evandyk
Senior Member
It is almost impossible to hit a pigeon with your car because of their 340 degree vision, but good riddance to the few who don't get away in time.
|
|
|
- Thread starter salsa
- Start date
lenaitch
Senior Member
It is my sense that all of Atlantic Canada is like that; which is fine if everybody is of the same mindset. No rush, no aggression. It's like the prairies where slower traffic will move onto the paved shoulder (where they exist - which is a lot more than Ontario). But I generally agree that if you don't exercise your right-of-way, it can be confusing.
The one thing I do like about the Maritimes which is only occasionally seen here, is vehicles moving to the left when there is a vehicle on the shoulder. A larger safety margin from the unknown is always a good thing.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
We’d be first at an advance green signal, proceed and laughingly look behind at the near ten second gap before the following car proceeded to turn and follow. And gawd help you if you’re second or later in line for an advance signal whilst the Maritimer in front is waiting for their preferred shade of green. And you dare not honk as you’ll very likely know the slow poke.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
afransen
Senior Member
I give a quick honk if I don't see the brake lights turn off because more often than not the first person at the light is looking at their phone.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
It’s odd how the TPS and OPP stopped enforcing the cell phone ban. That’s the low hanging fruit of Project Zero, where a TPS cyclist need only ride up the lines of congested traffic and peak into cars. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
nfitz
Superstar
They pretty much stopped enforcing eveything traffic-related except for cyclists. I suppose if you cut-off a police car or something, then they'd actually do something.
gabe
Senior Member
I live on a one-way street. 99% of the drivers going the wrong way are distracted looking at their god damn phones.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I got my first photo radar ticket. I was doing 41 kph on Mortimer where it drops to 30 kph near a school. Fair enough, that’s more than ten over.
Last edited:
afransen
Senior Member
It might be a case of the penalty being too severe. $615 and 3 demerit points is a bit drastic (and thus police are loath to impose it) when applied equally to someone using their phone at a red light (or even a drive through) vs someone texting, or as I saw both recently, facetiming or watching tiktok videos with the phone mounted on their windshield. Nuts. Maybe it needs to be split into using while moving vs use while stationary. I would argue the fine for the latter should be more like $150 and no points.
afransen
Senior Member
I think it's only fair if they give appropriate cues that it's a low speed zone. There is a 42 ft wide 2 lane street with continuous parking strips near me that had recently been reduced to 30 kph by a school, and then had photo radar installed. I never drove on that street, but walked it often. The camera was vandalized and knocked over several times and eventually moved/rotated elsewhere. They repaved the street last year and replaced curbs and sidewalks and added some traffic humps. A missed opportunity to make the intersections narrower to reduce crossing distances (esp for elementary age children), add some pinch points so that with the usually empty parking zone it is not a continuous 20 ft wide driving lane. Some flexiposts at the speed humps might not be a bad idea either. It's usually the young idiots in expensive cars that I see speeding on that street. If they worry about scratching their paint they will be likelier to drive more slowly.
A 30 kph zone, ideally, would use a rougher surface than asphalt so 30kph felt subjectively faster.
mrgrieves
Active Member
Personal question here. The short stretch of street where I live is not well-designed as it encourages and too much traffic (won't get into details). I've been working with the city councillor's office for over a year to get traffic calming measures implemented. they studied the area and deemed it would benefit from such measures. and i also got signatures from neighbours. however, all possible solutions are not being allowed (speed humps - cannot because too close too emergency services station, flexible in street speed signs - too many driveways around). are there are any public advocacy groups that can help me work with the city on this to get a solution implemented?
reaperexpress
Senior Member
If your street is designated as a "local" street, then the only motor vehicles using it should be those heading to/from a property in the neighbourhood. Cut-through traffic is contrary to the street's designated purpose and should be prevented by the City.
Speed humps and in-street signs are speed management tools, not volume management tools (though they do have some incidental volume management effects). If you're trying to prevent cut-through traffic, you should be using filtered permeability tools such as diagonal diverters, alternating one-way restrictions, etc. Those restrictions can be designed to allow emergency vehicles to pass through, actually improving response times by getting the traffic off the emergency vehicle route.
Introducing filtered permeability typically requires a comprehensive look at the traffic circulation in the neighbourhood so you'd probably need a Neighbourhood Streets Plan. See the link for what that entails.
If your street is designated as something other than Local, you likely won't succeed in getting traffic calming devices since the street has been designated as a permitted cut-through route for traffic. It is possible - Shaw Street got extensive modal filters and traffic calming while still being designated as a Collector - but on most non-local streets advocacy efforts would be unlikely to succeed.
Here are some community organisations that might support your efforts:
https://www.walktoronto.ca
https://www.cycleto.ca
https://strongtownstoronto.ca
Last edited:
reaperexpress
Senior Member
In Nova Scotia, the law requires drivers to stop and allow pedestrians to cross at all intersections, including those without any marked pedestrian crossover. In fact the Ontario concept of a pedestrian crossover (our unsignalized ped-priority crosswalks) doesn't legally exist in NS, since all crossings at all intersections in NS already have the same pedestrian priority that applies at a pedestrian crossover in Ontario
Nova Scotia Motor Vehicle Act:
New Brunswick's Motor Vehicle Act doesn't have as much pedestrian priority at unmarked crosswalks as NS, since it lacks the requirement to yield the right of way to pedestrians "stopped facing a crosswalk", so in that case it is more clear that a driver doesn't need to wave a pedestrian across if they are waiting to cross the roadway.
I doubt most drivers are aware of the differences between the rules of the road in NB vs NS. In my experience living in Fredericton, a large proportion of drivers behave more in accordance with the NS laws than the NB laws.
Northern Light
Superstar
@reaperexpress ' posts above are an excellent place to start.
His expertise in this area far exceeds my own.
That said, I might be able to give you some specific ideas to play with, but I would need to know the street/area in question to assess their practical applicability (you could share this by private message if so desired).
Taking material from the Neighbourhood Streets Plan page, linked above by Reaper...
If infiltration..........that is to say, high volumes of non-local traffic are a concern, use of one-way streets is among the most likely choices to put on the table. But turning restrictions could also be a choice.
The object in the above is simply to make taking a particular short cut much less convenient and sometimes (though not often), impossible.
The downside is that it presents the same hassle to locals as it does to outsiders.
Chicanes, like speed humps are more about reducing speed, but may incidentally reduce volume by making a route less fast/convenient.
Geometric curb extensions (for simplicity's sake, the narrowing of intersections/turning radii such as to make turning movements slower), but also more predictable could have the same effect, but is more likely that effect would be localized to that intersection, unless impacting trucks/oversize vehicles
Also plausible is the physical narrowing of a road, usually for adding a sidewalk or tree-lined boulevard...........however, the City will normally only pursue this if the road is up for reconstruction as it involves moving gutters/drains etc.
Last edited: