Road Safety & Vision Zero Plan

[crs1026]

Maybe they need to put a camera on the camera.

I am hoping that they started doing this back around attempt #3, and aren't saying anything publicly about that while they are investigating.

If they haven't been doing this, I do wonder about our authorities....

- Paul

 

[rbt]

I am hoping that they started doing this back around attempt #3, and aren't saying anything publicly about that while they are investigating.

If they haven't been doing this, I do wonder about our authorities....

Verra Mobility owns the box, camera, etc and have a contract to provide those services in specific locations. They're the ones who would report the damage to police (and their insurance). I'd be very surprised if they weren't following up on repeated vandalism in all manners available to them.

 

[reaperexpress]

Thanks to all of you for the informative discussions. I'm new to this thread (I had to look up "LPI").

Safe Systems Approach to Urban Planning (thank's @reaperexpress) reminded me of Safety Management Systems (SMS) from my aviation background . A cornerstone of SMS is the non punitive reporting of all near miss incidents. Accordingly, and thanks to a prompt from @Northern Light, I did send an email with the dash cam video to management at Toronto Transportation Services. I haven't heard back, not that I expect to, but I'll post on this thread if I do.

I went back to that intersection today with the drone to see if I could capture the traffic signal sequence.

I wasn't sure the signals would be visible from the drone so I also shot a clip with my phone from where the pedestrian was waiting to cross.

The drone is facing west.

Thanks for the additional context. It seems the issue was indeed that the westbound LPI was not combined with a No Right Turn on Red restriction. It's possible the LPI even made the situation worse by making it less obvious to the truck driver (who would have been looking left waiting for a gap) that the east-west phases had begun.

Some thoughts about this specific intersection:
- There seem to be quite a lot of articulated trucks making the southbound left and westbound right turns.
- There is already a permissive-protected green arrow for the westbound right turn so adding a No Right Turn on Red [ Except on Green Arrow ] restriction wouldn't be that much of an impact on drivers. If necessary, they could install a setback detector in the westbound right turn lane to make sure the green arrow stays on long enough to clear the queue.

It doesn't seem like there are many location-specific factors other than the high truck turning volumes so any mitigation measures should be applied broadly based on the general risk factors, rather than just a knee-jerk reaction to a particular incident at a particular signal. We would also need to consider whether the mitigation measures could have unintended consequences that increase other types of collisions.

Assuming that No RTOR is the correct mitigation measure, I could see a few strategies with varying aggressiveness:
- Introduce No RTOR at intersections with a relatively large number of right-turning trucks, or
- Introduce No RTOR at all intersections with LPI, or
- Introduce No RTOR City-wide, unless there is a sign specifically permitting RTOR.

The main potential risk I could see related to adding a No RTOR restriction is a reduction in signal credibility. Basically if people feel like they're waiting for no reason, they feel like their time is not being respected by the traffic signals. As a result, they're less likely to respect the traffic signals, which has obvious safety consequences. We've already seen this a lot over the past decade where the proliferation of signals that count down way earlier than necessary (typically due to LPI in the subsequent phase) has resulted in widespread disegard for Flashing Don't Walk and even Don't Walk indications. I personally ignore Flashing Don't Walk signals at intersections where I know there are 11+ seconds between the end of FDW and the start of the next green (4s Amber, 2s All-Red, 5s LPI).

So to limit the reduction in signal credibility, I'd suggest the following measures as part of any No RTOR implementation:
- Install [ Bicycles Excepted ] tabs on all No RTOR signs, unless there's a specific reason not to
- Follow City of Toronto signals operations policy 5.4.3, installing a right turn arrow wherever practical (this has already been done at Progress & Kennedy):

- Avoid unnecessary use of coordinated operations, such as during low-traffic periods or on signals where coordination can't work well anyway due to the spacing of signals or the variety of different travel speeds (e.g. different types of vehicles - buses, bikes etc). Uncoordinated signals can respond immediately when someone is detected on the side street, unlike coordinated signals who make people wait ages for a particular moment in the cycle before getting a green.
- Consider implementing much more flexible signal timing, including permissive periods, main street detection and phase reservice. This would enable the signal to provide an extra right turn green arrow if there happens to be a gap in main street traffic. However, to be most effective, that would require the main street pedestrian phase to rest in Don't Walk in the absence of pedestrians (though it would usually jump straight to Walk as soon as someone presses the button). This is much more expensive than the current fixed-duration main street phases, so it should be combined with other policy changes to prevent the installation of unwarranted signals and eliminate existing unwarranted signals (to be replaced with geometric design improvemets to improve safety for crossing pedestrians).

 

[ShonTron]

We need to change the law to have arrows on traffic signs be able to show both permissive direction but also if that direction has priority. Which we don't now. On King Street for example we can't have a green arrow showing only right turns are permitted, because that would imply that the right turns also have priority over pedestrians, which is not what we want. I think priority, for example for advanced right or left turn green signal should be indicated by a flashing arrow. But that doesn't exist I believe in the HTA.

A red or amber flashing arrow indicates a non-priority permissive turn (with the red arrow, after stopping first) in jurisdictions like Michigan, which makes a lot of use of these. I'd like it as well - there are a number of changes I'd like to see in the OTM and HTA.

In the Sudbury area, however, where a turn is prohibited, they will use a straight green arrow on the side of the intersection where the turn is prohibited or protected by a left turn signal. That's a minor change I'd like to see down here, and since both Greater Sudbury municipal roads (which have traffic signals with black casings) and MTO roads (yellow casings) do it up there, I'm sure there's a OTM/HTA allowance.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

A red or amber flashing arrow indicates a non-priority permissive turn (with the red arrow, after stopping first) in jurisdictions like Michigan, which makes a lot of use of these. I'd like it as well - there are a number of changes I'd like to see in the OTM and HTA.

In the Sudbury area, however, where a turn is prohibited, they will use a straight green arrow on the side of the intersection where the turn is prohibited or protected by a left turn signal. That's a minor change I'd like to see down here, and since both Greater Sudbury municipal roads (which have traffic signals with black casings) and MTO roads (yellow casings) do it up there, I'm sure there's a OTM/HTA allowance.

View attachment 653700View attachment 653701

If Ontario ever goes to using a red arrow traffic signal (by the 22nd century?), please use a black arrow on a red background. For the red colour blind people out there.

 

[trafficexplorerON]

If Ontario ever goes to using a red arrow traffic signal (by the 22nd century?), please use a black arrow on a red background. For the red colour blind people out there.

View attachment 653707

Just registered to this forum, but I've been lurking on traffic-related pages for a while now.
I like this idea. People around Ontario are accustomed to stopping at a red ball. It's familiar enough that it has became an instinct. You see a red ball, you stop. But arrows have been used to mean "go" in the past. Because of that, my concern is that if a driver sees a red arrow. I feel like that instinct may not be there, or at least weakened. I've actually talked to a few people IRL, and quite a few got confused by what a red arrow meant.
My uninformed hypothesis is that if we keep the red ball, but put a dark arrow on it, drivers may still see it as a red ball and stop. At the same time, though, they'll know immediately who the signal is for. No signs needed.
Of course, I understand that the red arrow has already been established in the rest of North America, including Quebec. So I can see why people may prefer the standard red arrow.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Not a single one of those cars/trucks turning right actually stopped at the red light.

If there’s no risk of direct (rather than passive and weeks later in the post) enforcement, why would they? In my neighbourhood, cars, trucks and cyclists treat all the four ways as yields, at best.

 

[nfitz]

If there’s no risk of direct (rather than passive and weeks later in the post) enforcement, why would they? In my neighbourhood, cars, trucks and cyclists treat all the four ways as yields, at best.

I walk around your neighbourhood, and while there's some horrible drivers out there that should have their licences pulled, there's many who can drive properly.

 

[lenaitch]

A red or amber flashing arrow indicates a non-priority permissive turn (with the red arrow, after stopping first) in jurisdictions like Michigan, which makes a lot of use of these. I'd like it as well - there are a number of changes I'd like to see in the OTM and HTA.

In the Sudbury area, however, where a turn is prohibited, they will use a straight green arrow on the side of the intersection where the turn is prohibited or protected by a left turn signal. That's a minor change I'd like to see down here, and since both Greater Sudbury municipal roads (which have traffic signals with black casings) and MTO roads (yellow casings) do it up there, I'm sure there's a OTM/HTA allowance.

View attachment 653700View attachment 653701

Without combing the HTA and Regs. it must be allowed as I see it frequently here in North Bay. The one feature I like about your images is the 'left turn signal' sign is closer to the actual signal. It seems around here, the sign is mounted on the post holding both signals which are suspended an equal distance.

If Ontario ever goes to using a red arrow traffic signal (by the 22nd century?), please use a black arrow on a red background. For the red colour blind people out there.

View attachment 653707

The one concern I have with a conditional red signal, particularly given the knowledge level of Ontario drivers, is whether it is interpreted as permissive or restrictive; can you proceed in the direction of the arrow or must you stop if you are travelling in that direction? A conditional green arrow is more intuitive.

My prime example of widespread signal confusion is during a failure default condition where something has happened to the controller and it flashes amber in one directional pair and red for the other. In my experience most people have no cue what to do and, on a motorcycle, is a very dangerous situation. Better that they flash red in all directions and turn it into a four-way stop.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I walk around your neighbourhood, and while there's some horrible drivers out there that should have their licences pulled, there's many who can drive properly.

True. But I feel I’m one (and my wife) of the few that comes to a full halt at stop signs. Stop, count to three while looking left and right, and then proceed. That was drilled into me nearly thirty years ago, and now as a motorcyclist has kept me safe from sign/signal rollers and runners.

 

[SubHuman]

I have doubts that making traffic signals more complicated is a good idea.
People need to understand and react to them immediately.
Our Toronto area walk/don't walk/countdown signals are an example what doesn't work. We had to have signs on poles to explain the signals (maybe an indication of over-complicating something that should be simple, when you need a sign to explain another sign), so almost everyone ignores them. We see "don't walk" at the same time as the countdown, which people reflexively react to as meaning "hurry up and run across the road".
(Edit: I've noticed the signs giving the instructions now seem to have disappeared.)
https://www.toronto.ca/services-pay...-traffic-signals/pedestrian-countdown-timers/

Every time I visit downtown Oshawa I notice the countdown and 'walk' signal appear at the same time, then change to 'don't walk' when the countdown gets to 5 seconds left (I suppose it could be slightly more on wider streets). They didn't need the sign to explain the sign. (I think their countdown stays on with the 'don't walk', but would probably be better to disappear as soon as it gets below 6 seconds.)
And btw, anyone who would take 25 seconds (or really any more than 5 or 6 seconds) to walk across a narrow street would almost certainly be using an electric mobility device to get around, and not walking.

 

[txlseries4]

I have doubts that making traffic signals more complicated is a good idea.
People need to instinctively understand them immediately.
Our walk/don't walk/countdown signals are an example what doesn't work. We have to have signs on poles to explain the signals (maybe an indication of over-complicating something that should be simple, when you need a sign to explain another sign), so almost everyone ignores them. We see "don't walk" at the same time as the countdown, which people conflictively react to by instinct as meaning "hurry up and run across the road".
Every time I visit downtown Oshawa I notice the countdown and 'walk' signal appear at the same time, then change to 'don't walk' when the countdown gets to 5 seconds left (I suppose it could be slightly more on wider streets). They don't need the sign to explain the sign.
View attachment 653900
btw, anyone who would take 25 seconds to walk across a street is almost certainly using an electric mobility device.

Add to everything you're saying that most people, even those well educated, treat the countdown as an indication of when the traffic light will change from green to amber/red. A lot of the time the two change at the same time. So not only are people walking treating it as a 'hurry up and run across the road" as you put it it, but drivers see 5 seconds left and speed up to "make" the light, blasting through the intersection and increasing chances of collisions.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7459501379095137579

 

[afransen]

If there’s no risk of direct (rather than passive and weeks later in the post) enforcement, why would they? In my neighbourhood, cars, trucks and cyclists treat all the four ways as yields, at best.

It would be nice if we had traffic control devices and intersection designs that acknowledged that this is how people will drive. In a well designed system, stop signs should be used sparingly, and only where truly needed due to poor visibility.

 

[afransen]

True. But I feel I’m one (and my wife) of the few that comes to a full halt at stop signs. Stop, count to three while looking left and right, and then proceed. That was drilled into me nearly thirty years ago, and now as a motorcyclist has kept me safe from sign/signal rollers and runners.

3 full seconds would feel like an eternity and induce road rage from other motorists. I think you would get others at a 4-way assuming you are yielding right of way to them, as well.