Dumb ass people and other stuff

[Araxi]

Lol, that's crazy Jeff. I'm getting used to the non signalling thing but the tail gating thing still bugs me.

[dean2k]

Dieppe can be really bad because act ignorant, but I will attest to Jeff's statements about Amherst drivers and 4-way stops. It's ridiculous. Roll the dice for initiative to see who goes first. Also, driving (or walking) through the Sobeys parking lot in Amherst is taking your life in your hands. I hate to say it, but it's mostly Kamikaze elderly drivers.

[Dirt Chicken]

Too funny, and scary!! just had a mental picture about this, sobeys parking lot, a lawless land

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk 2

[akr71]

It's the same here in Amherst, Bruce. Also, 4-way stops that have stop signs instead of lights are like running a fucking gauntlet because only a very small percentage of drivers here seem to know right of way rules.

My daughter has caught me swearing at other Amherst drivers so many times, she even knows the rules (and she's 9)

I've always claimed that Moncton is the Montreal of the Maritimes - mostly based on the way folks there drive.

[derek]

Since this is the dumb ass ppl thread I have a question. I notice here In Moncton it seems signalling is a option not the law. Is this just Moncton or is this just how ppl roll here in the Maritimes? Also it seems an accepted practice to follow 5 feet behind the car in front of you as well, now this is just STUPID.

It's the same here in Amherst, Bruce. Also, 4-way stops that have stop signs instead of lights are like running a fucking gauntlet because only a very small percentage of drivers here seem to know right of way rules.

Lack of signalling is something that seems epidemic throughout the Maritimes. My wife, who is usually a far better driver than me (and is from NS, unlike me) has always driven me nuts by her lack of signalling. She'll be driving along on a four-lane highway complaining that nobody will let her change lanes, and I have to point out that they can't read her mind.

Four-way stops in Halifax seem to be mostly a matter of somebody having to take the initiative, otherwise everybody will just wait there for everybody else.

[benwedge]

I was nearly killed by a driver who signalled poorly today. (Poor signals/nearly being killed are both par for the course for a cyclist in this town). I was coming down South and two vans were waiting to turn left, both with signals on. As I'm legally allowed to do, I decided to undertake the vans to continue on my path straight down the street. As I came alongside it's sliding door the second van decided to swerve around the front van and head down South. For a moment I was less than an inch from the curb and nearly brushing his door. I chased him down South, and then he decided to pull over, again without signalling, leading to a second near-miss.

University is the worst street I ride on on a semi-regular basis. No one on that street seems to have ever graced Halifax with their presence before, signalling is optional at best, and they're constantly looking for non-existent parking spots.

[CorneliusAlphonse]

I always enjoyed cruising down university from upper campus to lower, but had a few close calls for sure. Glad you're okay

[vgoreham]

University is the worst street I ride on on a semi-regular basis. No one on that street seems to have ever graced Halifax with their presence before, signalling is optional at best, and they're constantly looking for non-existent parking spots.

Two of my three most memorable closest calls were on that street. People really tend to underestimate how fast you're biking when you're going East. I actually hit my front wheel into a cab that gave me a left hook there once. Gah.

[derek]

As I'm legally allowed to do, I decided to undertake the vans to continue on my path straight down the street.

I don't think so, Jim.

"On highways with two or more substantially continuous lanes, you may pass another vehicle from the right or left."

That doesn't describe University.

Ah. Better source: Motor Vehicle act 114 (2):

Notwithstanding Section 85 and clause (1)(a), a cyclist operating on the far right side or the right-hand shoulder of the roadway may pass to the right of the overtaken vehicle if it is safe to do so.

Clearly it wasn't safe to do so.

[CorneliusAlphonse]

If the remaining lane was wide enough for the second vehicle waiting to turn to squeeze through, it was certainly wide enough for a cyclist. And it sounds as though it was safe, except for the driver changing lanes without signaling or checking the surroundings

[benwedge]

If the remaining lane was wide enough for the second vehicle waiting to turn to squeeze through, it was certainly wide enough for a cyclist. And it sounds as though it was safe, except for the driver changing lanes without signaling or checking the surroundings

Bingo. They were both far left, left signals on. It was when he jerked right that a problem presented itself. I do have a fast, aggressive riding style, which puts me in more danger than a more casual style, but it doesn't excuse shitty driving.

[chalmers]

Overtaking and passing

114 (1) Except as otherwise provided in Section 115, the following rules shall govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles:

(a) the driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall not pass until after he has given a suitable and audible signal, and shall pass to the left of the overtaken vehicle at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the highway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle;

(b) the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favour of the overtaking vehicle on suitable and audible signal and shall not increase the speed of his vehicle, until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle;

(c) in the event vehicles on a street or highway are moving in two or more substantially continuous lines, clauses (a) and (b) shall not be considered as prohibiting the vehicles in one such line overtaking or passing the vehicles in another such line either upon the right or the left, nor shall clauses (a) and (b) be construed to prohibit a driver overtaking and passing upon the right another vehicle which is making or about to make a left turn.

(2) Notwithstanding Section 85 and clause (1)(a), a cyclist operating on the far right side or the right-hand shoulder of the roadway may pass to the right of the overtaken vehicle if it is safe to do so. R.S., c. 293, s. 114; 2010, c. 59, s. 4.

The guy who pulled out in front of Ben did not follow 114(1)(b), nor several other Sections of the Act (signalling, driving erratically, etc).

[ethier.sc]

If the remaining lane was wide enough for the second vehicle waiting to turn to squeeze through, it was certainly wide enough for a cyclist. And it sounds as though it was safe, except for the driver changing lanes without signaling or checking the surroundings

Bingo. They were both far left, left signals on. It was when he jerked right that a problem presented itself. I do have a fast, aggressive riding style, which puts me in more danger than a more casual style, but it doesn't excuse shitty driving.

I've been hit twice in the last year by drivers who were indicating one thing and in a split second decided to do another.

Steve

[derek]

If the remaining lane was wide enough for the second vehicle waiting to turn to squeeze through, it was certainly wide enough for a cyclist. And it sounds as though it was safe, except for the driver changing lanes without signaling or checking the surroundings

I'm a cyclist. I hate the way drivers treat cyclists, but you're part of the problem here. "...wide enough to squeeze through" is not safe! Many drivers actually learn the basics of defensive driving - they promptly forget them, and never put them into practice, but if you ask, they know that you don't "squeeze through" and you don't trust other drivers. Far too many cyclists never seem to learn even the basics.

[derek]

The guy who pulled out in front of Ben did not follow 114(1)(b), nor several other Sections of the Act (signalling, driving erratically, etc).

Ah. The old "two wrongs make a right" defense. Of course he's in violation of numerous sections of the act.

I'm sure Ben didn't provide the required "suitable and audible signal", either. [I wonder when they're going to get around to fixing that clause]

[Jimmy]

I'm going to start honking whenever I pass someone...

[CorneliusAlphonse]

If the remaining lane was wide enough for the second vehicle waiting to turn to squeeze through, it was certainly wide enough for a cyclist. And it sounds as though it was safe, except for the driver changing lanes without signaling or checking the surroundings

I'm a cyclist. I hate the way drivers treat cyclists, but you're part of the problem here. "...wide enough to squeeze through" is not safe! Many drivers actually learn the basics of defensive driving - they promptly forget them, and never put them into practice, but if you ask, they know that you don't "squeeze through" and you don't trust other drivers. Far too many cyclists never seem to learn even the basics.

"Wide enough for a car to squeeze through" would be around three metres. Which would not be "squeezing" in any way for a cyclist. The safety wasn't compromised by the undertaking, but rather by the unsignalled lane change by the drive. If it had been a car making the same maneuver, there would surely have been an accident

[benwedge]

If the remaining lane was wide enough for the second vehicle waiting to turn to squeeze through, it was certainly wide enough for a cyclist. And it sounds as though it was safe, except for the driver changing lanes without signaling or checking the surroundings

I'm a cyclist. I hate the way drivers treat cyclists, but you're part of the problem here. "...wide enough to squeeze through" is not safe! Many drivers actually learn the basics of defensive driving - they promptly forget them, and never put them into practice, but if you ask, they know that you don't "squeeze through" and you don't trust other drivers. Far too many cyclists never seem to learn even the basics.

"Wide enough for a car to squeeze through" would be around three metres. Which would not be "squeezing" in any way for a cyclist. The safety wasn't compromised by the undertaking, but rather by the unsignalled lane change by the drive. If it had been a car making the same maneuver, there would surely have been an accident

I'm in no way saying I'm some angel - I ride dangerously. He didn't signal, and that caused the problem. His behaviour was unexpected, and unreasonable. I definitely had 2-3 metres when I began to undertake, but he went right for the curb when he changed his mind about the left turn.

[Dirt Chicken]

I'm certified as a level 2 CANBIKE instructor, my friend whom I took the course from is a level 3, he is extensively versed with cycling rights and laws with the Motor Vehicle Act. I can remember 1 time where Halifax police proved that they don't even know what cyclist rights and laws are according to the motor vehicle act. Basically he was making a left through a major intersection, and he took the lane and signal left. 2 police cruisers chased him down and handed him a ticket with several bogus charges, basically they said that if you were to make a left turn in an intersection you had to go to the far right lane on the shoulder of the road then proceed through the intersection and then wait for the light to change, or to stay in the far right lane on the shoulder then cross 2 lanes heading left which is crazy dangerous!!! Crossing 2 lanes of traffic without them even knowing where you're going. He contested the charges and won, but surely nothing has been done to insure that figures of authority such as Police officers, are being properly educated/versed on bicycle rights and laws currently in Canada ( which the standard was established via CANBIKE based in ontario years ago)

[Dirt Chicken]

FTP!!!!

[Jimmy]

In my opinion the law should only allow bikes on the road if there is a designated bike lane, otherwise stick to the sidewalk. Is it really more dangerous to have someone biking on a sidewalk than driving on a narrow road with cars trying to squeeze by?

[CorneliusAlphonse]

In my opinion the law should only allow bikes on the road if there is a designated bike lane, otherwise stick to the sidewalk. Is it really more dangerous to have someone biking on a sidewalk than driving on a narrow road with cars trying to squeeze by?

Flamebait?

[mr x]

[dexter]

What I don't get about hfx drivers is their ineptitude to understand roundabouts, Larry utteck is a death trap, they've had to paint the lines twice in three years because cars have literally erased them.

[derek]

What I don't get about hfx drivers is their ineptitude to understand roundabouts, Larry utteck is a death trap, they've had to paint the lines twice in three years because cars have literally erased them.

I don't know, is that more than normal? I don't know how hard it is to keep lines on a roundabout, but when I was listening to a Maritime Noon show a few weeks back about cars, pedestrians and crosswalks, one caller mentioned how most marked crosswalks have no lines come spring, because the snowplows erase them. One of the guests was from an NB city roads department (Moncton, I think) and said that they expect to have to paint the crosswalk lines every spring. Of course, that's not the same as the lines in the roundabout, but a roundabout isn't going to be the same as a straight road, either.

I think Halifax drivers mostly do a better job with roundabouts than the summer tourists