Last week, I ranted about the lack of logical order at the traffic circle in St. Stephen.
Now, lest folks come to an unfavourable opinion of yours truly, I wanted to note a driving behaviour that I find most abnormal.
Let me describe, if I may.
The other day, I decided that I didn't want to go home for lunch, and hence, engaged in a Courier staff ritual: I went out the door, turned left and set my bearings for Pizza Delight.
The journey necessitates crossing Milltown Boulevard.
Here's where things get odd.
I stepped out onto the pedestrian crosswalk and - shockingly - drivers in both lanes of traffic came to a polite, orderly halt.
What?
Vehicles STOPPING at a pedestrian crosswalk, like the law suggests?
Egad, you'd never see this in Vancouver, Victoria, Calgary, Edmonton or Saskatoon.
One would only expect vehicles to stop in a crosswalk in Toronto or Montreal if one were on some form of mind-altering drug.
Yet it happens here, repeatedly. It's almost like people are aware that when they strap themselves into their cars, that there are still other people around them.
And I hope it never changes.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Perhaps the fine folks at Service New Brunswick should contemplate a modest test for anybody in the St. Stephen area applying for - or renewing - a driver's licence.
The test would cover the appropriate behaviour for folks encountering a traffic circle.
Now, for those of you who may not have realized, St. Stephen has a traffic circle.
They're wonderful things and interestingly enough, are proven time and again to be safer than traditional light-controlled intersections. They also provide a greater flow-through (measured as the number of vehicles able to move through the intersection per unit time) than traffic-light-based intersections.
That is, if they're used properly.
Unfortunately, far too many in this area approach the traffic circle near the St. Stephen High School ... AND THEN COME TO A FULL STOP.
Now, this is perfectly understandable, logical and reasonable if there is, say a flood of cars or a logging truck in the intersection.
But this is often NOT the case. Folks seem to stop just for the heckuvit, thus negating the wonderful traffic-flow-through benefits of the circle.
Then there's those who fail to understand the merits of yielding to traffic that is already IN the intersection.
By law and general protocol, a driver should signal a) right to signal intent to turn at the first exit, b) left to signal intent to use the third exit (and yes, the St. Stephen roundabout has four entrance/exits) and not signal to go straight. (Either most users don't know this rule, or simply operate vehicles with non-functioning signal lights. Do get those checked out before the next inspection, what?)
Secondly, if a vehicle is in the intersection, yield. Do not (as the clown in the black sedan did a few days ago) charge towards the intersection without regard for life or limb of those around. If this is a shocking revelation, do consider handing in your drivers licence.
Please.
In the meantime, maybe a refresher course on what a roundabout is, and how to use it, may be in order.
The test would cover the appropriate behaviour for folks encountering a traffic circle.
Now, for those of you who may not have realized, St. Stephen has a traffic circle.
They're wonderful things and interestingly enough, are proven time and again to be safer than traditional light-controlled intersections. They also provide a greater flow-through (measured as the number of vehicles able to move through the intersection per unit time) than traffic-light-based intersections.
That is, if they're used properly.
Unfortunately, far too many in this area approach the traffic circle near the St. Stephen High School ... AND THEN COME TO A FULL STOP.
Now, this is perfectly understandable, logical and reasonable if there is, say a flood of cars or a logging truck in the intersection.
But this is often NOT the case. Folks seem to stop just for the heckuvit, thus negating the wonderful traffic-flow-through benefits of the circle.
Then there's those who fail to understand the merits of yielding to traffic that is already IN the intersection.
By law and general protocol, a driver should signal a) right to signal intent to turn at the first exit, b) left to signal intent to use the third exit (and yes, the St. Stephen roundabout has four entrance/exits) and not signal to go straight. (Either most users don't know this rule, or simply operate vehicles with non-functioning signal lights. Do get those checked out before the next inspection, what?)
Secondly, if a vehicle is in the intersection, yield. Do not (as the clown in the black sedan did a few days ago) charge towards the intersection without regard for life or limb of those around. If this is a shocking revelation, do consider handing in your drivers licence.
Please.
In the meantime, maybe a refresher course on what a roundabout is, and how to use it, may be in order.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Tonight, the St. Stephen Seahawks will take to the ice in Game 4 of the SHL opening-round series.
It’s an important game, and not just because the local squad is facing elimination.
Now, chances are that today, all the Seahawks players and coaches will utter the time-honoured clichés: they’ll play it “one period at a time,” and “the series isn’t over yet” and other such things.
But the reality is that of course, the series is over. Maybe the Seahawks will win tonight – but it won’t change much.
If they do win tonight, statistics gleaned from decades of best-of-seven series dictate that the squad will simply close out the season on the road in Game 5. Or, less likely, they’ll pack in the season in Game 6.
The finality of the season not in any real doubt, then, the squad takes to the ice tonight with really only one thing to salvage.
Pride.
That’s because the March 12 outing at home was one of the most lackluster efforts many local hockey fans had seen.
In 14 years of covering hockey at all levels, from novice to minor pro, I can’t think of a hockey game that had less passion, less contact and less intensity than the ho-hum outing in Game 2. That includes all-star affairs, for what it’s worth.
Further, I have yet to find a person who thought anything different than my own take on the matter.
By sharp contrast, Game 1 of the junior B playoffs the next night (Saturday) in St. Stephen was a delightful affair, and not just because the home side won.
It had hitting, it had energy, it had … well, it had what hockey fans should expect if they delve into their pocket for a couple loonies and toonies to pay for entrance. Even if the home side lost, no fan could have gone away from the game wondering if their money was well spent.
In that light, the ‘hawks have to show that they care. They have to show some energy, some intensity. Good gravy, losing is OK – but only if there’s some blasted effort, guys.
This isn’t a group of teenage boys we’re talking about. This is a team of grown men. People pay to see ‘em play. This is serious stuff. Or, at least, it should be.
Friday’s game wasn’t any of that.
Hence, the Seahawks have to show the fans – who by all accounts seem to be a loyal bunch – that even though this year is all but over, there’s something worth stumping up season tickets for in the season to come.
It’s an important game, and not just because the local squad is facing elimination.
Now, chances are that today, all the Seahawks players and coaches will utter the time-honoured clichés: they’ll play it “one period at a time,” and “the series isn’t over yet” and other such things.
But the reality is that of course, the series is over. Maybe the Seahawks will win tonight – but it won’t change much.
If they do win tonight, statistics gleaned from decades of best-of-seven series dictate that the squad will simply close out the season on the road in Game 5. Or, less likely, they’ll pack in the season in Game 6.
The finality of the season not in any real doubt, then, the squad takes to the ice tonight with really only one thing to salvage.
Pride.
That’s because the March 12 outing at home was one of the most lackluster efforts many local hockey fans had seen.
In 14 years of covering hockey at all levels, from novice to minor pro, I can’t think of a hockey game that had less passion, less contact and less intensity than the ho-hum outing in Game 2. That includes all-star affairs, for what it’s worth.
Further, I have yet to find a person who thought anything different than my own take on the matter.
By sharp contrast, Game 1 of the junior B playoffs the next night (Saturday) in St. Stephen was a delightful affair, and not just because the home side won.
It had hitting, it had energy, it had … well, it had what hockey fans should expect if they delve into their pocket for a couple loonies and toonies to pay for entrance. Even if the home side lost, no fan could have gone away from the game wondering if their money was well spent.
In that light, the ‘hawks have to show that they care. They have to show some energy, some intensity. Good gravy, losing is OK – but only if there’s some blasted effort, guys.
This isn’t a group of teenage boys we’re talking about. This is a team of grown men. People pay to see ‘em play. This is serious stuff. Or, at least, it should be.
Friday’s game wasn’t any of that.
Hence, the Seahawks have to show the fans – who by all accounts seem to be a loyal bunch – that even though this year is all but over, there’s something worth stumping up season tickets for in the season to come.
- Vern Faulkner is the editor of the Courier and Courier Weekend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
