Common driving Laws that are rarely followed

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

You're missing the point that it's a shared exit/entry lane. It is not a merge lane.

The car on the left has right of way to exit into that lane, as it is an exit ramp onto 16Ave. You can tell who has the right of way, because only one guy has a yield sign.

It's not difficult to figure out here.

You don't understand. The yield sign is meaningless in this situation to determine who has the right of way, since it is not defined for situations like this. The traffic entering has a clear lane, the traffic exiting must cross over a dotted line, meaning that they must perform a safe lane change. Of course, the traffic entering must perform a safe lane change to continue northbound.

In reality, it is a lane added, then a lane that is forced to turn off (Right lane must exit). Usually, in situations like this, where the lane is really short, it is signed with a Merge. A yield sign doesn't make any sense, there can be no one to yield to. If a angled dotted line was painted across that entry lane, then the yield sign would make sense, but there is no line.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

There's nothing subjective about it. There is a free lane for traffic to drive into , - they are always "established in the lane" from the time they turn into that lane before they even go under the bridge on 16th Ave.

There would have to be markings on the road that indicate the lane was ending if in fact that was the case.

You're wrong. Just plain wrong. Sorry. No points.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

You don't understand. The yield sign is meaningless in this situation to determine who has the right of way, since it is not defined for situations like this. The traffic entering has a clear lane, the traffic exiting must cross over a dotted line, meaning that they must perform a safe lane change. Of course, the traffic entering must perform a safe lane change to continue northbound.

In reality, it is a lane added, then a lane that is forced to turn off (Right lane must exit). Usually, in situations like this, where the lane is really short, it is signed with a Merge. A yield sign doesn't make any sense, there can be no one to yield to. If a angled dotted line was painted across that entry lane, then the yield sign would make sense, but there is no line.

It is not an ongoing lane! It is a 50' long stretch of road, where people must enter onto 52St, and also exit off to 16Ave.

Stop thinking of it as an ongoing lane that goes on for miles. It isn't, and the yield sign is there to tell you to yield the lane to people who are exiting.

Instead of arguing with everybody, I suggest you ignore that yield sign and hit someone who is turning off onto the exit ramp in front of you. You'll figure things out pretty quick then.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

You don't understand. The yield sign is meaningless in this situation to determine who has the right of way, since it is not defined for situations like this. The traffic entering has a clear lane, the traffic exiting must cross over a dotted line, meaning that they must perform a safe lane change. Of course, the traffic entering must perform a safe lane change to continue northbound.

Again, S36 of AB TSA says you get a ticket and are at fault for failing to give RoW. You do not have right of way. The yield sign defines the RoW.
How do you expect exiting vehicles to be able to get over in a50ft span if it is constantly being filled up with "merging" vehicles?

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Once you are established in the lane, then the situation changes - it's now the other party who would be at fault. But if you proceed from the yield and someone moves over to the right at approximately the same time, you are at fault....

Wouldn't it be safer, easier, more efficient, etc. to remove the subjectiveness and replace the sign with a "new lane" sign to reflect the weave lane that already exists?

I understand what you and others are saying about how the intersection currently is and the potential implications of a collision there. But is a yield honestly the best type of traffic control there? Considering safety, traffic flow, the road markings?

I think that two things could be done there to improve safety:

- Keep the yield and physically force traffic to enter the 2-lane roadway at the yield, either using a barrier or a road marking that shows that the empty lane in front of you is reserved for others. That's a true yield. It would certainly have an effect on traffic flow though.

- Pull the yield down and replace it with a new lane sign, so people can get up to speed a bit and the weave can happen. Or "the zipper" as I think of it as. I see this as safer, more efficient way of handling this intersection.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

You should stop arguing, since there is really no room for debate - as far the law is concerned, you are wrong. If you don't believe me, see what happens when you collide with someone there.

I asked you before, show me something from the driver's handbook or the traffic law of Alberta that can back that claim up. I doubt you can find anything.

As far as the law is concerned, this is AT BEST a grey area, which then would revert to other things, such as how the area is marked with lines, and the specific geometry of the area. The fact that there is no dotted line ending the entry lane would guarantee that I would not be in the wrong.

Until you can provide proof that the law says that, you are simply wrong. I just did a quick search through the drivers handbook, and the traffic safety law of Alberta, an there simply is nothing in there that would apply meaning to these yield signs. THERE SIMPLY IS NO ONE TO YIELD TO.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I asked you before, show me something from the driver's handbook or the traffic law of Alberta that can back that claim up. I doubt you can find anything.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. THERE IS A YIELD SIGN. I don't care what sign you think 'ought' to be there, currently there is a yield sign. This means you yield to existing traffic. End of story.

Until you petition the city to change it to a merge/free-for-all sign, you are wrong.


edit: Let me clarify, there are lots of weave lanes in Calgary that are labeled as merge (ie 16th + Barlow, Glenmore/Blackfoot), this one is labeled a yield. You must obay it.

[VladtheImpaler]

[Antithesis]

Then what do you do when you are making your way onto Highway 2 from an E/W highway where you enter from a ramp? I don't know if I'm explaining it right ....

You are heading east on a highway, it has a bridge that goes over Highway 2, and you want to head north on Highway 2, so you go past Highway 2, and then exit right, taking a big long loop to get down to Highway 2. There is a yield sign at the bottom of the ramp.

The "lane" where you are entering the highway also serves as an exit lane for northbound traffic on Highway 2. You're telling me that you'd take that (very) short lane as a merge despite the signage and the fact that the highway traffic is going at least 110 km/h? Or that, if you caused an accident due to the lack of yielding, that it would be the other driver's fault because you have your 'own lane'?

Those yield signs - just like the ones on 52 St and 36 St are there to maintain safe traffic flow. While the speeds involved are different, they are put there for the exact same reasons.

The simple fact is that it is not 'your lane'. It is there for the people already on the road you are trying to get onto to use to get off. They are established on the road you are trying to get on to, whether you are in the lane or not is of no consequence.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Again, S36 of AB TSA says you get a ticket and are at fault for failing to give RoW. You do not have right of way. The yield sign defines the RoW.
How do you expect exiting vehicles to be able to get over in a50ft span if it is constantly being filled up with "merging" vehicles?

It happens all the time at other interchanges. Barlow and 16th is a good example (NB Barlow to WB 16th to SB Barlow). There is a similar stretch of road but with merge signs instead. Traffic keeps moving, people change lanes, and everything works out just fine.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Instead of arguing with everybody, I suggest you ignore that yield sign and hit someone who is turning off onto the exit ramp in front of you. You'll figure things out pretty quick then.

I've driven those ramps hundreds if not thousands of times. EVERYONE (over 99%) of people merge there, and the same percentage of people who are driving Northbound understand that people merge there.

If people actually drive there like you and others suggest they should, it is dangerous. I've seen it happen (rare occasion), and it always causes a dangerous situation. There is nothing dangerous about doing a simple merge there. The lane is short, but the speed limit is only 60km/h. The signage simply needs to change.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Wouldn't it be safer, easier, more efficient, etc. to remove the subjectiveness and replace the sign with a "new lane" sign to reflect the weave lane that already exists?

I understand what you and others are saying about how the intersection currently is and the potential implications of a collision there. But is a yield honestly the best type of traffic control there? Considering safety, traffic flow, the road markings?

I think that two things could be done there to improve safety:

- Keep the yield and physically force traffic to enter the 2-lane roadway at the yield, either using a barrier or a road marking that shows that the empty lane in front of you is reserved for others. That's a true yield. It would certainly have an effect on traffic flow though.

- Pull the yield down and replace it with a new lane sign, so people can get up to speed a bit and the weave can happen. Or "the zipper" as I think of it as. I see this as safer, more efficient way of handling this intersection.

I never once said that this was "right", "good" or "smart" - in fact, a few posts ago, I expressed the view that this city was built by morons. I am just telling you what will happen if you collide with someone else while "merging" from this yield sign.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

There's nothing subjective about it. There is a free lane for traffic to drive into , - they are always "established in the lane" from the time they turn into that lane before they even go under the bridge on 16th Ave.

There would have to be markings on the road that indicate the lane was ending if in fact that was the case.

Wouldn't the fact that the yield sign is positioned at entry into the "free lane" mean you yield the right of way to anyone cutting into that lane? If that was a free lane for the yielder to enter before yielding again to the left lane, then the yield sign would have been positioned at the end of the the "free lane" rather than at the entry.

[V]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

There would have to be markings on the road that indicate the lane was ending if in fact that was the case.

No. There are road markings there. It is called a yeild sign. The pavement itself does not need to be marked. The yeild sign indicates the end of the lane as clearly as a curb would.

I know that it would help to show a dotted line somehow that indicates the lane is over, because apparently there are people that ignore the road signs. I would call in, but I'm moving, so I won't be using the interchange anymore.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

It happens all the time at other interchanges. Barlow and 16th is a good example (NB Barlow to WB 16th to SB Barlow). There is a similar stretch of road but with merge signs instead. Traffic keeps moving, people change lanes, and everything works out just fine.

I don't think most would argue that a Yield is not ideal but its probably because that stretch of road is so short

[Antithesis]

Besides, the yield doesn't mean stop (as is a source of frustration for me while driving). It means, "if someone else is coming down 52 St, you need to wait for them to get out of your way".

Most of the time, it's not necessary to even slow down as traffic isn't moving along NB 52 St or the lane to the left is empty.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I never once said that this was "right", "good" or "smart" - in fact, a few posts ago, I expressed the view that this city was built by morons. I am just telling you what will happen if you collide with someone else while "merging" from this yield sign.

Absolutely - I realize that. I'm just trying to shift the conversation from "this is how it is" to something a little more constructive that might make the road a little safer and free flowing.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

Then what do you do when you are making your way onto Highway 2 from an E/W highway where you enter from a ramp? I don't know if I'm explaining it right ....

You are heading east on a highway, it has a bridge that goes over Highway 2, and you want to head north on Highway 2, so you go past Highway 2, and then exit right, taking a big long loop to get down to Highway 2. There is a yield sign at the bottom of the ramp.

The "lane" where you are entering the highway also serves as an exit lane for northbound traffic on Highway 2. You're telling me that you'd take that (very) short lane as a merge despite the signage and the fact that the highway traffic is going at least 110 km/h? Or that, if you caused an accident due to the lack of yielding, that it would be the other driver's fault because you have your 'own lane'?

Those yield signs - just like the ones on 52 St and 36 St are there to maintain safe traffic flow. While the speeds involved are different, they are put there for the exact same reasons.

The simple fact is that it is not 'your lane'. It is there for the people already on the road you are trying to get onto to use to get off. They are established on the road you are trying to get on to, whether you are in the lane or not is of no consequence.

I know there are yield signs like you say, but the province thankfully is working to fix those interchanges. There should NEVER be a yield sign leading into a lane where traffic has a speed limit of 100 km/h.

First, everything you do in driving, you need to do only when it is safe to do so. Those really short weave lanes beside traffic going at 110 is always going to be unsafe, whether you try to merge, or whether you yield.

And coming around a ramp at 50 km/h coming up to attempt a quick merge at 60 km/h is a VASTLY different scenario then coming around a ramp at 50 km/h and trying to attempt a quick merge at 110km/h. Orders of magnitude different.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

I don't think most would argue that a Yield is not ideal but its probably because that stretch of road is so short

I eyeballed the Barlow and 16th interchange and compared it with Google maps, and they appear to be pretty close to the same size. I would imagine that the volume of traffic from and to various directions could also be a factor though.

[Antithesis]

I know it is - I made a point to explain in my post that it is different, but that doesn't change the fact that you need to yield in that situation.

To use the term you've been using in this thread - established - here is the pecking order of 'establishment' in that situation.

1. People who have already established that they are on 52 St and want to continue northbound.
2. People who have already established that they are on 52 St but want to exit to travel westbound on 16 Ave.
3. People who have NOT already established that they are on 52 St and want to get on it.