Calgary's Worst Driver

[Acey]

To an extent I think more frequent testing is something of a waste of resources - if the original test is difficult and proper enough (should also include an extensive written component) then the only thing time you should be retested is due to old age.

Just my take on it... but something's gotta be done either way.

[rd_aaron]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

In that example, the van has a yield. I agree that he drives around hoping for a little drama to catch on his dash cam, but in that instance, the van needs to be looking and not proceeding if another car is coming.

But in general, the dude sits on a rather high horse.

Originally Posted by Acey

Because a yield sign is effectively a stop sign which you're allowed to roll through if nobody is coming. OP 100% has the right of way and that van needs to be looking at OP the entirety of the way down the ramp and adjust accordingly to either be well ahead or slot in behind even if OP decides to accelerate to prove a point.

Van driver completely disregarded a stop sign and is therefore a bad driver.

You`re right. I missed the yield sign.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Acey

To an extent I think more frequent testing is something of a waste of resources - if the original test is difficult and proper enough (should also include an extensive written component) then the only thing time you should be retested is due to old age.

Driving exams are like any other test - people forget. Twenty years out of high school, how much grade 11 chemistry to you remember?

I had a job in my 20s where I had to be re-tested every two years to drive a company vehicle. You'd be surprised how many bad habits can creep in even in that span of time. I passed every exam, but my driving definitely improved with regular training.

[Ducay]

That "Bon Joey" posted who is making the videos is a terrible driver and actively causes a large number of the issues he posts. 4 or 5 instances of him denying people merge/land change space and then acts as if they are in the wrong.

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Acey

To an extent I think more frequent testing is something of a waste of resources - if the original test is difficult and proper enough (should also include an extensive written component) then the only thing time you should be retested is due to old age.

Just my take on it... but something's gotta be done either way.

I find a lot of drivers have bad habits and strange expectations because urban folklore develops alternate interpretations of the original regulations.

At our workplace, drivers often have to upgrade their licence to a class 4. Many discover that although the have no accidents, they can not pass the required driving test due to bad habits. Often a defensive driving written exam cures some of the misinterpretations but few voluntarily go for a re-test (usually they retest for work or demerit requirements).

For example, many feel that you are allowed to drive 10 over the limit. when in reality 1 km over the limit is actually an infraction. The myth emanates from the reality where few traffic cops will push a ticket through court that might be explainable by inaccuracy of equipment. Somehow they add the myth that you have to get out of the way for any faster car when you are in the inside (passing lane) of a school zone...

These myths can be quite firmly ingrained.

I have been told by a prospective employee (for a driving job/position) that "we" are allowed to travel 50% over the speed limit as long as we are going to pass someone... and that was why he could get our passengers to their destination in a faster manner... because there is always someone to pass.

(somehow I wasn't comfortable at the thought of him driving our vehicle at 150km/hr on deerfoot....)

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

I find a lot of drivers have bad habits and strange expectations because urban folklore develops alternate interpretations of the original regulations.

For example, many feel that you are allowed to drive 10 over the limit. when in reality 1 km over the limit is actually an infraction. The myth emanates from the reality where few traffic cops will push a ticket through court that might be explainable by inaccuracy of equipment. Somehow they add the myth that you have to get out of the way for any faster car when you are in the inside (passing lane) of a school zone...

I have been told by a prospective employee (for a driving job/position) that "we" are allowed to travel 50% over the speed limit as long as we are going to pass someone... and that was why he could get our passengers to their destination in a faster manner... because there is always someone to pass.

(somehow I wasn't comfortable at the thought of him driving our vehicle at 150km/hr on deerfoot....)

Gah...wow. That's awesome. Yeah, those are some pretty pernicious myths. 50% faster. *snicker*

[Acey]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Driving exams are like any other test - people forget. Twenty years out of high school, how much grade 11 chemistry to you remember?

Zero, but I drive everyday, and never do chemistry.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Acey

Zero, but I drive everyday, and never do chemistry.

Just because you do something a lot doesn't mean you do it properly. If you're like most people, you drive every day ignorant of many of the rules of the road.

For example, I doubt any more than a small fraction of drivers on Calgary roads understand how to merge properly. About a third don't even know the difference between a merge and a yield, and will simply ignore any car merging into their lane. And most of the rest don't understand that not only drivers in the lane being merged into, but the drivers in all lanes must merge together in a safe manner to make room for the incoming traffic. That means yes, if you're in the middle of three lanes and cars are merging into the lane to your right, you have to move into the left lane, if possible, to make space for the cars moving from the right lane into the middle.

And that isn't just some finicky regulation. It's a principle of traffic-flow built into road design. And the fact most drivers aren't aware of it or don't practice it not only causes lots of accidents, but makes our road networks far less efficient than they would be if drivers understood how to merge.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Just because you do something a lot doesn't mean you do it properly. If you're like most people, you drive every day ignorant of many of the rules of the road.

I don't disagree... but that's not what I'm arguing. All I'm saying is that if we teach people how to drive correctly in the first place it may partially negate the need for frequent retesting down the road, and that will be because driving is something you do frequently. Maintenance of the good habits you learned in training.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Just because you do something a lot doesn't mean you do it properly. If you're like most people, you drive every day ignorant of many of the rules of the road.

For example, I doubt any more than a small fraction of drivers on Calgary roads understand how to merge properly. About a third don't even know the difference between a merge and a yield, and will simply ignore any car merging into their lane. And most of the rest don't understand that not only drivers in the lane being merged into, but the drivers in all lanes must merge together in a safe manner to make room for the incoming traffic. That means yes, if you're in the middle of three lanes and cars are merging into the lane to your right, you have to move into the left lane, if possible, to make space for the cars moving from the right lane into the middle.

And that isn't just some finicky regulation. It's a principle of traffic-flow built into road design. And the fact most drivers aren't aware of it or don't practice it not only causes lots of accidents, but makes our road networks far less efficient than they would be if drivers understood how to merge.

I think this is a huge exaggeration. I would say the vast majority of people understand how merge works - the problem is if one person out of even 20 gets it wrong, it causes a problem.
But go observe any major merge on a given day and you'll see that most of the time people are merging quite easily and smoothly with both the merger and mergees co-operating.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Acey

All I'm saying is that if we teach people how to drive correctly in the first place it may partially negate the need for frequent retesting down the road, and that will be because driving is something you do frequently. Maintenance of the good habits you learned in training.

Yeah, but how do you bring that in? Do we start with the current batch of 16 year olds; with the end goal being safer roads by 2075? Or would you make everybody have to meet the new standards? That would be tougher; especially for somebody who has made career or life decisions based on driving being the norm for every adult.

With the latter, you'd still have to do mandatory driver retesting. So why not start with that, and then make the standards higher as we go? It would help a lot of things. My dad; who never actually took a test. Myself, who took my road test where I was required to do things that are illegal here in Calgary to pass. (I had to prove I could safely execute a U-turn at a traffic light.)