What I was also taught, is that this rule is designed based on left driver side exposure. It's a risk mitigation strategy because there's a 99.9% chance of a driver on the left driver side of the vehicle for all vehicles on Canadian roads and a lower than 99% chance of an occupant in the passenger seat of the vehicle (ie: driving alone). I find memorizing the left driver side exposure to figure out who has right of way is easier than memorizing the rule.
The reason why car turning left must yield to car going straight is that in the absolute worst case scenario, the left turn car could hit the driver side part of the vehicle. In the absolute worst case opposite scenario, the driver going straight would hit the passenger side of a vehicle in the process of turning left.
The link you posted is in regards to uncontrolled intersections. In my scenario, both cars have a yield sign. Since both have a yield, and those are the only two cars at the intersection, does this mean it is effectively an uncontrolled intersection for the cars involved?
Or could the first come first serve rule apply, as it does if both cars had stop signs?
The link you posted is in regards to uncontrolled intersections. In my scenario, both cars have a yield sign. Since both have a yield, and those are the only two cars at the intersection, does this mean it is effectively an uncontrolled intersection for the cars involved?
Or could the first come first serve rule apply, as it does if both cars had stop signs?
Nope, first come only applies on 4-ways...
Quote:
When facing a stop sign and the oncoming traffic also has a stop sign, left-turning vehicles must yield to oncoming traffic that is proceeding straight, regardless of who arrived first (Figure 5). Check for cross traffic as they have no stop signs and right-of-way.
If you start lining up to board a plane before your zone is called, you're an #######
I actually think airlines are kinda the #######s for starting this weird social experiment. Just charge people $50 more to fly, have checked bags free, and quit with this overhead space circus.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
You give people too much credit, the same people that refuse to pay for a bag and fight for overhead space are the same people that will go into a fit about price gouging and vow to never fly that airline again
Especially in a country where the ULCC model doesn't really work, what airlines like WestJet try to do makes sense. Have several different fares and service options for every type of travel.
Trouble is, people suck
The link you posted is in regards to uncontrolled intersections. In my scenario, both cars have a yield sign. Since both have a yield, and those are the only two cars at the intersection, does this mean it is effectively an uncontrolled intersection for the cars involved?
Or could the first come first serve rule apply, as it does if both cars had stop signs?
Yeah, it's basically easier to think of uncontrolled intersection rules for the two vehicles with yield signs in that scenario.
As powderjunkie also posted, if the yields are replaced by stop signs and cross traffic doesn't have any signs, the rules are basically identical to a scenario where the signs are yield signs.
I actually think airlines are kinda the #######s for starting this weird social experiment. Just charge people $50 more to fly, have checked bags free, and quit with this overhead space circus.
I kind of agree, but the issue is people don’t trust that their bags are going to be treated properly or actually show up when they get off the plane. Add to that people don’t want to wait around for half an hour to get their bags after the flight, and the costs aren’t the complete issue.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
The bigger issue is people taking advantage of the "rules" for carry-on size. At one time there would have been overhead space with enough capacity for each seat. With added rows to maximize occupancy that doesn't exist anymore. You have people bringing carry-on bags far larger than allowed coupled with sticking in backpacks and jackets.
I flew to Cuba last week and was surprised to see everyone needing to place their carry-on in the metal cage. Those that did not fit (many) were told to have them checked. I asked a representative and they said it was because an auditor was there that day watching over them.
I kind of agree, but the issue is people don’t trust that their bags are going to be treated properly or actually show up when they get off the plane. Add to that people don’t want to wait around for half an hour to get their bags after the flight, and the costs aren’t the complete issue.
This. I don't trust my checked bags get to my destination, especially if it is not a direct flight. For the past 7 years my family has been strictly carry-on and I book places with washing machines if longer than a week.
I think we should line up more at the gate, not less. The problem is this hodgepodge of people loitering because they don’t know where to stand.
Granted, it’s difficult in the small gates at YYC. But last time I flew delta they had 5 turnstiles for each zone. It was set up way in advance and passengers could choose to sit down in the waiting area or line up at their respective zone line up an hour or more before boarding. It was great. Kept the lines nice and orderly, prevented the mass blobs of people hanging out sort of near the gate which takes up way more space and it meant there was more room on the seats for people who didn’t care. It also meant no one was blocking another zones ability to access the gate. Kept things nice and orderly. Loved it.
This. I don't trust my checked bags get to my destination, especially if it is not a direct flight. For the past 7 years my family has been strictly carry-on and I book places with washing machines if longer than a week.
Exactly this. When I travel it is mostly carryon only and when we go on a family vacation we usually pack 3 or 4 days worth of clothes in carryon even with checked bags because you never know what is going to happen.
Perhaps true, but slightly misleading. If two cars opposite each other are both legally stopped and waiting for crossing traffic to clear, then "first come" does not apply. But if I am legally stopped and the intersection is clear, I may enter and turn left as long as a car approaching from the other direction has not yet stopped, even if my left turn will cause them to have to stop for longer. Their right to the intersection is only established after they've made their legal stop.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cube Inmate For This Useful Post:
