Hey Bear, a question for you: say you come to a collision where a driver turning left has turned wide and collided with a car that turned right while "facing" (still up for debate here) a green arrow and a circular red. Would it be 'improper left turn' for the left turner, 'green arrow - fail to proceed as directed' for the right turner, or both? Or would it be 'red light - proceed before green' for the right turner?

Oh, and in this case both drivers would have had their own respective lanes to turn into had the left turner not turned wide.

Autopsy Report: colorization of the x-ray revealed the subject had donuts on the brain and died while attempting to get at the Boston Cream.

Squishy wrote:

If "their respective lane" is taken completely literally, then wouldn't that make the centre lanes of a six-lane street basically uncontrolled?

Therein lies the problem. Too much obscure wording.

S. 144 should be re-worded. Also should be much more severe penalties for turning into the wrong lane at an intersection and disobeying yield sign. Maybe that could be tacked onto your e-mail regarding s. 154. Would ideally also like to see huge penalties for motorists who accelerate when they are being overtaken.

Can't ask for too much, man. Might as well just run for office, then.

How about you tackle 144 and I'll tackle 154? We'll finally get some lane discipline and yield signs can make a comeback! (And who wants to ask for more roundabouts?)

People who accelerate when others are passing them do technically fall under 172. I haven't heard of any such charges, though. I imagine such an incident would make the newspaper.

Squishy wrote:

And who wants to ask for more roundabouts?

I do. They save hours. Except 90% of folks will have to have a 2 hour class to drill the roundabout etiquette into their brains.

Squishy wrote:

People who accelerate when others are passing them do technically fall under 172. I haven't heard of any such charges, though. I imagine such an incident would make the newspaper.

I haven't heard of any either. I can imagine the P/O driver though: "I was being overtaken, sped up by 10 km/hr, and the officer gave me a 7-point ticket! What will THAT do to MY insurance??? I didn't even know this was illegal let alone this bad!"

racer wrote:

I haven't heard of any either. I can imagine the P/O driver though: "I was being overtaken, sped up by 10 km/hr, and the officer gave me a 7-point ticket! What will THAT do to MY insurance??? I didn't even know this was illegal let alone this bad!"

Ignorance is a poor excuse.

I imagine just a warning of the potential charges and insurance implications would be enough to scare most of them straight. Is there a tracking system for warnings given out, or can drivers talk their way into a warning indefinitely?

racer wrote:

I do. They save hours. Except 90% of folks will have to have a 2 hour class to drill the roundabout etiquette into their brains.

Also they've been shown to reduce the severity of collisions and improve overall capacity versus traffic lights. I think they'd work in a lot of places, but, unfortunately, I think you're right about the etiquette here. Put them in Scarborough and half of the drivers going westbound who want to go south, instead of going to the right with everyone else, would turn left against the traffic flow. The rest of the GTA wouldn't yield properly entering/departing the roundabout and they'd try to run down pedestrians. If they missed their turn because they were talking on the cellphone, they'd stop and back up, or attempt a 3-point turn and drive against the traffic flow... probably turn the whole thing into a 24/7 Gong Show.