I'm actually amazed to note that vancouver is finally extending the skytrain to their airport... considering the skytrain was one of the big developments for expo '86 you'd think it would have happened 20 years ago... and you're right... in Calgary you might as well take a cab, because transit to the airport is hopeless. (not to mention that the privately operated "airporter" bus has now shut down too...)
I actually did find a real world security vulnerability of that form... Elevator in the building I worked in was prone to malfunction. the bottom floor of the building was a pub that was not open at 8 am when I went to work. normally visitors would be kept out of said pub by the fact that you would need a key for the elevator to go to that floor. one day I got on the elevator, pressed the button for the floor my office was on, when the doors opened I stepped out without paying much attention and found myself alone in the middle of the closed pub...
Now, is it my fault I ended up there? I don't think so... would the pub want to know they have this problem so they can install an additional security door/gate, probably. Was what I did illegal... maybe, I did tresspass on their property, though entirely by accident, had I been paying more attention I would not have exited the elevator, but I wasn't, so I stood in the middle of the pub long enough for the next elevator car to arrive.
would I get in trouble for reporting it? maybe... hard to say, people get insanely paranoid about security, and wether you are talking electronic security, or real world physical security, in most cases people would rather blame the person who found the problem than acknowledge the problem exists in the first place...
that was actually my first thought as well... of course it didn't take long to come up with the solution, set up the same system to email YOU before it emails anyone else, if you've simply forgotten this will remind you and let you go check-in, and if you're dead it won't get a reply and will then go on doing it's business...
I'm still not entirely sure I would set up such a system rather than simply writing a proper will and leaving the information with a trusted individual, however it is certainly not an insurmountable problem, and there could be benefits to such a system, if nothing else, some of the paperwork that people would need to settle my estate is on my computer, and I'd rather they don't spend a bunch of time cursing me for not having easy access to it while trying to both deal with the legal obligations and grieve at the same time...
the problem is, how do you define weaving in computer terms? how does the system know the difference between weaving to avoid obstacles vs weaving because you are intoxicated? or a road that weaves through the hills vs a driver that weaves on the road?
I'm all for getting the bad drivers off the road, I just don't trust a system like this to either effectively remove the bad drivers, or be foolproof enough to not cause problems for the good ones at the worst possible moments.
it's a positively lousy idea actually. how does it know what is erratic vs what is appropriate? does it know what the road is doing? that the road is a twisty mountain road where you need to constantly swerve to both sides just to stay on the road?
and even if the system can somehow see the road to know what the turns are, I often drive on back country roads that are full of potholes, when there's nobody comming I'll swerve all over the road to avoid the big ones, even in to the other lane, without knowing what I was avoiding, and realizing that I can see the road from here to the horizon to know that nobody is comming, how would the system know the difference between that and drunk driving?
or what about emergency manouevers? a quick left to avoid the kid that stepped out in to the street, followed by a quick right to get back in your lane before the oncomming truck hits you, etc...
I don't want my car second guessing my actions! let the driver do the driving!
now I know lots of drivers are awfull and shouldn't be driving, but this is not the solution to that problem.
I don't know the particulars of this case, however if it's anything like some of the rivers around here it is quite believable. a lot of our rivers have rocky banks so that the first step will put you thigh deep in water, these same rivers are extremely fast flowing (not to mention VERY cold) if you take that first step, you're done for, the current will sweep you off your feet the instant you land in the water, and even an expert swimmer is unlikely to be able to recover before their head is smashed in to another rock.
In reality there's no way of knowing all the circumstances surrounding the event from the description on that page (how much detail can you cram in to one paragraph?) however dismissing it out of hand is probably not called for either...
actually, I don't see how this applies, in the incident you quoted the person was against seatbelt laws because he thought that he knew better, and was also stupid enough not to wear one, it is the second category, and not the first that earned him the darwin award. I too can see the value in not forcing people to wear seatbelts (from the darwin perspective) in that it encourages those who aren't smart enough to see that they are a good idea to get themselves out of the gene pool. however the smarter ones will wear the seatbelt even if the law were not in place to force it (such as myself who is NEVER in a moving vehicle without wearing my seatbelt) the 2 statments are not at odds with each other, but only one of the 2 categories will get you a Darwin award.
what worries me more isn't the system affecting "critical" functions like the brakes (because I honestly can't see them sharring any wiring) it's the idea of what is really "non-critical"... imagine driving when it's -30c outside (I live in Canada, it happens) and suddenly your airconditioning kicks in on full blast, maybe the stereo also comes on at full blast, and the dash lights go out, you aren't expecting any of these things, technically no "critical" system was affected (brakes and steering are still ok), but the odds are you've just been distracted enough to cause a VERY dangerous situation.
Even if everything works perfectly and you never experience any of these bugs, how is a GUI interface SAFER for ANY car function? I don't want menus for things, I don't want fewer buttons doing more things, I want each function to have it's own controls that I can quickly locate and operate without my eyes leaving the road for even a fraction of a second. even the non-critical things should be that way, I should be able to work the stereo whithout ever looking at it, same for the climate control, and any other toys you add. once you know the vehicle all these functions should be operable by touch alone.
carefull... I think you're talking different gallons than the other poster... looks to me like he's talking US gallons and you're talking imperial gallons... will make a big difference...
I don't know where you're from, but around here large truck diesels have LOTS of compression braking, ever seen the signs on hills that say "trucks use low gear"?, if there was no compression braking it wouldn't matter what gear they chose they'd be a runaway and their brakes would be burnt out in no time flat. trucks instead gear down and let compression braking do it's job, diesels by design have signifigantly more compression braking ability than gasoline vehicles, and it's not a throttle design thing that you can "turn off" (nor would you want to for the above mentioned safety reasons!).
But your best way to do a proper hybrid wouldn't tie the internal combustion engine to the drive wheels at all, so it wouldn't be a problem, your best bet is to effectively run electric motors on the wheels, and a diesel engine to generate the electricity to run them. in a case like that the compression braking would not interfere at all with regenerative braking systems.
what this seems to do though is indicate that you need to prove a transaction took place. it's not enough to show that someone was WILLING to distribute, you have to prove that they DID distribute. so if you can prove that subject A sent a file which they weren't authorized to distribute to subject B you will have a case, however simply saying "there was a list of files over here that someone COULD have downloaded" isn't enough
to use the analogy that the record companies love so much: you can't simply have a bunch of CDs on a table somewhere with a sign saying "Steal me", you have to wait until someone actually steals one before a crime has taken place. (this all of course assumes that the orriginal file or CD was legitimately obtained in the first place, if you can prove that the person didn't have the right to have that file to start with then you should be able to prove that an illegal act has already occured)
I see as few as possible... but the ones I have seen have had the word replica all over the place, in fact it's often hard to tell what it's supposed to be a replica of because the word replica is the only really prominent thing around.
leaving alone the futility of trying to sue a spammer, they can't sue for damaging the brand reputation as long as the spammer doesn't pretend that he is selling genuine rolex, as long as they tell you it's a replica up front (and the actual product doesn't claim to be a rolex either) then they're covered from that stand point... unfortunately.
while lifejackets, seatbelts, etc do nothing in a full crash at 800km/hr etc, I'm still glad they are there, some of the most common incidents involving aircraft aren't at 800km/hr, they are during takeoff and landing, a seatbelt will do a LOT for you when a plane skids off the runway, and considering some of the airports where the end of the runway is basically in the ocean, the lifejacket isn't a bad idea either... it's not a matter of saying these things are useless, it's a matter of realizing what situations they are usefull for.
I regularly visit a city just under 1000km from where I live, it's an hour and a half by plane, or 10-11 hours to drive... I frequently drive.
people always ask about all the extra time to drive, it's not as much as it sounds... driving takes an entire day, flying takes most of a day... what people don't take in to account is that the 10-11 hour drive takes me door-door and I can bring anything I want, and I have a vehicle there when I arrive for any running around, and the cost is almost identical (often cheaper to drive)
flying on the other hand involves:
cab ride... 1/2 hour be at the airport 2 hours ahead for checkin, security, insanity, etc flight time of 1 1/2 hours disembarking (no, I don't "de-plane", I never "plane" in the first place!), waiting for luggage, etc... 1/2 hour 1 hour bus ride (or 3/4 hour cab ride) total: 5.5 hours...
and that doesn't even include the hassles of what you can bring with you, the whole security hassle, etc.
5.5 hours? that's most of a day... I might as well drive and be able to enjoy the scenery, carry anything I want with me, and have my vehicle available at the other end!
I do occasionally fly... but I find this distance is right on the edge for me, I'd never even consider flying anywhere closer than that...
for some reason we often define heroism as being willing to die for our cause... the catch is, it has to be OUR cause to be a hero, THEIR cause makes them insane....
of course I'm still trying to figure out the braille on the machine inside the bank near my house that's behind a sheet of plexiglass...you can see it fine, but you'd never be able to feel it...
Re:Hmmm, Not in my training and experience
on
Arson Science Rewritten
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I have had a hand in evidence collection for a couple of murders now, and what I have learned from the detectives involved is that you don't find evidence that tells you who in the whole world did it. what you do is figure out who the principal suspects are, and then find evidence which proves which one of them did it. eg: finding a cigarette package at the scene of the crime doesn't tell you who did it, but when only one of your suspects smokes, it's a pretty good indicator.
items and conditions found at the scene is what proves your case in court, but it isn't what finds you your suspect, that's done from "Good 'ol police work" knowing what to ask, and who to ask it from, and a large helping of intuition.
In each of the cases I was involved in the police already "knew" who did it, they just needed to prove it. most of that was done through undercover operations, where police officers would befriend the suspect and get them to tell all, even brag about the event. from there people were sent to confirm the details the suspect gave. One of the cases they had a huge search around the area where the victim was last seen, people combing the ditches and a helicopter circling overhead and with every news outlet on hand covering it, sure they wanted to know if any clues were found, but mainly they wanted the suspect to see it on the news, panic and do something stupid.
The hunches may not be scientific, but the police don't take a hunch to court, and even a confession from the suspect is not usually enough as the suspect can always tell the court "I signed that under duress!" (and once they get a decent lawyer they probably will!) the police have to narrow it down from "the whole world" to a handfull of suspects somehow, and that's usually not completely scientific, but from there proper procedures take over and you have to prove everything. On a side note, investigators HATE CSI etc, not because of how inaccurate it is, they could care less about that, what they hate is that the general population, and hence most juries, think it's true. It makes proving things much harder because people won't accept evidence that isn't what they expect from CSI... (you can have pictures, video, witnesses, tire tracks, admission of guilt, matching weapons, but if you don't have DNA forget it! and those labs are backed up MONTHS.)
what still gets me is when someone hangs up on you, you do NOT get a dialtone!! (or do you in some other part of the world? certainly not here!)
the other trend I've noticed in a lot of movies recently is characters, especially drug lords, using satellite phones... in doors, underground, etc... I've used these things, it's hard enough to get a reliable signal when you can see the sky!
I can understand that the movie writers can't be familliar with the inner workings of every industy, and I'll pardon them when they make mistakes on the in depth stuff... what really bugs me in a lot of movies is when they get things wrong about things they should be intimately familliar with... pet peave for one of my friends is 2-way radios... 3/4 of the people on the set are using the silly things, you'd think they'd know how they work! (things like when they interupt someone talking on a radio, or don't release the push to talk button to listen)
some of the mistakes are excusable, a lot of them are not.
>> Is the ticketting reducing the number of accidents?
if you are referring to the tailgate-detector tickets, nobody knows yet as there hasn't been enough time to find out.
if you are talking about speeding tickets and red light camera tickets. the answer is absolutely. many studies have shown that with higher enforcment of speed limits and red lights people DO change their driving habits, slow down, and obey signals. Further it has been proven that whith the slower speed of traffic not only are there fewer collisions*, but they are also less likely to involve injuries and death. I know the public perception is that it's a tax, but this is a really simple tax to avoid, don't break the law, and you will NEVER be caught doing so.
*I won't use the word accident in this context because the majority of the time it is no accident and any intelligent person can see exactly why it happened
only in the east... I grew up with bags of milk, but I haven't seen it in a store in western Canada in about a decade (maybe more), on the other hand, I took a trip out to montreal a couple years ago and it was still available at the grocery store...
one of the big problems I find in montreal is that there are TOO MANY signs, you frequently see a street where every power pole has a sign on it, and there still weren't enough so they added normal signs between them, the traffic is so over-regulated in Quebec that it is no wonder that everyone ignores the signs, if you read every one of them you would never be able to see any of the traffic you were driving in.
in north america, the first person to arrive at the intersection has right of way, and in the case where several people arrive at the same time you are supposed to yield to the vehicle on your right.... works very well... when people decide to follow the rules... (rare) however if there is a collision fault is determined based on the above criteria (and hopefully there's a witness or 2 to collaborate)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm actually amazed to note that vancouver is finally extending the skytrain to their airport... considering the skytrain was one of the big developments for expo '86 you'd think it would have happened 20 years ago...
and you're right... in Calgary you might as well take a cab, because transit to the airport is hopeless. (not to mention that the privately operated "airporter" bus has now shut down too...)
I actually did find a real world security vulnerability of that form... Elevator in the building I worked in was prone to malfunction. the bottom floor of the building was a pub that was not open at 8 am when I went to work. normally visitors would be kept out of said pub by the fact that you would need a key for the elevator to go to that floor. one day I got on the elevator, pressed the button for the floor my office was on, when the doors opened I stepped out without paying much attention and found myself alone in the middle of the closed pub...
Now, is it my fault I ended up there? I don't think so... would the pub want to know they have this problem so they can install an additional security door/gate, probably. Was what I did illegal... maybe, I did tresspass on their property, though entirely by accident, had I been paying more attention I would not have exited the elevator, but I wasn't, so I stood in the middle of the pub long enough for the next elevator car to arrive.
would I get in trouble for reporting it? maybe... hard to say, people get insanely paranoid about security, and wether you are talking electronic security, or real world physical security, in most cases people would rather blame the person who found the problem than acknowledge the problem exists in the first place...
that was actually my first thought as well... of course it didn't take long to come up with the solution, set up the same system to email YOU before it emails anyone else, if you've simply forgotten this will remind you and let you go check-in, and if you're dead it won't get a reply and will then go on doing it's business...
I'm still not entirely sure I would set up such a system rather than simply writing a proper will and leaving the information with a trusted individual, however it is certainly not an insurmountable problem, and there could be benefits to such a system, if nothing else, some of the paperwork that people would need to settle my estate is on my computer, and I'd rather they don't spend a bunch of time cursing me for not having easy access to it while trying to both deal with the legal obligations and grieve at the same time...
the problem is, how do you define weaving in computer terms? how does the system know the difference between weaving to avoid obstacles vs weaving because you are intoxicated? or a road that weaves through the hills vs a driver that weaves on the road?
I'm all for getting the bad drivers off the road, I just don't trust a system like this to either effectively remove the bad drivers, or be foolproof enough to not cause problems for the good ones at the worst possible moments.
it's a positively lousy idea actually. how does it know what is erratic vs what is appropriate? does it know what the road is doing? that the road is a twisty mountain road where you need to constantly swerve to both sides just to stay on the road?
and even if the system can somehow see the road to know what the turns are, I often drive on back country roads that are full of potholes, when there's nobody comming I'll swerve all over the road to avoid the big ones, even in to the other lane, without knowing what I was avoiding, and realizing that I can see the road from here to the horizon to know that nobody is comming, how would the system know the difference between that and drunk driving?
or what about emergency manouevers? a quick left to avoid the kid that stepped out in to the street, followed by a quick right to get back in your lane before the oncomming truck hits you, etc...
I don't want my car second guessing my actions! let the driver do the driving!
now I know lots of drivers are awfull and shouldn't be driving, but this is not the solution to that problem.
I don't know the particulars of this case, however if it's anything like some of the rivers around here it is quite believable.
a lot of our rivers have rocky banks so that the first step will put you thigh deep in water, these same rivers are extremely fast flowing (not to mention VERY cold) if you take that first step, you're done for, the current will sweep you off your feet the instant you land in the water, and even an expert swimmer is unlikely to be able to recover before their head is smashed in to another rock.
In reality there's no way of knowing all the circumstances surrounding the event from the description on that page (how much detail can you cram in to one paragraph?) however dismissing it out of hand is probably not called for either...
actually, I don't see how this applies, in the incident you quoted the person was against seatbelt laws because he thought that he knew better, and was also stupid enough not to wear one, it is the second category, and not the first that earned him the darwin award. I too can see the value in not forcing people to wear seatbelts (from the darwin perspective) in that it encourages those who aren't smart enough to see that they are a good idea to get themselves out of the gene pool. however the smarter ones will wear the seatbelt even if the law were not in place to force it (such as myself who is NEVER in a moving vehicle without wearing my seatbelt) the 2 statments are not at odds with each other, but only one of the 2 categories will get you a Darwin award.
what worries me more isn't the system affecting "critical" functions like the brakes (because I honestly can't see them sharring any wiring) it's the idea of what is really "non-critical"... imagine driving when it's -30c outside (I live in Canada, it happens) and suddenly your airconditioning kicks in on full blast, maybe the stereo also comes on at full blast, and the dash lights go out, you aren't expecting any of these things, technically no "critical" system was affected (brakes and steering are still ok), but the odds are you've just been distracted enough to cause a VERY dangerous situation.
Even if everything works perfectly and you never experience any of these bugs, how is a GUI interface SAFER for ANY car function? I don't want menus for things, I don't want fewer buttons doing more things, I want each function to have it's own controls that I can quickly locate and operate without my eyes leaving the road for even a fraction of a second. even the non-critical things should be that way, I should be able to work the stereo whithout ever looking at it, same for the climate control, and any other toys you add. once you know the vehicle all these functions should be operable by touch alone.
carefull... I think you're talking different gallons than the other poster... looks to me like he's talking US gallons and you're talking imperial gallons... will make a big difference...
I don't know where you're from, but around here large truck diesels have LOTS of compression braking, ever seen the signs on hills that say "trucks use low gear"?, if there was no compression braking it wouldn't matter what gear they chose they'd be a runaway and their brakes would be burnt out in no time flat. trucks instead gear down and let compression braking do it's job, diesels by design have signifigantly more compression braking ability than gasoline vehicles, and it's not a throttle design thing that you can "turn off" (nor would you want to for the above mentioned safety reasons!).
But your best way to do a proper hybrid wouldn't tie the internal combustion engine to the drive wheels at all, so it wouldn't be a problem, your best bet is to effectively run electric motors on the wheels, and a diesel engine to generate the electricity to run them. in a case like that the compression braking would not interfere at all with regenerative braking systems.
what this seems to do though is indicate that you need to prove a transaction took place. it's not enough to show that someone was WILLING to distribute, you have to prove that they DID distribute. so if you can prove that subject A sent a file which they weren't authorized to distribute to subject B you will have a case, however simply saying "there was a list of files over here that someone COULD have downloaded" isn't enough
to use the analogy that the record companies love so much: you can't simply have a bunch of CDs on a table somewhere with a sign saying "Steal me", you have to wait until someone actually steals one before a crime has taken place. (this all of course assumes that the orriginal file or CD was legitimately obtained in the first place, if you can prove that the person didn't have the right to have that file to start with then you should be able to prove that an illegal act has already occured)
I see as few as possible... but the ones I have seen have had the word replica all over the place, in fact it's often hard to tell what it's supposed to be a replica of because the word replica is the only really prominent thing around.
leaving alone the futility of trying to sue a spammer, they can't sue for damaging the brand reputation as long as the spammer doesn't pretend that he is selling genuine rolex, as long as they tell you it's a replica up front (and the actual product doesn't claim to be a rolex either) then they're covered from that stand point... unfortunately.
while lifejackets, seatbelts, etc do nothing in a full crash at 800km/hr etc, I'm still glad they are there, some of the most common incidents involving aircraft aren't at 800km/hr, they are during takeoff and landing, a seatbelt will do a LOT for you when a plane skids off the runway, and considering some of the airports where the end of the runway is basically in the ocean, the lifejacket isn't a bad idea either... it's not a matter of saying these things are useless, it's a matter of realizing what situations they are usefull for.
I regularly visit a city just under 1000km from where I live, it's an hour and a half by plane, or 10-11 hours to drive... I frequently drive.
people always ask about all the extra time to drive, it's not as much as it sounds... driving takes an entire day, flying takes most of a day... what people don't take in to account is that the 10-11 hour drive takes me door-door and I can bring anything I want, and I have a vehicle there when I arrive for any running around, and the cost is almost identical (often cheaper to drive)
flying on the other hand involves:
cab ride... 1/2 hour
be at the airport 2 hours ahead for checkin, security, insanity, etc
flight time of 1 1/2 hours
disembarking (no, I don't "de-plane", I never "plane" in the first place!), waiting for luggage, etc... 1/2 hour
1 hour bus ride (or 3/4 hour cab ride)
total: 5.5 hours...
and that doesn't even include the hassles of what you can bring with you, the whole security hassle, etc.
5.5 hours? that's most of a day... I might as well drive and be able to enjoy the scenery, carry anything I want with me, and have my vehicle available at the other end!
I do occasionally fly... but I find this distance is right on the edge for me, I'd never even consider flying anywhere closer than that...
for some reason we often define heroism as being willing to die for our cause... the catch is, it has to be OUR cause to be a hero, THEIR cause makes them insane....
no... "our" guys can get the same effect with a cruise missle from a control room many miles away....
of course I'm still trying to figure out the braille on the machine inside the bank near my house that's behind a sheet of plexiglass...you can see it fine, but you'd never be able to feel it...
I have had a hand in evidence collection for a couple of murders now, and what I have learned from the detectives involved is that you don't find evidence that tells you who in the whole world did it. what you do is figure out who the principal suspects are, and then find evidence which proves which one of them did it. eg: finding a cigarette package at the scene of the crime doesn't tell you who did it, but when only one of your suspects smokes, it's a pretty good indicator.
items and conditions found at the scene is what proves your case in court, but it isn't what finds you your suspect, that's done from "Good 'ol police work" knowing what to ask, and who to ask it from, and a large helping of intuition.
In each of the cases I was involved in the police already "knew" who did it, they just needed to prove it. most of that was done through undercover operations, where police officers would befriend the suspect and get them to tell all, even brag about the event. from there people were sent to confirm the details the suspect gave. One of the cases they had a huge search around the area where the victim was last seen, people combing the ditches and a helicopter circling overhead and with every news outlet on hand covering it, sure they wanted to know if any clues were found, but mainly they wanted the suspect to see it on the news, panic and do something stupid.
The hunches may not be scientific, but the police don't take a hunch to court, and even a confession from the suspect is not usually enough as the suspect can always tell the court "I signed that under duress!" (and once they get a decent lawyer they probably will!) the police have to narrow it down from "the whole world" to a handfull of suspects somehow, and that's usually not completely scientific, but from there proper procedures take over and you have to prove everything. On a side note, investigators HATE CSI etc, not because of how inaccurate it is, they could care less about that, what they hate is that the general population, and hence most juries, think it's true. It makes proving things much harder because people won't accept evidence that isn't what they expect from CSI... (you can have pictures, video, witnesses, tire tracks, admission of guilt, matching weapons, but if you don't have DNA forget it! and those labs are backed up MONTHS.)
what still gets me is when someone hangs up on you, you do NOT get a dialtone!! (or do you in some other part of the world? certainly not here!)
the other trend I've noticed in a lot of movies recently is characters, especially drug lords, using satellite phones... in doors, underground, etc... I've used these things, it's hard enough to get a reliable signal when you can see the sky!
I can understand that the movie writers can't be familliar with the inner workings of every industy, and I'll pardon them when they make mistakes on the in depth stuff... what really bugs me in a lot of movies is when they get things wrong about things they should be intimately familliar with... pet peave for one of my friends is 2-way radios... 3/4 of the people on the set are using the silly things, you'd think they'd know how they work! (things like when they interupt someone talking on a radio, or don't release the push to talk button to listen)
some of the mistakes are excusable, a lot of them are not.
>> Is the ticketting reducing the number of accidents?
y /documents/page/dft_rdsafety_029193.hcspo n_15.html
if you are referring to the tailgate-detector tickets, nobody knows yet as there hasn't been enough time to find out.
if you are talking about speeding tickets and red light camera tickets. the answer is absolutely. many studies have shown that with higher enforcment of speed limits and red lights people DO change their driving habits, slow down, and obey signals. Further it has been proven that whith the slower speed of traffic not only are there fewer collisions*, but they are also less likely to involve injuries and death. I know the public perception is that it's a tax, but this is a really simple tax to avoid, don't break the law, and you will NEVER be caught doing so.
reference:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafet
http://ip.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/4/302
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05048/index.htm
http://www.esafety-effects-database.org/applicati
and others... (google is your friend)
*I won't use the word accident in this context because the majority of the time it is no accident and any intelligent person can see exactly why it happened
only in the east... I grew up with bags of milk, but I haven't seen it in a store in western Canada in about a decade (maybe more), on the other hand, I took a trip out to montreal a couple years ago and it was still available at the grocery store...
one of the big problems I find in montreal is that there are TOO MANY signs, you frequently see a street where every power pole has a sign on it, and there still weren't enough so they added normal signs between them, the traffic is so over-regulated in Quebec that it is no wonder that everyone ignores the signs, if you read every one of them you would never be able to see any of the traffic you were driving in.
in north america, the first person to arrive at the intersection has right of way, and in the case where several people arrive at the same time you are supposed to yield to the vehicle on your right.... works very well... when people decide to follow the rules... (rare) however if there is a collision fault is determined based on the above criteria (and hopefully there's a witness or 2 to collaborate)