Pedestrians and crosswalks (Matt from beyond on AM770)

[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.

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.

[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.

» Click image for larger version

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.

» Click image for larger version

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

[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

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.


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.


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/showt...47#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/showt...47#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.