[allengeorge]

I think this kind of hand wringing is unpersuasive for policymakers.

I think that’s why - regardless of the advocacy in this thread for changing hearts and minds - only monetary costs or a court decision will really force municipalities to change.

 

[crs1026]

Driving is a very populist activity that takes place in a public, shared space in a comparatively lightly regulated environment. To continue the aviation comparison, according to Transport Canada there were roughly 64,000 licenced pilots in Canada in 2011. According to Statistica, there are approximately 26 million drivers licence holders in Canada.

This is what I was trying to say with my risk vs reward comment. The reality is that the automobile conveys enormous benefits to our society and always has. Its contribution to mobility (a huge factor in the development of a territory as big as North America) and individuality is not to be underestimated - and has impacted both economics and societal attitudes.

So, no surprise that we erred on the side of accepting such substantial risk in order to maximise our gain.

But now our ability to extract value from the auto has maxxed out, as our roads can no longer absorb added demand, or may actually have to be downsized to encourage alternatives….and we are wanting a much less risky envelope.

So we have to make changes. If there is a crafty lawyer out there who can win a precedent, I’m all for that. By all means, mandate new standards and put an onus on all level of road operators to meet these. Driver behaviour is still the lowest hanging fruit, IMhO…… the biggest tragedy is the death toll on roads that are already relatively well engineered.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

I think this kind of hand wringing is unpersuasive for policymakers.

It isn't going to be persuasive.

But getting his with massive lawsuits because of bad design is very persuasive for policymakers.

Some stuff would be hard to win on. But what about bike lines? If it's just as easy to put the bike lane between the cars and the sidewalk (like Danforth and Woodbine), then if someone is killed by a car cycling on Dundas on the outside side of the cars - could the city be sued for millions for choosing clearly dangerous design, for no actual benefit.

 

[allengeorge]

Some stuff would be hard to win on. But what about bike lines? If it's just as easy to put the bike lane between the cars and the sidewalk (like Danforth and Woodbine), then if someone is killed by a car cycling on Dundas on the outside side of the cars - could the city be sued for millions for choosing clearly dangerous design, for no actual benefit.

They’ll just remove the bike lane.

 

[rbt]

They’ll just remove the bike lane.

Agreed.

An improved bike lane may still be a liability; only a future judge at a future case could decide if it was improved enough as there is no firmly identifiable legal threshold for "a safe design". From a legal liability perspective, removing the bike lane is the only option as that is the default recommendation of the province (all roads are covered by highway law and bikes are vehicles).

The other option is to try to force the province to codify a specific bike lane design but if this happens the future will be like transit signals at intersections; the bike lane design will be irritating, outdated (eventually), and nobody will be able to experiment with something better without a waiver from the Minister of Transportation.

 

[DSC]

There are trade-offs in almost everything in life and urban design is no different. In an already-built city, the city ROW has a fixed width (and can only be widened with great difficulty/expense - demolishing buildings etc) so the available ROW space needs to be divided between pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles. Most people think that all streets should have sidewalks (wide enough for wheelchairs etc) and traffic lane(s) and that some streets should also have bike lanes. (I do not think anyone thinks all streets need them.)

The problem arises, as on King, where there is a fairly narrow street, demand for wider sidewalks due to pedestrian volume, desire for space for sidewalk or in-road cafes and a need for at least one traffic lane in each direction. This really leaves little room for a decent bike lane so MAYBE it is better to encourage cyclists to use neighbouring streets (Adelaide & Richmond) which have pretty good (and soon to be improved) bike lanes. The distance/time need to divert from King to Richmond on a bike is negligible. It is not 'negligence' not to put bike lanes on King, it is the result of balancing the demands. Whether the balance is made correctly is a matter of opinion.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Right turns on red has been allowed in Ontario for years. The “right-to-red” laws first started becoming more common in the United States in the 1970s.

From link.

DC Bans Right Turns at Red Lights: Will Other Cities Follow?​

Making a right turn with your car at a red light is a convenient time-saver. Instead of waiting for the light to turn green, a driver can make a right turn when there’s a gap in traffic. It also saves gas. However, this “right-to-red” comes at a cost, for it can lead to injury and death, especially for pedestrians. With this in mind, the District of Columbia recently banned right turns at red lights for nearly all cases starting in 2025.

The original reason for these laws was to reduce fuel consumption following the OPEC oil embargo. Instead of idling their car at a right red light, drivers could make the turn and save gas. For the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, states must “allow rights on red to receive certain federal funds,” as detailed by StreetsBlog.

How we're suppose to turn right on red (insert laugh track here)...

Toronto needs to implement a "no right turn on red" within the city, like Montréal & New York City, and soon the District of Columbia (AKA Washington D.C.).

Would be better if the whole province of Ontario made it "no right turn on red", but with I wouldn't expect with Doug Ford or most auto--addicted automobile disciples in charge.

 

[just east of the creek]

Right turns on red has been allowed in Ontario for years. The “right-to-red” laws first started becoming more common in the United States in the 1970s.

From link.

DC Bans Right Turns at Red Lights: Will Other Cities Follow?​

How we're suppose to turn right on red (insert laugh track here)...

Toronto needs to implement a "no right turn on red" within the city, like Montréal & New York City, and soon the District of Columbia (AKA Washington D.C.).

And the City of Montreal, or at least the island. I've been on about this before, and having just returned again from spending time in the area on business, I can and will say that it works. And compared to Toronto - these city intersections are calmer and safer for all.

 

[W. K. Lis]

A Quick Early History of Toronto’s First Traffic Signals and The ‘Right on Red’ Rule​

From link.

In the first half of the twentieth century, automobiles had quite an impact on the streets of Toronto. In 1913, there were 17,000 cars in Toronto; by 1923, the number grew to about 50,000 cars. New rules and technologies were adopted to better manage and regulate how motorists behaved, especially concerning the other users of the road and their safety.

Traffic Lights: A Most Beneficial System​

On August 8, 1925, Torontonians were introduced to their first set of automated traffic signals. The new ‘semaphores’ were set up at the busy intersection of Yonge Street and Bloor Street on a trial basis and changed the history of Toronto’s streets forever. It was at least three years in the making, with Toronto Chief of Police Samuel J. Dickson advocating for and finally receiving the system in that time.

Before traffic lights, intersections were regulated by traffic policemen. In the 1910s, this was done largely through hand signals, whistles, and yelling. In 1920, a new ‘semaphore’ was piloted (again at Yonge and Bloor) which consisted of the officer controlling a staffed sign with the words “STOP” and “GO” written on them. The officer rotated the sign to control the flow of traffic. If one peruses archival photos of highly trafficked Toronto intersections, it is common to see a police officer amid the action.

The new traffic lights were an overall success. Automated signals were installed on major junctions along Yonge Street, Bloor Street, and Danforth Avenue, and in suburbs such as East York within the next few years after their introduction. As an example of the new semaphores’ impact, The Globe reported in December 1929, the intersection of Bloor Street and Keele Street had an average of 4 or 5 accidents a day before automated signals were installed there in 1927; there were no accidents after that point.

Police Chief Dickson even dreamed of a master tower at Yonge and Queen to control all the lights in the city. The idea became a reality at the end of 1926. There was even synchronicity within the lights: a motorist travelling straight on Danforth Avenue between Main Street and Broadview Avenue in 1928 was able to meet all green lights if he travelled at 19 or 20 miles per hour; any slower or faster, the driver would hit a red light (the speed was 18 miles per hour downtown).

Of course, several early reports indicated that the new lights were not all good. Even the Mayor weighed in, saying to the Police Chief in October 1925 that officers were still stationed at the Yonge and Bloor ‘experiment’, seemingly defeating the Chief’s goal of having the technology free up more policemen from traffic duty. Sometimes they did not function properly or at all, as The Globe reported in July 1928 of the new, often “stuck” Dundas Street East signals. But despite these complaints, the lights were there to stay; 96 signals were installed in Toronto by the end of the 1920s.

The ‘Right on Red’ Rule​

One of the most interesting impacts of the rise and success of traffic lights was a ‘new’ law that permitted a motorist to make a right-hand turn against a signal that would otherwise make him wait at the intersection. This is the ‘right on red’ rule. On March 22, 1927, Police Chief Dickson announced the reinstatement of the permission, indicating that it was actually in effect “some time ago” and the success of the new lights could now allow for it once more. It is unclear what period the rule was previously in place or why it disappeared, although reckless driving at unmanned intersections is a theory for its removal.

The ‘right on red’ permission was not without controversy, even with the police itself. The organization vowed to watch right-turning drivers and warned them to prioritize the safety of pedestrians who had the right of way to cross the street.

In July 1928, new Police Chief D.C. Draper reiterated motorists were allowed to turn right at a “hostile” light, having “regard” of other cars and pedestrians who have the right of way. However, in March 1929, Draper advocated against the rule. In a report by the Traffic Committee, which monitored Toronto streets for more than a month for traffic improvements, the Chief suggested, among other items, the discontinuance of “the present practice of motorists making a right-hand turn against the red light” or “otherwise give them a warning that the pedestrians have the right of way, and that right-hand turns against a red signal are only allowed when care is exercised”. The Board of Control ultimately went against the Chief and retained the rule while reiterated motorists were responsible for pedestrian safety.

Interestingly, in Hamilton, which was the setting of Canada’s first traffic lights just two months before Toronto’s semaphores were installed, the Traffic Committee wanted to abolish the rule which allowed right-hand turns on red lights in 1933. Oddly, it was met with disapproval from the Ontario Department of Highways. The by-law ultimately remained.

Despite many calls in Toronto in the decades since to remove the permission for good, the Highway Traffic Act currently upholds it in Ontario:

To Stop or Not?​

Another interesting question arose on the requirement to stop before turning right. In November 1927, a person writing into The Toronto Daily Star‘s “Voice of The People” section was puzzled by the different standards of when there was a stop sign at an intersection (which he interpreted as ‘stop means stop’) and when there was a policeman with a semaphore (which he interpreted as ‘stop means stop sometimes‘). The editor replied that when an officer was holding the semaphore, he supervises traffic and allows right turns without stopping. When there is no officer, all cars must stop.

Within Toronto City Hall, the issue of drivers legally passing through a red light to turn right was debated for several years. In July 1929, Toronto’s Traffic Committee suggested an amendment of certain by-laws to protect pedestrians, including motorists were to come to a stop before making a right-hand turn against the red light. It did not seem to have made an impact. In December 1933, the idea was raised again, this time proving more successful. The Board of Control favoured a change to the by-law so that every driver must come to a full stop before making a right turn at an intersection controlled by automatic traffic signals. The change seemed to be spurred by complaints that motorists were not heeding the way to pedestrians and “showing no consideration for the pedestrian”. City Council adopted the change on December 12th of the year, subject to approval by the Department of Highways.

Inexplicably, the rule was changed back only four months later. In April 1934, the by-law requiring motorists to make a complete stop before a right turn at a red light was rescinded. The Board of Police Commissioners instructed police officers to safeguard the rights of pedestrians once more.

It is unclear when exactly the law reverted once again, but it seems the matter was not closed. The idea seemed to be backed in other circles, too. In a February 1934 meeting of the Ontario Motor League, a suggestion was advanced that those turning right in the province should come to a full stop at both a red land green light. In 1938, a reader of The Globe and Mail expressed his displeasure in the lack of pedestrian rights in motorists not having to stop before right turns. A decade later, in July 1948, the same newspaper rode along with Toronto Traffic Safety Council Inspector Vernon H. Page in a motor car as he pointed out traffic infractions, including those failing to come to a full stop before a right turn, meaning by this point the law was reinstated.

 

[Undead]

What looked like an Amazon last mile delivery contractor:

 

[TossYourJacket]

What looked like an Amazon last mile delivery contractor:

View attachment 435184

And this is why roads need to have bollards/street furniture frequently along the edges (like the central section of Bloor does with planters, bike racks, benches, trees, garbage cans, etc) so that cars can't use the sidewalk as a goddamn roadway. Don't give them enough of a gap where they can imagine there being a driveway where there isn't one. We can't trust drivers to do the right thing, we have to make it physically impossible for them to pull this crap anymore.

Earlier today a huge truck mounted the sidewalk on my street to drive around a fire truck, because god forbid a fire truck with it's lights on get in his way. This was also in a school zone, but luckily no kids were on the sidewalk at the time.

 

[W. K. Lis]

And this is why roads need to have bollards/street furniture frequently along the edges (like the central section of Bloor does with planters, bike racks, benches, trees, garbage cans, etc) so that cars can't use the sidewalk as a goddamn roadway. Don't give them enough of a gap where they can imagine there being a driveway where there isn't one. We can't trust drivers to do the right thing, we have to make it physically impossible for them to pull this crap anymore.

Earlier today a huge truck mounted the sidewalk on my street to drive around a fire truck, because god forbid a fire truck with it's lights on get in his way. This was also in a school zone, but luckily no kids were on the sidewalk at the time.

If Yonge Street between Finch & Sheppard Avenues had bollards at least at the corners, we may have had a different outcome. See link.

 

[TRONto]

Someone just drove their very rare car into unfinished streetcar tracks in Toronto

While Toronto hasn't had a motorist end up dramatically trapped in a streetcar tunnel lately, one driver is definitely kicking themselves this mornin…

www.blogto.com

Car smashes through the College Streetcar track reconstruction near Kensington Market

 

[Admiral Beez]

Someone just drove their very rare car into unfinished streetcar tracks in Toronto

While Toronto hasn't had a motorist end up dramatically trapped in a streetcar tunnel lately, one driver is definitely kicking themselves this mornin…

www.blogto.com

Car smashes through the College Streetcar track reconstruction near Kensington Market

That looks like my neighbours car. Usually parks on Amelia. I shall walk by this evening to see if it's their car.

 

[lenaitch]

It seems there might be a HTA Fail to Report summons and possibly even a Fil to Remain in someone' future.