07-02-2022, 06:09 AM
(07-01-2022, 06:03 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: I'm noticing a trend on social media where many people firmly believe the shark teeth on the new pedestrian crossovers along the IHT also give right of way to cyclists, despite the fact cyclists are explicitly prohibited from riding within pedestrian crossovers in the HTA. Has the city removed the "cyclists dismount" signage from the updated crossings? If so, it seems like they're basically encouraging cyclists to illegally ride across PXOs. It's kind of bizarre to me that the MTO's own cycling facilities handbook states the dismount signs are rarely obeyed, but the government still won't legislate crossrides being combined with PXOs as they should be on MTUs.
Don't get me wrong here, I have no problem with cyclists using PXOs, and just from driving around to various IHT crossings it's abundantly clear that's what's happening, but if a cyclist is struck after riding into a PXO it's not going to be the driver facing HTA charges and an insurance claim.
I mean, there is a tacit acknowledge among all but the most obstinate of traffic engineers that cyclists will ride through crossrides. I think our city engineers (not region engineers) are taking a pragmatic approach here and just saying nothing about it. I suspect they hope that the legislation will be updated to be less...I cannot think of a nice word here, and are simply accepting how the infra will function.
Yes, if a driver hits someone they will not face charges. But this isn't really a new or unique problem. The police *may* choose to charge a cyclist, which would be problematic, but I actually doubt that will happen. Or at least in my experience, for all WRPSs faults, they haven't shown a preference for charging pedestrians or cyclists who are hit by cars even when the right of way is questionable.
Fortunately we have a fairly robust heatlhcare and insurance system where even an at fault cyclist would be entitled to healthcare for their injuries (a cyclist with no insurance--even one who is at fault--is entitled to make an insurance claim against the drivers insurance).
FWIW...the sharks teeth on the crossrides are the wrong direction last time I checked (which was some time ago). Owing to the fact that our engineers chose to use sharks teeth to indicates two different things...because apparently UX is not their strong suit.