I will most certainly agree with you that the highways in general flow much better in Europe than in Canada because they allow for people to go 130kmh plus. They need to increase the speed limits on many of the highways in Canada.
Also, having a lot of traffic circles helps the flow. But, my limited experience driving over here has shown me that near accidents, jam ups, horn honking and near pedestrian hits is far more common in Europe than in Alberta at least.
Also, I want to clarify a point I made in my first post. I didn't mean to label European drivers as "bad" drivers, just drivers who do not follow driving laws.
I meant inside the cities. It's awesome how traffic works, particularly in Italy. I loved it so much, sometimes I'd rent a car just to drive around for fun. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder though.
One thing that continued to amaze me was how traffic would dictate itself instead of using signs and lines. If there was way more traffic going one direction than another, the side with more cars would just start taking over the side with less cars. And instead of freaking out and crashing, the cars on the less dominant side would just move over and let it happen.
Try that here... In fact, I sorta did once and boy oh boy did I get reprimanded. I was going WB on Heritage, and I wanted to turn SB onto Elbow. The green arrow was flashing, but the two lanes were clogged to the point where I either had to wait for the E/W traffic to start moving, or else I could pop half my truck over the center line, and advance to the turning lane. I went for it, since there was no oncoming traffic, but just then, a NB guy turned EB and then continued to get into the left lane, even though a dump truck (me) was using half the lane to sneak into the turning lane.
Holy shiz did the guy get offended! Like I was pissing on his father's grave or something. The a-hole had EB Heritage drive all to himself, save for a dumptruck using half his lane for about 20 meters, and the guy loses it. That's Calgary driving for you. God for-forking-bid you have to move over a little bit to let a dump truck catch a light instead of stopping and idling in an intersection.
Another thing about euro driving... Motorcycles always go to the front at lights. And why shouldn't they? They take off way faster. They're using less fuel and space. The reward is that they get to where they're going faster. Not here, though. I don't drive a motorcycle, but I do know that the attitude around here is that if a biker split a lane at a light, some jackass would probably open his door or something. NO WAY IN HELL ANYBODY IS GONNA GET IN FRONT OF ME!!!11! The drivers here are jerks. Just look at the a-holes in this thread with the attitude of "I can drive whatever speed I want in whatever lane I want, and to hell with you people that want to break the law and go faster". There is an a-hole epidemic on the streets of Calgary. Buncha dicks that dont care about anyone but themselves and actually take pleasure in screwing someone else over - because they can.
Over the 14 months I lived in DT Rome, I saw maybe 2 car/car accidents, and about 10 car/scooter accidents. I see two accidents a week in Calgary.
The Following User Says Thank You to 4X4 For This Useful Post:
How in the world could I be deemed at fault? I have my own lane to drive in, from which I speed match and then lane change (i.e. a merge). THERE ISN"T ANYONE TO YIELD TO. That's the point. That's not how a yield sign works.
Perhaps, a yield sign might make sense if the lines were painted on the road different, but the signage and lines have been the way they are for 30 years.
If I merge improperly, and hit a car becasue of that, then I'd be at fault, but If I'm attempting to merge, and a car comes from the left trying to exit and hits me, they would be at fault, as they would have not made sure the lane they were entering was clear.
Please mention my name to whoever you collide with while merging at that sign. Your insurance will certainly pay up, whatever your view of "right" and "wrong"...
How in the world could I be deemed at fault? I have my own lane to drive in, from which I speed match and then lane change (i.e. a merge). THERE ISN"T ANYONE TO YIELD TO. That's the point. That's not how a yield sign works.
You're missing the basis to the argument; its an exit lane you're going onto, not a merge lane. Hence you must yield to exiting vehicles
I can agree with this partially. It would, however, be much safer for all parties involved if people did not deem some laws as optional - that is the root of the problem.
What would be a lot safer is if strugglers like yourself, that insist on going speed limit or less, would stay to the right so that people that are driving for the road conditions could set the pace of traffic.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 4X4 For This Useful Post:
You're missing the basis to the argument; its an exit lane you're going onto, not a merge lane. Hence you must yield to exiting vehicles
And it's this kind of horse blinder thinking that I'm talking about in my other post. People around here are so obsessed with lines and rules, that they'd actually hammer the brakes and stop, when if they'd get up to the proper pace and criss cross, there wouldn't be any problem. The only time that yield sign should be needed is if there is heavy, heavy flow going into the exit lane.
Please mention my name to whoever you collide with while merging at that sign. Your insurance will certainly pay up, whatever your view of "right" and "wrong"...
Sure, I'll keep that in mind.
Seriously, though, those yield signs need to be changed to Merge signs, and have needed that change for a long time.
I'd like to see some support from the driver's manual that would say that there's any meaning to the yield signs in those locations.
Plus, if I perform a proper merge, have I not "yielded"? I have entered the traffic lane safely.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to You Need a Thneed For This Useful Post:
You're missing the basis to the argument; its an exit lane you're going onto, not a merge lane. Hence you must yield to exiting vehicles
That's not the way the lines are painted, no. If there was a dotted white line that a driver would have to cross to continue along in that lane, then yes, you'd have a point. There is not, and there hasn't been for 30 years.
Last edited by You Need a Thneed; 07-28-2010 at 11:31 AM.
Please mention my name to whoever you collide with while merging at that sign. Your insurance will certainly pay up, whatever your view of "right" and "wrong"...
You could probably make a good argument for the other driver making an unsafe lane change. You approached the moot yield, lane was clear (you yielded), you proceed, guy changes lanes into you.
I fully agree with Thneed on this one. I also agree that it would get complicated with insurance. But there simply is no reason for that sign to be a yield.
So anyone driving up in that silver car's lane needs to be yielded to? Signalling or not? "Oh look - a car is approaching in the lane adjacent to mine. Better stop." Simply doesn't make sense.
I understand that determining fault would be tricky there, but that could be easily resolved by putting signage there that actually reflects the roadway.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jimmy Stang For This Useful Post:
You're missing the basis to the argument; its an exit lane you're going onto, not a merge lane. Hence you must yield to exiting vehicles
I interpret this lane as an entrance and exit lane. If you're in it, you're golden. If you are leaving it or entering it, you should signal and change lanes properly. The lines on the road show it as a separate lane, and I would tend to treat it as such. The yield sign is counterproductive. You might as well put a light there and completely negate the free flowing nature of the interchange.
Some people need to do some research, because that sort of thing is one of the basic questions on a learner's permit exam. It's called a weave zone and Calgary has hundreds of them that are marked with the correct signage. There are, however, plenty around the city that are marked incorrectly (with a yield sign). I've called one in to the city and they changed it.
You could probably make a good argument for the other driver making an unsafe lane change. You approached the moot yield, lane was clear (you yielded), you proceed, guy changes lanes into you.
I fully agree with Thneed on this one. I also agree that it would get complicated with insurance. But there simply is no reason for that sign to be a yield.
So anyone driving up in that silver car's lane needs to be yielded to? Signalling or not? "Oh look - a car is approaching in the lane adjacent to mine. Better stop." Simply doesn't make sense.
I understand that determining fault would be tricky there, but that could be easily resolved by putting signage there that actually reflects the roadway.
Not tricky at all - I would merely show that fine photo to his insurer and they would accept 100% liability. Whether that's "right" in the greater scheme of things is another matter... My own view is that this city was built by morons.
You could probably make a good argument for the other driver making an unsafe lane change. You approached the moot yield, lane was clear (you yielded), you proceed, guy changes lanes into you.
I fully agree with Thneed on this one. I also agree that it would get complicated with insurance. But there simply is no reason for that sign to be a yield.
So anyone driving up in that silver car's lane needs to be yielded to? Signalling or not? "Oh look - a car is approaching in the lane adjacent to mine. Better stop." Simply doesn't make sense.
I understand that determining fault would be tricky there, but that could be easily resolved by putting signage there that actually reflects the roadway.
The "shared exit/entry lanes" at 16th & Barlow are signed with the you get your own lane signs, then right lane must exit signs. The only difference in the configuration is that the lanes there are slightly longer. Plus, there are similar scenarios to the ones being talked about all over the city that are signed with "Merge."
Not tricky at all - I would merely show that fine photo to his insurer and they would accept 100% liability.
I know you are a lawyer, but there's isn't a chance that it would be that easy. The fine photo also shows that the yield sign is completely meaningless.
I know you are a lawyer, but there's isn't a chance that it would be that easy. The fine photo also shows that the yield sign is completely meaningless.
It's not meaningless, as the City felt it needed to be there. Therefore if you do not yield, you are at fault. Again, whether that's right or stupid is a separate issue. Just as if you stop at that yield, and someone R/E's you, they are 100% at fault.
I know you are a lawyer, but there's isn't a chance that it would be that easy. The fine photo also shows that the yield sign is completely meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AB Highway Traffic Safety Act S39
Failing to yield right of way to a vehicle at "yield" sign
'But officer, I disconcur"
The Following User Says Thank You to Ducay For This Useful Post:
It's not meaningless, as the City felt it needed to be there. Therefore if you do not yield, you are at fault. Again, whether that's right or stupid is a separate issue. Just as if you stop at that yield, and someone R/E's you, they are 100% at fault.
But, like I said, I AM yielding by performing a proper merge there.
I know the city felt to put a yield sign there, but I'm looking through the driver's handbook right now, and there nothing about what a yield sign means that would prevent a driver from legally performing a merge there.
Looking at what the drivers handbook tells you do when coming up to a yield sign, the yield sign is actually dangerous there, and not just because no one yields. Slowing down and/or stopping there is dangerous, whether there is someone behind you or not.
See post above. I am yielding under the law by executing a proper merge. The yield sign as defined in the law simply does not have meaning when it's posted in a situation like this.
See post above. I am yielding under the law by executing a proper merge. The yield sign as defined in the law simply does not have meaning when it's posted in a situation like this.
Drive as you wish. I'm just telling you that if you "merge", and someone "merges" from the left into the exit lane, you will be at fault, notwithstanding CP opinion.
Your insurance will certainly pay up, whatever your view of "right" and "wrong"...
