Would Better Driver Training/Testing Make Roads Safer?

[my5cents]

We are poorly trained if you've experienced curriculum from countries that take licensing and safety a bit more serious than we do. But yes, it takes discipline but it also takes knowledge and I can pretty well guarantee you that if you took most of the drivers off the road today and gave them a simple written test on the rules of the road, they'd fail ... yet we seem to think its OK for them to teach their kids.

The vast majority of collision causing infractions involve basic driving and a basic lack of concern for obeying traffic laws. I don't think you are saying that with more training a driver would know a red light means stop, so perhaps more education into the results of disobeying traffic laws ?

Absolutely, and I've brought it up several times before on these boards that traffic enforcement is pick and choose and sometimes just ignore completely. The speed trap on top of hospital hill in Vernon by the DND grounds is a classic example of this ... as the cops are picking off speeders coming north bound ... all the cars making an illegal left turn on to the highway from the parking lot by the parade square don't even get a wink despite it happening right underneath the noses of the boys in blue.

It sounds like you are blaming the police for the collisions that occure. Somehow we need more traffic law compliance when police are not present.

Off the topic a bit, but if there is a no left turn sign there it's likely one placed there by the DND and unenforceable.

[Dizzy1]

The vast majority of collision causing infractions involve basic driving and a basic lack of concern for obeying traffic laws. I don't think you are saying that with more training a driver would know a red light means stop, so perhaps more education into the results of disobeying traffic laws ?

What I'm saying is that the majority of people don't know what the rules of the road are and they pass this "knowledge" on to their kids. One only has to read the multitude of threads and posts on these boards to see how some people have no idea of the simplest rules of the road. I remember years back, one poster claimed that going 1 km/h over the speedlimit on your road test is an automatic fail. Another poster on one of the roundabout threads claims that if there is a pedestrian crossing the crosswalk at your exit in a roundabout the law says you have to go around again. Don't even get me started on the Keep right Except to Pass threads. Point is that many people on our roads simply don't understand some of the most basic traffic laws and I sure as hell don't think its a swell idea for them to be teaching others.

It sounds like you are blaming the police for the collisions that occure. Somehow we need more traffic law compliance when police are not present.

No, I'm blaming the police for not enforcing violations that happen right in front of them.

Off the topic a bit, but if there is a no left turn sign there it's likely one placed there by the DND and unenforceable.

There are two signs ... one forbidding a left turn from the highway into the parking lot and the other forbidding a left turn from the parking lot onto the highway. Why would the DND put a sign up on a Provincial highway and how would a regulatory highway sign be "unenforceable"?

[Dizzy1]

Would mandatory driver's training by properly trained people in a properly set up system solve our dreadful accident statistics and driving behaviours? No, but I am 100% convinced that it would help reduce the amount of accidents on our roads and would be a stepping stone to other tactics and ideas to make our roads safer and that is the whole idea.

[my5cents]

What I'm saying is that the majority of people don't know what the rules of the road are and they pass this "knowledge" on to their kids. One only has to read the multitude of threads and posts on these boards to see how some people have no idea of the simplest rules of the road. I remember years back, one poster claimed that going 1 km/h over the speedlimit on your road test is an automatic fail. Another poster on one of the roundabout threads claims that if there is a pedestrian crossing the crosswalk at your exit in a roundabout the law says you have to go around again. Don't even get me started on the Keep right Except to Pass threads. Point is that many people on our roads simply don't understand some of the most basic traffic laws and I sure as hell don't think its a swell idea for them to be teaching others.

IMO the vast majority of accident causing violations are due to the drive not obeying a traffic law that he/she is fully aware of.

No, I'm blaming the police for not enforcing violations that happen right in front of them.

Police work is priorities. Yes there may be violations that are ignored. One of the downsides to the impression the public has of them is that the police car you see waiting at a red light when a car blows a bad yellow is, he may be enroute to something more important than a ticket. Just because he isn't driving with his red lights and siren doesn't mean he has time to stop and write a ticket.

There are two signs ... one forbidding a left turn from the highway into the parking lot and the other forbidding a left turn from the parking lot onto the highway. Why would the DND put a sign up on a Provincial highway and how would a regulatory highway sign be "unenforceable"?

Wasn't aware of the sign on the Hwy, don't go through Vernon as much as I used to. There are lots and lots of non provincial highways and non municipal signs erected at parking lot exits.

[Dizzy1]

IMO the vast majority of accident causing violations are due to the drive not obeying a traffic law that he/she is fully aware of.

I won't disagree with you, but there are still accidents as a result of them simply not knowing what they are supposed to do. Getting rear ended because you come to a complete stop at a merge lane because they don't know what merge means (yes, the other car would have been at fault but it is an accident that could have been prevented had the first vehicle done what they were supposed to do). Making a left turn and going straight into the right lane or right turn straight into the left lane etc are all things people do on a day to day basis simply because they don't know any better.

Police work is priorities. Yes there may be violations that are ignored. One of the downsides to the impression the public has of them is that the police car you see waiting at a red light when a car blows a bad yellow is, he may be enroute to something more important than a ticket. Just because he isn't driving with his red lights and siren doesn't mean he has time to stop and write a ticket.

I understand what you're saying, but take this as an example. You're driving down the highway between Vernon and Oyama and there are about 6 regulatory signs stating "Keep Right Except To Pass" ... now, there is a car who is driving the whole stretch in front of you in the left lane ... behind him a cop, and they keep following them and following them and the lights don't go on until they get someone speeding coming the other way. So, its obvious the officer is out patrolling traffic but what gets me is that one traffic violator gets nailed (and rightly so) but the other gets to go with out even a bat of an eyelash. I get the whole speeding/crash statistics/priorities argument but, for me, the point and bottom line is that we have laws and they all need to be enforced regardless of their "priority" ... so if a cop is out on traffic duty he should be enforcing exactly that.

There are lots and lots of non provincial highways and non municipal signs erected at parking lot exits.

Such as?

[my5cents]

I won't disagree with you, but there are still accidents as a result of them simply not knowing what they are supposed to do. Getting rear ended because you come to a complete stop at a merge lane because they don't know what merge means (yes, the other car would have been at fault but it is an accident that could have been prevented had the first vehicle done what they were supposed to do). Making a left turn and going straight into the right lane or right turn straight into the left lane etc are all things people do on a day to day basis simply because they don't know any better.

Well there's a certain irony there. Turning left into the closest lane to the center line is good practice but it isn't the law. All the MVA says is you must be right of center.

I understand what you're saying, but take this as an example. You're driving down the highway between Vernon and Oyama and there are about 6 regulatory signs stating "Keep Right Except To Pass" ... now, there is a car who is driving the whole stretch in front of you in the left lane ... behind him a cop, and they keep following them and following them and the lights don't go on until they get someone speeding coming the other way. So, its obvious the officer is out patrolling traffic but what gets me is that one traffic violator gets nailed (and rightly so) but the other gets to go with out even a bat of an eyelash. I get the whole speeding/crash statistics/priorities argument but, for me, the point and bottom line is that we have laws and they all need to be enforced regardless of their "priority" ... so if a cop is out on traffic duty he should be enforcing exactly that.

I guess you call that the "bigger fish syndrome".

IMO, with respect to moderate speeding, the risk is created not because of the speeding, but because of vehicles traveling different speeds in the same area. Let's say a wide straight highway, the flow of the traffic is 15 Kms above the limit. No danger, then either a high speed vehicle weaves it's way through the group or the group comes upon a vehicle doing exactly the speed limit. Those non-conforming vehicles are the cause of a risk. Even though the legal speed vehicle is obeying the letter of the law it is the hazard, as I might be turning left at the intersection and not entering the lane next to the center line, but obeying the letter of the law.

There are lots and lots of non provincial highways and non municipal signs erected at parking lot exits.

Such as?

The Super store in Kelowna. Just about any private driveway from a commercial parking lot that displays a sign, is a private sign, as they are redundant because you must stop before crossing the sidewalk when there is no sign.

[Dizzy1]

Well there's a certain irony there. Turning left into the closest lane to the center line is good practice but it isn't the law. All the MVA says is you must be right of center.

Turning at intersections
165 (1) If the driver of a vehicle intends to turn it to the right at an intersection, the driver must cause it to approach the intersection and then make the turn as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway.

(2) When the driver of a vehicle intends to turn it to the left at an intersection where traffic is permitted to move in both directions on each highway entering the intersection, the driver must

(a) cause the vehicle to approach the intersection in the portion of the right side of the roadway that is nearest the marked centre line, or if there is no marked centre line, then as far as practicable in the portion of the right half of the roadway that is nearest the centre line,

(b) keep the vehicle to the right of the marked centre line or centre line of the roadway, as the case may be, at the place the highway enters the intersection,

(c) after entering the intersection, turn the vehicle to the left so that it leaves the intersection to the right of the marked centre line of the roadway being entered, or if there is no marked centre line then to the right of the centre line of the roadway being entered, and,

(d) when practicable, turn the vehicle in the portion of the intersection to the left of the centre of the intersection.

Technically, making a left turn into the right lane or vice versa carries a $109 fine and 3 points ...

165(5) Improper turn at intersection $109 3

The Super store in Kelowna. Just about any private driveway from a commercial parking lot that displays a sign, is a private sign, as they are redundant because you must stop before crossing the sidewalk when there is no sign.

What kind of sign? Stop sign? I'm pretty sure if you didn't stop there and you are in an accident you'll be charged for failing to stop or not following a regulatory sign.

[my5cents]

To Dizzy1
I invite you to read the MVA again, the part you underlined discussed approaching the intersection. We're talking about entering the street being turned on to.

As for private signs, yes, stop signs, some turn sign (technical term is "movement prohibition signs", or "direction control signs")

If they weren't placed there officially, they are information only.

Take exiting a driveway of a parking lot, if there is no stop sign, do you think you can just drive into the roadway ?

No, there is a traffic law that says you must stop before the sidewalk area. That is why the signs you see at these parking lots are not official signs because they are redundant.

176 (1) The driver of a vehicle in a business or residence district and emerging from an alley, driveway, building or private road must stop the vehicle immediately before driving onto the sidewalk or the sidewalk area extending across an alleyway or private driveway, and must yield the right of way to a pedestrian on the sidewalk or sidewalk area.

[LoneWolf_53]

Well there's a certain irony there. Turning left into the closest lane to the center line is good practice but it isn't the law. All the MVA says is you must be right of center.

Well a person could start to split hairs on that one, because your implication isn't quite what you make it seem.

There's laws, and then again there are other ones, that when set alongside the first one, put things in a clearer perspective.

If you were turning left onto a multiple lane roadway, and shot straight for the inside right hand lane, while someone was turning right into his inside lane from the other direction, and you hit him, you'd be at fault, reason being you are the one crossing multiple lanes, and each time you go across one you are obligated to signal, plus make sure that it's safe to do so.

If you are obeying that rule, then it casts a different light on the other one. Often times when we drive, it's the combined knowledge of multiple regulations, which we should have, that ultimately help us make correct decisions.

I'm too old to know what they teach these days, but I assure you when I was taught to drive, we were instructed to turn into the closest lane, then proceed cautiously from there, and that makes the most sense, and should still be applicable today, whether it's actual law or not, since such precautionary approaches don't really change.

[kgcayenne]

I agree with Dizzy1 and Lonewolf.

Lane skippers elicit a symphonic "Dewschebahhhg alert" in two or three-part harmony from the occupants of our vehicles.

[my5cents]

Well a person could start to split hairs on that one, because your implication isn't quite what you make it seem.

There's laws, and then again there are other ones, that when set alongside the first one, put things in a clearer perspective.

If you were turning left onto a multiple lane roadway, and shot straight for the inside right hand lane, while someone was turning right into his inside lane from the other direction, and you hit him, you'd be at fault, reason being you are the one crossing multiple lanes, and each time you go across one you are obligated to signal, plus make sure that it's safe to do so.

If you are obeying that rule, then it casts a different light on the other one. Often times when we drive, it's the combined knowledge of multiple regulations, which we should have, that ultimately help us make correct decisions.

I'm too old to know what they teach these days, but I assure you when I was taught to drive, we were instructed to turn into the closest lane, then proceed cautiously from there, and that makes the most sense, and should still be applicable today, whether it's actual law or not, since such precautionary approaches don't really change.

Oh yes, don't confuse what you were taught with what the law states. Just take the driver's test and not shoulder check...you fail.

Now show me where it says anything about shoulder checking in the MVA. Yes there is Unsafe Lane Change, but you'd have to interfere with another vehicle before you'd get the attention of the police.

As for turning left, I don't have the ability to draw it out, but I guess one could begin his turn and before crossing the far side of the cross walk you could be at the curb. Thus no need to signal lane changes. Also, unless you are actually traveling in the direction of the laned roadway (as you made the turn you'd be traveling diagonally), there would be no need to signal lane changes (there are no lanes inside an intersection).

Sec 165(2) When the driver of a vehicle intends to turn it to the left at an intersection where traffic is permitted to move in both directions on each highway entering the intersection, the driver must
(a) cause the vehicle to approach the intersection in the portion of the right side of the roadway that is nearest the marked centre line, or if there is no marked centre line, then as far as practicable in the portion of the right half of the roadway that is nearest the centre line,
(b) keep the vehicle to the right of the marked" centre line or centre line of the roadway, as the case may be, at the place the highway enters the intersection,
(c) after entering the intersection, turn the vehicle to the left so that it leaves the intersection to the right of the marked centre line of the roadway being entered, or if there is no marked centre line then to the right of the centre line of the roadway being entered, and,
(d) when practicable, turn the vehicle in the portion of the intersection to the left of the centre of the intersection.

Yes you are correct the law can't and doesn't dictate every action that makes a good, safe driver. "You can't legislate common sense".

As most drivers don't study the MVA, they cannot be expected to know each and every law. Far easier and safer to know good practices mixed with common sense and some knowledge of the traffic laws.

For example how many know that you MUST signal a lane change, but only have to signal a turn if traffic "may be affected".

[atenbacon]

Now show me where it says anything about shoulder checking in the MVA.

The MVA is a detailed guide of regulations for driving a vehicle, not a manual for safe driving techniques, this is why they seperate the two when taking the learning protion of licensing. Learn to drive smart and Tuning up for drivers are required reading for the new driver and they are tested on these books both in their written test for their learners license and their road test for novice license. A shouldner check is not a legal requirement, but it certainly is a safe driving technique. I think that with these guides, the regulations that do not cover many items needed in order to drive in the MVA are quite clearly detailed in the licensing portion of the drivers. As with any guide, it is updated whenever new information comes to light.

I see the guide now has a good section on driving with a cellular phone... I wonder why so many people ignore that safety guideline too.

[Dizzy1]

And I think this thread has already illustrated my point in why mandatory driver's training is needed. "The rules of the road says this" ... "show me where it says that" ... "well here it says this" ... "but there it says that" ... "show me that".

I'm not an instructor and sometimes I read the MVA wrong as well

[Smurf]

I think the worst thing for most of us is habit. Most of us knew the laws when we started driving but over time have just stopped paying attention. Let's go over a couple of things discussed.

Turning left it might not be totally illegal to cross into the right lane, but it is a bad habit. You do it once, then again and it soon becomes a habit and you do it without thinking and probably often without looking. How many times have you been at a corner with double turning lanes, you're in the right hand one and the other car drifts across right into your lane or worse yet you. I'm willing to bet most times they know better but they are in a habit and just do it. You are much better off and much safer to get in the habit of ALWAYS turning into the left hand lane and then moving over properly if you have to. If you do that you should never have a problem other than the other idiot who doesn't do it.

Another good example is turn signals. There are cases as mentioned above where you don't legally have to use them but common sense should tell us to use them all the time. It tell other drivers, pedestrians, whomever, what your intentions are. If you do it every time it becomes a habit and you will do it automatically which is much safer than trying to figure out each time if it is legal or necessary. Just do it, 100% safer. I believe little things like I have mentioned would make the roads much, much safer.

[my5cents]

?......Another good example is turn signals. There are cases as mentioned above where you don't legally have to use them but common sense should tell us to use them all the time. It tell other drivers, pedestrians, whomever, what your intentions are. If you do it every time it becomes a habit and you will do it automatically which is much safer than trying to figure out each time if it is legal or necessary. Just do it, 100% safer. I believe little things like I have mentioned would make the roads much, much safer.

Agree 100%. Don't forget the drivers that signal their turns as they turn the stearing wheel to make the turn.