Vision Zero - Red Light Cameras, Reduced Speed Limits etc.

[rhuarc29]

It is not legal according to the Highway Traffic Act 144(15):
Amber light
(15) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed with caution. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (15). [my emphasis]

As you pointed out, its legality depends on interpretation of "can do so safely". If the choice is between getting hard on the brakes or entering an intersection on amber, I do the same thing as sempel: speed up to clear the intersection sooner. In all my life I have never had to enter an intersection on a red following this strategy, but plenty of times the light has gone red before I have exited the intersection. Unless the intersection is massive, in which case the length of the amber should be longer, this doesn't pose a risk.

As long as red light cameras are catching people entering an intersection on red, and not those already present in the intersection when it goes red, I'm fine with them.

 

[GameBoy27]

As you pointed out, its legality depends on interpretation of "can do so safely". If the choice is between getting hard on the brakes or entering an intersection on amber, I do the same thing as sempel: speed up to clear the intersection sooner. In all my life I have never had to enter an intersection on a red following this strategy, but plenty of times the light has gone red before I have exited the intersection. Unless the intersection is massive, in which case the length of the amber should be longer, this doesn't pose a risk.

As long as red light cameras are catching people entering an intersection on red, and not those already present in the intersection when it goes red, I'm fine with them.

Exactly... ^^^

The only way you'll get a red light camera ticket is by entering the intersection (crossing the sensor) when the light is red. The only way you can go through an intersection on a red without getting a ticket is by stopping first. That's why you don't get nailed for making a right on a red (provided you stop first). A rolling right turn on a red can lead to a ticket.

 

[oldjones]

As you pointed out, its legality depends on interpretation of "can do so safely". If the choice is between getting hard on the brakes or entering an intersection on amber, I do the same thing as sempel: speed up to clear the intersection sooner. In all my life I have never had to enter an intersection on a red following this strategy, but plenty of times the light has gone red before I have exited the intersection. Unless the intersection is massive, in which case the length of the amber should be longer, this doesn't pose a risk.

As long as red light cameras are catching people entering an intersection on red, and not those already present in the intersection when it goes red, I'm fine with them.

Every amber I've seen has allowed plenty of stopping time from from its first light-up until the red light came on. IF you're travelling at legal speed or below. Not to say there aren't some mis-timed traffic signals out there, but if someone saw the amber come on, yet still couldn't make it through the intersection before the red, they must have been travelling at such a slow rate of speed, I cannot imagine any reason why they couldn't have stopped safely.

If they didn't see it come on, then they weren't paying appropriate attention to the roadway ahead, and should look into a defensive driving course.

 

[sempel]

It is not legal according to the Highway Traffic Act 144(15):
Amber light
(15) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed with caution. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (15). [my emphasis]

You know your vehicle and it's stopping distance at speed. Unless you can truthfully assert you could not stop safely, you are breaking the law by proceeding on an amber. Of course, we realize the Crown's burden of proof makes a conviction difficult, but even if you get away without penalty, you shouldn't be deceiving yourself.

And it might be wise to think about how you'd argue speeding up to make it through could possibly be seen as as 'proceeding with caution', in the event there's a cop responding to 'complaints from the neighbourhood'.

I know that's what the law says but it does mean you can run an amber, right? You are encouraged to stop (or even supposed to stop) if it's safe to do so. In my opinion, me stopping is never safe, especially in bad weather where one can skid. No officer can prove otherwise. And I think anybody who complains about people running yellows is (1) an idiot for complaining and (2) an idiot because they'll be laughed at by the person taking the complaint. I can't complain if I want people to do 40 in a 50 zone just because. My only option is to try and get the limit changed. Cops can't and won't stop people to enforce rules not really being broken.

FYI I know I'm on the wrong side of this but don't care.

 

[Kirby2006]

I know that's what the law says but it does mean you can run an amber, right? You are encouraged to stop (or even supposed to stop) if it's safe to do so. In my opinion, me stopping is never safe, especially in bad weather where one can skid. No officer can prove otherwise. And I think anybody who complains about people running yellows is (1) an idiot for complaining and (2) an idiot because they'll be laughed at by the person taking the complaint. I can't complain if I want people to do 40 in a 50 zone just because. My only option is to try and get the limit changed. Cops can't and won't stop people to enforce rules not really being broken.

FYI I know I'm on the wrong side of this but don't care.

You've stated in another thread that you are a habitual speeder. I guess that's the reason you can't safely stop when you approach an amber light. Yet you maintain you're an ultra safe driver. Hmmm.....

 

[sempel]

You've stated in another thread that you are a habitual speeder. I guess that's the reason you can't safely stop when you approach an amber light. Yet you maintain you're an ultra safe driver. Hmmm.....

I maintain I'm a good driver. I also maintain that I've ridden with driver's who obey every law and in some cases it has caused an issue, just like people who go ultra slow. The difference between a safe and unsafe driver is awareness.

But yes I do speed and feel safe when I'm behind the wheel versus others who have limited ability to react to sudden changes or be proactive.

And let's not kid ourselves, most people speed, if only by a small amount - I'm just willing to admit it. The danger is people going 80 in a 40 zone or doing above 150 on a highway when there's many cars around.

 

[TeeJay]

As you pointed out, its legality depends on interpretation of "can do so safely". If the choice is between getting hard on the brakes or entering an intersection on amber, I do the same thing as sempel: speed up to clear the intersection sooner.

You must be joking
The "slam on my brakes defence" is total bs and everyone knows it

The amber comes on a long time before the red does so you have plenty of time to slow
Plus the fact most of the speed limits on these streets were only 40 to 60km/h (being reduced to 30 to 50km/h now)

 

[TeeJay]

What we really need to do is augment the red light cameras with the speeding cameras

I would be willing to bet 99% of these "safe" drivers who need to "slam" on their brakes are well above posted limits and using their cell phones

 

[rhuarc29]

As you pointed out, its legality depends on interpretation of "can do so safely". If the choice is between getting hard on the brakes or entering an intersection on amber, I do the same thing as sempel: speed up to clear the intersection sooner.

You must be joking
The "slam on my brakes defence" is total bs and everyone knows it

The amber comes on a long time before the red does so you have plenty of time to slow
Plus the fact most of the speed limits on these streets were only 40 to 60km/h (being reduced to 30 to 50km/h now)

If I'm 5m from the intersection going 50km/h and the light goes amber, I'm going to be entering that intersection on amber no matter what. If I'm 25m from the intersection going 50km/h when the light goes amber, it'd be dangerous to try stopping in time. If I'm 50m from the intersection going 50km/h when the light goes amber, I should be able to stop safely. The "slam on my brakes defense" applies to the first two situations because the stopping distance for the average person going 50km/h on dry road is ~35m, and that's being hard on your equipment.

I guarantee you that you yourself enter intersections on amber, because it's impossible to predict when a light will go amber, unless it has one of those countdown crosswalk signals which I think are an amazing safety improvement that needs to be at every intersection.
Note, nowhere it my post did I say people should be entering an intersection on a red light, so I'm not sure what my "joke" was. Care to point out where I went wrong?

 

[sempel]

If I'm 5m from the intersection going 50km/h and the light goes amber, I'm going to be entering that intersection on amber no matter what. If I'm 25m from the intersection going 50km/h when the light goes amber, it'd be dangerous to try stopping in time. If I'm 50m from the intersection going 50km/h when the light goes amber, I should be able to stop safely. The "slam on my brakes defense" applies to the first two situations because the stopping distance for the average person going 50km/h on dry road is ~35m, and that's being hard on your equipment.

I guarantee you that you yourself enter intersections on amber, because it's impossible to predict when a light will go amber, unless it has one of those countdown crosswalk signals which I think are an amazing safety improvement that needs to be at every intersection.
Note, nowhere it my post did I say people should be entering an intersection on a red light, so I'm not sure what my "joke" was. Care to point out where I went wrong?

Isn't Teejay the guy who enjoys driving slower than the speed of traffic in the passing lane? I wouldn't wade into an argument with him about how to drive - he and others like him should have their license revoked.

Everything you've said is true - in driving school they talk about the point of no return (or something to that effect). When you've crossed that point, you are going through that intersection no matter what as you cannot stop safely in time. And remember, stopping safely also means ensuring the person behind you isn't going to rear end you. So although one might have space to stop, they cannot do so safely. I know there are times where I will stop but will be well over the line, I may skid, or the person behind me might think I'm going through and not brake. So going through can easily be the safest option.

 

[TeeJay]

If I'm 5m from the intersection going 50km/h and the light goes amber, I'm going to be entering that intersection on amber no matter what. If I'm 25m from the intersection going 50km/h when the light goes amber, it'd be dangerous to try stopping in time. If I'm 50m from the intersection going 50km/h when the light goes amber, I should be able to stop safely. The "slam on my brakes defense" applies to the first two situations because the stopping distance for the average person going 50km/h on dry road is ~35m, and that's being hard on your equipment.Care to point out where I went wrong?

Assuming you are not speeding etc the normal braking distance for 50KM/h is about 14M
At 100KM/h you need closer to 60M

So your claim of needing at least 50M to be safe is beyond laughable
Even old men react quicker than that

Put your cell phone down and watch the traffic lights you will be less surprised

 

[oldjones]

I know that's what the law says but it does mean you can run an amber, right? You are encouraged to stop (or even supposed to stop) if it's safe to do so. In my opinion, me stopping is never safe, especially in bad weather where one can skid. No officer can prove otherwise. And I think anybody who complains about people running yellows is (1) an idiot for complaining and (2) an idiot because they'll be laughed at by the person taking the complaint. I can't complain if I want people to do 40 in a 50 zone just because. My only option is to try and get the limit changed. Cops can't and won't stop people to enforce rules not really being broken.

FYI I know I'm on the wrong side of this but don't care.

There is no ambiguity: You are required to stop. Nothing about 'encouraged'. You only proceed on amber when you're so close that braking is downright dangerous.

Your logic is the same as those guys who imagine they can drink then decide they're OK to drive. Just listen to yourself: "In my opinion, me stopping is never safe…". Ridiculous overstatement, under-thought and devoid of logic or sense. Let me be the first to tell you, never say 'never', and have it stick. At long last.

What you had to say on topic was all about enforcement and only being a good driver when there are people around to make you behave. I suggest before you next climb into your car — the one you claim you never brake — you tell yourself this time you'll be the best driver you can be, not just the best at 'getting away with it'.

But you're right, you can run that light and only sempel will stop you. Until someone else's car does. Or a kid.

 

[Keebler Elf]

No one in this thread has addressed the readily apparent and dramatic increase in population, particularly in downtown Toronto. The way of the future is not the car. The priority is on the pedestrian, cyclists, and public transit. If you're in a car, you are the "problem" as far as traffic congestion goes. Soon enough there will be user fees for driving in downtown Toronto.

So lamenting speed restrictions and red light cameras is pointless. They're doing exactly what they're designed to do--promote safety and get cars off the roads so public transit can have priority.

Advocating for more "car rights" is asinine. The city cannot handle any increased traffic, hell, it can't handle the traffic it already has. And it certainly cannot handle the traffic that would come with the population increases that will continue to affect Toronto.

p.s., all this is from someone who enjoys driving. But I can see the writing on the wall. Others apparently can't.

 

[oldjones]

No one in this thread has addressed the readily apparent and dramatic increase in population, particularly in downtown Toronto. The way of the future is not the car. The priority is on the pedestrian, cyclists, and public transit. If you're in a car, you are the "problem" as far as traffic congestion goes. Soon enough there will be user fees for driving in downtown Toronto.

So lamenting speed restrictions and red light cameras is pointless. They're doing exactly what they're designed to do--promote safety and get cars off the roads so public transit can have priority.

Advocating for more "car rights" is asinine. The city cannot handle any increased traffic, hell, it can't handle the traffic it already has. And it certainly cannot handle the traffic that would come with the population increases that will continue to affect Toronto.

p.s., all this is from someone who enjoys driving. But I can see the writing on the wall. Others apparently can't.

For the issue of AmberLights=Go like Hell, what you're saying boils down to: Everyday the odds of getting through that Amber without encountering another idiot in another direction are getting slimmer.

It is why humans make laws. Common sense being so rare.

 

[FAST]

"Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed with caution. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s."

There is no law that states,... if the amber appears,... you must stop.

There is no law that states how far from the intersection you are,... when the amber appears,... you must stop.

 

[oldjones]

"Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed with caution.[/B] R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s."

There is no law that states,... if the amber appears,... you must stop.

There is no law that states how far from the intersection you are,... when the amber appears,... you must stop.

Not only is there just such a law, you quoted it: I highlighted the four words of the principal clause that state the what each and every driver must do under the law. You bolded the single exception (which is signalled by the word "otherwise") If it is unsafe to stop, the driver is permitted to proceed, but only with caution.

The law clearly says: You stop for amber, unless stopping is unsafe. IF IT IS UNSAFE, you are allowed to proceed, but only cautiously, as other traffic rightly expects you will obey the law and stop.

All that stuff about distance can be argued in court, if and when you wind up there. The lights are timed so you can stop safely if you were diving safely, so it only applies to working out whether this time you get the exception to the stopping requirement. It has ZERO to do with the universal legal requirement to do so.

 

[sempel]

There is no ambiguity: You are required to stop. Nothing about 'encouraged'. You only proceed on amber when you're so close that braking is downright dangerous.

Your logic is the same as those guys who imagine they can drink then decide they're OK to drive. Just listen to yourself: "In my opinion, me stopping is never safe…". Ridiculous overstatement, under-thought and devoid of logic or sense. Let me be the first to tell you, never say 'never', and have it stick. At long last.

What you had to say on topic was all about enforcement and only being a good driver when there are people around to make you behave. I suggest before you next climb into your car — the one you claim you never brake — you tell yourself this time you'll be the best driver you can be, not just the best at 'getting away with it'.

But you're right, you can run that light and only sempel will stop you. Until someone else's car does. Or a kid.

Clearly you missed the sarcasm/satire. My point is that the law says stop unless unsafe. The driver makes that determination. Nobody else can. So if anybody else (say a cop) tries to charge you for not stopping, the first thing you are going to argue is it was your determination that it wasn't safe to stop and he cannot argue against that. It's no different when making a turn - the person turning makes the determination when they are able to turn safely with traffic oncoming. Some people will make it when traffic is close, others will wait until there's no car visible for a kilometer (and I honk when someone has ample opportunity but is hesitating). But whatever the case, the driver makes the determination.

 

[sempel]

No one in this thread has addressed the readily apparent and dramatic increase in population, particularly in downtown Toronto. The way of the future is not the car. The priority is on the pedestrian, cyclists, and public transit. If you're in a car, you are the "problem" as far as traffic congestion goes. Soon enough there will be user fees for driving in downtown Toronto.

So lamenting speed restrictions and red light cameras is pointless. They're doing exactly what they're designed to do--promote safety and get cars off the roads so public transit can have priority.

Advocating for more "car rights" is asinine. The city cannot handle any increased traffic, hell, it can't handle the traffic it already has. And it certainly cannot handle the traffic that would come with the population increases that will continue to affect Toronto.

p.s., all this is from someone who enjoys driving. But I can see the writing on the wall. Others apparently can't.

Traffic congestion eventually will be caused by excess volume. However, it is not always the cause and there are certainly areas that suffer from congestion and it has little to do with volume.

The other causes include bottlenecks (4 lanes merging into 2), slow curves (the ramp from the 400S to the 401W - going from 100km/h to 30km/h recommended), non-coordinated traffic lights, pedestrians, buses/streetcars (because they stop), and accidents/construction. If some of these things are alleviated, less problems/congestion. And when I mention pedestrians, this is due to the lights and how they work. I remember a long time ago trying to make a left turn downtown. Two cars would get through each time because there was no advanced green and tons of pedestrians. I think the solution is pedestrians crossing while all lights are red and then don't cross otherwise.

There is also a lack of awareness/courtesy from other drivers (as well as a shortage of right turning lanes). I've been stuck behind an idiot who wants to go straight through and instead of moving over to the other lane, stops in the right lane, denying me the ability to turn right.

 

[oldjones]

Clearly you missed the sarcasm/satire. My point is that the law says stop unless unsafe. The driver makes that determination. Nobody else can. So if anybody else (say a cop) tries to charge you for not stopping, the first thing you are going to argue is it was your determination that it wasn't safe to stop and he cannot argue against that. It's no different when making a turn - the person turning makes the determination when they are able to turn safely with traffic oncoming. Some people will make it when traffic is close, others will wait until there's no car visible for a kilometer (and I honk when someone has ample opportunity but is hesitating). But whatever the case, the driver makes the determination.

I've always said we need a Sarcasm Font. The law actually says Stop. IF that is unsafe, you are permitted to proceed, but cautiously.

Actually it isn't the driver, but the court which makes that last determination. You just try to drive without attracting the attention of those who take you to court. If they do, and you or your counsel get to argue, you will find that speed limits and amber light timings have been carefully calculated to facilitate safe stopping. And you'll hear how the timing was verified by the officer, and the point defined at which an average car could no longer safely stop. And how they determined you were outside that zone of exception. It's all very simple math. It will be for you to convince the Court to support your on-the-spot snap judgment that the narrow exception applies. So they should let you off because you couldn't see the light soon enough to safely stop with your brakes and rate of speed.

Whatever the case, the determination all drivers should make is that they will drive safely and lawfully each and every time, not that they won't be caught, or can argue themselves out of it if they are.

 

[oldjones]

Traffic congestion eventually will be caused by excess volume. However, it is not always the cause and there are certainly areas that suffer from congestion and it has little to do with volume.

The other causes include bottlenecks (4 lanes merging into 2), slow curves (the ramp from the 400S to the 401W - going from 100km/h to 30km/h recommended), non-coordinated traffic lights, pedestrians, buses/streetcars (because they stop), and accidents/construction. If some of these things are alleviated, less problems/congestion. And when I mention pedestrians, this is due to the lights and how they work. I remember a long time ago trying to make a left turn downtown. Two cars would get through each time because there was no advanced green and tons of pedestrians. I think the solution is pedestrians crossing while all lights are red and then don't cross otherwise.

There is also a lack of awareness/courtesy from other drivers (as well as a shortage of right turning lanes). I've been stuck behind an idiot who wants to go straight through and instead of moving over to the other lane, stops in the right lane, denying me the ability to turn right.

We're getting into Time for a New Thread territory here.

I agree with much in your road re-design ideas. My favourite: Pedestrian crossings mid-block in high-density zones. Separate car turning from the traffic mix. For turns, every signalled intersection should have left turn lanes(if they're permitted at all) at minimum, whether or not they get priority. Right turn lanes are harder to provide for, but ideally the most crowded parts of the city would have already banned the left-turns in most places so that would give room on the right. Either way, the point would be to clearly establish the through lane.

Merging's never easy, and awful when volume prevents it from being done at speed. Best bet for that is PDO's actually earning their money directing traffic, signalling 'your turn', 'now you', 'now you' and so on. Taking turns stop and go is what we eventually clog ourselves into anyway, they'd get it happening sooner and better. The other dream would be to professionalize the temporary construction obstructions so good signage went up early enough to steer you away, and was placed wisely enough to minimize obstacles instead of becoming an obstacle itself.

We just gotta come up with the tax money to pay for this stuff. After we waste it on Rob's Scarburrow and Tory's SmartTrack.