Obviously they're doing well disciplining the employees on their own.

They ask that people submit a complaint without alerting the driver en route. Seems reasonable to not agitate the guy driving the 20 ton motor vehicle. But hey, retardation seems to rule the day recently with Fark greenlights.

I went through a couple TSA checkpoints in the last few weeks and they had signs saying that taking photographs could give terrorists information about procedures and security at airports.

They also didn't have a guy to collect bins, so they yelled at everyone to stack bins by themselves. I hate the goddamned TSA.

I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.

tankjr: They ask that people submit a complaint without alerting the driver en route. Seems reasonable to not agitate the guy driving the 20 ton motor vehicle. But hey, retardation seems to rule the day recently with Fark greenlights.

Actually, the only thing retarded is not realizing that the only reason they don't want people snapping pictures of texting drivers, is that the TTC has gotten tons of bad publicity over the last year with these "gotcha" moments. This guy just wants the union to save face and not get any more bad press. Don't be fooled by the head of the union worrying about "agitating" or distracting the driver. If he really cared, they'd fire these employees when caught texting, and not come to their defense and keep him employed.

/takes TTC every day.

10.0.0.1: tankjr: They ask that people submit a complaint without alerting the driver en route. Seems reasonable to not agitate the guy driving the 20 ton motor vehicle. But hey, retardation seems to rule the day recently with Fark greenlights.

It's actually a stupid request.

YOU'RE a stupid request.

Seriously, in what way is it stupid to not piss off the operator of a 20 ton, 65mph death machine? I'm dying to know.

/in much the same way as the people pissing him off would be dying.

So, next month when a TTC driver runs over a stroller because he was texting, will they blame the riders for passively allowing it to happen?

thesubliminalman "Kiss my ass"

My favorite (lame) comeback has always been "sure, which acre would you prefer?"

/hurr

FTA:

"Cameras in the face of operators can escalate a situation that doesn't need to be escalated."

Translation:

Cold hard evidence of improper behavior makes us look bad, harder for us to avoid punishing drivers obviously violating procedure.

Were this here in the state's they'd make it illegal (and or arrest/harass/and bully people while telling them it was even when it WASN'T illegal) but, to their credit, Canadians are a slightly more polite and more rational people.

For now, anyway but I suspect we're at a turning point, globally, where citizens will finally fully revolt against heavy-handed and abusive police tactics or they won't and things will only get worse.

"Frogs in a pot," etc . . . .

bingethinker: tankjr: They ask that people submit a complaint without alerting the driver en route. Seems reasonable to not agitate the guy driving the 20 ton motor vehicle. But hey, retardation seems to rule the day recently with Fark greenlights.

You're either a shill for the union or too retarded to tie your own shoelaces.

Either way, kill yourself.

If the driver is texting on the phone in front of him, he's distracted but still facing forward. If someone snaps his pic, he's distracted and facing the rear of the vehicle. You can't be so tumblingly retarded as to think the former is safer than the latter.

Actually maybe you can. Kindly get more brain damage.

Nuno311: thesubliminalman "Kiss my ass"

My favorite (lame) comeback has always been "sure, which acre would you prefer?"

/hurr

Certainly fitting for that picture. I'd certainly never kick her out of my bed, but yeah, which acre is right.

(Also amusing the way the lighting and the picture works to make it look as if she's got a white rag jammed up her.)

tankjr: bingethinker: tankjr: You can't be so tumblingly retarded as to think the former is safer than the latter.

scratch that. reverse it.

"Dear Government, Please do not photograph me going through your intersections. The flash is very distracting and I'm liable to have a heart attack, hit a streetlight, or slam on the brakes."

AverageAmericanGuy: I went through a couple TSA checkpoints in the last few weeks and they had signs saying that taking photographs could give terrorists information about procedures and security at airports.

They also didn't have a guy to collect bins, so they yelled at everyone to stack bins by themselves. I hate the goddamned TSA.

LOL! I love it when the government trots out the "helping terrorist" line in order to cover up their own incompetency. If they had the slightest worry about that they would just have everyone individually go through a separate room, one at a time.

they said please.

Is tankjr a moron or a troll? He reports, you decide.

Nuno311: thesubliminalman "Kiss my ass"

My favorite (lame) comeback has always been "sure, which acre would you prefer?"

/hurr

yo entire azz?

tankjr: bingethinker: tankjr: They ask that people submit a complaint without alerting the driver en route. Seems reasonable to not agitate the guy driving the 20 ton motor vehicle. But hey, retardation seems to rule the day recently with Fark greenlights.

You're either a shill for the union or too retarded to tie your own shoelaces.

Either way, kill yourself.

If the driver is texting on the phone in front of him, he's distracted but still facing forward. If someone snaps his pic, he's distracted and facing the rear of the vehicle. You can't be so tumblingly retarded as to think the former is safer than the latter.

Actually maybe you can. Kindly get more brain damage.

you know, you can actually take a picture of someone without their knowing. you don't have to be 2 inches away from them.

hell, half the cell phones I see these days have better-quality cameras than my actual camera.

RoyBatty: Nuno311: thesubliminalman "Kiss my ass"

My favorite (lame) comeback has always been "sure, which acre would you prefer?"

/hurr

Certainly fitting for that picture. I'd certainly never kick her out of my bed, but yeah, which acre is right.

(Also amusing the way the lighting and the picture works to make it look as if she's got a white rag jammed up her.)

hahah....didnt notice that.

"It looks like a little angel.....getting farted on."

Or maybe it's blue hot flames?

wedding vegetables: tankjr: bingethinker: tankjr: They ask that people submit a complaint without alerting the driver en route. Seems reasonable to not agitate the guy driving the 20 ton motor vehicle. But hey, retardation seems to rule the day recently with Fark greenlights.

You're either a shill for the union or too retarded to tie your own shoelaces.

Either way, kill yourself.

If the driver is texting on the phone in front of him, he's distracted but still facing forward. If someone snaps his pic, he's distracted and facing the rear of the vehicle. You can't be so tumblingly retarded as to think the former is safer than the latter.

Actually maybe you can. Kindly get more brain damage.

you know, you can actually take a picture of someone without their knowing. you don't have to be 2 inches away from them.

hell, half the cell phones I see these days have better-quality cameras than my actual camera.

If people can take the shots without alerting the driver, great. If the agency to which one submits the complaints is telling you that they don't give any weight to photographic evidence then there is no point. What I took away from the article is that they give credence to non photographic complaints. So you're left with:

A: Take a photo to go with your complaint which has a chance of distracting the (already distracted) driver.
B: Submit a complaint sans photo and do nothing to exacerbate the situation.

Logic would dictate the latter.

additionally, if someone's texting, no matter which direction they're facing, they're still essentially useless as a driver. and someone who's trying to text and drive is going to be way too distracted to pick up on the shutter click sound your camera makes as you photograph him.

/and that's assuming you even have the shutter-click sound enabled in the first place

tankjr: Logic would dictate the latter.

I'd say it's better to get the driver to stop his dangerous activities now rather than next week when his supervisor brings him in for a meeting.

As a citizen of Toronto who uses the TTC on a daily basis, I welcome these gotcha moments. I can tell you from first hand experience that if you call into to the TTC to report something, you will be ignored, and who or whatever you're complaining about will have no consequences!

I can't tell you how many times I've tried to get assistance from TTC employees (e.g., does this bus go to destination I need it to, or how to make my connection, and other similar getting around related questions) and gotten barely a disinterested grunt in return! TTC employees are so protected by their union, that the know they can do whatever the hell they want, with zero accountability.

These "gotcha" moments are now getting high profile exposure in the press, thereby putting political pressure on the TTC and the union to do something about their shiatty service.

So how do they respond? They asking the public not to "bust" them. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

I really hope this opens the flood gates!

God forbid I hurt the feelings of someone who is endangering my life while driving a 20-ton, 65mph death machine. I have every right to record his idiocy and report him.

Fark the TTC and their asinine way of bad PR control.

tankjr: wedding vegetables: tankjr: bingethinker: tankjr: They ask that people submit a complaint without alerting the driver en route. Seems reasonable to not agitate the guy driving the 20 ton motor vehicle. But hey, retardation seems to rule the day recently with Fark greenlights.

You're either a shill for the union or too retarded to tie your own shoelaces.

Either way, kill yourself.

If the driver is texting on the phone in front of him, he's distracted but still facing forward. If someone snaps his pic, he's distracted and facing the rear of the vehicle. You can't be so tumblingly retarded as to think the former is safer than the latter.

Actually maybe you can. Kindly get more brain damage.

you know, you can actually take a picture of someone without their knowing. you don't have to be 2 inches away from them.

hell, half the cell phones I see these days have better-quality cameras than my actual camera.

If people can take the shots without alerting the driver, great. If the agency to which one submits the complaints is telling you that they don't give any weight to photographic evidence then there is no point. What I took away from the article is that they give credence to non photographic complaints. So you're left with:

A: Take a photo to go with your complaint which has a chance of distracting the (already distracted) driver.
B: Submit a complaint sans photo and do nothing to exacerbate the situation.

Logic would dictate the latter.

From the article it doesn't sound like the drivers are noticing the photos in the first place. The organization has received a bit of media attention though. Unlike complaints, media attention doesn't go away simply by clicking the "delete" button on the customer service inbox.

Can't use the bus CCTV system for employee discipline?
Aren't unions wonderful?

10.0.0.1: wedding vegetables: and that's assuming you even have the shutter-click sound enabled in the first place

Now THAT would be retarded.


Some countries (like Australia) have now made it illegal for mobile phones, (cell phones to you 'mericans) to have image capture tones that can be disabled.

tankjr: If people can take the shots without alerting the driver, great. If the agency to which one submits the complaints is telling you that they don't give any weight to photographic evidence then there is no point. What I took away from the article is that they give credence to non photographic complaints. So you're left with:

A: Take a photo to go with your complaint which has a chance of distracting the (already distracted) driver.
B: Submit a complaint sans photo and do nothing to exacerbate the situation.

Logic would dictate the latter.

I have to wonder exactly what you, and the TTC, think is going to happen if a driver does notice you're taking a picture. start swerving erratically to knock you down? shoot you? the worst they could do, I suppose, would be to make you get off the bus, and in that case, you have hard evidence of their wrongdoing rather than a he-said/she-said situation.

Nuno311: Or maybe it's blue hot flames?

Yes, that's exactly what that looks like, thank you.

tbyte: From the article it doesn't sound like the drivers are noticing the photos in the first place. The organization has received a bit of media attention though. Unlike complaints, media attention doesn't go away simply by clicking the "delete" button on the customer service inbox.

If that is the case then I withdraw my objection.

bingethinker: In traffic today I saw a van full of severely retarded people. The guy in the shotgun seat was rocking back and forth, and screaming obscenities.

He's still smarter than you.

Ad Hominem will get you everywhere. You're still retarded for thinking a backwards facing distracted driver is better than or equal to a forward facing distracted driver. Please DO NOT REPRODUCE.

I love how the article ends with:

"Got a photo of a texting TTC driver? Send it to webmas­ter­rat­s­ehtca"

D_S_W: 10.0.0.1: wedding vegetables: and that's assuming you even have the shutter-click sound enabled in the first place

Now THAT would be retarded.


Some countries (like Australia) have now made it illegal for mobile phones, (cell phones to you 'mericans) to have image capture tones that can be disabled.

Wow, Australia is banning everything lately. How do the police even enforce such a law??

D_S_W: Some countries (like Australia) have now made it illegal for mobile phones, (cell phones to you 'mericans) to have image capture tones that can be disabled.

I actually had a phone a few years ago where I couldn't turn off the shutter click. rather annoying, but I can understand the rationale.

/American

Nuno311: thesubliminalman "Kiss my ass"

My favorite (lame) comeback has always been "sure, which acre would you prefer?"

/hurr

which fits well with my referring to lasses with big asses as having "spacious back yards" lol

Hey TTC: Suck it. Suck it long. Suck it hard.

Of course, I am referring to a lollipop or something.

FTA:
Buses have closed-circuit television cameras, but Ross said they cannot be used for disciplinary reasons.

"We have an agreement with the union that they will be used only for police investigations."



Says a lot, that.

tbyte: D_S_W: 10.0.0.1: wedding vegetables: and that's assuming you even have the shutter-click sound enabled in the first place

Now THAT would be retarded.


Some countries (like Australia) have now made it illegal for mobile phones, (cell phones to you 'mericans) to have image capture tones that can be disabled.

Wow, Australia is banning everything lately. How do the police even enforce such a law??

That's the thing with most people, they'll just obey a law without worrying about how it'll be enforced.

Isn't the whole taking pictures thing sort of unnecessary? If they are using the phone to either text or talk, there is a record that can be obtained from the carrier. I can see where they are coming from, since taking a picture could escalate in many situations, whereas you have pretty much the same amount of proof by just taking down and reporting the information that they want.

wedding vegetables: tankjr: If people can take the shots without alerting the driver, great. If the agency to which one submits the complaints is telling you that they don't give any weight to photographic evidence then there is no point. What I took away from the article is that they give credence to non photographic complaints. So you're left with:

A: Take a photo to go with your complaint which has a chance of distracting the (already distracted) driver.
B: Submit a complaint sans photo and do nothing to exacerbate the situation.

Logic would dictate the latter.

I have to wonder exactly what you, and the TTC, think is going to happen if a driver does notice you're taking a picture. start swerving erratically to knock you down? shoot you? the worst they could do, I suppose, would be to make you get off the bus, and in that case, you have hard evidence of their wrongdoing rather than a he-said/she-said situation.

Look. Backward.

Even for an instant is more than I'm comfortable with.

It should not be a violation of the law to photograph a public employee doing their job.

It should be an ass-whuppin' with a rolled-up Constitution delivered by lady Liberty for legislators who make that illegal.

/not making any threats of physical harm
//I'll turn on my camera when you speak to me