News   Dec 05, 2025
Crowning the Week
 268     1 
News   Dec 04, 2025
Parliament Slip Construction Continues As New Community Centre, Extended Water's Edge Promenade Open
 873     1 
News   Dec 04, 2025
Proposed Tower in Fairbank PMTSA Leaps From 15 to 42 Storeys
 1.1K     2 

Mayor Olivia Chow's Toronto

rbt said:
That sometimes happens; Cannabis being an obvious recent example.

NOTE, I'm not saying cannabis should be illegal, I'm saying it was made legal because it was popular despite being illegal. If the number of Canadian cannabis users was single digits during the 1990's it never would have been legalized.
Click to expand...

I agree.

However, deaths/serious injuries caused by cannabis are quite rare; deaths caused by speeding/reckless driving, are considerably more common.

So with cannabis, I think you could say a case was reasonably made, not that the behavior is harm-free, but that them majority of the harm is to one's self.......and that the harms/costs from it being criminal reasonably exceeded any benefits (deterrence)

I don't think the data would point in the same direction with speeding (which in any event is mostly non-criminal, but is illegal)
 
wopchop said:
wThe old photo radar situation is a bit different. Photo radar was being used by police on the 400-series highways. I don't believe it was used on any local roads at all.
Click to expand...
Different speeds, for sure. But they were entirely removed because of excessive driver complaint. Not because they were deemed "unfair" by law. If you want to take the risk of speeding, that's up to you. Speed cameras just force responsibility in those who do, which is the ultimate problem. People don't want to take responsibility for their risk to the public.

It's the ultimate in libertarian government funding (user fees), and yet Neo-liberals and conservatives hate it. I wonder why.

wopchop said:
If you had speeding cameras right now on the 400-series, and people were getting tickets for 10kph over, I suspect that the public polls would not be in support of it at all. The cameras wouldn't last a month.
Click to expand...

But again, that's entitlement. People have gotten away with speeding for so long that they think it's some kind of unwritten rule that you shouldn't get a ticket for doing 10km/h over the speed limit. I'm sure the belief stems from the idea that speedometers aren't as accurate as they should be. Which is absolutely ridiculous, as if you're clocked going 10k over, your speedometer possibly said an even higher number.

And who's responsibility is it to ensure your car's speedometer is accurate anyway?

In addition, there're even more accurate ways to now gauge your own speed. Most phones can do it better; dedicated SatNavs, likewise. It's not an excuse anymore to allow (or expect) such a large margin of "gimme".

Unless you're driving an emergency vehicle, no one should have any given expectation in being allowed to speed.
 
Last edited:
zang said:
Different speeds, for sure. But they were entirely removed because of excessive driver complaint. Not because they were deemed "unfair" by law. If you want to take the risk of speeding, that's up to you. Speed cameras just force responsibility in those who do, which is the ultimate problem. People don't want to take responsibility for their risk to the public.

It's the ultimate in libertarian government funding (user fees), and yet Neo-liberals and conservatives hate it. I wonder why.



But again, that's entitlement. People have gotten away with speeding for so long that they think it's some kind of unwritten rule that you shouldn't get a ticket for doing 10km/h over the speed limit. I'm sure the belief stems from the idea that speedometers aren't as accurate as they should be. Which is absolutely ridiculous, as if you're clocked going 10k over, your speedometer possibly said an even higher number.

And who's responsibility is it to ensure your car's speedometer is accurate anyway?

In addition, there're even more accurate ways to now gauge your own speed. Most phones can do it better; dedicated SatNavs, likewise. It's not an excuse anymore to allow (or expect) such a large margin of "gimme".

Unless you're driving an emergency vehicle, no one should have any given expectation in being allowed to speed.
Click to expand...

In fact one can argue photo radar is probably the fairest way to enforce speed limits - putting aside the distribution of the cameras - since there is no discretion by the officer. If there is a need to provide some flexibility, tune the issuing of fines to violation of limits by say 5 or 10 kph.

AoD
 
zang said:
Different speeds, for sure. But they were entirely removed because of excessive driver complaint. Not because they were deemed "unfair" by law. If you want to take the risk of speeding, that's up to you. Speed cameras just force responsibility in those who do, which is the ultimate problem. People don't want to take responsibility for their risk to the public.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly. And that is why I'm saying these two situations are different from a public opinion perspective.

For photo radar, the complainers were likely a majority view. For these speed cameras in special zones, that seems like it is not the case and polls are showing people do in fact support their implementation.

But again, that's entitlement. People have gotten away with speeding for so long that they think it's some kind of unwritten rule that you shouldn't get a ticket for doing 10km/h over the speed limit. I'm sure the belief stems from the idea that speedometers aren't as accurate as they should be. Which is absolutely ridiculous, as if you're clocked going 10k over, your speedometer possibly said an even higher number.

And who's responsibility is it to ensure your car's speedometer is accurate anyway?

In addition, there're even more accurate ways to now gauge your own speed. Most phones can do it better; dedicated SatNavs, likewise. It's not an excuse anymore to allow (or expect) such a large margin of "gimme".

Unless you're driving an emergency vehicle, no one should have any given expectation in being allowed to speed
Click to expand...
Not sure what this is about? You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I never said that speeding was OK.

Although I do believe that speed limits on the 400-series highways are too low.
I think the majority view about going 10-20km/h or so over has nothing at all to do with speedometer accuracy and entirely to due with the public feeling like the speed limit should be faster because the road is designed that way.
 
Northern Light said:
In his Bsky thread, @AlexBozikovic highlights a couple of things.

1) That several washrooms with good architectural features are proposed to be demolished, and he, understandably thinks that's awful and they should be restored instead.

2) That there is an intent to bundle all of the washroom work into one mega contract which will limit the bidders to some of the large corporate firms, and its too big a job for the smaller ones.

He's right on that last point, moreover, too few bidders tends to erode value-for-money as well. So you can have lesser design for more $$

****

It would make sense to be to do a bulk, large bid for the pre-fab washrooms, since you want standardized spare parts etc.

But the free standing buildings should be broken out into smaller contracts, with high profile sites, going on their own so you can attract the best firms.

The better architectural washrooms of the past should be retained wherever feasible; and if that isn't due to alterations required for year-round use or modern building code, then they should be recreated as closely as possible.
Click to expand...

@AlexBozikovic has a follow up on his thoughts above in a new piece in the Globe that is currently not paywalled:

www.theglobeandmail.com

Is Toronto’s public design in the toilet?

The city’s plan to repair and replace 125 public washrooms is a rushed, one-size-fits-all approach that misses an opportunity to showcase design
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com

Its a good piece, I don't disagree with a single word.

What we need at this point is to get someone to get Olivia on record as to why this contract can't be split, as I discuss above.

I think that's really key to getting this right.
 
Parks department justifying driving vehicles on grass to pick up garbage and IMO downplaying the damage it does.

Report from the General Manager of Parks and Recreation, coming to Infrastructure and Environment Committee next week

Agenda Item History 2025.IE24.8

Agenda Item History 2025.IE24.8
secure.toronto.ca

Solid Waste Management Services provides waste collection services to approximately 1,175 parks across the city with a total fleet of 33 small waste collection vehicles. In most parks, waste can be collected without entering the park or by staying on paved pathways within the park. In certain situations, Solid Waste Management Services operators are required to temporarily drive off the paved surfaces to access waste bins and / or to avoid pedestrians and cyclists using the paved paths. In 186 parks (15.8 per cent of total parks serviced), waste station locations require operators to travel outside of paved pathways for waste collection.

The majority of turf repairs due to solid waste trucks are minor to medium in scale. The estimated cost from the Parks and Recreation budget for a minor repair is approximately $500, for a medium repair approximately $1000, and for a large repair approximately $2500 or more. There are very few instances of large-scale turf damage in parks.
 
Even the places where they can drive on the paved surfaces, they often don't stay on the path and cause rutting and mud puddles on the sides of the pavement. Great for six year olds just learning to "off road" on their bike, but demonstrates that they really don't care about maintaining the park.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top