Updates from September, 2024 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 17:44 on 2024-09-12 Permalink | Reply  

    Fines for dangerous driving have almost doubled in Montreal in the first half of 2024 compared to the previous year.

     
    • Ephraim 19:33 on 2024-09-12 Permalink

      But there is a quote… “En menant des opérations de prévention et de répression, le SPVM veut agir sur les comportements des usagères et des usagers du réseau routier”, a déclaré par écrit Caroline Labelle, chargée de communications à la Division des communications du SPVM.

      In other words, the police are in fact seeking to give out more dangerous driving tickets. So, in other words, the statistic means NOTHING because they intentionally gave our more dangerous driving tickets and influenced the statistic. Not that police statistics generally mean much, since they are manipulated so much anyway.

    • Ian 08:37 on 2024-09-13 Permalink

      Justifying the grotesquely inflated police budget by actually enforcing the law like cops in other cities manage to do without such a ridiculous per capita spend? Masterful misdirection on Dagher’s part, it’s only a shame we aren’t a pack of idiots like he hoped.

    • Ephraim 12:18 on 2024-09-13 Permalink

      All police statistics wouldn’t pass the muster of any decent statistician. You want grand larceny to go down, classify them as robberies under the $ limit. Want drug possession charges to go down, don’t bother enforcing, or try getting citizens to stop complaining by telling them that it’s useless. And of course the most important fact, reported crime does not equal actual crime. Banks don’t bother forcing you to report your stolen CC, they just write it off and issue a new one. A crime happened, but since it wasn’t reported, it’s not part of a real statistic. (Government would need to pass a law requiring banks to have a police file number to write off losses, to get it all put on the books…. but government doesn’t have an interest in ensuring that all crime is reported either.) And of course rape is one of the least reported crimes and men who are raped are still ridiculed, so almost none of them report it.

    • Joey 14:18 on 2024-09-18 Permalink

      I’m surprised the story from Maxime Bergeron didn’t get more traction: https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/chroniques/2024-09-16/tickets-en-chute-libre-des-policiers-du-spvm-inquiets.php

      Basically he’s got a couple of anonymous insider police sources who explain how the city basically dismantled its traffic cop division and has functionally stopped policing bad driving.

      Read it and keep it in mind next time politicians respond to another pedestrian fatality with platitudes about system design and traffic-calming…

  • Kate 17:34 on 2024-09-12 Permalink | Reply  

    Two young men face charges of first‑degree murder in the killing of two men in St‑Michel in July. One of the accused is only 15 years old.

     
    • Kate 16:57 on 2024-09-12 Permalink | Reply  

      The city is buying Ray-Mont off, and protecting the boisé Steinberg.

       
      • Kate 10:05 on 2024-09-12 Permalink | Reply  

        Portland, Oregon’s street magazine profiles L’Itinéraire with praise and admiration. L’Itinéraire marked its 30th anniversary this year.

         
        • DeWolf 17:51 on 2024-09-12 Permalink

          Nice story. I’ve never actually bought anything from the Roundhouse in Cabot Square but I’ll give it a try next time I pass by.

          Also, if you don’t have any cash on you, you can still buy an issue of L’Itinéraire by sending a text message, after which you will receive a link to a digital copy.

        • Kate 08:52 on 2024-09-13 Permalink

          I’ve never even tried bannock. It might be time.

        • SMD 10:23 on 2024-09-13 Permalink

          The Roundhouse bannock is delicious! Highly recommend. Friendly service, too.

        • EmilyG 13:03 on 2024-09-13 Permalink

          I’ve enjoyed coffee from Roundhouse.

      • Kate 10:00 on 2024-09-12 Permalink | Reply  

        Shortly after a recommendation that the city should make sports facilities affordable and accessible, the Claude Robillard centre started making its users pay for parking, which had been free there since it opened in the 1970s.

        This echoes recent groans about the parking at Royalmount also costing money, but surely if you’re buying Gucci, a few bucks for parking isn’t going to hurt you.

         
        • marko 10:11 on 2024-09-12 Permalink

          Paid parking at Claude-Robillard Centre isn’t so much a cash grab as it is a cleverly disguised “motivation fee” to stop you from setting up camp in a prime spot all day. I’ve been going there for years, and believe you me, parking is a sport – everyone’s competing for a spot like it’s the track and field finals.

        • Kate 10:42 on 2024-09-12 Permalink

          Really, 450 parking spots is not enough?

        • Ian 11:06 on 2024-09-12 Permalink

          According to the wikipedia page it’s a 6,500 seat stadium. I’m sure marko can speak more to how full it gets than I can.

          As far as paid parking at Royalmount goes, well, there’s always Rockland if you want free parking …

        • Kate 11:17 on 2024-09-12 Permalink

          I had the impression Claude Robillard was used more for various kinds of athletic training than matches attracting 6,500 people, but I could be wrong.

        • Major Annoyance 11:20 on 2024-09-12 Permalink

          … in a Victor Prus-designed parking structure to boot.

        • jeather 11:20 on 2024-09-12 Permalink

          It’s the main training for elite (international) athletes in some sports (swimming, maybe others, don’t know), who often get there before the metro opens and aren’t exactly getting a lot of funding for a new parking cost. I’m not against the parking costs, but some people probably should have free parking passes.

        • JP 11:32 on 2024-09-12 Permalink

          I work next door to Royalmount and can see the parking lot from my office. What’s annoying is that any potentially “free” spot nearby is taken up because nobody wants to pay to go there, while their lot is EMPTY. I would rather people just park in there; so that the surrounding streets are not so congested.

          But I realize free parking may encourage more people to come which would add to traffic so there’s no winning really…

        • Meezly 11:53 on 2024-09-12 Permalink

          I don’t own a car nor have driven to malls much since I’ve been in Montreal. I remember when a new shopping centre opened in downtown Vancouver 20+ years ago, they made it easy that if you had a receipt from a shop, food counter or cinema, parking was free. Otherwise you’d pay their rates when you leave the parkade. Don’t they have something similar at Royalmount? maybe their system is not very efficient?

          In any case, driving is a privilege, not a right. So I’m not exactly sympathetic to car owners who’re willingly going to Royalmount to shop at Gucci.

        • Kate 11:55 on 2024-09-12 Permalink

          I haven’t read whether the Royalmount stores can offer parking deals, but they’ve said only half the storefronts are operating so far. Maybe it will change when the whole thing opens up.

        • jeather 12:18 on 2024-09-12 Permalink

          I’m sure there will be some ability to validate parking, but it’s all a little shambolic — you get a free extra half hour of parking if you use their app, which doesn’t exist yet. Alexis Nihon charges for parking as well, though they validate if you spend enough overall — though Alexis Nihon is in a much more parking desert area.

          The thing that does surprise me is that the parking rates at Royalmount are the same for weekdays and weekends.

        • SMD 12:23 on 2024-09-12 Permalink

          La Presse wrote this last week about Royalmount: « Au cours d’une visite réservée aux médias, les promoteurs du projet ont également laissé entendre que certains détaillants offriraient la possibilité de rembourser, à tout le moins en partie, la facture de stationnement de certains clients qui viendraient dépenser chez eux. »

        • Kate 08:53 on 2024-09-13 Permalink

          Sure. $3000 for a Gucci bag and you get $10 back on parking. The weird thing is that this works on people.

        • Joey 16:00 on 2024-09-13 Permalink

          People do not want to pay for parking or shipping. You might hesitate to spend $20 online if there’s a $2 shipping charge. You would be more eager to spend $22 if shipping was included. And if shipping is free starting at $35, you’ll spend half an hour shopping for something you *do not need* to save the two bucks.

        • Orr 10:47 on 2024-09-16 Permalink

          Bicycle parking is still free.
          At both Claude-Robillard & Royalmount.

      • Kate 09:30 on 2024-09-12 Permalink | Reply  

        A man was killed by a driver in a downtown alley Wednesday night. CTV headlines their version 74 year-old man dies after collision with vehicle which, at best, is an odd way of putting it, given that Radio‑Canada reports that the man was already lying on the ground. TVA specifies that the driver didn’t see him.

         
        • Blork 15:35 on 2024-09-12 Permalink

          TVA also refers to the victim as pedestrian (piéton). Are you a pedestrian if you’re laying on the ground?

          I’m not taking the piss, I’m asking legitimately (for lexicographical reasons, as one does). This seems like a shortcoming based on seeing people as either (a) driver, (b) cyclist, (c) pedestrian and nothing else, which is likely a traffic reporter’s flaw. But if I’m laying on my sofa watching reruns of “Friends” am I a pedestrian? (My tastes certainly would be, but that’s a separate conversation.) If I’m sitting on my front step and a car jumps the curb and plows into me, am I a pedestrian?

          Maybe they should have just said “person.”

        • jeather 16:35 on 2024-09-12 Permalink

          I assume the man in the alley had been a pedestrian and tripped and fell. I think if you are going somewhere by foot you are a pedestrian during the portion of your trip that is on foot, but not if you are just hanging out on your porch. But then if you are walking and taking a break on a street bench, are you a pedestrian? Maybe if you are on a sidewalk or street or the like you are a pedestrian.

        • Joey 17:00 on 2024-09-12 Permalink

          Something I learned recently: it’s forbidden to drive through an alley to bypass a street. In theory, you are not allowed to enter an alley at one end and exit at another (say, to avoid traffic or a red light). Alleys are often badly lit and not intended to serve as ‘service roads’ – even more so downtown. I don’t doubt that the driver didn’t see the man; I wonder if he should have been driving there in the first place (though of course there are lots of legit reasons to be driving in an alley), Seems like that alley serves as a backdoor delivery/trash pickup for buildings on MacKay and Bishop, and possibly some parking lots as well.

        • Ian 17:41 on 2024-09-13 Permalink

          Yeah it’s the same rule as cutting across a corner parking lot at, say, a gas station to avoid waiting for the light. Before long it’s become a regular thing and people trying to use the space for the purposes it was meant for simply can’t. Discouraging shortcuts is a big part of planning, and another good reason for green alleys to have bollards that can only be moved for emergency access..

      c
      Compose new post
      j
      Next post/Next comment
      k
      Previous post/Previous comment
      r
      Reply
      e
      Edit
      o
      Show/Hide comments
      t
      Go to top
      l
      Go to login
      h
      Show/Hide help
      shift + esc
      Cancel