Cycling in the National Capital Region

[roger1818]

This is a decent video explaining the issues facing bike lanes, not necessarily perfect, but good.

• Video Link

[rocketphish]

'Scary' incident sparks call to halt rollout of traffic safety software
Amber lock software installed at 33 of the planned 192 Ottawa intersections so far

Kimberley Molina · CBC News
Posted: Nov 08, 2021 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 2 hours ago

What was supposed to be an innovative made-in-Ottawa solution to protect cyclists from revert reds, the amber lock software has actually put cyclists in just as much danger as before, according to one city councillor.

Revert reds — also known as red reverts — have been in place for years. They occur when vehicles, including bicycles, cause sensors in the road to trigger a traffic light change.

The sensor technology is meant to speed the flow of traffic through intersections and cut down on emissions from idling vehicles. But if the vehicle or bicycle moves past the sensors too soon, the signal immediately switches back to red and the cross traffic gets a green light again — proving potentially dangerous for cyclists.

Instead, the amber lock software was supposed to guarantee the opposing traffic signal will stay red for five seconds, giving cyclists more time to cross an intersection.

The rollout, which has reached 33 of the planned 192 intersections, does not appear to be working as planned.

Dave Robertson says he noticed something had changed recently where a multi-use pathway crosses Carling Avenue near Dows Lake. The lights used to change to green after a cyclist triggered the yellow sensors, no matter what.

Instead, he noticed if a cyclist rolled off the sensors, a revert red now occurs. He chose to film it happening to him last week.

Even though he knew it was happening, "it was still scary," he said.

The rollout for the amber lock software began late this summer. So far, all traffic signal-controlled multi-use pathways have the software, according to Phil Landry, the city's director of traffic services.

(The installation includes an intersection CBC reported on in 2018 where a cyclist was struck and killed by a taxi. Ottawa police later said a revert red was not a factor in that collision.)

The rollout also includes the intersection where Robertson noticed a traffic signal change. CBC has reviewed his video. The video shows four to five seconds before the opposing traffic signals change back to green.

The irony, according to Coun. Catherine McKenney, is this intersection was never a problem before.

"We've had issues and concerns about revert reds at many intersections ... this intersection actually has always worked well," said McKenney.

"So, when I first saw it, I was surprised to see that it wasn't functioning the way that it had."

McKenney had originally called last spring's announcement of the amber lock rollout "a huge relief," but seeing it in action, several councillors now want the rollout to stop immediately.

Kitchissippi Coun. Jeff Leiper plans to bring forward a report to transportation committee next month asking for an elimination of all revert reds across the city.

"All we're asking for is that every road user has that same certainty that they're going to be able to safely get through the intersection, and this amber lock technology is not doing what we had intended it to result in," McKenney said.

"It does not provide for safe passage for cyclists. It is still a danger moving through intersections and at this point, what we're asking for is there to be no revert to reds at any intersection."

Robertson agrees the software does not look out for pedestrians, cyclists, or anyone not travelling in a vehicle.

"I would probably ask that we reconsider and look at technologies that keep people safe instead," he said.

"If we really want that to happen, we have to make sure that our systems are safe for people and make sure that they're convenient too."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/amber-lock-not-safe-councillor-says-1.6238387

[rocketphish]

City puts up fight in Coun. Leiper's quest to axe 'revert red' traffic signals

Jon Willing, Ottawa Citizen
Publishing date: Nov 23, 2021 • 32 minutes ago • 3 minute read

Multiple city departments oppose a proposal by a councillor to end “revert red” technology at Ottawa traffic signals, but that’s not stopping Jeff Leiper.

“I do believe they are being way too dogmatic, especially when we consider the risks to cyclists,” Leiper said on Tuesday.

“At the end of the day, cyclists are at risk of catastrophic injury and death.”

Leiper first has to convince the transportation committee on Dec. 1 to endorse his recommendation, which calls for road users to get a green light if they have triggered a light change after activating a road sensor, no matter if they move off the sensor.

He wrote a report to the committee with the help of Bike Ottawa.

Revert red traffic signal technology is often installed where busy roads meet low-traffic roads or multi-use pathways.

When a road user, like a motorist or cyclist, drives onto the road sensor, the traffic lights receive a request for a green light and they begin the change process. But, if the car or bike leaves the sensor before receiving green light, the light will revert to red and the busy road will keep the green light.

It becomes a dangerous situation if a cyclist leaves the sensor in anticipation of receiving a green light since the light could revert to red, giving the busy traffic the green light and leaving the cyclist exposed in the intersection.

City staff point out that people simply should be obeying the traffic laws and not enter an intersection if they have a red light.

Leiper says that’s not real life. Cyclists anticipate receiving the green light and advance toward the intersection as a matter of “natural behaviour,” he said.

“Way too many people describe very scary experiences of lights not behaving the way they think they should,” Leiper said.

But the prospect of slowing traffic on a busy road isn’t palatable to city departments, according to those who responded to Leiper’s report.

OC Transpo doesn’t want the city to scrap the revert red technology since buses have schedules to keep.

Ottawa Fire Services says its operations are tailored to how the road network currently operates and any changes could impact response times.

The city’s public works department, which includes traffic services, provided a lengthy response in defending revert reds.

“The suggestion in (Leiper’s report) that cyclists ‘can enter an intersection on the red in anticipation that the traffic signal will turn green’ is not correct and can lead to a very dangerous precedence,” the department wrote. “All users of the road need to wait until the traffic signal has turned green (or for pedestrians, the walk display appears) before entering a signalized intersection.”

On top of that, the city doesn’t know the scope of work required to remove the revert red technology. The city warns that changing the software could cost $500,000 in a two-year project if its own engineers can’t do it.

The Ottawa Police Service supports the position of the public works department.

The city also evoked the municipal climate change master plan in arguing that eliminating revert reds could increase traffic congestion and idling.

Leiper scoffed at the city’s concerns.

“How many false detections are going to occur to the point it’s going to increase traffic congestion or affect fire response?” he said.

If Leiper manages to convince a majority of the transportation committee to see it his way, council will be required to sign off on Dec. 8.

Leiper said that, even if he doesn’t receive the committee’s support, he’ll ask the majority of council to back him.

[email protected]
twitter.com/JonathanWilling

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...quest-to-axe-revert-red-traffic-signalsv

[PHrenetic]

Good Day.

To Mr. Leiper, et al.

Cyclists in this case (and in the video of a cyclist creating the situation above) are creating their own problem and danger.
The solution is simple - STAY on the yellow spots, and WAIT for the GREEN light !!!!! DUH !!!!!

Sorry, but quit pandering to a 'problem' that has its' own cause - cyclists who simply do not obey the instruction, ignore the cause and solution, and then complain about the danger.

This is worse than those who ignore or actively contravene the rules of the road and the traffic act.

If they want the rights and privileges of being 'vehicles', then take the responsibilities !

Same goes for those who complain of service vehicles parked - with flashers - in cycle lanes. The service vehicle is protecting the personnel who have a job to do that has to be done.
As 'vehicles', get used to it. Cars and Pedestrians have had to deal with service vehicles occupying their respective traffic space for a loooonnnnng time - it ain't nuthin' new, folks.
You do not get special treatment for a consistent and everyday thing.

End Of Rant !

P.S. to Mr. Leiper..... I am still waiting to see more bus transit priority traffic lights. Since last we discussed, I have seen yet more and more cyclist priority lights but few transit priority lights.
As a side bar - I have seen bus transit priority lights on Albert/Slater - the former downtown Transitway - appear to have appeared in time for STO to use them. OC-T never had any (what was there was never used). Verrryyyy Interrrestinnnnng!
Harumph !

[Aylmer]

I don't think you realize just how capricious the bike loops are. Car loops are several lengths long extending into the crosswalk. The bike loops are just barely a bike length, placed somewhat haphazardly, and can easily be missed. Imagine if rolling your car even a foot forward of an invisible loop could just... not trigger a light.

Scratch that, imagine you're at a railway crossing. You've pulled up to the crossing arms and they've started to rise. But you've advanced a foot from the loop that you can't see under your car. The crossing arms are fully up. And now you're halfway through, and arms shut suddenly and there's a freight train rushing towards you.

Advancing a foot when all reasonable indications are that it's safe is a minor transgression. Making it a capital punishment isn't a proportional consequence.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I don't think you realize just how capricious the bike loops are. Car loops are several lengths long extending into the crosswalk. The bike loops are just barely a bike length, placed somewhat haphazardly, and can easily be missed. Imagine if rolling your car even a foot forward of an invisible loop could just... not trigger a light.

Scratch that, imagine you're at a railway crossing. You've pulled up to the crossing arms and they've started to rise. But you've advanced a foot from the loop that you can't see under your car. The crossing arms are fully up. And now you're halfway through, and arms shut suddenly and there's a freight train rushing towards you.

Advancing a foot when all reasonable indications are that it's safe is a minor transgression. Making it a capital punishment isn't a proportional consequence.

Good Day.

I have to disagree with your scenario premises.

As to bike loops and car loops - the placement is either capricious, ill-defined, or full-on non-functional for both bikes and cars.
And many car loops are positioned back from the light to allow one or two cars to enter the wait zone and not trigger the light to change , both for straight-thru, right-turns, and left-turn lanes. I have indeed seen cars think they have triggered the light, begin to proceed in anticipation of the sequence, and have to sharp brake when they don't get it. Same for cars who think they triggered the light loop, and then drift out into the crosswalk beyond the loop/detector, pushing the progression of the light. Same thing - they have to sharp brake. Dumb ! They learn. And yes, sometimes it's 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 dangerous - I have seen many near collisions or pedestrian take-outs from it.
It is not funny, and I do not minimize the danger nor the stupidity of it.

As to your railway crossing example - invalid !
The train triggers the crossarms, not the car. and multi-track crossings are cross-linked and inter-linked to keep the arms down to prevent cars from beginning to cross after one train only to be confronted by another.
99.9 % of those videos you see of near misses and actual crashes at level crossings are just about totally the fault of the idiots ignoring the arms-down and attempting to cross the tracks IN SPITE OF the barriers and protections.
Yes, there are the 0.1 % of incidents where the vehicle has stalled ON the tracks - that is a disaster, and to be regretted and attempted to be designed better for, but nothing is perfect on an imperfect world.
Note that I put the crashes wherein the vehicle has disobeyed the stricture of [do not enter the tracks area when the traffic light on the other side is red] into the class of idiots - but in this specific case the idiocy is to be allocated to the idiots who designed this situational, in greater measure.

To the final comment - "Advancing a foot when all reasonable indications are that it's safe is a minor transgression." - Bridges fall when the bolts are too small (to save metal, to save cost). Space shuttles blow up when (a) the O-rings in the solid-fuel boosters are thermally over-stressed and (b) the double-U joint protected by the O-ring is reduced to first a single-U and then to a half-U (to save time and cost) and it pops. Minor transgressions in-and-of themselves all over the place, and mostly don't cost lives. (Later analysis of previous shuttle launches showed they had gotten away with it in more than six previous missions.) But sometimes the planets align and lives are lost.
Capital punishment ?
A) self inflicted. or
B) Canada eliminated imposed capital punishment for a good reason, but prison time still stands for some situations such as I have noted above.

Final answer - take responsibility for your own actions.

[Aylmer]

Wow, there's a lot to unpack. And in the past, I might have cared to.

But ultimately, this is my position: if a product is being misused with enough frequency and with serious enough consequences, at some point, it's more a problem with the product than the users.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Wow, there's a lot to unpack. And in the past, I might have cared to.

But ultimately, this is my position: if a product is being misused with enough frequency and with serious enough consequences, at some point, it's more a problem with the product than the users.

Good Day.

I put it there to load the points raised. But, if you don't care to, well, end of discussion.

Product : ......not when it costs too much (in many ways) to satisfy too small an audience.

[Psychedelic Sailor]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.

I have to disagree with your scenario premises.

As to bike loops and car loops - the placement is either capricious, ill-defined, or full-on non-functional for both bikes and cars.
And many car loops are positioned back from the light to allow one or two cars to enter the wait zone and not trigger the light to change , both for straight-thru, right-turns, and left-turn lanes. I have indeed seen cars think they have triggered the light, begin to proceed in anticipation of the sequence, and have to sharp brake when they don't get it. Same for cars who think they triggered the light loop, and then drift out into the crosswalk beyond the loop/detector, pushing the progression of the light. Same thing - they have to sharp brake. Dumb ! They learn. And yes, sometimes it's 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 dangerous - I have seen many near collisions or pedestrian take-outs from it.
It is not funny, and I do not minimize the danger nor the stupidity of it.

As to your railway crossing example - invalid !
The train triggers the crossarms, not the car. and multi-track crossings are cross-linked and inter-linked to keep the arms down to prevent cars from beginning to cross after one train only to be confronted by another.
99.9 % of those videos you see of near misses and actual crashes at level crossings are just about totally the fault of the idiots ignoring the arms-down and attempting to cross the tracks IN SPITE OF the barriers and protections.
Yes, there are the 0.1 % of incidents where the vehicle has stalled ON the tracks - that is a disaster, and to be regretted and attempted to be designed better for, but nothing is perfect on an imperfect world.
Note that I put the crashes wherein the vehicle has disobeyed the stricture of [do not enter the tracks area when the traffic light on the other side is red] into the class of idiots - but in this specific case the idiocy is to be allocated to the idiots who designed this situational, in greater measure.

To the final comment - "Advancing a foot when all reasonable indications are that it's safe is a minor transgression." - Bridges fall when the bolts are too small (to save metal, to save cost). Space shuttles blow up when (a) the O-rings in the solid-fuel boosters are thermally over-stressed and (b) the double-U joint protected by the O-ring is reduced to first a single-U and then to a half-U (to save time and cost) and it pops. Minor transgressions in-and-of themselves all over the place, and mostly don't cost lives. (Later analysis of previous shuttle launches showed they had gotten away with it in more than six previous missions.) But sometimes the planets align and lives are lost.
Capital punishment ?
A) self inflicted. or
B) Canada eliminated imposed capital punishment for a good reason, but prison time still stands for some situations such as I have noted above.

Final answer - take responsibility for your own actions.

What is this post even?
Your belief in the idea that bike sensors and car loops are equally problematic speaks volumes about how uninformed you are

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by Psychedelic Sailor

What is this post even?
Your belief in the idea that bike sensors and car loops are equally problematic speaks volumes about how uninformed you are

Good Day.

I drive. I bike. I walk. I use transit. I witness and use all these facilities. For many years and decades. I witness and endure all their failings in many ways. I have seen changes both good and bad, and improvements.

I get the impression from your comment that you are less exposed to ALL these than I.
Do not impose your impression of information availability or capacity on others. Do not accuse others of being uninformed without providing evidence and proof of such an accusation.

Aylmer and I were having a reasonable and reasoned discussion. You have not added any value to that discussion.

Bye.

[Psychedelic Sailor]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.

I drive. I bike. I walk. I use transit. I witness and use all these facilities. For many years and decades. I witness and endure all their failings in many ways. I have seen changes both good and bad, and improvements.

I get the impression from your comment that you are less exposed to ALL these than I.
Do not impose your impression of information availability or capacity on others. Do not accuse others of being uninformed without providing evidence and proof of such an accusation.

Aylmer and I were having a reasonable and reasoned discussion. You have not added any value to that discussion.

Bye.

Car loops will always trigger. Bike detectors may not ever trigger. It is not comparable. The level of danger you are exposed to on a bike is far greater, and as such greater leeway should be given to road users most at risk. There is a real possibility that someone not fully developed i.e. a kid may be caught by one of these red light revert sensors

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Cyclists in this case (and in the video of a cyclist creating the situation above) are creating their own problem and danger.
The solution is simple - STAY on the yellow spots, and WAIT for the GREEN light !!!!! DUH !!!!!

Sorry, but quit pandering to a 'problem' that has its' own cause - cyclists who simply do not obey the instruction, ignore the cause and solution, and then complain about the danger.

I agree - this is the issue, leaving the loop before the green light actually turns. I admit as a cyclist I do this too - I think it actually makes sense in that, if I know I can get across, then I should go, and that way the cross traffic doesn't get the red at all. (The same way how it makes sense for cyclists to bike at a crosswalk rather than dismounting and walking, as apparently we are supposed to do.) I'm much more attentive now to waiting for the green since having kids in the trailer though. I think the main solution is more education for cyclists, that traffic lights apply too; but also having larger loops so that bikes are more readily detected as well and prevent the impatience leading to running reds in the first place when they don't work right away.

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

P.S. to Mr. Leiper..... I am still waiting to see more bus transit priority traffic lights. Since last we discussed, I have seen yet more and more cyclist priority lights but few transit priority lights.

I agree. For example, within Leiper's ward there used to be a bus priority light on Holland under the Queensway, so that buses could skip traffic there before it becomes single lane again. This was changed to a cyclist light when the Holzman (Harmer) bridge was being rebuilt and the bike path was moved to Holland. Now that the Holzman bridge is open, it is the dedicated cyclist facility as Harmer directly connects between Fisher and the Experimental Farm pathway to Tunney's. Buses on Holland (multiple routes: 53, 80, 86, 89) that all connect the south and west parts within the Greenbelt to the O-Train at Tunney's should now get that transit priority light back. Hasn't happened yet though.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Product : ......not when it costs too much (in many ways) to satisfy too small an audience.

Put things in perspective. $500k can seem like a lot of money until you consider that a single traffic light costs upwards of $150k. Plus $8k per light per year in operation and maintenance.

Your average 4-way intersection is costing you $1.5 million, plus $800k every 10 years. Say what you will about the cost of safe infrastructure for people on bike and foot, but you can't say it's expensive.

[Ottawa Champ]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.

To Mr. Leiper, et al.

Cyclists in this case (and in the video of a cyclist creating the situation above) are creating their own problem and danger.
The solution is simple - STAY on the yellow spots, and WAIT for the GREEN light !!!!! DUH !!!!!

Sorry, but quit pandering to a 'problem' that has its' own cause - cyclists who simply do not obey the instruction, ignore the cause and solution, and then complain about the danger.

This is worse than those who ignore or actively contravene the rules of the road and the traffic act.

If they want the rights and privileges of being 'vehicles', then take the responsibilities !

Same goes for those who complain of service vehicles parked - with flashers - in cycle lanes. The service vehicle is protecting the personnel who have a job to do that has to be done.
As 'vehicles', get used to it. Cars and Pedestrians have had to deal with service vehicles occupying their respective traffic space for a loooonnnnng time - it ain't nuthin' new, folks.
You do not get special treatment for a consistent and everyday thing.

End Of Rant !

P.S. to Mr. Leiper..... I am still waiting to see more bus transit priority traffic lights. Since last we discussed, I have seen yet more and more cyclist priority lights but few transit priority lights.
As a side bar - I have seen bus transit priority lights on Albert/Slater - the former downtown Transitway - appear to have appeared in time for STO to use them. OC-T never had any (what was there was never used). Verrryyyy Interrrestinnnnng!
Harumph !

Cyclists accelerate at a much slower rate compared to motor vehicles. This would be equivalent to a car creeping slightly over the stop line before the green which we know happens all the time. Also, I am a cyclist and a driver, I've been caught by revert reds on my bike but I would never begin accelerating my car before a green light because I know I would be in the middle of the intersection in 1-2 seconds. Folks telling cyclists to "follow the rules" likely don't have much experience cycling in the city.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Same for cars who think they triggered the light loop, and then drift out into the crosswalk beyond the loop/detector, pushing the progression of the light. Same thing - they have to sharp brake. Dumb ! They learn.

They learn? Not they don't. Worst part is, for a driver, creeping forward in anticipation for the light to turn saves no time whatsoever.

I agree cyclists should respect the rules, but so should cars. Fact is though, most people, be in drivers, cyclists or pedestrians, don't seem to understand rules and never will (the do as I say not as I do, I'm allowed but you're not mentality), so we have to change the system to make roads as safe as possible even when people break rules.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

They learn? Not they don't. Worst part is, for a driver, creeping forward in anticipation for the light to turn saves no time whatsoever.

I agree cyclists should respect the rules, but so should cars. Fact is though, most people, be in drivers, cyclists or pedestrians, don't seem to understand rules and never will (the do as I say not as I do, I'm allowed but you're not mentality), so we have to change the system to make roads as safe as possible even when people break rules.

Maybe we could have red light cameras take a couple pictures a few seconds apart when a vehicle unexpectedly leaves the sensor and ticket them for blocking the crosswalk.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Maybe we could have red light cameras take a couple pictures a few seconds apart when a vehicle unexpectedly leaves the sensor and ticket them for blocking the crosswalk.

Well... ya!

[Aylmer]

I guess that's the thing - we've got road designers that are obtusely uninterested in the actual behavior of their users. Rules are capriciously and arbitrarily put in place, and deviation from many of them is without consequence in some cases and deadly in others. Some rules are so obscure that people disagree as to whether they're allowed or not (think of the dumbfounded hubub when the OPS tweeted that people are allowed to bike two abreast). And keeping to many of them ranges from impractical to impossible to fully self-contradictory (right turns on red, advance into the crosswalk for visibility, but also don't block the crosswalk at any time). We've littered the city with a forest of traffic signs ahead of every intersection which you're supposed to read and heed while going by at 80 km/h.

We've been trying to finger-wagging for 70 years and people are still rolling through stops and blocking crosswalks. If enforcement and education were ever going to work, it would have by now.

Have our traffic system be intuitive to use. Make it natural and easy to obey the rules without even knowing about them. If you have a lot of people not obeying the rules of the road, modify the road to make it easier to follow them. Make a traffic system made to be used by actual, real-life human beings instead of an abstract notion.

[roger1818]

For one thing, we need to get over our obsession with Stop signs. We might not be able to get rid of them completely, but their use should be minimized.

• Video Link

[SkeggsEggs]

Originally Posted by roger1818

For one thing, we need to get over our obsession with Stop signs. We might not be able to get rid of them completely, but their use should be minimized.

• Video Link

But how would we calm traffic!