allengeorge
Senior Member
I believe the Ontario government has to allow automated red-light enforcement, no?
|
|
|
evandyk
Senior Member
“Just after” is a full red. You shouldn’t be in the intersection after the light turns red. We should have cameras that give a ticket to any driver who does that.
Dan416
Senior Member
If they really want it clear for motorists, they should be using the standard transit signals than normal signals and a sign telling you that it's a transit signal.
nfitz
Superstar
You are completely missing my point.
Yes, people keep going through the lights after they turn red. That is not my point. And I was clear that wasn't what I was referring to.
You don't tell me why you think that when drivers never have a green light, why they'd run through a red?
georgevicbell
Active Member
Four of them between Spadina and sherbourne…all with alternative driveways to other streets.
georgevicbell
Active Member
A further improvement to chows plan, which doesn’t go far enough, is to shut down the driveways that dump cars onto king. The obvious one to start with is the major parking exit just east of York, it has other exits on Wellington; and no entrance. It dumps people onto king who must turn right and then block Bay, or turn left across two tracks, often blocking them. Shut it down from 3pm to 7pm, and reroute everyone onto Wellington…
Last edited:
daptive
Active Member
And a new one from King Toronto
evandyk
Senior Member
That’s west of Spadina.
georgevicbell
Active Member
Yah, the least they could do is prevent new traffic sources on king and the other streetcar lines, especially when there are other options…
Allandale25
Senior Member
Transit signals being installed.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
No. Red light cameras are one of the two types of automated enforcement already allowed in Ontario, the other being speed cameras in school zones or designated community safety zones.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
If the "standard transit signals" you're referring to include horizontal bar for red (such as the ones on the Waterloo LRT), instead of a red circle, then they are specifically prohibited in HTA Regulation 626.
Red bar in Waterloo
It's literally rule number one in the traffic signal regulations:
The Waterloo signals don't need to conform to the HTA since they're only used by rail vehicles (so they can arguably be controlled under the street railways act rather than the highway traffic act). The King Street signals cannot be exempt because they also need to accommodate buses.
White vertical bars for "green" are allowed in the HTA - in addition to a literal green light per reg.626(1) - but in Toronto a white vertical bar has been defined to mean "left turn and right turn only, no through movement", which is exactly the opposite of what you need for streetcars travelling straight along King Street.
I have already explained this several times in this thread. Here is a post where I linked to several other posts where I explained the HTA and City issues with bar-style transit signals.
This is not true. As long as you enter the intersection legally (meaning that you crossed the stop line during green or yellow) you retain the legal right to take whatever time you need to clear the intersection, and all other traffic must yield to you until you have finished clearing. That's also what the red clearance interval is for, which I illustrated at 1:49 in this video:
We do have cameras that ticket drivers who violate the red light by entering the intersection after the light has turned red. That's what the City of Toronto's red light cameras do.
Last edited:
chrisw
Active Member
While we're in the weeds. Why do we use two transit signals on both sides of the sign?
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Due to the standard (exceedingly nitpicky) interpretation of HTA Regulation 626 s.1(4) being that each signal phase requires at least two signal heads. Though standard practice is to not follow this guideline for protected-permissive arrows, using the rationale that if they fail it doesn't prevent people from going through the intersection, it just means that they don't realize that they have priority.
That rule is intended to require redunancy in case one of the lights burns out, and in case visibility of one signal head is blocked (e.g. by a truck in front of you). That latter case is usually irrelevant for transit signals and bicycle signals, which makes the duplicate signals quite silly in practice. Some jurisdictions (e.g. in Texas and in Alberta) address the electrical reduancy by installing two red lights if there's only one signal head for the phase in case one of them burns out.
It's worth noting that all signals have monitoring systems that detect when lights burn out, and if both of the primary red lights for a given phase are burnt out it will shut down the entire intersection and put it on "flash" (typically flashing red in all directions) until the lights are replaced. This is because you don't want some drivers to see a green light while others have blank signals.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
I have a question of interpretation/clarification @reaperexpress
This:
Could one read this section to suggest it is not legal to enter an intersection on an Amber if already safely stopped?
This:
Could one read this section to suggest it is not legal to enter an intersection on an Amber if already safely stopped?