The War on Walking: Nova Scotia's ludicrous pedestrian fines

Nova Scotia's crosswalks and intersections are once again in the limelight, once again for all the wrong reasons.

Last week, the Nova Scotia legislature passed Bill 133, which, passed a series of changes to the Motor Vehicle Act. Among other things, it increased the fines in Nova Scotia for breaking the rules related to crosswalks and pedestrian signals to almost $700 (and higher for subsequent offences).

On the face of it, this might seem reasonable. Halifax in particular has been suffering from what seems like an epidemic of crosswalk accidents and other car-pedestrian collisions, with advocates calling for better enforcement of the law. Education campaigns don't seem to have worked. Surely increasing the fines will help with enforcement?

Indeed, that's what the Minister of Transportation seems to think. He says the increased fines are "not about punishment ... , it's about deterring these actions" and that the changes are about shared responsibility and are designed to "save lives". All of which seems reasonable on it's face.

But once you start to dig down, the law looks less reasonable, and less likely to be effective at saving lives.

Bill 133 increased certain fines by making all violations of s. 125 and certain violations of s. 93 of the Motor Vehicle Act into Category G offences, which carry fines of $697.50 for a first offence, $1,272.50 for a second offence, and $2,422.50 for a third offence.

As I've explained elsewhere, Section 125 contains a broad range of rules relating to whether cars or pedestrians have the rights of way in crosswalks and elsewhere. Section 93 deals with the rules for traffic signals, including pedestrian lights. Any violation of the right of way rules in section 125, or a violation of section 93 where a person fails to yield the right of way or, as a pedestrian, proceeds other than when authorized to do so, now carries the nearly $700 fine.

The problem is that these sections include a wide range of offences, some of which are much more dangerous than others. The pedestrian who enters the crosswalk a second or two late (on a flashing hand), even if there is no traffic coming, gets the same fine as the pedestrian who carelessly steps off the curb directly in front of a car. The car that fails to stop at an unmarked crosswalk because they didn't see the person waiting gets the same $700 fine as a car that turns on a red light into a pedestrian-filled crosswalk. The fine is in no way proportional to how dangerous the activity is, or whether or not someone gets hurt.


It's particularly problematic when you start to compare the new fine to other violations of the Motor Vehicle Act, as this table does:

Blowing through a red light or a stop sign will only cost you $180. Texting while driving is $237.50. Speeding by any amount more than 30 km/h, or passing a schoolbus that is unloading is only $410. The "jaywalking" fine of $700 is now comparable to the minimum fine for drunk driving. These are some of the most dangerous driving behaviours, but somehow, the law treats them as less bad than the pedestrian that forgets to push the crosswalk button, even if there is no traffic.

Reality is that the increased fine is not going to deter bad behaviour.  Nova Scotia already had some of the highest fines in the country for intersection violations at $180 and crosswalk violations at $410, compared to fines ranging from $110 to $172.50 in Toronto, Calgary and Moncton. Yet we still had an abysmal rate of crosswalk safety. If the risk of someone getting killed isn't deterrent enough, an increased fine isn't going to change things.


This also ignores research which suggests that the certainty of punishment, and not the severity of punishment, is more likely to deter people. In other words, a lower fine can be just as effective if not more so, as long as you enforce it more often. The more likely people are to get caught, the more likely they are to change their behaviour. Increasing the punishment without changing enforcement does little to nothing.

Yet, if anything, increasing the fine means the law is actually less likely to be enforced. Police were already reluctant to fine drivers or pedestrians for intersection or crosswalk violations when the fines were $180 and $410 respectively, except when someone got hurt. Police will be understandably even more reluctant to administer a $700 fine to people who have committed relatively minor infractions

As I've said before, what's needed isn't increased fines, it's better enforcement of more reasonable fines. Police in Nova Scotia should be instructed to carry out a series of high-profile crosswalk and intersection enforcement blitzes, similar to those used for drunk driving. Fines should be handed out to both pedestrians and drivers that flout the law.

We also need to take a hard look at how we design and maintain our roads, intersections, sidewalks and crosswalks in Nova Scotia. Poor visibility, signals that aren't synchronized or don't work properly, faded lines, poor clearing in winter, and arbitrary and dangerous sidewalk and road closures cause unnecessary delay and frustration for drivers and pedestrians alike, and contribute to some of the "bad behaviour" that we see on our streets. Higher fines don't solve these problems, they are just one more barrier to walking.

As for the changes to the Motor Vehicle Act, these were done with with very little public consultation.  The government should go back to the drawing board, and consult with the public and safety advocates, and come back with suggested changes to address safety issues in a fair and balanced way that is based on a real assessment of the danger that different pedestrian and driving behaviours cause, and an assessment of the actual effectiveness of safety measures. There's no question the current law isn't working. We need to dig a little more deeply to find out why, instead of papering over the problem with more bad laws.

Crosswalk Safety: Part 1: When Everyone's Responsible, No-One's Responsible

Crosswalk safety has been back in the news  recently for a couple of reasons.  First, the last year in Halifax has seen a number of accidents involving pedestrians that have resulted in serious injury and even death.  A few examples include:

• In December 2011, one night saw three seperate vehicle pedestrian crashes which resulted in one fatality.  The driver in that case was charged for failing to yield.
• May 2012 a pedestrian was struck in a hit and run. 
• June 2012, a 60 year old man was killed in crosswalk in Albro Lake.  The driver was ticketed for failure to yield.  The community has since expressed concern about the safety of this crosswalk, which to date has not been addressed.
• In September 2012, A pedestrian struck in a crosswalk on Pleasant Street in Dartmouth later died of his injuries.  It was the second incident in that crosswalk that month.  The driver was ticketed for failure to yield.
• In October 2012, a senior was struck crossing the road in Lower Sackville.  The driver was not charged as the man was not at a crosswalk.
• On November 14, 2012, pedestrians were injured in two separate car/pedestrian collisions.  In both cases, the driver was charged with failure to yield.
• On November 21, 2012,  another pedestrian was killed in a collision in a marked crosswalk. 
• And on December 18/19, 2012, three pedestrians were struck in a 24 hour period in marked crosswalks.

The second reason crosswalk safety has been in the news is the recent decision by the Traffic Authority to remove a number of marked crosswalks in the HRM.  (I will address this in more detail in my next blog post.)

Although the two are not directly connected, they do seem to illustrate a larger disconnect between decisions regarding crosswalks and the on-the-ground reality that drivers and pedestrians are facing.  We are repeatedly told that crosswalk safety is everyone's responsibility: drivers, pedestrians and all users of the road alike.  Yet at the end of the day, who is really responsible?

What is a crosswalk?

A crosswalk is defined in section 2(h) of the Motor Vehicle Act (the "MVA") as: "that portion of a roadway ordinarily included within the prolongation or connection of curb lines and property lines at intersections or any other portion of a roadway clearly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface".  In other words, crosswalks can be marked or unmarked.  And since most intersections in HRM have some gap between curb and property lines, and its not possible to tell where there is one, it is safe to assume that basically every intersection is a crosswalk whether it is marked or not.  

An intersection is anyplace where two roads (be they highways, alleys, or anything in between) join each other at an angle, whether or not one highway crosses the other.   So this applies at T-junctions as well as four (or more) way intersections.

Who has to stop for whom at crosswalks?

The MVA has a number of rules around crosswalks, including at intersections with traffic signals (see s. 93).  Section 125 of the MVA deals with intersections where there are no traffic signals, and states "the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian lawfully within a crosswalk or stopped facing a crosswalk".  In other words, as a driver, you are not only expected to stop for pedestrians already in a crosswalk, but also where a pedestrian is stopped and waiting to cross.  Remember, that responsibility applies whether at a marked crosswalk, or at any intersection without signals.

This section of the MVA goes on to place some responsibility on pedestrians as well, stating that "A pedestrian shall not leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so closely approaching that it is impractical for the driver of the vehicle to stop."  So as a pedestrian, while cars should be stopping for you at crosswalks, that doesn't mean you should be running out in front of them.  The section goes on to say that at crosswalks with pedestrian beacons, the pedestrian shall not leave the curb until the beacon is activated, and that a pedestrian crossing a road other than in a crosswalk has to yield to vehicles.  The Act also provides that none of the above relieves either drivers or pedestrians from exercising "due care".  

What are the penalties?

Failure to obey this section of the MVA can have very serious consequences for both drivers and pedestrians, including a fine of $687.41 on conviction.  Of course failure to obey these laws often results in serious injury or death for the pedestrian, regardless of who is at fault.  As such, it is incumbent on both pedestrians and drivers to be extremely careful at crosswalks, whether marked or unmarked.  

So what's the problem?

In spite of the penalties and the obviously serious consequences, the number of serious accidents above would suggest that many Haligonians (pedestrians and drivers alike) are not taking crosswalk safety seriously enough.  

I use many crosswalks daily, and while most drivers are respectful of marked crosswalks, more days than not I see someone ignore a marked crosswalk altogether.  Most of the accidents described above took place at marked crosswalks.  Further, most drivers seem to be completely unfamiliar with the obligation to stop at an unmarked crosswalk.  Not infrequently, I also see pedestrians entering crosswalks in an unsafe manner.  

Better public education is needed to clarify the rules of crosswalks.  In particular, people need to be made clear on the fact that every intersection is a crosswalk, and that drivers do need to yield to pedestrians, whether they are in the road, or waiting to cross.  However, pedestrians need to be reminded that having the right of way does not mean they should enter the road in an unsafe manner, and they should not be doing so where it is impractical for a driver to stop.

One could also argue that stiffer penalties might be needed.  While a $650 ticket seems like a hefty price for a moment's inattention, it remains a relatively small price compared to a human life, which is often the cost of inattention.

However, laws are only effective if enforced, and I think there has been a lack of attention to enforcement of crosswalk rules.   We should not have to wait for someone to get hit in order for someone to be ticketed, and if someone is hit, other charges beyond failure to yield should be seriously considered.  At the end of the day, clear rules, properly and consistently enforced, are the only way to make the roads safe for all users.

(In my next post, I will talk about the government's role in crosswalk safety, and in particular, the recent decision by the traffic authority to remove several crosswalks in the HRM.)

Of Lawn Signs, Landlords and Tenants ...

With municipal elections fast approaching, some interesting legal questions have come up.  A friend of mine woke up the other day to find an election sign on his lawn which he hadn't authorized.  He phoned the candidate and found out the sign had been authorized by his landlord's mother.

This situation raises some interesting questions.  What right to landlords have to put up election signs on rental properties?  What right do tenants have to stop them?   And what right do tenants have to put up signs of their own?  What about condo owners and condo corporations?

I'll deal with the last question first, as the answer there is somewhat clear.  In Nova Scotia (as in some other jurisdictions), s. 54C of our Municipal Elections Act provides that a landlord cannot "prohibit a tenant from displaying election advertising posters on the premises leased by the tenant".  Similarly, a condo corporation cannot prohibit the owner of a condominium unit from displaying election advertising posters on the premises of that person's unit. 

However, a landlord or condo corporation can "set reasonable conditions relating to the size or type of election advertising posters that may be displayed on the premises and may prohibit the display of election advertising posters in common areas of the building in which the premises are found".  There are similar provisions in both the provincial Elections Act and the Canada Elections Act, so similar rules apply in provincial and federal elections as well.

These provisions have not, to the best of my knowledge, been argued in court in Nova Scotia, so it remains to be seen what kind of restrictions our courts would consider to be "reasonable".

However, it's important to note that the tenant's right is limited to the leased premises.  Most leases make a distinction between the premises actually leased by the tenant, which the tenant generally has the exclusive right to use and occupy, and common areas, such as halls, stairways, driveways, etc., which are used by some or all tenants.  There may also be areas of the landlord's property that aren't covered by the lease at all, such as a front lawn.

For those of you in apartment buildings, the leased premises are usually just the apartment itself.  So you may be able to put a sign in the window (subject to reasonable restrictions on size and type), but not much beyond that.  For those of you leasing entire houses, including the yard, you may be able to put the sign on the front lawn if that is part of the leased premises.  For those of you renting parts of houses or buildings, it is more of a gray area.  In each case, a careful review of your lease to determine what is and isn't included in the leased premises is essential.

As to what right the landlord has to put up an election sign, things are a little less clear.  Elections legislation and the Residential Tenancies Act don't deal specifically with this point, so it will really come down to the specific terms of your lease.  Again, your lease should identify the leased premises, common areas and so forth, and hopefully spells out what rights and responsibilities you and the landlord have with respect to each area.  Generally speaking, the landlord only has limited rights to enter the leased premises, but more rights with respect to common areas, and can do what they want on unleased portions of the property.  So if you live in an apartment, chances are your landlord can't put up an election sign in your apartment, but is likely within their rights to erect an election sign on the front lawn.  If you live in a house, and the leased premises include the whole property, then you likely can prevent the landlord from putting up an election sign on the property. Again, a careful review of your lease will be necessary. 

My friend was ultimately able to resolve the situation by calling his landlord.  And that should generally be your first way of dealing with this issue.  If that fails, you can always contact the residential tenancies program to find out more about your rights and how to assert them.  And, if necessary, you can contact a lawyer to help you interpret your lease.

This blog represents my own personal views and is provided for information purposes.   It is NOT meant to be legal advice.  If you require legal advice, you should consult a lawyer regarding your specific circumstances.