News   Jul 30, 2024
 495     1 
News   Jul 30, 2024
 432     0 
News   Jul 30, 2024
 543     1 

Road Safety & Vision Zero Plan

A pet peeve - very few people understand the HTO meaning of the term "crossover". Common usage (and historical, pre-nonverbal signage, actually) terms this a "crosswalk".

The rules for yielding right of way to pedestrians at a controlled intersection gets trampled as a result. When people hear discussion of "crosswalks" they assume the discussion is about mid-block crossovers, not intersections.

Another example of how terminology (and rules) may have changed since many took driving lessons.

- Paul
I was confused when this rule changed. I thought initially it covered crosswalks at intersections, but I thought it was clarified to mean only mid-block crossings. If it applied to intersections it would really create havoc. We would need to have dedicated phases for turning and pedestrian crossing.
 
I was confused when this rule changed. I thought initially it covered crosswalks at intersections, but I thought it was clarified to mean only mid-block crossings. If it applied to intersections it would really create havoc. We would need to have dedicated phases for turning and pedestrian crossing.

I'm not exactly sure it did change, and if it did it was many moons ago. I recall learning the 'crosswalk'-'crossover' in traffic training in the '70s. As I recall the old text signage, they used the term pedestrian 'crossing' (or X-ing), which is neither.
 
I'm not exactly sure it did change, and if it did it was many moons ago. I recall learning the 'crosswalk'-'crossover' in traffic training in the '70s. As I recall the old text signage, they used the term pedestrian 'crossing' (or X-ing), which is neither.

I just had to follow this one all the way down the rabbit hole, and right you are.

Here's the Toronto Star, June 19, 1959 (a very long ways before I got driver training, I would add). The safety campaign at the time was to encourage people to point to indicate to drivers that they intended to cross. Crosswalks had first been implemented the year before....There were no buttons to push back then!

I do recall my grandfather ranting about the new crosswalks.... "How preposterous that someone can just stick out their arm and make me stop my car....."

I also found an article April 6 1964 deploring the rate of accidents at crosswalks, and suggesting buttons and lights... it too showed a sign reading Pedestrian Crossing. Neither article used the term crossover.

- Paul

PS: The 1959 article states that police statistics show that the pedestrian was found at fault in 80% of all pedestrian incidents.

Screen Shot 2021-06-24 at 3.47.22 PM.png
 
Last edited:
I just had to follow this one all the way down the rabbit hole, and right you are.

Here's the Toronto Star, June 19, 1959 (a very long ways before I got driver training, I would add). The safety campaign at the time was to encourage people to point to indicate to drivers that they intended to cross. Crosswalks had first been implemented the year before....There were no buttons to push back then!

I do recall my grandfather ranting about the new crosswalks.... "How preposterous that someone can just stick out their arm and make me stop my car....."

I also found an article April 6 1964 deploring the rate of accidents at crosswalks, and suggesting buttons and lights... it too showed a sign reading Pedestrian Crossing. Neither article used the term crossover.

- Paul

PS: The 1959 article states that police statistics show that the pedestrian was found at fault in 80% of all pedestrian incidents.

View attachment 330191

Actually, it seems everybody is correct. From the Highway Traffic Act:

crosswalk” means,
(a) that part of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway, or
(b) any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface;
pedestrian crossover” means any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs on the highway and lines or other markings on the surface of the roadway as prescribed by the regulations;

Crosswalk (b) very closely resembles 'crossover'. I don't know if sub. (b) was inserted later, but I was taught that 'crosswalk' was part of an intersection and 'crossover' was mid-block.
 
Another killer trucker.

 
From Councillor Bradford's newsletter, long promised improvements to O'Connor Drive, north of St. Clair are en route for fall.

Consultation next month.

1624815226924.png


This is a decent effort, it eliminates the channelized right-hand turn at St. Clair WB to O'Connor NB

It scales back parking in favour of some wider sidewalk and trees (parking is under utilized anyway)

Good sized planters for the trees w/integrated seating.

The corner as it is today:

1624815474185.png


The sidewalk just to the north.........currently tree-less and uninviting:

1624815525886.png
 
Need to see an optometrist. Can't see the cycling lanes/paths.

None have ever been contemplated for O'Connor in this area; and there is no way they can 'diet' this section of O'Connor in isolation.

Bike lanes are proposed for St Clair Avenue East here, and would be implemented on a very limited basis near the intersection with O'Connor as part of this project.
 
None have ever been contemplated for O'Connor in this area; and there is no way they can 'diet' this section of O'Connor in isolation.
They can reduce the car lanes on O'Connor east of St. Clair.

With O'Connor only 4 lanes to the west of St. Clair, we don't need both St. Clair and O'Connor as 4 lanes to the east.
 
They can reduce the car lanes on O'Connor east of St. Clair.

With O'Connor only 4 lanes to the west of St. Clair, we don't need both St. Clair and O'Connor as 4 lanes to the east.

Agree, and the plan is/was to cut St. Clair back to 2 lanes ( one each way).

There is an argument to be made, that with the cutting of 2 lanes on Eglinton in association with Crosstown, that O'Connor could be dieted here.

IF that were pursued, the parking concept would be poor, as the cars should, in that case, be pushed to be next to traffic, with the cycle track on the interior (sidewalk side).

***

That said, no version of the Bike Plan ever contemplated O'Connor with bike lanes here (though the new O'Connor alignment will feature them).

Probably a bit late in the cycle to change this..........but worth raising.

Though, if you want bike lanes on O'Connor, and retaining a 4-lane O'Connor to the south-west, a solution is required to get cyclists safely to Woodbine.
 
Last edited:
Though, if you want bike lanes on O'Connor, and retaining a 4-lane O'Connor to the south-west, a solution is required to get cyclists safely to Woodbine.
Yeah ... I don't know how you achieve that without an additional bridge - or at least some kind of widening of the existing bridge.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top