You Know What Really Grinds My Gears? Now with 3x more gears...

[Slava]

I'm not going to suggest I could fix the driving situation with this one thing, but I could take care of a lot of it. If you have a license plate that is formatted as 0-A1B2C, you need to take monthly driving exams at a pre-determined independent facility.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by slava

i'm not going to suggest i could fix the driving situation with this one thing, but i could take care of a lot of it. If you have a license plate that is formatted as 0-a1b2c, you need to take monthly driving exams at a pre-determined independent facility that is not owned by your cousin.

fyp

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

In what instances?

If it’s a crosswalk (marked or unmarked) then no, cars should yield to pedestrians, but yes, pedestrians should never wave a car through.

If it’s not, then I agree and cars should never yield to pedestrians crossing illegally, but I also don’t feel like that has really changed much in the years I’ve been driving.

Agreed, but way too many people do yield to let people jaywalk (I live downtown, it happens a lot) and it really makes it that much more dangerous for the pedestrian. I suspect it's down to this:

Originally Posted by Reggie28

It’s less, “pedestrians have the right of way” and more “vehicles have the right of way, but must yield the right of way to pedestrians under certain circumstances”.

The problem is that way too many drivers don't know the law and so they often try to err on the side of caution by being more allowing a pedestrian to cross where they shouldn't -- endangering the pedestrian. On the flip side, way too many pedestrians assume they have more right-of-way than they do, so they'll just go full-on "deer crossing" and expect that they're in the clear.

What's also frustrating is people who don't proceed after the pedestrian has crossed their lane when no other pedestrians are approaching. There is no requirement for the pedestrian to clear the entire crosswalk, only your lane. You don't have to buzz so close that their ass feels the breeze, but get moving once the lane is clear.

That’s the law, and it has been tested in the courts: https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...ocompletePos=1

Also, beginning to cross after the countdown has started; it's not your right-of-way any longer. If you do proceed anyway, you're not lawfully in the crosswalk, per both 93(1) and 98(3)(a). Vehicles have the right-of-way to proceed during this time. I wish the Calgary.ca article would go beyond pointing out it is "not safe to begin crossing" but point out per the TSA that it is also indeed illegal to begin doing so under a flashing "don't walk" sign.

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

For me, I think unmarked crosswalks, pedestrians should wait till the cars passes and then cross. Marked, I get because it's clearly marked to yield to pedestrians.

The law doesn't apply it that way. However, where crosswalks are unmarked, pedestrians should have the good sense to wait for vehicles to stop before proceeding, instead of strutting across like their right-of-way bestows upon them a force-field. Vehicles should stop and pedestrians should wait for them to stop.

If people could at least adhere to the "who has the RoW and when" part of the law, we'd have way fewer pedestrian - vehicle collisions. But way too many pedestrians here have no self-preservation instincts about them, and way too many drivers are inept or distracted to the point of being oblivious.

[Johnny Makarov]

Anyone who drives with their headlights and backlights turned off at night deserves a 2 year driving ban.

Unless you are going to do a drive-by shooting of course.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Anyone who drives with their headlights and backlights turned off at night deserves a 2 year driving ban.

Unless you are going to do a drive-by shooting of course.

Yeah we definitely don’t want to be putting up any red tape for gangsters.

[Shazam]

CPS of late has repeatedly stated that drivers need to wait for the pedestrian to cross entirely before going.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Agreed, but way too many people do yield to let people jaywalk (I live downtown, it happens a lot) and it really makes it that much more dangerous for the pedestrian. I suspect it's down to this:The problem is that way too many drivers don't know the law and so they often try to err on the side of caution by being more allowing a pedestrian to cross where they shouldn't -- endangering the pedestrian. On the flip side, way too many pedestrians assume they have more right-of-way than they do, so they'll just go full-on "deer crossing" and expect that they're in the clear.

What's also frustrating is people who don't proceed after the pedestrian has crossed their lane when no other pedestrians are approaching. There is no requirement for the pedestrian to clear the entire crosswalk, only your lane. You don't have to buzz so close that their ass feels the breeze, but get moving once the lane is clear.

That’s the law, and it has been tested in the courts: https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...ocompletePos=1

Also, beginning to cross after the countdown has started; it's not your right-of-way any longer. If you do proceed anyway, you're not lawfully in the crosswalk, per both 93(1) and 98(3)(a). Vehicles have the right-of-way to proceed during this time. I wish the Calgary.ca article would go beyond pointing out it is "not safe to begin crossing" but point out per the TSA that it is also indeed illegal to begin doing so under a flashing "don't walk" sign.

The law doesn't apply it that way. However, where crosswalks are unmarked, pedestrians should have the good sense to wait for vehicles to stop before proceeding, instead of strutting across like their right-of-way bestows upon them a force-field. Vehicles should stop and pedestrians should wait for them to stop.

If people could at least adhere to the "who has the RoW and when" part of the law, we'd have way fewer pedestrian - vehicle collisions. But way too many pedestrians here have no self-preservation instincts about them, and way too many drivers are inept or distracted to the point of being oblivious.

I'm absolutly no lawyer, but I'm not sure that is setting any precedence.

[8] It is clear from the evidence at the trial that the Crown has no additional evidence available to it with respect to the incident: the identity of the pedestrian is not known. In those circumstances, there would be no benefit in sending this matter back for a new trial to be decided according to the correct interpretation of the regulation.


[9] The appeal is allowed; the accused is found not guilty.

I interpret that to mean that because of the circumstances, there is no value sending this to trial to discover the correct interpretation. That is, the correct interpretation remains unknown.

But in Alberta, the law says you have to wait for pedestrians to get all the way across, say Calgary police.


“It can be interpreted to indicate a driver must yield right of way to a pedestrian while they finish crossing from curb to curb,” Calgary police wrote in an e-mail statement.


Section 41 of Alberta’s traffic law says drivers must yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk, and the law says a crosswalk extends across the whole street.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/driv...-to-the-other/


So the actual law says you must yield the entire time. I don't agree with that, but it's what the law says.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Shazam

CPS of late has repeatedly stated that drivers need to wait for the pedestrian to cross entirely before going.

That’s been the law for some time now, no?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Entertaining flight.

I caught a CATSA agent try to steal my phone when I forgot it on the boarding pass scanner. It mysteriously reappeared after I told them I’d use my iPad to make the phone ring.

Then on the plane the guy sitting aisle refused to move when it was our turn to get off. FFS buddy. I don’t care if you are cool being last off but at least GTFO of the way so the others in this aisle can leave.

[bc-chris]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

The cyclists who dont use their bell when passing is a whole other gear grinder.
It really depends on if I am walking or cycling.

fixed

maybe it's just me, but i find cyclist don't follow any rules at all when out cycling... and the more "tour de francey" they look the less any kind of rules apply to them.

red lights - not for me
sure i'll pop up on the side walk and pretend to be a pedestrian
let's ride 6 guys wide and totally block the road when there is a designated bike lane... you know... for bikes only!
stop signs... pffffffttt.. you're kidding right
any use of hand signals to let vehicles know their intentions - oh hell no
reflective apparel at night... dude... that doesn't look cool!

another cyclist one that gets me is when you're sitting at a red light and buddy goes flying past in the bike lane at breakneck speed towards the intersection. the light turns green and someone turns right cutting off the cyclist. yea, the car was "in the wrong" but don't cyclists value their life? sure you technically had the "right of way", but now, if you're lucky, you only have a bunch of broken bones/concussion/etc and your bike is toast.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Yeah we definitely don’t want to be putting up any red tape for gangsters.

You realize that was a joke, right?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Wormius

You realize that was a joke, right?

I thought that would be obvious by the paper bag emoji

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Locke

I say we put the cyclists and pedestrians in a cage and let them fight to the death for supremacy.

Granted, the cyclists have the upper hand with their Oakleys, copious spandex and helmets.

Wasn't some lady out on a walk killed by a cyclist recently in Calgary?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/driv...-to-the-other/

So the actual law says you must yield the entire time. I don't agree with that, but it's what the law says.

That Globe and Mail piece needs to die because it's part of the problem I'm talking about when I say that people don't actually understand what their obligations are which causes a whole lot of anxiety and inconsistency in applying it. The actual law does not say that, which is the entire point I'm making and why the R v. Schumacher decision is worth referencing.

Look, here's a Calgary Herald article contradicting it:

“If a person has one foot off of the curb, they’re in the crosswalk,” says Staff Sgt. Paul Stacey of the Calgary police traffic section. Drivers can continue once a pedestrian has passed their lane (the obligation isn’t “curb to curb,” Stacey says) but passing a motorist already stopped at a crosswalk is dangerous — not to mention expensive: a $575 fine and four demerits.

But here's the actual law, which you'll note does not make any reference to requiring the pedestrian to be entirely clear of the crosswalk.

ALBERTA REGULATION 304/2002
Traffic Safety Act
USE OF HIGHWAY AND RULES OF THE ROAD REGULATION
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/re...-304-2002.html

1(1)(d) “crosswalk” means
(i) that part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connection of the lateral line of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway, or
(ii) any part of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or by other markings on the road surface;

and

Yielding to pedestrians
41(1) A person driving a vehicle shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk.
(2) Where a vehicle is stopped at a crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, a person driving any other vehicle that is approaching the stopped vehicle from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.
(3) At any place on a roadway other than at a crosswalk, a person driving a vehicle has the right of way over pedestrians unless otherwise directed by a peace officer or a traffic control device.
(4) Nothing in subsection (3) relieves a person driving a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of pedestrians.

Pedestrians crossing roadway
91(1) A pedestrian who is crossing a roadway
(a) shall cross as quickly as is reasonable, and
(b) shall not stop or loiter while crossing the highway or otherwise impede the free movement of vehicles on the highway.
(2) A pedestrian shall not proceed onto a roadway or proceed along a roadway into the path of any vehicle that is so close that it is impracticable for the driver of the vehicle to yield the right of way.

Yielding by pedestrians
92 A pedestrian who is crossing a roadway at any point other than within a crosswalk shall yield the right of way to vehicles on the roadway.

Pedestrians’ right of way
93(1) At a place where there is a crosswalk, a pedestrian has, unless otherwise directed by a peace officer or a traffic control device, the right of way over vehicles for the purpose of crossing the roadway within the crosswalk.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), nothing in this section relieves a pedestrian from the duty of exercising due care for the pedestrian’s own safety.

Nothing in the law states that you must wait for the pedestrian to clear the crosswalk which is why the legal precedent I linked is important to understand how the law is interpreted by the courts and should be applied. In fact, Justice Veit directly rejected the Traffic Commissioner's interpretation that the driver must wait until the pedestrian is completely outside the crosswalk when she said "There is no evidence of any interference with the pedestrian. Interference is an essential element of this offence. With respect, the Traffic Commissioner’s interpretation of s. 41(1) which does not require any evidence of interference with the dominant person – here the pedestrian – by the servient person – here the motorcyclist, is wrong".

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Wasn't some lady out on a walk killed by a cyclist recently in Calgary?

Was that the incident where a kid unfortunately ran into her and she died? It was on the pathway near Hidden Valley.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by bc-chris

fixed

maybe it's just me, but i find cyclist don't follow any rules at all when out cycling... and the more "tour de francey" they look the less any kind of rules apply to them.

red lights - not for me
sure i'll pop up on the side walk and pretend to be a pedestrian
let's ride 6 guys wide and totally block the road when there is a designated bike lane... you know... for bikes only!
stop signs... pffffffttt.. you're kidding right
any use of hand signals to let vehicles know their intentions - oh hell no
reflective apparel at night... dude... that doesn't look cool!

another cyclist one that gets me is when you're sitting at a red light and buddy goes flying past in the bike lane at breakneck speed towards the intersection. the light turns green and someone turns right cutting off the cyclist. yea, the car was "in the wrong" but don't cyclists value their life? sure you technically had the "right of way", but now, if you're lucky, you only have a bunch of broken bones/concussion/etc and your bike is toast.

Maybe BC has different cyclists, given your use of absolutes to describe all cyclists.


To your last point, that's why this is the correct way to design a right turn crossing a bike lane with no direct signal control.


https://maps.app.goo.gl/6xfzjnJQGmM5xbC38


This way, if you are turning right, you occupy that space so a cyclist can't enter it and cause the issue you describe. Unfortunately it also fails, because only about 1 in 10 drivers seem to understand this, and still signal and turn from the vehicle lane, completely avoiding the dashed section and creating a hazard for cyclists.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I thought that would be obvious by the paper bag emoji

what;s your address?

I'll come by as soon as I figure out how to turn off my day time running lights.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by bc-chris

red lights - not for me
sure i'll pop up on the side walk and pretend to be a pedestrian
let's ride 6 guys wide and totally block the road when there is a designated bike lane... you know... for bikes only!
stop signs... pffffffttt.. you're kidding right
any use of hand signals to let vehicles know their intentions - oh hell no
reflective apparel at night... dude... that doesn't look cool!

The tryhard lycra-clad dudes covered in logos is about as dorky as it gets, but reflective apparel is something I appreciate as a driver. The more cyclists glowing like Tron out there when it's dark, the better for everyone.

[Shazam]

I squish cyclists in my car so that I have more space on the bike paths when I cycle.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

The rule where pedestrians cross after all the cars pass at any unmarked intersection.

It’s ####ing stupid here in Ontario. People standing at marked cross walks (no lights) just watching 100 cars rip by. Looking for a hole to dart through. It’s so dumb. Let the people who aren’t protected by a machine, and don’t have climate control, cross safely by having it be the rule you stop when they’re at a crosswalk.