Results 1 to 48 of 48

Thread: Who's fault would it be in this specific traffic scenerio?

  1. #1
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default Who's fault would it be in this specific traffic scenerio?

    I think I already know the answer but ...Ok one of my big driving pet peeves is when your at a yield sign turning right at a double lane intersection (think going northbound on 50th street and turning east onto 23rd ave) even though it's clear to go into the outside lane half the vehicles turning left from 50th southbound go straight into the outside lane instead of the inside.

    This is an illegal act I believe because your supposed to do a safe lane change.

    1. They turn directly into the outside lane and/or
    2. By the time they would have completed a proper, safe lane change they would be well beyond the intersection and yield sign.

    But I'm assuming if I pull out, even though it's clear (or even if there's left turning traffic) it will be my fault when a collision occurs because I didn't yield properly. However, if they wouldn't have broken the law in the first place with their illegal lane change, this chain of events wouldn't have occurred.

    Anyone know how this plays out?

  2. #2
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,021

    Default

    I'm not sure. I would think the police would say 50/50. Left turner 50% at fault for doing illegal lane change, right turner 50% at fault for not yielding properly.

    The same thing happens when someone is turning left and the light changes yellow, tries to clear the intersection, but a car coming straighthru the opposite direction runs the yellow light. 50/50 at fault.

  3. #3
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea
    The same thing happens when someone is turning left and the light changes yellow, tries to clear the intersection, but a car coming straighthru the opposite direction runs the yellow light. 50/50 at fault.
    Are you sure about that? To me that would be a he said/she said scenario, where the guy going straight would claim he was simply clearing the intersection and wasn't reasonably able to stop at the signal when it turned yellow. To me, in that scenario, even if the guy going straight was pretty blatantly running the yellow/red, the guy who turned in front of him would still be at fault. When it comes to left turn accidents, the vehicle turning left is almost always at fault.

  4. #4
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,021

    Default

    Yes, it's definitely a he said/she said scenario. Cops usually take the easy route and blame 50/50. Its happened to a few good friends of mine.

  5. #5
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    8,142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    I think I already know the answer but ...Ok one of my big driving pet peeves is when your at a yield sign turning right at a double lane intersection (think going northbound on 50th street and turning east onto 23rd ave) even though it's clear to go into the outside lane half the vehicles turning left from 50th southbound go straight into the outside lane instead of the inside.

    This is an illegal act I believe because your supposed to do a safe lane change.

    1. They turn directly into the outside lane and/or
    2. By the time they would have completed a proper, safe lane change they would be well beyond the intersection and yield sign.

    But I'm assuming if I pull out, even though it's clear (or even if there's left turning traffic) it will be my fault when a collision occurs because I didn't yield properly. However, if they wouldn't have broken the law in the first place with their illegal lane change, this chain of events wouldn't have occurred.

    Anyone know how this plays out?
    I think Yield means yield to oncoming traffic, and I think that means all oncoming traffic no matter what you think about their lane changing habits. You would be in the wrong, you have to watch what the other vehicles do at all times, part of the fun of driving, watch for the other guy

  6. #6
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    8,142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea
    The same thing happens when someone is turning left and the light changes yellow, tries to clear the intersection, but a car coming straighthru the opposite direction runs the yellow light. 50/50 at fault.
    Are you sure about that? To me that would be a he said/she said scenario, where the guy going straight would claim he was simply clearing the intersection and wasn't reasonably able to stop at the signal when it turned yellow. To me, in that scenario, even if the guy going straight was pretty blatantly running the yellow/red, the guy who turned in front of him would still be at fault. When it comes to left turn accidents, the vehicle turning left is almost always at fault.
    I'm hearing 50/50 at fault for the first time here. I think at each crash it is determined whose fault it is. If you turn left in front of somebody and they hit you its your fault unless they have a red and you have a flashing arrow

  7. #7
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    I think Yield means yield to oncoming traffic, and I think that means all oncoming traffic no matter what you think about their lane changing habits. You would be in the wrong, you have to watch what the other vehicles do at all times, part of the fun of driving, watch for the other guy
    This is what I figured, but at the same time my opinion is that if someone making a left does an illegal lane change he's the one who should be at fault.

    And just to add, I hate sitting at a yield sign with some dummy behind me honking his horn because he hasn't clued into the fact people are turning illegally into the lane. And vice versa, sometimes I get stuck behind someone in this scenario and I ask "wtf is he doing" and then have to remind myself that he's waiting for the illegal lane changers because he doesn't want to risk a collision that of course he's guilty of causing.

    Not right, IMO.

  8. #8
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    edmonton, alberta
    Posts
    2,285

    Default

    The person turning left will be at fault unless you can prove the person going through the intersection did so on a red light or was driving at an excessive rate of speed. The police do not determine how much a person is at fault and who will pay, that is up to the insurance adjuster. The police investigate the collision and attempt to collect evidence to determine if a violation has occurred under the Traffic Safety Act. If evidence supports a charge, a charge will be laid. Percentage of fault is done by insurance adjusters not the police.

  9. #9
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    6,027

    Default

    I was taught that the left turner is almost always at fault.

    Exceptions might be if the other vehicle is being driven at a high rate of speed above the limit, is running a red light or the driver is impaired.

    But otherwise ....
    ... gobsmacked

  10. #10
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,021

    Default

    I agree with everyone, I'm just saying that I have friends who ended up with 50/50 fault in similar situations, here in Edmonton.

    What can also happen is one person gets a ticket for illegal lane change, the other is 100% at fault for the accident.

  11. #11
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    I was taught that the left turner is almost always at fault.
    But in my scenario, the act of turning left has already occurred. Now they're in the outside lane "finishing the turn" as they approach where the merge/yield occurs. So technically, they're not a left turner anymore even though they broke the law at the very end of the act.

    Like I said, I would really like a answer as to who would be at fault. Maybe I should ask the police or my insurance broker or something...appreciate all the input though
    Last edited by Kitlope; 04-02-2015 at 11:21 AM.

  12. #12
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    6,027

    Default

    Should add, though it's been posted before, what the law says who is at fault is not binding on the insurance adjusters.

    So, you can be in the right, but still pay - some, half or all - regardless.
    ... gobsmacked

  13. #13
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Should add, though it's been posted before, what the law says who is at fault is not binding on the insurance adjusters.

    So, you can be in the right, but still pay - some, half or all - regardless.

    Ahh ok thanks. I've never been in a collision before (knocks on the wooden coffee table), so I don't really know any of that stuff or how it works.

  14. #14
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Meadows
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    They would probably end up rear ending you, so it would be their fault.
    $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $2.85 $3.00 $3.20 $3.25

  15. #15
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,021

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jstock View Post
    They would probably end up rear ending you, so it would be their fault.
    I can think of a couple scenarios where the person who did the rear ending would not be at fault.
    What if someone, turning right on to a major thoroughfare, blew threw a yield sign and the traffic on the main thoroughfare could not avoid them?

  16. #16
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,421

    Default

    Not sure what the answer is, but you could always ask the traffic cop on twitter on Tuesdays though.

    If I had to wager a guess, I'd say the person merging in at the yield sign would be at fault. Mostly because you're supposed to make sure the road is safe to enter, even if a turning vehicle SHOULD be in the other lane, when completing its turn.

    Not saying its right, or fair, because the person turning left didn't turn into their "curb" lane either, which is a poor habit to develop, especially if you ever get into double left turn intersections.

  17. #17
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lobbdogg View Post
    Not saying its right, or fair, because the person turning left didn't turn into their "curb" lane either, which is a poor habit to develop, especially if you ever get into double left turn intersections.
    heh, Northbound on 109th turning left on to Westbound Kingsway Ave is always entertaining for that very reason. I'd say at least 25% of the drivers in the far left lane will drift over to the middle lane while making the turn.

  18. #18
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    I remember when I was 17, learning to drive my father's 1 ton flatdeck Ford truck that he used for work, I was making a left turn on a double turning lane (I think it was at 91st and 51ave, but maybe not) and I wandered into the next lane and he flipped right out. I've never forgotten and I've never done it since

  19. #19
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,492

    Default

    ^ My dad tried unsuccessfully to teach me to drive in a 3/4 ton pickup truck. I finally got my license at age 25 after meeting my wife who had a reasonable size car (a ford festiva). 20 years later, I still hate pickup trucks.

    For the scenario in the OP, if two drivers are approaching an intersection from opposite directions and simultaneously turn to travel in the same direction on a multi-lane road and a collision results because the driver turning left did not turn into the left lane, how could it be the fault of the driver turning right? Laws need to change if the right turning driver is at fault here.
    Last edited by Titanium48; 05-02-2015 at 12:01 PM.

  20. #20
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    the main thing to note in this situation is that is is against the traffic laws to make a lane change in an intersection. if you are turning left you have to stay in your (imaginary) lane
    be offended! figure out why later...

  21. #21
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    For the scenario in the OP, if two drivers are approaching an intersection from opposite directions and simultaneously turn to travel in the same direction on a multi-lane road and a collision results because the driver turning left did not turn into the left lane, how could it be the fault of the driver turning right? Laws need to change if the right turning driver is at fault here.
    Exactly. This is my thinking. But does this apply in the real world? You would think it would, literally in every case unless the right turning driver was speeding and/or couldn't maintain himself in the proper (outside) lane when merging.

  22. #22
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    the main thing to note in this situation is that is is against the traffic laws to make a lane change in an intersection. if you are turning left you have to stay in your (imaginary) lane
    This applies too.

    I've always figured the guy with the yield sign would be at fault, but it's sounding unlikely.

  23. #23

    Default

    Driver turning right always has the right of way over left hand turner into same street

  24. #24
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,774

    Default

    ^ Yes, that's always been my understanding. Try coming off Ellerslie Road WB onto Parsons Road NB, though. Absolute reversal of rules there.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  25. #25

    Default

    Yes, however, if you're facing a yield going right at one of those turn offs then I believe the left hand turner has the right of away assuming the left hand turner has a clearing or advanced green.

    I have also seen where I have an advanced green on 51st avenue turning left on 111 street and the vehilce turning right at the yield burns through it without slowing down.

    That's what the yield is for no?

  26. #26

    Default

    I have experience with this. I was turning right at intersection on a green light and someone coming towards me turned left. There were two lanes but he drifted into my lane and we sideswiped. Even though I had a witness who said that he was driving very fast and cut her off to make his left-hand turn (and gave her the finger in the process) the insurance companies found us 50:50 at fault. They said that this is usually standard practice for sideswipe accidents.

  27. #27
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,021

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WestendMark View Post
    I have experience with this. I was turning right at intersection on a green light and someone coming towards me turned left. There were two lanes but he drifted into my lane and we sideswiped. Even though I had a witness who said that he was driving very fast and cut her off to make his left-hand turn (and gave her the finger in the process) the insurance companies found us 50:50 at fault. They said that this is usually standard practice for sideswipe accidents.
    I wonder if a dashcam would have helped things. Might require 4 of them, one for every side of the car.

  28. #28
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,774

    Default

    Just have your own drone-cam follow you everywhere. Twenty feet altitude would do nicely.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  29. #29
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,492

    Default

    ^^^That way they get to raise everyone's premiums, not just the loser who can't stay in the proper lane. Typical slimy insurance company behavior.

  30. #30
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WestendMark View Post
    I have experience with this. I was turning right at intersection on a green light and someone coming towards me turned left. There were two lanes but he drifted into my lane and we sideswiped. Even though I had a witness who said that he was driving very fast and cut her off to make his left-hand turn (and gave her the finger in the process) the insurance companies found us 50:50 at fault. They said that this is usually standard practice for sideswipe accidents.
    Such horsesh!t. Thanks for the comment.

  31. #31

    Default

    This is something that happened to my wife and the rules were made very clear to us. She turned out not being at fault.

    Anyways, as mentioned before, right turners have right of way over left turners provided the following rules:

    1) BOTH drivers have equal right to proceed with regards to the intersection control. This means, BOTH drivers have a green light.

    2) The driver turning left HAS NOT YET already proceeded into the intersection before the driver turning right has passed the stop line. If the left turning vehicle is already in the intersection and making the turn, a vehicle turning right and still approaching the intersection cannot cut in ahead of it regardless of if the right turning vehicle has a green light.

    There is also other traffic control differences that most people don't understand. Such as, if the right turning vehicle has a red light, and the left turning vehicle has an advance green (flashing green left turn arrow) the left turning vehicle then has right of way and the right turning vehicle must yield to the red light. Also, if both vehicles have yield signs, then the right turning vehicle has right of way unless the left turning vehicle has already started the turn before the right turning vehicle arrives at the stop line.

    These rules are in place regardless of if the left turning lane is a single or double lane. However, in a case of a double-left turn where a sideswipe happens from both vehicles turning at the same time, like mentioned in an earlier post, then it's a 50/50 fault. Because the left turning vehicle was in the wrong for turning into the wrong lane, AND the right turning vehicle did not yield to the left turning vehicle which was already proceeding through the intersection.

    I had these specific questions when my wife's accident happened, even though hers was not a double-lane scenario, I wanted to know.
    Last edited by alkeli; 10-03-2015 at 11:43 AM.

  32. #32
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    These rules are in place regardless of if the left turning lane is a single or double lane. However, in a case of a double-left turn where a sideswipe happens from both vehicles turning at the same time, like mentioned in an earlier post, then it's a 50/50 fault. Because the left turning vehicle was in the wrong for turning into the wrong lane, AND the right turning vehicle did not yield to the left turning vehicle which was already proceeding through the intersection.
    This needs to be changed. The rules make sense when there is only one lane, but if there are two lanes there should be no conflicts. The person who turned into the wrong lane should be 100% at fault in this situation.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    I think I already know the answer but ...Ok one of my big driving pet peeves is when your at a yield sign turning right at a double lane intersection (think going northbound on 50th street and turning east onto 23rd ave) even though it's clear to go into the outside lane half the vehicles turning left from 50th southbound go straight into the outside lane instead of the inside.

    This is an illegal act I believe because your supposed to do a safe lane change.

    1. They turn directly into the outside lane and/or
    2. By the time they would have completed a proper, safe lane change they would be well beyond the intersection and yield sign.

    But I'm assuming if I pull out, even though it's clear (or even if there's left turning traffic) it will be my fault when a collision occurs because I didn't yield properly. However, if they wouldn't have broken the law in the first place with their illegal lane change, this chain of events wouldn't have occurred.

    Anyone know how this plays out?

    I'm not a peace officer or anything, but I do know that it is blatantly illegal to lane change while performing a turn (or going through an intersection).

    If the collision occurs as a result of the person doing the lane change while turning, they would likely be at fault; the only reason they might not be at fault is if they caused someone to rear-end them (which is where dashboard cameras come to the rescue).

    Just my thoughts.

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by WestendMark View Post
    I have experience with this. I was turning right at intersection on a green light and someone coming towards me turned left. There were two lanes but he drifted into my lane and we sideswiped. Even though I had a witness who said that he was driving very fast and cut her off to make his left-hand turn (and gave her the finger in the process) the insurance companies found us 50:50 at fault. They said that this is usually standard practice for sideswipe accidents.
    Such horsesh!t. Thanks for the comment.

    I got sideswiped by some [foul word here] in a dually pickup on Gaetz Avenue in Red Deer in June 2013.

    He lane changed into my fender and ripped apart the front of the car.

    The police came and said it was 50/50 fault.

    I was like...wha?

    Dashboard cameras. All over my car.

  35. #35
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    This needs to be changed. The rules make sense when there is only one lane, but if there are two lanes there should be no conflicts. The person who turned into the wrong lane should be 100% at fault in this situation.
    Agreed. 50/50 is a nice bargain for the guy that initially broke the law with an illegal & unsafe lane change.

    The police came and said it was 50/50 fault.
    Thanks for the post Darendor. It's looking like, after a few peoples experiences, that it's a 50/50 insurance thing. And as Titanium said, it should be changed.

    Drive defensively folks!

    Oh yeah, last week I picked up a dash cam. Once it arrives in the mail, I'll be hooking it up. For the price I paid, I just might get one for the rear window too.

    $51.00 shipped (found a 5% discount code too). Supposed to be a great cam for how little it costs.

    http://www.banggood.com/Full-HD1080P...-p-916394.html

    edit: Looks like they're selling them out of the US now too. Same low price.
    Last edited by Kitlope; 12-03-2015 at 04:22 AM.

  36. #36
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    I have another question. This is in regards to driving in the left lane on a road like 50th street or 23rd Ave. With numerous left turns available does the "slower traffic keep right" apply like it does on freeways? This video got me wondering. I don't think it does but I'm sure some people think so, as the guy in the video proves.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6iP5ZBdvDg

  37. #37

    Default

    I'm so happy I got a dashcam for this crazy city. I'm actually considering getting two more that point out the sides. Not too concerned about the rear because if you get rear-ended, it's 99.9% of the time not your fault. I reserve the 0.1% for the odd incident, like the brake light fuse pulling scam: Driver reaches in his glove box and pulls the fuse for the brake lights, slams the brakes hard to get rear-ended on purpose. Replaces the fuse afterwards and claims to be rear-ended by a crazy speeding driver. Dashcams save you from this because you can prove they slammed the brakes for no reason, AND their brake lights didn't come on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    I have another question. This is in regards to driving in the left lane on a road like 50th street or 23rd Ave. With numerous left turns available does the "slower traffic keep right" apply like it does on freeways? This video got me wondering. I don't think it does but I'm sure some people think so, as the guy in the video proves.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6iP5ZBdvDg
    There is no "slower traffic keep right" in the city because you may be in the left lane in anticipation of making a left turn within the next few blocks. In fact, I think that does not apply to most freeway and highways unless it's specifically marked with a sign.

    Still, I think that in all cases on highways, slower traffic SHOULD keep to the right unless there's congestion. I also think that transport trucks should not be allowed to pass on highways and freeways since they should all be doing the speed limit. Of all vehicles, those are the most dangerous ones to be speeding. Also, the elephant races just disrupt traffic, especially around hills. I lived in Germany for several years, and this is the law there. Transports do not pass and stay in the right lane, period. Works well to keep traffic moving smoothly.

  38. #38
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,581

    Default

    On highways it is required as per Traffic Safety Act: Use Of Highway And Rules Of The Road Regulation Alberta Regulation 304/2002 Section 12

    Driving on right side of roadway
    12(1) A person driving a vehicle shall not drive the vehicle so that the vehicle or any portion of the vehicle is to the left of the centre line of a highway except
    (a) when overtaking and passing another vehicle travelling in the same direction;
    (b) when the roadway to the right of the centre line is obstructed by a parked vehicle or other object;
    (c) when the roadway to the right of the centre line is closed to traffic;
    (d) when turning left from the highway onto another highway or into a private road or driveway;
    (e) when a traffic control device otherwise requires or permits;
    (f) when the vehicle is being operated on a one-way highway.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  39. #39

    Default

    Yeah, it says to the left of the CENTER line, as in, the yellow line. AKA, don't drive on the wrong side of the road. Doesn't mention the white lane dividing lines on multi-lane highways.

  40. #40
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Yeah, it says to the left of the CENTER line, as in, the yellow line. AKA, don't drive on the wrong side of the road. Doesn't mention the white lane dividing lines on multi-lane highways.
    Good point, I misread that. It does appear the only place it's required is on a three lane highway where you can't be in the centre lane unless passing. In fact in a later section (22) it explicitly allows passing on the right.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Yeah, it says to the left of the CENTER line, as in, the yellow line. AKA, don't drive on the wrong side of the road. Doesn't mention the white lane dividing lines on multi-lane highways.
    Good point, I misread that. It does appear the only place it's required is on a three lane highway where you can't be in the centre lane unless passing. In fact in a later section (22) it explicitly allows passing on the right.
    I believe by 3-lane, they mean where the center lane is shared for left turns. An example would be along 97th street between the yellowhead and 137th Ave. The center lane allows traffic from both directions to enter but only for the purpose of turning left into a side street or parking lot and you can't just drive the whole way in that lane. The wording isn't 100% clear, but I believe that's what it means.

  42. #42
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Yeah, it says to the left of the CENTER line, as in, the yellow line. AKA, don't drive on the wrong side of the road. Doesn't mention the white lane dividing lines on multi-lane highways.
    Good point, I misread that. It does appear the only place it's required is on a three lane highway where you can't be in the centre lane unless passing. In fact in a later section (22) it explicitly allows passing on the right.
    I believe by 3-lane, they mean where the center lane is shared for left turns. An example would be along 97th street between the yellowhead and 137th Ave. The center lane allows traffic from both directions to enter but only for the purpose of turning left into a side street or parking lot and you can't just drive the whole way in that lane. The wording isn't 100% clear, but I believe that's what it means.
    Given it's the regulations on highways I would say it's for the three lane sections of a two-lane highway such as this one on Hwy16:



    These are of course signed with "Keep right except to pass" as well.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  43. #43

    Default

    If the solid line is on your side, you are not allowed to pass, period.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  44. #44
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,398

    Default

    There are three way sections like Paul posted where the single lane side can pass, as the center lane is not solid. They have to yield the center lane to oncoming traffic, of course.

  45. #45
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    There are three way sections like Paul posted where the single lane side can pass, as the center lane is not solid. They have to yield the center lane to oncoming traffic, of course.
    With passing lanes like these there shouldn't be any oncoming traffic as there's as a double solid between the opposing traffic directions.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  46. #46
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,758

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    There are three way sections like Paul posted where the single lane side can pass, as the center lane is not solid. They have to yield the center lane to oncoming traffic, of course.
    With passing lanes like these there shouldn't be any oncoming traffic as there's as a double solid between the opposing traffic directions.
    I believe Marcel is talking about these situations, where you are allowed to pass in the passing lane of opposing traffic: https://goo.gl/maps/dgawZfdnyyp

  47. #47
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,581

    Default

    Ahhh, that makes sense. I spend so much time driving in the mountains I'm not sure I ever see those.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  48. #48

    Default

    They are a bit risky in an extreme case where a car is following a truck going up the hill to closely. If the driver behind decides to use the passing lane and quickly changes into the center, he may not look to see a car being passed going down hill.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •