steveintoronto
Superstar
^ It's excellent to see a dialog happening on this. A surprising number of cyclists I've discussed this with are unaware of TorStar's incredibly good articles and their campaign for change, unfortunately just as they've raised a paywall, albeit it's easy to get around, and even if that isn't used, the 'first five articles are free' (of every session that you allow to place cookies in your browser's memory).
Many of these cyclists, friends I do distance with...and many of who wear helmets, and lecture on it (spare me), are oblivious to dangers that some of these intersections present. Kudos to the Star for featuring what some of us have been pointing out for years, to the apparently deaf.
That Jarvis one is far better, and far more intuitive. Agreed...with caveats.
We have to dwell on 'intuitive for who?' For many of us cyclists? To an extent. For motorists? Not even close.
You have to start with defining "what does Green mean" to even form a base for intuition. *Even most cyclists* haven't a clue on what the Green defines!
I took photos of Green Boxes to TPS last Summer, and asked their traffic sergeants (I was directed to the Traffic Division in Liberty Village) to get their answers on how they interpreted the obvious clash between Toronto Bylaw and the HTA. In a court of law, the HTA is gospel in terms of precedence. Many "bike boxes" violate the HTA and the attendant MTO directives for road markings and signs.
I've detailed these prior in this string months ago, with pics posted and querying discussion on the matter. There were no answers. TPS asked me to make this an issue with City Council. I won't go into the details, but they offered any assistance they could provide short of it becoming political and that it must understandably be by my own doing. Fair enough...
But getting back to that turning lane...
Kindly explain to me just what it means?
Imagine a motorist, (and this appears to be almost all of them) is unaware of the updates to the HTA and other road safety developments, let alone city bylaws. Where is the explicit direction for motorists? I'm right up on this issue, and I *still* can't separate what is intended without ambiguity. Does a right turn arrow on green indicate: For Cyclists? For Motorists? For Both? It's not made clear. At all...
And then there's the case of the solid or broken line adjacent to the green lane, wherever or whatever it is. Practice is completely random on it. Even accounting for the traffic planners adapting each intersection to need (I cut them a lot of slack on that presuming they even have that skill), why is "what's intuitive" so incredibly at odds with practice elsewhere?
Ontario, for some God unknown reason, charge for renewing your licence, but never retest for understanding the rules every few years, like many advanced nations do, and have done for eons. *Most drivers would fail a driving test!* They just don't give a fug on 'updates and changes to the HTA'.
OK, as a cyclist, you're approaching an intersection behind a motorist who is unsure of how to 'commit to the turn' (right in this instance). They attain the curb lane to effect the turn, but it's clumsy but still meets the needs of the HTA. (ANY! turn under the HTA from one lane to another, no matter what vehicle, including bikes, requires *attaining that lane* before effecting the actual turn).(Edit: With a couple of defined exceptions for long trucks and service vehicles)
Said vehicle in front chooses the centre of the lane instead of hugging the curb. A choice is presented to the following cyclist: "Go around left or right?" If in doubt, you *stop behind the vehicle*. You have no idea of whether the driver knows you're there or not if you don't get eye contact in his/her mirror, so logic and common sense alone dictate stopping until your safety is assured to move ahead. That's also the law.
In almost *every case* if other cyclists are following, and they may or may not ring their fugging bells will stream on both sides of said vehicle, instead of doing what common sense and the law dictate, which is to stop behind me. And this inevitably delays the car turning, and any cyclists moving ahead who are stopped safely behind.
Best I stop here, I'm still pumped from the day's cycle, and my patience is strained.
The bottom line is, and this is what three posters above are all in agreement with, as I am, is that the infrastructure is one of the only factors left to make sanity out of chaos on the roads, especially at intersections.
Lest I appear too acerbic, beyond doubt, some intersections are far less dangerous than others. The dialog above is a huge step, if done by a lot more, to get this right.
Btw: Thumbs up to all three posts above, as the dialog is not only refreshing, it's critically needed!
Addendum: Staring at that Jarvis right turn pic, I see a number of issues which I want to think about before commenting further, but one observation jumps out like an elephant from hiding behind the door;
The lanes are too wide! This is part of a much larger debate for getting traffic to slow, and ostensibly forcing drivers to be more disciplined, and that pic writes it large! The curb lane is *two cars wide* by European standards!
Which lends itself to discussion on whether the cycle lane shouldn't actually be 'cyclists only'!
That may be impractical, it would be good discussion, but all the points raised above would be rendered moot if the curb vehicle lane was just one car wide, and cyclists couldn't pass *within that lane* (which technically isn't allowed under the HTA anyway). Cyclists would have to use their own dedicated lane which would be accommodated by slimming at least the present curb lane (and a bit of the other two as well, but I digress)
Oh man....drivers would just love that, but until drivers and cyclists learn to follow protocol, flow must be dictated, not left to intuition, at least at that level. Intuition is always needed, but it shouldn't be for such a simple and obvious task taken care of in the Dutch and Danish models (and other nations).
Many of these cyclists, friends I do distance with...and many of who wear helmets, and lecture on it (spare me), are oblivious to dangers that some of these intersections present. Kudos to the Star for featuring what some of us have been pointing out for years, to the apparently deaf.
That Jarvis one is far better, and far more intuitive. Agreed...with caveats.
We have to dwell on 'intuitive for who?' For many of us cyclists? To an extent. For motorists? Not even close.
You have to start with defining "what does Green mean" to even form a base for intuition. *Even most cyclists* haven't a clue on what the Green defines!
I took photos of Green Boxes to TPS last Summer, and asked their traffic sergeants (I was directed to the Traffic Division in Liberty Village) to get their answers on how they interpreted the obvious clash between Toronto Bylaw and the HTA. In a court of law, the HTA is gospel in terms of precedence. Many "bike boxes" violate the HTA and the attendant MTO directives for road markings and signs.
I've detailed these prior in this string months ago, with pics posted and querying discussion on the matter. There were no answers. TPS asked me to make this an issue with City Council. I won't go into the details, but they offered any assistance they could provide short of it becoming political and that it must understandably be by my own doing. Fair enough...
But getting back to that turning lane...
Whoa! There's already *far too much green* to the point of it being colour farce painted to oblivion. First off, that paint is not of the grade prescribed by the US agency whose protocol is ostensibly being used by Toronto. It's slippery as fuck in spots, dangerous, and misleading as to what it means.
Kindly explain to me just what it means?
Agreed. Save that your observation must be taken further. You're alluding to *assigning* markings and arrows.
Imagine a motorist, (and this appears to be almost all of them) is unaware of the updates to the HTA and other road safety developments, let alone city bylaws. Where is the explicit direction for motorists? I'm right up on this issue, and I *still* can't separate what is intended without ambiguity. Does a right turn arrow on green indicate: For Cyclists? For Motorists? For Both? It's not made clear. At all...
And then there's the case of the solid or broken line adjacent to the green lane, wherever or whatever it is. Practice is completely random on it. Even accounting for the traffic planners adapting each intersection to need (I cut them a lot of slack on that presuming they even have that skill), why is "what's intuitive" so incredibly at odds with practice elsewhere?
Ontario, for some God unknown reason, charge for renewing your licence, but never retest for understanding the rules every few years, like many advanced nations do, and have done for eons. *Most drivers would fail a driving test!* They just don't give a fug on 'updates and changes to the HTA'.
OK, as a cyclist, you're approaching an intersection behind a motorist who is unsure of how to 'commit to the turn' (right in this instance). They attain the curb lane to effect the turn, but it's clumsy but still meets the needs of the HTA. (ANY! turn under the HTA from one lane to another, no matter what vehicle, including bikes, requires *attaining that lane* before effecting the actual turn).(Edit: With a couple of defined exceptions for long trucks and service vehicles)
Said vehicle in front chooses the centre of the lane instead of hugging the curb. A choice is presented to the following cyclist: "Go around left or right?" If in doubt, you *stop behind the vehicle*. You have no idea of whether the driver knows you're there or not if you don't get eye contact in his/her mirror, so logic and common sense alone dictate stopping until your safety is assured to move ahead. That's also the law.
In almost *every case* if other cyclists are following, and they may or may not ring their fugging bells will stream on both sides of said vehicle, instead of doing what common sense and the law dictate, which is to stop behind me. And this inevitably delays the car turning, and any cyclists moving ahead who are stopped safely behind.
Best I stop here, I'm still pumped from the day's cycle, and my patience is strained.
The bottom line is, and this is what three posters above are all in agreement with, as I am, is that the infrastructure is one of the only factors left to make sanity out of chaos on the roads, especially at intersections.
Lest I appear too acerbic, beyond doubt, some intersections are far less dangerous than others. The dialog above is a huge step, if done by a lot more, to get this right.
Btw: Thumbs up to all three posts above, as the dialog is not only refreshing, it's critically needed!
Addendum: Staring at that Jarvis right turn pic, I see a number of issues which I want to think about before commenting further, but one observation jumps out like an elephant from hiding behind the door;
The lanes are too wide! This is part of a much larger debate for getting traffic to slow, and ostensibly forcing drivers to be more disciplined, and that pic writes it large! The curb lane is *two cars wide* by European standards!
Which lends itself to discussion on whether the cycle lane shouldn't actually be 'cyclists only'!
That may be impractical, it would be good discussion, but all the points raised above would be rendered moot if the curb vehicle lane was just one car wide, and cyclists couldn't pass *within that lane* (which technically isn't allowed under the HTA anyway). Cyclists would have to use their own dedicated lane which would be accommodated by slimming at least the present curb lane (and a bit of the other two as well, but I digress)
Oh man....drivers would just love that, but until drivers and cyclists learn to follow protocol, flow must be dictated, not left to intuition, at least at that level. Intuition is always needed, but it shouldn't be for such a simple and obvious task taken care of in the Dutch and Danish models (and other nations).
Last edited:
