[EastYorkTTCFan]

But in Ontario, our far-side signals mean that we cannot use this reduction factor, because there is a very real possibility that someone stops too far forward and therefore takes less time than we calculated to reach the intersection after the start of green. If there were only near-side signals, that wouldn't an issue because if a car stops too far forward, the driver can't see the signals anyway.

It's not just Ontario though far side signals are the standard across north America so changing one province would affect more then just us. We would have confused Americans or poel from other provinces that don't know where to look for the lights. Just because they do things in europe doesn't mean we have to do everything they do, for example the drive on the left in the UK should we switch to doing that well we are changing the traffic lights as well?

 

[W. K. Lis]

In Europe, they sometimes have STOP signs along with a near side traffic signal. It's in case the traffic light goes out, then they have to treat the intersection as a stop.

Maybe here in Canada (and North America) we should add a far-side stop sign at traffic intersections, if we must follow our rules. In fact, maybe we should have far-side stop signs at intersections, for the same reasons because we use far-side traffic signals.

 

[reaperexpress]

It's not just Ontario though far side signals are the standard across north America so changing one province would affect more then just us. We would have confused Americans or poel from other provinces that don't know where to look for the lights. Just because they do things in europe doesn't mean we have to do everything they do, for example the drive on the left in the UK should we switch to doing that well we are changing the traffic lights as well?

Read this part of the post you're quoting:

Note that despite the above, I don't think we should switch to near-side signals - it's a matter of cost. It would take billions if not trillions of dollars to convert every traffic signal in North America to near-side-only, given the number of signals and the cost of pole and utility relocation.

 

[reaperexpress]

In Europe, they sometimes have STOP signs along with a near side traffic signal. It's in case the traffic light goes out, then they have to treat the intersection as a stop.

Maybe here in Canada (and North America) we should add a far-side stop sign at traffic intersections, if we must follow our rules. In fact, maybe we should have far-side stop signs at intersections, for the same reasons because we use far-side traffic signals.

In Ontario (and probably most places in North America) it is a general law that when a signal is blank, it has the same meaning as a stop sign. It is therefore unnecessary and potentially confusing to put a physical STOP sign at traffic signals. For minor malfunctions or deliberate deactivation, we have the option of flashing Yellow or flashing Red, which allows us to operate signals as all-way or two-way stop controlled intersections as well, without the need for physical signs.

 

[Momin]

Front page update:

The City of Toronto has issued an RFP for an Adaptive Traffic Signal Solution, commonly referred to as Smart Signals. The RFP is intended to provide a 30-intersection pilot project in late 2017, looking to make roads move faster.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I've never understood why we have green traffic signals directing traffic the wrong way up one way streets. Instead there should be directional green lights, directing left and right turn.

 

[ShonTron]

I've never understood why we have green traffic signals directing traffic the wrong way up one way streets. Instead there should be directional green lights, directing left and right turn.

The reason for that is that the "green ball" - the general green signal - allows all permitted movements, without giving right-of-way to motorists making right or left turns. So at a T-intersection where through traffic is not permitted to turn, they get the straight-through green arrow. But at an intersection where motorists can turn right, but not left (or vice versa) there's only a green ball - having green arrows for straight through and on right or left indicates that the traffic can turn without yielding to opposing traffic or pedestrians.

I do think that the signal on the side of the prohibited turn should have a straight green arrow, and the side where the turn is permitted to have a general green ball. But I guess some might find that confusing.

I also think that dedicated left (or right) turn protected signals should have amber and red arrows too (rather than amber and red balls), like many US and international signals.

 

[mind_the_gap]

In Europe, they sometimes have STOP [or YIELD] signs along with a near side traffic signal. It's in case the traffic light goes out, then they have to treat the intersection as a stop.

This isn't the case at all. The purpose of these yield and stop signs is so that the traffic signal can be switched to either a flashing yellow or red, for quieter times of the day when the traffic/pedestrian volumes are minimal (eg. at night).

I also think that dedicated left (or right) turn protected signals should have amber and red arrows too (rather than amber and red balls), like many US and international signals.

This really bothers me in Ontario, especially since we already use amber arrows on signals where you can still turn on a green. When I first started driving, I made several (illegal) left turns because I simply didn't understand that the red ball meant don't turn, despite through traffic having a green light. All that confusion could've been avoided by the use of a red and amber arrow.

I can imagine how confusing these left turn signals are for tourists.

 

[muller877]

This isn't the case at all. The purpose of these yield and stop signs is so that the traffic signal can be switched to either a flashing yellow or red, for quieter times of the day when the traffic/pedestrian volumes are minimal (eg. at night).
.

So in Europe they add a yield? the added traffic signs create confusion. I like Vancouver's solution. Off peak they have flashing red/green. Flashing red acts like a stop sign (you can proceed when the road is clear). Flashing green is just a warning light (you have the right of way). And the flashing red may change if you stay on the activation sensor for a while if there is too much traffic.

We should do this in Toronto. there are way too many lights at secondary roads that are only sensor activated and cause slow downs in traffic.

 

[ShonTron]

So in Europe they add a yield? the added traffic signs create confusion. I like Vancouver's solution. Off peak they have flashing red/green. Flashing red acts like a stop sign (you can proceed when the road is clear). Flashing green is just a warning light (you have the right of way). And the flashing red may change if you stay on the activation sensor for a while if there is too much traffic.

We should do this in Toronto. there are way too many lights at secondary roads that are only sensor activated and cause slow downs in traffic.

That's not Vancouver's solution. The green flashing lights (a slow flash) at intersections there simply mean it's am exclusively pedestrian/cyclist activated traffic light, a different meaning than flashing greens here (a rapid flash), which are the equivalent of a green light with a left turn signal.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The reason for that is that the "green ball" - the general green signal - allows all permitted movements, without giving right-of-way to motorists making right or left turns. So at a T-intersection where through traffic is not permitted to turn, they get the straight-through green arrow. But at an intersection where motorists can turn right, but not left (or vice versa) there's only a green ball - having green arrows for straight through and on right or left indicates that the traffic can turn without yielding to opposing traffic or pedestrians.

That now makes senses, thanks. However there is some confusion I see, going north on Sackville St. from Dundas, cars reach Gerrard where Sackville is now south only. However drivers who do not notice the do not enter signs at the sides of the road and instead only see the green ball, then proceed up Sackville the wrong way. This is further exacerbated by drivers coming south on Sackville and turning left onto Gerrard from the righthand lane, instead of the lefthand lane - thus further confusing northward driving cars at Sackville and Gerrard.

 

[W. K. Lis]

These photos I took in a non-English speaking country. Without a sign explaining what they are, what does the traffic signals mean to you?

Yet Ontario requires the use of English signage, so that the people from Quebec and Mexico would not read them.

 

[BurlOak]

No idea.

1st one. Go straight. Can't turn left. Orange means some special vehicles can turn left (maybe buses).
2nd one. Can go straight or turn - have full right of way.

 

[11th]

No idea.

1st one. Go straight. Can't turn left. Orange means some special vehicles can turn left (maybe buses).
2nd one. Can go straight or turn - have full right of way.

Red + amber = (left arrow) light is about to turn green.

 

[nfitz]

Red + amber = (left arrow) light is about to turn green.

Yes, that's pretty standard. Makes a bit more sense when you see it happening, and what preceded it (just the red) than looking at a photo.