News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

And then there are towns in the US that don’t put any signs of any type at backstreet intersections… there are rules for that (it becomes a 4-way yield), and the locals know them, but it takes getting used to.

There are often multiple decision points at a stop or yield sign. I see so many motorists who ignore the yield-to-pedestrian yield point (which is usually the one with the regulatory white line, or at minimum the plane of a sidewalk) and make their stop at the last possible point into the intersectio, presumably because they need to move that far forward to see if the cross street is clear. This puts pedestrians at a disadvantage - for their own safety they yield to the moving vehicle where in the law it should be the motorist yielding to them, a bit of a game of chicken which benefits the in-a-hurry driver.

I suspect that as self driving vehicles advance, the argument will be made that they can actually detect and respond to intersections better than human drivers, and for reasons of vehicle throughput and fuel consumption they should be allowed to roll through controlled intersections when they detect that the way is clear. (If you watch youtube, many AV’s are pretty aggressive at yellow lights… because the computer has a much more accurate calculation of stopping distance and time remaining on the yellow than a human driver can accomplish). But for humans, the rhythm of coming to a complete stop, taking a moment to judge the pedestrian environment, then advancing to the threshold and checking vehicular conflict, is a whole lot safer and error-minimising.

Yield signs enable split second decisionmaking and bad habits… I would say they are more risk than benefit right now.

- Paul
Ya, the observations and decisions that have to be made are a whole lot easier to accomplished from a full stop. I admit that I can do a full stop on my motorcycle without putting my foot down (training) depending on factors such as wind, balance, etc. but agree with The Admiral that putting ones foot down is a visual clue to others.

To me, the prime example of how too many people handle uncontrolled intersections is when the power is down and traffic lights are out. far too many people just sail right through.
 
Wonder how many pedestrians are walking on the streets because of uncleared sidewalks AND breaking the laws of Ontario...

From link.

According to section 179, subsection 1 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act: “Where sidewalks are not provided on a highway, a pedestrian walking along the highway shall walk on the left side thereof facing oncoming traffic and, when walking along the roadway, shall walk as close to the left edge thereof as possible.”
Signs-for-Walking-on-the-Street.jpg
 
It works better where the drivers are more disciplined and less likely to run over pedestrians to get to their destination 10 seconds sooner.

Guess where we lie on that spectrum.

Also, correlation =/= causation
This is just 'not invented here'ism. Europeans are not uniquely enlightened drivers.
 
We spent a month in Rome with the toddler, and I can confirm that drivers in Rome are just as likely to run over a stroller as drivers in Toronto. You have to watch like a hawk everywhere. Driving turns people into assholes who don't care about anyone outside their car, in any country in the world.
 
None that will satisfy you, but that’s not why you're asking is it? It’s a stop sign, just stop. What‘s the big deal?
The problem is not that I think people shouldn’t stop at stop signs, it’s that basically everyone performs rolling stops. And if there is no good evidence to suggest that rolling stops are more dangerous than full stops, then what is the problem?
 
And then there are towns in the US that don’t put any signs of any type at backstreet intersections… there are rules for that (it becomes a 4-way yield), and the locals know them, but it takes getting used to.

There are often multiple decision points at a stop or yield sign. I see so many motorists who ignore the yield-to-pedestrian yield point (which is usually the one with the regulatory white line, or at minimum the plane of a sidewalk) and make their stop at the last possible point into the intersectio, presumably because they need to move that far forward to see if the cross street is clear. This puts pedestrians at a disadvantage - for their own safety they yield to the moving vehicle where in the law it should be the motorist yielding to them, a bit of a game of chicken which benefits the in-a-hurry driver.

I suspect that as self driving vehicles advance, the argument will be made that they can actually detect and respond to intersections better than human drivers, and for reasons of vehicle throughput and fuel consumption they should be allowed to roll through controlled intersections when they detect that the way is clear. (If you watch youtube, many AV’s are pretty aggressive at yellow lights… because the computer has a much more accurate calculation of stopping distance and time remaining on the yellow than a human driver can accomplish). But for humans, the rhythm of coming to a complete stop, taking a moment to judge the pedestrian environment, then advancing to the threshold and checking vehicular conflict, is a whole lot safer and error-minimising.

Yield signs enable split second decisionmaking and bad habits… I would say they are more risk than benefit right now.

- Paul
I agree that simply replacing stop with yield is a bad idea.

Yield signs require additional cues to make drivers pay attention - roundabouts are demonstrably safer than normal intersections despite using yield signs, because in addition to reducing conflict points the geometry of a roundabout forces lower speeds, so drivers have more time to respond, and requires drivers to turn a lot, forcing them to pay attention.

The issue I see with stop signs (and yield signs) is that if the driver is distracted, the sign does nothing to make them slow down or pay attention.

Add in a big speed bump or aggressive chicanes immediately before the intersection, and the driver is forced to slow down and pay attention lest they crash into the chicane or break their suspension and bounce into the air. Once they’re forced to pay attention and slow down to walking speed, does it really matter anymore if they come to a complete stop? Probably not. Just like on a roundabout, yield is probably fine, and as a bonus drivers also get less frustrated.

Such interventions are also cheap - chicanes can just be obstacles (blocks, rocks, maybe planters to be fancy) dropped in the roadway and speed bumps are also cheap, so it doesn’t really matter if we end up removing them in 8 years when all cars are self driving.
 
I agree that simply replacing stop with yield is a bad idea.

Yield signs require additional cues to make drivers pay attention - roundabouts are demonstrably safer than normal intersections despite using yield signs, because in addition to reducing conflict points the geometry of a roundabout forces lower speeds, so drivers have more time to respond, and requires drivers to turn a lot, forcing them to pay attention.

The issue I see with stop signs (and yield signs) is that if the driver is distracted, the sign does nothing to make them slow down or pay attention.

Add in a big speed bump or aggressive chicanes immediately before the intersection, and the driver is forced to slow down and pay attention lest they crash into the chicane or break their suspension and bounce into the air. Once they’re forced to pay attention and slow down to walking speed, does it really matter anymore if they come to a complete stop? Probably not. Just like on a roundabout, yield is probably fine, and as a bonus drivers also get less frustrated.

Such interventions are also cheap - chicanes can just be obstacles (blocks, rocks, maybe planters to be fancy) dropped in the roadway and speed bumps are also cheap, so it doesn’t really matter if we end up removing them in 8 years when all cars are self driving.
Really, 8 years?

Objects "dropped in the roadway" create problems with snow removal and, as we have seen recently, some municipalities struggle with that.
 
Really, 8 years?

Objects "dropped in the roadway" create problems with snow removal and, as we have seen recently, some municipalities struggle with that.

If the “object” caused the plow operator to lose focus on clearing the road, and they swerved and cleared the snowbanks away from the pedestrian portions of the intersection instead….. I might be OK with that. ;-)

Seriously, I wonder why we don’t use more rumble strips. And if a new design raises the crosswalk portion of the intersection, then the plows will have to figure that out.

It’s possible in theory to creep at a very slow speed, slow enough to scan properly and make good decisions… the dwell time before proceeding is sufficient for clear thought and timely reaction, and the speed is slow enough to minimise injury severity. I will admit that I have been critised for doing just this - by friends who drive for a living and know better! The biggest problem with this is that it sends the wrong message to pedestrians, who are (wisely) looking for confirmation that the car is stopping before they step in front of it (as is their right if they have right of way). It can lead to a habit where the driver assumes a right over pedestrians that they don’t have. And, if creeping is allowed, how is a safe speed measured and enforced? Drivers may gradually acclimatise and gravitate to a higher creep speed - bad habits are born from good luck. The safest and most objective way is a bit more conservative - the wheels have to completely stop turning and all forward motion has to cease.

This is not a data based observation, but it’s certainly how I have observed things as a pedestrian and driver.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
If the “object” caused the plow operator to lose focus on clearing the road, and they swerved and cleared the snowbanks away from the pedestrian portions of the intersection instead….. I might be OK with that. ;-)

Seriously, I wonder why we don’t use more rumble strips. And if a new design raises the crosswalk portion of the intersection, then the plows will have to figure that out.

It’s possible in theory to creep at a very slow speed, slow enough to scan properly and make good decisions… the dwell time before proceeding is sufficient for clear thought and timely reaction, and the speed is slow enough to minimise injury severity. I will admit that I have been critised for doing just this - by friends who drive for a living and know better! The biggest problem with this is that it sends the wrong message to pedestrians, who are (wisely) looking for confirmation that the car is stopping before they step in front of it (as is their right if they have right of way). It can lead to a habit where the driver assumes a right over pedestrians that they don’t have. And, if creeping is allowed, how is a safe speed measured and enforced? Drivers may gradually acclimatise and gravitate to a higher creep speed - bad habits are born from good luck. The safest and most objective way is a bit more conservative - the wheels have to completely stop turning and all forward motion has to cease.

This is not a data based observation, but it’s certainly how I have observed things as a pedestrian and driver.

- Paul
Agree. It evolves from a 'rule of the road' issue to a 'right of way' issue. Provided nobody's right of way is directly interfered with at the time, what qualifies as a safe rolling stop speed? It becomes totally subjective, which is unenforceable unless someone's right of way is actively observed at the time.

It is somewhat similar to 'follow too closely'. Unless there is a collision, most courts will toss charges because of the "reasonable and prudent" subjective wording of the section, so cops stopped trying. Even with commercial vehicle headway - where there is an actual distance value (60m if over 60kph) between CMVs, enforcement is minimal.
If safe road design and ease of snow removal are in conflict, the former should take precedence. Large snowfalls happen a handful of times per year. Dangerous driving caused by bad road design happens every day.
Agree, I just don't feel plunking down things like rocks and planters in the roadway is a safe road design - for anybody. A tonne or two or something sitting in the roadway covered in snow, however infrequent, is unsafe.

We have a new traffic circle/roundabout near here that has a chicane baked into the design on the directions that approach from downhill 80kph and 60kph zones, which forces drivers to slow down. It seems to be working quite well.
 
...roundabouts are demonstrably safer than normal intersections despite using yield signs, because in addition to reducing conflict points the geometry of a roundabout forces lower speeds, so drivers have more time to respond, and requires drivers to turn a lot, forcing them to pay attention.
If you're not paying attention it doesn't matter what sign, light or intersection type you're coming to. You're just going to proceed on through.

 
Don't think this has been posted yet; if has, my apologies.

The City has agreed to move ahead with a study of Avenue road from Bloor to St. Clair with an eye to safety improvements/traffic calming.

They are examining both a 'reconstruction scenario' as the ideal; and interim/phased improvements before then.

I suspect this will merit its own thread in due course; but at this point, I'll just deposit the link to the study here:

 

Back
Top