08-22-2020, 12:12 PM
(08-22-2020, 09:49 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:(08-22-2020, 09:31 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I just shake my head....this isn't a technical problem, this is a self inflicted policy problem. I doubt the BC laws are even meaningfully different than our laws...we are choosing an inferior and vastly more expensive solution for no reason.
I wonder what happens if one replies back to the City asking why they don’t just put in stop (or yield) signs on Seagram. Note: I’m not responsible for any exploded brain cleanup that is required.
Really I think they should start with situations where the case for having motor vehicle traffic yield to the trail is unarguable, such as John St. at the Spur Line trail, but I think that this is a perfectly reasonable place to do that too.
Although the original question was ill-founded; it says the location “now lacks any priority for those pedestrians” when in fact legally it had no such priority in the first place. All signage should always agree with the law; we have standards and rules for a reason. It’s just that in this case the signage probably should have been adjusted in the other way, to give pedestrians the priority implied by the paint.
Well, I didn't ask that exactly, but I will now. I did however ask if the trail, which carries more traffic than the road, will get green by default, and drivers will need to wait.
True...I mean, the bigger question is why is priority so fucked up in Ontario to begin with.