Road design, safety and Vision Zero

[dtkvictim]

I will say the "end" signs here were confusing for me when I first arrived here, I didn't immediately understand what it meant when there was a grey sign with a slash through it...but they are at least extremely distinct from the beginning signs and also symbolic and not relying on an understanding of a particular language (although the Dutch absolutely do not shy away from using Dutch on road signs).

That's true, you do need to still learn the pattern once. I play a lot of Geoguessr, so I was already familiar with the whole strikethrough pattern as an alternative to "ENDS".

End of built up area, Poland: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5688067,...?entry=ttu

End of lower speed limit, Switzerland: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.084542,7...?entry=ttu

End of built up area with name, Germany: https://www.google.com/maps/@48.9750382,...?entry=ttu

But I think much more important than the specific signs is how the entire roadway design cues the user without even using signage.

I forgot to post this nugget from the Speed Limit sign section of the Ontario Traffic Manual

The posted speed limits should always be consistent with the characteristics of the road. The physical characteristics in the transition zone should be self-explanatory in guiding drivers to lower their speeds; the road cues and the posted speed limit should provide a uniform message.

But when a manual writes "should" instead of "must", we all know what that means...

[SammyOES]

Does anyone know what the rules are when there is a traffic light for a pedestrian crossing at an intersection, but the traffic light doesn't cross one of the roads at the intersection? I'm specifically thinking about the intersection at Albert and Seagram here.

Albert is North-South, and there is a traffic light across Albert that turns red after the pedestrian button is pushed. Immediately to the south of the light Seagram T-intersects Albert, I think with a stop sign. To the south of Seagram there is a stop line for northbound traffic on Albert.

When the light is green it's obvious what everyone should do. When the light is red:
1. Do cars turning from Albert northbound to Seagram need to stop? They are facing a red light and making a left turn, which suggests yes, but if the traffic light only controls the pedestrian crossing then it shouldn't affect them.
2. After stopping at the stop sign, do cars turning from Seagram to Albert northbound need to wait for the light to turn green, or can they turn once the crosswalk is clear?

There was almost an accident here last night when a car ran the red light turning left from Albert onto Seagram. There was honking and I just heard the turning driver yell “it’s allowed”. I’d never heard or seen this theory before so started looking it up online and of course it’s been discussed here.

It seems 100% obvious that the left turn is prohibited on red because there’s a stop line for the turn lane. A stop line that doesn’t exist for turn lanes where you don’t have to stop for a light/sign.

But I’d never really thought about how bad this intersection is and it definitely needs to be rethought now that there’s a lot more housing around there.

[danbrotherston]

Does anyone know what the rules are when there is a traffic light for a pedestrian crossing at an intersection, but the traffic light doesn't cross one of the roads at the intersection? I'm specifically thinking about the intersection at Albert and Seagram here.

Albert is North-South, and there is a traffic light across Albert that turns red after the pedestrian button is pushed. Immediately to the south of the light Seagram T-intersects Albert, I think with a stop sign. To the south of Seagram there is a stop line for northbound traffic on Albert.

When the light is green it's obvious what everyone should do. When the light is red:
1. Do cars turning from Albert northbound to Seagram need to stop? They are facing a red light and making a left turn, which suggests yes, but if the traffic light only controls the pedestrian crossing then it shouldn't affect them.
2. After stopping at the stop sign, do cars turning from Seagram to Albert northbound need to wait for the light to turn green, or can they turn once the crosswalk is clear?

There was almost an accident here last night when a car ran the red light turning left from Albert onto Seagram.  There was honking and I just heard the turning driver yell “it’s allowed”.  I’d never heard or seen this theory before so started looking it up online and of course it’s been discussed here.

It seems 100% obvious that the left turn is prohibited on red because there’s a stop line for the turn lane. A stop line that doesn’t exist for turn lanes where you don’t have to stop for a light/sign.

But I’d never really thought about how bad this intersection is and it definitely needs to be rethought now that there’s a lot more housing around there.

Ahh yes, the arrogant confident driver. Probably believes they are very good at driving I'm sure they also 'solo zipper merge' too.

But yes, this road is terrible. Sadly I don't see it getting better any time soon. Realistically what would help is slowing the road greatly, by narrowing and adding a ton of speed bumps...but apparently to certain people that's oppression the likes of which nobody has ever experienced before.

[ijmorlan]

Does anyone know what the rules are when there is a traffic light for a pedestrian crossing at an intersection, but the traffic light doesn't cross one of the roads at the intersection? I'm specifically thinking about the intersection at Albert and Seagram here.

Albert is North-South, and there is a traffic light across Albert that turns red after the pedestrian button is pushed. Immediately to the south of the light Seagram T-intersects Albert, I think with a stop sign. To the south of Seagram there is a stop line for northbound traffic on Albert.

When the light is green it's obvious what everyone should do. When the light is red:
1. Do cars turning from Albert northbound to Seagram need to stop? They are facing a red light and making a left turn, which suggests yes, but if the traffic light only controls the pedestrian crossing then it shouldn't affect them.
2. After stopping at the stop sign, do cars turning from Seagram to Albert northbound need to wait for the light to turn green, or can they turn once the crosswalk is clear?

There was almost an accident here last night when a car ran the red light turning left from Albert onto Seagram.  There was honking and I just heard the turning driver yell “it’s allowed”.  I’d never heard or seen this theory before so started looking it up online and of course it’s been discussed here.

I’m wondering how there was almost a collision. Signal or no, vehicles turning left have to yield to pedestrians crossing Seagram and to southbound vehicles on Albert. Was the driver so busy being “correct” that he wasn’t watching?

It seems 100% obvious that the left turn is prohibited on red because there’s a stop line for the turn lane. A stop line that doesn’t exist for turn lanes where you don’t have to stop for a light/sign.

Thanks for pointing this out. I had been unsure, but I agree the presence of a stop line indicates left-turning traffic is supposed to stop for the red. That being said, it still doesn’t make sense for the pedestrian crossing light to control left turns — it’s not a fully signalized intersection, just one with a pedestrian crossing. So vehicles turning left can do so just as safely on a red as on a green; actually more safely because southbound vehicles are stopped.

Followup question: is right turn on red allowed for southbound vehicles, given there is no signed prohibition? If the pedestrian crossing was north of the intersection (I won’t give a distance, but I mean far enough that it definitely doesn’t control the intersection), then it would be clear that going through the red to reach the right turn would be a violation; but on the other hand it would be equally clear that the left turns we’ve been discussing would be uncontrolled. On the other hand, the whole purpose of the crossing is to stop vehicles crossing the crossover, so it’s weird for right turns on red to be allowed.

(yes, I’m aware of the idea that rights turns on red should never be allowed, and I think it’s a reasonable idea, but I’m talking about the current situation where some such turns are definitely allowed)

Overall, I don’t like these pedestrian signal lights at intersections — either fully signalize the intersection, or have a crosswalk with a button to activate warning lights (an option which has been available for decades, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding).

[dtkvictim]

Thanks for pointing this out. I had been unsure, but I agree the presence of a stop line indicates left-turning traffic is supposed to stop for the red. That being said, it still doesn’t make sense for the pedestrian crossing light to control left turns — it’s not a fully signalized intersection, just one with a pedestrian crossing. So vehicles turning left can do so just as safely on a red as on a green; actually more safely because southbound vehicles are stopped.

Followup question: is right turn on red allowed for southbound vehicles, given there is no signed prohibition? If the pedestrian crossing was north of the intersection (I won’t give a distance, but I mean far enough that it definitely doesn’t control the intersection), then it would be clear that going through the red to reach the right turn would be a violation; but on the other hand it would be equally clear that the left turns we’ve been discussing would be uncontrolled. On the other hand, the whole purpose of the crossing is to stop vehicles crossing the crossover, so it’s weird for right turns on red to be allowed.

(yes, I’m aware of the idea that rights turns on red should never be allowed, and I think it’s a reasonable idea, but I’m talking about the current situation where some such turns are definitely allowed)

Overall, I don’t like these pedestrian signal lights at intersections — either fully signalize the intersection, or have a crosswalk with a button to activate warning lights (an option which has been available for decades, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding).

Yeah, that's in interesting way to look at it. Does the light control a pedestrian crossing, in which case it seems like left turns to Seagram should be allowed, or does it control the intersection, in which case it seems like right on red should (according to the status quo) be allowed unless since it's not signed.

And why is this crossing signalized, while a block away at Central St a flashing beacon PXO was used? And speaking of the Central St PXO, it also has a strange design... Northbound Albert traffic is expected to yield before the intersection which is very far back. In my experience there is usually time to stop safely even after passing the yield marks and pedestrians will (reasonably I think) expect you to stop and step out into the street.

Not to mention more than once I've had drivers from Central seem to think it's an all-way stop (probably because they see the pedestrian crossing) and try to pull out onto Albert into me.

Given the geometry of the two intersections, feel like a PXO would've been better at Seagram and a fully signalized intersection would've been better at Central St.

[SammyOES]

I didn’t get a great look but it was a car turning left onto Albert that looked like it had slammed on their brakes. Possible that they didn’t look to their right well enough and just assumed everyone was stopped/stopping since the light was red and were then surprised by the dude who ran the light.

I don’t entirely understand the signalized crossing comment. Is it just the stop sign on Seagram that keeps it from being a normal intersection? Or what would change to make it a full signal intersection?

My straightforward (naive?) view is that it’s just an intersection and I’ve always treated it as one. Not sure I’ve ever turned right on red there (or right at all to be honest), but I wouldn’t really have given it an extra thought besides the distance making me hesitate due to lack of visibility.

Anyway, this seems like a place where safety could be easily improved with just a few signs. And ultimately just converted to a full intersection (imo). Maybe even with a pedestrian only crossing time given the high level of pedestrians that can occur.

[dtkvictim]

I don’t entirely understand the signalized crossing comment.  Is it just the stop sign on Seagram that keeps it from being a normal intersection?  Or what would change to make it a full signal intersection?

I could be completely wrong on this, but my understand was that signalized intersections in Ontario require far-side traffic lights for both directions. The fact that the signals for both directions are on the same pole, and for one direction are on the near side of the intersection implies that the lights are for the crossing, not for the intersection.

That the stop bar for northbound traffic is before the intersection and before the point where you would initiate your left turn to Seagram is coincidental, but still means you need to wait.

[SammyOES]

I don’t entirely understand the signalized crossing comment.  Is it just the stop sign on Seagram that keeps it from being a normal intersection?  Or what would change to make it a full signal intersection?

I could be completely wrong on this, but my understand was that signalized intersections in Ontario require far-side traffic lights for both directions. The fact that the signals for both directions are on the same pole, and for one direction are on the near side of the intersection implies that the lights are for the crossing, not for the intersection.

That the stop bar for northbound traffic is before the intersection and before the point where you would initiate your left turn to Seagram is coincidental, but still means you need to wait.

Going down the rabbit hole of https://ontario-traffic-council.s3.amazo...ls.pdf.pdf it seems like you are correct.

Edit: It also says that partial signalization of all approaches to the intersection is not allowed unless its an intersection pedestrian signal.

[SammyOES]

So this is an "intersection pedestrian signal" (IPS) and I can find some stuff here: https://www.tcat.ca/wp-content/uploads/2...ONLINE.pdf

For example:

For IPS installations side street traffic is stop controlled but may cross or turn during the pedestrian phase if not in conflict with a pedestrian.

I don't see anything about turning on red or about the left turn from the far side. The left turn still seems clearly not allowed based on the stop line. But the right on red seems very ambiguous.

[dtkvictim]

1) Something needs to be done for crossing Victoria St from Garment St/100 Victoria condos. Every single time I go by there are multiple people timing darting across four lanes of traffic, and having done it myself I can be sure there is no way it goes on forever without someone getting hit. Because of limited gaps in traffic at certain times of day, you also often gets cars waiting to exit from Bramm/Garment/Michael/Oak trying to pull out at the same time pedestrians are trying to run across. It's even worse this time of year with the darkness.

You can argue that people should just cross at Joseph or Park, depending on the direction they are heading, but that clearly isn't happening right now. Anecdotally, I see many more people running across than using either of those crossings.

2) I'm pretty sure the Gaukel crossing over Charles St has been replaced with a beg button, and gives an otherwise permanent green to traffic on Charles St. I just watched it for 2.5 minutes and the light never cycled, while about 20 people (none of whom pressed the button) decided to wait for a few seconds each and then just cross since there was no traffic. Maybe someone who lives in Charlie West or uses this crossing often can confirm.

Meanwhile the Ontario St bicycles lights still aren't operational, meaning southbound bikes have no indication when they are allowed to go other than looking at the pedestrian light. Priorities.

[ijmorlan]

2) I'm pretty sure the Gaukel crossing over Charles St has been replaced with a beg button, and gives an otherwise permanent green to traffic on Charles St. I just watched it for 2.5 minutes and the light never cycled, while about 20 people (none of whom pressed the button) decided to wait for a few seconds each and then just cross since there was no traffic. Maybe someone who lives in Charlie West or uses this crossing often can confirm.

Do people really not understand that they won’t get a green if they don’t press the button? I regularly observe this on King at the Waterloo Spur. Now, to be clear, I don’t object to people crossing against a red hand when there is no conflicting traffic and I sometimes do it myself, but I don’t understand how people don’t understand that the button is required in order to get a walking person.

Of course, regular readers here will know that I think many of these should be reversed to be permanently green for pedestrians, until vehicle traffic activates the light using sensors in the road.

[dtkvictim]

2) I'm pretty sure the Gaukel crossing over Charles St has been replaced with a beg button, and gives an otherwise permanent green to traffic on Charles St. I just watched it for 2.5 minutes and the light never cycled, while about 20 people (none of whom pressed the button) decided to wait for a few seconds each and then just cross since there was no traffic. Maybe someone who lives in Charlie West or uses this crossing often can confirm.

Do people really not understand that they won’t get a green if they don’t press the button? I regularly observe this on King at the Waterloo Spur. Now, to be clear, I don’t object to people crossing against a red hand when there is no conflicting traffic and I sometimes do it myself, but I don’t understand how people don’t understand that the button is required in order to get a walking person.

Of course, regular readers here will know that I think many of these should be reversed to be permanently green for pedestrians, until vehicle traffic activates the light using sensors in the road.

Well, for years, even after being pedestrianized, you didn't have to press the button and now you suddenly do (assuming I'm not wrong about what I saw). Additionally, most intersections in downtown Kitchener don't need to be pressed, this is now an exception to that presumably because they don't consider it an intersection anymore. If you pay attention you can figure out which ones actually change the light, and which ones just play a noise when the light changes, but the design language isn't very good.

This change is even more annoying for cyclists who will cross from pedestrian street to pedestrian street, rather than from the sidewalk. Now they have no way to activate the light without dismounting and walking up on to the sidewalk to press the button.

The spur line crossing on King is a little more intuitive since it functions more like a PXO, but given the volume of pedestrian traffic there it would also be reasonable to assume it operates on a cycle. Or maybe they just think someone else has already pressed it, since there is often a crowd waiting to cross. Side note, the uptown intersections like Willis Way and King that require the button to pressed to get a walk sign when the lights already operate on a cycle is insane... There are always people waiting to cross.

Edit: And to protect myself from looking like an idiot, this is just what I think I saw. But if it is still operating on a cycle (albeit an extremely long one) then they've changed the button design language again...

[plam]

2) I'm pretty sure the Gaukel crossing over Charles St has been replaced with a beg button, and gives an otherwise permanent green to traffic on Charles St. I just watched it for 2.5 minutes and the light never cycled, while about 20 people (none of whom pressed the button) decided to wait for a few seconds each and then just cross since there was no traffic. Maybe someone who lives in Charlie West or uses this crossing often can confirm.

Do people really not understand that they won’t get a green if they don’t press the button? I regularly observe this on King at the Waterloo Spur. Now, to be clear, I don’t object to people crossing against a red hand when there is no conflicting traffic and I sometimes do it myself, but I don’t understand how people don’t understand that the button is required in order to get a walking person.

Of course, regular readers here will know that I think many of these should be reversed to be permanently green for pedestrians, until vehicle traffic activates the light using sensors in the road.

There are quite a few buttons in KW that say "for audible signal only" so it's just a bit confusing to be inconsistent that way.

[tomh009]

Do people really not understand that they won’t get a green if they don’t press the button? I regularly observe this on King at the Waterloo Spur. Now, to be clear, I don’t object to people crossing against a red hand when there is no conflicting traffic and I sometimes do it myself, but I don’t understand how people don’t understand that the button is required in order to get a walking person.

There are quite a few buttons in KW that say "for audible signal only" so it's just a bit confusing to be inconsistent that way.

Right. These are the ones that will not do anything, other than play the Song of the Traffic Lights. But most people don't read that sign and press it anyway, thinking they will change faster.

The far-smaller number that have functional buttons have no signage, I think. And maybe that should be added to make it clear that you do need to press the button.

[ijmorlan]

The far-smaller number that have functional buttons have no signage, I think. And maybe that should be added to make it clear that you do need to press the button.

The newer ones do have a sign. Actually, the newer ones are all the same except for the sign: either "audible signal only" with an icon, or the detailed instructions for the ones that must be pressed in order to get a signal.

Although I was displeased to see that the University Ave. crossing has a new style of button just for the bicycle path which does not have an indicator — you can’t tell if the button has been pressed unless you look at the pedestrian buttons. Plus the bicycle buttons should be well back, maybe 50m from the intersection and on the right side of the path.