Pedestrians and crosswalks (Matt from beyond on AM770)

[speedog]

Not sure how long Matt from beyond has been on AM770 on Monday afternoons but I usually manage to catch his little session.

Today's was an interesting one including a small segment regarding pedestrians and crosswalks and his statement was an interesting interpretation of Alberta's TSA in that he said that you, as a motorist, only have to yield to a pedestrian as long as they are in your path. He said once the pedestrian has cleared your lane then you're good to go.

Now I know we've beat this whole pedestrian crosswalk thing to death and back again and for the life of me, I just can not remember if any consensus was reached regarding this issue,. I can't even recall if we had our resident police officer chime in on this one.

So was Matt's statement accurate or not?

[Thaco]

AFAIK you're not "allowed" to move until the ped has mounted the curb

[FraserB]

My understanding is that he is correct, additionally I believe you can't get ticketed for failure to yield if you don't yield to a mounted cyclist in a crosswalk as they are not a pedestrian.

[FixedGear]

Ask snowcat

[Thaco]

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/Roads/Pages/Traffic/Traffic-safety-programs/Pedestrian-safety.aspx


Tips for Motorists
Wait until the pedestrian has completely cleared the intersection before proceeding.

[know1edge]

.

[Mibz]

TSA: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/T06.pdf
Use of Highway and Rules of the Road: http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2002_304.pdf


Yielding to pedestrians
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.
There is absolutely nothing in the TSA or Use of Highway and Rules of the Road Regulations which states that you must wait for a pedestrian to completely cross. All it states is that you must yield the right of way, just as you would for any other vehicle which has the right of way. Obviously I'm not saying you should be buzzing pedestrians (Like it mentions in 41(4)), but you don't need to be waiting the whole time either.

Now, one caveat that I didn't get to mention on the show. Per 41(2), if there is somebody already stopped for a pedestrian, you can't pass that person. I take this to mean that you can approach the crosswalk, stop and make sure there's nobody to yield to, and then proceed safely, but that's a guess and I won't stand behind it like the things I said on the radio.

One other thing to keep in mind is that police are interpreting the laws the same way I am. They just write tickets if they interpret somebody breaking the law. They don't get the final say though, traffic court does. Just because a police officer tells you something is illegal, or somebody tells you that they received a ticket for something, doesn't necessarily mean a judge (or whatever they call themselves in traffic court) agrees. This is why you fight tickets that you truly believe to be illegitimate.

Lastly, if you didn't catch the bit today, I emphasize over and over that it doesn't matter if something is legal; if you do it unsafely, you're a fuck and you can be ticketed. Don't be that guy who does something he knows was wrong and try to hide behind the letter of the law. Also don't think that just because something is legal means it's the best way of doing things. For example, from all the research I did, I'm pretty sure you're allowed to pass people in residential areas as long as you don't speed. There are two reasons I didn't bring it up:
1. I didn't have enough time to confirm it and I didn't want to say something that I wasn't 100% confident in.
2. Can you fucking imagine?

EDIT: Thanks speedog for being polite. I've been seriously nervous ever since recording that bit. I knew there'd be some discussion, I'm just glad it opened up nicely and not with a "This guy doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about". I'd be ridiculously embarrassed if I got something wrong, but I'm willing to own it if I am.

EDIT 2: On the flip side, just because something is illegal, doesn't necessarily mean it's dangerous. It probably means too many people did it dangerously and tried to hide behind the law, so the law was changed :P

[Sugarphreak]

....

[rage2]

What Matt missed is that there's also a Calgary bylaw for yielding to pedestrians worth $500. Specifically, 41.1(3)

https://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Legislative-services/Bylaws/26m96-Traffic.pdf?noredirect=1


41.1 (1) The Traffic Engineer may designate crosswalks upon which a person may ride a bicycle to cross the roadway.
(2) Where the Traffic Engineer has designated a crosswalk pursuant to subsection (1), any crosswalk so designated shall be known as a “multi-use crossing”. The Traffic Engineer shall indicate the multi-use crossing by the placement of such traffic control devices as the Traffic Engineer deems necessary.
(3) A person operating a vehicle on a roadway must yield the right of way to: (a) a pedestrian; and (b) a person riding a bicycle;
who is crossing the roadway within a multi-use crossing.
Absolutely nothing about pedestrians clearing intersections. You're just supposed to yield. If they've cleared your lane, there is no yielding as they're walking away from you.

As for speedog's question on how the old arguments ended up, check this:

http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?threadid=208124

Even the cops (DayGlow) says you can go without waiting them to get on the curb.

[rage2]

Btw if there's a specific topic you would like us to talk about, feel free to post it up and we'll see what we can do.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[beyond_ban]

For some reason i always thought the person crossing had to reach either the median (if it exists) or the other sides curb. This is a very tiresome practice in residential areas where some people take a solid 30 seconds to cross. Thank for the good news!

[D'z Nutz]

Originally posted by rage2
Btw if there's a specific topic you would like us to talk about, feel free to post it up and we'll see what we can do.

Topics that come up here once in a while:

"Slower Traffic Keep Right", particularly if I'm already in the left lane and I am driving faster than the flow of traffic, but some jackass in a Dodge Ram is riding my ass because he wants to exceed the speed light by 50KM/H, am I obligated to keep right and let him pass?

Clarity on where you can do U-turns.

And of course, the ever popular changing lanes at an intersection hahaha! That actually probably wouldn't be a good idea for this same reason:


Originally posted by Mibz
2. Can you fucking imagine?

[firebane]

A guy at work just received a $800 fine in regards to a situation regarding this.

I myself have always been under the impression that as long as the pedestrian has crossed your path you are allowed to go. According to the police officer who gave him the ticket said otherwise.

From what my co-worker said it was a 4 lane one way street and he was approaching a red light. He was in the right curb lane and stopped at the light as the pedestrian stepped foot into the cross walk. The pedestrian was STILL 3 lanes over and my co-worker decided to go and got caught and was fined.

The police officers justification was that anytime a pedestrian is in a crosswalk no matter if they have passed or not you are not allowed to go because said pedestrian could change their mind and cut back across in front of you. If you do not see this you can then obviously hit the pedestrian.

Myself I have thought for years that as long as the pedestrian has walked in front of you and is clear you are good to go. So I think there maybe some misunderstanding of the law/bylaw and or some different interpretations depending on who you are.

This is one of those things that is making dashcams a HUGE investment.

[Maxt]

Originally posted by rage2
Btw if there's a specific topic you would like us to talk about, feel free to post it up and we'll see what we can do.
How about the deployment of photo radar as a safety tool when its placed in a 80 zone , 150 meters before that of a 110 km/h zone on highway 1 west and 2 south..

[you&me]

Originally posted by firebane
A guy at work just received a $800 fine in regards to a situation regarding this.

I myself have always been under the impression that as long as the pedestrian has crossed your path you are allowed to go. According to the police officer who gave him the ticket said otherwise.

From what my co-worker said it was a 4 lane one way street and he was approaching a red light. He was in the right curb lane and stopped at the light as the pedestrian stepped foot into the cross walk. The pedestrian was STILL 3 lanes over and my co-worker decided to go and got caught and was fined.

The police officers justification was that anytime a pedestrian is in a crosswalk no matter if they have passed or not you are not allowed to go because said pedestrian could change their mind and cut back across in front of you. If you do not see this you can then obviously hit the pedestrian.

Myself I have thought for years that as long as the pedestrian has walked in front of you and is clear you are good to go. So I think there maybe some misunderstanding of the law/bylaw and or some different interpretations depending on who you are.

This is one of those things that is making dashcams a HUGE investment.

I think this part of Mibz' post addresses your coworker's situation:


Originally posted by Mibz


One other thing to keep in mind is that police are interpreting the laws the same way I am. They just write tickets if they interpret somebody breaking the law. They don't get the final say though, traffic court does. Just because a police officer tells you something is illegal, or somebody tells you that they received a ticket for something, doesn't necessarily mean a judge (or whatever they call themselves in traffic court) agrees. This is why you fight tickets that you truly believe to be illegitimate.

The police aren't infallible and sometimes misinterpret the law. In these cases, it's up to the citizen to challenge the incorrect interpretation in court.

That said, if the law is to "yield to a pedestrian" in a crosswalk, I would take that to mean "not impede" the pedestrian, as-in wait until they've passed the path (/lane) of your vehicle... :dunno:

[killramos]

Is there anywhere we can go to listen to AM770 after the fact?

Pretty cool that Matt is able to do this on there.

[jwslam]

Originally posted by D'z Nutz
"Slower Traffic Keep Right", particularly if I'm already in the left lane and I am driving faster than the flow of traffic, but some jackass in a Dodge Ram is riding my ass because he wants to exceed the speed light by 50KM/H, am I obligated to keep right and let him pass?
No laws against it but all of beyond thinks you're a prick.
http://forums.beyond.ca/st2/be-safe-on-the-roads/showthread.php?s=&threadid=200904
http://forums.beyond.ca/st2/does-qeii-need-to-be-tripled/showthread.php?s=&threadid=394406&highlight=left+lane+hog
http://forums.beyond.ca/st2/we-need-this-traffic-laws/showthread.php?s=&threadid=275637
http://forums.beyond.ca/st2/quotleft-lane-banditsquot-news-report-from-bc/showthread.php?s=&threadid=366950

[rage2]

Originally posted by killramos
Is there anywhere we can go to listen to AM770 after the fact?

Pretty cool that Matt is able to do this on there.
http://www.newstalk770.com/audio-on-demand-2/

Every Monday at 4:45pm. Matt's been doing most of them but I've covered for him a few times. We've been on there since the summer.

[killramos]

huh. cool. I will admit i never listen to the radio but i might tune in to support a beyonder.

[rage2]

Originally posted by D'z Nutz
Clarity on where you can do U-turns.

And of course, the ever popular changing lanes at an intersection hahaha! That actually probably wouldn't be a good idea for this same reason:
Both these were covered yesterday. Mibz doesn't fuck around.

[killramos]

Has it ever been covered on why bicylces are allowed to travel so far below speed limits on roads and impede traffic and not get tickets?

[nzwasp]

I wish the city and police would set up some fucking sting operations on mounted pedestrians on crosswalks, specifically cyclists riding across the crosswalk where bow tr west turns right on to sarcee. Most mornings, its pitch black and some cyclist or several ride across that almost getting hit by cars or my car (happened this morning), even beeped my horn before they were about to cross as it was my right of way and nope both still rode across right in front of me (I was less than 10 m from the crossing).

Either the city ticket them or tolerate them and make motorists stop because im sure there must be car on bike accidents happening at these sort of crosswalks all the time.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

I was going to suggest the "passing on a solid yellow line" debate, not sure if you guys have covered that one already.

[FullFledgedYYC]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Can they talk about why Nenshi is such a stick in the mud when it comes to supporting motorsports? Did he have a traumatic experience with a barbie Jeep when he was young or what?

This made my day. Thank you.

[rage2]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
I was going to suggest the "passing on a solid yellow line" debate, not sure if you guys have covered that one already.
That was covered yesterday too. Go have a listen, it was a gooder!

[Mibz]

Originally posted by D'z Nutz
"Slower Traffic Keep Right", particularly if I'm already in the left lane and I am driving faster than the flow of traffic, but some jackass in a Dodge Ram is riding my ass because he wants to exceed the speed light by 50KM/H, am I obligated to keep right and let him pass? We looked up the history of this one a few years ago. The original wording is hilarious and, while it may have been okay back in the 50s or 60s, it's out of touch with reality now.

On a 3-lane highway the intent is the following:
- Left lane is for people going precisely the speed limit
- Right lane is for people going less than the speed limit
- Center lane is for passing

So to answer your question, no, you're not obliged to move over.

HOWEVER

Just like I said in my last post, just because something is legal, that doesn't mean it's right. Just because something is illegal, that doesn't mean it's wrong and/or dangerous. I will ALWAYS tell people that if somebody has made it clear they want to pass you, and you have an opportunity to allow them to pass, you should do it. Just because you don't have to doesn't mean it's not what you should do.

Clarity on where you can do U-turns.

And of course, the ever popular changing lanes at an intersection Both of these were covered yesterday ;)

Originally posted by you&me
The police aren't infallible and sometimes misinterpret the law. In these cases, it's up to the citizen to challenge the incorrect interpretation in court. Exactly, and while we can hold them to a higher standard when it comes to traffic laws, we still need to understand that they make mistakes the same as everybody else. If you get a ticket you don't agree with, it's not an excuse to treat somebody like shit, so don't. Take it, do your research, ask Beyond, and then make a decision on whether or not you want to fight it. At no point during the process should you be mad.

[schocker]

Good job teaching people the actual laws. I am going to guess the vast majority think you have to wait curb to curb which makes no sense.

You could also cover that the majority of Honda and Toyota owners do not understand how headlights work and the big blue light on the dashboard means high-beams and do not need to be used whenever they are driving towards me.:rofl:

If it isn't just laws but driving in general, you could cover how to start from a stop in snow/ice as people are fucking idiots.

[D'z Nutz]

Originally posted by rage2

http://www.newstalk770.com/audio-on-demand-2/

Every Monday at 4:45pm. Matt's been doing most of them but I've covered for him a few times. We've been on there since the summer.

Thanks! That was a good segment. Nice job Mibz!

[Swank]

How do you tell the difference between a regular crosswalk and a multi-use crosswalk?

[Canmorite]

Awesome, I've booked a reminder in my work calendar to tune in next Monday. :thumbsup:

[Mibz]

Originally posted by Swank
How do you tell the difference between a regular crosswalk and a multi-use crosswalk? This sign indicates a multi-use crossing.
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/PublishingImages/cycle-track-network/cycle-track-bike-crossing.jpg

To be clear, the only difference between a regular crosswalk and a multi-use crossing is that cars must yield to mounted cyclists, instead of forcing the cyclist to dismount.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by rage2

That was covered yesterday too. Go have a listen, it was a gooder!

I'll have to give it a listen when I get home! Sounds like you guys covered all the bases, haha.

[Swank]

Originally posted by Mibz
This sign indicates a multi-use crossing.
http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/PublishingImages/cycle-track-network/cycle-track-bike-crossing.jpg

To be clear, the only difference between a regular crosswalk and a multi-use crossing is that cars must yield to mounted cyclists, instead of forcing the cyclist to dismount.
So in this case does it mean all 4 crosswalks at the upcoming intersection are mutil-use? I don't recall ever having seen these before.

Just listened to your past 2 Motor Monday segments, nice work! Try to ditch the 'uhhs' and 'umms' to really polish up your radio persona :thumbsup:

[Sasuke_Kensai]

Originally posted by Swank

So in this case does it mean all 4 crosswalks at the upcoming intersection are mutil-use? I don't recall ever having seen these before.

Just listened to your past 2 Motor Monday segments, nice work! Try to ditch the 'uhhs' and 'umms' to really polish up your radio persona :thumbsup:

Didn't know about this show (sounds great, will try to catch the next ones) so I can't comment on the uhhs and umms. Obviously it's good to ditch them if possible, but has anyone ever notice how much some politicians do it? Particularly bad with Trudeau and Kent Hare, I've also heard Obama throw out several. Less when it's a pre-planned speech perhaps with teleprompters.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by Mibz
We looked up the history of this one a few years ago. The original wording is hilarious and, while it may have been okay back in the 50s or 60s, it's out of touch with reality now.

On a 3-lane highway the intent is the following:
- Left lane is for people going precisely the speed limit
- Right lane is for people going less than the speed limit
- Center lane is for passing

So to answer your question, no, you're not obliged to move over.

HOWEVER

Just like I said in my last post, just because something is legal, that doesn't mean it's right. Just because something is illegal, that doesn't mean it's wrong and/or dangerous. I will ALWAYS tell people that if somebody has made it clear they want to pass you, and you have an opportunity to allow them to pass, you should do it. Just because you don't have to doesn't mean it's not what you should do.
Both of these were covered yesterday ;)
Exactly, and while we can hold them to a higher standard when it comes to traffic laws, we still need to understand that they make mistakes the same as everybody else. If you get a ticket you don't agree with, it's not an excuse to treat somebody like shit, so don't. Take it, do your research, ask Beyond, and then make a decision on whether or not you want to fight it. At no point during the process should you be mad.


That's technically/legally the way I've always understood it.

If the speed limit is 100 km/h, then the fastest anyone is allowed to go is 100 km/h. If you're going slower than that, you should move to the right. Same with being on a two-lane divided highway. If someone is doing 95, then you may speed up to 100 to pass them, but technically, no faster than 100.

Obviously this isn't how the real world works, but it leaves it open for police to ticket someone if they want, whenever they go over the posted speed limit...whether passing or not.
In the real world, when a sign says "MAXIMUM 100 kmh" then everyone knows that it really means "MINIMUM 100 km/h" and anyone doing such a ridiculous speed (of 100) should be run off the road.

So the whole, "keep right except to pass" is just a rule of thumb, so even if you're doing 135 up the Deerfoot, if someone is coming up behind you at 150, you should "do the right thing" and move to the right.

[16hypen3sp]

Originally posted by C_Dave45





So the whole, "keep right except to pass" is just a rule of thumb, so even if you're doing 135 up the Deerfoot, if someone is coming up behind you at 150, you should "do the right thing" and move to the right.


While I agree that you should be in the right lane while cruising a divided multi-lane highway, passing only in the left, there is no law in the books saying so.

KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS is usually found on two-lane highways when going up a hill (turns into three lane). Not found on a divided highway. A semi, for example, would be slowing down while climbing a hill, so a passing lane (left lane) enables faster traffic to pass it, and then MOVE back to the right lane. You are required by law to do that.
Here is a prime example going east on highway 11 up the Red Deer River bank.
http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj186/manandmachinex411/ScreenShot2015-01-07at25700PM_zps1e2c2a6a.png (http://s272.photobucket.com/user/manandmachinex411/media/ScreenShot2015-01-07at25700PM_zps1e2c2a6a.png.html)

SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT is only found on divided highways. The legislation says you can travel in either lane at or near the speed limit. There is NO law requiring you to travel in the right lane only except for passing. Slow moving traffic legislation comes into play at an officers discretion. A tractor or combine should never be in the left hand lane of QEII. It is legislated to the right lane only.
Here is a prime example going south on the QEII west of Blackfalds.
http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj186/manandmachinex411/slower_zpsvhtm8ktg.jpg (http://s272.photobucket.com/user/manandmachinex411/media/slower_zpsvhtm8ktg.jpg.html)

If we want to get left-lane hogs out of the left-lane, then we need legislation saying so. Maybe once QEII is tripled, we might actually see some progressive laws being made on that highway regarding speeds, just like Europe.

As a common courtesy, I move to the left lane to let people on the on-ramps merge safely, as well as myself overtaking other vehicles obviously. Other than that, I stay in the right lane.

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?p=3045347#post3045347

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by Maxt

How about the deployment of photo radar as a safety tool when its placed in a 80 zone , 150 meters before that of a 110 km/h zone on highway 1 west and 2 south..

Ah my friend, I'm assuming you've received some of the same greeting cards by mail that I have on that stretch South of 22X but before 194th...lol.

Fuckers.

Just wait, it won't be long before it's 80 km/h all the way to the Okotoks turn-off. Might as well ride my damn bicycle.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by 16hypen3sp




http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?p=3045347#post3045347

Yeah, sorry I didn't convey that right.

The key word is "slower". What is "slower"? Slower than the guy behind you? Slower than you? I want to do 180 up the Deerfoot in the left lane...the guy in front of me is doing 150....is he "slower"? Does he legally have to move over cuz I want to fly faster than him? Rhetorical questions, btw.


So I shouldn't say it's a rule of thumb....I should define "slower". Legally it's anyone slower than the speed limit.

TECHNICALLY.....

PS Great post btw. Completely agree with you. I doubt many of the farmers over on AO even understand what you were pointing out to them lol. I didn't even bother to venture into that thread. My head hurts when trying to discuss with them.

[Mibz]

Originally posted by Masked Bandit
Ah my friend, I'm assuming you've received some of the same greeting cards by mail that I have on that stretch South of 22X but before 194th...lol. That entire stretch is one of the most annoying roads in the City. During my research for this bit I found out that any non-provincial highway located within City limits can be no more than 80km/h. I always thought it became 80 because of the traffic lights, turns out it's because the City took ownership of that section. I also thought there were some non-provincial 90 zones in the City but still can't think of any.

But yeah, until we get a Government who's willing to revisit traffic laws, that road will always be 80. And as the city limit stretches further South, so will the 80 zone, until it touches QE2.

[?????]

Originally posted by beyond_ban
For some reason i always thought the person crossing had to reach either the median (if it exists) or the other sides curb. This is a very tiresome practice in residential areas where some people take a solid 30 seconds to cross. Thank for the good news!


I've been under this impression too for the last few years since CPS had the STEP campaign on pedestrian crosswalks. Someone posted something regarding to the person reaching the curb OR if there is an immediate median.

But looks like I should revert back to what I was doing before that. :)

[120Comm]

Originally posted by rage2

That was covered yesterday too. Go have a listen, it was a gooder!

I don't have the ability to go to the audiovault right this moment, but I'll do my best to go listen when I can. Can you tell me if this is relating to the "single solid line" law?

Rules of the Road confuses me:


15(1)(b)in the case of a highway in an urban area where a single
solid line only exists between traffic lanes, a person shall
not drive the vehicle so that the vehicle or any portion of
the vehicle crosses the single solid line from one traffic
lane to another except when overtaking and passing
another vehicle;
(c) in the case of a highway outside an urban area where a
single solid line only exists between traffic lanes, a person
shall not drive the vehicle so that the vehicle or any
portion of the vehicle crosses the single solid line from
one traffic lane to another;

15(1)(b) seems to imply that crossing a single solid line to get around another vehicle is OK inside a city (but why only inside a city?), but the "use" of said lines (for example on the 16 Ave/Bowfort Rd construction) seems to imply that the road designers think section (c) prevails.

[schocker]

Originally posted by ?????
I've been under this impression too for the last few years since CPS had the STEP campaign on pedestrian crosswalks. Someone posted something regarding to the person reaching the curb OR if there is an immediate median.

But looks like I should revert back to what I was doing before that. :)
If you think about downtown though in rush hour, if you had to wait until people crossed curb to curb, you would never be be able to turn at all without an advance green. :rofl:

[16hypen3sp]

Originally posted by C_Dave45


Yeah, sorry I didn't convey that right.

The key word is "slower". What is "slower"? Slower than the guy behind you? Slower than you? I want to do 180 up the Deerfoot in the left lane...the guy in front of me is doing 150....is he "slower"? Does he legally have to move over cuz I want to fly faster than him? Rhetorical questions, btw.


So I shouldn't say it's a rule of thumb....I should define "slower". Legally it's anyone slower than the speed limit.

TECHNICALLY.....

PS Great post btw. Completely agree with you. I doubt many of the farmers over on AO even understand what you were pointing out to them lol. I didn't even bother to venture into that thread. My head hurts when trying to discuss with them.

Yah, some of the ol' boys still put up a fuss about it but most got the message.

That topic makes for interesting discussion.

As for my opinion on OP's crosswalk topic... if there is no one in front of me and it's safe to proceed, I'm going. In fact, I remember reading a post on Beyond that said someone got a ticket for it and went to court to fight it. The judge ruled that the pedestrian doesn't need to be all the way across before traffic can proceed. Anyone remember that post?

[16hypen3sp]

Originally posted by 120Comm


I don't have the ability to go to the audiovault right this moment, but I'll do my best to go listen when I can. Can you tell me if this is relating to the "single solid line" law?

Rules of the Road confuses me:



15(1)(b) seems to imply that crossing a single solid line to get around another vehicle is OK inside a city (but why only inside a city?), but the "use" of said lines (for example on the 16 Ave/Bowfort Rd construction) seems to imply that the road designers think section (c) prevails.

I take this street very frequently to get home. I sometimes come upon a person who is going about 20 to 30 km/h and I always remember this law so I just pass them. I've maybe done it 3 or 4 times since moving down there. I think a lot of them are visitors that get confused by the neighbourhood layout so they start creeping slowly so they don't miss any street signs.

I told our community facebook page that you can pass on single solids in town and it wasn't received very well... lol.

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj186/manandmachinex411/cw%20drive_zpspmp8jhdp.jpg (http://s272.photobucket.com/user/manandmachinex411/media/cw%20drive_zpspmp8jhdp.jpg.html)

[sexualbanana]

How do really wide unmarked lanes work? I'm talking about the roads (almost entirely in residential zones, from my experience) where it's easily wide enough for 3 lanes (presumably parking and 2 road lanes) but nothing is marked.

[16hypen3sp]

Originally posted by sexualbanana
How do really wide unmarked lanes work? I'm talking about the roads (almost entirely in residential zones, from my experience) where it's easily wide enough for 3 lanes (presumably parking and 2 road lanes) but nothing is marked.

I found this. It's not a law document though.

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj186/manandmachinex411/unmarked_zpsguigenjs.jpg (http://s272.photobucket.com/user/manandmachinex411/media/unmarked_zpsguigenjs.jpg.html)

https://www.transportation.alberta.ca/content/docType45/Production/Preparingforyourroadtest.pdf

[Mibz]

Originally posted by sexualbanana
How do really wide unmarked lanes work? I'm talking about the roads (almost entirely in residential zones, from my experience) where it's easily wide enough for 3 lanes (presumably parking and 2 road lanes) but nothing is marked. http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2002_304.pdf

(t) “traffic lane” means
(i) outside an urban area, a longitudinal division of a
roadway into a strip of sufficient width to
accommodate the passage of a single line of vehicles
but does not include a parking lane, and
(ii) inside an urban area, a longitudinal division of a
roadway into a strip of sufficient width to
accommodate the passage of a single line of vehicles,
whether or not the division is indicated by lines on the
road surface. If it's wide enough to be a lane, and there's no signage indicating that you can't drive on it, then, IMO, it's considered a lane that can be driven on.

Should it be driven on? Well, use your best judgment.

[Maxt]

Originally posted by Mibz
That entire stretch is one of the most annoying roads in the City. During my research for this bit I found out that any non-provincial highway located within City limits can be no more than 80km/h. I always thought it became 80 because of the traffic lights, turns out it's because the City took ownership of that section. I also thought there were some non-provincial 90 zones in the City but still can't think of any.

But yeah, until we get a Government who's willing to revisit traffic laws, that road will always be 80. And as the city limit stretches further South, so will the 80 zone, until it touches QE2.
16th ave between 19st and 68th ne?

[rage2]

I'm guessing TC1 like QE2 is a provincial highway, and thus not subject to the 80km/h rule.

[speedog]

Originally posted by 16hypen3sp


Yah, some of the ol' boys still put up a fuss about it but most got the message.

That topic makes for interesting discussion.

As for my opinion on OP's crosswalk topic... if there is no one in front of me and it's safe to proceed, I'm going. In fact, I remember reading a post on Beyond that said someone got a ticket for it and went to court to fight it. The judge ruled that the pedestrian doesn't need to be all the way across before traffic can proceed. Anyone remember that post?
What would you do if the pedestrian had already crossed your lane but there was a car beside you going in the same direction as you who remained stopped until the pedestrian was all the way across?

[rage2]

Originally posted by speedog
What would you do if the pedestrian had already crossed your lane but there was a car beside you going in the same direction as you who remained stopped until the pedestrian was all the way across?
I'd drive off. I take it you're trying to see if this part of the law qualifies:


(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.
It doesn't, as you wouldn't be approaching the stopped vehicle from the rear.

[16hypen3sp]

Originally posted by speedog

What would you do if the pedestrian had already crossed your lane but there was a car beside you going in the same direction as you who remained stopped until the pedestrian was all the way across?



Originally posted by rage2

I'd drive off. I take it you're trying to see if this part of the law qualifies:


It doesn't, as you wouldn't be approaching the stopped vehicle from the rear.

What rage said.

[ExtraSlow]

Nothing to do with the law, but I generally let them clear the lane next to mine before I take off, and I take off slowly unless they are all the way to the curb. then I spray the VTAKKK!!