...Must Not Stop...

must not stopI had an interesting conversation with @itsjim84 on Twitter this morning about the case law article I posted this week on driving over painted traffic islands. He observed that in the case of a left turn queue that had extended past the left turn bay due to insufficient length it was better to be stopped on the painted island instead of in the through lane. Stopping on the island would preclude being hit from behind by through traffic and allow traffic to flow.

It would also cut down on the number of drivers who would drive over the cycle lane on the right in order to get by stopped traffic.

@itsjim84's example was the intersection of the Fraser Highway and Lefeuver Road in Abbotsford.

From the look of the worn painted diagonals in the island many drivers share his concern.

This intersection has seen 101 collisions between 2011 and 2015 according to ICBC. 53 of those crashes involved casualties. Unfortunately, we are not able to see the contributing factors for these incidents to determine if the left turn bay is a major contributor or not.

I suggested that we tend to think of our own convenience instead of the convenience of others. Since it is improper to drive on or over the island (see page 40 of Learn to Drive Smart) one might choose to continue on to the next opportunity to turn left when the turn bay was full instead of fouling the through lane.

@itsjim84 responded that not blocking a single lane highway during rush hour because the municipality hasn't provided a sufficient turn queue is about not being inconvenient to others. The only other streets to turn on are residential streets, not arterials.

Perhaps it all comes down to expectations.

Many drivers feel that nothing should get in the way of arriving at their destination in the shortest possible time with the least amount of inconvenience. Must Not Stop.

Faced with inconvenience, some of these drivers will do whatever it takes to keep going whether it is legal or not. Sadly, part of this group have no idea that things they do are illegal. Worse still, those that do know will disobey though choice. I'm important, you are not.

Throw in a driver or two who want to follow the rules as they are currently written and where do we end up? Confused, and confusion causes problems. Reference the numbers above for this intersection and our provincial crash rates.

We'll never reach the utopia of having as much pavement and as little other traffic as we want. Laws will lag behind current realities but unless there is a legal justification for disobeying, we must follow them or face consequences.

Even though we don't like to, sometimes we must expect to stop.

I think this should fall into the category of "common sense."

Pulling onto a painted island when making a left turn to help with the flow of traffic on the through lanes is, I feel, being considerate of other drivers.

Understand all the circumstances, the only thing that bothers me about the whole thing is being the car that sits at the end,  and  getting the passengers side back end clipped by passing vehicles at speed, that I don’t like. I have done the pass by and run to the next a number of times, it’s fine but then location screws it up sometimes. So on it goes, the ideas people have about the painted islands, it will never change. It would be nice to put concrete at those places that could be extended as the traffic grows, a little forethought, but wishing is....

@itsjim84 makes a good point! It seems practical and likely to reduce another driver's inconvenience.

My daughter wanted driving practice. That's sounds like fun I'd like to do that, too. And I won't say anything unless I notice something illegal or unsafe. Had she asked if she could drive on the meridian I would have said, no, it's illegal.

Driving further to make a left turn later requires turning onto a residential street where no left turn exists. Not optimal. And I’m struggling with how lawfully using the road relates to convenience or inconvenience. Anyone who follows the rules of the road has a right to use public highways and to use the roads they want to. However, I do believe that roadway safety begins with courtesy.

Sometimes (oftentimes?) the law is not reasonable and motorists do what is reasonable in spite of the law. Yes, there is risk, but it’s mostly financial in the form of a ticket.

The real problem here, in my view, is the waste of very expensive asphalt covered with a lot of wasted (and also costly) pavement marking paint. The high taxes exacted from motorists should be better utilized by creating left turn lanes that are as long as the expanse of asphalt allows. I cannot conceive of any traffic engineering rationale for this design that appears to artificially limit the capacity of the left turn lanes.

Painted traffic islands are far too short, especially when you have all the impatient Alberta drivers that are way over the limit.

When Traffic Engineers first came up with this idea, it was done simply to have somewhere to put the waiting left-turners to allow the thru traffic to flow. The compromise, from creating that left-turn chute, is that you lose four or five parking spaces along the right hand curb.

The painted island, in this case, was created sort of as an expansion of the double-yellow centre-line. And it's purpose was never to keep the left turners out, but to guide the through traffic to move right around that left turn chute and any vehicles in it. Regardless of the legalities, the driver who moves into it when other left-turners ahead are backed up, so as to help traffic flow (and reduce his own risk of being hit from behind) is absolutely following the original concept. Queuing up politely and helpfully.

That's not what the court case, or the thread title are about, though. The driver was at fault (and again, I'm talking rationally, not legally) because she was treating the traffic island as a travelling lane, and doing so in order to get ahead of the other vehicles. Aggressive and illegal, motivated by selfishness; the opposite of those who queue up (regardless of whether they're on the yellow paint - what's the danger? There is none!)

The real problem here, in my view, is the waste of very expensive asphalt covered with a lot of wasted (and also costly) pavement marking paint. The high taxes exacted from motorists should be better utilized by creating left turn lanes that are as long as the expanse of asphalt allows. I cannot conceive of any traffic engineering rationale for this design that appears to artificially limit the capacity of the left turn lanes.

Exactly right. On the bright side of things though, I am increasingly seeing where the yellow painted island has been removed, with the left-turn chute separated by a dotted white line along the right side; so now, it's clearly a lane change when you move into it, and it can accommodate the maximum potential number of vehicles.

Here's a good example, where East 3rd Street intersects with St. Georges Avenue in North Vancouver; both of these have been upgraded to accommodate maximum flow, this way.

Speaking of wasting paint (which they need a lot more of these days, as it now has to be environmentally friendly, with the consequence that it deteriorates rapidly), only recently have the Traffic Engineers in West Vancouver and North Vancouver District realized that they've been unnecessarily painting double solid yellow centre lines along multi-lane arterials such as Marine Drive and Lonsdale for years. But MVA Section 151(f) has always had that covered.

Now, they're using half the paint and gaining several valuable centimeters of road width. Amazing.