Trails

[Bob_McBob]

"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.

"Actively" is probably too harsh, but it's pretty clear from my online interactions that many people believe the new PXOs also give right of way to cyclists, especially if the dismount signs were also removed.

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.

My understanding is that since crossride road markings aren't regulatory, they should only be installed where cycling cross traffic would have the right of way anyway through some other regulatory means. That's why most Ontario municipalities only install crossrides at signalized intersections, and driveway crossings. Waterloo appears to be operating under the principle that the yield sign at the roundabout entrance makes the crossride separately legal from the PXO, but it's contrary to the practices described in Book 18 since it's clearly not a minor intersection. Apparently Thunder Bay was also considering this approach but did not go ahead with it for their first roundabout last year.

At a regular PXO, cyclists don't have the right of way, so simply painting a crossride doesn't confer it, regardless of whether it has shark teeth (which also aren't regulatory).

"In keeping with the principle of applying a consistent design language, crossride pavement markings should only be applied where people cycling have the right-of-way over intersecting traffic. These include situations where the cycling movement is governed by traffic signals where turning motor vehicles are required to yield to cyclists on a green indication, at minor intersections where the cross traffic is controlled by a stop or yield sign, or at driveways, where motor vehicles entering or exiting the roadway must yield to pedestrians and cyclists."

Oshawa actually installed a special signalized crossing across an MUT last year to allow a crossride.



Meanwhile in Peterborough they just plowed ahead and painted a crossride at a PXO on one of their MUTs that has zero regulatory authority. There is nothing legally requiring drivers to yield to cyclists here because the shark teeth have no regulatory authority by themselves. That's a dangerous situation.