[reaperexpress]

I did know that, actually….. but, some times they are the sole indicator of an HTA restriction that is not signed…. Passing on hills and curves being an example.

If the restriction is in the HTA then there's no need for it to be signed.

I have wondered whether those black and white regulatory signs are ergonomically effective. They serve a legal purpose well - but lane markings and geometry are far better at giving drivers clues that prevent errors…. Wearher permitting, that is.

Indeed road markings are a helpful reminder weather permitting, hence why they exist. But the legal force always needs to come from a sign which people can look for even when the road is salty or snowy, or a general law that drivers are expected to know.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

This is St. John's Road (west of Runnymede Road). Note the solid yellow line. Yet the cars around crossing over into the opposite lane because of the parked cars. Should they be ticketed for the "illegal" use of the roadway? Or should they be taken as a "suggestion" only?

From link.

 

[reaperexpress]

Single yellow centre lines have no legal force. They are suggestions only.

In my opinion, they should not paint any centre line on minor streets with speed limits of 40 km/h or below, such as the one in that picture. The lack of centre demarkation forces drivers to be alert to the entire street, not just half of it, encouraging drivers to select a lateral position which is appropriate for the current conditions (bikes, parked cars, etc) rather than an arbitrary line. Removing the centre line may also reduce speeds by making the street look less like an arterial road.

This has nothing to do with roundabouts.

 

[lenaitch]

I did know that, actually….. but, some times they are the sole indicator of an HTA restriction that is not signed…. Passing on hills and curves being an example.
I have wondered whether those black and white regulatory signs are ergonomically effective. They serve a legal purpose well - but lane markings and geometry are far better at giving drivers clues that prevent errors…. Wearher permitting, that is.

- Paul

(With apologies for continuing this off-topic romp)

The obvious reason lane markings are just advisory is, obviously, winter. Not every rule of the road (i.e. passing on a hill or curve) requires signage - drivers are expected to know.

This is St. John's Road (west of Runnymede Road). Note the solid yellow line. Yet the cars around crossing over into the opposite lane because of the parked cars. Should they be ticketed for the "illegal" use of the roadway? Or should they be taken as a "suggestion" only?

As mentioned, it has no force in law; it essentially marks the middle of the road. Many paved rural and suburban roads have a solid centre line for their entire length. Even though they aren't enforceable, different zone markings do require some level of traffic engineering input to guide the paint crew, and most smaller municipalities simply don't have that.

This is why I believe we need mandatory driver retesting every 10 years or so. It's not just about reminding people about the rules/behaviours they have forgotten, it's about informing them about the changes which have happened in the previous decade. For example, the HTA was amended in 2016 with changes such as introducing "shark's teeth" yield markings, changing the laws about yielding in crosswalks, designating bicycle signals, etc. But in the absence of driver retraining, it won't be until around 2096 that all licensed drivers are aware of those changes. And yet drivers can be charged with violating any of those new/changed laws today, and lack of knowledge is not a valid legal defense.

One thing I found handy was the flyers included in the MTO registration renewal letter, which highlighted a few significant changes. That's where I learned I now have to wait for a pedestrian to fully exit the roadway at a crossover. But they don't do that anymore. The HTA, and a few others, is regulatory law aimed at millions of people, as opposed to, for example, a regulated industry. Regulatory law is full of exceptions, ya-buts and unique circumstances. I honestly don't know a completely effective way to keep such a wide audience informed.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

(With apologies for continuing this off-topic romp)

The obvious reason lane markings are just advisory is, obviously, winter. Not every rule of the road (i.e. passing on a hill or curve) requires signage - drivers are expected to know.


As mentioned, it has no force in law; it essentially marks the middle of the road. Many paved rural and suburban roads have a solid centre line for their entire length. Even though they aren't enforceable, different zone markings do require some level of traffic engineering input to guide the paint crew, and most smaller municipalities simply don't have that.


One thing I found handy was the flyers included in the MTO registration renewal letter, which highlighted a few significant changes. That's where I learned I now have to wait for a pedestrian to fully exit the roadway at a crossover. But they don't do that anymore. The HTA, and a few others, is regulatory law aimed at millions of people, as opposed to, for example, a regulated industry. Regulatory law is full of exceptions, ya-buts and unique circumstances. I honestly don't know a completely effective way to keep such a wide audience informed.

When a pedestrian wonders off the crossover, I don't wait anymore because the pedestrian is no longer in the crossover.

Now if there was a RAISED crossever, I would still have to go slowly over the crossover, instead of putting the pedal to the metal and go.

 

[crs1026]

One thing I found handy was the flyers included in the MTO registration renewal letter, which highlighted a few significant changes. That's where I learned I now have to wait for a pedestrian to fully exit the roadway at a crossover. But they don't do that anymore. The HTA, and a few others, is regulatory law aimed at millions of people, as opposed to, for example, a regulated industry. Regulatory law is full of exceptions, ya-buts and unique circumstances. I honestly don't know a completely effective way to keep such a wide audience informed.

I don't know, either..... but certainly the five seconds waiting for my Youtube video to play would be well spent with driving tips.

This discussion did send me back to the latest edition of the Ontario Driver's handbook. Its section on Roundabouts does say things that may be true in most cases - but doesn't have qualifiers that would apply in some of the exceptional situations, such as the Hespeller Road roundabout. So I'm better educated, sort of, but feeling that there could be better explanations there also.

I'm happier to say that I did know the difference between a "crossover" and a "crosswalk".... the latter term is often misapplied to mean the place where you push the button and stick out your arm. But I'm quite puzzled about when one must stop and when one can proceed after encountering a pedestrian using a crosswalk, especially when there is an island or light standard in the middle of the roadway. Does one wait until they have reached the far side of the entire roadway? Or just the "half" that the driver will turn into? The Handbook could be clearer on that, and about other things I guess.

- Paul

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Pedestrian Friendly Roundabouts​

From link.

Roundabouts have steadily emerged across our nation in recent years and have even become the new norm for many of our communities. The numerous benefits of roundabouts, including continuous traffic flow and decreased severity in crashes, are undeniable. However, there are also some poorly designed examples that showcase why it is crucial to design and construct roundabouts in an exceedingly prudent manner. This holds true, not only for vehicular considerations, but also for pedestrian safety.

There are some misconceptions that roundabouts pose a greater danger to pedestrians than traditional intersections with traffic signal or stop sign control. Roundabouts are a proven way to increase safety and efficiency for all those sharing the road – including pedestrians. Federal Highway Administration and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety studies have shown that properly designed roundabouts result in as much as a 40 percent reduction in pedestrian collisions along with other significant improvements in safety over more traditional intersections.

A proper roundabout design is critical and must consider vehicles and pedestrians equally for a well-balanced solution that provides ample capacity, reduced delay, and increased safety for everyone. Unfortunately, pedestrian considerations are sometimes given a lower priority and are often treated as more of an afterthought rather than an integral component of the design. Below are some guidelines for designing and building a pedestrian friendly roundabout:​

​

1. Speed Reduction​

​

Design the roundabout approach curves to progressively reduce vehicular speeds prior to entry. Slower speeds at or below 20 mph are much safer and enable pedestrians to find gaps in traffic to safely cross and encourage vehicles to yield to them as they step up to the crosswalk.​

​

2. Central Island​

​

Place earth fill and architectural features in the central island to make it visible to approaching drivers. A raised central island prevents drivers from seeing all the way through to the other side of the roundabout and encourages them to slow down to negotiate the turns. This places the driver’s focus and attention back to the near side crosswalk rather than looking further ahead through the roundabout.​

​

3. Splitter Islands​

​

Provide refuge for pedestrians within the splitter islands of sufficient width to accommodate the length of bicycles. The refuge island allows pedestrian and bicycle users to look left first at oncoming traffic, then look right after reaching the island. Negotiating traffic one direction at a time reduces the user stress levels, which can lead to a safer outcome. Raised splitter islands with low landscaping or architectural features can encourage reduced vehicle speeds and make pedestrians feel safer while in the island as long as the low elements don’t block visibility.​

​

4. Lighting​

​

Install roadway luminaires in the appropriate locations on the approach side of each crosswalk. This ensures that pedestrians are illuminated from the approaching driver’s point of view. Lights installed on the opposite side of the crosswalk will illuminate the wrong side of pedestrians, causing them appear as shadows from the approaching driver’s view.​

​

5. Crosswalks​

​

Follow FHWA guidelines on placement of crosswalks to allow for one car length or approximately 25 feet from the edge of the circulatory roadway. Vehicle speeds are relatively slow in these locations. Consider raised “speed table” type crosswalks that offer more visibility along with slower speeds that can encourage vehicles to yield to the pedestrians. Speed tables also reduce the need for ADA curb cuts allowing wheelchairs and bicycles to continue through the crossing at sidewalk level.​

​

6. Pedestrian Channelization​

​

Consider adding pedestrian channelization features such as railings, bollard-and-chain barriers, landscaping, planters, or other architectural elements. Such features will guide pedestrians to the appropriate crosswalk locations where scattered or random crossing movements become problematic.​

​

7. Striping & Signage​

​

Place crosswalk striping and accompanying signs in such a manner as to maximize their visibility to drivers. Consider high-contrast colored and patterned pavement treatments to provide additional visibility for the crosswalks. Advanced warning signs should also be placed to alert drivers they are approaching a roundabout and encourage speed reduction. Striping and signage are absolutely critical to the function of roundabouts and should be refreshed on a regular basis.​

​

8. Additional Pedestrian Warning Treatments ​

​

Consider additional signage and signals in areas of heavier pedestrian movements. Such treatments could range from simple flashing beacons, to pedestrian activated devices such as LED edge lit signs, Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons, or embedded pavement lights, to full-fledged pedestrian hybrid beacons or “HAWK” signals. If possible, extremely heavy pedestrian volumes should be re-routed away from a roundabout via a tunnel or bridge.​

​

9. Public involvement and awareness ​

​

It is no secret to those in the industry that roundabouts can be a hot-button issue. One way to allay community concerns is to keep residents in the loop through public outreach via the city’s website, social media, and press releases. The FHWA compiled a Roundabouts Outreach & Education Toolbox to help cities and towns gain support for roundabouts, including animated videos.​

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

 

[lenaitch]

I'm happier to say that I did know the difference between a "crossover" and a "crosswalk".... the latter term is often misapplied to mean the place where you push the button and stick out your arm. But I'm quite puzzled about when one must stop and when one can proceed after encountering a pedestrian using a crosswalk, especially when there is an island or light standard in the middle of the roadway. Does one wait until they have reached the far side of the entire roadway? Or just the "half" that the driver will turn into? The Handbook could be clearer on that, and about other things I guess.

The whole 'crossover' vs. crosswalk' thing is unnecessarily confusing. A Pedestrian Crossover is a designated mid-block corridor we typically call a 'crosswalk'. Proceeding when the pedestrian has cleared 'your half' was the old rule; now it is:

140 (1) When a pedestrian is crossing on the roadway within a pedestrian crossover, the driver of a vehicle approaching the crossover,​

​

(a) shall stop before entering the crossover;​

​

(b) shall not overtake another vehicle already stopped at the crossover; and​

​

(c) shall not proceed into the crossover until the pedestrian is no longer on the roadway. 2015, c. 14, s. 39 (1).​

There used to be reference to 'safety island' but I don't see it anymore. Keep mind that if it a divided highway, even by a curb, each travelled portion is considered a separate "roadway".

If you are turning, you are probably talking about an intersection. There is no specific rule except a general requirement to yield to a pedestrian in the "crosswalk":

(7) When under this section a driver is permitted to proceed, the driver shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within a crosswalk. ​

A big caveat that it has been many years since I had to really care about this stuff (And I never worked in an area with a lot of urban) so I might have missed something, and there might be something in a municipal bylaw that they are empowered to enact.

*****

The new roundabout near here has fairly exaggerated reverse approach curves for one highway because both approaches are a downgrade, and it seems to work quite well to slow vehicles down.

 

[nfitz]

Don't want to derail the discussion much but roundabouts as we see them in Ontario and NA in general are NOT safer for pedestrians than a signalized intersection. In a signalized intersection pedestrians cross with a signalized phase and are generally free of conflicts except for right and left turns and those can be controlled with their own phases. Roundabouts in ontario are typically uncontrolled pedestrian crossings, at the most they will have Rapid Flashing Beacons which unsurprisingly are not as effective at stoping a car than a red light.

Roundabouts in Ontario are primarily to reduce car collisions and improve traffic flow. While the speed throught he junction may be reduced, it is *increased* for the conflict with the pedestrian - the pedestrian must wait for traffic to stop specifically for them, whereas at a traffic signal the cars are otherwise stopped. If ontario adopted more dutch style roundabouts (radial, crossings set back, single lane) and considered actual signals for the pedestrian crossings they could be safer *overall*.

We do have a roundabout thread - and here it is.

Personally, the only times I have been (as a pedestrian) hit by a car, or almost hit by a car is at a signalized intersection. At the other extreme, I've never even come close to being hit mid-block on major streets when there are no cars coming.

I'd be interested to see comparisions on the injury rate to pedestrians at roundabouts compared to controlled intersections. And on the severity of injuries We can offer our opinions and ancedotes - but the hard numbers would be interesting.

 

[afransen]

We do have a roundabout thread - and here it is.

Personally, the only times I have been (as a pedestrian) hit by a car, or almost hit by a car is at a signalized intersection. At the other extreme, I've never even come close to being hit mid-block on major streets when there are no cars coming.

I'd be interested to see comparisions on the injury rate to pedestrians at roundabouts compared to controlled intersections. And on the severity of injuries We can offer our opinions and ancedotes - but the hard numbers would be interesting.

I have to say, I think right turns on reds are the most dangerous as a pedestrian, followed by unprotected left turns (with drivers focused intensely on oncoming traffic and paying no heed to pedestrians). In a roundabout, the deconflicted car traffic allows drivers to focus more on pedestrian conflicts. I think the key design factor is to design roundabouts more as 90 degree turns and not tangents that encourage high approach and exit speeds.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

In Europe, they have unsignalled pedestrian crossings located at least a car length from the roundabout circle itself. However, in Europe, they are much more stricter with pedestrian crossings than in North America. The pedestrians have the right-of-way at all times at unsignalled crossings. Not so in North America.

 

[BrenWilson]

We do have a roundabout thread - and here it is.

Personally, the only times I have been (as a pedestrian) hit by a car, or almost hit by a car is at a signalized intersection. At the other extreme, I've never even come close to being hit mid-block on major streets when there are no cars coming.

I'd be interested to see comparisions on the injury rate to pedestrians at roundabouts compared to controlled intersections. And on the severity of injuries We can offer our opinions and ancedotes - but the hard numbers would be interesting.

I would reccomened you drive down Ira Needle Blvd in KW. These are 2 lane round-abouts designed with current MTO practices and there have been multiple pedestrian collisions in the past year. They also present an extremely hostile crossing to the pedestrian and I would not be surprised if they are actively discouraging pedestrians to cross, which can make it seem safer than it really is as the risk is now entirely on the pedestrian to cross when there is a gap. Pedestrians may theoretically have ROW, but drivers in Ontario basically don't stop for anything sort of an actual red light so in practice the have none.


Basically to reduce pedestrian incidents while still enabling/encouraging crossing the engineer/designer needs to reduce the hazards. Every point of conflict is a hazard. At a roundabout a pedestrian needs to cross 2 points of conflict and the risk is higher if there is no effective means of them asserting ROW. At a signalized intersection there are 2-4 points of conflicts if you treat turns and through traffic as together or seperate; however the risk at these points can be controlled through phasing of the existing signal - whereas to reduce the risk at the roundabout you need to install new infrastructure and none of the current accepted means really have much effectiveness.


Road design in ontario is still heavily skewed towards traffic flow, and even more so when actually being implemented.

 

[txlseries4]

We do have a roundabout thread - and here it is.

Personally, the only times I have been (as a pedestrian) hit by a car, or almost hit by a car is at a signalized intersection. At the other extreme, I've never even come close to being hit mid-block on major streets when there are no cars coming.

I'd be interested to see comparisions on the injury rate to pedestrians at roundabouts compared to controlled intersections. And on the severity of injuries We can offer our opinions and ancedotes - but the hard numbers would be interesting.

I have to say, I think right turns on reds are the most dangerous as a pedestrian, followed by unprotected left turns (with drivers focused intensely on oncoming traffic and paying no heed to pedestrians). In a roundabout, the deconflicted car traffic allows drivers to focus more on pedestrian conflicts. I think the key design factor is to design roundabouts more as 90 degree turns and not tangents that encourage high approach and exit speeds.

For at-intersection pedestrian-automobile collisions where the pedestrian has right of way that result in KSI, over 2014-2023:
Per year averages are 6.6 straight thru, 25.1 left-turn, and 8.5 right-turn.
402 people hit over that 10 year period broken down by injury:
Major: 318
Fatal: 65
Minor: 12
None: 4
Minimal: 3

Unfortunately, public Toronto Police Service data is poorly structured and lacks key details that prevents good analysis beyond collisions that result in serious injury or fatality. On the one hand, the Pedestrian KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) data includes injury type, manoeuvre, if speed was involved, road conditions, cursory breakdown of each party involved, plus others.

While TPS' Traffic Collisions data covers all collisions, it lacks all those properties above, and only contains one record per collision, so it’s impossible to determine the number of people involved (e.g., a pedestrian—just one? a car—two?, or one turning and not paying attention?). Even with coordinates available for each collision which you could filter down to only ones at intersections, you still couldn't say if a car mounted a sidewalk, turned into someone, etc.

According to Pedestrian KSI data, in 2023 159 people were hit in 148 collisions. Injuries: 29 fatal, 119 major, 6 minor, 2 minimal, 3 none.
Of those 159, 73 people were hit while crossing at an intersection, 51 with right-of-way, 22 without right-of-way. I'm curious whether the hand flashing/when you started across plays into how it's categorized...
The minimal/no injuries are in the data because another person (often pedestrian) was more seriously injured in the collision, but all parties are listed in the data including drivers and passengers.

Overall in 2023, Traffic Collisions data shows there were 1,388 pedestrian and automobile collisions—1,082 of those with an injury, 306 without (totally unclear who was injured.. pedestrian? driver? passenger?). An additional 59 pedestrian-involved collisions lack being marked with an automobile involved but are categorized fail-to-remain, and 67 more had no car, motorcycle, or bicycle, with 33 listed as no injury and 34 as injury collisions. Some of these instances can be found in news articles using date and location, like one where a drunk F150 driver killed a pedestrian, but the data doesn't properly list a truck or any vehicle being involved. All this to say some of the data from TPS is a shameful shit-show that would be criticized even if done for a college class assignment.

And for some broader context, there were 66,863 automobile collisions in 2023, down from 81,076 in 2019, but up from 58,603 in 2022.

I think there's an argument to be made that relying on KSI data for pedestrian safety can be misleading, overlooking the broader picture of road safety. Collisions that aren’t classified as KSI may still indicate unsafe conditions, yet they’re swept under the rug as status quo because they didn't significantly alter someone's life, and they don't get included in reports and headlines. This skews decision-making, ignoring the impact of near misses, insurance or vehicle repairs stresses, and potential trauma — whether as a pedestrian or driver.

 

[nfitz]

I would reccomened you drive down Ira Needle Blvd in KW. These are 2 lane round-abouts designed with current MTO practices and there have been multiple pedestrian collisions in the past year. They also present an extremely hostile crossing to the pedestrian and I would not be surprised if they are actively discouraging pedestrians to cross, which can make it seem safer than it really is as the risk is now entirely on the pedestrian to cross when there is a gap. Pedestrians may theoretically have ROW, but drivers in Ontario basically don't stop for anything sort of an actual red light so in practice the have none.

I'm quite familiar with the Erb/Needles roundabout. Which in my mind is very poorly designed, with the approaches not on enough of an angle, the pavement markings poor, and the pedestrian crossings not far enough from the roundabout. I don't know why the paint markings for the lanes, don't extrude out onto the roundabout. Or the bullheads aren't more obviously coloured.

I drove around that roundabout backwards once, as a passenger, not long after it opened; they were trying to turn left (west to south). Which should be nigh impossible if the thing was properly designed. Looking at it in Streetview, I'm surprised nothing has changed, other than making the pedestrian crossing signs larger.

The two-lane roundabouts do seem more problematic. And if that (quite old) roundabout still meets MTO design standards, then MTO design standards need to be updated.

That simply may not be an appropriate place for a 2-lane roundabout. Frequently such things have in relatively busy pedestrian locatons have pedestrian signals.

Are there any MTO roundabout in similar environments, with shops on each corner, and very close residential? If you look in the UK, for example, such locations either seem to have pedestrian-activated lights.

For at-intersection pedestrian-automobile collisions where the pedestrian has right of way that result in KSI, over 2014-2023:
Per year averages are 6.6 straight thru, 25.1 left-turn, and 8.5 right-turn.
402 people hit over that 10 year period broken down by injury:

Is there a link to that? I'm familiar with KPIs, but not KSIs. There's no roundabout data there right?