We were in a similar situation. The bus had the flashing lights and stop sign out. HOWEVER was still in motion. We were driving the other direction and kept moving. So the Bus driver yelled at us.

Shouldn't the Bus Drivers stop first before getting the Stop Arm out?

I want to make a U-Turn here: https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.444155,-80.4948764,3a,75y,55.06h,86.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgVeHrVkgtyxv7hMiezR_oQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en My understanding of the law is that I can make a U-Turn if: - The is no no-U-Turn sign - There is nothing blocking or obstructing the visibility or a hill But often when I make a U-Turn here people behind me start honking. There is a median here and I just wish to do a U-Turn around the median. My belief as to why they honk is due to the 'Keep to the right of the traffic island' Sign. They may think that that means I must go st...

Wow I didn't realize there were by-laws against cyclists on side-walks. Sounds murky. We have a lot of paved pathways that are right beside the road. I'm not sure if technical they are or aren't sidewalks.

Are cyclists allowed to cross a road at an intersection where the pedestrian do? (assuming the light is green)

Thankyou. I didn't know that about cyclists. I thought cyclists have right of way over autos. I know of a pathway that crosses an on-ramp to the highway here. I think vehicles have to give right of way to a cyclists there, of course that is a different situation from a 4-way stop. So a pedestrian approaching a 4-way stop, should not need to stop at all and should be able to continue walking it sounds like. So if a Roller-Blader is on a side-walk approaching a 4-way stop and they are not moving too quickly, they should also be able to continue crossing without waiting - obviously safety is impl...

I'm wondering what the rules are for Pedestrians, Roller Bladers and Cyclists at a 4-way stop?

I know it sounds like a simple question. But I'm seeing things that are making me wonder what the exact rules are.

highwaystar wrote: ↑Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:07 pm ...

While the courts have generally adapted the interpetation I have given in civil cases, to my knowledge, there has not been a definitive decision with regards to that section where there is NO dividing line. Rather, the cases have all had a dividing line.

...

Interesting, I was wondering about that.

highwaystar wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:49 pm

denish wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:41 pm ... not exactly, no one needed to yield, just slow down. Also in this particular case, there was a line of parked cars, rather than an obstacle.

... that is in the path of YOUR vehicle is an obstacle that YOU must stop if needed; ...

That's the thing, it wasn't needed. There was room for both. She just didn't like it because she didn't have 50% of the entire street. It's a quiet street with no dividing line. She had only 40% of the entire road and yelled at me over that 10%.

whaddyaknow wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:51 pm This is an interesting one, for me anyhow.

Assuming that there is physically room for both vehicles, what's the difference vs. a roadway which was the narrower dimension to start with?

Suspect we're dealing with common law / case law here as opposed to the written law.

Yes, good point. When there's no line, most people would not be aware of this. It was rather ironic she was yelling at me saying I should have yielded but at the same moment, she was passing me no problem, albeit at a slower than 50km/h speed.

The one with the obstacle in front of them is the one who must yield. Its clear as day. Why would the opposing driver (with no obstacle in front of them (e.g. parked car) have to take any steps when they have a clear path? It would be a mockery of traffic law any other way. The odd thing is that many drivers don't understand this basic rule of yielding. Somehow, the person confronted with the parked car in front of them still feels entitled to make the opposing driver wait while THEY proceed. Its yet another example of our self-entitled society. I always laugh when I see this happen. ... not ...

argyll wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:56 am It does say the centre of the roadway as opposed to the centre of the available roadway. I see your point and 99 times out of 100 you'd just slow down, pass the other driver and that would be the end of it but you managed to find the one who wanted to yell at you.

But in a collision situation I would say that you'd be in the wrong.

Thanks, makes sense.

Also 148 refers to "Overtaking and passing rules". So unclear to me if that would relate to "passing" a parked car, when there is no centerline marked.

denish wrote: ↑Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:08 pm ...They drive on right 1/2 of the road that's remaining to the right of the parked cars...

Rather, we drive on the 1/2 of the road that's remaining to the left of the parked cars.

... I'm having second thoughts about this. That section doesn't say if the road refers to the active part, i.e. not including the parked cars. For example, in our neighbourhood, it's about 2 m wider than the one where the lady yelled at me. Everyone routinely, on the side of the parked cars, take up more than 1/2 of the total road when they drive. There is no centre line, and if there was one, they would be driving on it. They drive on right 1/2 of the road that's remaining to the right of the parked cars...

Well that's unfortunate. She had about 40% of the roadway and enough room to continue driving safely.

But thankyou for the information. Technically I was wrong.

I don't know all the details but "misusing a permit" says it all.

It's possible the parking official went over board.