Winnipeg Transit

JT Estoban wrote:Buses forcing themselves into a lane, while it's annoying, I understand the reason for it. Most folks driving in rush hour drive like jerkoffs, and don't let buses in. Buses do have a schedule...even if they don't keep them very well. (I'm not saying I support it, I'm just saying I understand why they do it)

A friend of mind just started working for Winnipeg Transit as a bus driver.
He and I laugh about it (I used to drive a transit route in New Jersey years ago).

The one accessory we both agree should be on the front of every bus, is some kind of "cow catcher" mechanism that can push illegally stopped/parked vehicles out of the way instead of having to jump around them into traffic.

Winnipeg Transit has a policy that they can't use the horns on their buses except for emergency situations, and it's recommended it be a "life or death" issue. So that idiot dropping his wife off in a no-stopping zone and having that "last kiss" before she gets out...won't get an air-horn blast in his rear to get him moving...at least not from a bus.

I, however, have been known to blast my vehicle horn quite obnoxiously at morons in a no-stopping zone. Maybe I should install an air-horn in my vehicle .

AGEsAces wrote:

Bartron wrote:I also don't like how they always force themselves into your lane.

FORCE themselves?

I personally haven't seen this.

I've seen them put their signal on and then move into a lane, despite some idiots attempt to crowd the bus to try and prevent it.

I've seen some drivers take up two lanes to make a wide turn, so some idiot doesn't run up one side or the other to "beat the bus".

If you see a bus driver just veer into a lane forcing themselves in front of you...and they DON'T have their turn signal on...THEN call transit and report the bus number. The driver can be reprimanded for not following procedure.

But...if they have their signal on (and I don't care HOW desperate you are to get in front of that bus)...I hope they run over you. REMEMBER - A turn signal is NOT a REQUEST...IT'S A WARNING!!! SO make room or be crushed.

I've been driving in traffic with minimal space between me and the car in front of me, when a bus decides to veer into the 6 feet or less of space, forcing me to slow down and let it it.

If you have your signal on it makes it ok to cut people off? A turn signal is a warning? I don't think that's how it works. Your saying that I can veer into anybodys lane at any time as long as I have a turn signal on?

Bartron wrote:I've been driving in traffic with minimal space between me and the car in front of me, when a bus decides to veer into the 6 feet or less of space, forcing me to slow down and let it it.

If you have your signal on it makes it ok to cut people off? A turn signal is a warning? I don't think that's how it works. Your saying that I can veer into anybodys lane at any time as long as I have a turn signal on?

Within certain reason...yes.

First...if you're only 6' from the car in front of you (stopped at a light or not), you're breaking the law...so shame on you.

Next...if they turn their signal on (especially when stopped), then YES...they can pull in front of you provided the you are not in front of their rear axle. (ie. the nose of your vehicle hasn't passed the front of their rear tires).

And yes, it applies to you too.
If you are in front of someone and you put your signal on to change lanes, and make the move...and some idiot comes up and hits you who was behind you before you started to change...it is 100% THEIR fault...as you signaled, and it's reasonably assumed you checked your mirrors to make sure there was nobody directly to your side.

When I was a truck driver, I would get plenty of situations where I needed to move my truck one way or another...there are times when waiting for an opening just won't work...and pushing into traffic is the only way to get where you're going. You do it safely though, you signal your intentions, and if the drivers around you are too stupid to recognize a turn signal...that's their problem.

My wife complains often when I tell her there's "room to move" and we're less than a block from where we need to turn. That's what signals are for...get up to where you need to be, put the signal on and take your next position over...again...when I put my signal on, I'm not asking for your permission to come over...I'm telling you...I'm coming over...and I LOVE the morons who decide to hit the gas to try and stop me...I'll put them into the nearest tree.

That said...if you DON'T use your signal to come in front of me...expect high-beams in your rear-view. I EXPECT you to signal if you're changing lanes in front of me...#1 I deserve the warning that you're taking away my traveling space...and #2 IT'S THE LAW!

Ahhh...because you've put your signal light on doesn't mean you have the right of way. You cannot change lanes until it is safe to do so, and if a car hits you, obviously it was not safe...ergo...your fault.

You are not obligated to let someone into your lane btw. It's just courtesy to do so and arrogant to think you should automatically be let in.

JTF wrote:Ahhh...because you've put your signal light on doesn't mean you have the right of way. You cannot change lanes until it is safe to do so, and if a car hits you, obviously it was not safe...ergo...your fault.

You are not obligated to let someone into your lane btw. It's just courtesy to do so and arrogant to think you should automatically be let in.

Well said, much better than I did!

JTF wrote:Ahhh...because you've put your signal light on doesn't mean you have the right of way. You cannot change lanes until it is safe to do so, and if a car hits you, obviously it was not safe...ergo...your fault.

You are not obligated to let someone into your lane btw. It's just courtesy to do so and arrogant to think you should automatically be let in.

Part 1 - is true...it doesn't mean you have the right of way...so if a vehicle is next to you and you put your signal on and hit THEM...it is your fault.

Part 2 - wrong answer. If a vehicle in front of you in another lane puts their signal on to enter your lane, and they can do so without causing an accident (save from your accelerating to close the gap and being a dick) you are REQUIRED to allow them entry into your lane. Any defensive driving course will teach you that...and MOST jurisdictions have something about it in their traffic laws (I've not read Manitoba's entirely yet).

If someone signals to move in front of you, and you close the gap and hit them...or cause them to hit you...it is determined as Aggressive Driving, and you can (and will) be charged with such.

An RCMP officer I know gave a ticket to a guy for closing a gap...no accident was caused, but the guy actually spun his wheels to close the gap (ie. punched the gas) to keep the other guy out. Just fair warning to you.

Bullshit. You're just making that stuff up. Sorry, but I have to call you on it.

Read the Highway Traffic Act before you post. That is where the facts can be seen.

heh.. I had a bus driver creep right up behind me when I was parked in a brand spankin new parking space. I came out of the store and there was literally less then a handwidth between my back bumper and his bumper and he was furisouly writing down my license plate number. Since I could not leave I asked him what he was doing. He said I am reporting you for parking in a no parking zone and I am holding you here until parking authority shows up. I politely informed him that he in fact had no legal authority to hold me anywhere and could actually go to jail for it. And then I pointed to the new posted hours parking sign and said especially when it is in fact a legal parking zone. He looked up turned bright red and said sorry... as he closed the door and started to back up I said. Next time you want to jerk off to some sort of power trip buy playboy it at least wont cost you your job.

hehehe... I never called it in though.. just let him sweat on it.

It used to be that cab drivers and bus drivers were the best drivers on the road. Now, they are the worst.

Regarding cab drivers, I'm biting my lip so as to not say anything racist, but is their bad driving a cultural thing or what?

JTF wrote:Bullshit. You're just making that stuff up. Sorry, but I have to call you on it.

Read the Highway Traffic Act before you post. That is where the facts can be seen.

Do tell.

As I said...most jurisdictions (remember...I'm an American)
I can tell you that NJ, NY, PA, DE, MD all have that in their Motor Vehicle laws.

And I can tell you the RCMP officer's story about him ticketing someone with aggressive driving as described. (he relayed it to me because I was complaining about drivers who don't use their signals to change lanes).

I'm searching the HTA now though...and the only thing I've found (so far) is that anyone who must turn must signal with enough time to warn other drivers around them that they are doing so. If that applies to lane changes...great...cause it supports my claim.

A vehicle is behind me and to my right, and I want to move into that lane...I signal right and (after a brief pause to double-check my mirror) I move into the lane to my right. Now if I signal and that guy decides to accelerate...then he is putting myself (and him) at risk with aggressive driving. And he would be at fault.

as an example here is what wiki says about getting a drivers license from Eygypt...
Egypt
Citizens of all Egyptian governorates are entitled to a Driving License once they have reached the age of 18. To obtain their licenses, applicants must pass only one test.
Until a few years ago, Egypt was known for having the easiest driving test in the world. In order to pass, all a person had to do was drive six meters forward and then reverse six meters. However, the test has recently been updated to make it more difficult.

so while people still need a Manitoban drivers license when they come here, they are usually not starting from a great place and although they pass the tests, they can quickly go back to old bad habits

http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/h060e.php

I'm pullin a Pav.

I think the licensing test in India, as told to my by a former resident of said country....was = To start the car.....if you can start the car, then you get a drivers license.

Seriously...!

Deank wrote:as an example here is what wiki says about getting a drivers license from Eygypt...
Egypt
Citizens of all Egyptian governorates are entitled to a Driving License once they have reached the age of 18. To obtain their licenses, applicants must pass only one test.
Until a few years ago, Egypt was known for having the easiest driving test in the world. In order to pass, all a person had to do was drive six meters forward and then reverse six meters. However, the test has recently been updated to make it more difficult.

so while people still need a Manitoban drivers license when they come here, they are usually not starting from a great place and although they pass the tests, they can quickly go back to old bad habits

Heh...understatement of the day...some of them not only share a license, seems like they also share a brain, and the other person is using it.

JTF wrote:It used to be that cab drivers and bus drivers were the best drivers on the road. Now, they are the worst.

Regarding cab drivers, I'm biting my lip so as to not say anything racist, but is their bad driving a cultural thing or what?

Cultural? in what way?
Are you saying cabbies are not Canadian?

Actually, I did just learn something about immigrant drivers.
Apparently, there's only a few countries in the world whose driver's licenses are recognized (in MB at least).
US, England, France, Australia are some I know of.
A guy I work with though is from Portugal, and when he came to Manitoba, they made him retake the whole test (written & driving) before they'd issue his license.

I don't know if the countries the cabbies predominantly come from have that situation...but they should.

Quite honestly though...the exams should be harder, and the driving portion more difficult for everyone anyway...it would take about 1/2 the drivers off the road.

It also used to be required for cabbies to have some training before they went to work. A guy I know who works at Duffy's says I can walk in this afternoon and apply to drive, and I'd be driving tonight. That's a pretty bad training program.

JTF wrote:http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/h060e.php

I'm pullin a Pav.

That's not a Pav...he gives obscure links to sites nobody ever wants to go to .

That link takes me to the page where I searched and found what I typed in.before you posted the link .

JT Estoban wrote:I think the licensing test in India, as told to my by a former resident of said country....was = To start the car.....if you can start the car, then you get a drivers license.

Seriously...!

Hmmmm....I wonder if there is a stipulation that as soon as they get a license, they have to move to Winnipeg?

Back on topic though.

I've been on the transit systems in many cities of North America.
NYC, Philadelphia, New Jersey (yeah, it's not a city, but their transit is Statewide), Montreal, Toronto, Calgary

I haven't ridden much here in Winnipeg (I think I've only been on the buses 6 times in 7 years)

I can say for the current volume Winnipeg needs, the system is decent. With the upgrades being done to bus stops (especially the new signage and GPS tracking) I see significant benefits over other systems in larger cities (though it's been more than 10 years since I rode any of those...so maybe they offer the new things now too).

This does come back again to the "planning ahead" though. Sure, the intricate bus system and routes work today, with 800k people. But what happens when the city reaches 1.5M people? or 3M? Do we THEN start tearing down infrastructure and building new? Why not just build new today, while there's not the demolition phase to add cost and time to the project?

Why not plan ahead and file the easements NOW to setup an effective system...and build as much as would fit in the budget to get things started and work out some bugs?

If a rail or monorail system is in the works...build THAT now...rather than more bus lanes. The buses are doing reasonably well with what they have...and if a rail system was implemented to take some of the pressure off the buses...then the buses won't need the additional routes anyway.

In general I'd say transit here is good...for now...but needs to plan for 5, 10, 25 years ahead...instead of what can be built by next summer.

"But what happens when the city reaches 1.5M people? or 3M?"

pigs fly?

Deank wrote:"But what happens when the city reaches 1.5M people? or 3M?"

pigs fly?

And I'm sure that's what they said 30 years ago when the city was at 400k...when someone asked "what happens when the population doubles?"

well population has not yet hit 800K and wont for at least another 10 years, if even then.

PAV alert

http://www.winnipeg.ca/cao/pdfs/population.pdf

you're right...740k in 2010...not even close.

740K is NOT winnipeg. Its Winnipeg and surronding area.

* The census metropolitan area (CMA) of Winnipeg includes the
City of Winnipeg and the municipalities of: West St Paul, East St Paul
Headingley, MacDonald, Richot, Tache, Spingfield, Rosser,
St Francois Xavier, St Clements, and Brokenhead First Nation.
After factoring in the 2006 census, the RM of MacDonald was recently added.

Deank wrote:well population has not yet hit 800K and wont for at least another 10 years, if even then.

In January 2009, the population for the Winnipeg CMA was 740,000, and it's more than likely it is 750,000 as of this writing, as the Manitoba population grew by 14,000 and almost all of the new immigrants coming to Winnipeg.

the Winnipeg CMA should hit 800,000 by 2017 at the very latest.

and the CMA is NOT winnipeg.