[Tunafish13]

Why doesnt the city just remove the green circle for the traffic signal altogether and just replace it with a green right arrow (the only turn you are allowed to do)? The transit signal and bike signal are separate, so a driver should be able to instinctively see that they can only turn right.

 

[max]

Why doesnt the city just remove the green circle for the traffic signal altogether and just replace it with a green right arrow (the only turn you are allowed to do)? The transit signal and bike signal are separate, so a driver should be able to instinctively see that they can only turn right.

The current traffic signal already has a green arrow in the bottom position. Replacing the 4 signal box with a 3 signal box just to remove the green light that no longer illuminates is a labour cost (I'm sure they can and do reuse the hardware elsewhere) that I totally support them not incurring.

 

[reaperexpress]

Why doesnt the city just remove the green circle for the traffic signal altogether and just replace it with a green right arrow (the only turn you are allowed to do)? The transit signal and bike signal are separate, so a driver should be able to instinctively see that they can only turn right.

Because a green turn arrow means that pedestrians cannot have a walk light to cross the street. I don't understand why I need to keep explaining this, surely everyone with a drivers' license should know what a green arrow means.

 

[Northern Light]

Because a green turn arrow means that pedestrians cannot have a walk light to cross the street. I don't understand why I need to keep explaining this, surely everyone with a drivers' license should know what a green arrow means.

Ya know, I rarely differ from you; but here I will.

I don't think that's common knowledge at all.

I think to most people, the full green circle and a green arrow of whatever description are the same thing.

ie. flashing green or green arrow pointing left are interchangeable and full circle green or a straight arrow are the same.

and likewise a green arrow pointing right reads to most as permission to turn right, or direction to turn right, but I don't think they would associate it /pedestrian or walk indicators.

UT'ers familiar w/this thread, and your comments should perhaps know better, but most people in the world aren't UT'ers; we're the centre of universe, most people are on the periphery. LOL

Sure, most people should be smarter. But let's remember, driver training in Ontario is optional. The passing mark for the written driver's test is 80%; that means 20% wrong is acceptable, and the test is hardly comprehensive or challenging.

 

[Tunafish13]

Because a green turn arrow means that pedestrians cannot have a walk light to cross the street. I don't understand why I need to keep explaining this, surely everyone with a drivers' license should know what a green arrow means.

Says who? You could have a solid red and then a green right turn arrow AND have a pedestrian signal that would allow crossing. There doesnt seem to be any law preventing a pedestrian from crossing on a right pointing arrow, given that the pedestrian signal is also showing a walk signal.

I'm no lawyer, but I looked up the relevant HTA sections I think would apply, please correct me if I am wrong. (link: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08)

Green arrow​

(14) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing one or more green arrow indications only or in combination with a circular red or circular amber indication and facing the indication may proceed only to follow the direction shown by the arrow. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (14).

Pedestrian — stopping at flashing green light​

(24) No pedestrian approaching a traffic control signal and facing a flashing circular green indication or a solid or a flashing left turn arrow indication in conjunction with a circular green indication shall enter the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (24).

Pedestrian — stopping at red or amber light​

(25) No pedestrian approaching a traffic control signal and facing a red or amber indication shall enter the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (25).

Pedestrian control signals — walk​

(26) Where pedestrian control signals are installed and show a “walk” indication, every pedestrian facing the indication may cross the roadway in the direction of the indication despite subsections (24) and (25). R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (26).



You may argue that section 25 bypasses all of this and that simply "if it is red, you cannot cross", but then how do you explain the advance walking symbols that have been installed across the city in the past few years? The light is clearly red when the walk signal is turned on, and it only turns green after a few seconds. If the city is willing to be loose with that rule, then what is stopping them from implementing something similar?

Another argument would be that taxi's and deliveries are allowed after a certain time, so why not just leave the solid green on during the day? I mean the argument from before about unnecessary labour is very valid, but could also be solved with programming very easily. Simply have the solid greens active during the hours that deliveries and taxi's are allowed to do so, and dont have it active during the day. You may have some confusion about the solid greens during the evening/night, but thats a much smaller percentage than who it would be effecting during all hours of the day.

 

[turbanplanner]

we're the centre of universe, most people are on the periphery. LOL

Truer words haven't been spoken here in a long time

 

[reaperexpress]

Says who? You could have a solid red and then a green right turn arrow AND have a pedestrian signal that would allow crossing. There doesnt seem to be any law preventing a pedestrian from crossing on a right pointing arrow, given that the pedestrian signal is also showing a walk signal.

I'm no lawyer, but I looked up the relevant HTA sections I think would apply, please correct me if I am wrong. (link: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08)

Green arrow​

(14) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing one or more green arrow indications only or in combination with a circular red or circular amber indication and facing the indication may proceed only to follow the direction shown by the arrow. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (14).

Pedestrian — stopping at flashing green light​

(24) No pedestrian approaching a traffic control signal and facing a flashing circular green indication or a solid or a flashing left turn arrow indication in conjunction with a circular green indication shall enter the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (24).

Pedestrian — stopping at red or amber light​

(25) No pedestrian approaching a traffic control signal and facing a red or amber indication shall enter the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (25).

Pedestrian control signals — walk​

(26) Where pedestrian control signals are installed and show a “walk” indication, every pedestrian facing the indication may cross the roadway in the direction of the indication despite subsections (24) and (25). R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (26).



You may argue that section 25 bypasses all of this and that simply "if it is red, you cannot cross", but then how do you explain the advance walking symbols that have been installed across the city in the past few years? The light is clearly red when the walk signal is turned on, and it only turns green after a few seconds. If the city is willing to be loose with that rule, then what is stopping them from implementing something similar?

It would be colossally negligent to display a green arrow that conflicts with an active crosswalk. Doing so tells pedestrians that they have the right of way, while also telling the conflicting drivers that they have the right of way. That is a recipe for a collision and in this situation, the pedstrian will always be the one who gets injured or killed.

If you want an arrow and a walk light on at the same time, it needs to be a flashing yellow arrow, not a green arrow. That would indicate "proceed with caution" and the ordinary rules of an (unsignalized) intersection would implicitly apply, meaning that turning drivers need to yield to pedestrians.

The HTA does not explicitly assign right of way at traffic signals, it merely defines the directions they can proceed. The assumption is that traffic engineers have designed the signal phasing such that people can proceed safely according to their driver's training. Not everything that you are tested on in the G1 test is a law. Engineers also need to take into account that people do not drive based on the technical wording of the HTA, they drive based on their previous experience with roads in Ontario:

Specifically, drivers are explicitly instructed that a green arrow tells them that conflicting traffic will face a red light. The HTA can't tell people to turn blindly because even with the right-of-way a driver entering the intersection must yield to traffic already legally in the intersection (e.g. an elderly pedestrian who is still crossing from the previous pedestrian phase).

https://www.ontario.ca/document/official-mto-drivers-handbook/traffic-lights

Installing a green arrow that conflicts with an active crosswalk would be grosslly negligent and there's no point even discussing it because no engineer in Ontario would ever sign off on such a dangerous combination of indications.

 

[nfitz]

It would be colossally negligent to display a green arrow that conflicts with an active crosswalk. Doing so tells pedestrians that they have the right of way, while also telling the conflicting drivers that they have the right of way and it will definitely cause pedestrians to be frequently be hit by turning motor vehicles.

Indeed!

The green arrow tells car drivers they have right of way.

The walk symbol tells pedestrians they have right of way.

I'd think any one who signs off in having them conflict would face professional misconduct, possibly being personally responsible if someone sued after the obvious happened. The city is incredibly sensitive to this. If you report that a pedestrian signal is malfunctioning and showing it's okay to walk when it's green in another direction, they treat it as an emergency.

Meanwhile the green circle gives a false impression that cars might go straight through.

The only signal that makes sure that cars don't go through, is to leave the traffic light red, 24/7. And then cars can turn right.

Though I a green circle with a big huge flashing no-entry signs would help. (with a little sign underneath, noting the exceptions of TTC vehicles, bikes, and Taxis late at night).

Also much clearer solid red paint on the tracks at the intersection, clearly guiding cars to the side lane. And right-hand turn lane signs:

 

[reaperexpress]

I don't think that's common knowledge at all.

I think to most people, the full green circle and a green arrow of whatever description are the same thing.

ie. flashing green or green arrow pointing left are interchangeable and full circle green or a straight arrow are the same.

and likewise a green arrow pointing right reads to most as permission to turn right, or direction to turn right, but I don't think they would associate it /pedestrian or walk indicators.

UT'ers familiar w/this thread, and your comments should perhaps know better, but most people in the world aren't UT'ers; we're the centre of universe, most people are on the periphery. LOL

Sure, most people should be smarter. But let's remember, driver training in Ontario is optional. The passing mark for the written driver's test is 80%; that means 20% wrong is acceptable, and the test is hardly comprehensive or challenging.

If you watch typical drivers at an intersection (not transport enthusiasts, just those untrained idiots you describe), it is very clear that they treat green arrows differently than green circles. When a green left turn arrow comes on, they quickly accelerate into the intersection. If a driver encounters a pedestrian on a conflicting crosswalk, there's a good chance they will honk at the pedestrian, because their previous experience has told them that conflicting pedestrians will all face Don't Walk indications.

In contrast, if a green circle comes on, the left turning cars slowly roll forward into the intersection because they know they need to yield to other traffic such as pedestrians and oncoming vehicles.

 

[afransen]

Some updates to HTA would be nice, to enable clearer signalization on corridors such as King. Absent having wardens on each intersection to correct deliberate or accidental misinterpretations, it seems a better idea just to ban through movements for taxis, etc.

 

[Dan416]

I fully support the always red traffic lights on King.

It's the exceptions which add to the confusion, and the added traffic lights especially adding to the confusion.

I totally agree that the need to read signage at these kind of intersections is not good design.

Why don't they just mount the bicycle signals lower and skip the signage since it's not needed anymore?

The taxi / TTC / exception lights are still a problem though. The transit signal issue could "easily" be solved by allowing all the world standard traffic signals. But then you're still left with the stupid taxi exemption, which they should just eliminate.

 

[reinventingthewheel]

Imagine flexi posts positioned like this with some kind of slim signage attached. Would be a good early warning to drivers to move into the right lane.

Could be one of the cheapest temporary measures, considering the future reconstruction of the street. I’d definitely also like to see a solid coat of paint over the tracks here.

 

[ShonTron]

Drivers are increasingly ungovernable. I drive on occasion and I’m seeing more “Pittsburgh lefts” where a driver will rush the green light to make a left turn before oncoming traffic is able to clear the intersection.

Motorists are becoming increasingly aggressive and callous on Toronto streets and highways.

 

[turini2]

Drivers are increasingly ungovernable. I drive on occasion and I’m seeing more “Pittsburgh lefts” where a driver will rush the green light to make a left turn before oncoming traffic is able to clear the intersection.

Motorists are becoming increasingly aggressive and callous on Toronto streets and highways.

Mm... not sure if it's the same in Toronto, but there's been a noticeable worsening of behaviour since the pandemic. Drivers not using or obscuring number (licence) plates, especially...

 

[Jonny5]

Mm... not sure if it's the same in Toronto, but there's been a noticeable worsening of behaviour since the pandemic. Drivers not using or obscuring number (licence) plates, especially...

There is a large fake plate market going now too.