View Single Post
  #296  
Old September 9th 15, 06:32 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
john B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,603
Default AG: Legal isn't always smart

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 09:15:33 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 07/09/2015 11:41 AM, NFN Smith wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
Good post. Just one quibble:

"... if there is a solid line, a vehicle is expected to stay in that
lane, and a vehicle should not cross a solid line. That's not only a
double yellow line, but a single white line, as well."

In Ohio, the Ohio Bicycle Federation got a law passed specifically
permitting motorists to cross a solid yellow line, when safe to do so,
in order to pass a vehicle (that includes bicycle) moving less than half
the speed limit.

It's a good law. It's what people have always done when needing to pass
a disabled vehicle creeping along the road, a mail truck stopping at
every mailbox, a horse and buggy, and a slow-moving bicycle in a lane
too narrow to share - provided the cyclist is smart enough to stay out
of the gutter.

The yellow lines are painted with the assumption that one car is trying
to pass a slightly slower one. They're unrealistically restrictive for
passing truly slow vehicles.



Good clarification. I had forgotten about scenario of temporary lane
change for overtaking, although I suspect that there's probably a
measure of variance from state to state.


Quebec not only allows crossing a solid line in this case but if it is
not "safe" to pass the bicycle in the same lane, the passing vehicle
must move into the other lane when safe to do so and wait behind the
bicycle until it's safe to do so.

There is supposed to be some legislation coming to tell a motorist when
it's safe to pass a bike in the same lane. Some apparently think that
as long as you don't hit the bike, it was safe. I expect a 1 meter
minimum law to come. Not sure what they plan to do about the jerks that
try passing in a blind turn by moving into the other lane...


Something that comes to mind with the 1 metre or 3 foot laws that seem
to be coming into style. Essentially it appears to mean that it is not
safe for an auto to pass a bicycle closer than 3 ft, or 1 metre. But
does that equally mean that it is unsafe for a bicycle to pass an auto
closer then the afore mentioned distance?

Certainly if the law were to be interpreted in such a manner it would
certainly do much to solve the "door" problem that some cyclists seem
to encounter.

--
cheers,

John B.

Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home