Confusion causing chaos at Toronto intersections
Pedestrians, cyclists and motorists try to navigate the confusing intersection at Bay and Richmond Sts. A spate of recent accidents, including some fatal ones, has sparked a discussion about how to make streets safer for all users.
Re Turn for worse, June 27 Brilliant summary by Tamar Harris regarding the chaos that occurs for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers at the busy intersection of Richmond and Bay Sts. A “cycle track” has been installed here that planners deem progressive but that users find confusing and dangerous.
In addition to the lack of knowledge, there is the ongoing refusal by cyclists to stop at a stop sign or red light if they deem it safe for themselves.
The article states that 45 per cent of cyclists do not stop. I cycle the Martin Goodman Trail 80 kilometres per week and I confidently state that 90 per cent of cyclists do not stop at stop signs or red lights. Most blow through at full speed. Cars can’t safely turn left or right.
I suggest a few weekends where police on bikes set up a checkpoint at a few busy intersections, and hand out tickets under the Highway Traffic Act. The culprits and others will get the message. And safety for all. Mike Faye, Toronto The ongoing tragedy and dysfunction of the car/bike/pedestrian interface on Toronto streets is well-known. Yet the city has never done a two-hour study to determine the actual working of their hallmark intersection, leaving it to the Star to do?
Unbelievable. Irresponsible. Melanie Rogers, Kingston, Ont. The right-turn signals on a truck may not be visible to a cyclist on its right wanting to go straight ahead. The truck goes straight ahead then turns right, into the cyclist. Turn signals on the side of a truck could help. Also, cyclists are irritatingly slow to move off when the light changes, because they’re usually in top gear. Simon Leigh, Toronto Accidents are worse than ever this year. Seeing so many people dead, I am sorry and frustrated.
I have a simple and effective solution that, if adopted, could reduce accidents significantly.
Change our streets so cyclists ride the opposite direction of traffic. This way, both drivers and cyclists will be able to see each other. There will be no more cyclists hit by doors.
At least have a pilot project to see if this is beneficial or not. Iqbal Hossain, Toronto I work near Old City Hall, so I am familiar with the intersection that was studied in Tamar Harris’s article.
I have always assumed that greenpainted pavement is for bikes and bikes alone, so I would never move into that green lane to turn right onto Bay St.
What conditioned that assumption is a green “bike box” in the left-turn lane (heading north) at the corner of St. George and Harbord, which I interpret as a place for bicycles to gather in front of any cars turning left.
At the Bay-Richmond intersection, there is no signage to indicate that turning cars are welcome in that green space. None.
It is no wonder that drivers are not doing “what they are supposed to” when they are being sent such unclear and inconsistent messaging. William S. Hesselgrave, Toronto I understand that getting all parties informed is likely a difficult challenge. I support the city in its effort in learning about and testing designs that passively guide people to do the right thing.
The future requires much more support for cycling as a means of transportation. Edward Ing, Toronto At the centre of your timely and significant piece is the misuse of the intersection by road users, but the real target of the debate should be the ambiguity of road markings that lead to confusion and distraction.
Ambiguous markings are the real threat here because a road user who believes they interpret road markings correctly will have the conviction to follow the route indicated, which may be absolutely the opposite of another’s interpretation.
The result? Confusion, anger, irritation and possibly collision. Peter Sharp, Toronto The evidence gleaned by the Star at the intersection of Bay and Richmond Sts. underscores the need for some different thinking about bicycles.
Because they have wheels, bicycles are governed by the Highway Traffic Act, and cyclists are obligated to follow most of the rules that motorists are.
But bicycles are not motor vehicles; they are, in terms of vulnerability, somewhere between motor vehicles and pedestrians. They are slower than cars, but faster than pedestrians. On the road, they are at risk of collision with automobiles. On the sidewalk, they pose a risk to pedestrians.
For these reasons, we need to completely rethink the place, both spatial and societal, that bicycles have in our system of transportation. The thinking that we use nowis simply not working. Ronald Weir, Toronto All well-intentioned plans for traffic safety start off from the mistaken assumption that cars and bicycles can mix. But they can’t. That’s why we built bicycle lanes in the first place and that’s why they continue to expand.
Against logic, however, the separation between bikes and cars ends at intersections, and that’s where the trouble begins. What’s the solution? Separate traffic lights for cars and bikes, set to operate in four phases.
Phases 1 and 2: red lights for all cars, green lights for bikes heading eastwest, followed by green lights for bikes heading north-south. Phases 3 and 4: red lights for all bikes, green lights for cars proceeding north-south, and then green lights for cars proceeding eastwest.
This will cause a four- to five-minute delay for bikes and cars over the existing free-for-all, but it should lead to a drastic improvement in safety for all. Harvey Simmons, Toronto
Send email to lettertoed@thestar.ca; via
web at thestar.ca/letters. Include full name, address, phone numbers of sender; only name and city will be published. Letter writers should disclose any personal interest they have in the subject matter. We reserve the right to edit letters, which run 50-150 words.