Coolibop
Active Member
Odd choice. Is driving more safe than riding the TTC? Or is it just perceived as such? I think we need to be cautious with our assumptions given the way we interpret incidents fed by local media.
|
|
|
TTC: Other Items (catch all)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I suggest you answer your own questions before making your conclusion.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
I'm not sure the statistics matter.
In my car, I can lock the doors, nobody invades my personal space, if people are yelling I can turn up the radio, the car itself is a big metal shield. And I can always pull a desperate move to put more distance between me and a threat.
On TTC, I may have difficulty maintaining distance, I have no way to disengage from a threat except perhaps to run or leave the vehicle. (I'm not that fast a runner these days).
And, while my car is no model of cleanliness, it's far more hygenic than a subway or bus these days.
If we are talking about the actual statistical likelihood of an incident, and the probable level of harm, cars are scary things. But we're talking about persoanl choices, not probabilities.
- Paul
Northern Light
Superstar
While you're not wrong.............
I would argue statistics do matter.
A straight-forward question is, are you more likely to die, or experience a serious injury while driving/being driven in a private car, or while using the TTC?
The answer, to my understanding is yes. Being a driver/passenger in a car is more likely to put your life/limb at risk.
Now, the risk comes from a different place; its less likely to be a violent person and far more likely to be yourself or another driver (or the person driving you) that causes the risk, whether by running a stop sign or red light, or making an ill-advised turn or lane change etc. But dead is dead.
KevinT
Senior Member
Only the most mentally disciplined can make decisions based on statistics however, the rest of us get by on feelings. People don't anticipate feeling bad from a car accident when they get a license, but I'm sure that many have dreaded the experience of being assaulted (or even just being made uncomfortable) on the subway. Also, given the historical poor treatment of women at the hands of men, I'm sure they are far more likely to experience foreboding and avoidance of the TTC than males. Statistically valid or not versus driving, that's the reality.
gabe
Senior Member
Another assault happened on the weekend. Woman was followed and sexually assaulted. These attacks and assaults are the ones that make the news. I'm sure there are other incidents that go unreported.
toronto.ctvnews.ca
Police looking for man who allegedly followed woman off TTC bus, sexually assaulted her twice
Police are searching for a man who allegedly followed a woman off a TTC bus and sexually assaulted her in downtown Toronto early Saturday morning.
crs1026
Superstar
We're clearly both right.
I probably should have clarified.... statistics do matter if one is making the case for how serious the TTC security issues are, or aren't, and trying to get one's head around that.
But they may not matter to ridership, if people who see themselves as vulnerable, believe (rightly or wrongly) the TTC is an insecure space.
I have never seen my life flash before my eyes on the TTC, sketchy incidents or not. I certainly have seen my life flash before my eyes on the 401. Somehow we brush those potentially lethal automotive near-misses off, and we see the sketchy people on the subway as far more of a threat than most of them really are.
It's a paradox, but even with recent security "upgrades", the TTC is in a jam.
- Paul
ARG1
Senior Member
I think there's also the matter of control. It's the same reason why people are more scared of flying than being in the car, despite the former being far safer statistically. When you're in a car, and especially if you're in the driver's seat, you're in control, and your life is literally, and figuratively in your hands. In the event of unusual circumstances, you can rely on your own personal judgement to get out of whatever predicament you might be in, even if it might be faulty. On a plane, you're just along for the ride. Whether or not the plane crashes is in the hands of some pilot you have never met, and in the event of an emergency, your only course of action is to hope and pray for the skill and judgement of a handful of strangers.
The same principle could apply to transit. When you're on a train, your safety is in no way insured, and at any point a group of psychopaths can show up with a knife with no possible recourse other than running if you're fast enough - assuming you can even run (you are effectively in a stainless steel cage whilst between stations).
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Statistics won't ever be applicable enough. I live in downtown east, which for whatever reason is the base for much of the city's homeless industrial complex along with much of its mental health and addiction services sector. The president of the Sally Ann might not live nearby, but you can bet his organization ensures his clients do. This means that young women and anyone vulnerable living in downtown east takes the TTC they're at higher odds of encountering the bad among us than the system-wide statistics might suggest.
crs1026
Superstar
As it happens, I went downtown today to put my eyes on Queen and University, but I was also mindful that the 501 streetcar will be diverted soon and it’s the final opportunity to photograph “before” street scenes along Queen, especially if you want streetcars in your photos.
The main reason I don’t use TTC nearly as much anymore isn’t safety, it’s the very inconvenient bustitution at Queen-Roncy that has gone on for years. So I drove to the Green P lot at Augusta, which has plenty of space these days. Something I would never have done in 2019.
But the change in atmosphere on Queen West - once a Toronto treasure - is unmistakeable. The street is dirty and untended, pedestrian traffic is lower and very different, the pedestrian demographic is different, and the sketchier folks are much bolder.
This is the Tory legacy, I’m not sorry to see him gone.
My point is simply, central Toronto really is circling the drain, and TTC is only one symptom (but a huge influence) in that. The opportunity is that if we stabilise TTC it may pull other things upwards.
Sorry to sound so bleak, but I feel far more objective than I may be accused of.
- Paul
The main reason I don’t use TTC nearly as much anymore isn’t safety, it’s the very inconvenient bustitution at Queen-Roncy that has gone on for years. So I drove to the Green P lot at Augusta, which has plenty of space these days. Something I would never have done in 2019.
But the change in atmosphere on Queen West - once a Toronto treasure - is unmistakeable. The street is dirty and untended, pedestrian traffic is lower and very different, the pedestrian demographic is different, and the sketchier folks are much bolder.
This is the Tory legacy, I’m not sorry to see him gone.
My point is simply, central Toronto really is circling the drain, and TTC is only one symptom (but a huge influence) in that. The opportunity is that if we stabilise TTC it may pull other things upwards.
Sorry to sound so bleak, but I feel far more objective than I may be accused of.
- Paul
Coolibop
Active Member
And that's my point above re: odd choice. Of course many decisions are personal, but much has to do with our (in some cases, false) perception of the danger(s), as you point out above. Car jackings are also up (some argued it was dangerous to drive post Marner incident), but again, down in the long term. I would equally say it wouldn't be a well thought out choice to stop driving because of the uptick in car theft/violence.
Maybe I'm too much 'Mr logic', but context matters and we not need overreact. The TTC is stretched ... As is the rest of the world, including many other transit agencies. A lot of things aren't working as they should right now; and I think there has to be a degree of 'look at the big picture' for our own sanity. Throwing our hands up and saying TTC is is completely broken in our city isn't really condusive of fixing anything aside from acknowledging the pain many are facing post (am I too early?) Covid.
allengeorge
Senior Member
This is actually our legacy. Collectively, most Toronto voters decided that this was the Toronto they were willing to pay for.
Why is everyone pulling a shocked pikachu face when it actually ends up being as dystopian as was foretold?
Northern Light
Superstar
I think we need to step back from that.
When voter turn out is 29%........ 71% of everyone didn't get off their tush to vote.
I'm profoundly unhappy about that; but at the same time, I don't think we should read that as an endorsement of the status quo.
There are a variety of reasons for people sitting on their hands.......... some more legitimate than others; but in general, I would suggest, there is a mixture both of those for whom 'civics' is a bit foreign (and btw, I'm completely apply this to people born here); but also, I suspect, a large number of people who have lost hope that voting changes anything. While that is frankly a poor excuse for not voting, it also can't be read as a 'vote for the incumbent'.
I also think we need to talk about media coverage......
Gil's campaign may have been underwhelming, but as the leading alternative to Tory his campaign was given scant attention by the press. Issues were mostly ignored, and policies rarely discussed.
A voter compass (CBC's favourite thing) is not an engaging tool that tells you why your vote is important, why democracy matters, and why democracy only works when you vote.
Here's a notion for you.
Here at UT, most members are relatively well educated, middle or upper-middle income and able to engage with commercial development and public infrastructure projects on an informed level.
Yet, very few people take the time at UT to go read the Council reports (even though I link to them); very few take the time to search the Lobbyist Registry; only a handful look at public tender documents. I was looking at one thread I started last month, which got 200+ views and not a single reaction or post.
If that's what's going on in a forum of relatively engaged and informed people; how do we expect those less informed and less engaged to get engaged?
Most voters don't read UT (as much as they should); most don't read Matt Elliott (as much as they should)...........
There's a challenge there.
allengeorge
Senior Member
Choosing not to vote - and it is a choice - means that you didn’t care enough to affect the outcome.
And, sure, there are always reasons people give for why they don’t vote (it doesn’t matter, all politicians are the same, whatever) - but at the end of the day they didn’t even try to affect the outcome. That’s implicitly a vote for the incumbent in low turnout elections.
I agree with you about media coverage, but don’t have any substantive thoughts or suggestions there.
First off, I really appreciate your contributions - and I suspect many fellow posters do as well.
In any group there is always a distribution between the totally disengaged, to the dilettantes, to the truly knowledgeable and engaged. Very few will be at the very engaged end of the spectrum. Also, that distribution varies for every different subject that group encounters. I think it’s unlikely that people will be care, or have an opinion about everything, but I would hope that they have and voice an opinion about at least one - and for the other subjects on which they’re silent, they’re implicitly ok with whatever takes place.
Northern Light
Superstar
Essentially, I agree with this.......but I also think its important to acknowledge that it isn't conscious or intentional by most. Such is the nature of apathy of whatever form. That doesn't make it ok.
I'm just trying to differentiate between those who are actively supportive of one view or even genuinely indifferent, vs those who do not know, or understand what role they can play and how it may matter.
TY; and I know many, many do, I receive many 'likes' and such and lots more positive messages, some public, some private, for which I am quite grateful.
I agree, again, my point in making the comparison between UT and the broader electorate was one of saying that this IS the political class, this IS the engaged group, These ARE the people who broadly care about this, but still, for a lot of different reasons, they are unwilling or unable to be fully engaged on any number of threads.
How then do we expect those who care less about such issues; who are far less informed and knowledgeable to be engaged?
Again, I'm not letting people off the hook; I'm more asking, how do we engage those who have come to conclude the 'system' just doesn't include them?
Last edited: