|
|
|
MetroMan
Senior Member
steveintoronto
Superstar
I noticed another developing behaviour, similar to what you describe. It's 'trying to sneak in behind the streetcar' through the intersection, except when the streetcar stops on the other side, the tailbacks of the sneaks block the intersection.
So since the call for a "continuous red light with posted exceptions" has fallen on mostly deaf ears, allow me to propose Plan B, but still allowing the Red Light Camera legislation to work full-tilt, and that's by having a sensor in the streetcar RoW that detects the presence of a stopped streetcar at the stop leeward of the intersection, such that it actuates the red light for that lane for traffic that is following so that it can't enter the intersection, and foul it.
I've actually seen this being done on other systems, can't remember exactly where, perhaps San Diego, perhaps London's Croydon trams. The sensors are really low tech, akin to what's used for sensing cars at intersections where the lights don't change without the presence of a car over one. Cyclists know them all too well, Cherry and Lakeshore being an infamous one (As a cyclist, you could die there waiting until a car stops over one to change the lights. There's not even a pedestrian button there to press, thoughtful of them...).
How can anyone find fault with this proposal, other than the cost of connecting the sensors? (Approx a $M for all intersections concerned).
robmausser
Senior Member
Why is there a green light above the arrowed green light as well?
It should be a red light with the green arrow pointing right.
It should be a red light with the green arrow pointing right.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
It is pretty incredible how entitled drivers in the city can be when it comes to choosing what laws to obey and what not to.
AoD
AoD
TOareaFan
Superstar
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I know, really, who do they think they are?
Cyclists?
(it's a joke.....
Sure - except cyclists (and pedestrians) aren't a ton of steel moving at a good clip - they are primarily the ones of their misfortune should they disobey the law. You know, importance of following rules is proportionate to the impact one can cause logic.
AoD
steveintoronto
Superstar
Pedestrians have right of way when green turn arrow not lit. When lit, pedestrians get "no walk" signal.
Btw:
This is not entirely true, as there's been no budget assigned for this:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...oject-ttc-toronto-police-adjustment-1.4411783
*Most* drivers will comply, but a sizable minority won't. We see them already when the cops *are* there, God knows they're not going to stop when the cop presence leaves...
ShonTron
Moderator
Yes. The red light should be on at all times, with the green/amber arrow being the only times other colours appear on the signal head, with a separate transit signal. I don't think there's anywhere on King Street in this section where right turns aren't allowed on red.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Mostly true, albeit both can and do foul intersections and sometimes with the help of "bike boxes". But that's another issue...
Meantime pedestrians disobeying their signs are a continuing problem. Watched it today at length. It's a lot like cyclists jumping red lights. Everyone complies, until one person doesn't...and then they all flock across oblivious to the order of things, let alone the danger...
steveintoronto
Superstar
You're a man after my own heart. I can't see enforcement working any other way than a constant red with Red Light Camera, and exceptions posted on signs, and with direction arrow signals below the red.
I can find nothing in the legislation that dictates a "Red Light" as having to be sequenced in any way.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I know, really, who do they think they are?
Cyclists?
(it's a joke.....
GET OUT THE PITCHFORKS!
---E
TOareaFan
Superstar
Me said:(it's a joke.....
WislaHD
Superstar
A week after the start of the pilot there has been some mixed results mostly skewing on the positive side of things, I think it is fair to say.
Yet, I don't think that is a vindication of the current design of the pilot. There is a lot to be left wanting. The amount of rule-dodging by cars where possible for instance, is apparent. So is the necessary policing at intersections - is that meant to be permanent? Shouldn't the design be intuitive so as to preclude the need for permanent police presence?
So, given that this is a pilot, I would like to see some changes after a few months in response to some of the design flaws in order to get a fuller picture before the end of the pilot.
For instance, I would like to see some physical barriers at intersections, be it jersey barriers or street furniture, planters, etc., preventing cars from illegally turning or doing otherwise illegal manuevers. I would like to see how essential that is to the success of the pilot objectives compared to the "having faith in Toronto's drivers to follow the rules" approach.
Yet, I don't think that is a vindication of the current design of the pilot. There is a lot to be left wanting. The amount of rule-dodging by cars where possible for instance, is apparent. So is the necessary policing at intersections - is that meant to be permanent? Shouldn't the design be intuitive so as to preclude the need for permanent police presence?
So, given that this is a pilot, I would like to see some changes after a few months in response to some of the design flaws in order to get a fuller picture before the end of the pilot.
For instance, I would like to see some physical barriers at intersections, be it jersey barriers or street furniture, planters, etc., preventing cars from illegally turning or doing otherwise illegal manuevers. I would like to see how essential that is to the success of the pilot objectives compared to the "having faith in Toronto's drivers to follow the rules" approach.
pstogios
Senior Member
Except, the Highway Traffic Act applies to cyclists just as it does to motorists, so when entitled cyclists flout the rules it’s also a violation of that act. Proportionality of collision impact is irrelevant.