立马躺地上装心脏病，不只政府会不会赔钱。
前天过马路被警察抓了
- 主题发起人 小雷音
- 发布时间 2017-05-03
我家离kingsway很近，但附近的路口不仅没有转弯灯，是根本就没有灯，只有 2 way stop sign两个，所以过马路总是很挑战的。有时候好不容易等到车应该都通过了，但stop这边的车又停下来，虽然是停下来也不敢走因为司机只看其他车不看人。没有行人灯，司机大多数都是不让的，等它走了，其他车又过来了。我们家两边的十字路口我在短短几个月都左右 各有一起车祸，一次是刚拉着儿子过马路七八米就听到后面巨响二车相撞。另一次是看到车已撞有人倒地上等救护车。呆长时间了，经验是是马路中间走最安全，只要看着两边车还很远就行。
不守规矩就算了, 还整得好像特有理似的, 就有些好玩了.
爱横穿的继续横穿, 迟早一天, 被罚了款就老实了.
司机只看车不看人? 这边的司机哪个敢只看车不看人? 司机不让行人, 罚款是 $167加上扣2分.
不看行人只看车的司机, 能开几天?
爱横穿的继续横穿, 迟早一天, 被罚了款就老实了.
司机只看车不看人? 这边的司机哪个敢只看车不看人? 司机不让行人, 罚款是 $167加上扣2分.
不看行人只看车的司机, 能开几天?
最后编辑: 2017-05-04
这里住了两年，开始也是在路口过，发现不安全才故意改为中间过的。
f-u-c-k you
这是维基上的，事实上随便搜一下，很多文章都在说jaywalking比没有控制灯的十字路口安全。安全是自己的，做人不要死脑筋。
Jaywalking is generally perceived as an urban traffic safety problem. ... When practiced with caution, jaywalking or crossing away from intersections, where legal, can be safer for pedestrians than exercising their right-of-way at crosswalks that are not equipped with pedestrian signals.
Jaywalking is generally perceived as an urban traffic safety problem. ... When practiced with caution, jaywalking or crossing away from intersections, where legal, can be safer for pedestrians than exercising their right-of-way at crosswalks that are not equipped with pedestrian signals.
Perhaps Toronto police should heed their own advice and look both ways before they talk.
Well-intentioned though the force's Pedestrian Safety Blitz may be, it is a misguided and paternalistic exercise doomed to failure. The program, launched Wednesday after a rash of pedestrian deaths across the GTA, is flawed in its understanding of how people actually make their way through the city.
Despite what the police would have us believe, we are all jaywalkers. We have no choice; to negotiate the city on foot requires endless street crossing without benefit of traffic light, crosswalk or corner.
The police are now stopping jaywalkers and other pedestrians whose behaviour they don't like to hand out tickets and deliver a lecture on street safety. It's for our own good, of course. Pedestrians are naughty children who must be protected from themselves.
And sometimes we do need to be protected from ourselves. Anyone who saunters into the path of an oncoming streetcar while engrossed in a cellphone conversation is asking for trouble.
But the reality of jaywalking is quite the opposite. In fact, jaywalking can be much safer than crossing at a green light, corner or crosswalk.
That might sound counterintuitive, but the reason is simple: Jaywalkers assume nothing; those crossing legally assume everything.
Pedestrians at a green light take it for granted that vehicles will come to a stop, that drivers turning right or left will see them, and that their right-of-way will be respected. As we know, it's not.
By contrast, jaywalkers look both ways, wait for a break in the traffic and often make eye contact with drivers before proceeding.
The concept of "naked streets," or as the Dutch call them, woonerfs, is based on the same principle. Because street signs have been removed, drivers and pedestrians are forced to pay close attention to each other. Fewer accidents result.
No one should hold their breath waiting for naked streets to appear in Toronto; that's never going to happen. On the other hand, it would be worth employing a bit more subtlety and intelligence than the police have managed. Imposing fines and wagging fingers will accomplish nothing. Deaths will continue.
And let's not forget that the majority of the 14 pedestrians killed by drivers in the last few weeks were doing exactly what the law stipulated. They weren't jaywalking, though they might have been better off had that been the case.
The police response, which is to blame the victim, misses the point and reinforces tired old prejudices against pedestrians.
In recent days, officers have been telling Toronto pedestrians that it doesn't matter if they are in the right; cars are bigger and go faster. But, they remind us, it's pedestrians who get killed, not drivers.
That may be true, but one wonders whether the argument would hold if, for example, we were talking about domestic violence. Husbands tend to be bigger and stronger, so if you're a woman, just stay out of their way. Highly unlikely.
Not all pedestrian deaths are the drivers' fault, but that's not the point. The issue is that we don't share the roads. Simply banning pedestrians from the streets, as the police would like, might please drivers, but even they must occasionally climb out from behind the wheel.
We have learned not to expect too much from the police, but their handling of the pedestrian deaths has revealed a force well behind the times.
"Be smart and be safe," Elmer the Safety Elephant used to say. So far, we have achieved neither.
Well-intentioned though the force's Pedestrian Safety Blitz may be, it is a misguided and paternalistic exercise doomed to failure. The program, launched Wednesday after a rash of pedestrian deaths across the GTA, is flawed in its understanding of how people actually make their way through the city.
Despite what the police would have us believe, we are all jaywalkers. We have no choice; to negotiate the city on foot requires endless street crossing without benefit of traffic light, crosswalk or corner.
The police are now stopping jaywalkers and other pedestrians whose behaviour they don't like to hand out tickets and deliver a lecture on street safety. It's for our own good, of course. Pedestrians are naughty children who must be protected from themselves.
And sometimes we do need to be protected from ourselves. Anyone who saunters into the path of an oncoming streetcar while engrossed in a cellphone conversation is asking for trouble.
But the reality of jaywalking is quite the opposite. In fact, jaywalking can be much safer than crossing at a green light, corner or crosswalk.
That might sound counterintuitive, but the reason is simple: Jaywalkers assume nothing; those crossing legally assume everything.
Pedestrians at a green light take it for granted that vehicles will come to a stop, that drivers turning right or left will see them, and that their right-of-way will be respected. As we know, it's not.
By contrast, jaywalkers look both ways, wait for a break in the traffic and often make eye contact with drivers before proceeding.
The concept of "naked streets," or as the Dutch call them, woonerfs, is based on the same principle. Because street signs have been removed, drivers and pedestrians are forced to pay close attention to each other. Fewer accidents result.
No one should hold their breath waiting for naked streets to appear in Toronto; that's never going to happen. On the other hand, it would be worth employing a bit more subtlety and intelligence than the police have managed. Imposing fines and wagging fingers will accomplish nothing. Deaths will continue.
And let's not forget that the majority of the 14 pedestrians killed by drivers in the last few weeks were doing exactly what the law stipulated. They weren't jaywalking, though they might have been better off had that been the case.
The police response, which is to blame the victim, misses the point and reinforces tired old prejudices against pedestrians.
In recent days, officers have been telling Toronto pedestrians that it doesn't matter if they are in the right; cars are bigger and go faster. But, they remind us, it's pedestrians who get killed, not drivers.
That may be true, but one wonders whether the argument would hold if, for example, we were talking about domestic violence. Husbands tend to be bigger and stronger, so if you're a woman, just stay out of their way. Highly unlikely.
Not all pedestrian deaths are the drivers' fault, but that's not the point. The issue is that we don't share the roads. Simply banning pedestrians from the streets, as the police would like, might please drivers, but even they must occasionally climb out from behind the wheel.
We have learned not to expect too much from the police, but their handling of the pedestrian deaths has revealed a force well behind the times.
"Be smart and be safe," Elmer the Safety Elephant used to say. So far, we have achieved neither.
对，安全是你的，不是司机的。可以想象满街都是jaywalker的情形，那是走国。每个人都以自己的立场为准则的时候，秩序也就不复存在了。
给自己的违法行为找舆论依据来证明自己做得对, 也是醉了.
下次警察警告你的时候, 别忘了把wiki给他看.
那些在路口不看行人横冲直撞的司机在非路口的时候难道就会看行人了吗?
司机在有规则要求要让行人的路口都不让行人, 难道会在非路口有规则禁止行人横穿的地方去让行人吗?
当你横穿马路时, 你会左看右看, 等两边都没车的时候才快速穿过
到了路口你就不管不顾, 直接往前闯吗?
没搞清楚逻辑在哪里.
下次警察警告你的时候, 别忘了把wiki给他看.
那些在路口不看行人横冲直撞的司机在非路口的时候难道就会看行人了吗?
司机在有规则要求要让行人的路口都不让行人, 难道会在非路口有规则禁止行人横穿的地方去让行人吗?
当你横穿马路时, 你会左看右看, 等两边都没车的时候才快速穿过
到了路口你就不管不顾, 直接往前闯吗?
没搞清楚逻辑在哪里.
最后编辑: 2017-05-05
横穿马路还有理了?
脸皮真厚
脸皮真厚
逻辑是，走路口你假定车是停的，左转的不会冲过来，看也很难看4个方向的，而走中间没有任何假定，只要看两个方向，只要安全 gap 足 够。
我父亲在家附近有等灯的路口（有灯但没有专门行人灯），一个左转的车居然没停一直不减速冲过来，他快80岁了还得猛跑一下才避过。那个路口也是经常出事的路口，有路权不等于有命
不是所有的中间都更安全地，当然是case by case的，而设计是为了车能走更快，而并不是出于人的安全。所以，在judge是否安全的时候，往往依赖自己的警惕比依赖指定的方式要可靠。
今天在家附近有灯路口，一个中国小孩开的左转车在对方有直行车辆的情况下一直转到对方车道堵了一小部分才停住，结果看到直行的车都是轰着喇叭经过
警察不错
注册或登录来发表评论
您必须是注册会员才可以发表评论
注册帐号
注册帐号. 太容易了!
登录
已有帐号? 在这里登录.
