Toronto Queens Quay & Water's Edge Revitalization | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

EastYorkTTCFan said:
They do have curbs on the road sides except at the areas where cars need to cross over to the other side for entrances to parking in the water side. Alos at Spadina it has to be lower so thath Streetcars can go either east or west at the intersection.
Click to expand...

I meant on the pedestrian side, so that people walking know to stay away.

Its quite exposed to pedestrians and that is the reason the TTC has a permenent slow order on all streetcars through this area.
 
They are doing general maintenance (packing in new sand between the stones) today near the Rees Wave Deck.
 
robmausser said:
I meant on the pedestrian side, so that people walking know to stay away.

Its quite exposed to pedestrians and that is the reason the TTC has a permanent slow order on all streetcars through this area.
Click to expand...
Maybe they need to rip out the concrete and put in ballast like they have on the queensway. That way it will look like a railroad and hopefully poel will treat it with respect. They could still have concrete at the parts where it crosses the road though but otherwise it should look like it's a railroad.
 
EastYorkTTCFan said:
Maybe they need to rip out the concrete and put in ballast like they have on the queensway. That way it will look like a railroad and hopefully poel will treat it with respect. They could still have concrete at the parts where it crosses the road though but otherwise it should look like it's a railroad.
Click to expand...

That'll work great when the ground is clear. I'd hate to see who gets caught immediately after a large snowfall since once you're on those tracks you won't be driving yourself back off again, but those days are rare.
 
smably said:
I love how, between an anecdotal report of some cyclists rolling through stop signs and a driver of a car hitting a child, making the child bleed from the mouth... the outrage gets directed at the cyclists. There are Toronto's priorities in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

The outrage is directed at anyone that disobeys the law and is incapable of sharing the way. In the case of this linked story, the outrage is directed against cyclists, and also the driver that hit the child.

Contrary to the belief of many, typically cyclists, this isn't an either-or situation where one party is "always" responsible and the other is "never" responsible.

There are good drivers and there are bad drivers.

There are good cyclists and there are bad cyclists.

There are good pedestrians and there are bad pedestrians.

Let's be clear on who we are outraged against.
 
pstogios said:
The outrage is directed at anyone that disobeys the law and is incapable of sharing the way. In the case of this linked story, the outrage is directed against cyclists, and also the driver that hit the child.
Click to expand...
Um no, this is what you said:

pstogios said:
Breaking News... Cyclists don't give a rats ass about obeying the law and sharing the way with pedestrians.

Tell us something we don't know.
Click to expand...

You called out cyclists exclusively. That's what smably was pointing out.
 
MisterF said:
Um no, this is what you said:



You called out cyclists exclusively. That's what smably was pointing out.
Click to expand...

1) The article was focused on cyclists so I responded to what the article was about.

2) I am not accusing all cyclists of disobeying the law and refusing to share the way and put others at risk - just the ones that actually do these things (there should be no tolerance of this).

3) Are you accusing me of defending the driver that hit a child?
 
What I'm trying to say is it's telling that you didn't even consider the story about a child being hit by a car worthy of comment, but you did find it necessary to jump in and direct some vitriol at cyclists over a story about how they supposedly haven't been stopping at a stop sign.

If the story had been that a cyclist hit a child and made him bleed from the mouth, I'm pretty sure you would have had something to say. But of course that didn't happen. It's almost as if cyclists aren't the road users we should be worrying about if we care about safety, hmm...
 
^Tell that to the business owner down the street from me who was put in a coma by a collision with a cyclist (he was a pedestrian).

A collision requires the actions of two or more parties to occur. The uninjured party is not necessarily the one at fault. Drivers have a greater responsibility because their poor actions are more likely to cause injury to others in the city where a greater percentage of other parties involved are using a mode of transit that is more vulnerable.

By the way, as an experienced city cyclist my fears do not really involve passenger vehicles. The greatest threats come from trucks and TTC vehicles. I find the people obsessed with car versus cyclist dynamics tend to be aggressive road users regardless of transporation mode.
 
TrickyRicky said:
^Tell that to the business owner down the street from me who was put in a coma by a collision with a cyclist (he was a pedestrian).

A collision requires the actions of two or more parties to occur. The uninjured party is not necessarily the one at fault. Drivers have a greater responsibility because their poor actions are more likely to cause injury to others in the city where a greater percentage of other parties involved are using a mode of transit that is more vulnerable.

By the way, as an experienced city cyclist my fears do not really involve passenger vehicles. The greatest threats come from trucks and TTC vehicles. I find the people obsessed with car versus cyclist dynamics tend to be aggressive road users regardless of transporation mode.
Click to expand...
That example doesn't change the fact that the real threat to pedestrians (and cyclists) is vehicles, not bicycles. Car and truck drivers have killed 160 pedestrians in Toronto in the last 5 years. No mention of anyone killed by cyclists in that analysis. Let's keep things in perspective here.

If we made more roads more pedestrian friendly and cyclist friendly (which are often the same thing) everyone would be safer.
 
I'm only aware of one pedestrian death caused by a bike in the last five years.

However, to get a proper measure of risk, you'd have to divide the total number of pedestrian deaths (or injuries) caused by bikes divided by "total bikes hours" and compare that to the total number of pedestrian deaths (or injuries) caused by cars divided by total car hours. that would give you a better sense of the relative riskiness of the two means of transportation. contrasting the gross numbers is misleading.

"total bike hours" is the sum of all the hours of all the people that ride a bike within Toronto.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top