07-02-2022, 02:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2022, 02:17 PM by danbrotherston.)
(07-02-2022, 01:28 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote:(07-02-2022, 06:09 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I mean, there is a tacit acknowledge among all but the most obstinate of traffic engineers that cyclists will ride through crossrides. I think our city engineers (not region engineers) are taking a pragmatic approach here and just saying nothing about it. I suspect they hope that the legislation will be updated to be less...I cannot think of a nice word here, and are simply accepting how the infra will function.
Yes, if a driver hits someone they will not face charges. But this isn't really a new or unique problem. The police *may* choose to charge a cyclist, which would be problematic, but I actually doubt that will happen. Or at least in my experience, for all WRPSs faults, they haven't shown a preference for charging pedestrians or cyclists who are hit by cars even when the right of way is questionable.
Fortunately we have a fairly robust heatlhcare and insurance system where even an at fault cyclist would be entitled to healthcare for their injuries (a cyclist with no insurance--even one who is at fault--is entitled to make an insurance claim against the drivers insurance).
FWIW...the sharks teeth on the crossrides are the wrong direction last time I checked (which was some time ago). Owing to the fact that our engineers chose to use sharks teeth to indicates two different things...because apparently UX is not their strong suit.
I'm not sure I share your optimism about WRPS. In the 2018 annual collision report, nearly half of motor vehicle collisions with cyclists involved a cyclist riding in a crosswalk, and nearly every WRPS media release about this incident mentions charges for the cyclist. I don't know about Waterloo, but TPS was averaging about 750 charges per year for riding within crosswalks and crossovers a decade ago based on some open data I found.
https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...ridge.html
https://www.therecord.com/opinion/letter...cture.html
https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...swalk.html
https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...arges.html
https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...icles.html
https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...arged.html
https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...arged.html
Hmm....I stand corrected.
My experience is with pedestrians not being charged when they cross without explicitly having the right of way. I am probably wrong to assume it applies to cyclists as well.
Quote:The new IHT crossings seem to done correctly based on O. Reg. 402/15. Glasgow doesn't have road markings yet though.
The 'incorrect' usage is when there is a vertical deviation, sharks teeth are used to point "up" the bump. This means that they are pointing the opposite direction and have no meaning for yielding. The fact they would use the same marking in two contradictory positions with two completely different meanings is frankly negligent....I have not put this bluntly towards people who I know worked on the standards document but it really shows how little UX plays into their collective thinking.
Quote:
My problem with the way this is being handled right now is the infrastructure actively encourages cyclists to not properly understand the law in a way that could get them seriously injured or killed, let alone fined. If you look at the screenshot of Gage Ave, there is literally no way to anticipate a cyclist riding into the crossover with those sightlines. I came to a complete stop for the first group of joggers there and still had a second group nearly run into the side of my car as I slowly proceeded through the crossover, and a cyclist would likely have struck my vehicle.
"Actively encourage" no, it definitely does not do that. What do you feel "actively encourages" cyclists to do something? It doesn't "prevent" them from doing it, but that isn't the same thing at all. In fact, from a cyclists perspective literally nothing has changed between now and before. Cyclists have gained no new rights, nor any new responsibilities. In the event of a collision, the police may be more likely to charge them, but they could have been charged before, and they would always have been at fault.
The Gage St. sight lines have been an issue forever. And as you point out, it isn't a problem for just cyclists but also pedestrians. The real solution is to constrain drivers with vertical and horizontal deviations (provided the city is unable to legally compel the property owner to improve the sight line).
Quote:And don't get me started on the "crossrides" the City of Waterloo installed at the Columbia Ave W roundabout continuing that bizarre roll curb bike lane/MUT thing. Not only do they have no signage or regulatory authority, it's actually forbidden to install a crossride alongside a pedestrian crossover like this, which is why the IHT crossovers were designed to be able to add them later if regulatory changes allow it.
That is very surprising, you are right that they are not explicitly permitted to do that. The City of Kitchener asked for permission and was denied. Are you sure the MTO Book 18 says "no" rather than just not explicitly allowing it I cannot remember? Engineers are usually a conservative bunch and will ask instead of assume.
That being said I think Book 18 is just a guideline which engineers can override. Frankly I applaud CoW engineers for doing what the design SHOULD be rather than what is provided for in very slowly improving standards. I think our engineers should be more willing to ignore bad standards. I am surprised to see it in the CoW given how unwilling they were to do this for other bad standards during the last master planning process.
Quote:(07-02-2022, 09:10 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Hang on a second, what’s going on here? I mean yes, I know, bias, but legally, doesn’t everyone have the obligation to avoid collisions as much as possible, no matter the events leading up to them? If I’m driving down the street and a car turns left in front of me illegally, I’m not allow to just plow into them — I have to attempt to avoid the collision, presumably by braking.
So even if the person on a bicycle is in the crossing illegally (which it shouldn’t be, as you point out, but that’s another story), shouldn’t the driver be liable to be charged?
Is it just bias or do I misunderstand the law?
Drivers have a duty of care to not strike pedestrians and cyclists, so of course you can't just plow through a crossover if a cyclist is riding in it illegally, but in most cases the cyclist is going to be found at fault. Even pedestrians can be charged for getting struck at a crossover if they step out in front of a vehicle without due care. I usually refer to the comments from the MTO in this excellent article about uncontrolled crossings.
https://www.raisethehammer.org/article/1..._crosswalk
What is clear to me is that Ontario has some of the worst right of way laws in Canada. In most other provinces, drivers are required to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks. In Ontario, the design does very little to make clear who has the right of way, this is despite the fact that hundreds of pages and billions of dollars of infrastructure has been spent trying to standardize these things.