On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 08:59:02 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 09/09/2015 1:32 AM, John B. wrote:
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.


Not sure why you would need a law to tell you not to ride in a door
zone. I guess we have lots of laws trying to prevent stupidity though.

One of the main reasons for riders getting doored here is that the law
is written in a way to imply that they should be in the door zone.
There are even some bike lanes that are exactly in the door zone.
Rather than a law requiring riders to not be in the door zone, I'd
prefer a clear exclusion to the ride right law that allows riders to
move to the left to avoid doorings. Better to legislate against
behavior that's injurious to others and allow behavior that protects the
individual in my opinion, if you see what I mean.

I also think that increasing the fine from 35 bucks to 500-1000 bucks
like Ontario is doing will go a long way to alert drivers to not be stupid.

Singapore has always done that. Back when the average monthly wage was
probably under $2,000 a month the fine for spitting on the sidewalk
was $1,000. They did the same thing for talking on a hand phone
without a hands free device. Needless to say, you very, very seldom
see anyone spitting on the sidewalk or driving a car holding a phone
up to their ear.

They also hang dope dealers, usually about a month after conviction.
Surprisingly, there is a relatively small drug problem in Singapore.
--
cheers,

John B.