overconfident‘. You simply can’t win this game. An experienced driver from the US recalls that the first time he failed for ‘being too sure of himself‘, the second time for giving a way to a mom biking with two kids, and the third time the examiner asked: ‘Why did you fail the first two times?’ before announcing that he failed again.”

And even if he doesn’t fail, our novice motorist still can’t drive unsupervised — because that privilege is only afforded to 18 year olds, an age at which most U.S. teenagers have held an unrestricted license for a full two years.

Experts, though, have long questioned the wisdom of giving driving privileges to children with still-developing brains and even less on-road experience. The Insurance Institute for Highway estimates that simply moving South Dakota’s licensing age from 14 and a half years old — the lowest in the nation — to 17, fatal crashes among teenagers would plunge by 30 percent, even if no other graduated licensing requirements were instituted.

Bontje emphasizes that Holland’s ultra-hard licensing exam isn’t the only reason why it’s such a safety standout, and that even the worst drivers are regularly stopped from causing harm by the country’s profusion of “self-enforcing” infrastructure, like protected bike lanes. Even the best streets, though, can still require a little explaining – if only to hammer home why driving safely is so important.

“Self-explanatory infrastructure is essential,” Bontje adds. “But when you’re in a car, you can always be a danger to others. That’s where education comes in.”

And when a Hollander simply can’t pass her test, it’s often not the out-and-out disaster that might be for a car-dependent American. Bontje points out that all Dutch drivers over 75 are required to be examined by doctor to assess their fitness to drive — and, sometimes, pass the arduous exam all over again — but if they don’t, they can often still live a healthy, independent life without a car, because the country’s transportation network, though still imperfect, offers them options.

“You still feel this sentimental idea of, ‘I’m losing my freedom,'” she said. “But at the other end, of course, there are way more alternatives to get around — by bike, by public transport, or walking … There are people who will never have a drivers license at all, and they’re thriving.”

 

[W. K. Lis]

Biking or running in the dark? Here's how the drivers see you based on the clothes you wear.​

From link.

 

[evandyk]

That's why we need to make sure people drive slowly!